North - South

[TheoriaApophasis]

When you talk to yourself

When you post 5 posts in a row repeating the same nonsense over and over....



is this


1. an attempt to convince others ? (no chance anyone is buying it)

or as I suspect....


2. an attempt to convince yourself.

[aljhoa]

September | 2011 | Polar Field Services

The above Star-Trails "showing" the North Pole are from Greenland,
Master @cikljamas do you agree?

Also, at the North Pole how high is Polaris?



Al

[cikljamas]

A woman named Lady Bount was among the first to peer review Rowbotham's work:

"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

Mrs. Peach recently found a reference of photographic evidence from The English Mechanic, a scientific journal:

"The Flat Earth: another Bedford Canal experiment" (Bernard H.Watson, et al), ENGLISH MECHANIC, 80:160, 1904

Bedford Canal, England. A repeat of the 1870 experiment. "A train of empty turf-boats had just entered the Canal from the river Ouse, and was about proceeding to Ramsey. I arranged with the captain to place the shallowest boat last in the train, and to take me on to Welney Bridge, a distance of six miles. A good telescope was then fixed on the lowest part of the stern of the last boat. The sluice gate of the Old Bedford Bridge was 5ft. 8in. high, the turf-boat moored there was 2ft. 6in. high, and the notice board was 6ft. 6in. from the water. The sun was shining strongly upon them in the direction of the south-southwest; the air was exceedingly still and clear, and the surface of the water smooth as a molten mirror, so that everything was favourable for observation. At 1.15 p.m. the train started for Welney. As the boats gradually receded, the sluice gate, the turf-boat and the notice board continued to be visible to the naked eye for about four miles. When the sluice gate and the turf-boat (being of a dark colour) became somewhat indistinct, the notice board (which was white) was still plainly visible, and remained so to the end of six miles. But on looking through the telescope all the objects were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance. On reaching Welney Bridge I made very careful and repeated observations, and finding several men upon the banks of the canal, I called them to look through the telescope. They all saw distinctly the white notice board, the sluice gate, and the black turf-boat moored near them.'

Now, as the telescope was 18in. above the water, The line of sight would touch the horizon at one mile and a half away (if the surface were convex). The curvature of the remaining four miles and a half would be 13ft. 6in. Hence the turf-boat should have been 11ft., the top of the sluice gate 7ft. 10in., and the bottom of the notice board 7ft. below the horizon.

My recent experiment affords undeniable proof of the Earth's unglobularity, because it rests not on transitory vision; but my proof remains printed on the negative of the photograph which Mr.Clifton took for me, and in my presence, on behalf of J.H.Dallmeyer, Ltd. A photograph can not 'imagine' nor lie!".





Flat Earth from a plane on a plain
Flat Earth an artist perspective on Polaris
Come fly with me into reality
Amazing flight of a ballon to the edge of space

[TheoriaApophasis]

.. is it to remind you of tracers you saw while you were on LSD back in the sixties "Dad"?

Never took drugs ever.


Dont ever drink


WAS drunk twice in college as i recall. Awful vice I could never enjoy.


I see no enjoyment from it.

[Hrothgar]

your right

You, son, are NO PLATO

(Your 10 year old's avatar doesn't help your case any either).

The use of language is meant to facilitate understanding to bring people closer together. Yet you use it as a partisan to both prod & keep yourself at distance. When threatened you retreat in time to hide behind togas. Just to clarify, parroting the classics isn't thinking.

I agree whole heartedly about not being Plato, I don't need to pass notes to Socrates to speak for me. Your not either, Plato was noted to be modest.

I wonder about your avatar... is it to remind you of tracers you saw while you were on LSD back in the sixties "Dad"?

[TheoriaApophasis]

It is my contention that The Southern Cross (also known as the Southern Crux) is really just one of the constellations on the very outer edge of the Northern gear which rotates over South America, Africa and Australia. It can be seen by all three continents over a 24 hour period, but never at the exact same time.

Ohhhh, its a "GEAR" is it?

So, somebody could organize verification of the validity of our hypothesis

Validity? Nobody here is deluded enough to think you want genuine validation.




When you post 5 posts in a row, TO YOURSELF, is that how you validate your premise?

Do you agree bob?

Yes, bob, I agree, and you bob?

Yes bob, I agree with you, signed, Bob.







This is all like baron von munchausen pulling himself up by his own hair

[cikljamas]

Al, why did you put quotes about holocaust in this thread?
Maybe you had not followed this thread
You should also hear this

Al, if Southern Cross somehow manage to make half a circle in just 6 hours then it raises HUGE suspicions on the authenticity of all "Southern Pole" photographs, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT???

How fast should we expect The Southern Cross to cross the sky nightly in comparison to it's northern counterpart constellation Cassiopeia?

We shall use for this purpose several different quotes:

Quote 1 (Southern Cross):

Because the Southern Cross is so low in the sky and close to the South Celestial Pole, its path in the sky is short. From the time it rises to the time it begins to set, it is only in the sky for around six hours, whereas objects that rise closer to due east and set due west take approximately 12 hours to traverse the sky. In other words, don't expect to see the Southern Cross in the sky all evening.

Quote 2 (Southern Cross):

The Southern Cross is a constellation of five stars. They are arranged just like the stars on the Australian and New Zealand flags. Tonight (14/5/04), the Southern Cross will be tilted to the left in the early evening, straight up and down at around 9:45 pm and tilted over to the right by midnight.

So, in above words we have another corroboration that the Southern Cross makes half of a alleged circumpolar nightly circle in the sky in just 6 hours or so!!!!!!

Quote 3 (Southern Cross):

If you draw a line downwards, an imaginary line downwards from Alpha Centauri through Beta Centauri, and extend that line down towards the horizon, it should point you straight towards the Southern Cross.

Quote 4 (Cassiopeia):

From January to March the constellation will first appear almost overhead around 6 pm, as the evening progresses it will head down towards the horizon in a north-westerly direction, by early morning Cassiopeia will be low on the horizon in a more northerly or north-easterly direction.

So, we have to conclude that Cassiopeia (the real one circumpolar constellation) crosses the sky about twice slower than the Southern Cross.

It is my contention that The Southern Cross (also known as the Southern Crux) is really just one of the constellations on the very outer edge of the Northern gear which rotates over South America, Africa and Australia. It can be seen by all three continents over a 24 hour period, but never at the exact same time.

Could we somehow check whether this is so or not?

Maybe the next excerpt from one FET discussion can give you a clue how we could do it:

As far as that article which says that the astronomers were observing the Southern Cross at the exact same time, the quote specifically says:

"The trick was to use two telescopes at essentially the same time."

What does "at essentially the same time" mean?

Earlier in the article it says "For over a week they observed..." Does 'at essentially the same time' mean that observations were taken within a couple days of each other, within the week of each other, or what?

So, somebody could organize verification of the validity of our hypothesis and engage few guys to observe the Southern Cross at the exact same time from the two different points somewhere in South America and/or Africa and/or Australia. Since there are moments in time when it's darkness in the same time over South America and Africa or over Africa and Australia or over Australia and South America we could (by using this method) establish which hypothesis is true and which is false.

[aljhoa]

@ Al, few pages back, i have shown you (considering "Southern Cross case")

Disappearing Southern Cross is irrelevant because,
the Star Trails including Sigma Octantis,
which is closest star to the south Celestial pole,
show that something is rotating.

If these photographs turned out to be authentic then it would present serious problem for FET,
although even then it wouldn't cause automatic rejection of the whole FET, and it wouldn't cause any problem at all for geocentrism as such.

, what do you think?

Your conscious lets you "Put-in" your nose where it belongs.



Putin vows ‘Russia will never forget Holocaust’ — RT Russian politics







Fine Art Photography at Lorcan Gallery: Bora Bora - Southern Cross Star Trails

The above Star-Trails showing the South Pole are from Bora Bora ,
Master @cikljamas do you agree?


Al

[cikljamas]

Even if you watch our Universe from the heliocentric point of view this is how it really looks like if you think reasonably:

SEVEN MORE FLAWS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM THEORIESSir Harold Jeffreys, one of the world's leading geophysicists, after carefully examining the evidence for each of the various theories of how our solar system evolved into existence, summarized the situation in this way:

'To sum up, I think that all suggested accounts of the [evolutionary] origin of the Solar System are subject to serious objections. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist.'Harold Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History, and Physical Constitution (1970), p. 359.

'The idea that the sun could be formed by the gravitational collapse of a cloud of gas involves many theoretical difficulties. A gas cloud of the type presently observed out in space, unless it were a number of times greater in mass than the sun, would tend to expand rather than contract . . Furthermore, a cloud could not contract unless there were some way in which much of the resulting heat could be radiated out of the cloud. But it is not yet firmly established that a process exists that could get this heat out of the cloud.'R.E. Kofahl and KL. Segraves, Creation Explanation (1975), p. 142.


******************************

David Layzer, a Harvard University astronomer, could find no solution to the angular momentum problem. If our sun had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy, its angular momentum would have to be a billion times as much as it now possesses. How it could have lost all but one ten-millionth of one percent of its theorized original angular momentum has never been explained. In addition, Layzer explains, if the sun lost nearly all of its momentum, why did the planets and moons retain so much of theirs?

'Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the primary [the planet] carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites . . This circumstance aggravates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun, for if the Sun has somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, according to the nebular hypotheses, why have the planets not done likewise?'David Layzer, 'Cosmogony,' in McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology, Vol. 3, p. 564.

There is no possible means by which the angular momentum from the sun could be transferred to the planets. Yet this is what would have to be done if any of the evolutionary theories of solar system origin are to be accepted.

Since our sun contains 99-6/7 percent of all the mass in the solar system, why was not one large mass of material formed, Instead of our giant sun and its small planets? Why did not the remaining 1/7 of one percent just fall into the sun?

Scientists cannot account for this puzzling situation: less than one percent of the mass of the solar system is in the planets, while a staggering 98 percent of its angular momentum is in the sun. It simply does not fit into any of the cosmologies. Speaking of the mass-angular momentum problem, Bergamini says:

'A theory of evolution that fails to account for this peculiar fact is ruled out before it starts.'David Bergamini, The Universe, p. 93.


**************************************

Who was it who actually invented the Moon eclipse as caused by the Earth hoax?

The earliest traces of a counter-intuitive idea that it is the Earth that is actually moving and the Sun that is at the centre of the solar system (hence the concept of heliocentrism) is found in several texts written in ancient India. YajnavalkyaYajnavalkya also offered the measurements still in use today, with respect to Sun/Moon dimensions (relative distances of the Sun and the Moon from the Earth as 108 times the diameters of these heavenly bodies, close to the 'modern' measurements of 107.6 for the Sun and 110.6 for the Moon.) His opinion that the Sun was much larger than the Earth, influenced this early heliocentric concept.


*****************************************


Here is how modern science describes the Moon eclipse:

One of the most remarkable coincidences found in nature is the fact that the Moon and Sun both appear the same size as seen from Earth. The Moon, a small, cold, dark body, is only 3500 km in diameter while the Sun, a self luminous, gaseous giant, is 1,400,000 km across. The coincidence arises from the fact that although the Sun is 400 times larger than the Moon, it is also 400 times farther from Earth.

Actually it would be more than a remarkable coincidence, IT WOULD BE A MIRACLE!!!

[cikljamas]

Ernst, thanks, of course it's not "arcs of a second", it's "seconds of an arc"!!! Same with "turns up" instead of "turns out"...You see what i mean?
My whole point was: Aren't you aware how small value of 20 seconds of an arc really is?

You didn't answer my question, you just divided B/A. Since for God in Croatian we say Bog let's say that B is for God and A is for a typical mind of an average ass-hole, now divide A/B and you will get the true answer (value) to the real question: How really smart is Ernst?

For those who don't know:

1 sec. of an arc = An angle subtended by a U.S. dime coin at a distance of 4 km!!!
1 mas = 1/1000000 sec. of an arc

, very different from the parallax as measured
by Hipparcos, . Consequently, I have recently
frequently been asked if it is at all possible for the Hipparcos
parallax measurement to be so far off. This letter shows the Hip-
parcos astrometric solution for Polaris in all detail as a means to
assess the robustness of that solution, to assess whether its mea-
surement of the parallax could be offset by 23 times its standard
error. It also briefly discusses other arguments that have been
used to suggest a significantly shorter distance for Polaris than
what has been measured by Hipparcos. Read more: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0890v1.pdf

All that this "stars parallax" nonsense has to do with is the one and only purpose: throwing sand in the eyes of sincere thinkers, nothing more than that!

Light years, ha? Light years are only in your deluded and totally washed out brains and nowhere else!!!

Ernst, there isn't scintilla of integrity in you, why don't you just answer directly to my very simple question posed (to you) in the post #337? Not maybe because you have no reasonable answer to that question???

We have been through all this, so we don't expect of you any direct answer to anything, all that you are capable of is to divide B/A, the only problem is that you always divide wrong values.

If you are not able to answer questions directly you don't have to discredit yourself as a person more than you have already done.

[TheoriaApophasis]

I've bitten my tongue a couple of times on calling you out for being a jackass. Not this time..

How about you not have a sense of humor over somebody else's personal beliefs as if they were not human. cikljamas believes differently than you. Present your FACTS and leave this thread be. cikljamas is hurting nobody. Your EGO is BIG.

Breathe.

I dont mind being called a jackarse.

If he says he has a pet Unicorn and his great uncle sailed off the edge of the Earth.....


....thats all fine and well too.

I love a good chuckle.

[Web000x]

have a sense of humor a little bit.


If you cannot chuckle a bit at the notion of sailing over the EDGE of the earth,.....

.....then there is nothing to chuckle at.



It all reminds me of some preacher who said "Satan put dinosaur fossils in the earth to test the faith of men"

I've bitten my tongue a couple of times on calling you out for being a jackass. Not this time..

How about you not have a sense of humor over somebody else's personal beliefs as if they were not human. cikljamas believes differently than you. Present your FACTS and leave this thread be. cikljamas is hurting nobody. Your EGO is BIG.

Breathe.

[TheoriaApophasis]

your ego disturbs your presentation
Dave

have a sense of humor a little bit.


If you cannot chuckle a bit at the notion of sailing over the EDGE of the earth,.....

.....then there is nothing to chuckle at.



It all reminds me of some preacher who said "Satan put dinosaur fossils in the earth to test the faith of men"

[Web000x]

yes, the earth is flat, Apollo proof

I've got to say, you're seem rather intelligent. But your ego disturbs your presentation to the point where I disregard most of what you post. Can you not just leave this thread alone, as well as the others you troll? I'm not endorsing the thread, but your use of a BS meme while trolling this thread is useless.

What do you do for fun? Is it experiment? Is it troll this forum and respond to every 'dumb' statement with your ingenious rebuttal? What drives you in life? Are you here because you want to prove yourself to others? Or are you striving for acceptance? Are you here to convey your knowledge in a selfless exchange? (<-- RIGHT ANSWER ) It is okay to calm down and just breathe. The calling everybody dumb will destroy your rapport. Relax...

Dave

[Ernst]

envy you, you get to debate the "sanish" one.

Don't!
You got some quite phenomenal discussion techniques yourself!

Ernst.