Concave Earth Theory

+++
(Author’s note: I’ve archived the old concave Earth theory article here for past reference). This new article is split into 10 pages for easy download. Each page is accessed under the ads at the end of the article or via the link before that. I’ve also now kept the menu at the top of each page for easier navigation.

There are six pieces of direct evidence, that I know of, which purport to show that we live inside a concave Earth (Dyson sphere). None of this evidence is 100% conclusive at the moment, but one item is very close. There are also three pieces of indirect evidence which by process of elimination usually rule out the three other models – convex heliocentric, convex geocentric, and flat earth.

Direct evidence

1. Old maps
2. Modern maps
3. 19th century balloon observations
4. Tamarack mines
5. Laser between two posts
6. Rectilineator

Indirect evidence

7. Huge horizons
8. Binocular effect
9. Bendy light
10. Overall conclusion
+++

Direct evidence

1. Old maps

Donald Sarty (YT name: Sumstuff52) has found old maps in the Glen McLaughlin Map Collection dating from the 17th, 18th, and even as late as the 19th century (but mostly 18th) whose latitude and longitude lines have been curved “the other way” than we are used to. This curvature gives them the appearance of concavity rather than convexity. Below are a few examples out of many.

concave earth map1
Japanese map from no later than 1865.
concave earth map2
A Dutch map created no later than 1799.
concave earth map4
Another Japanese map dated 1796.
concave earth map3
An English map dated between 1737 to 1739.
xr604cy2557
Another Dutch map possibly made in 1696.
tk139nf1912
A German map dated to 1738.

How did these maps come about? We can only speculate, but there are a couple of clues. 1. After checking quite a lot of these maps, the earliest date I found which showed earth as a concave sphere was 1625, with most of the Glen McLaughlin Map Collection dated between early-and mid-18th century (1700 to 1770?). 2. All these maps from this collection show California as an island or with the peninsula much higher up than where it is depicted today. Was this because of bad cartography via insufficient knowledge? Not exactly; at least according to this website:

Although explorers and map makers as early as 1548 knew that California was a peninsula, many maps from the 17th and 18th centuries depict California as an island.

+++

If they knew the truth but still drew California as an island anyway, were these maps copied from much older sources – pre-1548? Correct source maps of California may not have been available to the cartographer and so older source maps had to be used. Perhaps these world maps are collections of much older smaller maps of local areas which show neither convexity nor concavity, such as this one from 1548. Could California really have been an island or a pennisula at the time of the creation of the source map? Salton Sink is below sea level and so is Death Valley above it. You will also see lots of lakes above death valley nearly all the way up to Seattle. This is a definite possibility.

However, a few later concave sphere maps (but still pre-1800), outside the Glen McLaughlin Map Collection, show California as it is today. Here are a couple below which show California more or less correctly. The north pole looks very interesting too.

ancient+world+map
A world map drawn sometime between 1472-1700 (probably 1600s) shows California a little bit more correctly.
images.duckduckgo.com
Payne map from 1798 showing Earth’s concavity and California correctly.

Most importantly, if you type in “map of the earth 1600” into an image search engine, nearly all the maps of the entire “globe” show a concave sphere. The same applies to “ancient maps of the earth” or “ancient maps“. Even typing “globe” into the keywords – “ancient maps of the globe” brought a total of five convex old world maps with many more concave ones evident.


Donald’s video showing only a very small handful of ancient concave maps.

This shows that nearly all the cartographers in the renaissance (early 1600s) thought the Earth was a concavity, not a convexity. What happened at this time? The “primitive” man idea is ruled out because Concave Earth Theory (CET) is counter-intuitive. Previous to early 1600 AD only Plato believed that we lived inside a concave Earth (Phædo). The Earth (e.g. water) looks like a flat plane to the horizon and so an uneducated man would presume that the Earth was flat. Mathematicians and astronomers in the Middle Ages presumed the Earth was geocentric convex, thanks largely to the publication of Ptolemy’s Algamast… or so we are told. This latter model is also intuitive, as the heavens look to be rotating around the Earth.

If CET was suddenly discovered by a group of cartographers around 1600 AD, was it discovered through experiment or through a new religion/philosophy? Science was extremely fledgling if non-existent in 1600 AD; although mankind may have been able to have reproduced something akin to the 1897 rectilinear experiment privately. The Rosicrucians for example were rumored to be scientifically far ahead of their time in the 1600s. What new philosophy or religion could have sprung up around 1600 AD to influence cartographers to produce cavity maps? At this time, neither religion nor experiment purporting Earth’s concavity is documented anywhere that I know of, but that is not to say these documents could perhaps exist or that the experiments were either deliberately not documented (private), or the documents have been lost.

Either way, these maps aren’t supposed to exist within the official history of cosmology… yet they do. We are told the cosmological transition is from geocentric convex in the Middle Ages to heliocentric convex in the enlightenment era until today. All ancient world “globe” maps should therefore be convex, yet they are nearly all concave. Something is glaring missing from history.

The official story has been shown to differ from reality with Newton. It is said that Newton thought that gravity was a pull by the large mass of the Earth, yet in his letters it is shown that he thought gravity was the exact opposite – a push on mass by “spirit”. It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to assume that Copernicus and/or Galileo really thought that the Earth was concave rather than convex. Who has the power to hide or even forge documents? Who educated the masses in the early-to-mid 19th century? The Church.

Conclusion
Overall there is a good possibility that the original knowledge-holders had discovered that the Earth was concave by rational means, but we can never know for sure… and if they did, I can’t find any documents to show this. These maps should at least pique the interest of the curious mind however; and show that Concave Earth Theory is definitely not new. On that basis I give this piece of evidence only a 10% chance for a concave Earth.

Next: 2. Modern maps

Bookmark the permalink.

882 Responses to Concave Earth Theory

  1. 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

    View Comment
  2. 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…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5S35sU7WU4

      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.

      View Comment
    • 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?

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild 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.

        View Comment
        • Bob says:

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

          The Grand Canyon holds some more secrets
          http://www.crystalinks.com/gc_egyptconnection.html

          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…

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
        • 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.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
  3. My buddy Mike started a Concave Earth Forum.
    Please help contribute, people….

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

    View Comment
  4. sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

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

    https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=fi.finwe.gyrocompass

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

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

      View Comment
      • 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

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
  5. 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…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  6. 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!!!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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

      View Comment
      • 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

        View Comment
        • 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’.

          View Comment
          • 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):

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdQA-pE2luQ

            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 🙂

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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):
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EweopUUDCm8

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

            View Comment
    • 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.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild 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.

        View Comment
      • 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.

        View Comment
  7. 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! 😀

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
      • 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?

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
      • 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. 🙂

        View Comment
  8. 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?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  9. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  10. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
      • 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/

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
      • 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.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
  11. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  12. 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.

    View Comment
    • Christopher says:

      It would be an interesting experiment to have a race between two planes at different altitudes, one directly above the other. In a concave earth the plane at the higher altitude, if flying at the same speed, should win. Does anyone know if altitude effects flight time? In a convex earth it should take longer the higher you fly. Wind at different altitudes could also mess up the experiment. The race would start once they were nose to nose at their different altitudes and end also in the air.

      View Comment
  13. 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??

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
      • 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).

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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

          View Comment
        • 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.

          View Comment
  14. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
      • 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!

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
  15. 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.

    View Comment
  16. 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…._______________________
    Reply
    ·
    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 ?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
      • 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

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

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

          View Comment
          • 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?

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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 😉

            View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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?

            View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/student/2007/question.aspx?GradeID=4&SubjectCode=ela&QuestionTypeName=Open%20Response&QuestionID=4732

            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.

            View Comment
      • LoveThyGodWithAllHeartSoulMind says:

        A simple thought experiment.

        A Plane’s altitude during flight:

        1. If the Earth is convex then after taking off and reaching a certain altitude, a Pilot would have keep adjusting the altitude of the Plane to a lower level, if not, they would end up in “space”, before they begin descending for arrival.

        2. If the Earth is flat then after taking off and reaching a certain altitude, a Pilot would simply maintain the same altitude of the Plane before they begin descending for arrival.

        3. If the Earth is concave then after taking off and reaching a certain altitude, a Pilot would have keep adjusting the altitude of the Plane to a higher level, if not, they would end up hitting the land or sea before they begin descending for arrival.

        I am not a Pilot, but after researching I found out the following:

        When a plane is flying, Pilots apply a technique known as a “Step Climb”. This is described on the wiki pages as “a series of altitude gains that improve fuel economy by moving into thinner air as an aircraft becomes lighter and becomes capable of faster, more economical flight.” This is applicable during the “cruise” part of the flight which compromises the “ascent and descent phases and is usually the majority of a journey. Technically, cruising consists of heading (direction of flight) changes only at a constant airspeed and altitude. It ends as the aircraft approaches the destination where the descent phase of flight commences in preparation for landing.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_climb

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruise_%28aeronautics%29

        Apologies, if this or something similar has been already posted, but I have read though a lot of this site and couldn’t see it.

        Also, WH, I haven’t got round to responding to your reply on the holes at the poles section, particularly the Bible part, because I am busy with other work etc, but I will get round to it soon. Thanks for your work, God Bless.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

          That is interesting. But if the plane is getting into thinner air, then it is getting higher which means that it is climbing with regards to the center of gravity, so unfortunately I don’t see this as evidence of a concave earth. Interesting find though.

          View Comment
  17. 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.

    View Comment
  18. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
      • Saros says:

        Thank you for your reply.

        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.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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

      View Comment
      • this guy brings up your site and doesnt even mention therectilineator or tamarack, i had to put him in his place.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOfoKMpiG1s

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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:
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4xNcF6T7Is

          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.

          View Comment
  19. airizona tony says:

    are you familiar with the video “secrets in plain sight”? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L777RhL_Fz4

    View Comment
  20. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  21. 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?…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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?

      View Comment
    • 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.

      View Comment
  22. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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?

      View Comment
      • 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.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
      • 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.

        View Comment
      • 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.

        View Comment
  23. Enlighten Fawn says:

    Hi WH ~
    Your reply comment to Me didn’t have a ‘reply’ showing to the right (?) You had asked about My Dad = Well, it is complex, but it comes to what You Believe, the Different Realms of Life, and My Dad Knew Everything > a spy, in a sense, and He Told Me a Lot, and also told Me to Be Selective – so, I can’t really state anymore then that….. I Can State though, He Was/Is the Best Dad a Daughter could Have! 😉 I Feel Grateful & Blessed He Is My Dad* I Am So Thankful of the Strength that I’ve Acquired because of Him+ I Miss Him So Much, but His Presence Is All Around+ Thank You for asking, and letting Me Share My Thoughts 🙂 Fawn ~

    View Comment
  24. Wild HereticWild 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.

    View Comment
    • 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
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5hODzQVHQ4

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild 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.

        View Comment
        • 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
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSWdZVtXT7E

          View Comment
          • sumstuff52[Donald Sarty] says:

            Astronaut Approaches our Tiny Convex Universe in Interstellar Movie
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_AxYgrwjZI

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
  25. 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.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9yuO9tai28&feature=gp-n-y

    View Comment
  26. 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.

    View Comment
  27. 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?

    View Comment
  28. Nils Esche says:

    Explanation why I think this footage

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjXvV0JBE0k

    uses wide angle lens:

    ––––––––––––––––––––––––––

    This is what we are seeing during the whole footage:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUY5dhawKiQ

    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:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDdFlhzNq8o

    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 😉

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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

      View Comment
      • 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

        View Comment
  29. greek man says:

    A map of ferguson orlando>

    Food for thought?

    Could this also explain the climates and temperatures?

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map.jpg

    View Comment
  30. Nils Esche says:

    The explanation you were asking for does not appear.
    I sended is 3 times already.

    View Comment
  31. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
      • 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.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
  32. 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/

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
    • 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 ~

      View Comment
  33. Nils Esche says:

    Maybe interesting:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjXvV0JBE0k

    Wide angle lenses and horizon on eye level, no stars!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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?

      View Comment
  34. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      http://www.goodfelloweb.com/nature/cgbi/index.html
      http://www.goodfelloweb.com/nature/cgbi/presgrav1.html

      “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!

      View Comment
  35. 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!

    View Comment
  36. 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?

    View Comment
  37. 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.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSJs3IE3iGU

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  38. 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

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  39. 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.

    🙂

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  40. 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.

    View Comment
  41. 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

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  42. 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.

    View Comment
  43. 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

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Fair play to Cohen as he was open to the idea. How did you get hold of him?

      View Comment
    • 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 ~

      View Comment
      • 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.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
        • 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 ~

          View Comment
  44. 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!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
    • Ian Goss says:

      Ok, I’ve actually read this article properly now.
      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.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild 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.

        View Comment
        • 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..

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lcRp1jKJmJU#t=35

          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.

          View Comment
  45. 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?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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).

      View Comment
  46. 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!

    View Comment
    • 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?

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild 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.
        https://www.google.ie/search?q=shatter+cones+around+volcanoes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&ei=x04vU4acBMG1tAbJp4D4Aw

        A very quick look at one of the above links found this:
        http://books.google.ie/books?id=hVs9fioa33UC&pg=PA103&lpg=PA103&dq=shatter+cones+around+volcanoes&source=bl&ots=J0OS_e5CLU&sig=IimnUyPq6eii0y3BGA_3jbRxKd0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x04vU5r0EsqytAa0goHwBg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=shatter%20cones%20around%20volcanoes&f=false

        See what I mean?

        View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild 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.

        View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  47. 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?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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).

      View Comment
      • 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… 😉

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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

          View Comment
        • 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.

          View Comment
      • Christopher says:

        On a metaphysical note Terrence McKenna Decribes the DMT Trip which sounds like this drug may be taking you into the octahedral at the center of the concave earth. Many people describe a similar experience as if they are going to a real place, I don’t know if anyone one understanding the concave model has tried it but if you cant go physically this may be a good alternative. The trip only lasts about 20 minutes if you smoke it pure, you need enough of it to “break through”. I have not tried it but am going to if I can get some. I have not found anything to suggest that there are dangerous side effects, DMT is produced naturally in the brain. Sadly Terrence McKenna died of cancer, similar to Lloyde Pye. Here is a link to a Terrence Mckenna video.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VavdCpewQbA

        View Comment
  48. 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 ~

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  49. sumstuff52 says:

    Earth Curves UPWARDS(Concave) NOT Downwards(Convex) As We See

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxE9miXXB9A

    *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.*

    View Comment
  50. WH, I mention you in this vid. 🙂
    The Rubberband-Oscillating-Earth 93-Million Miles of Bullshit Theory
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGm9sCJ0aIE

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  51. LionLamb says:

    Terrific INFO PACKED site! Good job. Will be reading and posting, LORD willing.

    View Comment
  52. Wild HereticWild 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.

    View Comment
  53. Wild HereticWild 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.

    View Comment
  54. Wild HereticWild 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.

    View Comment
  55. Wild HereticWild 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.

    View Comment
  56. 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

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  57. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
    • 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

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

        You’re welcome. Just trying to make sense of it all and put it together, with friends 😉

        View Comment
      • 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.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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?

          View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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**. 🙂

            View Comment
        • 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

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
          • 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

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP3UIHD-Vc4
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfmXVhUC3tg
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5WufdvYZdY

            …and this pdf which should be required reading of all theorists:

            http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media.php?id=3935

            View Comment
          • 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

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
          • 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

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
          • 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

            View Comment
  58. 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.

    View Comment
  59. 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.

    View Comment
  60. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Don’t worry about that.

      View Comment
    • 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.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild 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.

        View Comment
        • 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.

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
  61. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
      • 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.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
          • Sceppy. says:

            Wild Heretic says:Out of interest what causes the weight of the different densities?

            My answer:
            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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
  62. karol says:

    see this, spectacular examples of Binocular Effect:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nvTf_27keI

    View Comment
  63. 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.

    View Comment
  64. 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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbQ0txC5S5Y
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfK4VAq_rEA

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild 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.

        View Comment
      • 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.

        thx for asking!

        🙂

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
      • 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.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
      • New vid, WH..

        Why the Horizon is Always at Eye Level Regardless of Altitude
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZyA3T1Meeo

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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 😉

          View Comment
  65. aryadeva says:

    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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

      Welcome aryadeva.

      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

      View Comment
  66. 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!

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  67. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  68. Wild HereticWild 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

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9tLRKZueE&feature=c4-overview&list=UUvtVMFQ3eqE3wc2L7N_E7Mg

    That’s more corroborating evidence for a concave Earth, albeit, not directly.”

    View Comment
    • 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!

      🙂

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild 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.

        View Comment
    • sumstuff52 says:

      yes, i can see my old friends ridiculing me last year i was sumstuff46

      View Comment
  69. 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!

    View Comment
  70. david says:

    Hi, I wonder how would you explain polar day and polar night lasting up tp 6 months at the poles?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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).

      View Comment
  71. 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.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpo4yqbdc1M

    View Comment
  72. Joe Parr Confirms 11yr Cyclic Pyramidal Heaven in Concave Earth
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fc6ZpGHSamU

    View Comment
  73. 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 ~

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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

      View Comment
      • 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 ~

        View Comment
    • 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.

      View Comment
  74. 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)

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  75. 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…

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
      • 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.

        View Comment
  76. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  77. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
    • 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…

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticWild 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.

        View Comment
        • Christopher says:

          An interesting note regarding the Jesuits. I saw a video that claimed the Jesuits use Astrology to time stock market manipulations, That is why astrology has been demonized as nothing more than pseudo science. I think JP Morgan also once said millionaires don’t use astrology, billionaires do. This caught my attention because my uncle developed a system to trade commodities using astrology and he turned about $100,000 into over 3 million in less than two years. This was 25 years ago, he used to meditate inside a rotating copper pyramid using a system of mirrors so as not to throw up, very interesting guy. He would have loved the concave earth theory if he was around today. He had a private plane, that burst into flames mid flight, he believed the government was watching him, maybe they killed him. He was not famous, but maybe figuring out how to beat the stock market with astrology, if you actually start making lots of money is a no no. I think that is why “the controllers” always seem to time there actions based on very specific dates. If you want 911 to be the most effective you do it on a date where the astrological influence amplifies the fear of the event. That is how you make money in the stock market as well, the market tends to go down on a day of more fear and goes up on a day when the vibration is more aligned with confidence, if you know how to read the constellations to do this you make money. The big boys know this and use it but it only work if the masses don’t use it, otherwise it would balance out. When the bankers want to crash the market they do it on specific dates to help them. In a convex universe it is easier to hide the power of true astrology, more people will investigate astrological secrets when they understand the concave paradigm. Yes, I found it here is the link and one more reason why “they” don’t want us to know, information is power.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEKXb01cYhY

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            Very interesting. Your uncle sounds quite a guy. Did he put the pyramid on a rotating platform and sit on the platform with him and the pyramid rotating in sync? Or did he sit down on the ground stationary and have the pyramid rotate around him? Clockwise or anticlockwise? (I assume clockwise).

            After meeting an expert in astrology one time, I too am convinced that there is most definitely something there. My sister got a reading once by a professional one and it was incredibly accurate for her. How that would work with the stock market, well I don’t know. 🙂

            View Comment
          • Christopher says:

            He would sit on a wooden disk with a pillow and rotate with the pyramid, there would be a mirror attached to the pyramid that you would stare into so you wouldn’t get dizzy, it took some practice. He also would meditate holding metal bars with electricity running through them at a certain frequency or pulse accompanied by music that was tuned to the true C. He had some cool meditation ideas. I cant remember if the pyramid spun clockwise or not but he was trying to balance out the energy in some way. He would also do experiments with anti gravity technology, I think he was on the right track but never got his machine off the ground.

            It took him over ten years to figure out the stock market and sadly all his work was stolen out of his house on the day he died. He showed me how it worked, I think the big players were the sun, moon and Jupiter. If the charts indicated a strong fear day then you short the market, like the Dow Jones, if the energy encouraged confidence you would buy. It has to do with reading the energy cycles, it is not easy to figure out without spending many years on it and the Jesuits are not likely to teach up anytime soon. I was only 20 years old at the time and should have taken it more seriously but I was in to my own thing back then. He was a great uncle, got me into meditation and thinking about all sorts of wild things when I was about 10 years old. He is probably the reason it is easy for me to understand and believe in the concave earth theory, this world is full of mysteries and you are uncovering a whooper. Keep up your great research I love telling people that they live inside the earth and then trying to prove it. I can only do that with your help and the other great researchers, like Steven and everyone else. God bless, who or what ever God is.

            One question, I want to do a laser test across the lake of Nicaragua, is it a waste of time with the bending light, any suggestions?

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild Heretic says:

            I would only do a long range light test if I were testing the bend of the light, not the Earth. Very short range, like a few meters should be fine.

            On a flat Earth, the ground (water) should not fall or rise, but remain the same height away from you. On a convex Earth, the ground (water) should fall away from your feet (8 inches first mile, 64 inches second mile). In a concave Earth, the ground (water) should rise up as you walk in a straight line away from your feet (8 inches first mile, 64 inches second mile). With my understanding, there is no dip or bump in the middle of a designated flat range of water or ground in either a concave or convex Earth. It should start to fall away or rise up immediately, obeying the square law.

            WH

            View Comment
    • 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.

      View Comment
  78. 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?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  79. 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.

    View Comment
  80. Scud says:

    Hmm…seems the same for lighthouses.

    http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/where-is-the-worlds-most-powerful-lighthouse

    “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!

    View Comment
  81. 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?

    View Comment
  82. Scud says:

    TR

    Sorry, but there is something about that post your site doesn’t seem to like…keeps disappearing into the luminiferous aether!

    View Comment
  83. 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?

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticWild 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.

      View Comment
  84. 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.

    View Comment
  85. 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.

    http://www.beskid-ski.com/ownlog/poradnik/gwiazdy2.jpg

    🙂

    View Comment
  86. Wild HereticWild 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/

    View Comment
  87. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall 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.

      View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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.

          View Comment
          • 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,

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
        • Wild HereticWild 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 :))

          View Comment
          • 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.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
          • 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.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Q5M1b2qvk

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticWild 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.

            View Comment
  88. 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

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall 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.

      View Comment
  89. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall 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. 😉

      View Comment
  90. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall 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.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall 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.

      View Comment
  91. 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.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall 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.

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticTotalrecall 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?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxspo3LNlA

        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.

        View Comment
      • I think that you don’t understand the issue! 🙂

        http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

        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.

        View Comment
        • Forgotten to add a link – http://www.zbawieniecom.fora.pl/sekcja-priorytetowa,29/wewnetrzny-kosmos-czy-mieszkamy-we-wnetrzu-ziemi,1583-240.html

          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! 😉

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

            Thanks for the link. I am reading it now in google translate.

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticTotalrecall 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. 🙂

            View Comment
        • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

          “I think that you don’t understand the issue! 🙂

          http://members.home.nl/7seas/radcalc.htm

          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?

          View Comment
          • Here we are… Link to the pic in res 3782 × 2576

            http://www.worldwanderingkiwi.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Rottnest-Island-Australia.jpg

            You can find yourself that particular pic typing on Google Images… rottnest island

            There is another important issue with light bending and how much such bending affects our vision.

            Now some serious hints.

            In geodesy is well known problem, that measurement of levels are not very precise, because of light bending up. That’s why they run away from optical instruments – levelers and Rolf Keppler explains it a lot on his web page. Unfortunately is in German and has to be translated via Google.

            One German scientist has made tables for a correction of levelers. The bent of light is not as big to discount these films with huge zooms! Especially if the light bends… up!

            In marine in past and still today using instruments on the see to calculate your position – there are made calculations which are based on Earth as concave. It’s well known fact, that these calculations can be omitted and you will still get a proper results.

            In cartography all imaging is based on Earth concave as well!

            I don’t know details – these are not my fields but these directions will prompt you to search and maybe talk to the people who know well about these issues.

            And the last thing – I have an idea how to prove Earth as a concave.

            In Tammarack caves they were using about 1 km depth. We don’t need that much.

            IMHO experiments can be made – inside of tall buildings (flats) 10-20 m tall or higher. Thin cords hung for a quiet few minutes and do measurements on top and on the bottom. 12 m should give you about 2-4 mm difference.

            I’m thinking to get two pipes 6 m, join them into one pipe PCV 12 m. Make a bar on one side and put two cords and some weight (Fishing lead!) and on the bottom do the measurement of difference between the top and bottom.

            Rolf Keppler is talking about a laser kind of measuring tool, which can be very accurate and such experiment can be made on two 1 m cords, 5 m apart and measured with laser to precision of 0.001 mm or even better. According to Keppler it works and that is a solid proof of Earth being a concave.

            Another idea is – on the lake at least 7km wide two people on both opposite sides – one with at least 5mW laser – 5 cm above the water trying to show on other side with exactly the same 5 cm above the water reflecting material and film the whole experiment. In 7 km the bulge of water or height of it would have about 95 cm.

            In the dusk with still some light such experiment should show us a laser beam hitting the water!

            I don’t have to much time to do these experiments but this one with PVC pipe should be an easy one. Maybe in near future I will do it and I’ll make sure I will have all on camera. 😀

            So… now you have a big headache! Pardon my poor grammar! 😛

            Kind regards…

            View Comment
          • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

            Great to see you thinking of experiments we could do ourselves. The ones using lasers sound problematic as laser is light and would bend with the curvature of the Earth (probably).

            My head is too relaxed today to think much about it lol. 🙂

            View Comment
    • Lord Steven Christ says:

      hey Worldwatcher, How dare you called me one who “contracts with the Devil”!!! You should know very well I registered to your forum, yet you say that I would not even log in?

      How dare you use my material and then reject me. YOU are of the Devil!!!!
      Cursed.
      http://prntscr.com/1wjfoj

      View Comment
  92. Schpankme says:

    “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.”

    IX XI

    1901 = 911
    or
    September = 9 month
    1901 = 1+9+0+1 =11

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      I’m not sure I would equate the Tamarack mines to conspiracy theory, but hey, anything is possible. 9/11 was widely published in the media circus to say the least, but Tamarack Mines? I’m not so sure.

      There isn’t enough info on this topic unfortunately. It’s a shame Teed or Morrow didn’t follow up on the experiment or perhaps either they didn’t get any more info (likely, as neither did the newspapers or Mcnair) or the results they did find out went against CET and so they decided not to mention it.

      View Comment
  93. Schpankme says:

    Interesting that the ‘concave earth theory’ should also include Dec 11, 1963, US Military and Sandy Hook. Also note, the military men in the photo, have on summer clothing; strange thing to do at the east coast on Dec 11.

    IX XI

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      I think that date is just the issue of one of the magazines which published the article – issue 11/12, December 1963

      The photo is from “Foto-Magazin” No. 11/1954 apparently. I’ve no idea when that magazine was published or when the original photo was actually taken. Is 1954 the year? If so, the photo was probably published in November (11), but the original date of the photo is unknown to me.

      View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Yeah, I noticed the Sandy Hook thing too lol. 🙂

      View Comment
  94. Lord Steven Christ says:

    well in fairness to ME, Donald Simanek ran away from our very friendly discussion back in 2003 by telling me that he would be putting all my emails in his Junk Mail Inbox, after I told him all his “research” was speculative.. So, the arrogant asshole looses.:)

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      His conclusions were definitely speculative and wrong when you consider they even flipped the supports over with each addition!

      it’s pretty hard for them to face the truth as where do they go from there? There’s nowhere for them to go, so head in the sand it is.

      At least you had a good ol’ talk with him. How did he come across?

      View Comment
      • Lord Steven Christ says:

        Eh, he came across a bit condescending, and tried to lump me in with the rest of the religious people he would dialogue with trying to show him that perpetual motion devices were legit. His silence in my assertion that his views were subjective said enough. I brought up the glass sky concept with him, which he also was silent on. Not the most likable guy, imo.

        View Comment
        • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

          Not at all surprising. They are the defenders of the realm so to speak lol 🙂

          BTW, it looks like my eye hypothesis is wrong, so it is back to the drawing board on that one lol. I’ll have to think long and hard about it to see if an explanation pops up to in my head to research further.

          Your mirage idea may be right after all lol.

          This pic shows that that cameras also pick up the telescope effect.

          http://i56.tinypic.com/1zv7kus.jpg

          So I have no idea what could cause it. I’ll just have to leave it as one of life’s unknowns (maybe the next article will shed some light on the situation). There is still not enough evidence either way though. All the telescope effect does show is that the horizon isn’t there because of Earth’s curvature.

          View Comment
  95. Scud says:

    Hi TR.

    I’ve posted a link to your site at the end of my ‘Cold of space’ thread at SC.. http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1424&start=240

    Hopefully you’ll have a few more open and enquiring minds pitching their thoughts into the debate.

    Scud.

    View Comment
  96. Scud says:

    Very nicely presented with some excellent ideas TR, many thanks.

    View Comment
    • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

      Thanks for taking the time to read it all.

      Just one more article to go, which I haven’t started yet as things have got a bit busy recently in other areas.

      View Comment
  97. Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

    I haven’t included the “bendy light” theory and the flat earth contradiction with this article as that is more suited with the next one. (I’m still not too sure about bendy light just quite yet anyway).

    I hope that the article will be a “go to” link for those looking for the evidence of a concave Earth as it is all in one place (at least the evidence that I am aware of).

    I’ve also added my own hypothesis on the horizon effect. I’ve seen other alternative theories, such as Rowbothan’s explanation and that of other concave Earth theorists with their bendy light theories, but none explain the telescope problem.

    An example of which would be this pic below which doesn’t explain how a telescope can see an object on the horizon when the naked eye can’t.

    Figure 12.

    Lastly, apologies if parts of it are a bit detailed or heavy, but that is just the nature of the beast (rectilineator and parts of Tamarack mines for example).

    View Comment
    • Lord Steven Christ says:

      Excellent article, WH, thank you so much for your extensive work. I think you are right about the greater amount of light within the telescope allowing one to see the full ship as opposed to my speculating that it was some sort of inferior mirage. I really appreciate you, my friend, and will continue to point people to your site!

      View Comment
      • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

        Thanks Steve. I can’t see any other explanation for the telescope effect myself. It has to be the way the eye receives light. A bit like the sun is a sulfur lamp hypothesis, I was amazed how quickly the explanation presented itself after only a little bit of digging.

        Thanks for pointing people to my site too. Simanek’s pages show a 500 internal error with me so I hope now this web page will become the “go to” page for references to concave earth theory. Luckily I had all the info from his pages I needed long before they went down.

        View Comment
        • Lord Steven Christ says:

          Yeah that fraudulent prick knows he’s misleading people. Haven’t seen any recent activity from him in years. It would be nice it this were a go to page for people searching for an accurate and objectively explanation for CET. I still see his page however, alas after a few call-out vids and this page, I think soon the people will begin to see what a scraggly rat he truly is. To me it’s like pissing on Teed’s grave to so easily discard his accurate experiments. I have nothing but disdain for sci-quacks like Simanek. ANd I’m glad you saw, like myself, the necessity to call out his skewed and suspect analyses. I do however take pleasure in seeing that the results of a google query with “Donald Simanek” and “Cyrus Teed” harvest plenty of my links criticizing him. 😀

          View Comment
          • Wild HereticTotalrecall says:

            In fairness to Simanek, he did describe the rectilineator experiment pretty accurately, but nowhere near extensively enough in my opinion. It’s just his purely speculative (and obviously wrong) opinion at the end of it all. Skeptoid magazine was far worse, as they deliberately got a fact wrong when it is clearly stated in celluar cosmonogy that the supports were supported by the two posts (standards).

            View Comment