ep30-K Ham Radio

Be the 1st to vote.

Guest: Hoi Polloi, from  CLUESFORUM.info

When: Thursday, March 26, 7:11pm Eastern

Download

outsideradio.blogspot.ie/2015/…

We compare possible earth models and discuss the most compelling arguments for and against them.

Here are some links from the show.

The Moon Wobbles

dumbscientist.com/archives/the…

 

How is the Moon lit?

cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?…

 

The SSSS Model of the Universe

cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?…

 

Divergence of Long Plumb-Lines at the Tamarack Mine

www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/…

 

The Rectilineator Experiment and Concave Earth

www.wildheretic.com/concave-ea…

 

Glass in the Sky

www.wildheretic.com/there-is-g…

 

The Electric Universe Theory

www.electricuniverse.info/Elec…

 

No tags for this post.

28 thoughts on “ep30-K Ham Radio

  1. Gabriel

    Khammad,

    I really enjoy hearing your thoughts and experiences with the Muslim religion and beliefs. If you get a chance on your next show could you share your thoughts on Sharia Law. This is something we hear a lot about in the south. The Christians are not happy about it. I’m wondering if this is a legitimate thing and what Muslims think of it.

    Reply
    1. khammad Post author

      Great idea Gabriel.

      Since I read your post I started writing what I thought was the definition of Sharia Law .

      I just decided to read it on air. Join me if can. See the post on ep31.

      Reply
  2. sami

    Enjoyed this audio. It was pleasant to listen to a relaxed conversation between two free thinkers, musing on the topic of the mechanics of our universe. Cheers.

    -anonjedi2

    Reply
  3. Tom Dalpra

    Here you go K. A promo for Kham radio. A little keepsake, perhaps 🙂 (No ridicule intended here, just a few moments shared of light relief as we consider the absurdity of it all).

    Reply
    1. Tom Dalpra

      On question of The Flat Earth,

      I read: ”Mohammed Yusuf, founder of the Nigerian militant Islamist group Boko Haram, stated his belief in a flat Earth”

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Ear…

      A straight forward bit of demonisation of the idea there, perhaps? Inserted in a relatively recent creations’ profile.

      Like when Ahmedinejad says 9/11 was an inside job, is this a ‘hidden truth’ we’re being fed, safely attached to an arch -baddie?

      Reply
    2. khammad Post author

      Tom,

      Excellent work on your video.

      (Teacher Mode Engaged)

      You earned a 100% = A+ mark for “An Excerpt from Kham Radio”! Well done.

      Your use of images in the video was appropriate as your images supported what you were saying! You also get bonus points for cleverness and humor. Your intent was clear: Light Relief, a little LR on a subject we have been digging into.

      (Teacher Mode Disengaged)

      Thanks for the much needed LR (:

      Please contact me on Skype!

      Reply
      1. Tom Dalpra

        Will do. Gonna pick up a new computer tomorrow.
        I’ll be back on full service. Been a bit out of the loop.
        Sorting it 🙂

        Reply
  4. LennyLeverhulme

    Interesting discussion. And I do love your Scarlett O’Hara turns, K Hamm!

    Btw, here’s a good interview with Eric Dubay where he discusses FE, despite the interviewer’s over-enthusiasm:

    Reply
      1. LennyLeverhulme

        Cheers Delcroix! The audio was poor and the interviewer got on my tit even more unfortunately…

        Reply
    1. LennyLeverhulme

      Oh, meant to add, Eric’s critique of Mark Sargent starts at the 1 hour 6 minute mark.

      Would like to see Eric as a guest on the next Flat Earth Roundtable.

      Reply
  5. UNreal


    the earth’s curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile (125 to 127mm per Km)

    we do not need a God, a Dome, a theory of the Sun, The Moon, the universe or the bending of light to establish the curvature (or not) of the surface of the earth.
    we can measure 1 mile with great exactitude*, everything else just makes us spin** in dubious unrelated circles.


    * modern commercially available measurement tools measure 1000m with 1mm precision
    **if the earth do not spin (1674.4 km/hour equatorial speed) the whole theory of our solar system collapses

    Reply
    1. Hoi Polloi

      Your favorite way to refute anything is to simply state your opinion, without proof, and finish with an overblown abstract picture of your opinion, which only you understand?

      Why not try communicating your scientific ideas? Maybe someone will listen then!

      Reply
      1. UNreal

        @Hoipolloi

        most of the problem with the discussion around the flat earth is precisely as you say the lack of proof. to direct the discussion towards other unproven facts as support for any theory of the shape of the earth is not bringing us closer to a conclusion, to the contrary (logical fallacy).
        when you ask of me to bring scientific proof, we have a lot of such ‘proof’ already, but this is what we actually try to ‘debunk’, with the means we dispose of. i do not dispose of an electronic/optical instrument used in modern surveying and building construction, but this equipment is able to mesure differences of millimeters over a distance of a kilometer and more. that such equipment exists is a proof in itself that we can measure and test the shape of the earth. i try to supply some sound thinking, and i do believe that the discussion is going down a rabbit-hole with speculation on the solar system in stead of keeping to what we can objectively validate by ourself on the surface of the earth. this is where a tool such as the Leica TPS1200+ comes in handy, and i’d love to mesure weather there is a discrepancy of 12,5 cm every kilometer or not,, i’d do it if i had the means.

        don’t you agree that accurately measuring over a distance of 1km is feasible today and that relying on 200 year old surveys for argumentation is sketchy at best ?

        Reply
        1. Hoi Polloi

          Now, this I can get behind. Yes.

          Still, it is an interesting point that a lot of our so-called new technology is based on old understandings.

          We can survey all we like and create a planar map of the surface of the Earth, but there it is — a planar map. It still is no proof for the explanation that that landscape loops like a sphere, even while not appearing like a sphere, nor having ever been physically measured as such (except as a concave one).

          And since it is still true that the plane of the horizon (always flat) rises to eye level as we climb in altitude, and no ring of horizon is seen to dip below eye level, we have the immediate problem of explaining the bending of light to arrive at a round convex Earth ball-shaped globe.

          So we cannot escape the bending of light phenomenon. It happens. Let’s deal with it.

          Still, I agree it’s mostly a waste of time since ultimately this is almost entirely about maps, and our maps (flat, spherical, etc.) do well no matter what shape we make them, until we try to make a concave map, which we can’t exactly conveniently put ourselves inside. However, I don’t think a map is reality itself; I think it’s a map.

          What are you trying to do, determine the dimensions of reality, or make a map? If you want to make a map, our work is practically done. If the former, there is always more to explore and I enjoy celebrating that — however much a waste of time you wish to call it.

          Don’t worry, plenty of people will probably just go back to watching Michio Kaku, Mark Sargent, Lord Steven Christ and others who are enthusiastic to explain it all — no personal investigation necessary! There aren’t many who will even bother to think otherwise. And soon this topic will be buried once more, as it is on CluesForum and Fakeologist and everywhere else.

          Reply
          1. UNreal

            @Hoipolloi:

            Understand that you have an inkling towards the concave earth model, but there are no measurements that hold up (except those dubious Koreshans & Rowbotham/Wallace ones) or have been verified in modern time as far as i’m aware of. please fill me in.

            i’m not yet convinced of either one model, but what i am convinced of is that with modern measurement equipment properly triangulated that we would be able to make a solid 3d opinion on what we live on. i’m not trying to establish another 2d map, i’m interested in resolving what seems in our means and reach: rediscover the exact shape of the earth.

            the bending of light interests me too, but it is not necessary to solve this question in order to verify the the curve (or not) of the surface of the earth. in fact, the Earth has an estimated radius of approximately 3965 miles (convex/concave or surrounded by ice,,) and using the Pythagorean theorem we see that this induces a very significant change in leveling. in fact, if the curvature is around 8 inches over a mile’s distance, it becomes 66 feet of difference over 10miles,,, so, as mush as i’d like to deal with and understand light, we do not need to account for it over the distances needed for triangulating and measuring the curve/no curve phenomenon. and no, i do not say that the bending of light or a new theory of the solar system is a waste of time. what i say is that those subjects are misleading and confusing in regards to solving the question of the shape of the earth. to conceal something as obvious as the shape of our planet, there are of course a lot of magic in play. first rule is to mislead attention.

            it would be really significant to establish some solid bases for the subject at hand: the shape of the earth. that is where i’d like to go.

            you imply a little ironically that i might want to stop researching other subjects or go back to ‘mainstream’ science. this is as far from the point as could be on my behalf, and i hope that my contributions on this site goes a long way to prove that.

            i enjoyed your show with K Ham, and mostly find your input thought-provoking, which doesn’t mean i always share your vues of course, but i really value them !

            Reply
  6. smj

    sagan gave us the original cosmos series. his third wife, ann druyan, wrote mcfarlane and tyson’s redux. sagan also headed the committee that made the voyager record. carl’s first wife, lynn margulis, gave us gaia theory with the global warming hustler james lovelock. after she split with carl she married an x-ray crystallographer, which is feckin hilarious.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Druy…
    voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraf…
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Mar…
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hyp…

    seth chose an interesting logo for the new cosmos…

    Reply
    1. khammad Post author

      Dang it, SMJ, what amazing information, I am sorry I missed it. We could really have fun with that video!

      Reply
    1. khammad Post author

      You are welcome, Len.

      We are still working on the best way to record the audio, so the location of the live stream might be changing around a bit. Keep an eye out for the location before the show. Eventually, this will get ironed out. Thank you for your patience and your interest!

      The time slot of Thursdays at 7:11pm Eastern time for K Ham Radio is pretty solid and won’t be changing.

      Reply
  7. UNreal


    Hi Khammad,

    Recommend you check out this guys ‘Flat Earth’ youtube channel: ‘Stars are Souls’, he’s got some great points;
    -water doesn’t bend (my view as well,,,)
    -there are no stars at the bottom of the horizon
    -curvature of the earth should be visible in plane due to the distance of view; no curvature
    -sea-levels as a measurement from a curved model is not possible
    -etc.


    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

wp-puzzle.com logo

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.