# Concave Earth Theory

+++
There are four pieces of evidence, that I know of, which purport to show that we live inside a concave Earth. None of the evidence below is 100% conclusive, but two items are very close.

+++

### Tamarack mines

Anybody who has ever looked into concave Earth theory (CET), will know about this experiment thanks to Donald E. Simanek’s article which appeared in the early days of the world wide web. In a nutshell, the experiments were these:

In the fall of 1901 J.B. Watson, Chief Engineer at the Tamarack copper mine (S. of Calumet, Mich.) suspended 4250 foot long plumb lines down mine shafts. Measurements showed that the plumb lines were farther apart at the bottom than at the top, contrary to expectations.

+++

“Contrary to expectations” is the understatement of our age. A hanging plumb line is at a precise right angle from the horizontal and shows a builder the true vertical for the place where he wants to build a wall. The true vertical always points to the center of gravity which means a plumb line also does the same. We are supposed to live on the convex surface of a solid sphere so that plumb lines, in theory, should always point to the center of the Earth globe, which is supposed to be below our feet… except they didn’t… at least the first experiments in 1901 did not. The lines hung in the Tamarack mines converged in space instead.

 The balls were expected to move closer together towards the center of the Earth where the center of gravity should reside if it were a pull dependent on mass as Newton said it was. Instead, in 1901, the balls moved further apart, apparently putting the center of gravity in space making it a push from outside, rather than a pull from within.

This result would make a complete mockery of the Newtonian theory of mass and gravity. According to Newton, the larger the mass, the more attractive pull it possesses with its center of gravity being at the center of the mass. This, by the way, has nothing to do with free-falling objects which fall in accordance with the inverse square laws only; whether it is a piano or tennis ball falling, both fall at the same speed. Mass and gravity are only supposed to apply to “outer space” bodies. As written about in previous articles, heliocentricity and Copernicism has now been proven blatantly false and so it stands to reason that this part of Newtonian gravitational theory is also very likely a pack of lies. The 1901 Tamarack plumb lines diverging indicated that gravity might emanate from above not below. So instead of gravity being a property of matter, it would be in actual fact a property of space or the ether.

The experiments were reported in the newspapers at the time and also appearing in Professor Mc. Nair’s paper, Divergence of Long Plumb-Lines at the Tamarack Mine (Science, XV, 390 June 20, 1902) and the book Cellular Cosmonogy by Cyrus Teed and Ulysses Grant Morrow (a copy of this PDF can also be downloaded from this blog’s server).

 Dr. McNair

The first test in September 1901 used two no. 24 steel piano wires with 50 pound cast iron bobs hanging 4250 feet down shaft 5. Both bobs were also immersed in pails of engine oil to hinder undue vibrations. They were roughly 15 feet apart and created a divergence of 0.11 feet at the bottom, but were then moved slightly further apart to avoid obstacles and gave a divergence of 0.07 feet. To rule out magnetism between the iron ventilation pipe running down the western side of the shaft and the plumb bobs, 50 pound lead balls were used and the test repeated, but this time the length of the wires was 120 feet shorter and situated in shaft 2. Again, a divergence of 0.10 feet was found. So far so good.

Just to be absolutely sure no magnetism was involved, the same experiments were repeated in January 1902 in shaft 4, but this time with bronze No. 20 piano wires which carried 60-pound lead bobs approximately 15 feet apart and 4,440 feet in length. They found a very slight convergence of 0.028 feet. Steel wires were used again alternating between the iron and lead bobs also giving similar converging results in shaft 4. Lastly, the test was repeated in shaft 5 with the bronze wire and lead bobs to give a bigger diverging reading than the 1901 test of 0.141.

 ``` Distances in feet. Convergence -, Date, Shaft Wires Bobs Surface Lower Divergence +. 1902 Extrem- ities. Jan. 3 No. 4 Bronze. Lead. 15.089 15.061 - 0.028 `` 6 `` 4 Steel. Lead 15.089 15.074 - 0.015 `` 6 `` 4 Steel. Iron. 15.089 15.062 - 0.027 `` 9 `` 4 Bronze. Lead. 14.607 14.611 + 0.004 `` 16 `` 5 Bronze. Lead. 16.709 16.850 + 0.141 ```

The consistent results within each of the different shafts led McNair to theorize that circulating air was the culprit with shaft 5’s updraft along the western line causing the divergence. They managed to block off most of the updraft by moving the wire and sealing the top leaving only a very small circulating air current due to the hot air at the bottom of the shaft naturally moving up to the colder air at the top. This gave a very small divergence of 0.018 feet. Shaft 2 had the same construction as shaft 5 and so was expected to have the same air current direction; and the western line in shaft 4 was too close to the wall allowing for the circulating currents to push against it making them converge slightly. When this was rectified, the lines were nearly parallel, diverging 0.04 feet.

Interestingly, Morrow states that the 0.018 divergence in shaft 5, after the air current had been cut off, was nearer to the necessary divergence of a concave Earth.

…and this divergence was considerably less and nearer the calculated divergence of gravic rays in the hollow globe, than that obtained when the air in the shaft was in circulation.

+++

The “air current” theory sounds a reasonable conclusion, unlike Simanek‘s added opinion that the divergence was caused by a rotating Earth. As we know it is the heavens which rotate and not the Earth thanks to a multitude of experiments in the late 19th and early 20th century. Lastly, both Simanek and Mcnair agree that the gravity of the surrounding rock would be too negligible to affect the results.
+++
Another Experiment
However, neither the newspapers, nor Mcnair’s paper mention a crucial additional experiment which would unequivocally prove a concave Earth. This was only fully reported in the November 1960 edition of Flying Saucers, The Magazine of Space Conquest written by Ray Palmer, and partly in the book Cellular Cosmonogy.

Palmer claimed that there was a 8.22 inches divergence (0.685 feet) between one plumb line which was hung in shaft 2 and another in shaft 5, both 4250 feet apart and deep, and with a 4250 long transverse tunnel connecting the two at the bottom. The engineers used this figure to calculate the distance of the center of gravity by following this angle of divergence further upwards, which was apparently found to be around 4000 miles up in space (not in the ground).

 Ray Palmer, editor of Flying Saucers magazine.

It did not take the Tamarack engineer long to discover the divergence that would be necessary to complete a 360 spherical circumference. There was only one difficulty as expressed be the plumb lines, it would be the circumference of the inside of a sphere, and not the outside; Further, the center of gravity, as expressed by the angles formed by the plumb lines, would be approximately 4,000 miles out in space!

Obviously this could not be true, because if the Chinese were to make calculations based on a similar pair of mine shafts in their country, on the opposite side of the globe, the center of gravity would be found to be 4,000 miles in the other direction. The center of gravity, according to the plumb lines, was a sphere’s surface, some 16,000 miles in diameter. Any place, 4,000 miles up, was the center of gravity.

+++
If this were true, you may think well, maybe the Earth is convex but the entire circumference 4000 miles up is the center of gravity, as if the Earth is encased in a ball putting increasing pressure down on it? Except the center of gravity is just that… the center. All lines on any place converge on ONE POINT, not a continuous plate. There is only one conclusion from Palmer’s citation, which is the Earth is concave and we live on the inside.

Ray Palmer wasn’t the only one. A more contemporary source at the time was Ulysses Grant Morrow, a geodetist (Earth surveyor) and member of the Koreshan Unity whose members believed the Earth to be concave.

 The Geodesist (Earth surveyor) Ulysses Grant Morrow.

In the book Cellular Cosmogony, written by both Ulysses Morrow and Cyrus Teed, the results of this experiment were unknown to Morrow because it seems they were being carried out at the time of writing. Morrow also states that the two shafts were 3,200 feet apart instead of Palmer’s 4,200 feet. Nevertheless, he claimed to confidently predict the divergence would be 8.22 inches. On page 201:

The distance between shafts no.2 and no.5 is 3,200 feet. It was the intention of the mining engineer to have the twenty-ninth level opened between the two shafts, a line suspended in each shaft, and measurements taken at the top and bottom. The calculated downward divergence of two perpendiculars 3,200 apart is 8.22 inches for the length of 4,250 feet; and we declare with confidence and certainty, that the two plumb-lines in the proposed experiment just outlined, will approximate this divergence.

+++

Morrow and Teed were highly religious folk who were not the sort of people to deliberately lie or mislead. They were also unlikely to be mistaken as their geodetic experiment (described further down in this article) was nothing but pedantic in its precision. It could be that they themselves had been misinformed of such an experiment, or perhaps the test had been scheduled to take place but was abandoned. Another possibility is that this experiment did indeed occur, but the results were too controversial to be published – a mini-conspiracy of sorts. Whatever the truth, we will probably never know.

+++
Conclusion
Despite the overall results, especially in shaft 2 and 5 being one of divergence, the theory of circulating air as the cause is perfectly acceptable. For Tamarack mines to conclusively show that the Earth is concave, Morrow/Palmer’s report of the other experiment between the connecting shafts of 2 and 5 showing a divergence of 8.22 inches would have to be correct. Is their testament accurate? A similar test would have to be repeated in several adjacent shafts in different active mines throughout the world to be absolutely sure. Abandoned mines, such as Tamarack, would be very dangerous to enter due to flooding, mold, gas, potential cave-ins, rotten wood etc. I can’t see the head engineers of today’s mines bothering to test Palmer’s claim, but this is what is needed.

So, with the available information on the internet, do the old Tamarack mine’s experiments show a concave Earth? Maybe (50%).

+++

### Rectilineator

Invented by the geodesist (Earth surveyor) Ulysses Grant Morrow who was a member of the Koreshan Unity headed by Cyrus Teed. As already stated, both Teed and Morrow wrote the book Cellular Cosmogony, claiming that we live inside a concave Earth. To verify these claims Morrow made a simple invention called the rectilineator.

 The Koreshans around their geodetic device – the rectilineator.

This was a series of 12-foot long, 8-inch wide, 12-year seasoned mahogany supports held up by two vertical posts (which Teed calls “standards”) with brass castings attached which could be adjusted for height by turning set screws on the front sides of each.

Through flanges on the facings, ingenious screws were placed for securing the adjustments when made… each section was supported by two strongly built platformed standards, with adjustable castings to receive the horizontal sections between the body of the castings and adjustable cleats with clamps and screws. The sections rest in the castings edgewise…

+++

At either end of the support were 4-foot long, 5-inch wide vertical cross-arms with a different set of brass fittings fitted to both the top and bottom of each cross-arm. Steel tension bars were attached to these fittings, making the whole apparatus look a little bit like rugby posts.

 A diagram of the rectilineator. The last surviving piece of the rectilineator. The supports along the beach during measurement. Looking down the supports as they enter the water.

The 12-foot supports were erected on the four-mile long nearly flat sandy beach of the Bay of Naples, Florida looking South, initially parallel to the shoreline. The first few supports started before the water line and so this dry part of the beach had to be excavated to make a continuous level path with the rest of the beach which was under water.

As the air line was to be straight, and as the shore line was a little irregular, the land elevation above the water level varied from 3 to 5 feet. Excavations were necessary, and much other work of similar character, to remove all obstructions and clear the way for convenient and uninterrupted operations when the adjustments began.

+++

 The first few supports started before the waterline to the left of Naples Dock.

They used three leveling devices to make sure the first support was absolutely flat: a plumb line (hung on both vertical cross-arms), a standard spirit level, and a geodetic level which was a 12 foot long vial with mercury in two mid-sections. They also looked down the horizontal of the support to make sure it also was level with the horizon. This was done with the utmost care and precision.

The leveling was a careful, painstaking, and successful work, witnessed by every member of the Staff, and finally pronounced perfect at 8:50 on the morning of March 18, 1897.

+++

Once leveled, another two posts were placed in line, with their brass support castings placed at the approximate height of those holding up the first support. The second support beam was placed in these castings and set screws were turned in the castings to move the support beam up or down horizontally to approximately match the middle line of the first support beam.

The supports were then moved to within a quarter of an inch of the brass facings which had been fitted at either end of the cross-arms of both supports. The set screws were turned further to raise or lower the horizontal beam so that the hairlines of both supports were exactly in line with each other, the fine lines of which were measured with a microscope. It was the hair-line of the top of the opposing brass facings that seem to have been measured; although I’m not 100% sure. The second horizontal beam was then carefully moved to within one fiftieth of an inch of the brass facings of the first support as this more intricate measuring procedure was taking place.

This distance was determined by testing the friction of a bristol card when it was passed between the brass facings. Apparently bristol cards were always the same width as these had already been measured by micrometers. With the same friction of the bristol card between the opposing upper and lower brass facings on the cross-arms meant with 100% certainty that both horizontal beams were level with each other to one fiftieth of an inch.

And on page 102 the authors show how their engineers made sure that the cross-arms where 100% at right-angles to the support on manufacture:

The cross-arms on several sections must be proven to be at right-angles with the longitudinal hairline or axis of the sections of the apparatus. The inventor and mechanical experts devoted four weeks to test and the adjustment of the right angles; six series of tests were applied, and each section was reversed, end for end, and reversed, and turned over fifty times on the special platform with mechanical devices for measurement and reference. Points and the finest possible lines engraved on steel and brass plates, to which adjustments were referred, were read by means of the microscope; in this way, the very slightest variation of angles could be detected.

+++

The steel tension bars were used to make sure the cross-arms remained at right angles which was determined by the friction of the bristol cards. Once the second support had been moved to one fiftieth of an inch close to the first, the two sections were bolted together to make sure no further movement was possible. These bolts were very solid in their position as the authors say:

…the direction of our line was fixed, from which it was not possible to depart; the bolts which held together the brass facings on the adjusted right-angled cross-arms would admit of no change.

+++

This procedure was repeated a few times until there were no more 12-foot sections to add. They then took the first 12-foot section and added it to the end of the last one, flipping the horizontal support over with every alternate addition to ensure that there could be no errors in a slightly “sagging” beam.

The method employed to insure further accuracy was by making the apparatus neutralize its own inaccuracies by reversal or turning-over of each section at every alternate adjustment. This process would correct any error arising from any inaccuracy of the brass-facings–for whatever error in the line would result from a single cross-arm being more or less than .005 of an inch out of right angle, would be corrected when that section should be reversed, as every mechanic well knows.

+++

They kept repeating this process down the four and one eighth mile stretch, adjusting the horizontal beam up or down to keep it level with the last. At every eighth of a mile, the height of the horizontal support was measured against the water level beneath, as the water plane is always level to the Earth. However, the water was of course tidal, the level of which had to be measured. This was done by an apparatus called a caisson which is just an artificially created perforated basin allowing the water to be still so it can be easily measured. This possibly could be a weaker point in the experiment as the height of the tide stick (128 inches) in the caisson had to be level with the height of the tide stick on the shore where the original supports had begun very close by. This was done by line of sight with a telescope. Once the tide stick on the shore was marked with the same level of the tide in the caisson, the shore tide stick was brought to one of the 25 tide stick stations along the line (eighth of a mile) where the waterline was currently being measured.

If the distance between the waterline and the horizontal support was the same at each eighth of a mile, then this would prove that the Earth was flat. If the distance continually grew, it was convex (the earth dipping down); and if the distance decreased, it was concave (the Earth curving upwards). Simanek has even added his own calculations at the end.

 Ulysses G. Morrow’s Naples Survey Data. (The first four columns are from The Cellular Cosmogony (1898). The last three columns, and the summary results below, have been added, newly computed from the Morrow data.) ``` Calculated Date Dist. Height Height ratio of Radius Dev. 1897 (miles) above below curvature (miles) % datum 2nd (inches) (inches) datum (in) Mar 18 0.000 128.000 0.000 19 0.125 127.850 0.150 0.020 3300.0 -18.5 23 0.250 127.740 0.260 -0.352 7615.4 88.0 24 0.375 126.625 1.375 0.568 3240.0 -20.0 25 0.500 126.125 1.875 0.625 4224.0 4.3 27 0.625 124.125 3.875 2.650 3193.5 -21.2 30 0.750 123.675 4.325 3.048 4120.2 1.7 31 0.875 121.570 6.430 4.583 3772.2 -6.9 Apr 1 1.000 119.980 8.020 6.172 3950.1 -2.5 2 1.125 117.875 10.125 8.355 3960.0 -2.2 8 1.250 116.440 11.560 9.468 4282.0 5.7 9 1.375 113.690 14.310 11.625 4185.5 3.3 13 1.500 111.070 16.930 13.680 4210.3 3.9 14 1.625 107.190 20.810 17.620 4019.9 -0.8 14 1.750 104.690 23.310 20.560 4162.2 2.8 15 1.875 101.690 26.310 22.655 4233.2 4.5 16 2.000 97.380 30.620 26.495 4138.5 2.2 24 2.125 93.440 34.560 28.530 4139.3 2.2 26 2.250 85.320 42.680 35.835 3757.7 -7.2 27 2.375 79.750 48.250 42.590 3703.5 -8.6 May 8 2.500 74.000 54.000 48.125 3666.7 -9.5 8 2.625 68.000 60.000 54.500 3638.3 -10.2 8 2.750 63.000 65.000 95.000 3685.8 -9.0 . 8 3.000 53.000 75.000 3801.6 -6.1 .... 8 4.125 0 128.000 4211.4 4.0 Average of the signed deviations: -3x10-14 % Earth's radius, averaged from 1/8 mile curvatures: 4050.5 mile Average deviation of data values from the mean: 10.2 % Average deviation of the mean: 2.1 % Modern value of Earth's radius: 3963.5 Discrepancy: 2.2 % ```

These decreasing distances conclusively show the Earth to be concave. Even Donald Simanek concurs that the results look genuine:

Even more remarkable is the fact that the results were consistent with an Earth circumference of 25,000 miles. Looking at the data with more modern techniques of data analysis than the Morrow team used, the data show that value to have an experimental uncertainty of a bit over 2%. It differs from the modern value by only about 2% also.

The fact that the average of the signed deviations is so small indicates that the individual values fluctuate about equally above and below the mean. This is an indication that the data is reasonably normal, and the distribution of random errors isn’t skewed. While the individual values fluctuate about 10% from the mean, the average deviation of the mean is only about 2%, benefiting from the process of averaging 24 values. This “average deviation” measure is comparable, as a measure of “goodness of the result, to the standard deviation of the mean, a measure more commonly seen in research papers today.

So far, looking only at the data, this would seem to be a good experiment, with measurement uncertainties consistent with the instruments and methods used.

+++

However, it wasn’t just the distance to the waterline that was being measured, but also the angle of two plumb lines on each of the cross-arms, the location of the bubble in a spirit level, the divergence of the air line and horizontal on the mercurial geodetic level, and the space between the front straight edge and the horizon. Basically, the same apparatus were used which made sure the first support was level at the beginning of the experiment.

If the earth were convex, the line would extend into space, as before explained; as the line would proceed, the bubble in the spirit level would shift at each successive application, more and more toward the south from the central division of the scale, while the plumbline hanging in the direction of the perpendicular, or the earth’s radii at the various stations, would hang toward the initial station. If concave, the conditions and positions of the levels and plumb would be the reverse of those on a convex surface; if flat, they would be the same continually, as at the beginning of the line…

(and looking down the horizon)
…On a convex arc, the straight-edges and the horizon line would appear to converge toward the north with increasing angle, as the line proceeded; if flat, their original parallel relations would be apparent throughout the line; and if concave, the apparent convergence would be toward the south, or in the direction of the movement of the apparatus.

+++

Although the level of the supports was tested every eighth of a mile, the equipment wasn’t sensitive enough to give accurate readings for the first few tests and so the readings given were at 1 mile, 2 miles, and 2 and three eighth miles. Here all the results were also agreeing with a concave Earth very nearly 25,000 miles in circumference.

The bubble had shifted a little – toward the north, or rear section of the apparatus. From the first point of the manifest deviation until the end of the line, the angle increased proportionately to the distance traversed. This was corroborated also by the position of the plumb line, and the observed increase of angle between the straight-edges and horizon, always converging toward the south.
+++
Results
Spirit Level, shift of bubble toward north end of the vial, as measured on the graduated scale:
1 mi., .0375 in.; 2 miles, .077 in.; 2⅜ mi., .089 in.

Plumbline, measurement on arc of 4 feet radius, as related to right-angled cross-arms: .
1 mi., .015 in.; 2 mi., .037 in.; 2⅜ mi., .044 in.

Mercurial geodetic level, indicating angle of divergence of air line and horizontal at points of test, for the space of 12 feet:
1 mi., .042 in.; 2 mi., .094 in.; 2⅜ mi., .115 in.

The Horizon, indicating angle for space of 36 feet, as accurately as could be measured with the eye at a distance of 15 feet from the apparatus:
1 mi., .15 in.; 2 mi., .34 in.; 2⅜ mi., .51 in.

+++

You may think, well, the supports were on sand under water; could they subside and give skewered results? The results were very consistent however, not showing any irregularities such as one moment showing a convex earth and the next a concave one. They even addressed this possible issue by meticulously retracing the same line backwards three eighths of a mile one time and got the same results. Another retraction of 228 feet is also described in more detail on page 103/4 which gave exactly the same result as the original line to within 0.0001 inch!

It is supposed that settling played an important part in the descent of the line surveyed; if so, why should the line descend .15 of an inch for the first eighth of a mile, and 6 inches for the eighth between the 19th and 20th tide stakes? If settling produced the descent, this would be manifest by returning over the same line. We returned over the same line for a distance of ⅜ of a mile, to ascertain if there would be any deviation. The fact that the horizontal axis of the apparatus projected the line on the return survey to the same points on the record stakes indicating the air line in the forward survey, is proof of the fact that the factors of settling, if any existed, were absolutely neutralized, for they did not swerve the apparatus from a true and directed rectiline course. Let those who make such objections explain how the exact and definite ratio was obtained, if we did not extend a rectiline from the beginning of the survey.

(page 103/4) …228 feet were measured; a stake was fixed at the beginning, with brass plate bearing fine line coincidental with the horizontal hair-line of the apparatus. 19 forward adjustments were made, and the direction retraced; at the last return adjustment, the section was found to be in the exact same place as originally, with the hair-line precisely over the fine line on the brass plate. The results were obtained by observations with the microscope; the apparatus returned to the same point, after traversing the space of 456 feet, without deviation of 0.0001 of an inch.

+++

One other possible problem may be the material. Despite the supports being 12-year seasoned mahogany, did the wood or brass expand or contract with the slight changes of temperature from one day to the next or through the possible absorption of seawater? The supports were however manufactured meticulously, as we have already seen, so this is highly doubtful. Also, the results would again not be so consistent as they were. The authors reply to this potential issue with:

A source of inaccuracy is also attributed to the contraction and expansion of the material of which the apparatus is constructed. Those who make this objection have never seen the apparatus, and consequently cannot appreciate the fact that the plan of its construction obviates the effect of whatever contraction or expansion occurred.

+++
In fact, this experiment was not only precisely planned and implemented with each action repeatedly and independently checked, logged and signed off by everyone involved, but these independent external observers were adherers to the Copernican system!

Every item of adjustment, test, observation, and measurement was checked in the check record book, and described in detail in the daily record book, to which are appended the signatures of all operators and witnesses. The facts of preparation, measurements, and survey contained in this work are taken from the records, attested and sworn to by the entire Geodetic Staff and the investigating committee.

(page 104)… This test (the retracing of the three eighths of a mile) was in accordance with the plans of the critics on the field of observations, representing the Copernican system, who were doing all in their power to prove the instrument inaccurate.

+++

It was also very thorough and painstaking work.

(Page 101) – The Geodetic staff of the Koreshan Unity reached the Operating Station January 2, 1897, with apparatus and all appurtenances and instruments, and plans of operations, which required five months’ careful observations and accurate work to execute.

+++

Because this experiment was so iron-clad, the skeptic Simanek’s only retort is that somehow the supports must have all curved downwards due to experimental error or poor construction, despite all the evidence already mentioned proving otherwise and despite the fact that they inverted the horizontal supports with every addition!

If you think that is desperate, Skeptoid magazine claim the beams must have sagged continually downwards due to them being only supported at one end, with the results coincidentally exactly coinciding with a concave Earth! As the reader now knows, the supports weren’t supported at any end of course, but underneath on each post (standard) by brass castings. The ends were bolted to prevent any possible further movement from occurring and did not carry any weight of either support.
+++

Conclusion
The only fault with this experiment is that it is over 100 years old and has never been publicly repeated since (for obvious reasons), which doesn’t make it 100% conclusive, but very close. Does the Rectilineator show a concave Earth? Extremely likely (99%).

+++

### Lenses and the horizon

The main evidence for the convexity of the Earth is the horizon and the fact that a person’s legs disappear from view before their torso and a ship’s hull vanishes from sight before its sail etc. It’s fairly easy to work out at what distance a person should fully disappear from view if the Earth were convex. At sea level, a six foot person is supposed to be only able to see the horizon at no more than 3 miles away; and a boat of 20 feet high at no more than 8.5 miles distance. However, both late 19th century books Celluar Cosmogony (CC) and Samuel Birley Rowbotham’s Zetetic Astronomy (ZA) cite plenty of examples where this distance has been far exceeded. Below are a few of them:

1. At 3 o’clock in the afternoon on a bright summer’s day, a boat carrying a flag on a pole 5 feet above the water was rowed from “Welche’s Dam” (a ferry crossing in England) to “Welney Bridge” 6 miles away. Rowbotham went into the water at Welche’s Dam and looked at the boat with a good telescope, his eye 8 inches above the water. He could see both the boat, its flag and the receding water during the entire journey. The man on the boat was even seen to lift up his oar to the top of the arch of the bridge when he reached it, as instructed. If the earth were convex, then the bottom of the flag should have been 16 feet and 8 inches below the horizon. As has already been stated, a six foot man is only supposed to see a distance of 3 miles due to the curvature of the Earth. The top of his flag should have been 11 feet 8 inches under the horizon… and yet it, the boat, man, and water were clearly and fully visible.

 The flag, boat, and water were all clearly visible at 6 miles distance. Neither the boat, nor the flag should be visible 6 miles away.

2. From pages 68 to 72 of CC – On the Old Illinois Drainage Canal on July 25 1896, the distance between a bend in the canal to the first bridge is 5 miles. A 22-inch diameter target was placed 7 inches above the waterline at this bend. Three observers remained at the first bridge in a boat. Looking through the telescope at only 6 inches above the water, not only was the entire target seen but also the canal bank, the entire water surface up to and below the target, the hull of a barge with the men working nearby located by the side of the target, and the surface of the water up to the second bridge which was one and a half miles further up the canal! At 5 miles, the top of the target should have been 9 feet 7 inches below the line of vision if the Earth were convex.

The whole of two further targets of dimensions 21×27 and 26×38 inches 7 inches above the water were even seen 5 miles away with the naked eye (the eye was about 30 inches above the water). When the observer lowered their head to 15 inches above the water, the targets became invisible. However, when a telescope was placed even lower, at 6 inches above the water, the targets were plainly visible.

 The old Illinois Drainage Canal.

At the time, the counter-argument for these obvious contradictions was that of atmospheric refraction. When light travels into a another medium of less or more density, its direction will change. You’ll remember this in physics class at school when you shone a beam of light into glass.

 In this example, when light is shone from air through glass, the angle change is about 34.5°.

However, in the “line-of-sight” examples above, the medium through which light travels is the same (air). The only way for light to refract is if it is traveling from an area of less dense air to a heavier one, or vice-verse. Generally speaking, the bigger the differential, the more the refraction, but not always.

The angle and wavelength at which the light enters a substance and the density of that substance determine how much the light is refracted.

+++

But the refractive index of (0 °C and 1 atm) air is 1.000293, compared to glass which is about 1.5 and a vacuum which is 1.0. So, the difference between the refraction of light in air at ground level and when traveling in a vacuum is 0.000293. In other words, virtually nothing; let alone the difference in air density say between an altitude of 0 feet and 16 feet, which the observed object was said to be at below the horizon in the first example.

In fact, the difference in air density between those small heights could change by the day, and even reverse themselves for a few moments or stay the same. There would be no consistency of observation at these altitudes if refraction of light through different air densities were involved.

However, this phenomena was always seen over water. Water has a high refractive index; although the air isn’t saturated with water as there were no clouds or fog at 0 to 16 feet so perhaps the light refracted through water vapour? Water Vapour has a refractive index of 1.000261 which is even less than air (0 °C and 1 atm). Water vapour is less dense than air. Not only is this a super piddly amount of refraction, but light travelling into a denser medium (water vapour to air) would refract away from the observer, not even towards them!

 Light travelling from water vapour(less dense) into air (more dense) would refract away from the observer.

So much for refraction. The next two examples show the absurdity of the suggestion.

3. From pages 73 to 76 of CC – On August 16 1896 from the Shore of lake Michigan, a very small portion of the top of the masts of a 40-feet high schooner were seen 12 miles away at 30 inches above the water with the naked eye. Opera glasses allowed half the height of the sails to be visible, whereas a 40x telescope enabled the vessel to be seen, including the hull. At 12 miles distant, the bottom of the hull would be 60 feet below the horizon of a convex surface; a clear 20 feet below the top of the mast.

These kinds of observations, where only the naked eye could see the top of the vessel and the telescope the vessel’s entirety is repeated with observations of steamers on Lake Michigan. One steamer disappeared from view at 15 miles away with the naked eye, only to be completely seen with the telescope which was resting on a tripod at the same height. At this distance, the hull of the steamer should have been 150 feet below the horizon. Even accounting for the excuse of the supposed extreme refraction of one third (normally never more than one fifth), the vessel should be 100 feet below the horizon.

4. The distance across the Irish Sea from Holyhead, England to Dún Laoghaire harbour, Dublin, Ireland is at least 60 miles (actually 109.5km, or 68 miles). In and beyond the halfway point, it wasn’t uncommon for passengers to notice each of the bright lights of the lighthouses at either harbour – red light for the one at Holyhead and two bright ones for that of Dún Laoghaire. The red light was 44 feet above the water and the other side’s light was 68 feet above. The observers on deck were 24 feet above the water. If the Earth were a globe, the Dún Laoghaire lights would be 316 feet below the horizon and the other side, 340 feet below. That is some refraction!

The only modification which can be made in the above calculations is the allowance for refraction, which is generally considered by surveyors to amount to one-twelfth the altitude. of the object observed. If we make this allowance, it will reduce the various quotients so little that the whole will be substantially the same.

+++

 The people on the boats between Ireland and England could see the lights from both lighthouses. Three hundred and sixteen and 340 feet below the horizon is far too much for the alleged possibility of refraction to take into account.

Clearly the “hull vanishing before the sails” effect is not evidence that the Earth is turning downwards in a convex direction, nor an upwards one either for that matter. It may be the human eye that is at fault, or maybe not. Whatever the truth, it seems that the entire horizon is a result of the nature of optics.

5. From an article published in both Fortschritt für alle (Progress for everyone) ; Schlossweg 2 D-90537 Feucht Germany and the magazine Geokosmos, issue 11/12, December 1963. (Source Rolf Keppler’s website). The optical research division of the US Army Signal Corps developed a camera which was made to see objects 30 miles away. The Empire State Building and the outlines of Manhattan were photographed at 26 miles distance, including all the preceding ground and other objects, all from the Atlantic Highlands about 3 feet 3 inches above the ground! At this height the horizon for a convex Earth is calculated as 1.22 multiplied by the square root of 3.25 feet (height) which is 2.2 miles. This is what the limit of the US military camera should be for a convex Earth… but wasn’t. Instead it saw nearly 12 times further than that. Twelve times! And that’s not including the 30-mile horizon it was designed for, which would make it see 14 times more than it should.

Houston, we have a problem.

 The reason this camera saw the horizon at 26 miles distance at a ground height of 39 inches is because of refraction… obviously.

Taking 2.2 away from the 26 miles seen by the military camera gives 23.8 miles. To calculate how far the object should be below the ground for a convex Earth take the square of 23.8 (distance) multiplied by 8 inches (difference in ground altitude of the first mile) which is 377 feet. In a convex Earth, Manhattan should have been invisible with only the top two thirds of the Empire State building above the horizon (1,250 ft height)… but not only were they fully photographed, so was everything else up in front of them… and how. The photograph shows 3 horizons; the first being the lighthouse at Sandy Hook at 4 miles distance, the second was Coney Island at 13 miles away, with the last being Manhattan at 26 miles. The furthest horizon was at the top of the photo, not the bottom; and to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons, the camera was pointing up. Pointing up! How else can this be explained unless the Earth is concave?

 Sandy Hook, followed by a 9-mile wide bay, then Coney Island, followed by another bay, then finally Manhattan at the top of the photograph are all shown in series. The camera was pointing upwards showing it was not at an elevated position and that all objects photographed must have been situated higher than the camera.

Below are the full details of the article:

The optical research division of the US-Army Signal Corps has just issued a new camera, which is specially suited to take photos at a distance of 50 km (30 mi.). The objective has a focal length of 254 cm (100 in.), it is 1 m long and has a diameter of 24.13 cm (9.5 in.), it has been corrected for using infra-red film.

Using this objective it is quite easy to analyze the terrain up to a distance of 10 to 20 km (6-12 mi.) and distinguish weapons, fortifications and transports. The disadvantage of such a teleobjective is the complete elimination of perspective.

The photo reproduced, shows the Empire State Building and the outlines of Manhattan at a distance of 41.8 km (26 mi.) At the bottom of the Empire State Building a large hotel is visible on Coney Island, however, it is only 20.9 km (13 mi.) distant from the camera. One could never tell from this photo that between these two buildings there is a distance of 21 km. The lighthouse of Sandy Hook, in the foreground of the photo is only 6.4 km (4 mi.) distant from the camera.

The new teleobjective is coupled to a 13 x 18 cm camera which can either use film cassettes or rolls of film. Each roll of film contains 30 exposures, however, a built-in cutter can be used to cut off exposed parts of the film.
They can be lifted out with the take-up spool. The shortest distance to still produce a sharp photo with this teleobjective is 500 m (1 600 ft.) In this case the width of the photo covers 31 m (100 ft.) At a distance of 20 km (12 mi.), which is the last point before infinity, the section of the photo covers about 1 000 m (3300 ft.)

The telescope, which is used to focus the camera has a magnification of 10 and shows the exact frame of the photo to be taken. When adjusting for the proper distance, the heavy objective, which is firmly mounted on the tripod, is not moved, but instead one only moves the camera.

The device weighs about 64 kg (140 lb.) and must be operated by two men. The whole camera is carried, with two handles each on front and back, like a stretcher. The device can be set up, aimed and adjusted, all within 5 minutes.

+++
Interesting that yet again it is the US military that not only has sulfur lamps installed, but also possesses extreme long distance cameras which show the Earth’s concavity. This is no surprise as knowing the correct Earth model would be paramount to an organization like the military. It makes you wonder what other toys and knowledge they have at their disposal.

+++
Conclusion
Optics has shown that the “hull vanishing before the sails” effect is not in any way evidence for a convex (or concave) Earth. The US military camera pointing up and showing “3 horizons” with the furthest one situated at the top of the picture cannot be explained by any convex or flat Earth model, only a concave one; and proves that the horizon we see with the naked eye is caused by optics. The only question is the reliability of this information and that we have no other examples with which to compare; so for that reason alone, this evidence is not a slam dunk. Does the US military camera show that the Earth is concave? Very likely (95%).
+++

### Altitude and the horizon

Another piece of evidence for a convex Earth are photos from space. These are all proven fake thanks to the thermosphere contradiction, with some of their images also showing plenty of evidence of fraud, such as “bubbles” in space and such like. Unless, of course, it is possible to take photographs through the glass of the space shuttle and the glass layer above the Earth for those few minutes being upside down, traveling at super-sonic speed with an outside red to white glowing hot temperature of 500 to 1500°C.

Just in case this scenario is possible, there is always Rolf Keppler’s demonstration that images of Earth are unable to show either a convex or a concave one as seen below:

 One side of a convex or concave Earth? Another side of the ball or bowl? Both above photos are two halves of Keppler’s concave Earth model.

What about those very high altitude amateur videos of balloons in space. They are more verifiable and show a convex and/or a concave and/or flat horizon. In fact, a few of the videos, when the camera is bobbing up and down in the wind, show both a concave and convex shape. When the horizon is above the vertical midpoint, the Earth looks convex; and vice verse when below. (Click on the gif below if it doesn’t move.)

 Hey look, a convex-concave-convex-concave-convex-concave-convex Earth.

However, what is completely consistent is that at no matter what altitude the observer is at, the horizon always remains level with the eye. This was demonstrated by Rowbothan’s experiment of using a leveled clinometer on each floor of the Grand hotel opposite the Western pier in Brighton, England which was pointed at the sea. On each floor, the water seemed to ascend as an inclined (slanted) plane, until it intercepted the line of sight.

 A clinometer The horizon is always level with the eye on each floor of the hotel looking out at the sea.

This effect seems to remain with ever-increasing altitude, even when 1 mile high in a hot air balloon. At this height, the Earth is seen as a concave bowl beneath the observer.

 An observer from a hot air balloon looks to be above a bowl when 1 mile high.

“THE APPARENT CONCAVITY OF THE EARTH AS SEEN FROM A BALLOON.–A perfectly-formed circle encompassed the visibly; planisphere beneath, or rather the concavo-sphere it might now be called, for I had attained a height from which the earth assumed a regularly hollowed or concave appearance–an optical illusion which increases as you recede from it. At the greatest elevation I attained, which was about a mile-and-a-half, the appearance of the world around me assumed a shape or form like that which is made by placing two watch glasses together by their edges, the balloon apparently in the central cavity all the time of its flight at that elevation.” -Wise’s Aëronautics.

“Another curious effect of the aërial ascent was that the earth, when we were at our greatest altitude, positively appeared concave, looking like a huge dark bowl, rather than the convex sphere such as we naturally expect to see it. . . . The horizon always appears to be on a level with our eye, and seems to rise as we rise, until at length the elevation of the circular boundary line of the sight becomes so marked that the earth assumes the anomalous appearance as we have said of a concave rather than a convex body.” -Mayhew’s Great World of London.

“The chief peculiarity of a view from a balloon at a consider-able elevation, was the altitude of the horizon, which remained practically on a level with the eye, at an elevation of two miles, causing the surface of the earth to appear concave instead of convex, and to recede during the rapid ascent, whilst the horizon and the balloon seemed to be stationary.”–London Journal, July 18th, 1857.

Mr. Elliott, an American aëronaut, in a letter giving an account of his ascension from Baltimore, thus speaks of the appearance of the earth from a balloon:
“I don’t know that I ever hinted heretofore that the aëronaut may well be the most sceptical man about the rotundity of the earth. Philosophy imposes the truth upon us; but the view of the earth from the elevation of a balloon is that of an immense terrestrial basin, the deeper part of which is that directly under one’s feet. As we ascend, the earth beneath us seems to recede–actually to sink away–while the horizon gradually and gracefully lifts a diversified slope, stretching away farther and farther to a line that, at the highest elevation, seems to close with the sky. Thus, upon a clear day, the aëronaut feels as if suspended at about an equal distance between the vast blue oceanic concave above and the equally expanded terrestrial basin below.”

During the important balloon ascents, recently made for scientific purposes by Mr. Coxwell and Mr. Glaisher, of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, the same phenomenon was observed.
“The horizon always appeared on a level with the car.”–See Mr. Glaisher’s Report, in “Leisure Hour,” for October 11, 1862.

“The plane of the earth offers another delusion to the traveller in air, to whom it appears as a concave surface, and who surveys the line of the horizon as an unbroken circle, rising up, in relation to the hollow of the concave hemisphere, like the rim of a shallow inverted watch-glass, to the height of the eye of the observer, how high soever he may be–the blue atmosphere above closing over it like the corresponding hemisphere reversed.”–Glaisher’s Report, in “Leisure Hour,” for May 21, 1864.

+++

The standard explanation is that this effect is an optical illusion. This could be a definite possibility, although no real supporting evidence has been presented. Coupled with the other very strong evidence for the Earth’s concavity already mentioned, this effect is probably not a fault of optics. Having said that, the mechanics of optics causes the “hull vanishing before the sails” effect which has fooled us into believing the Earth is convex.

+++

Conclusion

Another piece of optical evidence for a convex Earth proves not to be proof after all; and on further investigation demonstrates a concave one yet again. Although on its own, any optical effect has the possibility of being an illusion. So, does the bowl-effect from a hot air balloon/up a mountain etc. and an eye-level horizon at continuing higher altitude show a concave earth? Maybe (50%).

+++

### Overall conclusion

The above four pieces of evidence demonstrating a concave Earth ultimately rest on the rectilineator and the US military’s camera, but these shoulders are very broad however.

• Tamarack mines – 50%
• Rectilineator – 99%
• Lenses and the horizon – 95%
• Altitude and the horizon – 50%

The probability that just one of the above items is correct is 99.99%. This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is concave and we are living inside. As an added bonus, the latter two pieces have also proven that any photos from “space” and the horizon are not in any way evidence for the Earth’s convexity.

This only leaves convexity’s last refuge to be explained in a concave Earth model – the sky dome. Why do we see the Sun go around above our heads in a convex dome fashion if the Earth is concave?

 The Sun is seen to travel along a convex sky.

You may, or may not, be surprised to hear that there is a hypothesis that not only explains this optical phenomenon very simply, but also the square law of gravity, the path of the Sun, and even the dynamo effect that the Earth is seen to possess. This is only a hypothesis and so may not be the correct one, but it is still worthy of an investigation. More on that in the next article.

### 532 Responses to Concave Earth Theory

1. Jonathan Glassel says:

WH, this is a pretty good video series that covers a lot of the same things you do.

At 13:50 surveying is discussed. For me, this is the smoking gun, if the surveyor quoted is correct, our national coordinate and elevation system is based upon the concave model. This should be easily proven.

Hoping some other surveyors can verify this. Having done road and highway construction, I used a Sokkia Total Station and an SDR 33 data collector. I taught myself to run the equipment, but was never schooled on the why and the wherefore of proper surveying.

I always wondered why the curvature of the earth was never involved in the calculations. Of coarse, if we were working off of predetermined coordinates and elevations that were already fudged for the concave curvature, it makes sense.

• Wild Heretic says:

Fascinating. Karol and myself both started looking at concave Earth around the same time as Steven gave us a reminder. I have seen his skycentrism videos too. The concave surveying co-ordinates would definitely be the smoking gun. If I can get the data and understand it enough to comment I’ll have a go at it at some time.

WH

• Jonathan Glassel says:

Rectilineator Experiment could be duplicated fairly inexpensively using modern surveying equipment like a total station which is a level, transit and Theodolite in one package. I have taken readings from a mile away 15 years ago. The equipment is probably better today.

My understanding is that elevations shown on construction plans are based on “Sea Level.” Houston is about 10 feet above, Denver is about 5,000 feet above sea level and Death Valley is about 1,000′ below sea level.

Original Elevation Benchmarks were placed by an agency of the government throughout the country. Every road and bridge would have several benchmarks on it.

So, if we started on the coast, established our benchmark near the water and starting taking shots as we went inland, after a mile or two, we should start to see a pattern similar to Rectilineator. It would not be all that much effort to check 25 miles or more.

If the coordinates have been fudged, it should be quite obvious the difference between concave and convex elevations will become too huge to ignore.

I am in Houston, not too far from Galveston but my equipment is long gone. Not sure how we could commission an engineering firm to certify the results, though.

• Jonathan Glassel says:

Comments from a VT Columnist (George writes as Jack Heart)

Jonathan Glassel Hoping to find surveying folks out there. Apparently the world system of coordinates are based upon a concave Earth. Which means we reside on the inside! Also see The Wild Heretic | “When you have eliminated all which is … is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

George Esposito Correct Jonathan Glassel, the National Socialists were targeting their rockets using coordinates taken from Cyrus Teed better known as Koresh. his concave model of the earth was never dis-proven, nor the ten thousand dollar reward offered to do so ever collected.Unfortunately i can’t use him because Teed has wiped clean from history except as a curiosity. But if anyone has an old edition of Encyclopedia of the Unknown they will find it there.

• Wild Heretic says:

Jonathan, so basically if we marked a level location with the equipment and took the government sea level readings into account, then we should see an increasing difference in “height” on the ground as we travel further inland. Have I understood that correctly?

I have no surveying skills.

Can we trust the government sea level readings? Or have they incorporated a presumed convex or even concave Earth?

Interesting video by Karol on map projection used until the 50s.

I was just thinking, why not use the total station along a very long beach, very near the water like the rectilineator as that should help eliminate, or at least greatly dampen, sea level variations? The total station uses light to measure both distance and slope it seems. Because light bends, perhaps an amalgamation of very short distances can be used just like the short length wooden beams of the rectilineator. I’m pretty sure that would work.
http://www.tcd.ie/civileng/Staff/Brian.Caulfield/3A1/3A1%20Lecture%208.pdf

• Wild Heretic says:

Nice! What people don’t realize is that they mean this nearly literally.

2. maturity says:

After I originally left a comment I appear to have clicked on the -Notify me when new comments are
added- checkbox and now every time a comment is added I recieve four emails with the exact
same comment. Perhaps there is an easy method you are able to remove me from that service?
Cheers!

• Wild Heretic says:

I’ll have a look…

Couldn’t see anything in the discussion menu. If you know where I can switch this off my end let me know and I’ll do it.

3. New video, Seasons in the COncave Earth…

4. Roy Tribble says:

I also wanted to add that what may be on “the other side” is just another Earth (I mean the place you would go if you went through the two portals in the north or south pole to the “outside”), a repeating Russian doll universe, over and over. This would suggest another, smaller outie/inner Earth exists somewhere within the big suspended ball we’re staring at when we look at the sky. It would presume the light we’re getting from the Sun in our inner world is also feeding an outer world deep within the inner sphere of our world (one we can’t see, but essentially would be in front of us if we looked up into the “sky”, buried behind a few layers of “stuff”, possibly existing within the pyramid.

This doll theory would be infinite, of course. From big to small, but time / gravity properties might change with size, too. Sounds like a multiverse idea, but it’s not quite.

Kind of explains, too, why things are “bigger” on the outer crust — animals, trees, birds, as reported in legends — as you graduate within the “dolls”, sizes change.

• Wild Heretic says:

Thought a little bit about that. It would explain the giantism, but in the Smokey God it was always daytime with a purple hazy Sun I think it was. I can’t see how it could be this way on a convex shape. It could just be a different size cavity with perhaps a little bit different physical laws. I’m not sure. The brain synapse idea was brought up and could be something like that, or the holes near the poles are something like “dimensional” wormholes to other worlds (cavities?). I don’t know.

• Wild Heretic says:

Amazing Don, truly an outstanding find.

5. Roy Tribble says:

I’m not done reading the site, so you may have already addressed this, but here are the big problems that stand out to me:

1) Lunar eclipses. Still can’t wrap my mind around that. And I sure as heck don’t think it’s “some other object” as flat Earthers say. Must have something to do with bending / lensing effect, the thing is it’s gotta happen to where it *appears* it’s the shadow of the Earth (we know that’s not possible if it’s concave, right?). I also think Blood Moons are sunlight shining through the Earth’s atmosphere and reflecting upon the Moon’s surface. I *suppose* that can still be explained with a concave cosmology.

2) Maybe near 100k up there really IS no gravity! Maybe we can get satellites up there and they orbit along with the inner sphere.

3) It’s hard for me to believe all the video of people living in ISS are “CGI”. Looks real to me, I think they are indeed in weightlessness. Maybe it’s entirely congruent. Maybe there IS a spacestation up there, it’s just at the edge of “space” before the glass ceiling. Let’s face it, most space activity seems to all take place in low Earth orbit.

4) Still can’t wrap my mind around all space missions being hoaxes, every one of them, the Moon landings, all probes, etc. Sure, they’ve sent stuff up, but it would hit the glass dome or the inner sphere at some point and blow up or bounce off, or get absorbed.

5) It’s interesting about the 90 degree angle meteor impacts, but aren’t there steaks on the Moon?

6) I think Joe Parr’s stuff is significant, with the energized pyramid that forms a circle around it, floats, shows odd properties. He showed there was an 11 year cycle, just like the Sun.

7) So if the Sun is small and a sulphur disk — what’s all the talk about solar “radiation”, flares, filaments, CME’s, etc. about? On and on.

8) I can buy stars are solumlumence bubbles suspended in water (or *something*), but what I’m confused by are asteroids floating out there, planets, comets, etc. — what are these things? Just stuff littered about between the glass dome and the inner sphere, floating around it?

9) What are supernovas, pulsars, etc? All of these space things seem to show observable properties that make them complex. What about stars with wobbles, i.e. planets? It would suggest a little solumenecent bubble has a little planet buzzing around it.

More needs to be done to address this stuff — that said, I think it’s possible ALL of it *could* be congruent within a concave cosmology. This cosmology requires you to make things smaller, and basically flip your brain like a mirror to conceptualize some of it.

That’s all for now.

• Wild Heretic says:

I personally think astronomy physics needs a “start-again” reset on everything from gravity to “solid balls orbiting” etc. I can’t answer all the questions. I will probably have a go at stars/comets/asteroids as my last input on this all. Here is my opinion:

1. I agree on the lensing effect. At the moment I’ve stumbled across a possibility that the moon could be a concentrated reflection of parts of the Earth, but I am not sure. The eclipse is likely an optical issue rather than balls in space blocking our view etc.

2. Maybe, but I think the Sun is culprit. The two leading theories of gravity in a concave Earth is a spinning bucket motion (centrifugal force) and the electric field. Johannes Lang went for the electric field and so do I, except that it is the Sun’s electric field that dominates. I can’t see the spinning bucket to be correct because firstly there is no evidence (or common sense) of the Earth moving and secondly the centrifugal force would be vastly diminished at the poles as the poles are right on the central vertical axis. The only culprit that makes sense to me is the Sun’s electric field which would mean that gravity increases the closer to the Sun we get.

3. I don’t think anything orbits above the glass. The space shuttle can resist both the thermosphere and melt the glass on reentry. It makes a parabolic arc up and then down. No floating at all. That’s my take on it. Its very easy to fake people floating around the ISS. Kubrick did it in 1968 and so we can now.

4. The number one reason for breaking through the glass in the 80s IMO was to study the Sun. They weren’t 100% sure what the Sun was I think. It looks like they knew by 1986 for sure as that was when the first sulfur lamp was commissioned and then finally produced in 1990. It’s all graphics up there. The only video I have seen from NASA that it is 100% genuine is the booster rocket camera up to about 40km I think it is. They even stated that no trickery was involved! A bizarre thing to say. It’s beyond reasonable doubt suspicious that there has never been a full video of any space travel from launch to “orbiting” or “moon landing”. If a camera couldn’t stand the heat on re-entry (I’m sure they could insulate one) then why not have a camera looking out of the shuttle window from launch to its target. It’s all CGI, underwater tank etc.

5. Electric universe people think craters are electrical affects. I think it could be reflections of parts of the Earth’s crust (which could also link to the negatively charged field). I don’t know.

6. I will have to look into that more about the 11 year cycle. I saw a good website on Joe Parr, but needs further research.

7. Solar radiation is UV, the rest is the Van Allen Belts. Flares, filaments, CMEs etc. are sometimes parts of the Sun (asteroids/comets/meteorites) which break off because of electrical discharge from the carbon electrode. Sometimes they aren’t though. They are definitely always electrical discharge though IMO. I mention this in the article.

8. Good question. Personally at the moment I think stars are just bits of the Sun (asteroids etc.) which are caught in its electric field, but this requires a lot more research as, as far as I know, I don’t think anything here on Earth can get trapped by an electric field – it either attracts or repels.

9. I put planets in the same category as the moon. I don’t know about the rest (galaxies pulsars etc.). Steve has some videos on them. I don’t think I’ll ever go into that topic except that the “Milky Way” looks to be the Sun’s electric field band that stars follow. We will see.

I don’t agree with Sculelos (flat earth forum) of everything we know about the convex cosmology is just flipped and we get smaller and smaller the higher we go. (Sounds like the Egyptian mathematician’s take on the concave earth). Sure, the results of effects like gravity can and must be switched, but I stop at that.

6. My comments are not appearing….

• Wild Heretic says:

Could be because I didn’t check the blog yesterday. Not sure. Try again if you like.

7. Bipolar “Planetary” Nebulae in the concave earth…

8. Ivan says:

The fatal mistake for this theory would be objects, such as stars or the sun/moon, appearing to rise from the horizon. In a concave model, it would be impossible for any object to appear to rise from the horizon because there would not be physical room for such. Objects would have to make ” contact ” with the ground , which we know does not happen. In the concave model, there would always be a visible ” gap ” between Earth and ” heavenly bodies. Nice try though. Very creative imaginations. You should write science fiction. I would definitely read it.

• Wild Heretic says:

• Ivan says:

The Tamarak mine experiment is flawed because there is less mass between then shafts than there is on the outside of each shaft. Thus the pull of gravity along the entire length of string to the balls is on the outside . Not a large amount, mind you, probably enough to spread the balls a minuscule amount. Say, like, less than a ten of a foot over several thousand feet ? There is no reason to assume the photo of the soldiers pointing their telescope up is a photo of them taking measurements. It is more likely a publicity photo which would look quite boring with the telescope level. Keppler’s ” half balls” are visibly different than the “flat” photos shown. He tried hard but there are errors in the shading of the oceans. Oops. I have been in a balloon, as have many others, never saw a bowl. Nobody else seems to make a big issue of it either. Additionally, I have been in small, low flying aircraft as well as jets, and there have been an innumerable number of pilots since aviation began. Nobody claims to have been flying inside a ball. I’m not even gonna touch the rectumliniator. There are so many problems with the details of this floppy board contraption it isn’t even funny. I’d say your odds dropped from 99.99% to about 25%. Somebody with better math skills than me would need to finish the work on the Tamarak errors. What else Ya got. You still have the problem of heavenly bodies appearing to rise from the ground. It works for a convex, but fails for concave. You would see a gap. Thanks. Don’t consider myself a troll, just someone who has viewed all the evidence presented by you and “The Lord ” and find it lacking. It’s important to me that people accept the fact that Earth is not some kind of special object outside of what we observe in the universe. Beliefs like these create a theology and theism holds back the species. I enjoy your ideas though. Keep me coming. Unless of course Spaceship 2 hit the glass ceiling and broke because it didn’t have carbon fiber panels on it.
Suggestions : Get Stevie to pop for a steel beam long enough to redo the rectumfinder experiment. And some qualified professionals to perform it and interpret the data.
Get a model rocket license and a giant paintball and we’ll see if we can tag the glass dome. I realize the glass ceiling isn’t your belief, but “Jesus V2.x ” paying attention, so he can take the idea and run.
Peace.

• Wild Heretic says:

You didn’t keep reading and haven’t obviously reviewed all the evidence. Continue reading and comment below the individual articles, not here.

1. I agree that the T experiment was flawed. The possible secret one’s results were not revealed if they existed at all.

2. I agree. Balloon viewpoints are inconclusive.

3. The rectilineator experiment was extremely thorough and peer-reviewed by opposers such as yourself and is a slam dunk.

4. The horizon issues – keep reading the articles underneath especially the one marked “bendy light the evidence” and “horizon”.

5. Give me the money for materials and engineers and I’ll send up a rocket with enough fuel for 200km altitude and let’s see how far it gets, if anything is left of the wreckage of course after it hits the glass. PM me and I’ll give you the address for you to send the blank cheques. Although since you appear to have very deep pockets, why not do a few of those experiments yourself if you are interested in revealing the true shape of the Earth?

Lastly, the rectilineator scientific experiment showed that the concave Earth is not a theology. Heliocentric theory is however, and has 5 to 7 major problems against it with no experimental proof for it whatsoever. A lovely science fiction philosophy though.

The rest is up to you.

WH

• Ivan says:

Thanks. Not sure why you would gather I have “deep pockets “. I’m poor. If I had money I would gladly fund experiments on this type of subject. Sorry I can’t help. I suggested that Steve foot the bill since he should be able to turn lead into gold, so cash shouldn’t be an issue for him. The rectilineator still poses problems. I would need you to refer me to the source for the peer review materials and I will gladly asses them. Since only one section of the device exists we have no way of confirming it’s accuracy based on this piece. Also, a review of measuring standards and tolerances in history reveals,that pre WWII tolerances were generally good to about .050″ per 5″. Stack up tolerance for 21780′ at .050″ per 12′ section comes out to 90’8″. In other words, I doubt the could have managed .005″ tolerance over a 4 1/8 mile run. I would certainly like to see the certification for their measuring devices since calipers where only just becoming common and even assembly lines used fixed gauges for manufacturing. Clearance issues were hand filed until the gauge fit. I just don’t think this experiment has the credibility you attribute too it.
Bendy light and horizons is also no joy for both you and I . By “debunking” pictures of Earth from space, using lense tricks to go from convex to flat to concave, Steve invalidates the use of optical observation for both of us.from where I live, I can see lake Ontario on certain clear days. On other equally clear days I cannot. This implies the differences are due to atmospheric conditions and would be consistent with a convex Earth. If the Earth was concave, I would be able to see the lake every day, regardless of what the atmosphere was doing because it would be above my location at all times.for me, this is a fail, but since I admit we can’t use such evidence as proof, we are stuck. I don’t claim victory, just a serious stalemate.
Additionally, I would have to strongly disagree with you about the idea that heliocentricity is theology. I don’t think you are using the word right. Heliocentric models are simply based on observations of other celestial bodies, shapes and movements. It can absolutely be wrong and subject to scientific change, but it is not theology. In contrast, you should realize that assuming Earth is some kind of terrarium for our species, even if it is a scientific experiment, reaks of theism. Whether you believe in God, the Divine Architect, alien zoologists or whatever, you believe we inhabit a reality different from what we observe. You believe we live in a manufactured environment which means we have no real history or purpose beyond the designs of those who put us here. Existence at the behest of another entity is, in fact, theology.
Finally, I may have to accuse you and other concave Earthers of a massive conspiracy to get free flights into space when private travel becomes reality. By vocally poo-pooing the round Earth theory you have guaranteed someone will foot the bill for you and Steve to show you the truth. I am of course just joking. In reality, I have no problem with the theory you present, only that the evidence seems wanting. I have no problem if we are inside other than the lack of space, planets, galaxies, etc. While disappointing, I was never a candidate to experience any of these things for real anyway. I would welcome actual hard proof that you are correct. It would be a game changer for me though, instead of living in a way which encourages the good of humanity, I would have to adopt a ” no point except winner take all philosophy ” . Many others would as well and this would not be good for the species. One would them hope you are incorrect. Thanks again for responding. Typos are a human thing, sorry for any I make.

• Wild Heretic says:

Let’s break it down.

The rectilineator still poses problems. I would need you to refer me to the source for the peer review materials and I will gladly asses them. Since only one section of the device exists we have no way of confirming it’s accuracy based on this piece. Also, a review of measuring standards and tolerances in history reveals,that pre WWII tolerances were generally good to about .050″ per 5″. Stack up tolerance for 21780′ at .050″ per 12′ section comes out to 90’8″. In other words, I doubt the could have managed .005″ tolerance over a 4 1/8 mile run. I would certainly like to see the certification for their measuring devices since calipers where only just becoming common and even assembly lines used fixed gauges for manufacturing. Clearance issues were hand filed until the gauge fit. I just don’t think this experiment has the credibility you attribute too it.

You have no idea of the tolerances of the rectilineator… and neither do I except what Morrow tells us in his book. You are looking at a generalization of general equipment pre-ww2. The rectilienator was beyond thorough though. It was measured and tested many times by many different people of different viewpoints and then results just happened to nearly perfectly coincide with a concave Earth. I’m sure that was just an absolutely massive co-incidence. If their equipment was not accurate enough, or faulty as you suggest (what else can they say to protect current dogma?) then the results would not just happen to coincide with a concave Earth, they would be all over the place.

Bendy light and horizons is also no joy for both you and I .

Nope, it’s a slam dunk. The only way to refute it is to use exactly the same tactic as you have used for the rectilineator and that is to say Wilhelm Martin’s test was faulty. No other way. If it isn’t faulty, then classic helio and geocentric models are completely off the cards. It’s game over with no credits left… and that’s not the only massive issue with those models as they well know.

By “debunking” pictures of Earth from space, using lense tricks to go from convex to flat to concave, Steve invalidates the use of optical observation for both of us.from where I live, I can see lake Ontario on certain clear days. On other equally clear days I cannot. This implies the differences are due to atmospheric conditions and would be consistent with a convex Earth. If the Earth was concave, I would be able to see the lake every day, regardless of what the atmosphere was doing because it would be above my location at all times.for me, this is a fail, but since I admit we can’t use such evidence as proof, we are stuck. I don’t claim victory, just a serious stalemate.

And what could that change in atmospheric conditions be? Certainly not refraction over those distances. It’s obvious what those conditions could be since you’ve read the bendy light article. They could be changes in the Earth’s electric field. Why are those long distance horizons always over water? Water vapour is less dense than air and refracts light in the other direction no less! (which could be a contender for the long horizons in a concave Earth, but of course wouldn’t work in a convex one). Light bends (so forget convex theory. It’s wrong.) and Martin showed that light had varied bend depending on the time of day (and even direction), which again coincidentally ties in with being able to see really large distances at night over water. He didn’t have enough data over the entire year to determine seasonal variation, and so that would need to be looked into. Super long distance horizon are not a 100% convex debunk, but they have yet to explain why it happens. It’s the bending light that ends it all.

Additionally, I would have to strongly disagree with you about the idea that heliocentricity is theology. I don’t think you are using the word right. Heliocentric models are simply based on observations of other celestial bodies, shapes and movements. It can absolutely be wrong and subject to scientific change, but it is not theology. In contrast, you should realize that assuming Earth is some kind of terrarium for our species, even if it is a scientific experiment, reaks of theism.

There has been one and only one scientific experiment to determine the true shape of the Earth and they are praying that they did it faulty despite what I mentioned above. That experiment said the earth is concave. Mathematically, observations of the Sun, stars etc. can be equally valid in a concave Earth as well as a convex one. It is theology. They believe that the Earth goes round the Sun as it can be mostly made to fit with the observations of the Sun and stars. I say mostly, because it can’t explain the 4 min per 24 hour faster rotation of the stars than the Sun (look at sculelos’s articles on the flat Earth society forum, or wait a while for my version). It doesn’t explain the Sun arcs accurately either as I’ve already pointed out.

A belief without scientific experiment is a philosophy. It’s promotion as the truth makes it a theology. That is what used to gall me with heliocentric theory. I’m way beyond that now, but I will come full circle.

Whether you believe in God, the Divine Architect, alien zoologists or whatever, you believe we inhabit a reality different from what we observe. You believe we live in a manufactured environment which means we have no real history or purpose beyond the designs of those who put us here. Existence at the behest of another entity is, in fact, theology.

Yes, that is a belief or rather one of many beliefs. I agree that that part is a speculative philosophy. I do not for one moment say that that is the truth and ram it down people’s throats via an educational system, be it a church or a university; and so no that isn’t a theology. It is a possibility though. I hope to speculate with others later on and lay down lots of possible ideas. I’ll be looking at Genesis and other creation “myths” after that too as some of them have a whole different meaning after looking at the information in this blog. Some real eye-openers there I can tell you.

Finally, I may have to accuse you and other concave Earthers of a massive conspiracy to get free flights into space when private travel becomes reality. By vocally poo-pooing the round Earth theory you have guaranteed someone will foot the bill for you and Steve to show you the truth. I am of course just joking. In reality, I have no problem with the theory you present, only that the evidence seems wanting. I have no problem if we are inside other than the lack of space, planets, galaxies, etc. While disappointing, I was never a candidate to experience any of these things for real anyway. I would welcome actual hard proof that you are correct. It would be a game changer for me though, instead of living in a way which encourages the good of humanity, I would have to adopt a ” no point except winner take all philosophy ” . Many others would as well and this would not be good for the species. One would them hope you are incorrect. Thanks again for responding. Typos are a human thing, sorry for any I make.

There is really only one hard proof and that is the rectilineator experiment. Having said that, all other proofs that make helio/geo/and flat earth theory redundant are still possible, and even very likely with concave Earth theory… if that makes sense. That is the state of it. The more you dig, the more it makes sense. IMO we will never have mainstream support backup in our lifetimes at the very least. So we can only convince ourselves (or unconvince if that is a word) as to what the truth really is.

At least you are open to different models. These things can take time… or sometimes not. Don’t worry about typos, I am not a grammar nazi and don’t care about such things. Oh, and no, being good may be even more desirable in an artificial concave earth if this place is a lab or testing ground. If it’s just a farm and the creators don’t care then whatever… even then. Anyway, that’s a topic for another day perhaps and not something for me to worry about just yet.

WH

WH

• Ivan says:

WH, I was wondering about your opinion on something. We get shown all these gigantic holes around the world and I think ( not sure) the deepest one is around 17.5 km. since the government would have to know for sure if you are right about concave Earth, do you think they have a secret effort to drill through to the outside ? They would undoubtably be deeper than any public hole we are aware of. Or is the outer shell likely all lava? I have also been pondering the optical purity that a glass ceiling would need to have, do think it could actually be as clear as it would seem to be? I have been racking my brain trying to come up with a way to get high enough to check for my self. It just seems to high for any garage based effort I could mount. Is there any plan by concave Earthers I could join where resources could be pooled to find out for sure. I think this needs an answer once and for all. Thanks. I apologize for picking on Steve on your forum, I simply can’t take him seriously. I think he is lucky he is so good at explaining this theory, otherwise he damages the credibility of your movement with all the second Jesus, NSA stuff.

• NSA/XKEYSCORE, please place this “Ivan” on the FEMA Detention List. Maybe later in a location that is directly under a hole in the glass sky and possibly a megacryometeor can have a near miss, putting some fear of God in him, tia.

• Ivan says:

• aww Ivy. looks like you are getting perspective, maybe you can ponder this objective scenario…

If the part in the bible is true where it says that the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and they that dwell therein (Psalm 24:1), and if I am the Lord, and if the earth is concave with glass in the sky, then any contribution to the theory of the concave earth with glass in the sky is set to MY acceptance of it and not the reciprocal.

• Ivan says:

Your statement confuses me. Unless you are making another attempt to sell me on your divinity, you totally lost me. It’s a pity too bro, you have mad skills at explaining the concave Earth theory. If you were to drop the second coming stuff and , you know,maybe stop calling people who haven’t opened their minds enough to ponder this idea retards, you could gain a huge amount of traction. You really do seem quite intelligent, WH and you could wind up in the history books as the modern day Galeleio if you are correct. Even if you have yourself absolutely convinced you are the sun of god ( Ra ), I personally believe your following is quite small. Mainstream Christians think you are a blasphemer and you really need their support to further research into this matter. Let go of your ego and be the change in the world you seek. You already have way too many non- Jesus incidents in your past to be the real deal. Maybe if you hadn’t slipped out of character so many times. Back to the relevant matter, I am continuing to pursue my own investigation of this theory, there is some good evidence here. I saw someone question why pilots don’t have to continually pull back on the yoke to maintain level flight. I believe the answer was something to the effect of ” the same reason they don’t have to keep pushing forward in a convex model. I chewed on this for a while but it comes back as a fail, gravity pulls down on the plane and the planes forward motion causes it to follow the convex surface. No trim is needed. However, if the ether is pushing down on the plane in a concave model there is actually a greater requirement to continually ” pull up ” to maintain
level flight. I need clarification. I have also questioned some commercial airline pilots who have logged many hours at 40,000 ft. ceilings. Their responses don’t reflect a concave Earth. I’m willing, and trying, to reconcile this idea with observation but as soon as I accept one piece of evidence something comes along that raises doubt. Please explain in the least condescending way possible, you’ve got my attention but I can easily pass summary judgement if you don’t seem to take your own idea seriously. Thanks again, enjoying the forum. Peace.

• a newb, lol.

9. the reason gravity comes from outside may not be due earth concavity, but because simple stars and sun and moon and earth makes an interactive atraction and rejection force, if you place a magnet with the same poles one over the other you will see the rejection is stronger as they get nearby, the same experience we fell on earth, in other order of things, also is possible that atmospher pressure makes most of the effcet of gravity, since balloons doesnt seem affected by gravity because they are less dense than air. if the earth was concave we could not see the sun illuminating one continent and no the other. I think earth must be bigger and sun much smaller. so the earth may seem to be flat or concave in some parts, and thats why the sun not shines the whole surface of earth

10. Nils Esche says:

WH, you should mention the Bible as Storyline for ours as probably “true”!

A little trip through King James Bible – into the earth, we are living in!

___________________________________________________________

Matthew 6:10

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
___________________________________________________________

Genesis 1:22

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Genesis 4:12

12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.

Genesis 4:14

14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.

Genesis 6:4-5

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Genesis 6:17

17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Genesis 10:32

32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

1 Chronicles 16:14

14 He is the Lord our God; his judgments are in all the earth.

1 Chronicles 17:8

8 And I have been with thee whithersoever thou hast walked, and have cut off all thine enemies from before thee, and have made thee a name like the name of the great men that are in the earth.

1 Chronicles 17:21

21 And what one nation in the earth is like thy people Israel, whom God went to redeem to be his own people, to make thee a name of greatness and terribleness, by driving out nations from before thy people whom thou hast redeemed out of Egypt?

Job 1:7-8

7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Job 38:33

33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?

Psalm 8:9

9 O Lord our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!

Psalm 16:3

3 But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.

Psalm 45:16

16 Instead of thy fathers shall be thy children, whom thou mayest make princes in all the earth.

Psalm 46:8

8 Come, behold the works of the Lord, what desolations he hath made in the earth.

Psalm 58:2

2 Yea, in heart ye work wickedness; ye weigh the violence of your hands in the earth.

Psalm 58:11

11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

Psalm 75:31

31 The earth and all the inhabitants thereof are dissolved: I bear up the pillars of it. Selah.

Psalm 113:6

6 Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!

Psalm 119:19

19 I am a stranger in the earth: hide not thy commandments from me.

Psalm 135:6

6 Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.

Proverbs 11:31

31 Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.

Isaiah 12:5

5 Sing unto the Lord; for he hath done excellent things: this is known in all the earth.

Jeremiah 9:24

24 But let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.

Daniel 4:23

23 And whereas the king saw a watcher and an holy one coming down from heaven, and saying, Hew the tree down, and destroy it; yet leave the stump of the roots thereof in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass, in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven, and let his portion be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him;

Matthew 6:10

10 Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

Luke 11:2

2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

Acts 2:19

2 And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:

Romans 10:18

18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Colossians 1:16

16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

1 John 5:8

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Revelation 5:3

3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

Revelation 12:9

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

___________________________________________________________

Luke 11:2
2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
___________________________________________________________

NUFF SAID, Nils

Johannes 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

• Wild Heretic says:

I hadn’t realized there are so many references to “in” the Earth rather than “on”. Excellent.

I didn’t read them all, but when you look at it from a concave perspective, interpretations can change a lot. Look at Revelation 12:9 near the end there.
The devil, Satan (the old serpent) was cast out into the Earth, and his angels with him. So the devil must live with us here in the Earth. Is this “hell”? Does he run this place? Is the devil Jehovah? Is Satan a reptoid? Now that is a big perspective change.

Also makes me wonder if “heaven” is outside the concave Earth. Is it the other side? Or is there another side at all? maybe everything is cavernous, or something else that doesn’t correspond to normal 3D geometry?

• Nils Esche says:

So, WH:

“So the devil must live with us here in the Earth. Is this “hell”? Does he run this place? Is the devil Jehovah?”

YES! He (Satan) runs this place – and Jehova is the devil aswell (he has thousands of names).

I will go more into it later.

And I got this big perspective change aswell. And it hit me like a hammer, too.

“Heaven” is inside earth, and as is it said in the bible, it is “heavens”, not “heaven”!

John 18:36: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world…”

As i said to you before, you should look into it a bit more deeper, what scripture says!

I provide you all with a link:

Try seeing it yourselves. You will get an idea there!

God bless you all, Nils

Johannes 14:6 “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

• dizzib says:

Great post. I’ve just spot checked my English Standard Version (ESV) in ten places and it says ‘on earth’ in all but 2 cases. I’d wager other modern translations have this same ‘improvement’ too!

11. Satellites in the Concave Earth (NASA broke the sky)

12. Richard Parker says:

I’m highly intrigued by the concept of the holes at the poles, WH. Could you please elaborate on this a bit. Do you think so called space is a giant cosmic brain type of apparatus in function. If there’s holes at the poles, what do you the the shape of the earth/universe is in it’s entirety.

I recall Plato talking about “the heavens”, concave surface of the earth in which we live on, “Hades” beneath, and a place known as Tartarus(which is described as a place being as far as the heavens are to the surface, Hades is to Tartarus. So it seems to be the deepest of abysses, but it is composed of mainly water. It is stated in Greek mythology that it was the first primordial place of existence. Just some ideas Where could those fish you spoke of had traveled?

Most of all, what is the true shape of the entire system? Ovular? Thank\$

• Wild Heretic says:

Yes, I’ve read about the mythical underworld a bit. It seems far too detailed in Norse and Greek mythology to be just a made up religious concept, especially since plenty of their kings and heroes ventured therein. The underworld is a tough cookie. You have mythological accounts, contemporary accounts – sometimes they overlap in similarity, sometimes they don’t. There seems to be “another dimensional” type quality about it. Not easy to fathom.

I think the fish came from the hole near the north pole, the one near Russia. Someone estimated its location at 84.4N.

As to the true shape of the entire system, well that is very difficult. We have one anecdotal account of the other side just seemingly being the convex side, but there are problems with that model too. Another account is that spirit was on the other side. It could be that there are many “worlds” or avenues possible when going underground and breaking through to the other side.

Drop me a comment on the article on the holes near the poles when it is published (early next week). That way I won’t have to repeat myself too much and we can look at the few accounts given.

Also when I first heard about our cavity situation, the synapse model you mentioned also sprang to mind. You could be on to something there.

WH

I’ve been looking over some of this information today after stumbling onto a Lord Steven Christ Video. I haven’t researched much yet just soaking it all in. Wondering if someone can give me there idea or direct me to where on the website I can find info about what is out side the earth/universe then?
Also, what about supposed nearby spiral galaxies that can be viewed through telescopes. Is the bioluminesence…or whatever that is creating the stars have consitancy to it?
I suppose that will be the first thing I research, what exactly your stating creates the stars and what the planets are made of.
I’ve always said all a person needs to do is understand math and science a tiny bit better than we do, and they will be able to convince us of anything. Goes for both side of this story.
Interesting stuff guys.

• Hi Bradley, I’ve mentioned before that I believe the spiral star clusters are tiny, and immersed in a celestial ocean contained inside the glass celestial sphere (not to be confused with the glass sky at 100km). They formed into spirals because they are drain remnants of the great flood when the windows of heaven were opened. I believe they are created by multi-bubble sonoluminescence, at at the time of the flood, they heated up the glass containing them and melted holes, allowing the celestial water to flow out and down to earth. They later healed and cooled and left the spiral remnants. This is the dark water mystery resolved….it is dark water, not dark matter.

Thank you for that message Steven, I will look into all that as well as I’m able to.
As far as what I was asking about what is outside the earths crust though any ideas or suggestions, or perhaps point me in the direction as where to read about it.
*side question* What is meant by the term celestial? And, what are your beliefs about…….hmm how should I phrase this?…….about spirit, God, present reality, and other common topics that ensue from there?
If this is the wrong area to post this question I apologize, please feel free to direct me. Also if this topic is better discussed in verbal comunication I’d be happy to.

P.S.
As far as being Christ reborn, are you positing to be a form of an ever present christ consciousness or simply saying that you are ??? I don’t know, what are you saying?
(so many questions thanks for your time.

14. WH, I hope you consider or “re-consider” you’re view that the sun is very near the center. I know you probably want to stick to the sulfur lamp concept of it with a circular glass sphere spinning near the center, but consider how in this video the seasons, the milky way, and the sun act in perfect harmony. Understand the electricity of the sun which people like Eric Dollard and Donald Scott say, is receiving it’s energy from another source (I say it’s the pyramid.)

• Wild Heretic says:

I’m just putting it where the arc of the Sun shows me to put it. I think the Sun gets its energy from the holes near the poles. I don’t think the Earth is a closed system at all.

I remember reading years ago that fish stocks in one type of fish had been decimated off the coast of Ireland and wouldn’t come back in decades if ever. Then a few years later there were more of this fish type than before they were decimated and scientists couldn’t understand it lol. They could if they knew that the Earth wasn’t a closed system.

The more I am discovering, the more Teed was right. Maybe his vision had real merit.

Just seen the video Steve, and at 1:30 you have just found evidence which agrees with my theory about the Sun at the solstices. Excellent. I didn’t know that existed.

• well, I guess I can’t make you believe what I saw in my vision of the back of the sun if you choose not to. As far as the poles, I do think there is a northern hole, not convinced on a southern one. But I think you are making a glaring omission of the pyramidal power source, the glass star sphere and the reason for the Milky Way.

• Wild Heretic says:

You saw three (or was it more?) stripes on the back of the Sun wasn’t it? I don’t disagree with that. I also think the Sun has a light and dark side.

• Did you finish my video (8:16), I show parallel rays striking the back of the sun.

• Wild Heretic says:

Not yet there. Will get there though.

• For you, WH…

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Yes, this is an admonition.

• Wild Heretic says:

Yeah, I call that grace, or coincidence.

• p.s. I mention how the solstices work at 8:57

• Wild Heretic says:

Did you include how the south pole is in constant darkness during our summer and vice verse in winter? And also the amount of daylight received in the hemispheres? That’s why the Sun has to be in the center and why it has to wobble.

I wonder if the lines of light behind the Sun were the immediate part of the magnetic B-field? Although they should curve a bit.

• Wild Heretic says:

Very nice graphic Steve. Your artistry is great and you know your graphics software well.

• Bob says:

Good modeling Steve and yes please stick with the name Steven Christopher so every time I get someone interested in this subject they don’t laugh at me the next day and ask if I think I am Christ also.
And maybe read the part in the Bible where it assures us that in the end days anyone that is calling themselves Christ will be a liar. I can look up the exact scriptures for you if you need but just understand it is a credibility issue.
Great find on the PLATO!!!!!!!! Wow Socrates… who knew… a real stand up guy if there ever was one.
Your observational skills are fantastic and you seem like a really cool and level headed guy but most people will figure you for a liar since Jesus already warned us about imposters and that the next time we see him he will ‘Cometh with clouds’ You see Steve… Jesus is the SUN and also the story of Lucifer is the SUN (stars in space used to be called the angels in heaven, one (the brightest) ‘fell to earth’ and rules over a lake of fire…the light bearer he is called, and often confused for Venus but, you know, about 100000 times brighter). As well as Mithras, Horus, Hercules, Shiva and choads of other stories where the 12 months, the 4 seasons, Orion, Virgo, and December 25th regularly come into play.
So if we are all going to learn the true shape of the Earth lets learn what true religion is also (yes it actually exists haha we are pretty much practicing it here on this site)

A lesson in Astrotheology is a good foundation for this knowledge we are discovering together.

2 films i can think of are The Naked Truth (old British documentary simply brilliant)
and Zeitgeist (the whole series is great but the first one is about Astrotheology)

All of it fits in very well with our cave of misfits haha

and hey WH ^^ when can we get a look at the new article?
get it published before our cave neighbors decide they do not want it out there. Never a good idea to hold on to game changing documents. They make movies about that kind of stuff.
Man figures out all problems to life and suffers horrible car crash just hours before publishing it worldwide etc. Lets get this milk spilled already

Peace and much cave love

• Wild Heretic says:

Thought about that. I’m OK, I’ll release them all at once. Just polishing up number 5. 6 will be trickier, the last 3 will be quick.

I’m not in love with zeitgiest. If he wants to form a communist commune somewhere then that is great. All power to him. As long as he doesn’t go political and start forcing his stuff on everyone then I’m happy with it.

I’ll have a look at the naked truth. is this it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LTmw9BMzWo

• Icecoldsun says:

Oh yeah, Zeitgesit.

Question: “What is Zeitgeist? / What is the Venus Project?”
Answer: “Communism with computers and robots.”

• Bob says:

Yes that is the correct link for The Naked Truth.

Haha well I am not aware of the Zeitgeist plot to take over the world I just think they are informative documentaries especially the Astrotheology one. Oh and the money one is a very nice explanation of the monetary system.

Truth stays the same no matter what our opinion of it is.
Even when it changes ^^

Peace in the Cave

• Wild Heretic says:

The most interesting fable for me on money was the one with the priests. The one where before money there was just the rulers and the slaves and then one day to help stop the continual revolts and uninspired work, a priest introduced tokens and said to the slaves that they have been freed. Instead of going their own way, looking after their own land, all the slaves clamoured over the tokens trying to get as much as possible and worked a 100 times better which the ruling class taxed and also of course produced the tokens. Now they were productive slaves.

15. CaptainCaveman says:

Hello
You probably came across theNASAchannel onyoutube.
What do you think of him ? his theories ? flat illimited earth, Atlantis like with outercircle all around Antarctica
So for u what is Antarctica ? why so protected and never flown over by planes ?
I would enjoy your thoughts on Antarctica and its secrets, from the Nazis to Operation Highjump then the Antarctica treaty
Look forward to hearing / reading from you

• Wild Heretic says:

Only the outskirts of Antarctica been flown over because of the hole I think (which isn’t over the geographic pole at all). Having said that, the outskirts mean the lower and upper side, so it does seem to be wrapped around the south pole.

I don’t think the Earth is flat, but they do come up with a couple of things (like we do) that should make the helios take note that their model might not be exactly correct lol. One example is the horizon always at eye level. That is a more than awkward problem which I’ll go into in article 9.

16. CaptainCavern says:

Hi All
Great job what you are pulling out together.
Science is a methodology, and has become a religion with dogma.
There is a fight underneath between the CounterChurch and the Church on philosophy and values.
I respect any person abiding to a code of honor and trying to align with the truth.
3 reproaches to be honest:
– Too good a name, I am jealous as a specialist of heretical.com
– Too genial an idea
– I thought I had doubted anything I could and you proved me wrong!

One thing puzzles me altogether, and I would like to help collect information there.
I can collect data on european, french satellites, I think supposed to be Medium Earth Orbit, I have a friend Engineer there.
I have already checked numerous information on Apollo.

– So I can check the actual orbit of those satellites ? supposed to be ranging from 2.000 km to 20.000 km

I have already collected data on radiation protection to go through the van Allen belts, how can u explain high energy particles belts, requiring a 15cm (6 inches) lead protection on all sides .
Controls are in three copies
And satellites with all those protection still flash or break down occasionally………..
(it would have been better to fit them with the unbreakable apollo suit technology ! lol)

Kind regards

• Wild Heretic says:

Funnily enough article 3 is mostly about the Van Allen belts. It is so obvious what they are when you put everything together in a concave Earth.

I have been very lucky with the next 9 articles. There were a lot of hit and misses and rewrites and throwaways, but it has all come together now.

I thank grace that I’ve been able to join the dots, at least to a certain level and will continue to do so.

WH

17. dizzib says:

I came across this dramatic video showing the Toronto skyline from 33 miles away over lake Ontario:

When he zooms out you’ll notice he’s standing by the lake’s edge from which I estimate the camera is some 8 to 10 ft high. So plugging this into my calculator means 581 to 565 ft of building should be obscured.

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

For some reason my last 3 attempts at posting failed, so I’ll post the rest of my analysis separately…

• dizzib says:

Using Google-earth I’ve determined the 2 buildings to the immediate right of the CN Tower are the Ritz Carlton (688 ft) and the RBC centre (607 ft). Worth mentioning I doubt these heights include the foundation elevation.

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

Using the CN Tower as a guide I estimate we can see roughly the top 100 ft of the Ritz which is about what we’d expect in the Copernican model. So I’m unconvinced we’re seeing more building than we should be, at least in this instance!

• Wild Heretic says:

The best instances of unbelievable horizons are always over water at night… and I mean unbelievable.

18. scud says:

Some rather pointless internet browsing this morning turned up something of interest?

http://www.oldmapcenter.com/home-2/2614.html

Here’s a bit more about Gerard Valk (though no explanation as to why he depicted Earth the way he did)…

http://oldprintgallery.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/gerald-valcks-mappe-monde-geo-hydrographique/

Hope all is well WH and very much looking forward to your next piece.

• Wild Heretic says:

Cheers Scud. Things are taking a little longer because I came down with adult croup and I thought I’d push myself speculatively regarding a mechanical explanation as to how the “holes near the poles” could be powering the sun. It isn’t necessary to the premise of the next article but I thought I would give it a go anyway.

It sure makes you wonder how and why they drew those maps the way they did. It is said that really old maps are just copies of even older ones, which were copies of ones before that etc. Does this point to a civilization before ours? I don’t know.

19. Icecoldsun says:

Any body come around this:

Another reference was made by some guy “Sculelos” on ka rol’s recent upload, comparing path of the sun and space shuttle., citing a link on vimeo: http://vimeo.com/7484960

My take on that: The alleged distances and sizes of these objects make much more sense in a concave earth. And since at least some of them seem damaged or adrift, the word “star wars” may get a whole new meaning… The only thing I really don’t like about this is that mystery-making attitude “We know where they are, but won’t tell you where to look.”

Are there similar videos to be found? Can anyone build such a “water-filled” telescope?

20. Saros says:

Using English Gematria to calculate the numerical value of ‘A CONCAVE EARTH’, ‘WILD HERETIC’, ‘DAVID KORESH’,’CONFUSION’,’INSIDE OUT’ we get the same number – 696!

21. Andrew says:

Just to correct my former post. It was the Hartland peninsula i was seeing from Trevose Head in Cornwall on the Horizon 33 miles away, not the coast of Wales.

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks for the details Andrew. If you don’t mind I am going to include that detail in the next article. I think I have found the solution to this phenomenon… best guess at any rate.

• G Instinct says:

I recently saw this video:

My only issue with the concave earth theory is the 90 degrees of the buildings at some considerable distance. They weren’t leaning away as in the convex model, but they were neither leaning towards the viewer as in the concave viewpoint, neither.

Plus, the pumb bob experiment…..shouldn’t tall skyscrapers then be leaning towards each other if the ground is concave beneath them?

Also William Carpenter. 1000 proofs for a flat earth.
My main smoking gun from his observations? The River Nile descends only about one foot in almost 1000 miles. On any other surface, convex or concave, the water would be backing-up on itself

• Wild Heretic says:

Good questions G. I think I can now answer them.

The culprit to what we see always comes from light and the fundamental magnetic field in which it resides (the sun’s mag field, not really the Earth’s). I know light isn’t supposed to bend in a mag field, but this isn’t really true as I will show later. If light traveled straight, then you would be dead right as a ship would be “bottom up” as it went over the horizon of a convex Earth and “bottom down” on a concave one for instance. Although the tilt wouldn’t be much I don’t think as a few miles (10, 20, 30?) won’t make too much of a difference. Still, I would have thought it would be discernible.

The center of gravity is another very interesting topic. Will discuss later, but I think the Nile issue can be applied to any body of water really. Where is the center of gravity? Where is our alignment or orientation? My short answer is that either the small particles or one or more general fields of matter are gyroscopic in nature and always orientate themselves in one direction, hence the appearance of a flat earth. This orientation is always “flat” because it is electromagnetic whose two fields are always 90 degrees apart in orientation. If you can believe it I actually have an idea why this is so, but it is only an idea and not ready for publishing by a long way.

• G Instinct says:

Thanks WH for your quick reply and explanations. I don’t think any of the open-minded people on here have a true explanation of the actual shape of the earth.

Nor, indeed…the true map. We haven’t been high enough for the grand panorama to be witnessed of this large world of ours.

With regards to the horizon being at eye-level, I always thought that when the ground or sea meets the sky, a flat horizon is always observed.

Your theory of a rising horizon due to a concave earth is very interesting. Never thought of the possibility before and it does carry some weight.

However if descending from an aircraft, surely an image of the plane dropping below the said horizon would also be observed?
Just a thought.

Here’s an interesting take on this:

• Wild Heretic says:

We think it is concave, a cavity.

• Wild Heretic says:

That last video shows the earth isn’t flat when he used his after effects, the horizon went down even on his largest scale. Further evidence that it is bendy light not the Earth’s surface causing the horizon.

I know you could say we haven’t been high enough to register that effect. He could take his area of his flat earth disk and stimulate a 10km plane altitude and see if the horizon lowered.

• G Instinct says:

The position of the gravity field has no relevance to shallow rivers and their almost level flows towards the sea.

If the earth is concave, it is concave everywhere. Therefore the water would collect in continually filling lake, or on a convex earth, it would start backing-up on itself.

Not an experiment, just a matter of fact.

Bending light and magnetic fields are all well and good.
But all I see is a flat earth and flat water,
I’m sure there are optical illusions and light can play tricks on us.

But I am finding it hard to believe anything other than a flat land with apples falling out of trees because they are heavier than air.
Because, if a lack of gravity cannot be proved in “outer space”, why call it gravity here on earth?

Basically, how do you prove a negative?

• Wild Heretic says:

It does have relevance as the center of gravity is exactly how we determine something is level at a particular point. It is a reference point to something above us in a concave Earth. For example, the Earth could be one giant ocean with no land at all and still be round. Do you see what I mean?

You are thinking of a round Earth with the center of gravity universally (i.e for the whole earth) at one particular point below the crust. If this where the case then all water would slide down the sides of the Earth into the “bowl” and we would have a very deep ocean for the bottom part of the Earth and dry land for the rest. We would also have difficulty standing on the dry land as near the north pole we would be upside down and couldn’t hang on!

Therefore by that logic the whole world must be flat. Which it isn’t as flight times show (as well the teed experiment etc.) Therefore the world isn’t flat and gravity must exist.

Do you see what I mean?

• G Instinct says:

The twin towers (before Bush & Co. blew them up) were clear visual evidence of a flat earth. If the earth were concave, the towers would be more narrow at the top and wider on a convex earth.

You have doubts about the flat earth map…so do I.
I would guess that Australasia is in a different position on the UN map. Flight times show it in the wrong place.

Look up former NASA employee Math Boyland

Look at the emblem of the Nayu mayer 3 base station here:

what have pyramids got to do with with Antarctica?
Also notice the ice circle with the pyramids protecting it
The all-seeing penguin, too

The UK’s newest ship that has been sent to patrol (?) Antarctica is called HMS Protector, protect from what exactly? The truth, maybe?

• Wild Heretic says:

In Nexus magazine there were rumors of a battle down in Antarctica. Could be bullshit though. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tierra_hueca/esp_tierra_hueca_13.htm

Maybe the towers were slightly narrower at the top. You mean the distance between the top of the towers and the bottom right? That is a plumb bob issue.

If the center of gravity is the central point in the Earth cavity, which I reason in my next article that it is not, then the difference between the top and bottom of a 4,250 feet plumb line 3200 feet apart is about 8 inches. The twin towers were 1368.11 feet high and 196 feet apart. The difference wouldn’t be measurable especially due to wind etc. http://www.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_Distance_between_the_North_Tower_and_the_South_Tower_of_the_World_Trade_Center

G, forget the flat earth. How can you change the flat map to suit flight and boat times? Does the flat earth fold underneath itself at the equator? Then gravity has a problem. The experiment has already determined the size and shape of the earth and so it is time to stop smashing your head against a brick wall and work on the concave Earth issue instead, or let me do it. I’m about a week away from the next article.

• G Instinct says:

WH….I’m not smashing my head against anything.

I say what I see, not what I’m told.

You don’t get it!
The flat earth model with regards to Aus & NZ is wrong due to flight and sailing times etc.
That does not mean to say the earth isn’t flat!
We cannot see from such a height as to determine visually the exact location of certain continents and countries.

You can’t trash a theory based on that issue alone.

I’ve put forward a whole host of reasons as to why I think the earth is rather more flat than any other shape.

As for living up the inside of a large tennis ball with an invisible magic force called gravity stopping trillions of tons of water and everything else slammed up against the side of it, falling into a huge lake at the bottom. I find that hard to believe

It is almost as improbable as a spinning water ball being held with the same force, hurtling through space

• Wild Heretic says:

Then what is your geography for a flat Earth in light of flight times etc.? Do you have a physical model to explain known physical effects based on this model?

One way would be to flip the flat Earth over at the equator so that the north and south pole are the same. Can you explain physical effects such as gravity within this model or do you have another one?

It doesn’t matter as the rectilinator showed us the shape of the Earth and so the debate here is long over – over a year ago for me in fact. And so the physics for the correct model, with evidential support will be published soon by myself.

WH

• G Instinct says:

Science is a broad church and we should never stop questioning.

I respect your views and opinions and I too, have some belief that parts of this earth are concave, but within a flat disc-shape.

One thing we can agree on, is the ridiculous NASA lies about almost everything!

N o

A stronauts

S cience-fiction

A nimation

this is very interesting….

• Wild Heretic says:

Fair enough.

If I had to guess as to what the second sun was, I’d say a reflection of some kind, but I’m not sure. Steve might have a guess at that as that is more his area.

• Wild Heretic says:

Andrew. How high is the Hartland peninsula above sea level and how high were you on Trevose Head? Is Trevose Head a lighthouse Island off the peninsula like I see on Google maps?

I have it at 99m – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartland_Point
Did you see the tip of the peninsula or the entire shoreline or something in between?

Hang on. I think I have the shorelines on the map – http://tinyurl.com/p9lf72r
Were you on the beach at Trevose Head and you saw the shoreline of Hartland Peninsula or were you at an elevated position at Trevose Head?

• Andrew says:

Sorry for the late reply. I was there 2 weeks ago again On a clear day it’s visible from a beach on Trevose Head called Mother Ivey’s Bay. These satellite dishes (GCHQ) are clearly visible through binoculars, they are about 4 or 5 miles north of Bude at Morwenstow and the one can see the cliffs extending to the left of them toward the Hartland Peninsula then stopping at a tip which i presume is the limit of view on the Hartland penisula. http://www.secret-bases.co.uk/GCHQ-Bude.htm

Damn wish i had that SX50 Camera.

• Wild Heretic says:

Andrew, how much could you see of the opposing beach or cliffs? Could you see the ground or just the tops of the cliffs, i.e the satellite dishes?

• Andrew says:

I could not see the opposing beaches and i know Bude has a wide beach when the tide is out that stretches a few miles wide up the coast. Bear in mind though any beach would be extremely fore-shortened from from my low vantage height and distance and i only had 10X50 binocs. I would really like to use more powerful optics to say for sure though. All i can say is you can see the cliff edge up to a certain height and the dishes were on top higher than the water. Like looking at a horizontal pencil a few meters aways from your eyes is the best way i can describe it.

• Andrew says:

The nearest i could find on the web was a reverse picture of our topic, Trevose Head seen from Bude which about 29 miles. Trevose Head is the last (4th) Headland on the right near the right hand edge of the photo.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MaH6S-EwYA0/Tmy0RWzLk9I/AAAAAAAAFwk/rD4cs-uS9bs/s1600/DSCF1670.JPG

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks Andrew.

• dizzib says:

Hi Andrew, you might be interested in a small app I’ve just written to calculate how much a distant object is obscured by the earth’s curvature given the height of the eye/camera and the distance to the object.

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/index.html

The calculation is based on the standard Copernican model of a convex round earth of radius 6371km. It’s all opensource so feel free to rip it apart!

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks a million dizz. I need something like this.

WH

22. THE BEACH LAY DOWN/STAND UP SUNSET ILLUSION (Concave Earth)

• Wild Heretic says:

Good call.

I didn’t know about that illusion of the lie down/stand up thing, but the horizon always at eye level puts an end to their explanation of that. I fact, the horizon always at eye level buts an end to convex theory full stop.

23. rodin says:

Lens distortion always causes a fish eye effect around the centre. In a normal lens this effect is much muted, but still measurable especially towards the edges. There is therefore a simple way to refute the concave Earth theory, and that would be if you had a genuine and verifiable camera shot showing convexity of an Earth horizon lying BELOW the centre of the image.

Such as here

• Wild Heretic says:

The horizon should still be straight at 121,000 feet though. So maybe this lens is a normal lens with only mild distortion especially towards the edges?

There is therefore no simple way to refute concave Earth theory with balloons and camera lenses.

• rodin says:

No, the curvature is more or less the same and certainly convex both above and below the lens focal point. (I have taken stills to show this, but its obvious from just looking at the film). So I would have to say that yes, this is a way to refute concave Earth.

Also, a credit to amateur rocketry!

• Wild Heretic says:

Exactly, the curvature is more or less the same, even well before the rocket was at high altitude. There is no increase in curvature the higher we go up? There shouldn’t be any curvature at all at 30km let alone the same curvature much lower down. I’ve never seen the horizon but flat 10km up (on a plane). As you said, this static effect is caused by the mild curvature of the normal lens. You solved the problem yourself.

Problem solved (3:12) –

That slightly curved static horizon at very low altitude taken with a Canon Vixia HF20 HD Camera.

Case closed.

• rodin says:

There shouldn’t be any curvature at all at 30km

Actually the horizon distance is 1/10th of the Earth’s radius at this point if you do the maths, which yields precisely the curvature observed at apogee if you plot this graphically. The horizon by the way goes from flat at launch progressively towards curved if you capture frames and perform measurements. Also consider how a lens works then ask – how can lens distortion be the same above and below the focal point? Because any lens distortion is wrapped around the focal point, and a horizon’s distortion would invert as it passes through it.

• Wild Heretic says:

Fair enough about the 30km. However, the horizon was flat at launch, but not when cut to the various stages of higher altitudes (although in fairness the horizon wasn’t well defined at launch until around 1min 9secs). I just showed you a video of a normal camera only at about 1000 feet in the air, or even less (with the same mild curvature as your rocket video) which stayed at the same curvature throughout despite the focal point moving. So your point to show that the Earth is convex because of this static mild curvature at various altitudes is mute, whatever the theoretical proposition as to how a lens works.

• Andrew says:

You would have to show that a camera pointed at exactly 90 degrees with proven data that it is not horizontal to the eye from various heights that proves a convex world as in this goes against all observation. The Horizon is always mid field from 35,000 feet to 1 foot from my own empirical observations at sea from mountains in Wales to flying on Jets.

could there be another solution for this ‘lens problem’? i think the solution might be, that we forget living inside the earth. starting from ground level the horizon is always flat, turn around slowly on an elevated place, and the horizon is always flat. as soon as we launch from the ground and go higher and higher, the more of the bowl shaped like geography around us unfolds as we increase height. so the possible reason for perceiving a ‘convex’ rounding is, that the 360 degree sight is like a big circle, so when looking straight at the horizon at lets say 30 km you are mislead py this circle and you see some kind of convexity, which is not the convexity of earth but of the circle of your sight. i hope you understand what i mean, critique welcome.

• Wild Heretic says:

To be honest, I don’t think we ever see a convex horizon full stop… certainly not up to 10km in a plane.

24. Anonymous says:

The following appears in RationalWiki: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth

The Hollow Earth theory is a pseudoscientific belief and conspiracy theory stating that the Earth is hollow. Theories include that the inhabitants of the “Inner Earth” walk around the inside feet-up,[1] or that a smaller sphere is inside the larger (sometimes it is stated this object works like a sun for the inner earth denizens), which is more in line with the theory of gravity, though not geology.

The conspiracy aspect supposedly relates to a large hole providing access to the underworld, which is located somewhere in the arctic or Antarctic regions,[2] and the attempts to keep it quiet made by the superpowers in conjunction with whatever the Grand Theory du jour is, be it reptilians, tibetan masters, Atlanteans and/or aliens. That there are undisclosed entrances to these “inner worlds” extends also to the moon, with one video purporting that you can see it on Google Earth,[3] though it should be noted that this is very clearly just a graphics glitch caused by stitching multiple low-resolution and high-contrast images together in combination with the usual seam errors produced at the poles when using spherical UV mapping. These theories are also associated with apocryphal stories of apparently bottomless holes in various locations, such as Mel’s Hole in Washington, USA.

It’s not clear what supports the surface of the Earth according to the Hollow Earth Theory, since the surface of the earth we can see would most likely collapse under the force of gravity without a substrate (the mantle and inner core are solid, the outer core is liquid, and both states are highly resistant to compression). Nor is it clear what keeps the denizens from floating away from the inner surface.

There’s also the problem that the “shell” would need to be really dense, in order to produce a gravitational field this strong.[4]

Finally, there’s the question of exactly why this would be kept secret – as with several other conspiracy theories, there seems to be no motive behind this one aside from “Let’s make the unwashed masses look really stupid!”

How do you counter their “key points” against the Hollow Earth/Concave theory?

• Wild Heretic says:

Rational wiki needs use other forces rather than just their skeptical intellect. I personally like the other dimensional/underworld inhabitants theory such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5S35sU7WU4&list=TL5CcTfjF2qxzf17cUalrZoutgrgvP8l9G

1. It is us who walk inside the Earth feet up. Hence the concave Earth and I will explain the basic mechanics very soon.

2. and 3. Suspiciously not really secret at all as they got one of their own, Admiral Byrd, to spill the beans. Any military source I treat as disinfo off the bat unless they have some higher purpose strategic aspect to correctly informing the public. The only evidence we have of the “hollow earth” is anecdotal or second hand, but at least it is better than nothing.

4. Nobody knows what gravity is so they are getting very silly and presumptuous.

Finally, what reasons do the people who wrote rationalwiki page think why this is to be kept secret? Where is their imagination? Don’t they have one? I guess not as the intellect is only a computer. Immediately a few reasons spring to mind. The underworld people don’t want to be discovered and be happy clappy with us plebs and the military. If they have their own great technology why bother with us unless they need the odd resource here and there which they can do secretly? In fact, what if some are controlling us for supposed good reasons or supposed exploitative reasons? Such as they are working to a divine plan and making sure we follow it (whether that is seen as good or bad) or exploiting us for other resources or something higher dimensional like our emotions. I’m sure if you put your imagination cap on, some other reasons could spring to mind too. All the stories of encounters with the underworld have one theme in common and that is none of the residents want the outside world to discover them.

We know nothing of our reality to make any incredible presumptions such as these. We don’t even know where we are. Born and dead in three score and ten and nobody knows a thing. That alone makes me extremely suspicious of our situation; does it not worry you at all?

• Andrew says:

What is there to contend? It’s for for them to show evidence against a concave earth which they have not done in this article other than a strawman logical fallacy attack based on conspiracy theories which does not represent the real Concave Earth model which is based on real science.

25. Icecoldsun says:

Hi there,

have you already seen ka rol’s latest video about Tycho Brahe’s refutation of Copernicus? Fascinating, to say the least…

• Wild Heretic says:

Yes, I’ve seen it. I don’t exactly understand retrograde motion etc. except that it is just a couple of planets going in the opposite direction than the others around the Sun. Is it that the Earth can’t move because a comet’s orbit doesn’t change even though it is observed over 200 days and the Earth is in a different place around the Sun? Is it that the two comets were seen during the day as well? My brain hasn’t quite clicked on this.

• great find for karol.

here’ my take on retrograde within the earth.
it’s a magnetic confusion caused by the sun.

26. New Eratosthenes Test Challenge (Concave Earth)

27. Nils Esche says:

Maybe we all should kind of take the Bible more into consideration as the storyboard for what is true, for what we are seeing now – and are being in. And take scripture a bit more serious as most of us did so far:

“The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork.” Psalms 19,1

Altough this video, I show you, is seen from the wrong perspective of earth as convex, I found this one interesting and worth mentioning. It does not really matter though, if outside or not for this one – it is all the same INSIDE. May you please have a look into it and let me know your thoughts about it. Some “evidence” are strong, others are more week. But interesting watching it, anyways.

God bless.
Cheers, Nils

PS: The island vulcano really blew me away, the zebra aswell.

PPS: ‘Wernher von Braun’ the great german scientist (who humiliates himself for surviving during “operation paperclip” and for the price of faking moon landings with Walt Diesney, Kennedy and others) – he knew about the concave earth and that there is a ceiling as if a glass sky. Look at his Gravstone: Psalms 19,1.

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks for the tip Nils. I’ll look at it now.

• Awaken cheese says:

AMAZING BIBLICAL PROOF:
Its too professional work to be a truth, and mind you guys, what i have found, that 99% of videos where is spinning earth or some kind of sun system, space stuff, – its THEIR videos, they are ready to tell you all earth secrets (fake they or not) to make sure, that you will believe that earth is a globe, that space is infinite, etc..etc. Why its so important to them? You may wont believe , but its about fake alien invasion in future. Just have a look around about information of extraterrestrial life, UFO, USO, Inuaki, reptilians, skitters, Project Camelot, magic afterlife boys, info on biggest brainwashing channels like discovery, explorer, loads info about bullshit 10th dimensions, bending time, space, holographic universe, holes, portals – its ALL lies. They will attack you with all kind of information, to make you believe any kind of alien form, no matter you believe it or not, but you will be always open to possibility. And once everyone is ready, they will bring it in, Fake Alien Invasion, combined with fake meteorites (like the “test” in Russia a while ago), with all kind of fake global disasters.
You guys can identify 80% of lies on internet by knowing 2 facts:
1. Earth is not a globe and doesn’t spin, space doesn’t exist..etc..
2. Aliens do not exist.
And anyone who push along this kind of info mixed up with other info, they are THEY, the ones who are been setup by world rulers to make you believe it, trough science, movies, cartoons, stories, PC games, “real” evidence, bible (new bible stuff), etc..etc..
Its all about “falling sky”. have a look chicken little 1954, predictive programing, thats their plan in a way, just learn to see it.
Now “whist-blower” campaign happening. Lets wait while they get their soldiers ready around the earth, and tell us to run in to the “caves”.
Lol, i hope you know what i am all about.

• dizzib says:

Excellent excellent point, cheese, I never made that connection before between fake alien invasion and convex earth, thanks for the insight!

The stakes couldn’t be higher, as the plan is to trap your soul by getting you to take a chip or take cover in DUMBs with the cover story that it’s for your own survival. What awaits is being revealed by certain whistleblowers, recently including clone torture victim Donald Marshall.

Sorry for going slightly off topic.

• Yes, true they are pushing the fake alien invasion. I just recently spoke to a DOJ operative who is now working in FEMA camps getting ready for martial law (he says on May 15, 2015). He also says there will be a “rapture” and UFO’s flying all across the sky. This is where you have to understand the reality of the concave earth with glass/ice sky. The sky will definitely fall, and all people who are left above the surface will surely die. So, what’s the alternative? Well if you’re not in a DUMBs shelter you are fucked. So, where does that leave the righteous good people of the earth? Listening to Donald Marshall will surely get you killed. (I’ve caught him in many lies, btw.) Not that there are not nefarious powers that operate underground, but that there is simply no alternative place to go. If you build your own bunker, you will still die because the sun will stop and burn up the earth. You have to trust and believe in God, that he has provided a way for you to escape. You have to also trust that there is some benevolent force that will overcome the operators of evil and escort you underground into shelters, and transported to the new kingdom in Australia.

Basically, you have to listen and trust me. Be meek and seek first the kingdom of God. Hard to accept for you vain pompous assholes, but I will save your lives.

28. Icecoldsun says:

Hi WH,

during my vacation I came across two things I’d like to know your opinion on:

1) You’ve written somewhere you’re still working on how the central sphere(s) inside our world (containing stars aso) appear to be like a skydome. I remember from some article I read in the past that (given the traditional “space”-model of distances of billions and billions of kilometres) the stars normally would appear so tiny that the human eye should not be able to see them at all. A healthy eye has a limit of how tiny an object it can see, and the stars (all of them) would fall far into this category. In the article I think they explained that by the fact that these objects emit (and not just reflect) light. Didn’t convince me back then. But it might be worth considering in the “dome-problem”,

2) Newton’s gravity doesn’t make any sense, amen to that. But the “pressure model” doesn’t convince me either (or, not yet…). If there is pressure, lets say, on an object, and it is (e.g.) pressured against another object (e.g., the surface of the earth), you should be able to feel and measure this pressure both on the surface (“weight”, which is no problem of course), but on the “other side” of the object as well (i.e., on a standing human, mainly the top of the head and shoulders). But we can’t feel it, and we can’t measure it. In my opinion, this force isn’t there, simple as that.

Another hint we are living inside a computer? Some “beta”-mode? Working, but with some inner contradictions? Of course, just because I can’t figure out a convincing reason for gravity, that doesn’t necessarily mean it can’t be explained…

Just some of my recent thoughts I wanted to share with you.

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks for your thoughts icecoldsun.

“Gravity as a pressure” isn’t the normal type of pressure we are used to or measure right now. It isn’t air, plasma, water or any kinds of atomic pressure in that sense, at least not directly. It would be the aether pressure which flows through everything like it nearly isn’t there, because matter isn’t there. Nearly all matter is not there in the atomic sense. Didn’t Rutherford do a deflection experiment at one point? One idea is that the aether only reflects off the very loosely packed central node points called atoms ( I need to work through this much more fully though). Air has fewer atoms density wise than your body and so you are pressed down more than air hence you don’t feel pressure above you. There is still air pressure though above you, just as there is water pressure above you too if you are under water. And also two objects of different weight falling at the same speed in a vacuum is because the centrifugal aether force is the same for both heavy and light objects. The energy or motion of the force doesn’t change, just the density of the objects it reflects against.

Unfortunately, this is very incomplete and I am just beginning to look at standing waves and the parts in between the atoms as waves, but I am not sure yet.

29. Douglas Adams says:

You have some awesome stuff on this site. I think a lot of people forget that there are no facts in science, only theories. Some theories have more evidence to support them than other theories, but to elevate a theory to a fact a person would have to claim to know how everything in the universe worked.

I recently read an article about the hollow earth theory, and it piqued my interest (more for the challenge of trying to find evidence of how it could work than out of any sense of conviction). I came up with a few ideas that may or may not be of interest to you, so I thought I would share them.

First, I’ve noticed that ‘rationalists’ like to use Occam’s Razor to debunk conspiracy theories. Since it is such a popular tool for people who accept the first story they are told without looking at the other side with an open mind, I thought I would try using it as well. In this case, which is more likely: Gravity is the result of an invisible force generated by atomic mass, or it is the result of centrifugal force? Considering we can simulate gravity via centrifugal force, yet we still cannot simulate gravity at all via the atomic model, Occam’s Razor would suggest that mass has nothing to do with gravity.

Next, I find the idea of the glass dome interesting because it mimics what we already see in biology; membranes surrounding cells. I think that rather than the hardened glass we are familiar with on Earth, the membrane above our atmosphere is probably more pliable. When objects designed to penetrate the membrane come into contact with it, they punch a hole through it just like a virus does to a cell. Perhaps the membrane surrounding the atmosphere acts like our skin, and has platelets that clot around any damaged areas. This gel-like substance could also be the refraction lens that creates the star field we see at night. Perhaps stars are the direct result of large objects that have penetrated the membrane throughout the ages, leaving behind permanent scar tissue. Those amazing supernovas we see could be an effect of a previously damaged area getting hit by a comet or other debris, creating an effect similar to what you would see if you dropped a marble into a Petri dish filled with gel. All of the small fractures from the previous scar would expand and create a prism. Just speculating here.

The next idea is a bit radical, but makes sense to my warped way of thinking. Imagine that the earth really is a sphere, and that it is made up of many layers. The layers are a little muddled right now, but when it was brand new there was a hard outer shell, a layer of ice, a layer of earth, an atmosphere, a membrane, and then a core/sun. In the beginning, the oceans were all solid ice with the solid earth on top of it. Before the ice melted, the solid earth was all one complete continent that formed an unbroken sphere. When water is frozen, it takes up nine percent more mass than when it is in liquid form. That means that if it melted, all of the land on top of it would break apart as the second layer in the sphere became thinner. If you look at a globe, you will notice that the continents don’t just fit together in one direction; they fit together on all sides. The east side of Asia and Africa conform perfectly to the west side of the Americas, just like the west side of Africa and Europe conform to the east side of the Americas. Simply put, if your shrunk our world without shrinking the continents, they would form a perfect sphere. So my theory is that at some point the ice layer melted, and when it did, the continents all broke apart as the layer holding them together lost altitude. This seems like pretty good evidence to me that we live on the INSIDE of the earth. If the oceans were frozen and the continents were actually the outer layer of the earth, then we wouldn’t have any oceans at all on the surface when they melted. The only way we could be on the outside of the planet with that concept, would be if the planet grew in diameter (and I know there is a whole expansion theory model out there).

A lot of people have wondered what the purpose could be for all of the deception generated by the powers that be, and I think I have one possible answer. If we take it as a given that gravity is not generated by mass, then we also have to re-think the entire concept of how our universe formed. Planets (if there are any others) could not have formed, nor could any physical object. The one thing that may have existed without gravity is electromagnetism. What if instead of a whole bunch of carbon-based life forms evolving, the first entities to evolve were some kind of energy beings. Much like our own sphere of development, they began as very simple organisms and evolved into more complex organisms until they became sentient. At some point, they must have realized that they could manipulate physical matter through electromagnetic stimulus. As they became more advanced, they would have created more complex constructs. Before they could do anything really fun with physical matter, they had to develop a way for it all to stay together. That’s where spherical planets came into the equation. They created these giant (giant to us) spinning orbs that would create a stasis field where biological organisms could develop. Why would they do this? If they were anything like humans, that answer would be: to see if it could be done. Depending on their level of sensory perception as energy beings, they might see things from a very different perspective than organic life forms. Do they feel pain? Can they feel pleasure? All of these sensations we experience are derived from chemical interactions in our body that interface with our electromagnetic brain. Perhaps the entire purpose of creating this globe was to generate a sensory arena where these entities could experience new sensations. Perhaps you and I are unknowingly playing host to these entities right now. Or perhaps they see us as a farm and siphon some kind of psychic energy from our emotional race. Who knows? The main point is that if Newtonian physics are bunk, we have to rethink every aspect of what our existence really is and how it came to be.

• Wild Heretic says:

Nice post DA.

1. Centrifugal force is the obvious contender for gravity, and I think it probably is, at least I’m going with that.

2. I wondered about some astronomical objects being part of a melted glass or scars. I hadn’t thought about prisms being formed after an object enters the already entered glass. My take is that all meteorites etc. melt through the glass, so there are bound to be some differences in the glass up there.

3. I like your pangea theory a lot. I had never thought of the water being originally below the crust, but after reading etidorpha, it seems that you could well be right as it describes a unfathomably vast water reservoir beneath Italy. I think the Sun was manufactured and put in later. The Sun then would melt the ice creating the oceans etc.

4. Yes, this concave Earth paradigm opens Pandora’s box to many issues in both science and philosophy. Who are we? Where are we? What is going on here really – Computer? Farm? Prison? Stage? School? Or a mixture of the lot or something we haven’t thought of. Are we the question to the answer of 42 (a reference to your poster name)?

• Douglas Adams says:

Another thought on a possibility for gravity would be electrostatic charge. If you rub a balloon against your hair, it will stick to the ceiling. It will also attract dust particles, hair, and other objects that will stick to it. We know our planet generates an electromagnetic field already. What if we stick to the earth as a result of living in a giant ion cloud?

See this youtube video for a demonstration of ion crafts that use this principle to lift objects via high voltage: http://youtu.be/Zm-beOwyxBo

While it seems like a lot of mass is held down to the earth via this ion cloud, viewed from a distance we are actually only a very thin layer on this globe.

• Douglas Adams says:

Here is another really fascinating animation demonstrating that land once covered the entire world. Neal’s theory is that the world is growing (and that may be true too, I have no idea), but the model may work as a result of my theory of a warming ice layer on inner earth as well.

http://youtu.be/oJfBSc6e7QQ?list=UUOW3e4Kxx02XQ-ZpF8T1Cuw

• Wild Heretic says:

Great video Doug. I appreciate that kind of graphic as it shows the truth in a few seconds unequivocally. What we don’t know is what caused it and how sudden and of course when.

• Wild Heretic says:

I’ve briefly looked at the “coloumb’s law as gravity” thing. I’ve decided just to slowly work through things at their own pace and if this happens to mesh with what I am working on then great, otherwise I’ll leave it alone. I don’t think I’ll include gravity in the next article as it belongs better to the solstices which is the article after next.

Having said that, at the moment I have gravity as the Sun’s electric field with light following its magnetic one. Bizarre I know. Most things are intimately connected to the Sun as I’ve found out. The Earth is involved as well but as a semiconductor role. People will say it is impossible for light to follow a magnetic field, but it turns out not to be the case under certain conditions.

30. Michael says:

Hello again,

i am very intrigued by thinking about the shape of our earth/universe/cosmos. i studied technical physics, learned about many interesting stuff, more or less explainable, and about a lot of phenomenons, which cannot properly be explained by our science/physics/chemistry/…
What is missing in our educational system, is a comprehensive understanding of life, healing, time, water, principles of life…actually the mainstream-system (government, media, mafia, …) is installed for the complete opposite purpose, subversive distraction and misleading of the majority of the human beings, double and manifolded tricks are played with our mind, we get served a mixture out of truth, lying, and a lot of unreal and therefore unimportant stuff.

Energy comes along with attention, that means, we feed what we consume. All is life, in perpetual motion, happening in reoccuring cycles, construction/destruction, all is self-organized, trying to influence/alter something else than me leads to tension, war, destruction, concurrence, … letting everything in its self-organizing structures leads to healing, peace, cooperation, …

ok… after putting away (nearly) all i learned, my universe (the earth´s shell) flipped and everything was upside-down, like the her(m)etic principle of correspondence/analogy… as above, so below…. inside = outside,
same found in languages (gr. hypo/hyper, lat. sub/super) and in spanish: (caldo = warm, invierno = winter), there are really a lot of interesting relationships interconnecting our languages/tones/sounds/frequencies…

i dont feel that i am with the 1% who thinks we live inside earth-shell just because of radically thinking the opposite of the majority…
but what does the majority think?
When i speak controversially about science, and in particular about the solar-system and how it would look like from a concave perspective, people have either very strong, firm boundings to their thinking/believe-system and behave fundamentalistic (with a certain base secured, which is far from being questionned) or they dont really have their own opinions, just blabla…what others say, this is the biggest part, zombie-like people, thinking our mass-system and mass-technics is good/best as it is…
And there is (for heavens-sake) a part in ourselves which is self-thinking, self-organized, self-reflective, … which i try to stay in and when finding myself outside such way of being, i try to come back to my roots/energy/inner-chi…

I will now contribute some old/new questions regarding geostationary satellites, sunsets and refraction, with a flavor for the bigger/convex point of view.
Coming back from the distraction (NASA, Media, …) to a self-perceiveable, experienceable bottom, may call it: law of nature

1.) Geostationary Satellites
A lot of money/energy/time flows into military science/industry, the major purpose of their inventions we arent told (e.g. surveillance, controlling, …), we may consume/pay for an intented side-purpose (e.g. TV, Radio, …), which we usually adapt to in a certain time, just think of telecommunication, transport, electric-energy, we are bound to their installed “railways” where we have to pay, at least attention, for the use of it.
e.g. training the own mental capability of communication without the use of their devices would make one independent and is therefore not wanted by the communication companies.
Dont forget the already penetrating sado-maso-artificial technic era (SMART), with every (produced) thing identifyable and connected (RFID, IPV6), smart cars, smart living, smart working :-), smart pills, smart dust, smart (nano) robots/drones, smart fridge, smarties (cloud-9, crystal) for everyone…

i do see a real military and commercial use for real satellites, and they do work (?), dont you have a satellite-dish?
i hope you too escaped from TV or maybe you never were addicted to this mind-slaving, dumping-down device.
But actually we can see (many) satellite dishes pointing UP in the sky direction equator, where the supposed geostationary orbit/satellite should be, instruction for finding a desired signal is logical explained, when properly installed the dishes do face to a certain point in space (the satellite), the more direction equator you go, the more inreases the angular elevation of the sat-dishes…
If you calculate this in convex model, it perfectly fits the supposed 35.000 KM, when i looked out of the concave-perspective, the dishes would not face to a common point in space,
but….ok… in concave-view (maybe in convex too?), light and waves are bent, and therefore…
Please, try it yourself… draw a circle (i suppose you already drew a lot of circles, i did draw a lot and know the relaxing feeling when thinking that everything fits inside… :-), and look whereto the sat-dishes are pointing (ask people from different Long./Lat., read different instructions)
in a certain region around the equator you cannot point directly in the sky with a normal satellite dish, it would be a bowl where water and things could settle, therefore it needs to be hidden (e.g. by plastic-coverage) (i think therefore i didnt find pictures with solid dishes facing up

My question is:
How in a concave perspective would this work, that certain signals (by certain satellites) are being received under different angles in different regions (perfectly fitting the convex-model),
is there a device or technology for influencing the dishes’ angle of perception, or somehow influencing the transmitted signal ?
There are several hundreds of these satellites (with known long/lat/elevation) and millions of dishes pointing to these, at least in the industrialized part of the world…
I am very familiar with the ATS (ApplyToSky) – Glass Sky – Theory by Lord Steven Christ, but also very suspicious if the angle of perception could really be faked… but maybe…

2.) Sunsets
Sunrises and sunsets… wonderful impressions, changing colors, romantic moments… i love sunsets and watched them very often in my life.
After switching to the concave point-of-view, i often wondered how this perception can happen if the sun in the evening goes up and i perceive it as down, but like in Platons Allegory of the Cave, what we can do is… calculate… calculate cycles of reoccurences… even the frog deep down the well, can calculate when the sun will reach him again…
Sunsets, sunrises, starsets, starrises… they look like… as they look like… When you watch long-time recordings of the night-sky, the stars set and rise in homogenous circular motion (with its axis around polaris),
i wonder… if we are inside… and the stars/firmament is rotating inside… i would expect some kind of distortion happening around the horizone, a distortion, because concave says that it is not as it seems (going up – not down!)
But there is (nearly) no distortion perceiveable, (e.g. they just set HOMOGENOUSLY below the horizone) the stars (also sun/moon) travel in (nearly) perfect circular motion down (SET) and up (RISE) into our view-field, the horizone.

3.) Refraction
breaking back… circular aperture, bending on an edge/rim, refractive index…seeing around the corner…
light bends at the circular aperture, as it is bending on an edge… light is refracting in water… the atmosphere is getting less dense the higher up we go, therefore it has a different refractive index…
When light/waves gets bended at an edge, corner, rim, waterdrop, vapor or just a different medium then for me it is understandable that we can actually see further then geometrical (with straight lines) possible.
we can see the opposite riverside several kilometers away… and the mountains which dont lay in a straight line to the receiver… because of bending and dispersion…
Earth doesnt have to be concave to fulfill this effect/phenomenon/experience…

WH, i really love to read this blog, love to see people self-thinking about what touches them, i am also looking forward seeing your new big-part of your theory,
hope maybe you or someone can shed a concave light on my suspiciousness, my conciousness is awaiting many new thoughts and insights in this everlasting generation of possibilities…

Love and Joy, inside or outside Earth, wherever you may feel,

Michael

• Wild Heretic says:

I am very familiar with the ATS (ApplyToSky) – Glass Sky – Theory by Lord Steven Christ, but also very suspicious if the angle of perception could really be faked… but maybe…

1. That’s one possibility. The other I found on a German blog. They have what’s called pseudo satellites – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudolite

2. The horizon I think may have a possibility in the gravity as a line theory combined with bending light which may now be due to reflecting gravity (or electricity). I’ll talk about it in the next article.

3. Refraction can’t explain the “distant horizon over water” problem. That part is already explained in the article. Reflection can explain it, as will I in the next article.

• A bit off-topic here.
I was read your thoughts, and saw you was saying:
“Energy comes along with attention, that means, we feed what we consume. ”
its really interesting.. Not long time ago i understood few things about attention.. I think, i must say this:
– I have experienced “enlightenment” or “satori” (in Japanese) or some sort of spiritual awakening or third eye activation, i am not sure my self how religious or some kind of BS people call it.
But..i understood one and insane thing, and i can`t disprove it yet to myself. We are “made” from 3 things:
1. Body – automated fully self healing, self controlled, , etc.. peace of meat. (including brain)
2. Thoughts/mind – which is learns IT SELF, its semi-automatic, but you can control it, you can develop the way of thinking..
3. Its mysterious everyone known soul. – But i think i find out what soul really is.
Its Attention. The only one thing what we really can control – attention, and nothing, completely nothing else.. Concentrated controlled directed energy – attention. Just think about you first time in the car, learning driving. And Your control of attention. So i found, that attention is real you, trapped in this body and controls this body thanks to attention alone. It can interact with brain and make look there, think that, and that… I mean you may say: its dead obvious dude.. but its much more matters. To improve attention is very important, for meditation, learning, memory, feeling taste, sex, thinking, smell, completely anything…
Heretic you can delete this after few days Sorry for that..
P.S. About satellites i thought its clear to everyone.. Its on ground bases beaming signal to so called ion-sphere, bot not these GPS local stations. Can`t find picture now..but its like that HARRP (if its true) antennas, round stations.. Like in this video:

• Wild Heretic says:

Sorry Michael, I didn’t see your comment until now.

1. I’m not sure about satellites except that they aren’t whizzing around thousands of kilometers up there. The dish is stationary and yet the satellites are whizzing around all the time. I’m not sure how this can work exactly.

2. That’s a bendy light question.

3. Refraction can’t explain seeing say 10 times over water than should be possible on a convex Earth. That is some serious refraction. The refractive index between air and a vacuum is tiny compared to even air of different densities. There are websites to check out the change of angle between say a 90 degree incoming light beam coming from a vacuum into sea level density air and it hardly changes.

31. Tangus says:

Hello.

I would like to say it is a great website and great theory of concave earth.
Convex theory is developing for a hundreds years by a thousands scientists so this is unfair to expect all the answer from one man who believes the earth is concave.

However I’ve got few questions and thoughts

* Concave model does not explain solar eclipse (as it has been said before). It is serious hole.

* There is a problem of EME communication (Earth-Moon-Earth) in concave model. Signal delay is around 2.7 sec. That probably means the moon is around 385000km away from earth (not the 4-6 (000) km). What is your opinion or interpretation of this fact.

* What the gravity is at concave model? Aether is not the answer. Classical (Newton’s) model of gravity is also looks weird. Cannot be verified even by quantum physics. Sometimes it looks to me like there is no such force like gravity at all.
What do you think about idea that when we live inside the earth the earth is spinning, rotating very fast – 256 degrees per hour. That would cause centrifugal acceleration 9,85 m/s^2 and that would means there are two point on the planet almost without gravity. Points like this one :

However why there is biggest gravity force on poles and lowest on equator. I don’t know.
First I thought the sky is rotating in opposite direction (360 deg per 24 hours) causing 0,03-0,05 m/s^2 acceleration but we would get a 1000km/h air speed on the planet unless of course there is a glass sky. But If there is a glass sky there is no centrifugal force 0,03 m/s^2

* Glass sky – who fix glass? Some people say there is a glass on the moon. I don’t know. Maybe UFO are the machines for this job? Once I read witness of US high altitude nuclear explosion over desert. He said long after explosion, the sky was yellow and everywhere was glass.

* Stars – we still don’t know what they are in a concave model. It is pretty important.

* In concave model light bends. So what about earth’s circumference? Are we sure of 40,000 km? and 6400 km radius?

Regards
Tangus

• Wild Heretic says:

* Concave model does not explain solar eclipse (as it has been said before). It is serious hole.

Physics itself has many serious holes. Who knows how the Earth/sky system works. The one thing I know is real is the Sun. Every other process and “thing” up there is open to speculation. We must get completely away from current theory on the relationship between the Earth and the sky and start from the ground up as to what we actually see if we are to attempt to develop any sort of working model on the concave Earth. At the moment I am wondering about comets a little, but first things first.

* There is a problem of EME communication (Earth-Moon-Earth) in concave model. Signal delay is around 2.7 sec. That probably means the moon is around 385000km away from earth (not the 4-6 (000) km). What is your opinion or interpretation of this fact.

It could be an issue to do with the medium in which light travels seems to be much less dense at higher altitudes and so perhaps the speed of light becomes much slower in space. I remember reading some fellow theorizing that the speed of light depended on aether density change. Let me have a look. It is Ionel’s PDF: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Astrophysics/Download/2370

On page 18
“… and the speed of this wave is given by this expression which is the square root of the ratio of the increase in the aether pressure when its density increases… and as long as this ratio is constant, the speed of light is constant. But, we do not have a definite proof of this constancy and this is why more research is needed on this topic.”

and on page 36
“I did not finish studying the subject of radio waves and antennas but, as a preliminary result, I think that it is safe to say that the so called electro-magnetic waves are in fact aether wakes following one after the other in a succession of compressions. So it is not that electric and magnetic fields detach themselves from the wire and travel through space as “electro-magnetic waves” as it is believed today; what travels away from the wire are waves of aether and the only connection with the electric phenomenon a is that these waves of aether are generated electrically as wakes in the aether. This view was actually supported by J. A. Fleming and is in a very good compatibility with the picture in which light was considered a compression wave in the aether.”

I’m not a mathematician, but I think this means that if the rate of change of aether pressure remains proportional, then the speed of light is constant, but if it is say “square lawed” (like everything else appears to be) then the speed of light changes accordingly. I don’t know if he is right, but it tends to agree with what I am only beginning to speculate as what is happening inside a concave Earth.

What the gravity is at concave model? Aether is not the answer. Classical (Newton’s) model of gravity is also looks weird. Cannot be verified even by quantum physics. Sometimes it looks to me like there is no such force like gravity at all.
What do you think about idea that when we live inside the earth the earth is spinning, rotating very fast – 256 degrees per hour. That would cause centrifugal acceleration 9,85 m/s^2 and that would means there are two point on the planet almost without gravity. Points like this one :
However why there is biggest gravity force on poles and lowest on equator. I don’t know.
First I thought the sky is rotating in opposite direction (360 deg per 24 hours) causing 0,03-0,05 m/s^2 acceleration but we would get a 1000km/h air speed on the planet unless of course there is a glass sky. But If there is a glass sky there is no centrifugal force 0,03 m/s^2

I don’t think the earth is spinning full stop as already reasoned in one of the articles. I’m soon to speculatively write about this. I think gravity is spinning aether and ultimately is the source of the external power which the Sun needs. Gravity first reflects off the crust and goes back to the center powering the Sun. The problem I am having with gravity is that it tumbles into the question of what matter is and its relationship to gravity. Early days, but I hope to put something speculatively together when I get to the keyboard.

* Glass sky – who fix glass? Some people say there is a glass on the moon. I don’t know. Maybe UFO are the machines for this job? Once I read witness of US high altitude nuclear explosion over desert. He said long after explosion, the sky was yellow and everywhere was glass.

Probably isn’t fixed unfortunately; unless the engineers are still here and in charge.

* Stars – we still don’t know what they are in a concave model. It is pretty important.

I’ve no problem with that. There are a few speculative models out there. Mine is that stars are small parts of the Sun (meteorites and asteroids) which have broken off the Sun due to electrical discharge and got trapped in the middle (not enough centrifugal force to expel them).

* In concave model light bends. So what about earth’s circumference? Are we sure of 40,000 km? and 6400 km radius?
Pretty much I would have thought due to travel times by ship and plane. But you have an interesting question which I wasn’t sure of when writing the next article that because bending light bends more at dusk/dawn than noon (and also travels further), does light travel a fraction slower at dusk/dawn or not? I suppose at 4000 miles distance, the difference wouldn’t be noticeable, but still, I don’t know about that and is a question about the properties of the medium in which it travels.

• Awaken Cheese says:

I am not inventing new earth shape theory, just saying, that on ground which we stand and travel, is concave, and i believe its not necessarily is a ball, but probably is. It could be maybe ball cut in half, and bottom part is earth/ top sky. I mean its a possibility,..
And stars i believe is just a simple holes in the some layer of the “sky”, and they shine thanks to the Sun presence on other side.. But thats just a guess. I wonder do the world rulers know them-self that for sure.

32. Terese says:

When someone writes an piece of writing he/she maintains the idea
of a user in his/her brain that how a user can understand it.
Thereforre that’s why this piece of writing is amazing.

Thanks!

33. vhalborg says:

I know it’s probably a bit late to join the discussion, but since I came across the concave earth model, I have been wondering about stories about people visiting the inner side of the hollow earth, such as, for example, (a) Admiral Byrd’s supposed flights “beyond” the north and south pole, (b) about “The Smoky God” and “Etidorpha” published on sacred-texts.com, to name but a few.

Are all these stories to be written off as pure fantasy ?

• Wild Heretic says:

More like pure fact. Although I’m not in love with Byrd’s account because I don’t trust accounts by the military. The only information from those sources seem to be deceptive; in fact I would expect that as they are supposed to have the advantage and win wars etc.

34. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:
• sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:
• Wild Heretic says:

Looks like the 18th century Japanese knew the earth was concave.

35. Andrew says:

A most interesting video showing the the Binocular/zoom effect at sea on the Horizon.
Notice at around 46 to 51 seconds the ship way beyond the horizon from the object ship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxspo3LNlA The Canon SX50 with a 50X optical zoom seems a great buy at under £250 on ebay BTW i hope to buy one soon but the same effects can be seem with far cheaper and less powerful Binoculars, but you can’t record video alas on those.
See it for yourself with a £30 set Binoculars on the horizon at the Coast, often better than mono high powered Zoom cameras as the image is in 3D though both take away the mirage of bending light and the Ocean seems like a basin where you are looking “up” to see things in the distance, and middle distance seems to be in a basin in the images.
See it for yourselves next time you visit the Coast with either a decent optical zoom camera or Binoculars. Digital zooming does not work for obvious reasons.
I have seen Wales from 75 miles away from Mother Iveys bay in Cornwall with a pair of 8X40 Binoculars which would mean even the Coast of Wales must be at least 4000 feet high which it is not. Snowden is the Highest in Wales at Wales at approx 3500 feet which is over 180 miles away from Mother Iveys Bay as the Crow flies.
Nothing no one can’t prove for themselves.

• Wild Heretic says:

Excellent Andrew. Thanks for your active involvement in all of this. My current idea why we can see further over water with binoculars is that the bending light reflects off the water at acute angles, which would only work in a concave Earth with light bending upwards.

My last understanding challenge is how a concave shape is seen as a dome in the sky, such as the stars or skydome. I’ve seen a mathematical angle to it, but I’m not a mathematician and it is above my head (no pun intended). The Russian fellow below has a theory on it too which I will look at again, but the translation hampers things a bit.

BTW, I’ve seen 70x and 80x optical zoom camcorders knocking about. Maybe worth a look.

Andrew did you see the beach at Wales or just the top of the ground? It doesn’t matter as you shouldn’t see above 4000 feet anyway, but I’m wondering if you would be able to see the beach with higher powered magnification or not. I’d love to know the limit of this phenomenon.

• Andrew says:

I only had a decent pair of 8×40 Binoculars and a crap pair of 10×25 Binoculars so all you can make out is a fuzzy land mass on the Horizon which was too blurry and not enough magnification and clarity of vision to make out beaches. I doubt that even higher magnification would bring beaches into view from 75 miles away due to the distortion of light passing through air which is why things things over 30, 40 or 50 miles away plus for example seem blurry in photos. Yet not the moon, funny that. The opponents would make out we can see these things through refraction as an excuse as an admission to bending light but they would have light bending downwards and not upwards.
One short video showing the basin effect: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoY7qz9aaIk
This one is interesting because we can see it’s taken from a very low level height, though though we don’t the distances to the yachts.
And the youtuber seems more interested in showing of their zoom than than anything else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqCKeNJez2k

• Wild Heretic says:

Yet not the moon, funny that.
Quite. Our very strange moon.

The opponents would make out we can see these things through refraction as an excuse as an admission to bending light but they would have light bending downwards and not upwards.

It has to be super duper fraction for the large distances, but the refractive index of air at STP compared to a vacuum is minimal and where small distances e.g. 5 to 7 miles are seen, the air density over this tiny difference in height (convex Earth/straight light scenario) is so small to make any difference. In fact, the air density changes over time with air currents and all that. The water vapour argument doesn’t hold because water vapour is less dense than air and so light would refract upwards instead of the needed downwards direction.

I’d love to see a video where land is 100% invisible to the camera with no zoom and the naked eye, and then when zoomed in we get to see it, even perhaps the beach too.

• PartOfYou/Awaken Chesee says:

Nice, thanks for giving idea where i shall do this test, i try to make video of it.

36. Marc Tiltman says:

Two very long plumblines in a mine shaft, both made of metal, does not matter whether they are steel or bronze
This is the reason why they are further apart at the bottom.

The Earth’s magnetic field induces a like charge in both lines, they repel each other.

The lensing effect where the Earth appears bowl shaped, is due to the lens itself or the very thick circular viewers window causing the horizons to appear higher than what is below.
The visor of a space helmet could do this too because it is smooth reflective, and bowl shaped!

Rectilineator; the Earth’s curvature was always going to give false readings with this apparatus.

If the Earth was concave, I should be able to prove or disprove this by simply pointing a telescope up at the sky.

• Wild Heretic says:

Two very long plumblines in a mine shaft, both made of metal, does not matter whether they are steel or bronze
This is the reason why they are further apart at the bottom.

The Earth’s magnetic field induces a like charge in both lines, they repel each other.

Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not overawed with the Tamarack data myself anyway. I don’t think the center of gravity is a point, but rather a line. I’ll explain in the next article.

The lensing effect where the Earth appears bowl shaped, is due to the lens itself or the very thick circular viewers window causing the horizons to appear higher than what is below.

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn’t explain the Earth looking concave from a hot air balloon. I don’t find how the Earth looks to be good evidence either way.

Rectilineator; the Earth’s curvature was always going to give false readings with this apparatus.

Opinion. Explain. I did. I found nothing wrong with it except that it hasn’t been repeated.

If the Earth was concave, I should be able to prove or disprove this by simply pointing a telescope up at the sky.

Unless light bends in an electrified Earth cavity acting as a hollow state semiconductor (hint), which I’ve found out has been demonstrated in the micro and the macro. Will explain in the next article.

You’ll all have to be patient.

37. Sasha says:

http://www.falsehood.me/
my full Concave Earth Theory (on russian, use google translate)
you find all answers
in the history so
enjoy!

• Wild Heretic says:

Sasha, thanks a million for this. Great to see the Russians are working on this too.

• OneOfTheSheeple says:

thank you Sasha!

Time to refresh my russian

38. NASA Scientist Richard Cohen calls me back! Good convo! I mention your webpage too. …

39. Remember my Dark Matter = Dark Water video?…

Well gee lookie here, those spiral galaxies are merging together like two swirls in ma sink!

“Scientists say the stars formed similarly to the way rain falls in droplets instead of strings of water coming from the sky”

http://news.yahoo.com/video/hubble-telescope-captures-string-pearls-140700303.html

Why are people so retarded?

Watch video of good ole Hubbie Bubbie…

• Andrew says:

Well Steve, we know the Hubble Bubble Hookah Pipe is an opium dream and a media fake so cannot be appealed to apart from that.
Otherwise i have no problem with a water “dark matter” or aether.

It’s hard to find your posts in google. I found it on 12 spot, you should build quality backlinks , it will help you to get more
visitors. I know how to help you, just type in google – k2 seo tips and tricks

41. Andrew says:

Test message as i seem to have problems posting my last reply with links.

• sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

try it with just 2 links in your post

42. What’s up, this weekend is pleasant in support of me, since this moment i
am reading this fantastic educational article here at my home.

43. Andrew says:

BBC fakery on the News today.
18 miles up is less than a third of the distance to Space and note the Fish Eye lens put on the iphone to make the Earth far more round and “convex” than it would appear from that height. What a remarkable lesson in how not do Science at school.
see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-28153130

• Wild Heretic says:

Yeah, about 12 seconds in. What a hoot.

44. bob says:

A series of suppositions that if true not only explain a LOT about what is going on but also the keys to the solutions.

Let’s say the Universe is all rock. or maybe there are planets but planets are HUGE like boggle the mind huge.
Either way we have a large enough area that MANY ‘worlds’ could be made/formed next to each other in the rock.

Let’s say these worlds are like ours. Huge caverns with a sky and ‘space’ or perhaps other configurations.

These ‘worlds’ would be right next to each other for a very very long long time. It would be possible that one of the worlds would become aware of a neighbor world.

Maybe they become friends, maybe not whatever, at some point one world decides it does not much care for the other world. In fact it down right hates them. They go to war.

One ‘world’ wins. Now they have this neighbor ‘world’ they have conquered and now they can stop any of the riff raff from coming into their world. They take control of the leadership of the world they have conquered.

They would need to keep that world in the dark. Blind to the truth. Or face war again.

So let’s say they taught their conquered world that it was a small rotating planet in a vast and unexplored universe. The children of the conquered planet would grow up thinking they are alone. No reason to try to find other near worlds in the rock at their feet. Just look up at the sky and wonder… keep trying to reach the stars lol and live out the very short lives they are planning for your kind…. they will make sure you appear as fools to justify to their population why they do what they do to you.

Why would NASA and SCHOOLS and the government LIE directly to us about the very NATURE of our existence when they KNOW better? Anyone ever seen the government do anything in the best interest of the people beyond what we need to survive? We ALL know there is something wrong with this world and we never can quite put our finger on it.

Well put your finger on this. A war between worlds. A battle of the ‘Gods’ is recorded in several cultures.

We lost.

Since then they have controlled every aspect of our leadership and future. We suffer here because our NEIGHBORS do NOT like us. And they do not want us doing to their homes what we do to our own. And frankly i can’t fault them for that. BUT I can fault them for immaturity. They do NOT teach us better. They OWN us. They are therefore greedy. They teach us stupidity. So they FEAR us. Therefore they cannot be so advanced that we cannot get our world back for our children.

just a theory…

• Wild Heretic says:

Another good theory.

It kind of overlaps the farm theory also. Perhaps we’ve had a “corporate takeover” in the past and we are the product

In Norse mythology, the gods lived in a place in the underworld linked by a rainbow bridge. I used to think Richard Shaver’s stories of Teros/Deros were bordering on the insane until I saw this video. Could be another angle – ancient man, i.e. pre-takeover man.

Then there are the infamous Jesuits who are essentially priests, and what are priests? They are the conduit or administrative intermediary between man and the gods. The owners must have an administrative arm… or shepherds to watch their flock (product) and make sure they don’t stray after all.

According to Fomenko, recorded history is no older than 1000 years. Wouldn’t surprise me if just before this time the takeover took place and “ancient history” fabricated (for which Fomenko also blames the Jesuits) and our world view altered the same (helio theory/evolution etc.). It could be that they didn’t need the inverted truth solutions until the reformation started to educate people whereby they could read the bible themselves and question the authority of the representatives of the gods. They couldn’t reclaim lost authority with an educated populace so they decided to lead the “education” themselves – controlled opposition, so that no-one was seen to be in charge and everyone was looking the wrong way – enter philosophy masquerading as science.

• Icecoldsun says:

Really an interesting theory, bob,.. What brings you to the conclusion that “this” (cavity) we live in is “our” world? People like Lloyd Pye have done a great job in putting out the theory that we – as a species – just don’t fit very well to this earth. Our way of walking is inefficient, we can’t survive for long on our own, most natural habitats of this earth are very hostile to our presence (hence the need to “conquer” nature instead of just living with it) and so on.

What if “we” (that is our “gods” = genetic founders) instead won and “we” are just the occupants doing the dirty work for our masters to this very day? Would all the mind control make sense also in this way?

• Wild Heretic says:

Could be; but what dirty work would that be. I don’t buy the Sitchin “man as a gold miner theory” for example, because 1. If they can create or engineer this world, then it is unlikely the materialization of gold or transmutation of one type of matter into gold is a problem; and 2. machines can mine it much more efficiently than a man and his pickaxe anyway.

I think we could be the product and are mined for our “emotions”. I also think we really need to put a spirit/astral/other dimension aspect on to the whole affair too and somehow fit it in. That side is hard, because we are largely in the dark, but things may come to light yet on the physics side of things.

Other cavities may have different “physical” aspects. Heck, our dreamworlds may be other cavities with different physical aspects also.

• Bob says:

In studying the lost world of Atlantis, I have come across some interesting information.

The Grand Canyon holds some more secrets

Also in LasVegas was discovered a large underground city with multiple story buildings and ‘Egytptian’ Hieroglyphics.
I couldn’t find a link to it but I read about it in the Las Vegas Review-Journal when it happened which was a year or 2 before they built the Luxor.

the connection here is that it seems that eqyptian like writing, pyramids, and culture are found ALL OVER THE WORLD.

At some point we had a World government.
that government lost a great war with a neighboring cave world.

With it it appears we lost a great deal of technology and science and intelligence.

Exactly what would be expected from an invading force that didn’t want us wandering into their cave ‘world’ anymore.

They would crush all our past and all that would remain would be legends.

Like that of a lost world
Our World
Atlantis.

They would rename the place so the old name would be gone.
We got renamed to Earth meaning – DIRT
In other words they beat us then renamed our world to MUD.

They would make fools of us to justify to their populations what they are doing to our children.

They would exploit us in every way. Like the Israel Palestine situation. An invading force treats the natives as ‘cattle’.

Is that not what is happening?
This reveals the nature of an enemy.

So I submit the hypothesis that the lost world of Atlantis is OUR world EARTH. And that is why we are having such a hard time finding it. As evidence of it is EVERYWHERE in the world.

We are in a real bad situation. Real bad.
They use our own government and military as the occupying force after the war. A tactic of ingenuity. Everything about the structure and attitude of our ‘leadership’ is built around this. Blind obedience to ‘directives’ and ‘orders’ is the cost of admission to this circle. 50% of all our money goes to WAR. 50% TO MURDERING OURSELVES!!!!

It is so plain to see with open eyes.
This is the why.
Sure we could have been named ‘Terra’ or ‘Gaia’ or who knows what else in what cultures but at some point I am relatively sure this world was also named – Atlantis

America, Antarctica, Asia, Africa – nothing with a ’tis’ at the end

tis is latin plural second person. Not likely the name of a singular mass of land. So it means the many Atlans. Or Atlands, or islands of our beautiful oceanic world?

just a theory…

• Wild Heretic says:

And a very good one. I think you are onto something here. It explains a lot about the deception in both our history and Earth model.

I knew about the Grand canyon cave in the days when I was reading about the underworld.

I wonder if there is a breakaway resistance or civilization within our society that knows all this and is secretly building a resistance? And so they too would be interested in keeping the public dumbed down also so as not to get the attention of the victors so they themselves can buy time until they are ready? Is this the reason for the DUMBS?

Or maybe not.

• Icecoldsun says:

Thx a lot for your feedback. It not only makes sense, but admittedly more sense than what I was thinking of… Being harvested for our emotions remains a hard thing for me to imagine though, and why in the world should the negative emotions then be so much more “lucrative” than positive emotions? Anyway…

I also don’t buy into “quantum mechanics”. Richard Grove and Jan Irwing have gone into this and shown that it most likely is another form of new age / “sciience” BS. Concerning the “holographic universe”, I haven’t done my homework yet, but honestly have my doubts as well.

Since I don’t buy into these three concepts (at least for the time being) which seem to be important foundations of Davis Icke’s work, I have to take whatever he is proposing with a grain of salt. Nevertheless, he’s surely one of the greatest inspirations and “de-occulters” of them all out there in the “truth movement” (or however we wanna call the like of us).

Has anyone confronted people like DI, JM, MP or SB with the concave earth theory as so thoroughly elaborated in here? Since (at least in this field) I HAVE done my homework, it would be a great lackmus test how these people react to this theory. If they dismiss it without really going into it and disproving it, I’d say they are not for real.

• Wild Heretic says:

I’m not sure about holographic universe either as I haven’t looked into it.

With the emotions theory, all emotions good and bad could be a product as long as nothing stays stagnant.

DI ultimately just flitters with ideas he has read about IMO. I don’t know who SB, JM or MP are.

45. My buddy Mike started a Concave Earth Forum.

http://concaveearthsociety.freeforums.org/index.php

46. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

Check out this 3D Gyro Compass App
Which shows Earth as Concave

• Wild Heretic says:

Yeah, the background map is concave. Good find. I wonder why they did this?

• sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

partofyou sent me this in reference to the spinning gyro at the beginning of game of thrones intro
Maybe a gyroscope is more accurate in a concave earth sphere. You can’t go wrong with spheres within spheres but the map is very blatant and for navigation looks easier to understand

• Wild Heretic says:

You know Don, I never thought of the gyro looking Sun with its gimbals in the Game of Thrones intro. Can’t believe I missed that.

47. panos says:

What if space doesnt push but attracts the lighter elements ?
The heavier elements are resistant to this ”kind of attraction”..?
And what if earth attracts the heavier elements…and the lighter elements are resistant to earth’s attraction.

The ancient texts speak about a power that is greater than the power of earth…

• Wild Heretic says:

Sure. Absolutely. On its own it is possible of course.

But when looking at the Earth cavity at the moment while writing the next article I think it is a push. Centrifugal compression fits better with me in terms of the other stuff that fits.

48. Bob says:

Hey Wild Heretic, great site.

Sir Edmund Halley (Halley’s comet) did extensive study of Earths magnetic fields by traveling by ship with sensitive gear and said the results indicate the Earth is a sphere within a sphere within a sphere within a sphere.

He saw the Earth as a ball that we are on the outside of BUT if we take his work and apply it to the concave Earth theory, I think we may be on to something.

We know the ground to be negative and space to be positive but what if whoever built this place made spheres that were magnetized in such a manner as to oppose each other? (north north or south south) If ‘space’ is just a layer between our sphere and the next one (the next one being north and facing us) then all the ‘space’ is positive but the top and bottom are north so they push each other. You could then place sphere within sphere within sphere etc by making shells that are magnetically LAYERED. Like the shell itself would be north south north. so the inside AND outside of the sphere are north. then construct them in the appropriate sizes to rest in each other like Russian dolls.

We know that lightning strikes 1000 times every SECOND on the earth and that the negative ions seek the positive meaning all the electricity is going UP (to power the sun)

this sphere within a sphere also explains the MASSIVE magnetic field of the earth. and i believe it will be shown to be what creates the gravity effect that holds or pushes us all to the ground.

so world within world all powering each other by this creative placing of magnetic spheres. running the whole place on the electricity generated by them turning within each other.

meaning there could be yet another world above us as well as one below us.

and perhaps even more.

It could be the entire universe is …. dirt and saltwater. and no one had ever seen a sky until they built one.

One thing for sure, nothing could live on the surface of a ‘planet’.
No atmosphere could stick to it. it is ridiculous to think it could.
So life had to evolve indoors. And what would it want more than anything else?
A sky. And a belief that there was an infinite universe of stars right in front of them.

Oh and one more fun thing for the website
ever notice that EVERY crater EVER made is a perfect circle? that means EVERY meteor has hit at perfect 90 degree angle LOL
none ever hit at a 30 degree angle? making a skid? a 45? on EVERY planet, asteroid, moon? LOL

It turns out craters are made by ELECTRICITY! and they think now the grand canyon was made this way too!
check it out here
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080929grandcanyon.htm

So this sphere is a sphere etc was turned on at some point (possibly how it was all hollowed out and constructed in the first place) and the electricity everywhere made all the craters, canyons, mountains, etc

I hope this helps fill in the gaps a bit ^^

Keep up the GREAT WORK!!!

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks Bob. I always appreciate appreciation if you know what I mean

He saw the Earth as a ball that we are on the outside of BUT if we take his work and apply it to the concave Earth theory, I think we may be on to something.

We know the ground to be negative and space to be positive but what if whoever built this place made spheres that were magnetized in such a manner as to oppose each other? (north north or south south) If ‘space’ is just a layer between our sphere and the next one (the next one being north and facing us) then all the ‘space’ is positive but the top and bottom are north so they push each other. You could then place sphere within sphere within sphere etc by making shells that are magnetically LAYERED. Like the shell itself would be north south north. so the inside AND outside of the sphere are north. then construct them in the appropriate sizes to rest in each other like Russian dolls.

I didn’t know that about Halley. Do you know why exactly he thought the Earth was a sphere within a sphere like Russian dolls, because my initial imaginative speculative premise was something on those lines. I think we could be like that too. It would explain spirit and energy bodies and such like (I’ve seen both and a lot more).

We know that lightning strikes 1000 times every SECOND on the earth and that the negative ions seek the positive meaning all the electricity is going UP (to power the sun)

You know, I knew about the neg/pos ground(cloud)/ionosphere issue but had never thought of it like that; and do you know what, that works.

this sphere within a sphere also explains the MASSIVE magnetic field of the earth. and i believe it will be shown to be what creates the gravity effect that holds or pushes us all to the ground.

I’ve made good progress on that front. It goes even beyond that, but I am 95% sure the Earth cavity acts like a gyroscope. I have it so far that it is the spinning aether (the magnetic field being one aspect or effect of this, but definitely not the effect itself) which pushes us to the ground. There is also I believe a very strong connection with electricity and light with all of this too… at least this is what I am making inroads into.

meaning there could be yet another world above us as well as one below us.

and perhaps even more.

Below us for sure; above us I’m not so sure the only way I can make things fit is if the Sun is very, very near the centre of the Earth cavity.

It could be the entire universe is …. dirt and saltwater. and no one had ever seen a sky until they built one.

Sounds like what Hitler believed with his Swiss cheese theory, probably influenced by that 19th century book on the vril civilisation.

One thing for sure, nothing could live on the surface of a ‘planet’.
No atmosphere could stick to it. it is ridiculous to think it could.
So life had to evolve indoors. And what would it want more than anything else?
A sky. And a belief that there was an infinite universe of stars right in front of them.

Others have said the same. Lots of possible reasons for the “alone in the universe” perception.

Oh and one more fun thing for the website
ever notice that EVERY crater EVER made is a perfect circle? that means EVERY meteor has hit at perfect 90 degree angle LOL
none ever hit at a 30 degree angle? making a skid? a 45? on EVERY planet, asteroid, moon? LOL

I had never thought of that

It turns out craters are made by ELECTRICITY! and they think now the grand canyon was made this way too!
check it out here
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080929grandcanyon.htm

Not sure about the Grand Canyon. That famous preacher fellow who LSC had an argument with claimed it was water erosion (the flood and all that). I noticed that all the electric universe predictions on their webpage correlates with this blog perfectly except when the data comes from NASA (about half of it).

So this sphere is a sphere etc was turned on at some point (possibly how it was all hollowed out and constructed in the first place) and the electricity everywhere made all the craters, canyons, mountains, etc

Never thought about the creation of mountains and canyons that way. Why not? Yes, I wonder how they turned it on. Maybe there are physical holes in the poles and making the holes created the differences in aether pressure which created the turbulence and started the “machine”?

Thanks for the constructive input and ideas Bob.

WH

• Bobtest13 says:

ok i will try to split it into 3 parts … lol
Part 1:

“Do you know why exactly he thought the Earth was a sphere within a sphere like Russian dolls, because my initial imaginative speculative premise was something on those lines.”

He got the idea from Newton’s Lunar density of moon to earth as 9 to 5. Then he used special compasses that not only turn left and right but up and down as well and he sailed the oceans and mapped the results. He was full certain we have 2 north poles and 2 south poles AND that there are other poles. And that these spheres rotate slowly in relation to each other and that there are 4 spheres one within another.
there are some great references at the end of this article and it is a good article on the subject:

http://dioi.org/kn/halleyhollow.htm

Also John Cleves Symmes work is worth a look at too on this subject:

http://www.branchcollective.org/?ps_articles=peter-w-sinnema-10-april-1818-john-cleves-symmess-no-1-circular

• Bobtest13 says:

Part 2:

and here is a great article on electric craters with a title you will like haha:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/opportunity-favors-the-heretic/

and this site is a gem of intelligence as well:

http://www.electricuniverse.info/Introduction

To me it is hilarious to read a lot of these theories and articles because every time they run across something they can’t explain just apply the concave Earth theory and it makes perfect sense. They just all have it backwards. They see it. They can do the math. They can prove it. They are so close. They just start with the assumption of the Copernican model. If you start with the concave model instead then it all paints a really clear picture of what we are living in with way less ‘unknowns’ and ‘impossibles’.

• Bobtest13 says:

ahh i think the problem is in this link i was trying to post.
I have omitted the link to test that theory here.

Part 3:

for a laugh too i think it is funny that the Windows 7 logo has a map of the concave earth, atmosphere and all, on it.

(link removed cause it bugged the post but just look at the default Windows 7 desktop wallpaper that is the image being discussed)

So we see in the image the 4 elements air, earth, fire, and water. we also see a ‘map’ of the hollow concave earth on the right half lol
and a zoom in of it on the left. Also not on the one on the left that they add some small spheres ‘trailing off’ as to represent there are more of these or more layers. Above that we see 3 hexagons representing 666 in a way that looks to me like they are saying (with the butterfly below it) that all life is growing in ‘cocoons’ like the butterfly and the unnatural hexagonal shapes say this is a CONSTRUCT as opposed to naturally formed. Clearly their theme is LIFE and what it takes to make it. You need 4 elements and some cocoons.

Also i noticed the intro to the Daily Show with John Stewart CLEARLY shows the world to be inside a group of spheres. They have the Earth as a ball inside but the CONSTRUCT is exactly the type of structure we are theorizing exists here.

oh and it is such a LOL to watch this if you ever want to dog on NASA some more for lying to us all (please do lol):

Her hair is FULLY HAIRSPRAYED UP haha It bounces and ‘springs’ rofl I laugh so hard everytime. This is the most blatant in your face lie they do. That is in no way the way hair would behave in a weightless environment lol. It would behave like it does in water, a dry water but still like water.This one video is enough to put most NASA management in PRISON for FRAUD. Such an easy case to win it is hilarious. A 5 second snippet of the top of her hair snapping back and wobbling as she moves is all it will take. Physics can prove the rest. Why fake the hair if your not faking the trip? In a real environment like that wouldn’t you put it in a hair net? These videos must be made in a zero G plane or construct. just lol…

Also in several videos they bounce around the station with their 200lb bodies landing on one wall then pushing off another direction with no concern at all for how that will affect the tilt and spin of a free floating object LOL. Every MOTION that contacted a wall would have to be COMPENSATED for. The whole station could eventually go into a spin and never recover otherwise just from playing hide and seek up there.

I appreciate you appreciating the appreciation

This secret will become common knowledge again and better than ever

• Wild Heretic says:

Yes, I’ve seen that with the pushing off from the walls in the ISIS and that woman’s hair etc. In fact, it is in one of the articles in this blog.

And thanks for the great find of the intro to the daily show (although this is an amateur remake):

It shows a concave Earth with the innermost central sphere wobbling just like our Sun.

• Icecoldsun says:

“So life had to evolve indoors. And what would it want more than anything else?
A sky. And a belief that there was an infinite universe of stars right in front of them.”

Are you sure? To me, it seems this “belief” was viciously introduced in order to hide the reality of us all being together in this and make us more controllable by telling everyone they are insignificant dots on an insignifiant spot in a vast universe.

• Wild Heretic says:

Another valid possibility icecoldsun.

There are so many; maybe some overlap. Maybe one day we could list them all that we can think of and go from there.

• Bobtest13 says:

yeah probably works both ways. it, like most things, could have started with the best of intentions and then turned into a political power trip run by murderers that try to retain the image of the original good intention while masturbating their evil fantasies on the population.

So like WHEN they created it they wanted a sky. Once they got a sky they wanted to OWN it for themselves and fought over it. Typical immaturity is probably a natural part of our evolution.

49. thewordwatcher says:

One more thing.

http://www.zbawieniecom.fora.pl/sekcja-priorytetowa,29/teocentryzm-czy-mieszkamy-we-wnetrzu-ziemi,1583-555.html

Here I have made illustrations, how we see the Sun going up and down while in reality the Sun goes in the opposite direction.

Check pics with blue background, white circle and yellow the Sun.

It represents white ball with flat or ball of the Sun, moving away from us.

Take any ball and put a bigger dot and turn the way shown on these pics.

You will see clear the sunset and sunrise and all makes sense!

• Wild Heretic says:

I didn’t read it, but I looked at the diagrams. Are you saying that it is the sky (space) that is moving, not the Sun? That may be possible, but why does a part of the spinning space block sunlight?

I’m with you though on the nonsense of helio theory and the arc of the Sun.

• panos says:

I want to add an observational fact here.

I was at the beach.A chemtrail/contrail sprayed its white thingy.
Lets say the chemtrail was right above me.

After some minutes(5-10) i could obviously see the chemtrail moving from right above me to the east .Aka at the opposite direction of the sun that was setting during my staying at the beach.

It was obviously NOT the wind that moved the chemtrail there because the chemtrail preserved its dense through all these minutes.It was not the wind.
It was moving together with ALL THE SKY.

Any comments on this?

• Wild Heretic says:

An interesting observation. Do you think the chemtrail is made of substances which do not disperse easily in wind? Funnily enough I noticed something very similar a couple of days ago, but it was a north to south movement instead and it happened pretty quickly too… shockingly quickly in fact.

Let’s say though the sky is moving in the opposite direction to the Sun. Does this mean that the Sun is stationary or still moving? If it is stationary, then a part of the sky (space) must be blocking the sunlight at night and the sun must be shining from all sides, yet supposedly we have never seen the back of the Sun.

• panos says:

Could be that chemtrals dont disperse easily.
Do you remember the wind direction the time you saw this?

Because in my experience it was moving likely in the direction of the wind.
But it was moving so perfectly together with the rest of the sky.

• Wild Heretic says:

Unfortunately I don’t remember the wind direction. I think with 75% certainty there was no wind on the ground. Of course, I couldn’t tell you if there was wind up where the chemtrail was.

• thewordwatcher says:

Movement of space is irrelevant. Important is movement of the Sun and if the Sun moves away, it looks like is going down, but in reality Sun goes up.

So the movement of sphere or Karman line is not important.

My post was second in the row and I don’t know, why the first on is not displayed. Was rather big one.

Anyway, please look at my last two posts in my forum in this link.

http://www.zbawieniecom.fora.pl/sekcja-priorytetowa,29/teocentryzm-czy-mieszkamy-we-wnetrzu-ziemi,1583-555.html

I have illustrated angles of Sun rays above Equator and tropic of Capricorn and tropic of Cancer.

These angles are very solid and very easy to demonstrate, that the Sun is very close to Earth.

If it’s proven, that is so, there is not Heliocentric system, because small Sun can’t hold Earth on it’s orbit!

All modern astronomy is gone! Take a good look on two set’s of pics and if you have any questions, we can discuss this on Skype. My English spoken is much better that written! So don’t be afraid!

You have my email so… but I’m sure you can figure it out what I’m trying to say in Polish on my forum! No one even tried to question this idea.

• Wild Heretic says:

Cheers wordwatcher. Will take a look.

50. wizard says:

I came upon this http://www.wired.com/2011/06/how-to-estimate-the-radius-of-the-earth-with-a-lake/ , scroll down, photos in a lake showing curvature?

• Wild Heretic says:

Not sure about that. The second photo 10cm above the water slopes slightly down in a straight line to just before the “Bascule” bit and then does the same at this juncture at a slightly more acute angle. I am not sure what is causing that effect. Is it the waterline or water itself (waves)? Camera?

The effect is caused by something, but it obviously isn’t the geometric shape of the Earth unless the Earth is polygonal. Also, the horizon at 10cm high shouldn’t show any curvature anyway no matter the Earth’s shape.

51. Icecoldsun says:

Hints in language and culture for the concave earth

Lots of expressions known to us for a very long time make much more sense with the knowledge of the concave earth. LSC already mentioned “mother earth”, being a symbol of the uterus, where each and everyone of us was born from. (In german, the term is “gebarmutter”, mutter meaning “mother” btw) But there are more.

E.g., the word “extra-terrestrial” (=outside being) makes much more sense when we are living IN the earth, not on the earth).

Probably the greatest game changer would be astro-theology. It is hard to grasp that the heavens should have any effect on our lives if we lived on a tiny ball in a vast universe beyond imagination, looking at randomly seeming “constellations” that are billions and billions of kilometres away. If the heavens are _inside_ the earth, they definitely are at the center of all things. No wonder you want to know, what they are all about.

• Wild Heretic says:

Yeah. Astrology makes a lot more sense in a concave Earth as it means space and everything that resides in it and is influenced by it has a rhythm.
Astrology funnily enough is completely 100% geocentric, (I think a couple of astrologers have attempted to try a helio version).

Makes perfect sense now.

At the moment I’m loving John Keel’s “superspectrum” idea. (The Eighth Tower). Fits in perfectly with a concave Earth too as do all things paranormal. Out of interest I think each superspectrum is separated by right angles but that subject is for another day far in the future.

52. Andrew says:

Some of the arguments for a flat earth fall short for me, such as having to guard a 25,000 mile perimeter so no one can see the edge, evidence of circumnavigation, no historical evidence of an edge, the poor excuses given that we would be able to the angular incline of distant objects such as planes and hot air balloons due to the curve when if even 20 miles away this as this would only mean a fraction of a degree in incline which would not be noticeable. The rotating stars difference from the northern to southern hemisphere alone shows that the earth is either concave or convex with either a rotating sky or a rotating earth and the evidence against the latter is strong.

• Wild Heretic says:

Indeed Andrew. I see you have researched flat earth theory more than I have. I stopped most other research once I checked the flight times.

I am personally convinced Saros was counterintelligence trying to muddy the waters by attempting to keep all options open. I read a while ago that that is their way of operating so that no-one knows what the real truth is.

The rotating stars difference from the northern to southern hemisphere alone shows that the earth is either concave or convex with either a rotating sky or a rotating earth and the evidence against the latter is strong.

Quite. That is even a simpler way of putting it; one which I had forgotten due to my current research.

• Andrew says:

Thanks WH though i am still on a learning curve myself, pun intended
To be fair to Saros, he questions the flat earther, cikljamas to extremes too on this forum http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/17050-north-south-4.html Though
cikljamas makes some good points generally against the Heliocentric model he still makes some schoolboy errors in support of his flat earth model by appealing to jets over water (not a problem for either convex or concave models in a horizontal flight) and flight times with stopovers in post 92 as this is easily disputed by actual stopover times, non direct flights or comparing general flight times with stopovers generally based on his flat earth map for even shorter or similar distances and takes no account of the reality of flight schedules (in his second video on that post. For example Sydney to São Paulo in South America can be done in 21:20 with a stopover which is a similar distance. see https://www.google.co.uk/flights/

• Wild Heretic says:

Saros is very busy isn’t he? Pretending to be a flat earther one minute and then saying anything is possible, then pretending to be a convexer, then throwing names and insults around (textbook shill 101), then saying anything is possible. Either he has a severe case of multiple personality disorder with a lot of (day)time on his hands or he is contel and I am going with the latter.

• Andrew says:

Indeed, anything is not possible and there is a difference between asking honest questions and attacking from all sides and expecting to be enlightened from such a worldview. My own interest in this comes from perhaps even only half conscience anomalies i have experienced myself at the coast with the fact that the horizon always stays at eye level no matter how high you go which should not be possible with a flat earth or a convex one and that my binoculars have bought into focus things things that were half below it such as ships. One can always question the testimony of scientific experiments which are not empirical evidence to anyone else unless they can be performed oneself or are self evident to us, but this i have seen for myself. That is not say testimony of scientific experiments are always false of course but TPTB do pick and chose what they wish to represent. The fallacies of science usually rely on false base assumptions, theories, induction and affirming the consequent as well as political psy-ops, social engineering and paradigms of course. IMO modern science stifles true research and truth by rigidly sticking to a paradigm for political and social engineering purposes such as the Heliocentric model which would need the absurd theories of Cosmic Evolution and a Big Bang to be true and that would always have to deny actual reality and intelligent design at any cost.

• Wild Heretic says:

Yeah, I have my own theories on why the giant cosmos/evolution/modern psychology, random speck of dust/life has been pushed to oblivion.

One of them is that if Robert Monroe is right and the Earth is a farm, then not knowing it is a farm and acting as if we are all alone and only our physical bodies may produce a better emotional (end)product from the livestock. They could have tried different organisms and “worldviews” over the centuries and millenia to tweak the juice to see which has the highest quality. Or perhaps it is juice wars and different farmers demand different types of juice or want the juice directed to them only to get the most out if it (hence worship). Just a few ideas.

Another idea on this line of thought is that we don’t have any real major violent clashes anymore (big wars) as we now have mass sports events, cinema and tv to emotionally involve us to the same extent, perhaps this is why there is/was a push towards illusion and virtual reality. The juice may or may not be quite as good, but you have it every night and above all, you can tweak the virtual reality a lot easier than actual reality to get the desired product.

Of course, it’s not that being a “victim” of juice extraction is bad. We enjoy the ups and downs of a sports event etc. Maybe though its time to take control of our own juice and use it ourselves? How, I’m not sure. Assuming this theory is valid. If we do, then we can expect a visit from the farmers me thinks!

Another idea. Blood sacrifice is no longer needed of humans as slaughterhouses now do that on an industrial scale. Gosh, this farm theory is starting to fit a bit too well.

• Andrew says:

Obviously mine and your worldview may differ to as to the whys of such deceptions but at least we can agree on the probable evidence of a concave earth and against such paradigms of modern pseudo science . Personally i find Monroe or David Icke and any new age or pagan writings cannot produce a self authenticating view that can even compared to the bible which does explain creation and our position in it Even the UN have adopted the new age, Mother Earth and anti Christian paradigm. Google the UN and the new age, based upon the theosophical Luciferian teachings of the the Lucis Trust that most so called “truth sites” adopt. Deception is all around us, but what do the clowns offer instead, Oh the new age and more deception of course.

• Wild Heretic says:

Yes, I agree on the New age as being disinfo (lies mixed with a bit of truth), especially the channeling lark. That Barbara whatshername and the “Pleidians” start off with the heliocentric model! Haha. oops.

As you say, David Icke isn’t productive and is more like shock doctrine; and very Lucis.

I like Munroe but I think the perspective is limiting. The farm theory is just one of many possible reasons though. Having access to aether technology is a big one IMO and probably overlaps farm theory if correct. The word “containment” springs to mind. I do believe the deception is ultimately beyond human (at least Earth human), however after that it is speculation for me.

I’m on the fence with Christianity. I had a pretty negative view of it overall, but recently experienced something of an emotional Zoroastrian moment, so I would need to work things through thoroughly before coming to any conclusions as to my opinion on that front.

Yes. We can agree that the name of the game is deception, but I have a lot more dots to connect before I can see the multi-faceted mesh of the big picture more clearly (and that is non-David Icke dots as well)

One area of future research would definitely be the “underworld” and other “dimensions” aka the superspectrum. My own feeling is that this area is very important.

• Andrew says:

Thank you for your open and honest reply WH, I really appreciate the work you have done and look forward to your next article. You do have the honesty to separate your thoughts on Metaphysics to the real evidence of a concave Earth and admit it, unlike the new age Gurus. It’s not really a problem for my beliefs and worldview to accept a concave world as it would not clash with my metaphysical beliefs, but as you have pointed out, much of the new age and it’s Guru’s relies on deceiving us into Heliocentric Space and all the baggage and media fakery that brings.
Keep up the good work. I am a fan.

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks Andrew. I’ve made a major breakthrough in the next article and hope to release it at the end of the summer.

53. Saros says:

What happened to my post about the lunar eclipses? I also included in there the links about Rutan Voyager that I see you have used. I am not switching to any model. What I demant is to not have a model unless we’re sure it is correct. We should remain at the investigation stage instead of jumping to preliminary conclusions – flat, concave, diamond, blah blah, not to mention that whatever we might ‘discover’ will never be taken seriously by anyone, and it won’t change a thing. Better save the energy for some real experiment which can really prove stuff.

• Wild Heretic says:

Your post never showed up at my end.

I also included in there the links about Rutan Voyager that I see you have used.
So, you knew about the extremely wavy flight path and the 34.9N to -5S route with only 175.9km difference and you still thought this was proof of a convex Earth?

I am not switching to any model. What I demand is to not have a model unless we’re sure it is correct. We should remain at the investigation stage instead of jumping to preliminary conclusions – flat, concave, diamond, blah blah, not to mention that whatever we might ‘discover’ will never be taken seriously by anyone, and it won’t change a thing. Better save the energy for some real experiment which can really prove stuff.

You don’t demand anything. You are free to think what you like. I’ve already presented two experiments that can only show the Earth to be concave with the convex and flat scenario out the window because of these two experiments (and also international southern hemisphere flight times prove flat earth wrong). If you are still trying to keep options open after all this then I can only conclude that was your agenda all along. Pretending to be a flat earther then a convex earther was an interesting but revealing tactic.

Goodbye Saros.

54. Andrew says:

“I guess this is also fake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager

The aircraft flew westerly 26,366 statute miles (42,432 km; the FAI accredited distance is 40,212 km)[1] at an average altitude of 11,000 feet (3,350 m).

If the Earth were concave it would have flown less than 40,075 km, as this is the Earth’s circumference and it would have been flying inside the sphere. Hence, the circumference would have been smaller. However, the distance traveled was bigger which once again confirms convexity”

Fake or not, I would expect it to fly more than the average circumference of the earth plus it’s altitude due to not flying a perfect circumnavigation by having to adjust for winds and suchlike. Likewise that would also explain why it could notch up that distance in an concave model.

55. Icecoldsun says:

Something to think about: When there is a sky with lots of clouds, but some “holes” in them, you get to see those beautiful sunray images, just like e.g. http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/218/3/d/Sun_Rays_by_RayOfLight1005.jpg

My question is this: If the sun was 150 mio. miles away, shouldn’t these “sunrays” we see be (almost exactly) parallel? Yet, they form a pretty wide angle, which would indicate the position of the sun being a whole lot nearer than this gigantic distance.

Furthermore, if you look at these rays, they seem to widen up towards the earth’s surface. How is that possible if the sun was more than a milion times farhter away than the distance between clouds and surface??

• Wild Heretic says:

In fairness though, that’s probably the clouds causing that effect.

For real laughs, find images of the true scale of the Sun/Earth next to each other (including distance) and look up their explanation for the seasons and scratch your head in bewilderment.

• Icecoldsun says:

How do you think the clouds are causing this effect? And how do they do that so that if you extend the sun rays upwards that they all seem to meet in one spot, especially given this really wide angle downwards? Just curious.

I still think that by pictures like these (we all know them from self experience) one could actually determine the height of the sun’s orbit (sth around 100 km seems ok to me).

• Wild Heretic says:

I was wondering if the water saturated air (clouds) was refracting the light perhaps. Water is pretty refractive (1.33 on the index I think).

That’s all. Good questions though. Keep up the observations.

WH

• Andy says:

Maybe it’s just the perspective which causes parallel rays to look like that, rather like looking down lanes on a straight motorway.

• Wild Heretic says:

You mean the 3D perspective of the flat earth? Yeah sure. Nothing is straight though in nature and that includes light.

56. Andrew says:

“why do you think there is outside?” If the theory is correct then nothing, not even time or space as that would be a “something”
Hollywood and TV have bombarded us with Aliens and Space travel and try to make out we are just a small speck in very large Universe. Satanic deception is everywhere. As i believe in the creator of life and matter, it’s not too much of a problem for me if creation is 8000 miles in diameter of 50 trillion light years. Evolution is BS as are most of the superstitions of so called science and have pagan/occult/satanic roots.

• Wild Heretic says:

I tell you what, you may be on to something there. I haven’t fully finished Etidorpha, but it certainly pointed towards something like that.

• vhalborg says:

as per my other post, I would be really interested in hearing from you how you see “Etidorhpa” fitting in with the concave earth reality, if it fits at all.

By the way, thanks for putting up a great site!

• Wild Heretic says:

I always took Etidorpha to be a true account masquerading as fiction. The lack of gravity deep down fits with another story of a windy blow-in cave (forgot the technical term) in the Amazon jungle introduced to three English explorers at the beginning of the 20th century I think by the Indians.

http://one-vibration.com/group/mygroup/forum/topics/macuxi-indians-of-the-amazon?xg_source=activity#.U9tztmT3XIU

I know they haven’t drilled further than 12 km or so (or was it a bit further?) with that Russian bore hole but I think there is a whole world of difference between artificially drilling a hole in solid ground and naturally formed passages within the Earth – the former is a shape not natural for a cavity. Copy nature and all that.

57. Andrew says:

WH, here is an issue for you to consider. If the Earth were concave you could literally cut the distance traveled to a particular destination by flying few degrees upward. Basically, if the distance from A to B is 1000 km when measured directly above the surface (to avoid some terrain obstacles) then by flying at a constant slight upward angle, for example ~ 1 degree can actually shorten the distance to 900 km. My math is not precise, just presenting the idea roughly. Has this or anything similar been observed in aviation?

You would keep having to tilt the plane up to compensate for the curve of the earth so it is still flying up and not down. Concorde could fly at 60,000 feet but even that would not really be high enough to gain much of a shortcut even assuming it was a shortcut and not a curve flight following the contour of the curve. In normal horizontal flight in either a convex or concave model at a steady 60,000 feet it would just follow the contour of the curve but it’s instruments would tell it it was horizontal at all times.

• Wild Heretic says:

Exactly. That is why the definition of “level” is intrinsic to the question.

58. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

fakeclouds insky
2 hours ago

You have to explain planes in a concave or convex earth…??? not gravity or gps or gyroscopes keeping them level with a flat surface…._______________________﻿
·
sumstuff52 [D Sarty]
1 second ago

Planes use Schuler tuning
Read it’s applications. besides there is many proofs earth is concave. the flat earthers and convex people refuse to acknowledge it is over their heads. Literally :P﻿

WH. is Schuler tuning and it’s applications a worthy subject to include ?

• Wild Heretic says:

Is this the “how do planes fly level with a curved earth” question?

“You have to explain planes in a concave or convex earth…??? not gravity or gps or gyroscopes keeping them level with a flat surface….”

Spot the assumption lol

How does he know the surface is flat? A bit of a presumption to make. Has he conducted experiments to determine if the surface is flat? Teed has, and found that it wasn’t. Flat earthers can’t get over the “The earth looks flat when I look at it” mentality and will do anything and everything to defend that perception which experimentation has now found to be false. It’s their issue not ours.

Well. I remember reading a while back that planes can use either air pressure or radar I think to determine altitude. On a side note I was told that a fighter jet of British aerospace crashed into the sea killing the pilot after a new “radar” altitude system was installed which failed to recognize the density of the water and thought the seabed was the ground.

Anyway, Without researching it, I would imagine the autopilot continuously beams and receives radar or reads air pressure and adjusts the plane accordingly.

After researching it, it appears gyroscopes are the answer. http://flighttraining.aopa.org/students/crosscountry/special/autopilot.html

There’s nothing wrong with that at all.

His mistake was presuming the ground was flat. Experiments… always experiments. It’s the closest thing we have to the truth. It’s also known by another word – science.

• sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

Excellent thank you WH. Just had a couple people asking questions about this and you have put in a better perspective.
Thanks for your patience and input learning alot from you and Steven and reading the comments

• Wild Heretic says:

No problem. Just find the untested assumption and you’ll be fine.

• Saros says:

Obviously, Cyrus Teed’s experiment couldn’t prove the Earth was concave. I am not saying it isn’t, it just cannot be proven by measuring the inclination through the method he used. After all, the Earth’s diameter is over 12,700 km! Who cares if in certain parts it turns out to be concave, convex or flat? It doesn’t prove a thing. Seriously, think about it. Same thing goes for airplane observations, airplanes fly at around 10-11 km altitude, again this is nothing compared with 12,700 km. Most definitely an observation made from such an altitude cannot be used to determine the shape of the planet. So, flat earthers are totally wrong when they use such data to prove their idea. But concavers are wrong too when pointing out that the horizon at eye level proves concave Earth.

WH, here is an issue for you to consider. If the Earth were concave you could literally cut the distance traveled to a particular destination by flying few degrees upward. Basically, if the distance from A to B is 1000 km when measured directly above the surface (to avoid some terrain obstacles) then by flying at a constant slight upward angle, for example ~ 1 degree can actually shorten the distance to 900 km. My math is not precise, just presenting the idea roughly. Has this or anything similar been observed in aviation?

• Wild Heretic says:

Teed did demonstrate that the earth inclined upwards at the exact same rate and inclination as it would if the earth were concave. Combined with other evidence of lichtkrumm and sun meridians, the evidence of a concave Earth is extremely near 100%.

There was some talk of that wasn’t there with these “space” planes going high up and down to go to a place quicker. Probably just talk though. The fuel efficiency and strain on the commercial jet airline doing something like this would probably give a gross negative return in terms of cost and strain.

• Saros says:

I don’t think he did, at least not convincingly.

About the planes, if a plane simply flies few degrees upward it would eventually hit the ground somewhere on the concave Earth surface. If Concave Earth is inverted Convex Earth then 1 degree is 111 km higher. Hence, if the Earth were concave, I don’t see why the planes would need to first go to an altitude of 10 km and then decrease their altitude the way they do in order to land. They could just fly a bit upward in any direction and would reach the planned destination. On top of that it is definitely very inefficient in terms of fuel to follow the surface instead of flying directly given the planet is concave. Here we’re not talking about escape velocity or going into space, just mere 1 or 2 degrees upward.

• Wild Heretic says:

I think Saros we are confusing what is up and down at this point. I define level as that which is level with the center of gravity in the middle of Earth space.

Your flat earth level would always be pointing downwards in a concave Earth meaning that a plane would be turning its nose to the ground at an increased rate if it were flying “flat earth” level.

Would it be best for a plane to travel up to 10km and back down again and then up to 10km then back down again in a “wave” formation or just fly “level” at 10km? Don’t know. Ask the airlines why they don’t go up and down. My sneaking suspicions without researching it is that it isn’t very efficient to do such maneuvers unless you are a bomber pilot trying to avoid enemy fire that is

• Saros says:

I think Saros we are confusing what is up and down at this point. I define level as that which is level with the center of gravity in the middle of Earth space.

I think you’re intentionally changing the subject and pretending you don’t understand the issue. What you replied has no reference whatsoever to what I asked.
It is absolutely logical if the Earth were concave to be able to fly directly to a destination without having to follow the surface. This is simple geometry. You can define level as you wish but the fact remains that if the Earth were concave the airlines wouldn’t waste time and fuel to follow the surface instead of taking the shortcut. Apparently all the evidence which can be easily verified points to a convex Earth. The Concave Earth is unrealistic because it would also require physical holes at the poles to get rid of the extra energy and a bunch of other stuff which has never been verified.

• Wild Heretic says:

We have no idea what is going on at the poles. There may be physical holes or there may not be. I am going for a “yes” on that front.

There is no shortcut. You have to go higher than 10km to shortcut. They can’t go that high. I’m sure they would love to but they aren’t built for that. They hit their maximum cruising altitude and that is it. The only other way is down. Tell me how they shortcut after they reach their highest cruising altitude? I’m sure they would love to cruise at 100km and really shortcut, but alas they cannot.

And yes, “level” is intrinsic to the question.

All the evidence that can be easily verified points to a convex Earth.

So flat earth out the window now and convex it is. Bullet point this evidence and let’s discuss it.

Strange, why the 180 degree turnaround. I didn’t take you for a shill. Are you confused?

• Saros says:

Apparently, you have assumed wrongly that I believe in flat Earth. No, I don’t. I was talking about flat Earth only to give you an example of how what you prove here can also be used by someone to prove flat Earth, not that I believe in either one. Most of the arguments overlap anyway.

Regarding the cruising altitude, I understand what you mean, but I think you haven’t considered all scenarios. Yes, you need to go higher than 10 km if you want to go to Australia directly from England. But if you just want to cut the distance between two cities located 100 km apart, you don’t need to go higher than 10 km at all. Do you see what I mean?

I am not a shill. I was even thinking at one point that you were playing a prank on all of us, because you seem to pretend to not understand the problems with the concave Earth model and are willing to accept it pretty much on faith. At the same time repeating that it is all about experiments and science.

I never said I believe in flat Earth, concave Earth or whatever. I was simply discussing their probability. As for what is more plausible and well evidenced I would say convex Earth still remains the best explained model. It is not surprising that pretty much everyone thinks it is true. Don’t underestimate people’s intelligence.

• Wild Heretic says:

Apparently, you have assumed wrongly that I believe in flat Earth. No, I don’t. I was talking about flat Earth only to give you an example of how what you prove here can also be used by someone to prove flat Earth, not that I believe in either one. Most of the arguments overlap anyway.

Then why didn’t you say so? You defended flat earth to the end and then suddenly flip over.Very odd and deceitful. And no; the arguments on this blog that dismiss the helio and convex scenario leave other options open such as flat earth. However, later in the blog they quickly narrow down to the concave scenario. The next article will eliminate all other scenarios for good. I have presented all the evidence in these comments to you of a concave not flat earth, not geocentric, not heliocentric. Don’t worry they will be laid out properly in the next article and 4 of the previous ones will be greatly reinforced.

But if you just want to cut the distance between two cities located 100 km apart, you don’t need to go higher than 10 km at all. Do you see what I mean?

Correct. Helicopters don’t go that high. Neither do cars. Helicopters still have to ascend and descend though. What is the problem? Which will reach their destination faster? A helicopter that ascends to 1000 feet travels 1000 feet level with the ground and descends 1000 feet to its destination; or a helicopter than ascends 1000 feet and travels at a slowly declining angle to its destination. The latter of course whether the earth is flat or concave. In the concave scenario he will reach his destination a tad sooner than than the flat earth model and a bit more sooner still than the convex one. Are you suggesting an experiment Saros? Interesting.

I am not a shill.
Forgive me if I don’t take your word on that. You certainly have an agenda. Which model are you going to support next? The standard geocentric one? and after that, what is the next model you will flip to? Stop yanking my chain.

I was even thinking at one point that you were playing a prank on all of us, because you seem to pretend to not understand the problems with the concave Earth model and are willing to accept it pretty much on faith. At the same time repeating that it is all about experiments and science.
“all of us” – who is that? You can’t speak for anyone else but yourself, unless you mean the people you represent.
What are the problems of a concave earth? You can’t state something as fact without backing it up with evidence. Bullet point the problems and let’s discuss them. I’ve explained the science and my reasoning. You have yet to do yours. Show me the science behind a convex earth and we will discuss it.

As for what is more plausible and well evidenced I would say convex Earth still remains the best explained model. It is not surprising that pretty much everyone thinks it is true.
Thank you for your opinion. Now here is mine: Everyone is full of untested assumptions. The world is full of them. My assumptions are less these days thanks to critical thinking but I am still guilty of it. Everyone thinks it is true because they have been told it is true. They didn’t test what they have been told.

Don’t underestimate people’s intelligence.
I underestimate people’s lack of time and inclination to test what they have been told.

• Saros says:

Fair enough. However, it is not critical thinking to assume the whole world has conspired against you. This is the definition of paranoia.

By the way, you just avoided the issue with the distance once again. You can cut the distance between two points on a concave surface without the need to fly above 10 km! This is completely clear to me. When they measure the distance between cities by air, I don’t think it turns out the Earth’s has a smaller diameter. Therefore, concave surface doesn’t explain it.

In my opinion, the conclusions you have made are premature. Basically, you just lay out some evidence which is not even absolute or widely accepted and then jump to conclusions as if it is completely clear to anyone. I am sure many don’t understand you at all and disregard the whole thing as a big joke. You just asked me, for instance ‘to show you the science behind a convex earth”. How is this critical thinking? There are thousands of books on that subject. It is obvious to me at least, that the science behind concave Earth is very weak, same with flat Earth. They are both interesting ideas, but imaginary and based on pseudoscience. They definitely make you think and question stuff, but it is not healthy to go too far as obviously at one point you might think it is alright to deny the existence of everything, deny science, call it all a big hoax and believe you’re the only human who understands the world. The rest must be shills. Obviously. This is the reason why the model is not widely accepted and not some sort of conspiracy against the truth. I might be wrong, this is just an opinion.

• Wild Heretic says:

1. Not the whole world. Only a small group of people are involved. Conspiracy is proven with the laughable NASA bubbles etc. Once NASA are caught with their pants down then all bets are off. If you want to side with consensus which requires fraud to convince you then that is your decision, but I side with the experiments.

2. Now I get you. They don’t measure ground distance by plane. If they did, then on a convex Earth the distance would be further than measured on the ground, and on a concave one it would be shorter. So the distance between 2 cities is 100km on the ground. On a convex Earth it would measure 110km and on a concave one 90km, for example, depending on height, but the ground measurement would be the same convex or concave. Now an interesting research topic would be this: Are there accurate distance readings by boat over sea between one continent and the next? If so, then comparing flight times and speed between these two points would give us an indication whether the Earth is concave or convex or flat. Unfortunately, the readings may be too fine to notice, but maybe not. A while ago, I had a good look on the net for boat readings but couldn’t find any.

Funnily enough, Rowbotham described something similar with the telegraph cable readings which were indicative of a concave Earth.

The bed of the Atlantic Ocean, from Valencia (western coast of Ireland) to Trinity Bay, Newfoundland, as surveyed for the laying of the cable, is another illustration or proof that the surface of the great waters of the earth is horizontal, and not convex, as will be seen by the following diagram, contracted from the section, published October 8, 1869, by the Admiralty. C, D, is the horizontal datum line, and A, B, the surface of the water, for a distance of 1665 nautical, or 1942 statute miles. At about one-third the distance from A, Newfoundland, the greatest depth is found–2424 fathoms; the next deepest part is 2400 fathoms; at about two-thirds the distance from A, towards B, Ireland, while in the centre, the depth is less than 1600 fathoms; whereas, if the water of the Atlantic is convex, the centre would stand 628,560 feet, or nearly 120 miles, higher than the two stations, Trinity Bay and Valencia; and the greatest depth would be in the centre of the Atlantic Ocean, where it would be 106,310 fathoms, instead of 1550 fathoms, which it is proved to be by actual soundings. Fig. 41 shows the arc of water which would exist, in relation to the horizontal datum line, between Ireland and Newfoundland, if the earth is a globe. Again, if the water in the Atlantic Ocean is convex–a part of a great sphere of 25,000 miles circumference–the horizontal datum line would be a chord to the great arc of water above it; and the distance across the bed of the Atlantic would therefore be considerably less than the distance over the surface. The length of the cable which was laid in 1866, notwithstanding the known irregularities of the bed of the Ocean, would be less than the distance sailed by the paying-out vessel, the “Great Eastern;” whereas, according to the published report, the distance run by the steamer was 1665 miles, while the length of cable payed out was 1852 miles.

It is important to bear in mind that all the foregoing remarks and calculations are made in connection with the fact that the datum line, to which all elevations and depressions are referred, is horizontal, and not an arc of a circle. For many years past, all the great surveys have been made on this principle; but that no doubt may exist in the mind of the reader, the following extract is given from the Standing Orders of the Houses of Lords and Commons on Railway Operations, for the Session of 1862.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za18.htm

3. All opinion Saros and no evidence as usual. If you have no evidence to discuss except “1000s of books” then we are done here. Surely there must be some evidence in those “1000s of books” Bullet point the evidence for a convex Earth. It’s that simple. Why haven’t you? Do you want me to do it for you? I have 4 pieces which not only are extraordinarily weak but one of which points towards a concave Earth, one is disproven, and another 2 invalid.

Last chance Saros. Don’t blurt back tomorrow morning when you are in the office with any old shite about “paranoid”, “conspiracy”, “1000s of books” etc. Take you time. Spend a week, a month, even a year and come back to me with evidence for a convex Earth. If you don’t come back to me with evidence to discuss I will not approve your comment.

Also I am wondering, if you find my website so interesting why do you only reply within London office hours and within an hour of my own comment being posted? No other poster is so keen on my site during the day and ignores me after work. I’ve also never met/read about/seen/heard a flat earther who after battling to the end did a 180 degree turnabout and was a convexer after all.

Evidence or no comment. I leave that challenge up to you my dear shill.

• Saros says:

I guess this is also fake: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutan_Voyager

The aircraft flew westerly 26,366 statute miles (42,432 km; the FAI accredited distance is 40,212 km)[1] at an average altitude of 11,000 feet (3,350 m).

If the Earth were concave it would have flown less than 40,075 km, as this is the Earth’s circumference and it would have been flying inside the sphere. Hence, the circumference would have been smaller. However, the distance traveled was bigger which once again confirms convexity.

• Wild Heretic says:

And its flight path was…

Edwards Airforce base is in the northern hemisphere (California). It didn’t fly from a point on the equator around the Earth in an exact straight line and constant altitude and land back at the same point on the equator. The equator is the Earth’s circumference not California.

“If” the aircraft flew in a roughly straight line at constant 3km altitude from 34.9 degrees N latitude and flew 42,434km then a convex or concave Earth is much, much bigger than they say it is which is an interesting titbit in itself.

The only way to get reliable data is to get physical readings over sea from point to point going straight and then compare it with those readings either significantly above or below and see whether the earth appears to be flat, convex or concave. Even then, those readings would only be indicative. An experiment to determine its shape would be the most scientific.

Interestingly, there was a rumour a while back that the Earth was wider than officially claimed, but that is all it was.

Good try though.

Anything else?

Edit: I decided to dig a little deeper into the Rutan Voyager and came across two interesting bits of information. According to the book Voyager’s Amazing Journey” by Steve Osborn, from Signposts. Copyright © 1989 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, the plane flew 25012 miles which is 40252.9km. The Earth’s circumference is according to google 40075km giving us a difference of 175.9km.

The flight path of the plane was a strong wavy line from the air force base to the equator then below the equator over the Atlantic, then back to the base again. So they went from 34.9 N latitude to what looks to be about -5 S latitude and back again all in a wavy line (often a very steep wavy line) 3km above the Earth and they only went 175.9km further than the calculated circumference of the Earth at the equator at sea level! Incredible. This is only loosely indicative of a concave Earth. We need real data as I’ve already mentioned before.

Saros, are you switching now from flat earth to bowl flat earth to wavy flat earth to convex earth to concave Earth? You ol’ trickster you.
Someone has already had a go at diamond Earth, how about pentagram shaped Earth? That hasn’t been taken yet.

59. Andrew says:

Hi, WC. Does you concave Earth theory tie into the Genesis creation account? as in the firmament is the sky, conceived as a solid dome. According to Genesis, God created the firmament to separate the “waters above” the earth from those below
Interesting that Revelation 15 talks about a sea of glass.

60. Saros says:

Just a small remark about Karol’s videos, namely the horizon issues. What he is constantly showing through a series of videos as a proof of concave Earth actually can be interpreted as flat Earth evidence too.

He points out that mountains and other features are sometimes visible from a long distance which hints at the possibility that the Earth is not convex. Mountains would also be visible from a long distance, given appropriate atmospheric conditions, if the Earth were flat too.

Another issue that he discusses is the horizon being at eye level. That would also be true even if the surface is flat or it would appear so. From an airplane view, for example, the horizon is not the distant land, but the clouds, so the distant land is not at eye level.

Additionally, you would not be able to see beyond a certain distance anyway regardless of the model – convex, flat, concave.

I’m curious why karol so opinionatedly holds that the evidence he presents proves concave Earth when it doesn’t.

I understand the idea is very beautiful and easy to “prove” if you invert the current convex model and reduce the size of the celestial bodies and their distance to us, but is it true? Can you really randomly make such adjustments?

WH, your articles here are indeed intriguing(most of the space related ones seem to be inspired by the cluesforum discussions though), but they don’t necessarily go in harmony with the article about Concave Earth, as the same ideas regarding space are often strangely shared by flat Earthers too.

Please explain to me how exactly seeing a mountain from a great distance proves only concave Earth, but not flat Earth? How observing the flatness of a lake proves concave Earth? This is what karol does. Very confusing indeed. Then to make his point he throws in the argument that light bends upward(whatever that means) with vague proof and pretty much no scientific support. The light obviously goes straight and bends when reflected off something, but I don’t see how this necessarily proves Concave Earth.

• Wild Heretic says:

You are right. It doesn’t. It only 100% proves that the horizon is not a proof of a convex Earth. The reason why the horizon always being at eye level is more indicative of a concave Earth rather than a flat one is that when we look straight ahead we are looking at a line parallel to the ground (with official straight light rays of course). If the ground were also parallel (i.e. flat), then we would never be able to see the ground unless we looked down, but the horizon is always at eye level. It moves up to our eyes. We would always see sky in front of us and the ground below the center of our vision if the Earth were flat.

karol is only beginning to suggest that perhaps the horizon actually rises when using an optical zoom. However that is very early days yet and I am not sure about that at all just yet.

The Wilhem Martin experiment is the near 100% positive proof of upward bending light that demonstrates a concave Earth. It is very hard to refute the evidence from land surveyors and the Wilhelm Martin anomaly. It is proof of light turning upwards which destroys both the helio and geocentric model. Flat earthers are in a serious conundrum with it because they need upward bending light to be true so that they have any chance of their meridians being correct (90/270 degree horizontal light at dusk and dawn is 100% impossible without it). At the same time upward bending light destroys flat earth as what we see with our eyes is always on the level as Rowbotham and our own eyes demonstrate. It means what we see is always turning up in reality.

There is nothing more scientific than what Wilhelm Martin did and repeated and witnessed and is well-known with land surveyors. Their machines even have a mechanism built in to compensate for this effect which you can switch on or off! This means that this upward bending light is very well known among the users and manufacturers.

There is no refuting it. It is there and it is a given.

The only way the Earth can be flat is if what we see with our eyes and or zooms turns downwards showing a convex Earth thereby compensating for the upward bending light to make the Earth flatish. Instead unfortunately we see a “flat” plane with a horizon always at eye level no matter how far we zoom in and when we zoom in, the nearer objects become lower than the horizon (the more distant objects are always higher than the nearer ones).

That’s my take on it so far, but my understanding of this issue is evolving.

• Saros says:

The reason why the horizon always being at eye level is more indicative of a concave Earth rather than a flat one is that when we look straight ahead we are looking at a line parallel to the ground (with official straight light rays of course). If the ground were also parallel (i.e. flat), then we would never be able to see the ground unless we looked down, but the horizon is always at eye level. It moves up to our eyes. We would always see sky in front of us and the ground below the center of our vision if the Earth were flat.
That is not true. When you’re on a plane and look straight you don’t see land/ground at eye level. I have tested this myself. You see clouds in the distance which are indeed more or less at eye level(remember clouds can be formed even up to 13 km in some cases), but you don’t see the ground. I don’t see how this is evidence of anything related to concave Earth. It actually seems to fit the flat Earth model again, and it is explained through perspective. Of course, when you’re higher you would see more and the clouds will be at your eyes level in the far distance, the land will be visible up to a certain limit as the air prevents you to see infinitely. From an airplane i.e. from 11 km altitude you never see ground at eye level when you look straight. Please check this yourself.

Karol’s optical zoom experiments are clever but absurd and his conclusions are totally misleading. Again go test this yourself. He first takes a picture/video with no zoom ~20mm focal length (the human eyes equivalent would be around 50 mm) then does the same with some zoom, compares and claims that objects which were not visible at all suddenly appeared because optical zoom lets us see farther beyond the actual horizon at that moment. Wrong. If no zoom is used you see less than what you see with the naked eye. This is true for any camera. Things appear smaller and farther away unless you use approximately 2x-3x optical zoom. Then it pretty much matches the naked eye vision. So, no, optical zoom doesn’t make the invisible visible. It just increases optically the size of what is there, but hardly distinguishable. The Horizon doesn’t rise, you just see more clearly what is already there at that particular moment if the atmospheric conditions allow it. Actually the so-called horizon changes. Sometimes you see objects which are very far away even with the naked eye, but on other occasions even with a telescope you won’t see farther than 20 km.

As for Wilhelm Martin’s experiments, I don’t believe his findings indicate concave Earth. I will look into it more closely.

• Wild Heretic says:

You don’t know if the airplane is level or the convex window has an effect or if you are really looking level – http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=airplane+window. The clouds are the horizon. Here the horizon is too high probably because his camera is tilting down a bit – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE_USPTmYXM
None of this is scientific.

You need to test this by going to different altitudes (a tall building will do as the building is level) and use a device which will “see” level and see where the horizon is over water. That is the scientific way of doing it which Rowbotham did do.

Fair enough about Karol. The horizon may always be really in the center as Rowbotham said it is.

As for Wilhelm Martin, they do. If you have any questions just ask, as I have had a proper look at it in preparation for a translation for my next article. It is really excellent.

• Wild Heretic says:

Yeah I just saw that Steve. I’ve been going through a lot of yours, sumstuff and karol’s videos recently.

That’s not a bad analogy of the horizon, in fact the more I think about the curvature of light parallel to the ground, the more I like the fog effect. Clever.

WH

• this guy brings up your site and doesnt even mention therectilineator or tamarack, i had to put him in his place.

• Wild Heretic says:

It’s huge mindf**k for most people so it takes time to absorb and process the information and what it actually means. Once done, there is no turning back.

• Wild Heretic says:

I had to get to the end of the video to find out what arguments he had for a convex earth… and it was amateur balloon videos show a convex earth. Except they don’t. I obviously didn’t hit home on that front. I’ll have to expand the CET article after the next one. Balloon videos aren’t scientific. We don’t know the level of the camera and the balloon is spinning round and going up and down all over the place. In some videos the horizon is concave when pointing up, then convex if pointing down and occasionally straight for a few seconds.

To demonstrate a possible curve of the horizon we would have to go to an altitude where we could be sure we were level and use something like a clinometer to make sure we were looking level and then see if there is any curve on the horizon.

Here is a classic example of a balloon video which is all over the place:

My favourite part is at 1:43 – http://www.wildheretic.com/?attachment_id=4363
So if I lower my head and tilt it to the side, will i see a concave horizon?

This is proof positive that none of this evidence is submittable in court. Only experiments are.

We have an experiment that proves the earth is concave. We have experiments which prove the Earth doesn’t move. We have an experiment which proves that light bends upwards.

It’s that simple.

61. airizona tony says:

are you familiar with the video “secrets in plain sight”? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L777RhL_Fz4

62. jack says:

here is a identical picture of shoot taken from Atlantic highland over see the sandy hook and Manhattan. as you can see the house on the sandy hook. except the picture is taken from 266ft above ground. in both picture you can see the house on the sandy hook is below the center of the picture which mean the camera has to be above that house. i also find it interesting how can a german magazine had a report about US army’s new camera during the COLD WAR but i cant find any newspaper or magazine in US with the same story? pretty much the whole story is a hoak.

the The Tamarack Mines experientman. here is a link to explain the whole mystery.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm

in the final conclusion the result of the diversity is cause by the air flow and rotation of the earth. which Mathematical proof.
and marrow’s PREDICTION about a new experiment which involve 2plumbing bob 4250ft away from no2 and no5 shaft NEVER happen. he only predict such experiment base on his BELIEVE. also quoted “Morrow and Teed were highly religious folk who were not the sort of people to deliberately lie or mislead” either marrow is lying or Palmer is lying because 1 of them say 3200 another say 4250. interesting.
and marrows claim the 2shaft experiment that is 3250ft away and 4250 deep in earth. what type of measuring tool or method could they possibly have to measure such length? remember there was no laser back then, and no steel tape ruler can go up that length. which prove such experiment is impossible to be carry out during that time period.

of course you always think any fact, scientific proof, as long as those fact or proof contradict your believe then they are either hoak or conspiracy. i know how it goes now.

• Wild Heretic says:

of course you always think any fact, scientific proof, as long as those fact or proof contradict your believe then they are either hoak or conspiracy. I know how it goes now.

No I did not. You didn’t read what I wrote did you? I gave it a fair assessment and gave it a 50% due to the lack of verification of the source. You shout in caps it never happened. You don’t know that and neither do I. Maybe it happened and maybe it didn’t.

63. Lucifer says:

If this were true… wouldn’t it be “day time” …all the time? Also… if the earth is concave and we live inside it…. then what is outside of earth?…

• Wild Heretic says:

Good initial questions Lucifer. I’m going on the premise of a half dark/ half light Sun, i.e. a sulfur lamp when I write the next article.

Well, that is an open book eh, “what is outside the Earth?”.

What do you think?

• OneOfTheSheeple says:

why do you think there is outside?

Since everything is at least 75% “dark energy” 20% “dark matter” and 5% “normal matter” in the established universe,well,you got your answer.

You see,we dont even have to make stuff up,its already done by mainstream science.

Whats outside of earth? – whatever you imagine.

• sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

Water/oil ? it does not matter people ask me that quite a bit i say water and oil because it is so abundant

64. jack says:

i m sorry if all your calculation is correct then ya the earth is not a sphere. except there is 1 HUGE problem in your prove the earth is freaking 25,000 long and for each mile the drop is about 8in. that mean the camera that is 26miles away will only see a DROP of 17ft, i m sorry the truth hurt. next time try to bring up some real proof instead of making up some number and make your lie sound more stupid then it already sound.

• Wild Heretic says:

Jack,

A bit more coherence please. State exactly where you see a issue and what the issue is and let’s have a look together.

WH

Edit: Ok, its the military infra-red lens. No, for each mile there isn’t a proportional drop of 8 inches as far as I can see. That would mean the Earth is a slope. You have to use the square law for a curve I think as the further along the curve you travel, you steeper the drop proportional to the horizontal distance. Is that ok?

• jack says:

first i would like to apologize for my language earlier because i just done arguing with someone else earlier.

if you drop 8in per mile then its a sphere i cant draw it here if you have a TI 82 or up just do the formula.

the issue is with the so call proof on the military camera, that doesn’t prove anything like i stated before the earth is 25,000 miles long. how i get that number? i take a ruler and measure the earth one foot at a time. Now the earth will curve approximately 8in per mile in order to form a sphere or you can do just do the math. C=2#R #=pie i cant find the sign on my keyboard
i m not going to the detail of how you get 8in per mile on a sphere.
What i m trying to point out is for a shoot thats 26mi away then the earth will curve about 13feet if we rule out the hills , or what so ever. so if a guy is shooting 10feet above sea level, i m not sure where the guy is the elevation for coney island is 10-50ft. vs 10-200 in Manhattan. unless you can find out exactlly where the guy is at there is no way you can compare. so lets assume they are all at the sea level. then the camera is going to capture all of the empire building except 8ft at the bottom. since the camera is 5ft above. this doesn’t prove anything.

also if you believe in gravity then you should know over time the amount of gravity will pull anything toward its center and make it a sphere. if there is GOD who out of curios and make a CUBE planet then over time that CUBE will turn into sphere.

Had you even look up the guy Teed Cyrus? the guy formed Koreshan Unity. and claim he is the messiah and will get resurrected but guess what he is dead and that’s why his group is dead so is his religion. He is a guy who form a religious group and try to tell people all the non sense and there are people who actually believe in him like the guy who DID this experiment try to prove his idea is REAL. You are right there is no way i can prove his experiment is wrong unless i m crazy and have tons money to throw away and do the experiment again. Any experiment that is made my religious group for the solo purpose to prove their idea is right, also not accepted by the scientific community and cannot be reproduced has NO credibility what so ever.

also about the altitude theory that the horizon is always eye level, are you kidding me? there is a simple tool you can get to test the level or altitude its call a LASER get one and tell me if the horizon is higher .

i still dont know where you get the 2ft drop every mile. and please dont even bother to use a book written by proven fake messiah and believe everything in that book. at least try to use bible as scientific proof , at least we cant prove jesus if fake too. maybe couple thousands of years later and we lost all our information and then someone brought up Teed Cryus and stated he DID get resurrected and everything he did after he got resurrected like they wrote about jesus. until then he is FAKE and everything he said about god, life, etc is non sense.

• Wild Heretic says:

If you drop 8in per mile then its a sphere i cant draw it here if you have a TI 82 or up just do the formula.

The issue is with the so call proof on the military camera, that doesn’t prove anything like i stated before the earth is 25,000 miles long. how i get that number? i take a ruler and measure the earth one foot at a time. Now the earth will curve approximately 8in per mile in order to form a sphere or you can do just do the math. C=2#R #=pie i cant find the sign on my keyboard
i m not going to the detail of how you get 8in per mile on a sphere.

No. That would be a straight slope downwards. The convex theory is that it is the shape of the Earth that causes the horizon. I.e. we cannot see beyond the horizon because the Earth’s shape dips below the line of sight which is always at the horizontal. If I move 1 mile across and 8 inches down proportionally each mile (i.e in 100 miles I have 800 inches), then I have moved down a straight slope. However the Earth is shaped like a very slightly squashed sphere (according to convex theory) and not an declining slope. To calculate the increased rate of drop from the horizontal when continuing down a sphere we use the square law (which opens up whole new understandings in itself). This is because the further we move down the sphere, the bigger the rate of drop away from the horizontal line of sight above. Do you understand? If not, I’ll draw 2 simple diagrams to represent this for clarity later on.

What i m trying to point out is for a shoot thats 26mi away then the earth will curve about 13feet if we rule out the hills , or what so ever. so if a guy is shooting 10feet above sea level, i m not sure where the guy is the elevation for coney island is 10-50ft. vs 10-200 in Manhattan. unless you can find out exactlly where the guy is at there is no way you can compare. so lets assume they are all at the sea level. then the camera is going to capture all of the empire building except 8ft at the bottom. since the camera is 5ft above. this doesn’t prove anything.

See above.

also if you believe in gravity then you should know over time the amount of gravity will pull anything toward its center and make it a sphere. if there is GOD who out of curios and make a CUBE planet then over time that CUBE will turn into sphere.

I do believe in gravity, but it is most certainly a concept to question; and an initial skepticism of everything is a good place to start, especially where critical thinking is concerned. The concept of gravity inside a concave Earth is of course the opposite to the conventional theory, and that is that it is space that is doing the pushing rather than a solid object doing the pulling.

Had you even look up the guy Teed Cyrus? the guy formed Koreshan Unity. and claim he is the messiah and will get resurrected but guess what he is dead and that’s why his group is dead so is his religion. He is a guy who form a religious group and try to tell people all the non sense and there are people who actually believe in him like the guy who DID this experiment try to prove his idea is REAL.

Of course, but his methods were meticulously observed and inspected by Copernican outsiders. This was an incredibly thorough and confirmed experiment. His results just on their own merit look also genuine as Simanek has already pointed out.

You are right there is no way i can prove his experiment is wrong unless i m crazy and have tons money to throw away and do the experiment again. Any experiment that is made my religious group for the solo purpose to prove their idea is right, also not accepted by the scientific community and cannot be reproduced has NO credibility what so ever.

Wrong. There is no such thing as “the scientific community”. This experiemtn can be reproduced of course, but never has (at least in public). Don’t you think this foundational and monumental revelation of the truth to where we reside is of fundamental importance for humanity? I do. If they can afford to spend billions shooting objects through the glass, then they can afford a few million to determine the Earth’s shape, don’t you think?

also about the altitude theory that the horizon is always eye level, are you kidding me? there is a simple tool you can get to test the level or altitude its call a LASER get one and tell me if the horizon is higher
.

I’ll be talking about light and how lasers are inaccurate past 90 meters I think it is. Go to rolf kepplers site if you can’t wait.

i still dont know where you get the 2ft drop every mile. and please dont even bother to use a book written by proven fake messiah and believe everything in that book. at least try to use bible as scientific proof , at least we cant prove jesus if fake too. maybe couple thousands of years later and we lost all our information and then someone brought up Teed Cryus and stated he DID get resurrected and everything he did after he got resurrected like they wrote about jesus. until then he is FAKE and everything he said about god, life, etc is non sense.

See above. I’m not going to discuss the bible or my metaphysical beliefs on this blog… at least not yet. I don’t have a label by the way.

• jack says:

Here is a link to find out how far exactly you can see depends on the height you go.

http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html

there are too many things in the equation but long story short. you should able to see 1.23 miles times square root of height above ground, that is exclude any refraction that extend the distance. usually the refraction is around 10-15% and you are right about that. anyway i found out if the shooter is 3ft above ground but how high is the ground? the lobby of empire building
is 57ft above sea level. the total height of the building is 1445ft include the antenna. unless you can find out how high is the ground, there no way to do any calculation.

also if teed cyrus is right about cellular cosmology and anything in his book then he would be resurrected after he is dead just like what he said, not sure if he wrote that in his book but i think so.

and you r wrong about the laser can only shoot 90meter, its all about how much power you put into the laser. with powerful enough laser you can even shoot at the prism US left there 30years ago. scientist and university and all group had use their laser and shoot at the prism and get accurate data on how far is moon from earth. and this is why we know the moon is slipping 4in away from earth every year

there is a simple way to test out the curve of the earth. grab a telescope go out to the beach on a clear summer day and look out for the freight ship. and yes you will see the top of the ship but not the whole ship but alot of time the reflection of light on the water make it kind of blurry. but should should still able to see it. i used to lived close to the sea and my dad was a fishing man back in the old day. this is why the higher you go the further you see. why you think during the old day and now the ship have their look out station at the highest of the ship? if earth is conclave why not just lay your back down on the deck and look up? since you can see more when you look up instead of claim higher.

• Wild Heretic says:

Unless you can find out how high is the ground, there no way to do any calculation.

Keppler’s website states “[1] The camera is at the beach of Atlantic Highlands about 1m (39 in.) above ground level.”

and you r wrong about the laser can only shoot 90meter, its all about how much power you put into the laser. with powerful enough laser you can even shoot at the prism US left there 30years ago. scientist and university and all group had use their laser and shoot at the prism and get accurate data on how far is moon from earth. and this is why we know the moon is slipping 4in away from earth every year

I call bullshit on that one about the moon. People didn’t break through the glass until 1979. I can imagine they tried to blast a hole in it beforehand though. But let’s not derail this comment on the moon landing hoax please.

It has nothing to do with power. You are getting confused with bright objects above our heads and light beamed parallel to the Earth. You haven’t read keppler’s site on these experiments have you? Translate it in google and read it – http://www.rolf-keppler.de/lichtkrumm.htm.

also if teed cyrus is right about cellular cosmology and anything in his book then he would be resurrected after he is dead just like what he said, not sure if he wrote that in his book but i think so.

I couldn’t care about Teed’s beliefs. I’m all for the experiments. His beliefs can stay with him. Us “concavers” don’t agree on every point either. Doesn’t matter.

there is a simple way to test out the curve of the earth. grab a telescope go out to the beach on a clear summer day and look out for the freight ship. and yes you will see the top of the ship but not the whole ship but alot of time the reflection of light on the water make it kind of blurry. but should should still able to see it. i used to lived close to the sea and my dad was a fishing man back in the old day. this is why the higher you go the further you see. why you think during the old day and now the ship have their look out station at the highest of the ship?

The cause of the horizon is NOT due to the shape of the Earth as has already been demonstrated in the above article and by Karol (look up skycentrism videos on Youtube) and by other eye witnesses seeing places on the horizon that they shouldn’t if light travels in a straight line and the earth were convex. The fact that we can see much further than we should (not to mention that lower wave lengths of Em waves e.g. radar can see MUCH further than visible light) demonstrates this fact.

Convex earthers make the same mistake as flat earthers. They think that what they see with their eyes is the truth regarding the true shape of the Earth. Water is always level right? When we look out at the ocean or lake we see a flat plane, so obviously the Earth MUST be flat! Oh wait… ships disappear over the horizon hull first so the Earth must be convex. Hang on a minute. How can it be both? It can’t. So just by using this simple logic we can deduce that what we see with our eyes does not show the Earth’s true shape… and that’s without the experiments or further observations which prove this.

if earth is conclave why not just lay your back down on the deck and look up? since you can see more when you look up instead of claim higher.

Because light bends. I’ll write about this in the next article. It is the reason for the arc of the Sun. Neither the Sun nor the Earth physically revolve around each other in concave earth theory. The Sun revolves around the center and it is the differences of bend of the arcs of sunlight which denotes the Sun’s position in the sky. All will be explained with diagrams in the next article.

• Anonymous says:

But it has been experimentally demonstrated that objects made of matter pull upon each other with a gravitational force.

Consider the following experiment:
You take a straight, wooden rod with a uniform density and attach two weights of equal mass on either side, such that the center of mass of the system remains in the center of the rod. You then attach the system to a thin wire at the center of the rod and attach the wire to a firmly planted objects, such as a table or a clamp. You also attach a mirror to the rod in a manner that does not shift its center of mass.
Next, you shine a beam of light at the mirror and mark on the wall where the beam of light lands. Then you take a mass and place it near the system.
The wire will actually twist and the system will move so that the masses attract. The effect is measurable because the light moves. The angular displacement, in addition to the torsion in the wire, can provide information about the strength of the gravitational pull.

This experiment was performed in the 1700s by a scientist named Cavendish. That’s where we got the gravitational constant from.

So we know that gravity is caused by mass, not space. (And I’ve explained on another post why the “aether” is not a valid theory.) You can easily replicate this experiment in a college laboratory.

If that’s the case, the Earth should indeed make a sphere, making the concave Earth theory invalid.

• Wild Heretic says:

I’ll look into that experiment in more detail, however on first impressions if everything is valid, it demonstrates that mass by its presence has an effect which I would fully expect. It doesn’t demonstrate that there are giant balls in space attracting each other or that the earth is a sphere!

I don’t really want to go into the micro just yet, however why not have an initial stab at it. I would guess that this very weak effect is due to the spin of the “atoms” of the “matter”. And of course since the Earth is concave and it is the space above us that spins, this very strongly suggests that matter is really made of spinning cavities of different densities. Matter must be cavernous, not “solid”, something akin to spinning vortices perhaps. Vortices of what? Well, if you don’t like the aether (fair enough), then choose another word which is more comfortable, like spinning electromagnetic fields. And by logic we have now come to the conclusion that gravity (and matter) are really just a spinning “electromagnetic” field.

Shall we go further? Yeah, I absolutely love logical speculating. It’s a major distraction of mine.

Since mankind so far gets a lot of energy from gravity, such as a waterfall through a dam, it should be logical to assume that mankind can also get its energy from spinning an electromagnetic field. This means that if I spin a magnet on its vertical polar axis I should be able to get a lot of energy. Knowing nothing about electrical engineering, for a long time I thought this was how electrical engineers got their energy. How wrong I was. They rotate the coil NOT the magnet! Oh dear. And then lo and behold who decided to rotate the magnet in 1978 – Bruce de Palma… and the rest is history (suppressed of course).

Not only that, but spinning objects of all kinds must alter the gravity field in which it resides – enter Bruce de Palma once again.

And that is only just the beginning of what I have deduced (a mere man on his laptop – no scientist or mathematician at all). If we can speculate on what is causing the spinning “space” then we may be able to emulate it without having to spin the magnet at all! Think about that.

I now know why this information is drastically repressed as it opens the door to everything. Its the key to it all. That is why they want this door FIRMLY closed for as long as they can keep it that way.

I have a few more obvious ideas as well, which de Palma didn’t try out, but should have. Mind you, he meditated to get his idea, and had no idea that the Earth is really concave. Imagine if he knew.

• Anonymous says:

This very strongly suggests that matter is really made of spinning cavities of different densities. Matter must be cavernous, not “solid”, something akin to spinning vortices perhaps. Vortices of what? Well, if you don’t like the aether (fair enough), then choose another word which is more comfortable, like spinning electromagnetic fields. And by logic we have now come to the conclusion that gravity (and matter) are really just a spinning “electromagnetic” field.

Well, we know that an atom is mostly made of empty space. There is a nucleus at the center of the atom and an electron cloud surrounding the atom. This is the basis of chemistry and particle physics.

They rotate the coil NOT the magnet! Oh dear. And then lo and behold who decided to rotate the magnet in 1978 – Bruce de Palma… and the rest is history (suppressed of course).

That means nothing. It’s a simple matter of electromagnetic induction. If a closed loop or solenoid is placed in a changing magnetic field (subjected to magnetic flux) an electric field will be induced that in turn creates an electric current in the loop or solenoid.

A person can create a current by shoving a magnetic in and out of a loop of wire. They can also create a current by rotating the wire around a stationary magnet. Both create magnetic flux and both induce an electric field and therefore a current.

It has nothing to do with “rotating magnetic fields.” Whether the coil or the magnetic moves is irrelevant; all that matters is that they move with respect to each other.

Not only that, but spinning objects of all kinds must alter the gravity field in which it resides – enter Bruce de Palma once again.

Why? The force of gravity is only dependent on gravitational mass and distance. The movement of the object has no effect on its gravitational pull.

Mind you, he meditated to get his idea, and had no idea that the Earth is really concave.

Four debatable experiments that have not been reproduced do not “prove” that the Earth is concave. There is a multitude of evidence that suggest the Earth is convex that is easy to reproduce. Besides, the shape of the Earth can be determined using simple trigonometry.

• jack says:

by the way you are way more reasonable person then most people i meet that has crazy ideas. lets discover the truth together.

• jack says:

If you are looking for a new messiah or jesus reborn ed, look up Alan john miller from Australia.
by the way i m atheist , so no bible say, no jesus say, no god says. they just full of sh*t to me.

65. Enlighten Fawn says:

Hi WH ~

66. Wild Heretic says:

A very intelligent young Hungarian reader who I have been in contact with by email has pointed out that the introduction to the TV series Game of Thrones shows an artificial metallic Sun and a concave Earth. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7L2PVdrb_8

http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Title_sequence

It’s another Star Trek “For the world is hollow and I have touched the sky” moment.

• sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

Great find never watched the show but the intro is a blatant subliminal thanks again WH for that great tidbit

Game of Thrones Concave Earth Intro and shows an Artificial Metallic Sun

• Wild Heretic says:

I hadn’t watched it either, so I was glad when it was pointed out to me.

I was just thinking that it showed the world as a kind of artificial clockwork-like machine as well. Are they trying to tell us we live inside a machine or an artificial matrix?

Also important are the 2 “glass” flashes at 0.12s indicating 2 glass layers. I only have evidence for one of them so I am sticking to that for now. If you freeze frame at 0.12s you’ll see the ground looks more opaque or out of focus like it would through glass.

• sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

I believe they are trying to tell us the truth i mean how insane is it seeing with my own eyes jupiter mars etc circling the moon clockwise or 2-3 days in a row and in stellarium software also. how blatant ;P
All the planets stars [orbs] seem to be spiraling in and out taking turns and going clockwise when approaching the moon
Some movies are showing spirals also the movie Dark City has some strange subliminals with clocks and a matrix type world

And did you see the the Interstellar trailer looks like an astronaut approaching the convex firmament sphere and with the milkyway embedded in the firmament and the vehicle hits it

• sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

Astronaut Approaches our Tiny Convex Universe in Interstellar Movie

• Wild Heretic says:

Interesting that they have introduced curved space and the ship seems to hit something on the horizontal. Not sure what to make of it.

• Wild Heretic says:

The planets are very strange. I’ve just had a quick look into their paths and there are two issues. The first is that after watching quite a few of your videos Don, there seems to be a difference in how the visible planets are supposed to be seen in the sky and how stellarium shows them. I’m not sure what to make of that. The other issue is that the paths are really odd. Mars is the least unusual, but we have a diagonal movement with a nice little loop in the middle for a few months and then Venus appearing for a week in January and a few weeks in February and then nothing all year or so it seems. it also has waxes and wanes just like our moon funnily enough.
http://earthsky.org/human-world/venus-brightest-greatest-brilliancy-greatest-illuminated-extent

And of course they all reflect light like a disk or bowl and not like a sphere.

Before having a look at the paths I was lazy and just thought the planets were orbiting in a vortex around the Sun, but that doesn’t work out in a concave Earth perspective that I can figure. Planets wouldn’t just disappear, they would be visible from some location on the Earth all the time in this model.

At one point I’ll have to look at Stellarium and see all the calculated paths of the planets during the year and see if i can make any sense of them. It seems very difficult so far.

The stars also have their secrets. I’ve just found out today that the stars possibly orbit the sky along the electric paths (same path as the Sun’s bendy light). I’m trying to make heads or tails of it. We’ll see.

67. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

Great comment
Charles Gordon
7 hours ago

Could you help me answer these questions from my flat earth wacko friend:
People that are living in the Rochester area. can see the Toronto skyline, the tower and buildings on a clear day. The distance is approx.100 miles the declination is 6,600 feet. In essence I am standing on one side of a 6,600 foot hill that is shaped like the curve of earth I can see buildings on the other side approx.100 miles away. Is that possible ? What is the difference between standing on the seashore at a 6,600 declination at approx. 100 miles and a hill that is 6,600 feet tall (assuming that the hill has the same curve as the curve of the ocean) ? In both cases I have a 6,600 hill or curve of earth to see objects that far away. I am wrong? Is it refraction? Let me know your thoughts. I have looked into refraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction.) but that involves the sun at sunset, sunrise and atmospheric conditions. In terrestrial refraction the line of sight variance is 8% + or – , depending on conditions near the surface of the water. Let me know what you thoughts are. Also, I live in So Cal and on a clear early morning as I stand on the shore I can see the coastal lights of Avalon, Catalina with my telescope I can see boat movements, people playing and walking along the shoreline. It’s approx. 30 miles away. The declination is approx. 600 feet. Why is it that I see the coastal lights and movement along the shoreline? Shouldn’t the approx. 600 feet of declination prevent me from seeing the lights and movements? Is the light, movements and image bending / refracting? Is it an optical illusion? I don’t know the answer, could you help explain those questions.﻿

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks Sumstuff,

Great find. Keep it up and well done.

WH

68. Saros says:

I guess, something is wrong with the website, as I see now that the comments are visible. They only became visible after I posted my question a minute ago. Very strange. Could you try to fix this as it is really confusing. I can’t see what I have posted sometimes.

69. Saros says:

WH, why have you deleted mu comments regarding altitude? I don’t understand?! You first posted them and even replied to them, and now they’re gone?

• Wild Heretic says:

Saros, I have no idea what is going on with what you see lol. I hope it is ok now.

70. Nils Esche says:

Explanation why I think this footage

uses wide angle lens:

––––––––––––––––––––––––––

This is what we are seeing during the whole footage:

Not by the use of a digital effect but through the optics of the wide angle lens, they used.

The horizon is curving in- and upwards while the object, the camera is attached to, rotates
2m:00s following , 2m:15s following, 3m:00s till the end of the footage.

While “earth” is in the center of the lens, the wide angle effect makes earth/the horizon look convex.
When earth “moves” from the center to the border of the lens, the horizon seems to turn concave and the black space/sky bulges with the same effect – the illusion to be convex.

As you can see at 2m:15s the ejected unit is unnaturally bent aswell – by wide angle lens!

Please have a look at Felix Baumgarten space jump:

Same there. They use a wide angle lens – both, on his “spaceship” camera and his helmet cam aswell. His spaceship is unnaturally bent 0m:15s.
While Felix and his cam are rotating, you can watch the same as in the other footage: The horizon is curving in- and upwards depending of being in the center or the border of the scene. Really extreme at around 5m:00s. We can see a perfectly spherical heaven there too.

Well, they have to use those optics, to fool the audience. Felix disappeared from the public after he jumped. I am sure he is knowing the truth.

I am not certain yet, but I guess that windows of airplanes are lenses aswell. Besides from reasons of air pressure their form might have optical reasons, causing the illusion of a convex horizon.

3.bp.blogspot.com/_wg6cfmBqC24/TOfZrJz9iJI/AAAAAAAABcY/SMbwvnTAsHo/s1600/Flugzeugfenster02.jpg
Look how the wing on the left of the picture its curved upwards. Surly this this has physical reasons while flying. Maybe that has optical reasons, while fooling aswell

1.bp.blogspot.com/-hgNbEeyrvRM/UZynTQFmXBI/AAAAAAAAAtQ/Rk7O_Jy-guU/s1600/photo.jpg

Back to the Space Shuttle footage: Too bad, the camera was attached to the fuel tank and not to the shuttle itself.
Otherwise we could have see it passing the glass sky

• Wild Heretic says:

I get you now. Sorry about not being able to post. I’ll adjust the limit of the number of links allowed in a post. Maybe that is it.

I see the fish eye lens now as the object (main solid booster rocket I think?) is definitely unnaturally bent. They are crafty deceptive buggers aren’t they? Shame on them and their organization.

I also see Baumgartner’s bent capsule. I hadn’t noticed that at first thinking that was the natural design, but clearly it is not. And at 1:03 the Earth looks like it is through a fish eye. I get you now. Look at 3:17, and 3:41 to 5:03! The whole earth is curved around in a circle!!!

Great find about the airplane window. The whole wing is bent upwards – air pressure? Doesn’t look like it; more a convex reflection of the glass.

Yeah, they can’t attach it to the shuttle for obvious reasons… ahem! Even if it survived breaking through the glass (or is it melting through?), it certainly wouldn’t be able to survive the 1600 C temps melting through it on the way down. Of course, they don’t want us to see the glass as well obviously.

Shame on the crooks. Being on the wrong side of the equation is always a terrible nagging burden on the soul and eventually will take its toll. They obviously don’t mind the cost.

And thanks again Nils for helping myself and all readers to understand the fish eye lens issue.

WH

• Nils Esche says:

Have a look at „Google Earth“ from whatever location – and set the height to about 40 kilometers (Felix) and up to 100 kilometers (space shuttle flight we saw/glass sky we consider).

Assumed, they did their homework on converting values on „Google Earth“ to „correctly“ convex, one nohow would be able to see the „ball“ – which is „earth“ – from those distances as a whole.

Not even close to it! (I need to set it “5,000 kilometers”, to even see all edges of convex earth.)

Why should they do so, if this (in case of Felix) can be easily revealed – if that was not the agenda, to keep us believing in a convex earth?

Yes, they are crafty deceptive buggers
And the pieces of the puzzle they provide us with do not match.

Just for the heck of it, Nils

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks Nils. Much appreciated.

71. greek man says:

A map of ferguson orlando>

Food for thought?

Could this also explain the climates and temperatures?

• Wild Heretic says:

No. It’s much simpler than that. Give me a couple of months and hopefully all will be revealed.

72. Nils Esche says:

The explanation you were asking for does not appear.
I sended is 3 times already.

• Wild Heretic says:

Mmmm. Try on the homepage maybe.

73. Saros says:

WH, have you looked into how altitude is measured? It is actually very interesting. You might be surprised! We’re used to the idea that all measurements are absolute, but in fact they are all relative and this can have very bizarre implications concerning the shape of the planet.

• Wild Heretic says:

No Saros, that is a new one for me.

The only thing I have heard of is using air pressure as a very rough guide to find out how high something is (such as a plane), but then I read that calculated air pressures at such and such an altitude were different to actual readings from a balloon.. but then what other yardsticks did they use to know how high the balloon was etc.? Time?

Can you tell me what the relative yardsticks are?

I’ll have a quick look into it.

Cheers

WH

EDIT: Found this after an initial look: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=208501
So, they use radar/laser eh? Light bends, but radar supposedly less so. I haven’t thought much beyond this at the moment.

• Saros says:

I have been thinking a bit about it and my guess is that based on altitude we should be able to determine where we’re within the Earth and more broadly we can perhaps even prove the actual shape of the planet, but since the altitude is not measured absolutely but only relative to the sea level this is not really helpful. The sea level might be at an altitude of let’s say 2000 km relative to another region of the ocean, but since we know the surface curves we can’t tell the actual altitude and it only makes sense within a few hundred km around the point of reference. We can speculate, I guess, that the poles are at a higheror maybe lower location, for example, and that is why they are frozen, or something within these lines. I even pictured a hypothetical model of the concave Earth where the polar regions are some sort of cylindrical upward formation in the middle of the concave Earth. The different climates might also be due to the altitude somehow, although we’re not aware of that and we’re told that we can only observe the effect of altitude on climate in mountains and such, but perhaps that is the reason why we have climates at all, due to a certain region being higher or lower absolutely. This is just a wild guess but since altitude is something very relative and not easily absolutely provable and verifiable, I think it is a good field for research. Especially considering the possibility that it might turn out that certain calculations related to the altitude of objects in space, natural or man-made, are wrong and it absolute terms actually invalid.

• Wild Heretic says:

Interesting thinking Saros. I hadn’t though of it like that. My take on it was just that seasons were caused by the angle of the “spotlight” Sun and altitude was based on height from the ground directly underneath whether the Earth were flat, convex or concave… but getting height by triangulation of radar and such like might not be so accurate if the Earth is concave. I’m not sure to be honest.

74. Interesting that CNET mentioned my website in last months article.
“‘Star Trek’ star, scientist explain participation in bizarre documentary
Actor Kate Mulgrew and prominent physicist Lawrence Krauss seem to be as puzzled as we are that they ended up in a documentary arguing that the Earth is the center of the universe.”
No matter what science has to say, there are always going to be people out there with crazy theories about how everything works and how the Earth is a flat planet orbited by the sun. (We particularly like the theory that the universe is inside out.)
http://www.cnet.com/news/star-trek-star-scientist-explain-participation-in-geocentric-documentary/

• Wild Heretic says:

Brilliant. Something semi-main streamish taking notice eh?… and not knocking it, but liking it. We’ve probably had a bigger impact than we realize.

Through personal experience I know there are two groups (although I don’t know who they are exactly) who have definitely taken notice. I may address this later.

• Enlighten Fawn says:

Hi Steve ~ That Is so Interesting about that CNET article! BTW, I just viewed Your video – What is the Pine Gap? So, now I understand – What’s also Interesting is that My Dad told Me that the Star Trek shows were based on Real Life! and the Fact that Kate Mulgrew was on that show! Wow, the Dots Are Connecting…. that Krauss man is like what Wild Heretic states: “A turd in the Punchbowl” tee hee – Fawn ~

75. Nils Esche says:

Maybe interesting:

Wide angle lenses and horizon on eye level, no stars!

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks for that Nils. It does look like a wide angle lens with my untrained eye. Can you elaborate on how you think it is is a wide-angle lens so I can spot future tell-tale signs in other videos?

76. Peter says:

Hi guys. I don’t know if you’re kidding or not, so I’ll assume for a moment you’re serious about concave Earth theory and would like you to answer two questions:

1. if Earth is, in fact, concave then where do all those photographs of our planet as a convex sphere come from? It’s just a NASA hoax, am I right?

2. if you seriously assume NASA and other important authorities are trying to trick us into believing that Earth is convex while, in fact, it’s concave then tell me: why do they do it? Why is it so important to keep us misinformed about the real shape of our planet? Why would it be so devastating for us to know that Earth is empty and we live inside of it? I simply see no rational reason for this worldwide hoax.

• Wild Heretic says:

1. Yes. The only footage that can be trusted are raw pieces such as the balloon ones and perhaps one of a space shuttle launch which NASA strangely says there are no special effects involved. Now why would they say that… unless their other images are bogus. The shape of the Earth cannot be determined with these photos as already shown in this article. No need to repeat it.

2. Heliocentric theory is the turd in the punchbowl which in my opinion is to stop people not only discovering the aether but also how it works and its make-up which would unleash unimaginable technologies and abilities on the world which the establishment certainly doesn’t deem us ready for (if ever). There is also a secondary reason which is to make us look up and not down to protect those in other cavities. Read some of the wild stories on those who stumbled across these cavities and you will see that those others do not want to be looked for or discovered.

However, the turd isn’t omnipotent (although it has been perhaps one of the greatest turds fostered upon us in modern history). Look at this gentleman. He has discovered the basic mechanism of gravity DESPITE heliocentric theory. A truly remarkable man. He doesn’t recognize the turd of course and so has to try and make something over-complicated up to try and match his discovery with what he thinks (wrongly) is reality.

“On a rudimentary level, non-space behavior can be compared to a vortex, which is a ‘low energy’ example of this phenomenon. Milk added to a stirred cup of coffee outlines a vortex, which consists of a high pressure exterior and a low pressure center. The vortex behaves in a manner identical to that of the planets orbiting the Sun, in that both phenomena obey Kepler’s Second Law of Planetary Motion(1). Objects placed closer to the center of the vortex orbit at a greater speed than objects further out from the center, in accordance with Kepler’s Laws. The depression in the center of the fluid is thus a relative absence of matter producing an effect characteristic of gravity.”

He also asks some good questions about the Sun.

You can’t help but stumble across some poor intelligent man who has his pet theory of everything on one of the physics forums by tying it in with modern astronomy. Imagine if these intelligent fellows had the correct model! Physics would finally have a mechanism and could describe things mechanically which engineers could work on and use. Can engineers use quantum mechanics to make machines? Also look into the Jesuits and ask yourself why they wish us to remain ignorant. Who does it benefit? I think the spy people call this “poisoning the well” I prefer “turd in the punchbowl”.

Because of the turd I am the only one actually looking into this stuff. It should be the physics guys, not non-mathematical me to theorize and engineerize this knowledge. Instead their talents have been turded. Take the turd out and start again and revolutionize the world. Mmmmm… maybe that is what they are so afraid of. Ya think!

77. Robert says:

This makes sense to me, Because in Genesis we read that Cain was banished from the face of the earth: 12 when thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be IN the earth. 13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. 14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond IN the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. I always wondered about this, I checked both Hebrew and Greek to see if this was wrong, If it said “IN” the earth and not “on” the earth, and how could he be driven from the face of the earth when we read he built cities? We all have been driven from the face of the earth, we are on the converse side of the earth!

78. OneOfTheSheeple says:

the more i have been thinking,the more i believe that the best way to understand ether is to study “the magnetic field of the earth” and magnets.
There are the vortexes on magnets
There is also the spiral motion in nature…
And there is the earths magnetic field…with the magnetic north pole “dancing” around,and by the way reading about it in wikipedia tells that we nave no idea what actually is the earth magnetic field.It is simply “believed”.
Well,how bout having the ether blowing down on “the magnetic pole”…Any pictures of the sky from the poles?

79. I’ve been getting too many positive comments from Flat-Earthers who haven’t spent the time to research my concave earth position; so much so, that I felt I needed to make a clarification video in which I also pointed them to your site.

It’s a process for most people.

• Wild Heretic says:

They only thing they have going for them is optics and when we look into that more, it actually helps CET. I saw pastor Jim or whatever his name is reply on a YT comment to Sumstuff about Antarctica not being crossed as proof of the disk Earth. Firstly even if true that isn’t proof, secondly it has been crossed on foot and plane, thirdly both sides have been crossed which kind of upsets the disk theory a lot, and fourthly the most likely reason for the few flights around Antarctica (but not directly over) is the fact that there are few cities in the Southern hemisphere. Most of it is water. We have South Africa, Australia, and a bit of South America.

• Evil_Smoker_187 says:
80. Michael says:

Aloha,

if earth would be concave the middle point of all life would be in the center above in the sky,
if earth would be convex the middle point would be in an assumed hell-like hot Iron/Nickel core !

I stay with the concave point of view !

I have a question about pressure:
This question is for real scientists, those who really enjoy their open-minded logical thinking,
as well as for the old-school ones, those who are willingly or unwillingly gate-keeping old and odd models.

Why comes that the earth (old-convex-model) is not loosing its atmosphere to the surrounding vacuum ?
Why is the assumed very low-pressured cosmic space not (constantly and strong!) sucking earth’s atmosphere ?

I read the official version:
The sparly present (and cold) hydrogen atoms at this certain height would hardly reach the reguired escape velocity…

What i am really missing with this explanation is a potential influence of an assumed surrounding vacuum !
Especially if there is no solid wall between earth’s atmosphere and the outer space.
The valve between the two different pressurized surroundings would be over 500.000.000km² large.

Till now i got no explaining answer from convex-open-space believers !

One additional thing i occasionally observe at EVENINGS when the sun rises UP out of my view:
Sometimes there is a cloud barrier to the west and the sun cannot be seen,
then the clouds above me are not getting reddish colored (because of the cloud barrier),
but when i look to the east (where it is not so much cloudy) there i still can see clouds which still gain some of the red sunlight.
In a convex model this should not be possible…

I hope my contribution is a little inspiring

With love and joy from an Inner Earth

Michael
===============================
MOTHER EARTH – BECAUSE I AM LIVING IN HER

• Wild Heretic says:

That’s a great point and one I hadn’t thought of. I imagine the standard answer is “gravity”. But still… I mean air rushes into a vacuum at ground level and gravity is supposed to be strongest at this level, isn’t it? Maybe it is just the differing degrees of lightness of the various gases? However, wouldn’t we expect this differential density strata throughout the entire vacuum thereby not making it a vacuum at all, which would be trillions of light years across in the convex model lol. In a concave earth model this would put the strata 4000 miles across. Maybe someone will say it is evenly stratified to 4000 miles as it now stands with 1% air at 100km, but is it? The 1% is calculated anyway and not measured I don’t think. I remember reading they often (or is it always) find different measured readings with balloons than what is calculated.

Interesting about the sunset too which I don’t have an argument for.

81. OneOfTheSheeple says:

Ive been thinking,and id like to share some ideas.

We assume a close system,consisting of:
– Concave earth (glass-sky)
– Ether

The ether is moving inside.
Now,we have pyramids other mysterious architecture all over the place.
Heaven and earth seems to be connected.
The ether is vibrating (why we hear wind?) creating the stars in the water (literal celestial ocean).
When vibrations change freq. pressure changes as well,thats why storms,tsunamis,earthquakes,”solar” storms,”supernovas”, wind and the tides,the waves, the clouds in our sky(flying through a cloud shakes planes,..muss stop at some point.
Problem here is,ether is a magical..I have no idea what it can do or not do.It scares me.
But i know that vibrations make things appear “out of a thin air”…or disappear.
The thing about vibrations makes the entire idea “vibrate”..dont like that much but anyway
…..
One can even try to do the math,to actually get some numbers and use em as proof,but now days with numbers(usually big and having \$ at the end) there is nothing you cant proof.

• Wild Heretic says:

The mystery of this place continues. I think the vibrational thing is very important. It could be what we detect with our senses. I wonder if it is layered. I.e a movement of the aether causes vibration, but does an underlying vibration of a different sort cause this movement, making movement itself an illusion? I’ve no idea.

82. OneOfTheSheeple says:

There is allot of information out there that is “overlooked”,it just does not fit to the reality build around us and more importantly the reality build inside our heads…
So we simply ignore it,forget it,we try to bend it a way that it fits..and if this doesnt help us feel better (truth hurts,always!),we burn it, we “erase it from the pages of time” as one guy once said..
and yet some of it always finds a way to plant itself in someones head,stay there,and if lucky,grow like a flower does…and wait for the bees to come.

83. sumstuff52 says:

On youtube, users Alltime Conspiracies, vsauce and minutephysics blocked me for this simple link i told them to check out , i said “there is simple physics proof the earth is Concave, wildheretic.com”

Was not rude just what i said above, my comment was deleted from all 3 and i was blocked, they are very popular channels, seems like they are connected and avoiding this info like the plague BUT they use the hollow earth stories and it’s being ridiculed, just as planned, i see the flat earthers and convex arguing all the time, the concave earth is being left out of these arguments, what a setup, the ridicule masters are hard at work

• Wild Heretic says:

I agree with your conclusions. I don’t know those three channels but the either/or flat/convex earth debate seems like the old set up of left/right, religion/atheists, creationism/Darwinism, protestantism/Catholicism, and all the rest.

The more I look into these things, the more it is becoming obvious that we are being played. I saw some documents recently which strongly suggest that we have had “free energy” and anti-gravity since 1907! There was also a late 17th century account of someone in England finding a shallow underground “lair” of a person who had a proto-lightbulb lit up and smashed it when the peasant intruder entered. It was rumoured to be the Rosicrucians, but nobody knows. What powered the lightbulb and who were they?

I think there is a lot of truth in the hollow earth stories, but of course, it isn’t “hollow earth” as we are in the hollow part, but other cavities “outside” earth. The other question of course is what technologies have been discovered by us, which ones have been introduced, and which ones disallowed.

84. OneOfTheSheeple says:

I was going trough the stuff on my phone when this 2 pictures got my attention:

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4/baivan/IMG_20140408_193308_zps9fa3e17c.jpg

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j4/baivan/IMG_20140408_193319_zps1292c8c7.jpg

I took em a second apart at around 11 500 meters.

Look at the way the dark/light part is curved just above the horizon,which is at eye-level (at over 11km up in the sky!!)

I think those pictures speak for themself.

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks for the links. The first one is particular good showing the concave curved gradient of the light above the horizon.

Also, this shows the horizon is always at eye level no matter how high you go. If the Earth were convex or flat, and the horizon was a geometric phenomenon, then the horizon would always be below eye level (or disappeared completely).

• OneOfTheSheeple says:

I got some free time and this is the result:

• Wild Heretic says:

I’m not sure about installing something on my computer though. Is it an animation?

• OneOfTheSheeple says:

It is just one picture with some music.
Trying to understand why the horizon is a perfect line.

No need to install anything,it is a mp4 (audio+video) file.

85. lunar eclipses in the concave earth, how i see them…

86. OneOfTheSheeple says:

First of all,respect for the work you do here WH.It took me 2 days to read the all the articles and the comments.
Happy to have found this place.

I was watching today an old soviet documentary (it was cosmonautics day yesterday) about the first women in space when it hit me.

solar eclipses

we know those are real.Ive seen one myself (it was not total,but i saw part of the sun goes missing using wielders mask to stare at the sun).I also noticed the change of light and the way animals behaved was also wierd .Anyway.

The moon has to be an object made of stuff.It has to be real.It has to be between the sun and the earth in order for a solar eclipse to happen.

just my 2 cents

• Wild Heretic says:

Hi Oneofthesheeple and welcome aboard the fringe train of “truth” (hopefully)

I’ve seen a solar eclipse myself in 1999 or 2000 in Germany I think.

I haven’t looked into them at all and so I would ask these questions:

1. Do we know it is the moon which causes them? Do we see the moon during the day pass over the Sun and block its light?

2. If it is the moon, is the moon an indicator for some other process of which we are unaware? I.e Is it these processes which create the illusion of the moon (assuming the moon is an illusion, which is a big “if”) that also create the solar eclipse?

I don’t have time to look into this right now, but I leave these questions for others to answer.

WH

87. I interviewed a NASA scientist….

• Wild Heretic says:

Fair play to Cohen as he was open to the idea. How did you get hold of him?

• I just called the main number two days prior.

• Enlighten Fawn says:

Hi WH ~ So, I guess I’m stuck with ‘this’ avatar? How did You get Yours!? I just wish for mine to be more appealing C Ya L8ter >
Fawn ~

• Wild Heretic says:

EF,

Eventually I’ll have a look at that, but right now that’s at the bottom of my to-do list.

• Enlighten Fawn says:

Hi WH ~ Okay, I know….. don’t sweat the small stuff…. but Thank You for the Consideration!
Fawn ~

• Enlighten Fawn says:

Hi Steve > Just viewed the video on sumstuff’s channel, and You were Great! Richard C. stated: “Uh, I don’t Know…” a lot!! At least he is open to the other theories, etc. (?).
I was wondering, though, what is Your Theory and/or Thought on the possible “doomsday” scenario? What will be involved?
I can’t post on Youtube because I’m not signed up with googleplus, and I don’t want to be because I’d be more invaded then I already am! Thanks, Fawn ~

• i expect the ice that’s attached to the glass sky to unravel like a scroll with the sun stopping, martial law being invoked prior, people going underground, marked, transported to pine gap to set up the kingdom of God. I think this will all happen in less than 2 years.

• Wild Heretic says:

According to the “being with no eyes” in Etidorpha, the giant underground mushrooms were there to feed the masses on their way through the bowls of the earth when the time comes. That’s the only info I have.

• Enlighten Fawn says:

Thanks WH ~ I Hope there Is Giant Peach Tree’s, too – because I’m allergic to mushrooms!!

• Enlighten Fawn says:

Hi Steve ~ Thanks for Your Response – I just found it today – 05-13-14 – Interesting > I’m not sure what ‘Pine Gap’ is ? Everyday, as Time goes on…. I’m So Thankful of My Dad’s Insights, Facts, etc. He Told Me to be Open to All Discoveries, Theories… He told Me of Atlantis, the Hollow Earth, Flat Earth Society :-), amongst a Lot of Other things, as well! He mentioned the Concave, but didn’t elaborate on that one – it is hard for some people to wrap their brain around that one! Unfortunately, My Dad perished through the ‘establishment’ He did Tell Me though, that if I do perish, it’s from interference /invasion… Truth Will Always Prevail+ Fawn ~

• Wild Heretic says:

Hi EF,

What did your dad mean by perishing through interference/invasion and him perishing through the establishment?

WH

88. Mo says:

Hi,

I want to just ask when the new article is coming out, I mean like one week, two months??? Please forgive my impatience, but I need to sum the whole theory up for me on paper, and thus the article would be highly important.. Thanks!

• Wild Heretic says:

I have a bit more time now so maybe quicker than I thought. Two months sounds right. Could be three weeks if I have lots of time. Don’t know.

The next article although a bit stodgy in places because of all the numbers involved, is important as it will form a basis for me on how the sun oscillates in the aether which in turn shed a lot of light on other physical phenomena. The article after that about what and where the stars are, will be a lot quicker. After that, things will probably take a lot of time as it involves some tough visualizing and thinking which I may never get to the bottom of.

• Ian Goss says:

My current contribution from flight paths on flighttracker is that the earth is curved overr large distances. London to vancouver tracks way north of a ‘straight’ line , curving in an arc over Greenland.

Assuming our maps are ok, this does suggest the airlines are following some roughly globe shaped terrain to get the shortest flight time.

Southern hemisphere seems not to have any relevant flights so far.

Your article does evidence it being a concave sphere (ish).

Some good binoculars + video cam + tripod + ship tracker app would create a viable repeat of those horizon experiments.

• Wild Heretic says:

Indeed Ian.

Luckily, a couple of dedicated folks (who have posted under this article) have already done that. Search for “the binocular effect” on youtube and skycentrism etc. Ka rol has done already done it and I think another poster has as well.

• Ian Goss says:

Thanks, Good to know people have done those horizon videos.

Re the ‘earth’s shadow passing accross the moon’ during a lunar eclipse … here’s a link to a vid, showing that happening…it should start at the relevant point, its only 2mins long..

The standard model says this shadow is caused when the earth passes between the sun and moon ( only when the moon is at the correct ‘height’, so not every full moon).

The flat earther ‘theNASAchannel’ says this shadow is caused by another unseen object, not the earth. I believe Steven christopher says it happens when the moon passes thru a ‘dead zone’ where its image dims or disappears.

It is commonly used as evidence that the earth is a ball shape.

89. Colin says:

A few questions:

First, you disagree with the possibility of high velocity asteroid impacts, one of your points being a lack of asteroid materials. What about high levels of iridium found near theorized crater locations?

Next, where do satellites fit on the concave earth? Do companies like SpaceX plan on taping communicators to our glass ceiling? Where does Google maps come from?

• Wild Heretic says:

Hi Colin,

Higher levels of Iridium alone is nowhere near enough to be conclusive that a meteorite had struck there. Are there any tektites, fused glass, glass with high iron/nickel content, any chondrites, iron/nickel/cobalt alloys, enstatite etc. etc. as this is what a meteorite is made of. There are supposedly only tiny amounts of rare Earth metals such as iridium in meteorites relative to the iron/nickel/enstatite content etc.

To put the size issue into perspective, the largest chrondite ever found according to wiki is 1770kg. The largest iron meteorite – 66 tons. This would also make iron meteorites the leading contender to be the original meteoritic material with the more stony ones (chondrites) coming from mixing with the melted glass layer.

Yeah, satellites, that’s a dodgy subject. My take is that they are fake except for the ATS ones which LSC has theorized are attached to the glass layer underneath. I really like his theory but haven’t fully looked into it. Google maps could easily be aerial photography if you look at the size of the houses and streets when they start to be seen as such; or they have been taken with the cameras from the ATS satellites. The only thing I know about the private “space” companies is that they don’t plan on going higher than roughly 100km. Very suspicious especially considering the glass layer is theorized to be 90 to 120 km up there (the altitude may vary from different locations on earth).

90. Mo says:

Hi there again, just wanted to ask if it wouldn`t be possible to change those avatars, it`s really a pity looking at these. Why do they look this ugly dumb way anyway??? Please change this, it`s like mocking the posters here…

Having said that, a big thanks to you for your invaluable work, I impatiently look forward to your next article, will maybe translate your site into german if you allow

Btw how would you explain the huuuge meteor craters with up to 90 km in diameter? Do you maybe know which size the meteor would have had to measure then accordingly? Thanks!

• Mo says:

Sorry craters are even up to 300 km http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vredefort_crater
They say they estimate the size to have been about 5-10 km, but wouldn`t this be calculated assuming the asteroid coming from a much larger distance, hence a higher velocity than in the concave earth model? Thus it would have to be (much?) larger in your model?
Also, you say these are like chunks of the sun, but how, and why do they break apart? And wouldn`t they have to leave huuuuge holes in the glass sky?

Last questions: Megacryometeors: Why do they fall in the first place? How do they break apart from the glass/ice layer? And why don`t you find glass coming down along with the ice meteors?
LSC assumes that they are spraying chemtrails in order to prevent the ice from melting, but if you look into it, global temperatures are falling, so it does not make much sense to me. Also the surface of the trails is imho not large enough to make any impact on that, mostly you see only a few trails, wouldn`t 99,9999 % of heat just pass by, even assuming they would have certain chemical abilities in order to bind heat?
What is your take on that?

• Wild Heretic says:

This isn’t a reply to you MO, just the info on wiki in general, in case you think I’m being too abrupt.

Keywords in bold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vredefort_crater

“The asteroid that hit Vredefort is estimated to have been one of the largest ever to strike Earth (at least since the Hadean Eon some four billion years ago), thought to have been approximately 5–10 km (3.1–6.2 mi) in diameter. The bolide that created the Sudbury Basin could have been even larger.[3]”

Gosh, 4 billion years. That sure sounds like verified to me.

“The crater’s age is estimated to be 2023 million years (± 4 million years)”

lol, of course 2 billion years old.

“The dome in the center of the crater was originally thought to have been formed by a volcanic explosion, but in the mid-1990s, evidence revealed it was the site of a huge bolide impact, as telltale shatter cones were discovered in the bed of the nearby Vaal River.”

It’s an opinion change. Gosh, there are some shatter cones nearby. Can’t be a volcano then. [sarcasm]Definitely verified. [/sarcasm]

“The crater site is one of the few multiple-ringed impact craters on Earth, although they are more common elsewhere in the Solar System

Do you need me to reply to this?

Let’s have a little look at shatter cones –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatter_cone

“Shatter cones are rare geological features that are only known to form in the bedrock beneath meteorite impact craters or underground nuclear explosions.”

You’ve got to be kidding me. We don’t even know if nuclear weapons exist let alone that anyone but the military can verify rock after underground nuclear explosions.

“They are evidence that the rock has been subjected to a shock with pressures in the range of 2-30 GPa.”

[sarcasm]A volcano doesn’t exhibit strong pressures at all. [/sarcasm] How do they know if a crater was on old meteorite one or a volcano in the absence of the orginal meteoritic material such as iron/nickel/schreibersite all mixed with glass etc. (which should automatically raise huge red flags)? Answer: the presence of shatter cones. Do you see the circular logic here?

Look at a few of these links in this google search for further clues.

See what I mean?

• Wild Heretic says:

Now I’ll reply to the your other questions mo.

“They say they estimate the size to have been about 5-10 km, but wouldn`t this be calculated assuming the asteroid coming from a much larger distance, hence a higher velocity than in the concave earth model? Thus it would have to be (much?) larger in your model?”

No. In their model, I think nothing is supposed to fall above 160km (leo).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Earth_orbit

So they would only be calculating from this free-fall distance. It could be in concave Earth model that everything falls from the center (I’m not sure yet) which would mean I would have about 6000km to play with. Maybe meteorites spiral down from the Sun? Don’t know.

Also, you say these are like chunks of the sun, but how, and why do they break apart?

Already explained. I theorize that the cause are electrical surges from the Sun’s carbon electrodes. Scroll down to no.3
http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-sun-a-light-bulb/#D

And wouldn`t they have to leave huuuuge holes in the glass sky?

Very small holes, yes. Remember it is only the iron/nickel alloy part falling through the glass. Unless of course they are under constant repair, which would open a whole new can of worms.

Interesting the largest meteorite is the the Hoba one at 66 tons originally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoba_meteorite

Look at the size of it compared to the tree in the background. It wouldn’t have created that big a hole. In fact, because it melted through the glass the glass would still be intact (but just have a little bit less of it due to the melted drops falling down).

This also links to your first question:

It is inferred that the Earth’s atmosphere slowed the object to the point that it fell to the surface at terminal velocity, thereby remaining intact and causing little excavation. Assuming a drag coefficient of about 1.3, the meteor would have been slowed to a mere 320 metres per second (1,000 ft/s) (contrast this with typical orbital speeds of several km/s).

“Last questions: Megacryometeors: Why do they fall in the first place? How do they break apart from the glass/ice layer? And why don`t you find glass coming down along with the ice meteors?
LSC assumes that they are spraying chemtrails in order to prevent the ice from melting, but if you look into it, global temperatures are falling, so it does not make much sense to me. Also the surface of the trails is imho not large enough to make any impact on that, mostly you see only a few trails, wouldn`t 99,9999 % of heat just pass by, even assuming they would have certain chemical abilities in order to bind heat?”

Don’t know Mo. That’s LSC’s area. I haven’t looked into that at all.

• Wild Heretic says:

Ok I’ll have a look at the avatar thing. I put them on when I uploaded a forum. I’m not sure if they would work with the blog. if not, I will find another solution. At the moment I have to concentrate fully on producing the next article.

“Btw how would you explain the huuuge meteor craters with up to 90 km in diameter?”

My first take would be that they have wrongly labeled these craters as can be seen here in the Libyan glass example – http://www.wildheretic.com/there-is-glass-in-the-sky/#F.

91. Icecoldsun says:

All this concave-earth-stuff can really get into your head…

Let’s do some thinking (I know this may be a bit OT, but you people here seem to be the only ones I can seriously talk to about these things, so please bear with me).

If we actually do live inside a concave earth (and I tend into that direction, not having made all my homework yet), then chances are also 99,99 % that the world and all living things were “deliberately put” in here (BTW, that corresponds with more and more doubt concerning the theory of evolution, at least as it is believed to work today, but I don’t want to open another box yet). Whoever or whatever made all this effort, to construct a sphere, the inner surface, all the physics aso, in my opinion is NOT to be expected to just have the possibility built in that at some point the “inmates” (that’s us, of course) may destroy every and every last bit of thing that was built with so much dilligence, time and effort.

I’m normally no religious guy, and I certainly don’t want to become another “Lord Ice Cold Sun”, I hope you believe me ;-). What I do want to discuss is this: If these assumptions of mine are correct, why worry about the world (as a whole) at all? Maybe there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Maybe all this carefully placed and ad infinitum rehearsed fear-mongering of climate change, radiation, environmental waste, nuclear bomb arsenals, BSE, SARS, swine-flu, economic meltdown, NSA-I-read-you-all (the list could go on and on and on and on, and why not include e.g. chemtrails as well) is actually nothing BUT fearmongering in order to controll the masses, to make them feel tiny, inconsequential and helpless.

I mean it: Does anyone know anybody IN PERSON who was a victim of a terrorist attack? Who became a victim of Chernobyl or Fukushima? Who died from the swine-flu? Or suffered any losses from a rising sea level? Who seriously wanted to work but wasn’t able to find anything for years? Who was caught by the police and thrown in jail because he was downloading some illegal files? Come on.

I think it’s all about control and intimidation, or better put: Control through intimidation. TPTB don’t need to be powerful at all – as long as everybody believes they are. I think they are tiny dots on this vast surface of the earth – just like everybody else. Bound on this earth – just like everybody else. Prone to failure, miscalculation and vanity – just like everybody else.

They may be able to silence certain (naive) individuals – as some scoundrels in the city of London in the 16th century were capable of as well. They may be able to fool some people for some time – but definitely not all the people all the time. – I think it has already begun, and they feel it.

What do you think?

• Wild Heretic says:

I’m normally no religious guy, and I certainly don’t want to become another “Lord Ice Cold Sun”, I hope you believe me ;-). What I do want to discuss is this: If these assumptions of mine are correct, why worry about the world (as a whole) at all? Maybe there is nothing to fear but fear itself. Maybe all this carefully placed and ad infinitum rehearsed fear-mongering of climate change, radiation, environmental waste, nuclear bomb arsenals, BSE, SARS, swine-flu, economic meltdown, NSA-I-read-you-all (the list could go on and on and on and on, and why not include e.g. chemtrails as well) is actually nothing BUT fearmongering in order to controll the masses, to make them feel tiny, inconsequential and helpless.

I mean it: Does anyone know anybody IN PERSON who was a victim of a terrorist attack? Who became a victim of Chernobyl or Fukushima? Who died from the swine-flu? Or suffered any losses from a rising sea level? Who seriously wanted to work but wasn’t able to find anything for years? Who was caught by the police and thrown in jail because he was downloading some illegal files? Come on.

I think it’s all about control and intimidation, or better put: Control through intimidation. TPTB don’t need to be powerful at all – as long as everybody believes they are. I think they are tiny dots on this vast surface of the earth – just like everybody else. Bound on this earth – just like everybody else. Prone to failure, miscalculation and vanity – just like everybody else.

Yes, those thoughts had crossed my mind. The Wizard of OZ springs to mind. Maybe we don’t need the vampire squid at all; but they need us.

It is an interesting topic which delves into where we come from and if the Sun is artificial, how “natural” is this world at all? I’ve discovered 2 possibilities after studying the path of the Sun. Either we are likely living inside a giant machine or magnetic fields naturally rotate inside a cavity. I’m actually going with the latter, but the first is just as much a possibility.

They may be able to silence certain (naive) individuals – as some scoundrels in the city of London in the 16th century were capable of as well. They may be able to fool some people for some time – but definitely not all the people all the time. – I think it has already begun, and they feel it.

Oh yes. I love the term the internet reformation from thedailybell.com. The information is out there now and just requires us to engage our brains to try and piece a bit of it together. Cluesforum is a good one for being skeptical ofthe official line. It seems entire news is fabricated from time-to-time. I believe everyone is sold to because we are busy busy busy and have no time to think (which requires effort) and need to relax when we are not busy. It is this relaxation time where all the “programming” occurs (movies and TV).

• Icecoldsun says:

Thank you for your thoughts. CF is definitely an interesting site. The works of Steve Corbett, Stefan Molyneux, Jeff Berwick and Tom Passio are also great sources for “the alternative view-point”. With AJ, I have my doubts.

You’re right, it is essential that people have to struggle and work hard for their money so they won’t have the energy to take anything into doubt, come up with something original. This would mean “red alert” for TPTB, so they drown us with information, petty entertainmant, senseless “education”, nurture our fears and keep us divided, turning against each other, forever… Well, they wish…

• Wild Heretic says:

Quite.

But in fairness to established knowledge and fringe stuff, I often don’t see it as an either/or. The alternative view is frequently just another perspective.

IMO where the establishment goes wrong is assuming the experts in the other fields are right and therefore the data from their own experiments are wrong etc. So they try and use complex math to explain the data instead of taking it as it is. Next thing we get assumptions based on assumptions based on assumptions. A case in point is the Rutherford/Bohr “orbiting” electrons. It sounds like they totally bought the “Earth around the Sun” theory and so used the much applauded maxim “So above as below” and applied heliocentric theory to the atom. It later didn’t work experimentally. Here is a good link to someone who likely is very much on the money (from a certain perspective of course and it is only a slither of the total information needed).

https://www.svcc.edu/~duncanb/default.html

Here’s another example relating to dinosaurs:

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/massive-dinosaur-soft-tissue-discovery-in-china-includes-skin-and-feathers

• kara says:

Icecoldsun, you would like reading Jon Rappaport’s blog. Here is a link to a recent article of his which actually brought me to this blog.

http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/secret-space/

His understanding of this reality may answer some of your above questions. I’ve thought a lot like you, All this dooms day stuff is made to mind control us, because what we believe, we SEE. What we think about we bring about. I have to ask how can TPTB do the things they do and be immune to it themselves. My answer was because they don’t believe it. They know it’s not the truth.
another guy you might like is a new thought thinker who first came out in the 1920’s and taught that everything starts with our imagination, our ability to conceive it in our own minds. He teaches us how to apply our thought to creating our reality.
His name is Neville Goddard. He has an interesting take on the bible, it’s not a religious document to him at all, nor is it historical.

92. Enlighten Fawn says:

Have You checked out The Flat Earth Society?
I Wish for a More Pleasant Avatar Here! I’d change it if I knew how on Your site! So, would You change it for Me?
It aches Me when I read or here about nasa developing technology to destroy Asteroids & Comets! I Still Believe that They Are Precious Forms of LIFE+ Consisting of Essential Elements Like StarWater, Seeds, Minerals, Oxygen, etc.
I question Meteors…? Are they more like a Big Rock? Do You think when Meteors fall to the land – do they break through the Glass Sky or maybe they are even part of that Creation – creating the Glass Sky?
Fawn ~

• Wild Heretic says:

Meteors are pure metal (a part of the Sun) which break through the glass mixing with it in different ratios to give us the 4(?) different types of meteorites.

93. sumstuff52 says:

Earth Curves UPWARDS(Concave) NOT Downwards(Convex) As We See

*Whether the camera is leveled or not it should not matter at all. The center of the image should remain where it is in BOTH situations – in the water. The camera should simply zoom in to the center. There shouldn’t be such a difference at all.*

• Wild Heretic says:

Will check it out when I have more time. Thanks for the additional research sumstuff.

94. WH, I mention you in this vid.
The Rubberband-Oscillating-Earth 93-Million Miles of Bullshit Theory

• Wild Heretic says:

Hahaha! Love it.

Steve. I still haven’t got an internet connection yet (hopefully this week). I won’t be able to approve comments or reply regulary at all until then.

Cheers.

95. LionLamb says:

Terrific INFO PACKED site! Good job. Will be reading and posting, LORD willing.

• Wild Heretic says:

Occassionally I can’t tell a spam comment if it is too general. Lion, reply back to this reply to verify, will you.

• LIonLamb says:

WH,

96. Wild Heretic says:

Sorry about the forum escapade. I’m not willing to break the site to try and fix the problem of the minimized text box. LSC, you forum posts are still there, but not linked.

I could look into solving it, but I don’t know what caused it and reinstalling bbpress means getting rid of what was on there.

Sorry about that. It also looks like the slow down was due to a spike in traffic. There is nothing i can do about that.

This site will remain as a blog for the time being and I’ll just concentrate on the material from now on.

97. Wild Heretic says:

It looks like I have banjaxed the website by accidentally deleting the advanced-cahce.php file while trying to install a plug in. Either that, or there was a big spike in traffic recently due to me putting a link on the DI forum. Will have to wait till tomorrow to sort it out as I am too tired tonight.

98. Wild Heretic says:

It looks like I have banjaxed the website by accidentally deleting the advanced-cahce.pho file while trying to install a plug in. Either that, or there was a big spike in traffic recently due to me putting a link on the DI forum. Will have to wait till tomorrow to sort it out as I am too tired tonight.

99. Wild Heretic says:

It looks like I have banjaxed the website by accidentally delteing the advanced-cahce.pho file while tryign to insatll a plug in. Either that, or there was a big spike in traffic recently due to me putting a link on the DI forum. Will have to wait till tomorrow to sort it out as I am too tired tonight.

100. Saros says:

Wild Heretic, please add a forum link on your website, as it is getting increasingly difficult to discuss or comment here. I think an ongoing discussion might contribute a lot.

Meanwhile, I have started my own forum, there is nothing there right now, but if anyone (Sceppy, John Gault, WH, LSC etc )wants to post a thread on something related to concave Earth, gravity, space travel hoax etc, you guys are more than welcome!
I would like to have a more intensive discussion while waiting for the new article

http://serendipitous.boards.net/board/1/general-board

• Wild Heretic says:

Sure. What is the best free forum software for a WordPress blog such as this?

They new article is unfortunately heavy on the numbers, but occasionally light in parts. Hence the wait lol.

• Saros says:

I found something that might work: http://wordpress.org/plugins/bbpress/

It would be really nice if there is a forum here as well. I believe that might improve the discussion

• Wild Heretic says:

I uploaded bbforum last night but I’m trying to figure out how to link it to the top menu. I want “home” tab and then “forum” tab next to it, but I have forgotten how I put the “home” tab there lol. Let me have a look.

• Wild Heretic says:

Saros, I’ve added the forum. Click on the tab at the top menu. I’ve added three topics for discussion which mirror the articles on this blog so far.

http://www.wildheretic.com/forums/

I’ll have to leave it till tomorrow to set up a registration page and lost password etc. Its 20 past midnight right now and way past my bed time.

101. sceppy says:

A concave earth makes perfect sense when you consider what we see around us.
Go to the beach and walk into the water and you will notice that you are always walking down a slope. Because you are basically walking into the deeper, gradual bowl.
Think about the mountains thawing out and releasing water which all flows to the sea.
Rainfall and anything on land, all flows to the sea.
This could never happen like that on a globe and no magical gravity could hold trillions upon trillion of gallons of water on a so called globe.
All the clues to life are all there in front of us, in our everyday lives. It’s just that most of us do not put two and two together to get four, because we have been conditioned to believe in outlandish theories, as I mentioned before.
On a dark night in your home, preferably with no street lights, turn on your living room, kitchen or bedroom light if it’s a nice bright one and stand back away from your window and look out.
You will notice that you can’t see out, but you can see what’s in your bedroom, because the window acts like a perfect mirror.

The ice dome does this as well, which is why you see the moon as a reflection of the sun.
You see, the sun is reflected down to one part of the concave earth and the other side doesn’t get that direct reflected light, but it does get to see the source of it on the other side of the dome, further down or up the bowl your position or country is.

It’s the reason we have lost cities under water. They didn’t just fall into the sea thousands of years ago. They were basically swamped by the drop in pressure as the earth keeps growing.
We weren’t always living under 15 psi of pressure. We lived under much higher pressures, because the earth sun was gaining in size and using more energy as it does so, causing lower pressure which means less pressure on the oceans, which means ocean rise, which means that those cities which were further down into the bowl, were flooded.
They weren’t just simply flooded overnight. It would have bee gradual. Something like we see now, where cliffs get eroded away and collapse.
It’s slowly happening again to those places that are nearest the inner bowl. This is why you see the flooding. It will gradually make those places uninhabitable as people will have to move back up the bowl, a little at a time.

If you want to give yourself a mental map of the bowl, as opposed to the globe map…try to alter your mind to the map you perceive as being correct because flight times and all the rest of it seem to fit.
The globe model is a very clever trick and you have to change your total perception of it to understand how it works.

First of all…forget Antarctica being the outer rim of ice before the dome.
Forget about the north pole being the inner circle of the dome.

WHAT!?
Confused?

The map we are shown (in my belief) is back to front, so get ready to picture this.
Picture your globe model with the north and south so called poles.
What we notice is that, countries like Canada, Russia and the likes, are around the north pole, or on TOP of the globe and Australia, most of south America and a decent portion of Africa and all of New Zealand, are spaced around the south pole and yet, if you look at the global map…does it not strike you as odd that it looks as bare as it does?
I mean, why have most of the land mass on the north side and just fractions on the south?

That’s because we have been duped into simply accepting that’s how it is…but in rational reality of your mind….if the earth was a globe or to be clap trap scientific about it…an oblate spheroid, because don’t forget, it bulges at the equator in this vacuum, don’t you know. lol

Ok, back to the jigsaw of thought.
Forget the globe and forget the north and south.
Try this thought.

Think of your globe as covered in foil and all the land masses printed on it.
Now open the foil up, like you would open a chocolate orange….
If you open it from the south pole end, or the bottom. You will find that the south pole (Antarctica, we are told) will spread around the outer edge of the foil and this would be known as the ice rim or the dome foundation….or so I thought.

I spent time pondering this and although it makes sense…something was niggling me, because I thought…well if Antarctica is the rim, then it’s UP the bowl, which means that all that water is also up the bowl. Can you see what I mean?

So I mentally peeled the foil from the north pole (top) of the globe and then it all made perfect sense.
You see..what we know as the north pole, is not the north pole…it’s really the south pole and the north pole is the actual outer rim, up the bowl.
What you find, now, if you mentally peel the foil from the top, is…you get Australia and Most of south America, a portion of Africa and all Of New Zealand, around the INNER rim of the bowl and Russia and Canada and Greenland, etc, are running around the upper part of the bowl, with other countries a little further down and so on and so on.

WH: If you will, I’d like you to give some serious thought to this and see what you can come up with, because there is still a lot to do in getting it all to work.
I’m in the process of finishing the exact same map that I’ve just explains, so you get a real good idea of the set up. It’s not a perfect map, as it’s extremely hard to to cover a globe and draw the land masses and then open it up to add in the extras, so it’s not perfect by any means, yet it gives the idea out very easily.
It should be finished today, so I will email you it, if you are interested.
If you could get LSC onto it as well, it would be great, because I like the way he thinks as well as you.
Cheers.

• Wild Heretic says:

Screppy, the bowl theory has already been suggested but doesn’t work out. International flight times and all that (Check Qantas, Sydney to Wellington). I’ve posted it twice somewhere on this blog (can’t remember where lol), maybe under concave earth theory.

• John Gault says:

Sceppy- I agree with much of your thinking. Thanks for sharing.
Considering your north pole rim/south pole center model — how do you reconcile that model with the nightly rotation of the stars around the north star?

WH- thanks for creating this site and your ongoing efforts on this issue. Good stuff.

-JG

• Wild Heretic says:

You’re welcome. Just trying to make sense of it all and put it together, with friends

• sceppy says:

John Gault says:Sceppy- I agree with much of your thinking. Thanks for sharing.
Considering your north pole rim/south pole center model — how do you reconcile that model with the nightly rotation of the stars around the north star?
…….
Well, I think that all points of light including what we see as the north star, are simple a direct magnification through crystal in the centre of earth’s circle.
The best way I can describe what I’m thinking is to look what happens when you focus a magnifying glass to a point of light and imagine crystals doing the same thing, only up the dome .
Think of a rotating lamp in your home with fibre optic like dots of light rotating and you see it all on your ceiling.
I’d be lying if I professed to know the exact mechanics of it…but I believe it’s something along these lines.
I have it all in my head but trying to spit it out in a way that doesn’t make me appear a scatter brained loony, which I’m well used to being described as constantly, lol…is hard.

The only people that will ever read between the lines and give it thought, is people like you lot, because you allow yourselves to think and can obviously smell bullshit a mile of with official explanations.
I believe there is a hell of a lot of reflection going on around the dome as well.
We all live under water, it’s just that our water is much less dense than the sea and like the sea, the waves and the white surf is it’s clouds just like our clouds sit above us.
I’m sure you’ve heard the saying of the seven skies.
I know it’s to do with religion and I’m not religious, but the reality is, there will be 7 skies if you look at the different elements going up the dome.
It’s like the so called clouds in what they tell us is space, among the stars. It’s just lighter elements under high and low pressure just rising and dropping like our clouds do.

What these astronomers see as galaxies and such…all they are seeing, in my opinion, is reflections and clouds inside the dome.

• Wild Heretic says:

Think of a rotating lamp in your home with fibre optic like dots of light rotating and you see it all on your ceiling.

I was thinking along the same lines – the disco glitter ball effect. I’ve no idea about any crystal sphere in the center though, not that I am dismissing this – far from it – just that I haven’t looked into it. It may all be able to be explained by the effect of an eye of a vortex… or it may not lol

What these astronomers see as galaxies and such…all they are seeing, in my opinion, is reflections and clouds inside the dome.

Another point we tend to agree on. I very nearly added a little extra to one of the previous articles here showing that a lot of these so called photos of distant galaxies etc. , i.e. nebulae are actually just close ups of clouds in the stratosphere shot at night and then “touched up” as they always do numerous times to get the colour right (that good ol’ familiar purple colour) – lol

The only thing we disagree is on is gravity. The problem is air doesn’t expand everywhere in the Earth cavity to fill the required space. It settles near the crust with less and less air the higher we go to the point that we need breathing apparatus just to climb high mountains. Why isn’t the air equally spread over the 8000 mile diameter of the space inside the Earth… or even equally spread within the 100km atmosphere to the glass sky?

• sceppy says:

Wild Heretic says:I was thinking along the same lines – the disco glitter ball effect. I’ve no idea about any crystal sphere in the center though, not that I am dismissing this – far from it – just that I haven’t looked into it. It may all be able to be explained by the effect of an eye of a vortex… or it may not lol
……………..
Yeah, it’s not an easy concept to grasp for anyone, I admit that and it’s a reliance on what appears to be fanciful thoughts.
I mean, we have no chance of physically seeing the truth of it all from a ground level observation, but they key is up in the sky at night with powerful telescopes, which we do not have access to but we know who does.
It’s about a blank canvas and going back to basics and looking at what earth is giving out, as in precious stones and dense gold/silver, etc.
We see it all in small amounts and use it as hard to find jewels. It’s like the big king sits on his central throne and throws his scraps to the peasants…as in, the centre holds the real jewels in abundance and they all work in unison.
Think of quartz in a watch. It vibrates.
Now equate that to the centre of something much larger vibrating around that centre in that vortex and spewing out light all around and that light being reflected.
I may be off the mark in the exact way it works but I’m 100% convinced that earth is a cell and everything we know, see and what happens, is down to this cell alone and nothing outside of that dome exists to our perception.
The suns movement around the earth is like a radar screen. Take a look at a radar screen and think along those lines.
Wild Heretic says:
Another point we tend to agree on. I very nearly added a little extra to one of the previous articles here showing that a lot of these so called photos of distant galaxies etc. , i.e. nebulae are actually just close ups of clouds in the stratosphere shot at night and then “touched up” as they always do numerous times to get the colour right (that good ol’ familiar purple colour) – lol
…….
Bang on here for me.
All separated gases make clouds in their respective sandwich filling layers and it’s trapped molecules within molecules.
For instance:
At sea level, we breathe the air but that air contains all the elements that are above us to the top of the dome.
The sun radiation/friction expands those and separates them, Russian doll style, layer by layer, like farting in the bath where it starts off as smaller bubbles as they come out and gain in expansion as they reach the top until they pop, (peg on the nose at this point) lol
Hydrogen is one of the last dolls inside that Russian doll, which is why we need to use electrolysis to separate it at sea level.
We can separate it easily by setting fire to a log because the log just needs a start off of super friction, or to be simple…a match.
All fire is doing is distributing the elements into their respective layers, just like the heat of the fire of earth sun does to water. It breaks it down by friction and boils it into steam that breaks down as it’s pushed by denser sea level molecules squeezing it up and the higher it gets, it’s changing again…it’s being separated based on the heat of the sun and the expansion of molecules that sit in the sky…all under agitation because it’s pressure on pressure.
Nothing gets destroyed, it just gets sorted by expansion or contraction/condensing.
Each set of clouds from our vision by eye to our vision higher up by telescope and further, are the result of a build up of not quite expanded molecules of whatever gases and some are still trapped inside others as the sun has moved away, so they condense and fall and squash and fall and condense and fall…and by the time it becomes too condensed…we are soaking wet with rain fall.
Super condensed and the friction becomes so fast, it starts a separation/expansion again on it’s way down, which is why we see a crack of lightning.

• Wild Heretic says:

I generally agree with you about pressure but disagree about gravity ( I edit my other reply below to include it).

My initial take on the water cycle without thinking about it much is that the Earth warms up due to the Sun and then condenses in the sky higher up because it is colder there. Why is it colder? Because the infra-red absorbing gases are all heavy (not speculation, but fact – look up the “greenhouse gases, they are all big molecules such as methane, water vapour, carbon dioxide etc.), these gases are in the lower atmosphere. The vapour condenses and falls. No idea if this is correct, just pulled that out of my a**.

• John Gault says:

Sceppy said: “The best way I can describe what I’m thinking is to look what happens when you focus a magnifying glass to a point of light and imagine crystals doing the same thing, only up the dome .”

Sceppy, are you talking about a dome OVER a bowl (or undulating plane) model? Or are you talking about a Koreshian ‘inside the spherical earth” model?

I appreciate that you don’t have all of the mechanics worked out (completely) but I am trying to clarify exactly which model you are proposing.

I completely agree with your contention that we live in a less-dense sea (of water) above the oceans (sea level) and below the “sky”. Furthermore, “gravity” is nonsense — object rise or fall based upon their relative buoyancy to the atmosphere around them.

Drop a rock, an air-filled balloon and a helium-filled balloon from ten feet above the water’s surface. What happens? Rock hits water and sinks; air-filled balloon hits water and floats on surface; helium -filled balloon begins rising. The ‘system’ seeks equilibrium at all levels.

WH: regarding flight times– we do not know the speed and routes of these flights and therefore must be careful not to give such evidence more weight than it deserves. Additionally, cartography is (I believe) a massive tool of deception.

Maybe these maps and legends have been misunderstood.

-JG

• Wild Heretic says:

My favourite old map is the one with the man’s head poking above the starry sky dome into the new world. Still can’t make sense of it but it is intriguing.

WH: regarding flight times– we do not know the speed and routes of these flights and therefore must be careful not to give such evidence more weight than it deserves. Additionally, cartography is (I believe) a massive tool of deception.

Yeah, but it is very difficult to debunk flight times. We have just 2 possible options as I can see it – either they are lying about the times and it takes a lot longer than they say it does or they are flying a lot faster (or all other flights fly a lot slower). How much further is the southern hemisphere compared to its northern one of the same latitude in a flat or bowl earth model? Twice, three times, four times? Do other flights all over the world travel ridiculously slow normally or do airplanes have secret tech that can get them to twice or three times the 600mph they normally travel to pull off this deception? If it is the flight time that is wrong, then surely passengers would notice a journey of twice the stated length every time… surely. The odds of this being wrong is 99.999% in my opinion.

I am interested in old maps though.

• John Gault says:

(in reply to WH below–the “reply” did not appear after their comment)

WH says: “We have just 2 possible options as I can see it – either they are lying about the times and it takes a lot longer than they say it does or they are flying a lot faster (or all other flights fly a lot slower).”

The flight times are taken to be accurate as they are easily verifiable by any passenger.

The unknowns are: 1) the ground speed of the airplanes and 2) the true distance between the start point and the end point, particularly those points separated by vast stretches of ocean.

How do we calculate or measure an airplanes current ground speed? Well, we just need to know the airplane’s TAS (true air speed) (good luck!) then add or subtract local wind speeds (measured how ???) toss in some altitude/ pressure/density/temperature data and…viola! Obfuscation by complication.

Speed = Distance / Time
An accurate measure of speed requires an accurate measure of distance.
What is the true distance between Rio and Sydney? How is this measured?
It is circular logic to validate an unknown distance with unknown speed.

If we profess to know the true distances then we profess to know the true shape and size of the earth, yet that (shape and size) would seem to be the issue at hand and thus the true distances are -for purposes of this discussion – unknown.

Also, in thinking about the sphere vs flat vs bowl vs inverted sphere, I always find the compass to be hard to ignore.

How does/would a compass work in an inverted earth?

-JG

• Wild Heretic says:

How do we calculate or measure an airplanes current ground speed? Well, we just need to know the airplane’s TAS (true air speed) (good luck!) then add or subtract local wind speeds (measured how ???) toss in some altitude/ pressure/density/temperature data and…viola! Obfuscation by complication.

Still very improbable. These variations such as wind speed are too minor. They don’t double or triple a plane’s speed or slow down a plane by as much. This also means that no distances or speed can be measured anywhere on the Earth, not just accurately but even generally whether it is the distance from London to Birmingham, Paris to Brussels, Sydney to Perth, Paris to Moscow etc. The variations you mention are valid for all flights everywhere, yet the southern hemisphere flights should be consistently twice or three times longer. What variations only consistently apply to the southern hemisphere to equalize the flight times of those of the northern hemisphere? Is there a wind that whips around the southern hemisphere carrying a plane three times as fast as normal? Can you show me this data? If you have a theory backed by data I will certainly listen.

Also, in thinking about the sphere vs flat vs bowl vs inverted sphere, I always find the compass to be hard to ignore.

Yeah I agree. In a concave Earth it would be space that is magnetized or exhibits those properties, not the Earth. In fact it can’t be the Earth, at least with the current explanation of an iron core creating the magnetism, as iron loses its magnetic properties over 770 degrees C (the Curie temp). It’s amazing the shit they try and make us believe.

In fact, it is likely that it is not only the earth that is a cavity, but atoms as well. In the early 20th century (era of the final push IMO), we had the Bohr atom of little balls whizzing around a nucleus and a macro universe of bigger balls traveling around an even bigger nucleus (the Sun) in orbits just like electrons. What if both were horseshit? Magnetism is a vortex (just like the aether IMO), not little balls whizzing around a bigger one.

…and this pdf which should be required reading of all theorists:

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media.php?id=3935

• John Gault says:

WH, thanks for the thoughtful reply. To clarify, I strongly reject the helio model and all of the claims (iron core, etc.) associated with it. In considering three specific alternatives – flat w/dome, bowl w/dome or inverted sphere – the inverted sphere is the least compatible with the known (verified, observed) behavior of a compass. Intellectual honesty compels us to acknowledge this apparent contradiction, however injurious such admissions may be to our ‘working hypotheses’. (contradictions do not exist; apparent contradictions arise from errors in thinking)

Where is the “northern center” –to which a compass does point—located in a concave, inside the sphere earth? While geometry allows for the inversion of the helio model into the Koreshian model, such inversions do not solve the apparent contradiction between the compass and a spherical surface (convex or concave).

-JG

• Wild Heretic says:

I actually disagree with the compass purely because we have no idea of the shape of form of the aether currents in the center of Earth space. A magnetic compass points 4 to 9 degrees off true north I think (if I remember that correctly). I don’t understand the contradiction. In CET the magnetic currents aren’t of the solid crust but of space itself. That is how it would work and current magnetic findings of vortices allow for that.

Where is the “northern center” –to which a compass does point?

4 to 9 degrees north.

In a concave Earth how would traditional gravity work (I know you don’t believe the official theory and neither do I)?

How would magnetism work?

How would light work?

How would the path of the Sun work?

etc. etc.

That’s for us to work out, preferably with data and evidence rather than pure speculation.

Apply these questions to the bowl theory. The Earth has already been proven not to be flat and so the last refuge of flat-earthers such as yourself and screppy is the bowl-shaped earth. Work out these questions for the bowl-shaped earth. I am slowly but surely doing it for CET.

Such inversions do not solve the apparent contradiction between the compass and a spherical surface (convex or concave).

Can you expand on these contradictions please?

I can’t get the path of the Sun to work with a bowl-shaped Earth, but I certainly can with a concave Earth, especially with the evidence so far of bendy light.

• John Gault says:

WH, I am not a “flat-earther”– I am a non-heliocentrist sorting through alternatives. Among those are flat, bowl and concave sphere. .

As for magnetic deviation (of a compass), that can range from zero to over 120 degrees.

-JG

• Wild Heretic says:

JG, you need to expand on the compass needle objection so I know what it is.

As for magnetic deviation (of a compass), that can range from zero to over 120 degrees.

That is interesting in itself.

• John Gault says:

Yes, magnetic deviation is very interesting. Your earlier comment sent me looking into the details and – so far – I have more questions than answers.
Check out the magnetic deviation world map http://androgeoid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/magmap.jpg
The area south of Australia shows extreme deviations. I have been unable to locate a map showing the precise data on the magnetic deviation in most northern areas.
The concern that a compass might not function on or in a sphere is based on the design and limitations of a compass. It appears designed to function in a two-dimensional plane; it indicates a line on a plane. Also, magnetic fields are two-dimensional.
-JG

102. sceppy says:

We are told be be reliant on the science that is sold to us and accept it as the truth without question, to the point of almost being child like again.
It’s like growing up and realising that your parents bought all your presents and knowing Santa was just a fantasy figure and yet it’s like being told, ” now you’re grown up, we have re-evaluated Santa and he is actually real, you just won’t see him but you can track his progress throughout the world.”
Does that remind anyone of anything?
Tracking the ISS by the co-ordinates they give you.
Anyway: what we are told to believe and what we actually have to accept, is down to the individual…IF… they can allow themselves to think with a clear mind and not be swayed by peer pressure to stick to protocol.
Gravity, inertia, warped space time, light year stars, speed of light, special relativity, Higgs boson, etc. The list is endless and it’s no more than science fiction writings that can be told but never fully understood and for good reason. It’s because they are all made up junk to explain our existence and that of supposed other planets and solar systems and what not.
The biggest intimidation tool they have against the common person to keep up a ruse, is to baffle the life out of you with ridiculous equations that no one can fathom.
E=MC2…I mean, what is it in reality?
Energy equals mass times the speed of light SQUARED.
Basically it means that your mass will yield much more energy than it consumes. So there we go, all done.

No chance:
Always remember the basic story of life. You only get out of something what you put into it and if you look at it in real terms, you will find that to be correct, as long as you remember the basics, as in: for every ACTION, there is and EQUAL reaction.
The fatter the candle, the longer it will burn against a slimmer one of equal height.
If you push a car…the car resists that push with the same force needed to push it.
Light wood will burn quicker than a fire lighter block, because it’s less dense and contains less fuel.
It doesn’t matter what you use or what you can think of (if thought of in the right way), you cannot get any more energy out of something than is put into it.
If you want a bigger fire, you use more coal. If you want a longer lasting fire, you use more dense coal.
Whether you are using hydrogen or whatever…you will use as much energy put into it as the energy you get out of it.

Wind farms produce energy and it appears that we get more out of it than what is put in..and to us, or our way of thinking…it appears right, but look at the bigger picture of what is needed to produce that energy. It’s wind energy which culminates from high/low pressure variations caused by friction of molecules under enormous energy.
Just because we think the wind blows for the hell of it, doesn’t mean it’s not part of another energy cycle, which originates at the centre of earths concave circle….THE SUN, which is gobbling up energy by taking in the energy of the atmosphere.
This is the potential real life, but if you want more energy out than what’s put in, then we have to resort to MAGIC or the made up laws that allow it.
Things like, nuclear power does not need air to fission or rockets do not need to use the atmosphere to fly. You know, stuff like that.
It’s a nice story, it just happens to be total misinformation, in my honest opinion
A lot of the laws are used because space is used… and ordinary earth “realistic” laws would make space the impossibility that it is, as in this inertia law, of things staying in motion until something acts upon that motion, which is sensible on earth but easily explained in real terms of atmospheric pressure, except it’s used without that, as if another force is responsible for momentum, which fits for their space exploits, as in, supposedly pushing an object in space and it will go on forever, nonsense.

A true vacuum would mean suspended animation for anything in that, because, up, down and horizontal would cease to exist as any direction.
Of course, we are told that space ISN’T a true vacuum and it does have SOME scattered matter…SCATTERED MATTER???
Scattered matter would not allow anything to travel through it and scattered matter could not be anything if it’s scattered as it cannot exist as part of any medium for anything.
What they should say for scattered matter, is, earth like cells in suspended animation that we can only imagine but never see, because our eyes could not see anything if there is no medium for it to travel through, including light, which is not what we are told it is.

Vibration/friction/agitation and frequency = energy, which means that light is the direct run on from what created it, which is sound.
We associate sound with our primitive ears, but that’s only the short story.
To find out the common sense basics of how it all works, you only have to look around you at your common light bulb and your house wiring and how it all leads to what is happening inside earth.
Flows of electrons through wires are simply flows of vibration/friction/agitation/sound, all made possible by pressure of matter/molecules or whatever you want to name it.
It gets forced down a wire in a frequency creating a small amount (to us) of heat and flows through a THINNER filament in your light that restricts the flow but becomes under more pressure, resulting in a glowing light.
The same happens with your hose pipe. Turn on tap and you get a steady flow that can water your garden 10 feet away. Stick your finger over the nozzle so far and you can water it about 25 feet away.

Yes folks, the speed of light is nonsense. It’s actually the speed of sound that we see from any point we see it from, as in where the sound originated from, we see the glow at distance before we hear the sound, because our eyes are far superior to our ears, which when all is said and done, are just pressure drums that catch the pressure wave which activates the hammer in our ear to the drum, which our brains interpret as whatever sound we hear.

Any questions on this and I’m willing to explain further. It’s just a case of how people perceive what’s going on around them. The open minded logical common sense folk, will seriously think about it…but the brainwashed will ridicule it and be happy to believe in the complicated magic that was fed to them.
I know that on here, you welcome out of the box thoughts and that’s why I have no problem explaining myself in any detail you want, except I will only ever deal in the basics of something to explain, because I think it’s much easier for people to grasp and think about than someone saying, ” ahhh, well, photons disassemble into culiminour calstitates,which activate the unobtanium sycallations which immediately split into two part per 1 trillion oscillations, producing vacuumous energy through the dark fabric of space, resulting in a squared speed of light that curves space time.”
I think you get my drift.
I can make all this crap up at any time and be grilled on it…and yet, if I had a suit on or a white overcoat with a few large letters on the pocket, like Dr Sceppy, PHD…and all the rest of it; people would actually take me serious and study it and recite it whilst not knowing what the hell they are reciting, except that it works in the world of fantasy.
If you want to figure out this earth, then don’t buy the 10 million piece jigsaw with a sky full of small birds…start with the 10 piece ones and build your own mind foundations from that, because the basics is where we all need to be to figure it all out.

Reliance on the model given out by the story tellers is like babies being spoon fed their favourite foods and begging for more.
If a food doesn’t taste right, you spit it out.
If a story doesn’t seem right or seems too good to be true…you question it, knowing that if it’s too good to be true, it usually is.

The official explanations are like selling you a flat screen TV for a tenner. It looks good and appears to look up to date and will sit well in the corner of your room, but take the back off of it and you find that all or most of the components are missing.
This is what they are selling you about space and space travel.
It looks good, but on closer inspection (if ever we had the chance) we would find that all of the components are missing.

Sorry about going off on one, but this stuff that we get told about (in the main) is at best, misinformation/misdirection or misunderstanding… and at worst, it’s downright blatant lies.

• Wild Heretic says:

Dr Sceppy, PHD

103. sceppy says:

Wild
Heretic says:Good. I agree with the pressure imbalances (but aetheric ones). Also, what is the process that starts it all within?

That’s a good question and to answer it as best I can I would say “decay”…
Think of an apple left on a shelf and forgotten about.
Over time, it would start to decay. It would break down inside, with all the matter inside turning to mush or simply condensing…and because of that, the apple sinks further down from the top and sort of, creates a little bowl or indentation as it sinks and rots.
Now, naturally, air pressure is aiding in that from the top, but earth as a cell wouldn’t be experiencing any of that, because for every action, there would be an equal and opposite reaction inside the earth, as in, what decays and falls, will be replaced by the lighter/expanded molecules/matter of that decay due to friction which creates heat, which separates the gases from the solids, which are pushed UP as the more dense drops down. It’s an imbalance but a marriage made in heaven, because it’s always equal and opposite action/reaction.
In a nutshell, we COULD assume that the earth was once a dense spherical kind of rock like a sort of egg shape or something like that.
How it got there is another story, but basically, this vacuum that (I believe) nothing can freely move in, could contain trillions/infinite amounts of the same thing or variations of cell like earths, all with their own internal life support.
We are just bacteria inside that cell, helping it grow or not..depending on how we see ourselves, as in good bacteria or bad.
In human nature, our arrogance is that this earth was made for us.

I think, just like a cell of our body that teems with other cell life within that and within that,etc,etc..way beyond our thinking.
So basically, what we are dealing with “now”, (in my opinion) “to our short life thoughts”, is an expanding earth, which is not good…it’s bad, because just like a balloon will expand inside an evacuated chamber, earth is doing the same, only it’s not because of the vacuum sucking, as vacuums do not suck. A perfect vacuum is basically dark or black to our eyes. Basically it does not exist to us, so we would not see any other cell outside of this ice dome covering, only inside, like a mirror.
Think of the stars and everything you see, as reflections. Think of a planetarium.
Everything you see comes from inside, right?
Think of the earth sun acting like a blast furnace, but a super one, and crystals that are super dense within it that are resonating and reflecting different variations of light.
Anyway, there’s lots more about it but that’s the basics.
…………………

Wild Heretic says:What you are saying is that there is no greater unresolved force, just those within the substance that is doing the acting right? O

Oh wait, I read the rest of your post. You are saying there is no perfect vacuum therefore all downward movement is relative to density yes?
………….
Pretty much like that, yes. I know this might sound crazy, but imagine the earth as a sort of egg and the top half is like a glass but helium ice and under it will be all the other gaseous elements in various stages, as in liquids and such. Think of some of it like flash freezing and flash thawing continuously. Almost like having a sea up there, because basically we are living in our own sea, it just happens to be much less dense than what fish live in and we know that dropping dense objects into water…the water will allow it through unless it’s got atmosphere trapped within it, whether that’s a rowing boat filled with air pressure or a sealed container filled with air pressure.
It’s no different up above, it’s just a case of perception.

……………
Wild Heretic says:Lastly, what force causes these different pressures to move the denser substances downwards and the less dense substances upwards? Let’s take an extreme example. Let’s say there is a near vacuum with one air molecule in it (or 1000 if you like). Why do the air molecules settle at the bottom of the vacuum chamber, like our atmosphere does to the vacuum above it? What internal force is within that air molecule which puts it to the bottom of the vacuum cell or chamber? And why bottom and not top? These air molecules are only relative to themselves and nothing else of other densities.

……………..
The simple answer is, they don’t settle, they always equalize.
To give you an idea, let’s imagine air molecules are sponge balls…now imagine those sponge balls squashed/compressed with each one you shove into a container.
The more you put in…the more dense they become and the more compressed until (if you were superman) you could compress a football sized sponge ball into the size of a pea or better, kind of thing.
So now that container is under pressure and always filled throughout.
That would be known as your compressed air cylinder, naturally.
Now we want to make what people class as a vacuum, but would be evacuated pressure, so we pull out some balls and as we do so, we see the other balls inside, expand to fill that void, because you are trying to create a low pressure against that high pressure.
If you managed to take out most of the balls, you would find that the container would be filled with the few remaining as they have super expanded, maybe close to, but not quite their full state but they would be weak and you could easily squash them.
This is why rockets have never been into what we are told, is space, because the atmosphere would soon act on the rocket and start to take it apart, piece by piece or molecule by molecule, starting with the compressed air inside that’s used to force the fuel out of it. It would expand so much, it would simple blow the rocket to pieces.
Think of a balloon in an evacuated chamber and that should tell anyone all they need to know.

………

Wild
Heretic says:Good. I agree with the pressure imbalances (but aetheric ones). Also, what is the process that starts it all within?
……

Think of the egg and the decay inside, or what we would perceive as decay. Inside the egg is what counts as we cannot break through the shell, so everything is only relevant inside with the yolk being the creation of all life.
Everything is alive and under agitation but we are too primitive to understand it all because we cannot see most of what goes on, even with microscopes.
Heat makes things rise and ejects life into the earth and it needs it’s coolants and vents, which it has with the oceans and ice, plus volcanoes as safety valves that actually are adding to the atmosphere and shooting out dense particles to keep everything under agitation as it all falls into it’s place in the sandwich over time to be started again.

I’ve went off on a story telling episode here. Hopefully I haven’t bored anyone.

Everything that happens in earth is a push on push. We use pull as a saying but the truth is, pull never happens, except we use it to say a horse is pulling a cart, but realistically, it’s pushing it if you break it all down from start to finish. I can explain this if anyone wants.
Basically molecules are stacked up the dome and each molecule is exerting it’s own mass against the one above and below.
It’s like building a high rise building. You start off with solid foundations and add bricks and then lighter bricks and lighter blocks, etc. all exerting their own force on top of and against each other brick, until the top (lightest) , (lets call it the ridge tiles for ease)… will be under least pressure, whilst the foundations are holding all of it up.

I’m willing to explain anything if anyone has any questions and bearing in mind that I’m not saying this as I know what’s going on and that’s that. It’s merely my hypothesis.

• Wild Heretic says:

Goodness me Screppy, you are giving me plenty of reading material

104. Sceppy. says:

I made a few spelling errors in my last post, saying withing for within and blow instead of below. I should have proof read it. Sorry about that.

• Wild Heretic says:

Don’t worry about that.

• Saros says:

Sceppy, quite interesting ideas. Congrats for the out-of-the-box thinking. I am inclined to agree with your explanation on gravity and weight, or at least it seems you might be on the right track. However, what is important is that the official explanation is most likely total rubbish. What you said about the Moon not pulling the atmosphere is also a good point. I don’t know about the Sun being in the north pole though. Also, if the stars are reflections or caused by aetheric friction as WH suggests how come we see the same configuration all the time? What if the stars and the sun are holes through which the light comes out? If the Earth is concave, and we have this rotating sphere inside the Earth as well which is filled with bright light, and the only places where this light can escape from are the holes which represent the sun and the stars. Just an idea.

• Wild Heretic says:

I had thought about the consistency of position of the stars, but I think the aether is consistent. The same locations experience the same friction because it is the same space and the same shape.

I like the holes idea, but I’m not sure I can get that to work with the path of the Sun, unless it is the globe that wobbles, but a sphere would be the wrong shape to work for my theory. Also, the stars would be on the same outer layer of the sphere as the Sun so why do the stars spin around the night sky faster than the Sun around the day one? The stars also emit a different light to the Sun which emits the same light as a sulfur lamp. Too many inconsistencies for me, but I like it nevertheless.

• Saros says:

Yeah, the holes idea was just an idea (quite far-fetched too), I didn’t actually think it through. It could be a combination of things though. It could be that there are different layers with holes, and they overlap somehow while rotating. I don’t know.

Also, it is possible that the stars don’t even have their own light. What if they reflect light the same way the fake satellites do? And also it is possible the stars are not even there, but are a form of mirage, but I doubt it. I can’t see a mirage so consistent and maintaining the same configuration and intensity over large periods ot time.

I would like to hear more about Sceppy’s idea of the sun being in the north pole. I can’t imagine that at all.

By the way, it just occurred to me that the Moon could be a worn-out region of one of those layers above. Normally it is dark and opaque, but let’s assume that it gets thinner in certain parts making it almost transparent, so the light from the layer above it can pass and appears to us as the Moon. When the layer above it spins, it blocks the light coming from within and we only see the phases etc.

• Wild Heretic says:

I like the holes idea Saros. I wouldn’t write it off just yet. In fact, you reminded me of my first idea of what the stars could be which I had initially dismissed, but your idea has made me reopen the case so to speak.

I had forgotten an important fact about the stars which binds this phenomenon to the Sun. This rules out my off the top of my head aether friction theory.

My initial idea was that stars are puncture holes in the Sun from bits of the electrode breaking off and going through the iron/nickel casing forming meteorites.
The light from stars is white/bluish to the naked eye which would work as a sulfur lamp is white/bluish also. The Sun is more yellowy because of the schreibersite layer which coats the front of the lens. I think the stars are panoramic because of the eye of the rankine aertheric vortex in which the Sun resides. it might also explain the sky dome effect.

The only problem to the theory is the fact that there are stars (different ones?) that can be seen during the day also. Maybe something to do with the way the light bends, but I’ll have to leave that on a back burner for now.

I see what you mean about the moon. Now that is a left-field thought. Something to ponder.

105. Sceppy. says:

I’d like to put some of my theories into your mind, if that’s ok, concerning the concave earth and gravity, etc. If that’s ok, I’ll be back to make some points, because yourself and Steven Christ appear to be true outside of the box thinkers, which I am.
You will remember me from my brief time on clues forum, maybe.

• Wild Heretic says:

Of course Sceppy, go ahead. If you think your theoretical proposition is too long for a comment post, I can post it as an article and put it under a heading on the left menu as “Guest column” or something like that. I’ll leave it for you to decide.

My take on gravity is that the Earth space is an aetheric double rankine vortex stuck end to end with the wide funnel parts at either poles. This shape makes a toroid. Gravity would then be caused by the angular momentum putting pressure on the surface of the Earth. The reason why there is slightly less gravity at the equator is because the angular momentum is more vertical at the center and more horizontal near the poles. This too seems to obey the square law. I’ll do a proper article on gravity after the next one. I was going to put everything together in one article but it is too much and so I’ll post them in smaller chunks instead.

• Sceppy. says:

Ok, WH, my view is drastically different. I mean, I follow a concave earth and I’m in the middle of putting together a map and explanation to go with it, in part.
Of course, I’m a long long way off piecing it all together, but maybe when it’s done, it will give you extra food for thought.

I’ll give you it in a nutshell.
Gravity and inertia, as we are told about them, to me , like much of space science and earth science pertaining to shape, etc, is total misinformation.
Atmospheric pressure explains it all, even inertia, which people see as basically carrying momentum until a force is acting upon it to change that.
In a way, it’s easy for people to be confused, because, if we mention atmospheric pressure for gravity, the comeback is swift with , ” oh yes, that can explain some stuff but it’s gravity that keeps atmospheric pressure IN side the earth.”
It’s a classic answer and relies on nothing more than “it just does.”

If gravity is keeping atmospheric pressure inside the earth as the globalists say, then it’s pushing, which means it’s pushing on the oceans, but somehow, the moons gravity which is supposedly airless and 4 times smaller than a global earth, manages to PULL at the oceans and yet it doesn’t pull out the atmosphere.

And blah blah. I think I have that sort of right, but maybe someone can correct me.
I’m in the middle of writing it all out about the earth, (not in it’s entirety lol) and how I believe it works.
So a few key points which I will expand on later, so be prepared for it.
Space as we know it, as in a vacuum with stars and so called planets, does not exist at all to our view.
We are a cell in suspended animation of a perfect vacuum that our primitive eyes cannot see into, because NOTHING can travel or exist as a force of continued movement in that vacuum.

All of our elements are stacked in order of density starting from the bottom of the cell which would be something like pure diamond due to ridiculously dense pressure of the size of this cell and what is inside of it…TO US.

The sun is in the centre of what people believe is the north pole, but is no such thing, in my opinion.
The sun in the sky is a reflection as are the stars and the moon and every other dot that are called planets. They are all reflections of what is occurring in this cell of earth.

The top of our atmosphere , I believe is ice, as in something like helium ice or basically the last element this earth can give out, which sits at the top, fully expanded and under no pressure, which forces it to flash freeze as it becomes dormant against the vacuum.

A vacuum cannot exist inside earth. We can only evacuate pressure from a container but not all, which basically is playing with high v low pressure and this is the key to everything that happens inside this earth cell.

I could go on and I will if you want me to add to it or question me on it all, because I’ve seen your stuff and read it with interest, which is what made me know that you are prepared to logically look at everything which seem lunacy, to many.

Tell me what you think and by all means critically pull apart anything you don’t see that works or just question the life out of me and I’ll get back as quickly as possible.
If we all bounce off of each other, there’s a much better chance of putting the tiny pieces into place of the mammoth jigsaw puzzle that in reality we should have a lot more knowledge of if it was suppressed, for whatever reasons of which I have a few.
Cheers.

• Wild Heretic says:

These are my current thoughts, but it is only opinion and so doesn’t matter.

Gravity and inertia, as we are told about them, to me , like much of space science and earth science pertaining to shape, etc, is total misinformation.
Atmospheric pressure explains it all, even inertia, which people see as basically carrying momentum until a force is acting upon it to change that.
In a way, it’s easy for people to be confused, because, if we mention atmospheric pressure for gravity, the comeback is swift with , ” oh yes, that can explain some stuff but it’s gravity that keeps atmospheric pressure IN side the earth.”
It’s a classic answer and relies on nothing more than “it just does.”

Out of interest what causes the weight of the different densities?

If gravity is keeping atmospheric pressure inside the earth as the globalists say, then it’s pushing, which means it’s pushing on the oceans, but somehow, the moons gravity which is supposedly airless and 4 times smaller than a global earth, manages to PULL at the oceans and yet it doesn’t pull out the atmosphere.

I think the moon is likely an optical phenomenon and not physically there in the sky. I don’t know though. Either way, I reckon the moon has no effect on anything by itself, but is a marker or indicator of the aetheric processes in the Earth space; such as full moon indicates low atmospheric pressure etc.

And blah blah. I think I have that sort of right, but maybe someone can correct me.
I’m in the middle of writing it all out about the earth, (not in it’s entirety lol) and how I believe it works.
So a few key points which I will expand on later, so be prepared for it.
Space as we know it, as in a vacuum with stars and so called planets, does not exist at all to our view.
We are a cell in suspended animation of a perfect vacuum that our primitive eyes cannot see into, because NOTHING can travel or exist as a force of continued movement in that vacuum.

I’ve no idea, but I reckon stars could be caused by aetheric friction in the middle of Earth space.

All of our elements are stacked in order of density starting from the bottom of the cell which would be something like pure diamond due to ridiculously dense pressure of the size of this cell and what is inside of it…TO US.

Sounds reasonable.

The sun is in the centre of what people believe is the north pole, but is no such thing, in my opinion.
The sun in the sky is a reflection as are the stars and the moon and every other dot that are called planets. They are all reflections of what is occurring in this cell of earth.

I think the Sun is a real physical object, stars are aetheric friction, the moon and possibly the planets are projections, but that is a stab in the dark.

The top of our atmosphere , I believe is ice, as in something like helium ice or basically the last element this earth can give out, which sits at the top, fully expanded and under no pressure, which forces it to flash freeze as it becomes dormant against the vacuum.

LSC thinks something similar. I haven’t thought about it, so i have no idea.

A vacuum cannot exist inside earth. We can only evacuate pressure from a container but not all, which basically is playing with high v low pressure and this is the key to everything that happens inside this earth cell.

Sure, but I think there is something behind the curtain of atmospheric pressure so to speak.

• Sceppy. says:

Wild Heretic says:Out of interest what causes the weight of the different densities?

Not easy to explain without maybe getting boring, but here goes.
The earth (my theory) is in a vacuum as a cell, as I said.
The earth WEIGHS nothing in terms of IT against that vacuum as it’s suspended in it and only breathing withing itself, as silly as that sounds.
It’s always high and low pressure imbalances, meaning a fight between matter creating friction, creating heat, creating expansion of matter and releasing less dense matter through that expansion and it all starts from within.
Basically it’s all under pressure and just as hydrogen molecules are trapped withing water and air molecules; pressure and friction can expand some, so basically nothing becomes weight to us unless we can physically weigh it.
To do that we have to use scales that have to be part of the atmosphere we are in, so any scales we use is under atmospheric pressure before we start using them.

From that point on; any matter that is more dense than atmospheric pressure will exert it’s own force on those scales, because it’s natural environment is blow out atmospheric environment we live in, whether that is a drop of water or a lead block.
The further down the earth an element is, the denser it will be up top and that’s why they weigh on our scales.

I know it’s not an easy concept for people to grasp, because mainstream science tries to use weight as an indicator of gravity as if gravity somehow acts on the actual air, but if thought about carefully, it’s absolute nonsense.

They use the feather and a coin inside a tube that has SOME pressure evacuated from it and call it a vacuum, (which as I’ve said, cannot be made on earth) and tell us that it’s proof that gravity and air pressure are different by showing us that the feather now falls ROUGHLY the same speed as the coin to the bottom of the tube.

The reality of it is, (if thought through) pressure has been evacuated from the tube and because of this, the air inside has expanded to fill that tube. The more air evacuated, the more expansion of air molecules in that tube because they MUST fill the space.
By doing this, all that is created is a very low pressure environment that has reduced enormously in it’s friction properties, so now, even a feather becomes easier to fall through it, because there’s no dense air pressure under it to resist it’s movement through it.

I’d be happy to explain it all in more detail if there are any questions about it, but I can assure you, when anyone tells you that a VACUUM proves things…the simple answer is, no vacuum can exist on earth in it’s entirety, all that can be achieved by us, is low pressure against a high pressure environment and it all starts with pressure, agitation, vibration from the centre of the bowl….that started with the sun, with everything else following on from that, all started from pressure.

• Wild Heretic says:

The earth WEIGHS nothing in terms of IT against that vacuum as it’s suspended in it and only breathing withing itself, as silly as that sounds.

I agree with that, and I’ll show you its oscillation in my next post.

It’s always high and low pressure imbalances, meaning a fight between matter creating friction, creating heat, creating expansion of matter and releasing less dense matter through that expansion and it all starts from within.

Good. I agree with the pressure imbalances (but aetheric ones). Also, what is the process that starts it all within?

What you are saying is that there is no greater unresolved force, just those within the substance that is doing the acting right? O

Oh wait, I read the rest of your post. You are saying there is no perfect vacuum therefore all downward movement is relative to density yes?

Lastly, what force causes these different pressures to move the denser substances downwards and the less dense substances upwards? Let’s take an extreme example. Let’s say there is a near vacuum with one air molecule in it (or 1000 if you like). Why do the air molecules settle at the bottom of the vacuum chamber, like our atmosphere does to the vacuum above it? What internal force is within that air molecule which puts it to the bottom of the vacuum cell or chamber? And why bottom and not top? These air molecules are only relative to themselves and nothing else of other densities.

106. karol says:

see this, spectacular examples of Binocular Effect:

• Wild Heretic says:

Great find. Great to see another poster finding new stuff which helps a lot.

I’m going to look at the other skycentrism videos now.

• karol says:

Read the first page of the thread ‘light bends up’ on GLP. There’s a discussion on visibility range. I can’t provide a link because I ran out of ban immunity.

• Wild Heretic says:

Hey Karol and LSC,

I need some help in finding information on the leveler experiments of Heinrich Hohener and Wilhelm Martin to show that sunlight bends upwards. It is useful for my next article.

Thanks a lot.

WH

EDIT: no worries got it. It’s Keppler.

http://www.rolf-keppler.de/lichtkrumm.htm

• karol says:

See the skycentrism videos concerning sunray. It’s proved beyond any doubt.

• Wild Heretic says:

Will do. I am halfway through them.

107. Mr. Story says:

Hello, Mr. Heretic!
May I ask for an e-mail address of yours? I think I might have some quite interesting things to tell you.
Thank you in advance.

• Wild Heretic says:

Sent.

108. Hey WH, two new videos…
One is the “mysterious” stone sphere of Costa Rica, and the other is the pre-flood Pangea and the separating of continents.

Have a happy new year!
Steve

• Wild Heretic says:

Cheers Steve. Will watch this now. Oh and BTW, after working through a detailed look at the path of the Sun, I have the curved octahedron in the middle of the Earth space.

Steve, I’ve been meaning to ask you for ages: How did you first come across or come to the conclusion that there was glass in the sky and also the octahedron for that matter? I would never have known about the glass if it hadn’t been for you, so kudos.

• Wild Heretic says:

I like the pre-flood theory a lot. I also like the theory that it was the flood which caused all the erosion and not ice, i.e there was no ice age.

After reading etidorpha (well, most of it so far), I’ve always thought the water came up from the ground and flooded the place. What’s new for me is where Pangaea fits in and the formation of the mountains which I also really like. I can also add my own extra bit of info on this topic concerning the origin of post-flood man, but I’ll do that in a short article maybe after the next one. The evidence comes from genetic maps.

• Thx, WH, coming to the conclusion of the glass sky was derived from scripture back in the spring of 2003. From 01 to 03 I had accepted a convex geocentric model of earth and would dialogue/argue with people via email over this. After going back and forth with an atheist/heliocentrist and former young earth creationist, Ed Babinski, on whether the earth spun or not, he mentioned that Abelkadar’s inverted earth mathematical scenario was the only way that he could believe that earth was motionless. This concept was new to me, so it stopped me in my tracks. I began searching for information about this concept. I found Rolf Keppler’s and Helmut Diehl’s webpage and began to dialogue with Helmut via email. (He is the older man in that photo above, standing next to his concave earth model.) He was about 81 at that time (03) so I’m not sure if he is still living. In initial incredulous skepticism I printed out the material from Rolfe’s site, the mine shaft experiment and all the statistical data from the Rectilineator experiment, etc. A brought it home to study, ponder. It took 3 days until I finally accepted it, but once I did there was no turning back. I would later have more talks with helmut, and he told me that I was the first American he knew that accepted the concave model. He also told me that I was the new (reincarnated) Cyrus Teed. Within the next few days however, I had this intuitive feeling that something was missing from their model, so I would search scripture for clues. There are basically 5 different bible verses that convinced me of the glass sky, but the one that solidified it for me was found in Jeremiah chapter 5, verses 21-22…

“Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not:

Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand [for] the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?

How can the sand from the coasts prevent waves from passing? Tsunamis and hurricanes pass over the sand very easily…

No, think harder, there is a sand up in the sky. It’s a molten sand. It prevents the water from flooding the continents. It was placed there after the Flood..…

After reading this verse I became convinced. This little riddle for those who have eyes and can’t see was the impetus for generating new diagrams of the concave earth model with the glass sky that I would show Helmut and Rolfe. Sadly, however, they couldn’t accept it, so eventually I had to disassociate from them.

The other 4 verses that also contributed to accepting the glass sky are Genesis 9:13 (the rainbow forming as a result of the glass after the flood, to act as a scientific token, to imply the glass sky PUSHED the waters down to prevent future global flooding, Job 37:17 being a blatant implication that the sky is hard and a molten looking glass, Psalm 104:9 mentioning the “bound” which in the Strong’s concordance (1366) was used also in Jeremiah 5:21 to describe the boundary that pushed the waters down, and of course 1 Corinthians 13:12 (now we see through a glass darkly).

I knew intuitively that the rainbows were formed because of the glass sky and could not accept the faulty conventional explanation of them.

Only later did all the tangible evidence come pouring in…tektites, LDG, fusion crust, auroras, ham radio, elves, ball lightning, ozone, uv block, etc.

• Wild Heretic says:

I wonder if the addition of the glass increased the pressure below it and kept the water under the ground? Just throwing that out there. I haven’t thought it through at all.

• oh, the octahedron was derived from scripture as well, Job 38:4-6 and Revelation 21:16. The phrase “foundations of the earth” in Job 38 was used to describe something geometric and STRAIGHT with a corner stone. I would later find out of Joe Parr’s energy bubble that would encapsulate rotating pyramids and the concept of the octahedron being the heart of the universe. This blurb from a site in particular is noteworthy…

“”Our core heart is found in the octahedron as an expression of self-love and compassion. Prayer is invoked in the form of the icosahedron. The twelve faces of ‘God within’ are discovered in the dodecahedron.

• Wild Heretic says:

Strictly speaking, for me I suppose what I have isn’t a octahedron exactly per se. It’s more like a circus tent on one side and the same on the under side but flipped over. It seems to be part of a bigger shape which I’ll go into. This next article is slow and big because it is taxing me at my limits, so everyone else interested will just have to be patient.

• New vid, WH..

Why the Horizon is Always at Eye Level Regardless of Altitude

• Wild Heretic says:

Interesting stuff. I’m glad you are reading Lang’s book. I don’t have time right now but I would love to go through it properly.

I tell you. We will nail this bendy light issue, hopefully

dear wild heretic,

i discovered your website some weeks ago, since then i read your articles again and again. the first time i was introduced to the concave earth theory was about 1,5 years ago on a german blog and since then i tried to research the whole topic. (http://autarkes-rattelsdorf.blogspot.co.at/2012/03/gesamtuberblick-innenweltkosmoshohlwelt.html)

this whole theory was the main reason why i bought a dslr in january 2013 and since then i learned a lot about optics, photography and related stuff. as one side effect photography has become my obsession. since then i tried to do some experiments with infrared filters, but didn’t get good enough results so far. one problem is (i think) the sensors they build into modern digital cameras, which are built to filter infrared light out, but nevertheless it is possible to get some good exposures with long enough shutter. my main camera at the moment is a nikon d610.

the main reason i write here is to ask everybody reading if they can provide some useful information for conducting experiments with infrared filters, i will have the opportunity (within the next 6 months) to do a 20 minute flight on a helicopter in my area (vienna, austria).

my biggest inspiration for using infrared photography is a photo from london out of this book by johannes lang from 1938:

https://archive.org/details/Lang-Johannes-Die-Hohlwelttheorie

this is one of 2 books in german (which is my native language besides hungarian), the other one was written by johann dolanski, who already was mentioned somewhere here in the comments section.

i really admire your efforts of putting all this fantastic information together and to provide a forum where interested people can share and discuss these things.

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks for those links. It looks like Herr Lang and myself are on the exact same page regarding these two diagrams:

https://archive.org/stream/Lang-Johannes-Die-Hohlwelttheorie/LangJohannes-DieHohlwelttheorie1938293S.Scan-text#page/n25/mode/2up

It’s always good to know I’m not alone coming to the same conclusions. This gives me something further to ponder too, which helps me a lot.

And I’m reading about the infrared issue on page 34. My German was fluent, but now it requires more effort to understand properly, especially this subject which is quite technical.

There is a Dutch person who commented here that he is looking into doing experiments with infra-red photography. Perhaps the two of you need could email each other?

Any contribution is greatly appreciated arya.

WH

110. Cocchi says:

Dear Wild Heretic, when will your next article about the hypothesis mentioned in the last paragraph of your “Concave Earth” article be published? I am very much looking forward to that article, as I would love to know what that hypothesis is. It may explain a lot. Thank you so much in advance!

• Wild Heretic says:

Hey Cocchi, I’m working on it. It will take a while as it covers so much. I’ve very nearly finished “the path of the Sun”. Next is the mechanics, and after that “gravity”, then probably “the night sky”, then either “frequencies” or “electromagnetism” and lastly “the evidence”. It will probably be twice as long as the longest article so far maybe.

I won’t write anything completely wild just yet and leave that till later.

111. el guapo says:

Excellent work. However, I don’t think you’re giving diverging plumb lines their due import at just 50%. Remember the first experiment WAS NOT at Tamarack mines in 1901, it was actually in France sometime prior. The French were then so wigged out by what they discovered that they contacted the American Geodetic Survey and requested that they repeat the experiment in the USA. One can safely assume that the French scientists would not have done that unless they were getting conclusive readings.

• Wild Heretic says:

Yes, I remember reading about that French experiment. My only issue was if it took place at all. If I knew for sure then I would up the percentage considerably; but I think the only source for it is Palmer who could have sensationalized stuff… maybe. So it is just a question of source. If you can find another source, maybe in another language, then we will have to revise. A couple of readers have made some breakthroughs looking in other languages, especially Russian. Clever. I wouldn’t have thought of it myself.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the French experiment did occur, but they covered it up. And ditto for that more speculative officially unpublished study at Tamarack Mines talked about by Grant in his concave Earth book.

112. Wild Heretic says:

I’m reposting this link to this page because it is more evidence for the heliocentric model inside a geocentric concave Earth (which seems to be the truth of our situation):

“Hey Sum,

I love this vid from the user you thanked

That’s more corroborating evidence for a concave Earth, albeit, not directly.”

• Ah ok, so Jupiter goes in front of the sun sometimes (as well as in back). a little more tweaking to my orbiting planets model to come later. Nothing major.
So sad that this info is out in public view and people don’t bother to ask questions.
p.s. glad I made your Xmas with the Irishman video, that was fun!

• Wild Heretic says:

I know. The fact that Jupiter was observed to go in front of the Sun is an obvious nail in the coffin for the current model. A huge red alert that few bother to notice it seems.

• sumstuff52 says:

yes, i can see my old friends ridiculing me last year i was sumstuff46

113. scud says:

A very happy Christmas to you TR and LSC!!

Many thanks for your exemplary efforts over 2013 and look forward to more stunning ‘revelations’ this coming year, which I hope will not include giant hailstones..

Cheers fellas!

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks Scud. Merry Christmas to you and your family too.

I definitely have one more card up my sleeve, but after that it’s in the lap of the Gods.

I may look at the underworld and the origins of man, or look at the microcosm, or do something a touch more practical; or sweet F.A.

Steve is very industrious though and I am sure we will continue to see a steady stream of material from him.

• thx scud, merry christmas to you too, and to you as well WH.

funny video here, me yelling at an irishman…

• Wild Heretic says:

Merry Christmas LSC to you too and everyone who reads this and LSC’s website, and cluesforum.

Keep the insights coming in the New Year LSC, Sumstuff, Saros, Scud and co. and have a good one.

• Wild Heretic says:

Great video. Made my Christmas!

114. david says:

Hi, I wonder how would you explain polar day and polar night lasting up tp 6 months at the poles?

• Wild Heretic says:

That’s an easy one David. It’s in the next article, but basically it is the Sun that tilts at 23.4 degrees at both solstices. I’ll explain the exact mechanism as to why this occurs too (which is a lot more than can be said of current astronomers as to why the earth tilts at said angle). Gravity is also exactly explained by the same mechanism and leads to further insights on frequencies and the possible microcosm (the latter mechanism won’t be new to alternative science theorists though if they read it).

115. ok, this star streak analysis that Mariusz asked me to animate show be the nail in the coffin to the convex world. I guess it’s all a matter of dissemination.
The star streaks “should” be vertical if we truly were on a convex ball.

• Wild Heretic says:

Its says the video has been removed Steve. Are you editing it?

• I took it down because I am not convinced about it yet. Mariusz, I don’t think is either. Eh well.

• Wild Heretic says:

in your own time friend.

116. Joe Parr Confirms 11yr Cyclic Pyramidal Heaven in Concave Earth

• Wild Heretic says:

Steve, I have also deduced a tetrahedron in the middle of the earth space; however, it needn’t be solid (and probably isn’t), but rather it is the base of the core direction of the path of light of the sun. It’s lines are curved, continue to form another shape and the top and bottom points are pointing at the equator, rather than at the poles. I also know what causes this tetrahedron effect.

I woke up this morning with one hell of a wild speculation involving this. I’ll post it soonish but this part is purely speculative with no evidence behind it. Because of this I have a loose explanation for the aether (with no proof). I think the aether is just the “greater light”. It also seems that the separate “worlds” are separated by a 90 degree angle… speculative only.

• Interesting, but yes, I agree about the shape (I say octahedron, you say tetra), being non-solid. I’m interested in how you visualize this.

• another point to consider with the tetrahedron, is that a double terahedron inverted upon itself creates the mercaba, or the “chariot”, however the negative space this creates in the center is the octahedron, and of course the spinning mercaba is said to produce energy. check it out…

• Wild Heretic says:

That’s interesting. Does this mean there is an octahedron in a tetrahedron or how does this work exactly?

• Interesting copy…”Our core heart is found in the octahedron as an expression of self-love and compassion. Prayer is invoked in the form of the icosahedron. The twelve faces of ‘God within’ are discovered in the dodecahedron.
The star tetrahedron is a wonderful metaphor for us to work with and understand. It is two tetrahedrons joining and becoming one. One of the tetrahedrons represents heaven and is moving downward while the other tetrahedron represents earth and is moving upward. As they become one the star tetrahedron is formed with an octahedron internally present. The octahedron is the symbol for our heart. Thus, the metaphor is: “Heaven and earth join to form heart.””

http://www.jimalbani.com/ArticlesSG.asp

So, the heaven tetra and earth tetra form the heart of the heaven and earth, in the form of the octahedron. Works out really neat!

• Here’s a better animation explaning how I see all the platonic solids fitting inside the earth…

• Wild Heretic says:

Cheers Steve. Will have a look see.

117. Enlighten Fawn says:

Hi ~
When I was reading through All of Your Fantastic Information, etc., I noticed something about Sand that maybe You don’t know of – when an Electrical Lighten Strike, from the Sky, comes down and specifically strikes Sand – it Becomes Glass! I have Seen that with My own Eyes >
I’ve heard and read that the Oceans, with Time, can mold Sand into Glass – I have seen Glass formations at the Beach, but I really don’t know if that is a Fact. I have found glass rock formations near Volcano’s so, that is another Theory…?
Thank You, Fawn ~

• Wild Heretic says:

Fawn,

Are you saying that the glass in the sky could have been formed by lightning strikes? For that to happen, there would have to be a lot of sand in a certain position in orbit 100 km above us. Seems highly improbable to me. Firstly, the sand would very likely fall back down to Earth due to gravity. Secondly, where does this sand originate from and how did it get in this exact position? Thirdly, the glass is a necessary component for the Sun to be a light-bulb which denotes engineering.

The glass in the sky article has a picture of glass formed by lightning and it looks tubular and stoney (fulgerites).

http://www.wildheretic.com/there-is-glass-in-the-sky/#F

Thanks for your thoughts though and keep up the good work.

WH

• Enlighten Fawn says:

Hi WH ~

Thank You for Your reply > The progressive Science, to this degree, I Am not in tune with, yet :-}
I Am just remarking on personal facts that I have experienced – I Know that Jesus Christ Superstar* did state: “Anything Is Possible” :-}

I do Know that the Bible has Genius in it, but I also Know that it has been altered towards society’s death culture, etc.
I’ve done a solid 14 year research on Jesus Christ’s Words, and Many were not even published in the Bible. Many of HIS Words have been manipulated, etc. What My Main Focus is to let people know that Jesus was murdered by the evil entities because ‘they’ know that We (Human Beings & Godly Wildlife) Have Been Granted Forever Life, in the Physical! Live Like Forever & Truth Will Endeavor ~ Earth Is Heaven+

Anyway, I was Wondering if You think Meteor Impacts Create Glass?

Merry Christmas and an Exciting New Year*
( I Know Time Is Selective, but ‘these’ traditions that are in Love, I accept:)
Fawn ~

• Wild Heretic says:

Merry Christmas to you too and a soon-to-be happy (and insightful) New year.

• The glass forming from lightning strikes is ruled out from the explanation of why either tektites or Libyan Desert Glass form, mainly due to the extraterrestrial elements found in them, namely iridium and ozmium, which are not found anywhere in the terrestrial sand. My theory does propose, however, that sand did once descend from the upper celestial sphere/ocean at the time of the global deluge. It dropped to ionospheric levels (100km) and levitated and began to fuse together as the ionized particles began to melt together.

118. Carole Thomas says:

Have you heard of this guy?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Dolanski
He was an inverted hollow earther but he thought the earth rotates around a stationary sphere of fixed stars, while the sun perfoms an elliptical orbit.
His book is free online, but only in German I think ( i have quickly skimmed it and it seems very interesting)

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks for the link Carole. I think I might know what the stars are now. I’ll write about it in the next article, but the basic premise is that they must be connected to the sun (I’ll explain later) and I think it may have to do with its curved light. I’ll have to give it more thought.

In my model, the Earth doesn’t move at all.

119. Saros says:

I was looking for information in Russian regarding Concave Earth, and I found an old article from June, 1981 published in a magazine called “Science and Life”. In that article there is also a drawing showing how the inverted universe might look like and function. I wanted to share the drawing with you:

http://i.imgur.com/D8rVHMx.jpg

The Sun and the Moon eclipses are explained, the Moon phases, the seasons, and the ships disappearing below the horizon…

• Wild Heretic says:

Incredible timing. You see the Sunlight paths inside the Earth on the diagram. That is the same as the paths I have deduced but kind of in reverse and more detailed. I will eventually (a couple of months maybe) publish this in the next article. The sun light path opens up a whole new area of research with regards the aether and magnetism and gravity etc.

I’ll look into that horizon theory. It is similar to the Dutch one I found and posted somewhere in the comments section below. The obvious problem with it is that boat would only disappear under the horizon at a very specific time of day and direction. That is not to say it is wrong as I haven’t looked into and tested the theory that something disappears below the horizon “bottom-first” only at a specific time.

Good find.

EDIT: Last night I was in the middle of working through something when I saw your post and the Russian picture. Having now worked through it, it turns out the bendy light of the Russian picture is exactly the same as my own deductions. Doesn’t mean it is right, but at least I’m not alone.

• Hey WH, et al. this is my idea of what’s going on with the horizon. I believe there is a Horizonal Crease that’s created…

http://www.missteribabylonestar.com/wpimages/wp1295a190_06.png

The Leveler Experiments conducted by Heinrich Hohenner (1874-1966) proved that light bends upwards when it strikes the earth (contrary what is taught in optics). Wilhel Martin re-conducted this experiment in 2001 and reached the same conclusion.

For the observer’s viewpoint, as he looks across the land, his eye reaches the “verge”, which is always at eye level regardless of his altitude. Behind the verge is a blind spot that is concluded by the celestial orbs rising and setting in the distance. The glass sky creates an optical inversion to the heavens by refraction. This creates a Horizonal “crease” that lies below the actual visual horizon of the celestial orbs. Thus there are actual two “horizons”, the initial one created by the verge, and the latter one seen past the verge on the celestial sphere. This Horizonal Crease however, is sometimes visible in the extreme polar regions in the case of superior mirages or fata morganas.

120. JohnyBravo says:

How they create those blue marble photo’s of earth?
“..They map them onto a 3D sphere..” That’s right, they don’t map them onto the inside of a concave bowl.

We know they stitch allot of 100km altitude pictures together to make it apear as if it is one picture from a far greater distance. This kind of articles are all dots or pieces of the puzzle. It’s getting easier by the day to connect them all.

How nasa creates blue marble photos of earth

Will do some infrared photographic field research with long lens, long distance horizon, when the weather gets better. Infrared photography clears the haze. To be continued.

• Wild Heretic says:

Johny,

It’s fantastic that you are going to experiment with infrared photography. I remember years ago reading that there were something like three types of infra-red cameras; each one detecting infrared in a different band. I think (memory a bit sketchy here) the band that contained the lowest wavelength was only allowed for the military (Surprise surprise!)

I think I found what I read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_looking_infrared

It seems though that this wavelength can’t see far because it is the “heat” wavelength which is absorbed by water vapour etc. Maybe the medium wavelength is the better one. Although:

“…these camera systems can see through smoke, fog, haze, and other atmospheric obscurants better than a visible light camera can”

And the three types of camera are described here:

http://www.facilitiesnet.com/equipmentrentaltools/article/Understanding-the-Three-Types-of-Infrared-Cameras–10652#

Which contradicts wiki (at least at first read) by saying:

“Long-wavelength cameras — the most popular infrared camera — typically detect infrared wavelengths in the range of 7-12 microns. Cameras operating in this spectral range provide great deal of detail because atmospheric absorption is minimal.”

Mmmmm.

121. Saros says:

Here is an interesting scientific paper titled “Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth”, http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

It is interesting because it turns out even science admits the curvature cannot be easily seen.

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks for the link and your continuing research Saros. I’ll read the PDF another night, but on first viewing it does show what a mixed bag the horizon is.

• Just a hint but… all is possible. On one forum in Poland I’ve read an opinion about Copernicus. I could not get the guy to confirm that news because he just vanished from that forum.

He said that he was reading REAL works of Copernicus and he wrote about Earth being concave. When church authorities found about it, he was imprisoned in Frombork castle until he died.

Apparently his work was smuggled somehow outside the castle and he APPARENTLY the poster saw it in… Russia.

Maybe just a gossip, but knowing how the system works – Cyrus Teed and others knew a lot about it and the story about Copernicus could be right.

I could not find any info about the real findings of Copernicus. But knowledge about such hint can help us – sooner or later.

Kind regards…

• Wild Heretic says:

Now that is interesting.

Scud has researched more about the Jesuits and their involvement with this heliocentric model than I have.

My initial take is that the Jesuits sole purpose is to keep man ignorant. Why? Not sure. Control mostly I suppose… but perhaps not realizing that this world isn’t as “natural” as we would imagine could make the reasons for us being here less effective so to speak.

Free-range cows produce better milk than ones trapped in a barn 24/7. Perhaps this is the real reason.

Bizarrely, there may be a positive reason behind this. If man thinks he is alone in a vast “Godless” universe, then all decisions man makes have their own consequences and so maybe make him more responsible and “grown-up”. If he thinks the Earth is flat and “God” looks after him, he could remain an eternal child.

But screw that pseudo-philosophical reasoning. Let’s blow the lid wide open anyway. It all boils down to containment and “milking” at the end of the day I reckon. The truth and being responsible are hardly incompatible anyway.

• The author fails to understand the simple concept of the fact that the horizon REMAINS at eye level at extreme altitudes, in which a theoretical escapade over a convex “planet” would produce a lower than eye level horizon, and neglects the probable cause of any such apparent eyewitness convexity at high altitudes is being distorted through a window adding to the barrel distortion, especially the front of an airplane, where the peripheral angle is greater and where the window is arched toward the viewer. The side windows, where periphery is limited may also produce the barrel distortion if the plane is tilted laterally as well. Pathetic presuppositional error here.

122. Scud says:

Ok, seems the ‘trick’ that I’m missing is that radio signals in this particular band-width and even visible light to a certain degree are supposedly recognised to ‘bounce’ or ‘skip’ between Earth and atmosphere (no specific region) allowing a ‘below horizon’ (that’s Earth’s convex curvature to you and me) range capability.
It’s described here.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwave

Anyone buy this explanation? I don’t, simply because it makes no sense whatsoever. A neutrally charged gas (air below Ionosphere) has light bending properties in direct relation to the solid / liquid beneath? Really?

• Wild Heretic says:

I don’t buy it either.

Wiki says – “Ground waves refer to the propagation of radio waves parallel to and adjacent to the surface of the Earth, following the curvature of the Earth.”

This means that the waves travel in the air, not the ground.

and

“Conductivity of the surface affects the propagation of ground waves, with more conductive surfaces such as water providing better propagation.”

How does the conductivity of the ground affect waves traveling in the air? As you say, the air is neutral and not ionic.

But it is not just that. You mentioned that the marine radar is placed on top of the mast and radiates the wave just above the horizontal and 25 degree next to the vertical – so basically it radiates up, not down or even level. These waves aren’t traveling parallel or adjacent to the ground at all.

It seems these radar devices operate similar to the military infra-red camera in a concave Earth, by pointing up, with the near horizontal angle detecting near objects and the 25 degree vertical picking up the long range boats 120 NM away.

I would imagine the reason why the waves have a greater range over water is because water is relatively “flat” with no opposing objects like mountains and buildings to dissipate the waves earlier than they should.

So yet again, it seems the truth is the exact opposite of what we are told. Wiki says that the lower the frequency, the more the waves travel with the curvature of the Earth, when really it is the opposite in the concave Earth model – It is visible light (and possibly all the higher frequencies) which followed the curvature of the Earth, probably because of gravity, which opens up a whole new can of worms and questions regarding frequency and gravity. Does gravity have a frequency etc. which is a another topic. However, since visible light is one of our 5 senses, then it logically follows that our other 4 senses may also be affected by gravity. If so, and if gravity has a frequency with which our 5 senses resonate, then maybe this “physical” reality is nothing more than us being subjected to and tuned to the greater body which is the Earth cavity. I’ll talk about this a lot more in the next article.

Instead in the concave Earth model, it is the lower the frequency of light, the less it is affected by gravity. This would also tie in with those people who claim that UFOs are visible in the infrared, not visible light. (Assuming they are “anti-gravity” vehicles) this might be because their anti-gravity systems “bend” visible light making them either falsely positioned or completely invisible – or for complete full spectrum invisibility, using Steve’s disappearing stars explanation, maybe they are concentrating the aether more on one side (for propulsion pressure purposes) and so light is unable to transmit on the other sides as there is no aether for the waves to travel in?

A bit off topic, but thought I’d mention it.

123. Carole Thomas says:

Hi there,
I have already posted under “Disappearing Stars” but will post here too as these comments seem to be more active.
Please, TotalRecall, take up Ab on his invitation and do an interview on the Fakeologist. I would love to hear more of your views. This information has to get out to more people.

• Wild Heretic says:

Thanks Carole,

Would love to do an interview, but just need to finish the next article to complete the whole shebang.

WH/TR

124. Scud says:

Hmm…seems the same for lighthouses.

“But the lights that can be seen from the greatest distance are the bulbs on top of the Empire State Building in New York City. Each of these bulbs has the power of 450 million candles, and can be seen from the ground from as far away as 80 miles . . . and from an airplane from as far away as 300 miles!”

Again, if this information is correct it shouldn’t be possible as our calculator says that from the very top of the Empire State’s spire (1250 feet) a light could only remain visible out to 43.3 miles…if Earth is indeed a planet of course!

• Wild Heretic says:

Good Find Scud. Really appreciate the extra research you are doing here.

125. Scud says:

A re-wording. See if it works….

Standard issue maritime RADAR systems of the type that you’ll see fitted to every sailing sloop / gin palace worth its salt have stated ranges of anything up to 120 nautical miles.

This particular model http://www.raymarine.co.uk/view/?id=174 has a quoted range of 72nm but as appears typical, there is no corresponding information as to the height that it should be installed to achieve its potential. Not surprising, because if we stuff this info through… http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm we find that in order to peer over the horizon at floating objects this distant your yacht would need a mast 3,500 feet tall!

Am I missing a simple trick here?

126. Scud says:

TR

Sorry, but there is something about that post your site doesn’t seem to like…keeps disappearing into the luminiferous aether!

127. Scud says:

Ooh yeah! Another observation concerning basic RADAR systems is ‘vertical beam width’.

It seems that at least the ‘Raymarine’ range (as previously linked) rotates a stream of electromagnetic radiation within a fan of 25 degrees to the vertical and only 1.85 degrees to the horizontal. Why would they need to do this? I assume that the best part of this large, vertical angle is going to be looking up, not down into the sea.

Is ‘RADAR’ utilizing the ‘skywave’ effect off the ionosphere?…No, can’t be. Ionosphere is reckoned to begin at +/- 100Km altitude.

Presumptuous perhaps, but is not RADAR and its horizon busting properties (without the aid of the ionosphere) further proof that the inhabitable area of Earth simply curves the other way to what we have all been told?

• Wild Heretic says:

Scud, the link didn’t show. Can you try and post it again?

It’s a bit late tonight, but I’ll definitely look into this tomorrow.

Sounds very promising.

I’ve had a sneaky look just now and you could really be on to something here Scud.

The range of this radar is 48 nautical miles. Such a distance is far too short to bounce off the ionosphere like radio waves – Skywaves.

http://www.raymarine.com/view/?id=312

And that is the limit of its range. Let’s find out tomorrow what its MINIMUM range is!

It’s too late now for me to look at this further.

128. pjs femme says:

These are truly enormous ideas in concerning
bl&X6f;gging. You have tοuched some g&X6F;od
pointѕ here. Any ωаy keеp up wrin&X74;ing.

129. Another solid proof of cosmos inside of Earth.

Check that film.

http://vimeo.com/67785762

Such movement is possible only in case of Earth being a concave. Take notice – different speed of stars.

• Wild Heretic says:

Thank you word watcher.

We are researching the same things! I read that the stars turn 4 minutes less than 24 hours. What I need to find out is do all the stars turn in sync or do the interior stars turn faster than the periphery?

At first glance of your photo, it would seem that that they turn in sync. What do you think?

The very first star trail in the video also shows two meteors hitting the glass sky (bottom left).

Found the answer. It seems the stars rotate in sync:

http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/StarMotion.html

• Hey… I think that these trails of stars are the best evidences of earth as concave. It’s my speculation but… examine yourself.

If the universe is as big, as they say – Alpha Centauri s is 4 light years away, from nearly all points of Earth, when we will look vertically up on stars, we should see them on film as straight and parallel lines.

Exception would be North and South Poles, where we would notice circles.

Just take a look at this link.

All pictures are showing us circles or part of the circle.

No one picture with straight parallel lines.

And that is absolutely impossible! Curved lines are 100% proof of Earth being o concave.

Tell us what you think!

• Wild Heretic says:

I think the idea that the stars move in circles around a fixed point above the poles is that it is the Earth rotating which causes this effect.

However, the stars revolve 4 minutes too fast each day (I am not sure if this is a constant or depends on the time of year… something to research perhaps). This means that after 365 days, the Earth has revolved 1460 minutes quicker than it should have, which is 24 hours and 20 minutes too fast per year. This means that the Earth should lose 1 day per year, but it does not. It actually gains nearly 6 hours every year and this is the reason we have leap years!

Go figure.

130. Wild Heretic says:

Steve, here is the link to the eye and the horizon hypothesis. I’ve added a link to the above article but it is probably easier to find it by coming to this comment.

http://www.wildheretic.com/eye-horizon-theory/

131. Saros says:

Great work! However, there is something I would like to propose. Just an idea. Why don’t we also consider the possibility that the Earth is a bowl(concave hemisphere) and the sky is something like a lid of concave or convex shape. I mean, why does it need to be flat, concave or convex? It could be a combination of all of the above. In my opinion, it is easier to engineer a bowl and than simply put a lid on it, instead of engineering a hollow concave sphere and place smaller spheres inside.

• Totalrecall says:

Good thinking. It doesn’t have to be those shapes and we shouldn’t limit ourselves to that.

I don’t agree with the bowl theory for the same reasons I don’t believe the earth is flat. Both the bowl and flat Earth would make the Southern hemisphere massive. Check it our for yourself. Look at the distance between Australia and New Zealand and verify those distances by flight times. Go to the respective airline websites and “book” a flight. You will see that those distances are very accurate.

A fully concave Earth is not as alien or as difficult as you may think. I believe the Earth to be a toroid and we are on the inside, so you can put the Sun through the holes in the poles. There is also another way through alteration of the Sun machine’s frequency (my opinion only). I’ll touch on this speculative idea in the next article.

Don’t worry about the macrocosm yet. We (I) are a long way from speculating on that front. Just to throw one idea out there: in the book Gods of Eden, the author wrote that Hitler thought the Earth was a cavity and that it was just one of countless cavities in the rock; a bit like Swiss cheese. It is the inverted view of everything we have been taught, where space is actually rock etc.

lastly Saros, I don’t think there are any spheres inside the Earth. The Sun is either a bowl (concave disk) or a lens (convex disk). The planets and moon are definitely not spheres as they don’t reflect light as a sphere does.

http://www.wildheretic.com/is-the-moon-an-optical-illusion/#D

Whatever they really are is up to debate.

• Lord Steven Christ says:
• Wild Heretic says:

Watching it right now Steve. Will comment in a few minutes.

The good news is I now know exactly where the stars are as there can be only one possible place (logically that is). Thank goodness for that. You are right that they are much further out… about 4000 miles (ish).

I’ve no idea if the reason of their invisibility at high altitude is as you state because of the varying aether densities (I’ve not looked into it), but they can only be in this one place which I will reveal in the next article.

I’ve also no idea what they are. Maybe in time it will be revealed… maybe.

• Lord Steven Christ says:

Well i’m glad you see them further up, although 4,000 mi seems a bit too high since that would be the virtual center of Earth, but go ahead and present your theory, looking forward to it. Again from an a posteriori experience, I’ve been on the celestial ocean, that, and knowing sonoluminesnce takes place in water, and the shape of the galaxies being spiral denoting remnants of drainage when the celestial glass sphere was opened during the global deluge, and believing the glass sky plays a part in it’s position, leads me to think more like @2,000 miles. I know the German geocosmos team (Kepler, Diehl), make the celestial sphere much smaller, extracting from a mathematical formula from Mostafa Abdelkader’s work, but something intuitively just doesn’t jive with their theory. I’m more akin to believing Teed’s original bigger size,

• Wild Heretic says:

I’m also not keen on Mostafa Abdelkader’s work because I disagree on “inverted Copernicusism” for want of a better word. There is no need for it. All we need to do is look at the observable facts and try and form our own model instead. Far safer than putting “bullshit” in a bottle so to speak.

• Wild Heretic says:

Very interesting. I’m really glad you did this. I nearly looked into something similar in that video but I was getting too far away from the original subject of the above article.

The accommodation action is definitely another spanner in the works with regards to optics. I thought about lens contraction too and that it must alter real distance and size perspective in order to keep the object focused (i.e keep the object bigger or smaller on the eye retina than it’s distance would really dictate). I think it is only when the muscles can’t contract the lens any more that the object really shrinks in true proportion to its distance. It has to be, after all, the eye lens is just a flexible telescope (and its opposite) in a way if you know what I mean. The difference in perspective might not be massive though. It could just be the difference of 100 feet or something (or a lot further?), I’ve no idea. It must be there though.

Good work.

I have a simpler theory on the sky dome. Whether it is true or not remains to be seen. Hang tight; it’ll take a while.

You’ve inspired me to put my eye stuff back on the website, but on another page for anyone to refer to if they want. I can’t do it tonight (it’s 10:30pm here and I’m going out for a change :))

• Lord Steven Christ says:

Yea been thinking along the bi-focal planes of the horizon. There is a gap we don’t see from where the land ends and the sky begins. The disparity between the distance of the ground and the sky must cause the distant sky to magnify it’s perception creating the gap, or blind spot we don’t ever see. The eye has to be the key component to this illusion since the horizon is always level with it at any altitude. The “verve” as Teed called it.

• Wild Heretic says:

Steve,

You are on to something here.

I think it is partly the accommodation of the lens of the eye, but (mostly) the glass in the sky that magnifies the sky dome to encompass the entire sky from horizon to horizon, but the sky dome’s actual convex shape comes from something much simpler.

• Lord Steven Christ says:

“sky dome’s actual convex shape comes from something much simpler.”

haha, yea ok. well simple is seeing the inside of a sphere and thinking it’s the outside, and vice-versa.

• Wild Heretic says:

I really like that vid Steve. Is that one of your first ones? It’s a great intro speech with good background music.

132. sumstuff52 (D. Sarty) says:

Excellent work been waiting for this info, been following steves work for a year now, all your subjects your covering are mind blowing truths, thanks again TR, i have no questions, you and steve have answered them all, now that i know what we were taught about space is a fantasy now my mind is at rest, now i can truly enjoy science and fiction for they work together

Thanks

• Totalrecall says:

Yeah, the “space” themes in every day culture are being promoted thick and fast, especially movies.

It’s a great defense against all kinds of brainwashing. For example, a lot of “channeling” new age stuff includes Copernican themes. Those deceivers should have left that bit out… oops.

133. Lord Steven Christ says:

Waiting for you people to catch up is like waiting for a snail to shit a cumulative 100 pounds of shit.

Still drinking the rudiments of concavity and getting stuck with the menial issues of horizon and curvature of light, when you should be connecting the megacryometeors to the glass and realizing judgment awaits when they all come crashing down. But go ahead, keep spinning your wheels about the rudiments of the concavity of Earth, which by now if one still has a problem accepting, they will continue to have problems accepting MORE IMPORTANT matters, like the reincarnated Christ addressing you here, and how insulted he feels due to the pride of man and the unwillingness to honor him appropriately. So he will just continue to wait for cognizant people within the power grid to exalt him in due time, as his rejecters become ashamed. tick-tock, tick-tock. oh and winky wink, stupid Pollack.

• Totalrecall says:

Don’t worry Steve, I’m way ahead of myself in the speculative model (not Armageddon though ), but it certainly doesn’t hurt going through the basic factual details and logic with others as it can help clarify and cement things (and even introduce new ideas such as the possible infra-red explanation).

Easy Tiger, interesting times ahead.

134. Roy says:

Excellent article. I believe you hammered the nail in the coffin with this one. That long distance photo of New York renders any argument for ships disappearing into the horizon out at sea senseless. 30 miles away with the telescope pointing upwards, and the furthest horizon being at the top of the image, seriously?! That’s undeniable evidence in itself.

I believe the sky dome is a false illusion created by the glass sky, and I’m sure you can explain that fairly easily. The only thing standing in our way is the validity of NASA’s international space station. I think we need to expose the organization politically as well, as they’ve got quite the Masonic background.

• Totalrecall says:

Thanks Roy,

I’ve taken out my (now perhaps wrong) speculative theory, sorry, hypothesis, on this strange optical phenomenon and just kept this article to the facts… which it should have been in the first place.

The next article will be the speculative and more fun one (at least to write).

Actually, my idea is that it is not the glass that causes the sky dome effect, but… no, I won’t reveal it until I have it all laid out. It’s only fair. Don’t worry, it’s dead easy to understand… maybe too easy mmmmm.

• Totalrecall says:

I had another thought Roy.

Maybe the secret of the military camera is that it takes pictures in the infra-red. Maybe this wavelength doesn’t degenerate at the same rate as visible light, or at least is more penetrable through matter and the aether, hence the 30 miles through the atmosphere down on to the camera lens.

I’ll have to look up penetration depth and frequency of electromagnetic radiation.

Or maybe infra-red film is much more sensitive. Just a couple of thoughts. Probably lead to nothing.

135. Brilliant article! Well researched but… you need the rest – other 0.01 %!

I’m not buying an eye analysis.

How about Canon SX 50 HS!? Bytes are not lying!

Check my post on this forum and check all 3 YT films, made by people who had no slightest idea what they were filming.

http://www.zbawieniecom.fora.pl/sekcja-priorytetowa,29/wewnetrzny-kosmos-czy-mieszkamy-we-wnetrzu-ziemi,1583-315.html

That would be a missing 0.1% of all proofs!

Kind regards.

• Totalrecall says:

“Brilliant article! Well researched but… you need the rest – other 0.01 %! :-)”

Thanks a lot. Can you fill in the 0.01%?

“I’m not buying an eye analysis.”

Sure. Nobody has to. I just put that in as what I could see as a possible explanation. It’s just an added extra and not crucial. BY the way, if you have another explanation I’ll definitely listen. it’s the only one I could think of that made sense at the time.

“How about Canon SX 50 HS!? Bytes are not lying!”

Tell me more. Are you saying that a camera shows a boat on the horizon halfway below it, or only the top of the sails visible etc.? If so, then my hypothesis about the eye being at fault would be wrong. Can you please post a link to this photo, then if I am wrong I can edit my article above.

It’s funny, but I had never thought of that simple proof before. Good work.

I’m busy looking for that type of photo. I’ve found this one, but the pixels are too few. I need one with greater magnification.
http://www.sailsamal.com/blog/image.axd?picture=2009%2F12%2Fa+Boat!.jpg

I have found a thread which looks like I am wrong with the eye idea. I will remove my speculative hypothesis. What do you think?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=50707.0#.UlcPXXf7pO4

“Check my post on this forum and check all 3 YT films, made by people who had no slightest idea what they were filming.

http://www.zbawieniecom.fora.pl/sekcja-priorytetowa,29/wewnetrzny-kosmos-czy-mieszkamy-we-wnetrzu-ziemi,1583-315.html

That would be a missing 0.1% of all proofs!”

I translated it with google translate, but I think I need a little help.

Can you give me the rough idea of the YT vids. They seem to be in Polish.

Thanks a lot friend.

• Totalrecall says:

thewordwatcher,

I saw the yt vids you mentioned. I went to your channel first, so I saw the wrong ones. You mean this one right?

This shows that it is definitely optics and not the curvature of the Earth which demonstrates the telescope effect. Good find!

I need more evidence that the camera sees the ship disappearing over the horizon as the eye sees it, but it does look that way thanks to this pic.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1zv7kus&s=7#.UlcpS3f7pO4

This is a very easy experiment for us to do though. All we need is a telescope (any cheap one will do I think) and a camera attached to the end. Canals would be the best medium of water as there is one right where I live in Ireland that extends very far and it is flat, still, fresh water with no waves etc.

• I think that you don’t understand the issue!

Study that calculator. He is calculating the distance of horizon from the observer. The main point is – the height of an observation, based on Earth as the convex

When you are on 1.6 m, on the beach holding a camera, the horizon will be from you 4517.8 m.

That means you can’t see further than 4517.8 m, because the bulge of ocean is higher than real horizon. Of course IF Earth is a convex. Calculation are based on the size of Earth.

From the height of 10m the bulge or top of the water will be 11.2 km from you. 10m – that’s roughly the height of these cameras.

And on these films you can see as far as 50-80 km!

So these films are very solid proof, that Earth is a concave.

And that’s not all!

The light is bending up so that’s even bigger problem for these distances. Adding the Earth as convex plus bending up the light – you should not see further than 10 km as a maximum!

Second item on this calculator is H2. If something is tall beyond horizon, you can see it and you can calculated the distance as well.

In this link you can see few pictures of Australian island – Rottnest near Perth WA, and distance are shown on the Google map.

Pictures were found on Google and evidently taken not by huge zooms!

Now you can guess how far these films showing us. That is absolutely not possible if the Earth is Convex.

Friend of mine (Red October -co writer on that Polish forum.) has discovered yesterday some very interesting features of light bending. Things being examined.

Now the mind blower for you.

Are you aware, that from Hamburg – Germany people have seen Istanbul i Turkey?

The furthest distance was 1100 km on the ocean. Do some research!

So called mirage are not mirages but the real thing – we live inside the Earth.

• Dear Steven.. you can’t write in Polish and most our readers can’t understand English. Don’t be upset.

BTW. On the concave Earth we have on forum more than 100 000 views!

Full respect for you work Steven but all glory goes to REAL Christ!

• Totalrecall says:

Thanks for the link. I am reading it now in google translate.

• Totalrecall says:

The Perth example is very interesting. Thanks for finding that. I was going to look for something similar before I wrote the article above, as I used to live in Blackpool, England and some people claimed to be able to see the Isle of Man from the promenade on a very clear and sunny day. The Isle of man is approx 68.53 miles or 110.27 Kilometers from Blackpool.

In a concave/convex world this would mean that light bends with the curvature of the Earth.

I still have a feeling that the infra-red has something to do with the military camera’s ability to see the objects 30 miles away pointing up.

For example, if you were in Perth Australia right now and looked at the Island across in the daytime, you may see it and take a photo. Correct? But if you looked up above it and pointed your camera lens above the Island, you would see sky. Correct?

But the US military camera did not see sky. In the infra-red it saw the objects flattened on the film. My guess is that infra-red light is not affected by gravity the way visible light clearly is and instead gives more of a true altitude of the perceived object.

How is that for a bit of sleuthing lol.

So, it may not be the different depth of penetration of the atmosphere by infra-red light that enables the military camera to see upwards, but the lack of infra-red’s curvature instead.

• Totalrecall says:

“I think that you don’t understand the issue!

Study that calculator. He is calculating the distance of horizon from the observer. The main point is – the height of an observation, based on Earth as the convex

When you are on 1.6 m, on the beach holding a camera, the horizon will be from you 4517.8 m.

That means you can’t see further than 4517.8 m, because the bulge of ocean is higher than real horizon. Of course IF Earth is a convex. Calculation are based on the size of Earth.

From the height of 10m the bulge or top of the water will be 11.2 km from you. 10m – that’s roughly the height of these cameras.

And on these films you can see as far as 50-80 km!

So these films are very solid proof, that Earth is a concave.”

Thanks for the link. That saves me doing the math.

Of course I understand the horizon limits and that you can actually see a lot further (with or without the aid of a lens), therefore the horizon is not proof of Earth’s convexity.

That is clear.

I would disagree that this proves a concave Earth however. The Earth could be flat, or it could be convex and the light bends around the curvature of the Earth etc. There are other possibilities. That is why the horizon is not proof of Earth’s convexity, but it is also not proof of its concavity either.
(The US military telescope is another story however)

Do you see what I mean?

“And that’s not all!

The light is bending up so that’s even bigger problem for these distances. Adding the Earth as convex plus bending up the light – you should not see further than 10 km as a maximum!”

The bendy light thing is very intriguing. I’m inclined to agree with it, but more because of a process of elimination. For instance, Rowbothan showed that if a person looks down the line of sight across the top of flags, he will continually see the top of each one. This means that we see a “plane” or straight perspective in front of us. Flat-earthers say this is proof of Earth’s flatness. But we can easily prove the flat Earth model wrong (the round disk shape): In the round disk flat Earth model, the distance from New Zealand to Australia should be very long. If you take the equivalent long distance in the Northern hemisphere and then compare flight times, you see that there is no correlation whatsoever and that the New Zealand/Australia distance is much shorter (as they say it is).

The only way out of this conundrum, as I can see it… (there still may be another solution I hadn’t thought of) is that light bends around the curvature of the Earth due to gravity. This also gives convex Earthers the possibility of explaining the “sight beyond the horizon” effect. Convex bendy light doesn’t explain the US camera however, as that is pointing up and sees the entire 4 to 26 miles in front of it!

I was going to include the above thoughts in the my next article but I don’t mind discussing this now in this post.

“Second item on this calculator is H2. If something is tall beyond horizon, you can see it and you can calculated the distance as well.

In this link you can see few pictures of Australian island – Rottnest near Perth WA, and distance are shown on the Google map.

Pictures were found on Google and evidently taken not by huge zooms!

Now you can guess how far these films showing us. That is absolutely not possible if the Earth is Convex.”

Can you provide a link? I would love to see these pictures. I’ll look for them anyway after I post this.

I find the problem with random flickr pictures etc. is that I need the sea level of the camera. The only way to be sure is do the experiment ourselves with definite verifiable data to prove to others.

“Friend of mine (Red October -co writer on that Polish forum.) has discovered yesterday some very interesting features of light bending. Things being examined.”

Please post a link to the discussion. I can use google translate. I would love to see that evidence (as it may help me in my next article). Or maybe you can quickly post his finding here (a summary of course! )

“Now the mind blower for you.

Are you aware, that from Hamburg – Germany people have seen Istanbul i Turkey?

The furthest distance was 1100 km on the ocean. Do some research!

So called mirage are not mirages but the real thing – we live inside the Earth.”

Very interesting indeed. 1100 km is wild! I will look into that. I wonder why Istanbul and not Paris for example?