November 5, 2013 at 12:30 pm #5325
I think this should be its own thread.
A couple of ‘concave’ earth examples from movies:
And maybe even 2001 A Space Odyssey: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=Ok32VyEQYYc
November 6, 2013 at 10:31 am #5333
- This topic was modified 12 months ago by Banazîr Galbasi.
This is a fascinating topic. Have you come across this website by a member of Cluesforum called totalrecall.
The Wild Heretic
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
A quick sample:
There are four pieces of evidence, that I know of, which purport to show that we live inside a concave Earth. None of the evidence below is 100% conclusive, but two items are very close.
Lenses and the horizon
Altitude and the horizonWhatever reality is, it's not that.November 6, 2013 at 10:52 am #5334
I know Ab is looking to get a hold of this Wild Heretic author for a show. Maybe you can help him get through to him, Carole?November 6, 2013 at 2:55 pm #5344
‘fraid I don’t have any personal contact to totalrecall- just love his site because of its well-presented content. But you’ve inspired me to go right over there now and ask him.
Btw it was a joy to listen to the last RAW. You and Ana and the other participants, as well as the amazing Ab, have made such a difference to my life (thank you Ab!).Whatever reality is, it's not that.November 6, 2013 at 5:01 pm #5345
‘fraid I don’t have any personal contact to totalrecall- just love his site because of its well-presented content. But you’ve inspired me to go right over there now and ask him.<br>
Btw it was a joy to listen to the last RAW. You and Ana and the other participants, as well as the amazing Ab, have made such a difference to my life (thank you Ab!).
Yes, maybe you can also try to contact him in the other forum you mentioned
Thank you for your words! It’s always a great feeling to realize we’re not alone.November 6, 2013 at 8:55 pm #5347
Even more on the subject:
Journey to the Center of the Earth indeed. It makes me wonder now what’s at the bottom of the ocean. I’m sure they’ve got that covered too with guys like James Cameron always first on the scene to show us what it’s like. I’m sure there is some fakery down there too.
Someone should make a chart or list of things that we can actually depend on from history to what I can brush my teeth with. I’m sure it won’t be very big.April 12, 2014 at 7:01 am #8462
Here is an amazing interview. LSC talks to NASA s ientist Richard Cohen about the concave earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXjMbI2MPRQ/videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXjMbI2MPRQWhatever reality is, it's not that.September 19, 2014 at 7:00 pm #34780
Johan Backes posted a link in the chat earlier regarding the ‘flat earth’ question. I’m going to post my somewhat meandering digression here starting with ‘flat earth’, in the hope it ties-in a bit at the end. I’ll get to concave earth.
So yes, I found this pleasantly written, it’s from a 1980 July edition of Science Journal regarding the flat earth proposition.
It got me thinking. I was quite drawn to the idea that the UN could give us a paradigm shifting revelation to take us into a ‘new age’?
Whilst I don’t expect it any day soon, the concept has a credible feel to it to me, on a level!
UNreal suggested on the chat that he doubted the ”UN would give us any truth at all soon” but that the shape of the earth was open to question.
I was intrigued enough to go back to the flat-earth question. I’ve always meant to go back and look again at the old
Bedford Level Experiment
”The first investigation was carried out by Samuel Birley Rowbotham (1816–1884), in the summer of 1838. He waded into the river and used a telescope held eight inches above the water to watch a boat with a five-foot mast row slowly away from him. He reported that the vessel remained constantly in his view for the full six miles to Welney bridge, whereas, had the water surface been curved with the accepted circumference of a spherical earth, the top of the mast should have been some eleven feet below his line of sight. He published this discovery under the title Zetetic Astronomy using the pseudonym Parallax in 1849 and subsequently expanded it into a book published in 1865”
Now, I don’t know about you, but on one level( ahem) I think this is pretty strong sounding evidence. It’s very simple. Where’s the catch?
Parallax! It even sounds like a modern day forum name.
”This guy may have been ahead of his time?”, I can’t help thinking.
Is this too obvious? I can’t logically see much wrong with it, on first look.
So, what’s the official explanation then ? Over to Wonky :
Refraction of light can produce the results noted by Rowbotham and Blount. Because the density of air in the Earth’s atmosphere decreases with height above the Earth’s surface, all light rays travelling nearly horizontally bend downward. This phenomenon is routinely allowed for in levelling and celestial navigation.
If the measurement is close enough to the surface, light rays can curve downward at a rate equal to the mean curvature of the Earth’s surface. In this case, the two effects of curvature and refraction cancel each other out and the Earth will appear flat in optical experiments.
So it is admitted that ” the earth will appear flat in optical experiments”.
IE it looks flat when you look at it in the light! ( If I’m reading that right!)
A question I have is ”so we can see round curves at long distance, yeh?” Is that what they’re saying? We can see round the earth? If not, we can see a projection suspended in the air then?
The official conclusion here seems to be:
The earth appears flat to the eye, but it’s an optical illusion and it’s a sphere.
”This phenomenon ( refraction) is routinely allowed for in levelling and celestial navigation.”
Ok, I’ll give up in a moment, I’m probably just being stupid but this isn’t celestial navigation is it? Different ball-game; this is down-to-earth-stuff. In the heavens you haven’t got any Earth to hide behind.
Now, there was one other experiment noted on Winkypedia that caught by eye.
On July 25, 1896, Ulysses Grant Morrow (not to be confused with Ulysses S. Grant), a newspaper editor, conducted a similar experiment on the Old Illinois Drainage Canal, Summit, Illinois. Unlike Rowbotham, he was seeking to demonstrate that the surface of the earth was curved: when he too found that his target marker, eighteen inches above water level and five miles distant, was clearly visible he concluded that the Earth’s surface was concavely curved, in line with the expectations of his sponsors, the Koreshan Unity society. The findings were dismissed by critics as the result of atmospheric refraction
Meet Cyrus Teed aka Koresh he of the Koreshan Unity Society.
”Cyrus Reed Teed (1839-1908) was a U.S. eclectic physician and alchemist turned religious leader and messiah. In 1869, claiming divine inspiration, Dr. Teed took on the name Koresh and proposed a new set of scientific and religious ideas he called Koreshanity, including a unique Hollow Earth theory that posits the Earth and sky exist inside the inner surface of a sphere”
”Proving Earth is Hollow with the Naples Experiment
”To prove Cyrus Teed’s strange theory, Professor Ulysses Morrow devised a huge instrument that he dubbed the Rectilineator, which would measure the curvature of the Earth. The weird contraption consisted of ten huge, double T-squares made of seasoned mahogany, set horizontally on ten carefully balanced mounts. In January 1897, it took nearly a month for Professor Morrow and a dozen workers to setup and calibrate the big apparatus on a stretch of beach at Naples, Florida.
The experiment was called the Koreshan Geodetic Survey and if it worked, then it would show that the Earth’s surface curves upward at the rate of eight inches per mile. Morrow projected a horizontal line westward, and if his calculations were correct, this reference line would meet the water about four miles off shore in the Gulf of Mexico thus proving a concave surface. On the other hand, the Rectilineator would also indicate if the Earth’s surface was flat or convex. Since the contraption was only twelve feet long it had to be moved and calibrated section by section in order to repeat the experiment over the four mile distance.
It took five months to conduct the crazy experiment, but on May 5, 1897, Teed announced that the end of the instrument had touched the water, proving that we live on the inside of the Earth.”
This Koresh venture seems rather a song and dance to me. This ramshackle ‘rectilineator’ (Sounds a bit like rectal) being reassembled and adjusted every day for 5 months. Doomed to failure by the look of it.
It’s all a bit mad…I wonder quite how big this story was in the US? It makes me wonder if this drawn-out affair was all a deliberate attempt at making claims of flat or concave earth appear crazy? This idea attached to Koresh, this self-appointed messiah.
I really don’t know.
I did also just wonder how many other famous self-appointed messiah’s who led communities called Koresh there were?DalTampraSeptember 22, 2014 at 11:50 pm #37762
On that last question I ‘cluesed-it’ and found this from Hoi on a thread called ‘What is gravity?’ Clearly I’m not the only one to see that interesting possibility regarding David Koresh and the Koreshans. I’ll leave his conclusions here too on the gravity question.
For the sake of argument, let’s take it into the more complex realm.
If you were to spin this inverted sphere as per the Koreshans (hmm, was simulated Branch Davidian WACO-wacko “David Koresh” created specifically to discredit the interesting Koresh research?) and you wanted to somehow explain gravity as familiar motions we observe, you could postulate:
1. The Earth is rapidly shrinking (!) towards a central point, and the contraction is the opposite of Earth expansion model
2. The Earth is spinning evenly on every single point (or enough points so that the diminishing gravity at all the poles is negligible), causing uniform centripetal force against the inside of the Earth shell and preventing polar effects
However, all of this runs into the same problem as before, which is that there appears to be no spin whatsoever to our ground, and a great deal of force pushing or pulling directly upon us. And if you try to account for it with these Newtonian physics, you end up with extremely wacky Sun and Moon motions, magical atmosphere behavior and other things that are necessary to explain away with complex mathematical models. (Everything is expanding or contracting simultaneously?)
I’m tired right now, but I wanted to make a note of that.
There’s something there, I think. I’m not sure what it is. The parallels:
Self-proclaimed messiahs, alternative communities. Both beaten down by law-men ultimately, it would appear. Cyrus Teed – the 19th century Koresh was ultimately said to have died from injuries sustained in a beating he took from a Marshal Sanchez.
Teed was involved in an altercation between Fort Myers men and members of the Unity. He was severely pistol whipped by Marshal Sanchez, suffering injuries from which he never recovered, dying two years later in 1908.
Teed’s followers initially expected his resurrection, after which he and his faithful would be taken up to heaven as he had predicted in his book The Immortal Manhood. They kept a constant vigil over his body for two days, after which time it began to show signs of decay. Following Christmas the county health officer stepped in to order his burial. After his death the group went into decline.
In 1910, a hurricane destroyed his tomb on the southern end of Estero island and washed his coffin out to sea.
‘Washed out to sea in a hurricane’ 1910… well…it may well be his old bones were, but it does also work as a classic way to get rid of a place you don’t want to become a shrine or of course a way of getting rid of the evidence.
That Osama Bin Laden job…washed out to sea…I dunno.
1) Was Cyrus Teed genuine? I have to say, he seems a bit flaky but I want to like him…the alternative medicine.
Did he have some inspired ideas that have been deliberately supressed?
2) Was Cyrus Teed himself possibly a long-con like David Koresh? ( The way the Koreshan’s part-modeled themselves on Standard Oil, that the New York connection)
Was his function to suppress ideas? His story to remain like a parable.
Ideas of alternative community ended. A false prophet defined?
Was it Koresh 1 then Koresh 2? Both long cons? Nothing new in the next century, hey every century needs one probably?
Right now I’m open to suggestion either way.
Now…what was this thread about again? Oh yeh, concave earth…
I’m not sure the concave earth theory isn’t just as much brilliant bullshit as the spherical earth theory. It’s equally as valid, perhaps. Like geo-centric and helio-centric theories, concave and convex work just as well.
As Hoi suggests, there’s flaws in Teeds theory, but there’s flaws in the other theory. Teed’s idea of centrifugal force is flawed, but there’s still a question of what gravity really is.
Oh it’s 4:49. Best get my head down. Sorry if this was a load of waffle.DalTampraSeptember 23, 2014 at 9:58 am #38148
Re-recommending the very interesting Wild Heretic thread which appears to be a place of healthy contemporary discussion.
My tentative exploration here is as a novice. With people like scud in the comments just yesterday, it appears this conversation is quite well developed and still relevant.
My thoughts on reviewing that thread are that I’m not as convinced at all with the rectilineator. Wild Heretic says :- The only fault with this experiment is that it is over 100 years old and has never been publicly repeated since (for obvious reasons), which doesn’t make it 100% conclusive, but very close. Does the Rectilineator show a concave Earth? Extremely likely (99%).
Wow! 99% sure that this antique contraption which made it’s ungainly passage across the earth was not open to error?
I’m not saying the rectilineator is bullshit, I’m just saying ‘ it found in favour of the sponsors’. It’s a lot of figures and hassle and it’s clearly open to abuse. No Way could I be 99% sure on the evidence we have.
No, I only start to get really interested when he comes to the optical experiments of Rowbotham then Illinois. As I said before, that evidence seems quite simple. ‘On one level’, difficult to argue with.
”Then I’m fascinated to read of the Rolf Keppler’s. December 1963 stuff. The optical research division of the US Army Signal Corps developed a camera which was made to see objects 30 miles away.”
Wild Heretic caption ”The camera was pointing upwards showing it was not at an elevated position and that all objects photographed must have been situated higher than the camera.”
WH caption: Sandy Hook, followed by a 9-mile wide bay, then Coney Island, followed by another bay, then finally Manhattan at the top of the photograph are all shown in series.
Sandy Hook ? Manhattan? The most powerful telescope ever? Military? 1963?
I don’t know about you but that’s interesting. Right now, I’ve gotta go and pick my daughter up from school. I don’t know whether to say I’m going down there, up there or across there, for sure, BUT I’m about 75% sure that something fishy
was going on in 1963 across the bay there.DalTampraSeptember 23, 2014 at 7:48 pm #38546
Ah yes, that’s a bit clearer. Here’s the shot that US Army Optical Research division came up with. “A new Tele-Objective of the US-Army” ( oh yeh? ) from Sandy Hook to Manhattan!
Actually from 1954. Published in Foto Magazin.
( It wasn’t ‘the most powerful telescope ever’ of course. I cringed on re-reading that. It was perhaps the most powerful telescopic lens for a camera, at that time.)DalTampraSeptember 24, 2014 at 9:39 am #39096
Beyond the illusion of a flat earth that it’s said we observe in optical experiments, the Sandy Hook to Manhattan photograph appears to perhaps show something else.
Wild Heretic is pretty convinced again here 95% this time:
The photograph shows 3 horizons; the first being the lighthouse at Sandy Hook at 4 miles distance, the second was Coney Island at 13 miles away, with the last being Manhattan at 26 miles. The furthest horizon was at the top of the photo, not the bottom; and to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons, the camera was pointing up. Pointing up! How else can this be explained unless the Earth is concave?
”The US military camera pointing up and showing “3 horizons” with the furthest one situated at the top of the picture cannot be explained by any convex or flat Earth model, only a concave one; and proves that the horizon we see with the naked eye is caused by optics. The only question is the reliability of this information and that we have no other examples with which to compare”
Yes, too right! The ‘reliability of this information’ has to be questioned for sure ( it’s from the Military apparently!) and also,
where are the other examples? Why aren’t there similar long distance photographs available?
Why hasn’t this apparently peculiar optical quirk ( if it is that) not been examined?
This seems ridiculous. Such powerful telephoto lenses are presumably only allowed in the military? Even so, where are the close-up shots from miles away of anything we could be shown? Maybe I’m missing something?
If the only photograph of that nature in existence is from Sandy Hook to Manhattan, well…DalTampraSeptember 24, 2014 at 12:07 pm #39221
Here’s some dramatic footage of Toronto filmed from (wait for it) 33 miles away ( I make no leaps!).
What I see is the sea appearing to rise in front of us to eye level as was observed by Rowbotham with his clinometer – ”no matter what altitude the observer is at, the horizon always remains level with the eye”.
”This was demonstrated by Rowbothan’s experiment of using a leveled clinometer on each floor of the Grand hotel opposite the Western pier in Brighton, England which was pointed at the sea. On each floor, the water seemed to ascend as an inclined (slanted) plane, until it intercepted the line of sight.” – Wild Heretic
What I would expect, looking at the youtube, despite the swell of the water, consistent I think, with Rowbotham’s findings, would be that with a strong enough telescopic lens one would be able to zoom-in and see right across Lake Ontario to Toronto and observe someone standing on the beach there.
– the apparent height of the water at the horizon is an optical illusion – with enough telescopic power you could actually appear to see straight across.
The official story would explain this appearance of a flat earth to be an optical ‘trick’ due to the combination of refraction and the convex nature of the earth surface. We’d literally be seeing round a corner.
The optical effect of the rising-horizon of the water-line makes it look as-if the distant Toronto is a few hundred feet below the line of sight. It looks like it is disappearing behind the curve of the earth.
At this height and distance Toronto would have to be about 500 feet lower than the line of the camera if the natural curve of a spherical earth was there.
This optical quirk gives the effect of things disappearing behind the curve of a convex earth, when it seems very clear it is an optical illusion.DalTampraSeptember 24, 2014 at 3:07 pm #39340
Tom, I’m really enjoying your musings on the concave earth and I hope I will have more to add soon:-)Whatever reality is, it's not that.September 25, 2014 at 6:41 pm #40455
Thanks Carole! I look forward to your take.
I hope my thoughts are not too rambling.
It’s certainly getting interesting to me, looking at this.
Having got goosebumps whilst looking at that view of Toronto at sunset across Lake Ontario, with the ( what felt like, at least ) ‘realisation’ that the wall of water was an illusion, I had to get a reality check on the subject.
”Maybe I’m getting carried away here? Am I missing something?”…( I try and always remember to ask that)…
Ships disappearing over the horizon proving round earth appears false.
As someone relatively ‘new’ to the subject, I had half an idea that the concept of ships-disappearing-over-the-horizon-proving-a-round-earth may be an old story , disproved as an optical trick? I really thought that! Haha.
You know, one of those common myths? But oh, no, no. Not at all. Of course it’s still universally cited as one of the evidences of a spherical earth.
The minimalist BBC film here citing it as the prime example.
And this from a Princeton teacher’s guide:
if the Earth is round, then objects which travel away from you along the surface of the Earth will disappear from view at a certain distance. More interesting is that they disappear from the bottom up. Think of a friend walking over a hill. If you watch her from one side of the hill as she walks over the hill, her feet will disappear first and then her legs and body followed by her head. This is one way ancient sailors knew that the Earth must be rounded like a hill. They could see the tall masts of ships long after their hulls as the boats receded far away. To see why this effect occurs, look at the diagram below:
So that’s the official story; the best Scoince has to offer, today.
Now, it seems very simple to me, to see that to be an optical trick.
This from Thomas Winship on the subject:
Flat Earth Society on the subject:
”It has been found that the sinking ship effect effect is purely perceptual, that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer’s perspective and bring the ship’s hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a ”hill of water”. Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.”
YEH, BABY, JUST ‘CUS YOU CAN’T SEE IT, IT DOESN’T MEAN INFINITY DOESN’T EXIST! RELAX, YOUR MIND’S PLAYING TRICKS WITH YOU
I love it!
”Since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:
This finite distance to the vanishing point is what allows ships to shrink into horizon and disappear as their hulls intersect with the vanishing point from the bottom up. As the boat recedes into the distance its hull is gradually and perceptively appearing closer and closer to the surface of the sea. At a far off point the hull of the ship is so close to the sea’s surface that it is impossible for the observer to tell ocean from hull.’‘
Well, regardless of the shape of the earth, the idea that ships are seen to recede behind the horizon is clearly and provably, false. Isn’t it?
That’s a big one, I reckon. Is this not too obvious? What am I missing?
THIS LOOKS LIKE ( to me right now ) A LONG-STANDING CASE OF ONE OF NATURE’S ILLUSIONS BEING USED TO MISLEAD US.
Now, go back to this video below on youtube and watch again across Lake Ontario.
See the ominous dark wall and see Toronto in the sunlight behind.
Now, with the new knowledge, perhaps, that the ‘wall’ of water is (most likely) an optical illusion and all you’d need to do was zoom in, see it drop away in your mind’s eye: ”Welcome to Toronto”. You’re on the beach and the Sun’s out. For me it was a symbolic moment when I imagined that.
It all made sense. It was a tearing down of an imaginary wall. Wow. To infinity!
I was there in’78 on the beach in Toronto. Great stones for skimming, as I recall.
They were smooth, round and flat…( I make no leaps – unlike the stones!)DalTampraOctober 1, 2014 at 7:16 am #46943
A depiction of the world by Henricus Martellus. It’s said that Columbus used this map or one like it to persuade Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile to support him in the early 1490s. The map was made by a German cartographer living in Florence and reflects the latest theories about the form of the world and the most accurate ways of portraying it on a flat surface
Note: The map is supposed to be a flat representation of a spherical world.
How long has man thought the Earth was a sphere?
Now here’s a thing. Ask yourself: ”When in history did it became generally accepted that the earth was a sphere?”
Just for fun, give me a year. You’ll probably have an idea – mine was way-out.
The (contemporary!) official answer is this:
The concept of a spherical Earth dates back to around the 6th century BC, but remained a matter of philosophical speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the earth as a physical given. The paradigm was gradually adopted throughout the Old World during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Wonkypedia – Spherical Earth.
Wow, it’s from Hellenistic astronomy from the 3rd century BC.
I didn’t realise that.
I knew the idea was old, but thought that perhaps it wasn’t until Ferdinand Magellan and Juan Sebastián Elcano’s expedition’s circumnavigation (1519 – 1522) that the idea became generally accepted. Hands-up, I was way-off.
The truth is we’re still going with what Hellenistic astronomy gave us in the 3rd Century B.C. ( Hellenistic – yes, I see it. ) and it’s been pretty-much accepted since the middle ages.
It makes sense. You look at the Sun and the Moon and you look at the shadow from an eclipse, you look at ships ‘disappearing’ over the horizon, and you can see why they thought it.
It’s just that my impression from what I was taught at school, was that ‘people thought that ships would fall off the edge of the world up until Magellan proved them wrong with his 1522 circumnavigation’. With this message always came the sentiment: ” Bless them, the fools, we’re much cleverer nowadays!” :-))
People may have thought Magellan would fall off the edge of the world but the prevailing view was that he wouldn’t because the earth was a sphere. This seems clear.
That the world is a sphere is NOT some racey bit of ‘modern’ science.
OUR MAP OF THE GLOBE IS WRONG
I remember Jan Erik posting a link earlier this year showing how the World Map is hopelessly out of proportion. The globe is wrong. There’s no getting away from it.
This idea that the map is proportionally wrong seems to have been fed to us this year, by our ‘educators’. Articles trended on Facebook and we saw the above-linked Daily Mail article among other mainstream efforts – enough said.
Putting aside concave, convex or flat just for a moment, what are we going to do about that? Or perhaps, I should say: ”What are they going to do about it?”
Isn’t it a bit of a travesty that ‘we’ haven’t changed that yet?
A revision of the World Map is in the pipe-line, I think, but how far will it go? Will it go as far as the shape of the World?
Is perhaps all this negative talk of GLOBALISTS , fed to us through the planted, long-con, alternative media mouthpieces like Alex Jones, a long-ploy? I suppose it must be, thinking about it, but what’s the ploy?
So much negativity has been attached to the Globalists that the Flatists ( for example) might just be the the credible alternative to take us into the ‘new paradigm’ as Johan Backes suggested originally and which made me look at this.
Johan linked to an interesting article where a guy was saying that the UN was created to take us into that new paradigm. We can UNbelieve in the spherical Earth maybe?
Am I expecting this great paradigm shift any day soon? Well, no, but what do I know? All I know, having looked at it, is that the idea makes quite a lot of sense to me.DalTampra
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.