The Rod of God -- (!) Pages 33 and 34 (!)

[Atomic Punk]

You also say God created the Universe 6000 years ago. It's multi-billions of years old pops. In the Bible, God said a day is like a thousand years to give the early writers a reference to the concept of time since they don't understand the Alpha and Omega and that time is infinite. You take everything as literal. Recorded human history is 6000 years old according to Bible timelines. You cannot equate that to what God did in His time... since you don't have the mental capacity to understand the concept of infinity.

What you have done is throw Bible versus at unbelievers with YOUR absolute understanding of what YOU think God means as the concept of time. So what they do is take your words as a pretext for a subtext to debate your literal nonsense. So, you think God was just there 6000 years ago with nothing while being infinite and decided to all of a sudden create?

Time is a tangible concept Man can relate to. Man cannot relate to infinity. A flat world explains why you think time is linear. You are 100% wrong and you don't have a clue. I don't think you are trolling now.

[Left Seater]

Pop. Given your UN map view it would take a plane forever to fly from the tip of what we know as South American to Austrailia. But I know from personal experience that it is actually a pretty short flight.

If we assume a flat or close to flat planet earth then there has to be an edge somewhere. We the. Have to explain how planes go from one edge to the other without backtracking. Or without some sort of Ms Pacman style leave the left side of the screen and suddenly appear on the right side.

Another example is the planes that have circumnavigated the earth without refueling. How do we account for them heading in one general compass direction without reaching an edge of the planet?

[R-Jack]

as the Bible describes.

[/hope]
[/thread]

[poptart]

You also say God created the Universe 6000 years ago. It's multi-billions of years old pops

No, I've said many times on this board that I don't know how old the earth is.
I've said that I consider there may be a gap of some unknown amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
In fact, I think it's possible that the earth is very old.

My assumption is that man is around 6,000 years old, based on family lines given in the Bible.

Pop. Given your UN map view it would take a plane forever to fly from the tip of what we know as South American to Austrailia. But I know from personal experience that it is actually a pretty short flight.

I'd be very interested to know your actual flight time, if you ever made that flight.
And what connections there are.

If we assume a flat or close to flat planet earth then there has to be an edge somewhere. We the. Have to explain how planes go from one edge to the other without backtracking. Or without some sort of Ms Pacman style leave the left side of the screen and suddenly appear on the right side.

Another example is the planes that have circumnavigated the earth without refueling. How do we account for them heading in one general compass direction without reaching an edge of the planet.

1) I'm not saying that I know what the shape of the earth is, or what the real earth map looks like.

2) A theory that I find pretty interesting is that Admiral Byrd found an edge of the earth on expedition to Antarctica -- and you could use the flat map I posted to understand what that might look like.
I posted about him previously and you can go back and read what I said, if you care.
I'm not going to keep repeating things I already posted.
Antarctica was abruptly closed off and to my understanding, you can not even fly over it, except for maybe just over a very small portion of it.

So a theory is, there is a firmament covering the earth, as described in Genesis 1.
There is a wall of ice surrounding the entire earth -- per the map, and the firmament comes down, like dome, and meets at the ice covering on the outer edge of the earth.

Byrd found this... I think is a possibility.
And at that point, the powers that be saw to it that Antarctica was completely closed down.

3) I can't answer the compass question.
If the earth is completely different than what we assume, such directional navigation tools become very confusing (to me) and so I won't pretend to know what I don't know.

[poptart]

Go to 9:30 and see the curvature of the earth from the vantage point of a U2.

8:57 - flat. Put a ruler up to the screen.
9:33 - flat

Abruptly at 9:39 - curved, and the entire picture is much different
It's either suddenly a fish-eye lens or it's BBC BULLSHIT.
Fake imagery.
Most likely using NASA imagery.
And if you notice, when the abrupt curved earth image comes up, we don't see either man and we don't see any of the interior of the craft, either, as we had previously.
It's a shot that was taken from somewhere else completely.
You just buy the bullshit.
Jmo.

[poptart]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4fd_1345957050






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=En6ot0bDr4Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyzRNv3KJqE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIL-5VxoKSs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klP6Z1Ahqos


Watch them.
Watch all six of them.


NASA is completely full of shit.

[poptart]

RACK!

[poptart]

I'm currently reading a book called "Useful Enemies" about the Nazis that were allowed into the US after WW II, and of course Von Braun is one of those mentioned. I was fairly certain you were trolling, and I still want to believe that. Because the alternative is that you are LTS-grade bat-shit crazy.

As much as I have a heart to help people, I admit part of me would -- LOL -- if you and Gay ended up as lamp shades.

[poptart]

There are indeed plenty of real, untouched pictures from space

Of course.
I've never disputed that they show us thousands of video and images from... space -- which they claim are the real deal.

I SAID, full earth images, nutbag.


NASA has about 3 or 4 pet REAL images of the full earth that they've showed us for decades.
Or as Roach would say, not "real" but least enhanced.

Like these two...





These very few images are continually trotted out for us to see.

"Sheeple, look, this is earth, this is earth, this is earth..."

And yet if you look around, you find that NASA has very few other real, or "least enhanced" pics (hi, Roach) of the full earth to show us.
Overwhelmingly, what they have for full earth images are quite dramatically enhanced, artistically altered, or is a cgi, or some other such... art.

And of course the epic "blue marble" pic that is in this post is exposed as ridiculous in the first "smoking gun" video I posted.

So watch it, if you care.

[Bucmonkey]

What in the fuck is going on here?

[Left Seater]

Pop, while there haven't been many commercial flights over Antarctica that doesn't mean there haven't been any. Qantas has offered round trip flight seeing flights from Sydney for a long time. But there a lot of cruise ship excursions to Antarctica. In fCt many of them start on one continent and finish on another. That wouldn't be possible if there were some sort of edge.

The fact that you admit that you don't know what shape the earth is and don't have an alternative is what drives people crazy. And while NASA may not publish as many photos as you think they should does not prove anything. But if this lack of photos is driving bothering you then think about how many more photos exist of the earth as a sphere than the zero we have seen that show this edge of the planet.

[poptart]

Seater, if the flat earth model I posted is real, it would be VERY difficult (if not damn near impossible) for a man to get to the edge.
By Creator's wisdom?





Upon getting to the front edge of Antarctica, you're in a brutally cold environment on sheets of ice.
No real food source or vegetation.
Perhaps mountains and/or a large ice wall to get over if you're going to get close to the edge.

I do suspect that Admiral Byrd found the edge.
I can't prove it, but it's in my mind.


I don't think any commercial plane "crosses" Antarctica.
If Quantas (or a crusie ship) goes to Antarctica, I could nearly guarantee that all they do is approach, or maybe barely skim into the continent.

As for frustrating people, hey, I'm honest.
I don't KNOW for sure what the shape of the earth is.

What I observe tells me the earth is flat -- and I'm interested in pursuing it further.
And I have many many reasons to state that NASA is totally full of shit.
I've posted some of it.
There is more, much more.
For me, just watching the behavior of that astronauts tells me they never went to the moon. lol
If a person is smart they will listen to me on that, because it just so happens that analyzing human behavior is a specialty of mine.
I know what I speak of.

I've seen the astronauts.
They are LYING. Period.
I have no doubt.
They are shitbags of the highest order.

But hey, if people trust NASA, so be it.
I'm just one guy on the internet.
People can do what they want and think what they want.

[mvscal]

1) I'm not saying that I know what the shape of the earth is, or what the real earth map looks like.

That's because you're an ignorant fucktard. Which part of circumnavigate are you struggling to comprehend? This issue was settled conclusively in 1522. That the earth is spherical is not a theory or conjecture or our best guess based on a limited understanding. It is a stone cold fucking fact based on countless observations and measurements.

So what's next? Water: Is it really wet?

[poptart]

It is a stone cold fucking fact based on countless observations and measurements

Yes, I'm sure you've done all the measurements and you have the math in your hip pocket as well.
Sure, the facts.

Go smoke another bowl, dude.

here's a shot from a NASA camera on the Deep Space Climate Observatory: it's too big to post the pic: http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa- ... arth-image

According to the caption its the first view of the entire sunlit side of Earth from one million miles away

This color image of Earth was taken by NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC), a four megapixel CCD camera and telescope. The image was generated by combining three separate images to create a photographic-quality image. The camera takes a series of 10 images using different narrowband filters -- from ultraviolet to near infrared -- to produce a variety of science products. The red, green and blue channel images are used in these color images.

Btw, this new "photographic-quality" image from NASA is so good that it shows large portions of both North and South America -----> completely... gone.

Did you look closely at it?

[mvscal]

I've seen the astronauts.
They are LYING. Period.

All five hundred and thirty-six of them from dozens of countries? Really? Why?

[mvscal]

It is a stone cold fucking fact based on countless observations and measurements

Yes, I'm sure you've done all the measurements and you have the math in your hip pocket as well.
Sure, the facts.

Yes. The math is right here, you brainless shitbag. Do it yourself.

http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/tea ... ECAct.html

Again, which part of circumnavigate are you struggling to comprehend?

[Moving Sale]

It wouldn't of taken 1,000s of people to cover up 911 you stupid tranny.

[mvscal]

the one thing ALL of these conspiracies have in common is the scale of cover up that would have been needed to cover it up

9/11, the moon landing, flat earth????! - we are talking thousands of people working for NASA or the Army or whomever that would have had some insight into some part of the massive hoax

If we've learned anything from Snowden, Assange, Bissonnette all the way back to Woodward and Bernstein it's that someone, somewhere will leak for personal gain, retribution, celebrity, etc.

That fact alone is totally bypassed by poptart and rest of the tinfoil troop.

You have also forgotten the Cold War. American government and society was absolutely riddled with Soviet agents at all levels. You think they wouldn't have loved to blow the lid off a hoaxed moon landing? It would have been one of the biggest propaganda coups of all time.

[Moving Sale]

KCScott: "I don't mind being called a t r a n n y. I think it's funny, I just changed the word filter to protect AP."

You are the worst kind of mOd. Anything else you want to do to try and kill the board?

[R-Jack]

I finally got the "poptart" setting on my search engine and typed in "earth".







Kneel before 'tart.

[Moving Sale]

At least R-Jackmeofflittlegirl only deleted my posts when I called him a pedophile. You are worse than r-jack KCpurseswinger and that's pretty bad.

[R-Jack]

At least R-Jackmeofflittlegirl only deleted my posts when I called him a handsome fucker. You are worse than r-jack KCpurseswinger and that's pretty bad.

Dude....even AP thinks it's too early to hit the bottle. Need some coffee?

[Moving Sale]

But not too early to tap your daughter's ass eh?

[poptart]

Regarding the astronauts - This was one of my first posts and pops provided no real answer to it

1. In the thread you linked to at .net, I gave my take on that... twice.

2. It's impossible to attempt to answer every question that comes at me -- and especially when multiple people demand answers, even though they failed to answer ME, when I came in and posed the FIRST question.

[poptart]

observations and measurements

__________FLAT__________

if the ball-Earth were 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomers say, then spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downwards an easily measureable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. To the benefit of true science, and to the detriment of modern astronomy’s pseudo-science, such an experiment can and has been tested.



In Cambridge, England there is a 20 mile canal called the Old Bedford which passes in a straight line through the Fenlands known as the Bedford Level. The water has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind and remains stationary making it perfectly suitable for determining whether any amount of convexity/curvature actually exists. In the latter part of the 19th century, Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, a famous Flat-Earther and author of the fine book, “Earth Not a Globe! An Experimental Inquiry into the True Figure of the Earth: Proving it a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the Only Material World in the Universe!” travelled to the Bedford level and performed a series of experiments to determine whether the surface of standing water is flat or convex.



“A boat, with a flag-staff, the top of the flag 5 feet above the surface of the water, was directed to sail from a place called ‘Welche's Dam’ (a well-known ferry passage), to another called ‘Welney Bridge.’ These two points are six statute miles apart. The author, with a good telescope, went into the water; and with the eye about 8 inches above the surface, observed the receding boat during the whole period required to sail to Welney Bridge. The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! There could be no mistake as to the distance passed over, as the man in charge of the boat had instructions to lift one of his oars to the top of the arch the moment he reached the bridge. The experiment commenced about three o'clock in the afternoon of a summer's day, and the sun was shining brightly and nearly behind or against the boat during the whole of its passage. Every necessary condition had been fulfilled, and the result was to the last degree definite and satisfactory. The conclusion was unavoidable that the surface of the water for a length of six miles did not to any appreciable extent decline or curvate downwards from the line of sight. But if the earth is a globe, the surface of the six miles length of water would have been 6 feet higher in the centre than at the two extremities. From this experiment it follows that the surface of standing water is not convex, and therefore that the Earth is not a globe! On the contrary, this simple experiment is all-sufficient to prove that the surface of the water is parallel to the line-of-sight, and is therefore horizontal, and that the Earth cannot be other than a plane!” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe! An Experimental Inquiry into the True Figure of the Earth: Proving it a Plane, Without Axial or Orbital Motion; and the Only Material World in The Universe!” (12-13)




Observations and measurments

__________FLAT__________

[poptart]

In a second experiment, Dr. Rowbotham placed seven flags along the edge of the water each one mile distant from the next with their tops positioned 5 feet above the surface. Near the last one he also positioned a longer, 8 foot staff bearing a 3 foot flag so that its bottom aligned precisely with the tops of the other flags. He then mounted a telescope at a height of 5 feet behind the first flag and took his observations. If the Earth was a globe of 25,000 miles, each successive flag would have to decline a definite and determined amount below the last. The first and second flags simply established the line of sight, the third flag should then fall 8 inches below the second, the fourth flag 32 inches below, the fifth 6 feet, the sixth 10 feet 8 inches, and the seventh flag should be a clear 16 feet 8 inches below the line of sight! Even if the Earth was a globe of a hundred thousand miles, an amount of easily measurable curvature should and would still be evident in this experiment. But the reality is not a single inch of curvature was detected and the flags all lined up perfectly as consistent with a flat plane.

“The rotundity of the earth would necessitate the above conditions; but as they cannot be found to exist, the doctrine must be pronounced as only a simple theory, having no foundation in fact--a pure invention of misdirected genius; splendid in its comprehensiveness and bearing upon natural phenomena; but, nevertheless, mathematical and logical necessities compel its denunciation as an absolute falsehood.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe!” (14)




Observations and measurements

__________FLAT__________

[poptart]

No curvature observable or measurable.

[mvscal]

No curvature observable or measurable.

WRONG. Top to bottom. But, by all means, continue to fill your head with shit.

[atmdad]

I blame the Canadian.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Wake the hell UP.

So pops is now in full on LTS mode and the trolling has become painfully obvious.

Because any other answer to this bizarre-ass thread would reveal our Bible humper as certifiably insane.

Okay Sam, back to the end of the world.

[Jerkovich]

The Earth has a radius of approximately 3965 miles. Using the Pythagorean theorem, that calculates to an average curvature of 7.98 inches per mile or approximately 8 inches per mile. The distance to the horizon in miles from height of an observer is approximately equal to 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet. For example 1.23 times the square root of 8 divided by 12 equals 1 mile. Inversely given the horizon distance in miles, the height in feet required to be visible equals the distance in miles squared divided by 1.513. The second example above concerning the Moon rising over a distant range also requires some topographic map calculations using the tan trigonometric function. Thus if a peak rises up 1844 feet at a distance of 10.0 miles or 52,800 feet, it will form an angle of 2 degrees with a theoretical flat horizon. The tan is 1844/52800=0.0349 or 2 degrees. However due to the Earth's curvature, it would appear as though it was only 1778 feet tall with the lowest 66 feet below the horizon.
If a 64 inch tall person's eyes are at a height of 60 inches or 5 feet(sup Moving Sale), they might be able to see at night, a flashlight laying on the ground at 1.23 the root of 5 = 2.75 miles. They would also be able to see another like standing person's headlamp twice that distance or at 5.5 miles distance, since each person would be able to see the midway tangent point. For example per the above diagram, that might be between the Object A and Object B. Likewise one of those person's would be able to see the last inch of a 9 inch tall object 2.75+1.0=3.75 miles distant. Lake Tahoe is 12 miles wide and 22 miles long. For a person's eyes at a height of 5 feet above the water on the south shore, a streetlight at night on the north shore needs to be up on a nearby hill at least 370 feet above the shore, else it is below the horizon.

[poptart]

WRONG. Top to bottom. But, by all means, continue to fill your head with shit.

lol

You touted measurements and observation -- and I gave them to you.

Both were basic experiments and were not based on any presumptions or... fuzzy math.

No curvature.

If you won't look, you won't look.

Oh well.

It is painful when the masses are SO very wrong.
Deceived for so long.
Indoctrinated.
Fools.


Could it be that your head is full of shit?

[poptart]

certifiably insane

Jay, you've had almost NOTHING to add to this thread.

No substance at all.

Name-calling, ridiculous mistakes and hysterics.

You still haven't even gotten to first base with the question I posed as I entered the thread.
lol

Poor showing.
Very poor indeed.

[Atomic Punk]

Pops, be honest. You being a tennis player and all... when you hold a tennis ball, do you see the whole tennis ball all at once?

It's not like I've asked you this for the 3rd time now.

[poptart]

Based on the earth supposedly being 25,000 miles in circumference and curving 8" per mile, an object should be 522 ft below the horizon if a 6 ft tall man is viewing it from 31 miles away.

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



This is Toronto viewed from 31 miles away, in St. Catharines.

Street level is supposed to be 174 yds below the horizon.

Is it?

:)




Measurements and observation.

[poptart]

AP, I thought I answered you when I said this to you...

I'm certainly not saying the earth is flat because NASA doesn't show us the other side of the earth.

when you hold a tennis ball, do you see the whole tennis ball all at once?

No, you see half of it.

[BSmack]

Tart, you didn't do well on the maths did you? 8 inches times 31 miles is 20.67 feet not 522 feet.

[BSmack]

BTW, I was on the other side of the lake from Canada. Funny, I didn't see the skyline. If the earth was flat, I should have been able to see Canada from the west side of Rochester. Yet you cannot see Canada from Rochester.

[poptart]

Tart, you didn't do well on the maths did you? 8 inches times 31 miles is 20.67 feet not 522 feet.

No, the rate compounds as you continue moving further from the object.

That's why I linked to this calculator.

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

BTW, I was on the other side of the lake from Canada. Funny, I didn't see the skyline. If the earth was flat, I should have been able to see Canada from the west side of Rochester. Yet you cannot see Canada from Rochester.

Keep looking.
Take pics -- and take them on more than one day.

I'd like to see them.

[poptart]

the rate compounds as you continue moving further from the object.

It's something like this, isn't it?