What is the shape of our world?!

iConflicted · Jul 2, 2015

For the past week I've been browsing WildHeretic's blog and have questions I need answered by my Christian sisters and brothers.
He writes some very interesting articles and warrants some investigation. I'm not particularly scientifical

but plenty there makes sense.
Please do not bother mentioning Lord Stephen Christ. He gives me the willies.
He claims to be The Second Coming. (Eye roll)
Here is a link to WildHeretic:
The Wild Heretic | "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

In earlier Bible printings we were "in the earth."
This was the first time I've seen this theory and would love to discuss it

-Melissa

posthuman · Jul 3, 2015

the shape of the earth is an oblate spheroid.

[video=youtube;wgdbZhnFD5g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgdbZhnFD5g[/video]

tanach · Jul 3, 2015

Whatever shape you think it was it now seems to be going Pear shaped.

JackRT · Jul 3, 2015

posthuman said:

Yes. An oblate spheroid that is slightly pear shaped but well less than 1% off from being a perfect sphere. And yes the bible speaks of us as being "in the earth" for a good reason. Biblical cosmology regarded the surface of the earth as circular and flat except for geographical features like hills and valleys. This of course was the belief borrowed from the Sumerians. To these people it was theoretically possible to go high enough to see the entire earth, or to envision a tree tall enough that it could be seen from everywhere on the earth's surface, or even to build a tower to reach the sky. The sky was thought of as a solid bowl, called the firmament, that was upended over the circular earth to enclose a volume in the shape of a hemisphere. I should add that there are some bible verses that speak of the four corners of the earth. This was the view picked up from the Babylonians. This would make the firmament look more like a tent than a bowl. The lights of the sky (sun, moon, planets and stars) were inside the firmament and were very much smaller than we presently understand. In fact they were very much smaller than the earth itself.

GodIsSalvation · Jul 7, 2015

Earth is a disk. It is not possible for it to be a sphere despite popular misconception. It is even more impossible for it to move without causing major cataclysm.

If you have access to a large body of water such as the ocean, merely go and view the horizon line. Since the horizon line is straight this means the earth is not a sphere nor is it concave. If the earth were a sphere or were concave there'd be a noticeable curve at the horizon, but there isn't one.

Glancing at the article you included, I see much of it deals with some of the many quandries and inconstitencies of NASA. It is well known that NASA fabricates images and videos of space, so it is of little wonder that so many problems exist with NASA's images, and it is of even less wonder why their budget is being reduced since their elaborate charade is not really necessary any longer.

Tintin · Jul 7, 2015

GodIsSalvation said:

Earth is a disk. It is not possible for it to be a sphere despite popular misconception. It is even more impossible for it to move without causing major cataclysm.

If you have access to a large body of water such as the ocean, merely go and view the horizon line. Since the horizon line is straight this means the earth is not a sphere nor is it concave. If the earth were a sphere or were concave there'd be a noticeable curve at the horizon, but there isn't one.

Glancing at the article you included, I see much of it deals with some of the many quandries and inconstitencies of NASA. It is well known that NASA fabricates images and videos of space, so it is of little wonder that so many problems exist with NASA's images, and it is of even less wonder why their budget is being reduced since their elaborate charade is not really necessary any longer.

Oh, brother, brother. Mankind really did land on the moon back in 1969.

GodIsSalvation · Jul 7, 2015

Tintin said:

Lol yea and brought back petrified wood and officially gave it to the Dutch government.
'Moon rock' in museum is just petrified wood - Technology & science - Space | NBC News

And of course getting to the moon is improbable enough, but leaving it is impossible. Nevertheless they still somehow left "the moon" and managed to videotape it and somehow acquire the tape with 1960s-1970s technology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwpikEfiJ3I
[video=youtube;mwpikEfiJ3I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwpikEfiJ3I[/video]

Nevertheless this topic is about shape of earth so enough on the moon landing hoax, we can save that for another topic, but it is a good demonstration of how much wonk is involved with NASA.

Tintin · Jul 7, 2015

GodIsSalvation said:

Just quickly then. I've seen those videos before. Try this one.

Summary by filming expert:
In 1969 we had the technology to go to the moon, but *not* to fake it in a film studio.

[video=youtube;sGXTF6bs1IU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU[/video]

GodIsSalvation · Jul 7, 2015

Tintin said:

Interesting take, but I don't buy it. Kind of a ridiculous premise that they'd have the technology to actually go to the moon (when that technology doesn't even exist today), and not have the technology to fake it. All you need is a proper stage and wiring.

Also he spends a good deal of time talking about slow motion. This is a new one to me I have not heard of a claim of them utilizing slow motion and all the videos of it appear in normal motion to me.

Lol nevertheless, again we're going to get lost in this topic me thinks, perhaps we should create a moon landing thread.

posthuman · Jul 7, 2015

GodIsSalvation said:

the lunar rover:

had a camera:

that could be controlled from earth.
the rovers were left on the moon.

zoii · Jul 7, 2015

GodIsSalvation said:

Earth is a disk. It is not possible for it to be a sphere despite popular misconception. It is even more impossible for it to move without causing major cataclysm.

If you have access to a large body of water such as the ocean, merely go and view the horizon line. Since the horizon line is straight this means the earth is not a sphere nor is it concave. If the earth were a sphere or were concave there'd be a noticeable curve at the horizon, but there isn't one.

Glancing at the article you included, I see much of it deals with some of the many quandries and inconstitencies of NASA. It is well known that NASA fabricates images and videos of space, so it is of little wonder that so many problems exist with NASA's images, and it is of even less wonder why their budget is being reduced since their elaborate charade is not really necessary any longer.

I'm trying to work out if your kidding us - oh cmon your pulling our leg - u don't really think the earth is flat hahaha...err do u?

Bate · Jul 7, 2015

It's either flat or round lol.

Geography states that it's round!

posthuman · Jul 7, 2015

GodIsSalvation said:

did you read the article? read the article.

NASA never confirmed that the rock was actually from them. they said (over the phone) "it's possible a rock was given to the Netherlands" because 100's of rocks had in fact been given away in the 1970's -- from later missions.

but the Dutch man who claimed it was a 'private gift' in October 1969 is likely the one telling tall tales, not NASA. the moon rocks NASA actually gave away were given out years later that that, not just a few months after the first mission, and the man (Dees) who claimed to have received the rock would have been in his 80's and not even serving as a member of the Dutch government at the time.

the 'conspiracy' here is a man who thought he had a moon rock when he actually didn't. this article says Dees was nearly deaf and blind at the time he claimed he received the rock. his family, who donated the rock to the museum, figures he misheard what was told to him. the conspiracy is not NASA geologists giving out fake moon rocks that any competent geologist could tell were not lunar with just a glance at a photograph.

why not give them one of these, which i'm assuming you think are also fake --

why would the perpetrators of the most brilliant and complicated hoax ever give out petrified wood when they have thousands of more believable rocks laying about?

GodIsSalvation · Jul 7, 2015

posthuman said:

Lol more plausibly the rovers are on earth and they faked the whole thing just like their fake Mars rovers and like them fake moon rocks that turned out to be petrified wood that they brought back.

Seriously though mayhap we should make a new topic, I'm not trying to destroy this lady's topic. There is so much material on NASA fakery that you can go on for months, maybe years even. After all why you think they haven't gone back to the moon? It's because they never went there to begin with and the Cold War is over.

GodIsSalvation · Jul 7, 2015

posthuman said:

Lol, I have indeed read the article and you will see that the US government officially gave those rocks to him as a gesture of good will. The answer to your questions I quoted is simply that it is one of the worst hoaxes of all time due to all the many problems with it that make it obvious that it is a hoax developped for propaganda purposes. Thus explaining why there are so many failures in their hoax.

posthuman · Jul 7, 2015

GodIsSalvation said:

exactly which technology do you think is necessary to go to the moon that we don't have today?

GodIsSalvation · Jul 7, 2015

zoii said:

It has topography, so it's not exactly flat. Again just go find the biggest body of water you can find, preferabbly at an ocean, beach, sea, etc. and look at the horizon line. If the earth were a sphere or concave there'd be a gradual curve every 3-5 cm. Therefore at the horizon it should be noticeable and dramatically curved, yet it is not, it is perfectly straight. Therefore the earth is relatively flat so to say. Go see for yourself, there's not need to take my word alone for it.

GodIsSalvation · Jul 7, 2015

posthuman said:

Well for starters the technology to escape orbit. The technology to survive the theorized Van Allen radiation belt. The technology to survived the theorized cosmic radiations. The technology to return to earth after leaving orbit. Technology that can withstand the extreme temperatures of space outside of orbit. So forth and so on.

posthuman · Jul 7, 2015

GodIsSalvation said:

the article doesn't say that. it says hundreds of rocks were given out by the state dept. in the 1970's -- but this doddering old man claimed to have received this in 1969. no one ever confirmed a rock was given to a half-blind, half-deaf man in his 80's who was no longer an employee of the Dutch government a mere 3 months after the first moon mission.

try reading it again -- the words that are actually there, not the ones you want to be there

Tintin · Jul 7, 2015

Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey was released a little under a year before man landed on the moon. It was a rather expensive movie, one boasting state-of-the-art special/visual effects. How, in less than one year, was NASA able to improve filming technology to unprecedented levels where they could fake a moon landing? It's not possible. Besides, film technology and space technology are two very different things. The man addressed many of the problems with the conspiracy.

What is the shape of our world?!

iConflicted

Guest

Senior Member

tanach

Guest

Banned

Banned

Tintin

Guest

Banned

Tintin

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Bate

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Tintin

Guest