Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just importing from another thread to avoid derailing that

8 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Under... ;)

Correct.

Again... not necessarily.

The people at the top... yes, but 'numbers' based on theory would be 'sold' through compartmentalisation.

Not by going there, no.

The dome is highly polished mirror-like metal.

By attempting to portray us as an insignificant 'lucky' random speck in the universe (instead of the centre of creation) the enemy goes a long way to hiding God from the masses.

Money is of no consequence to Satan. 

Paying for the charade is essential.

Admiral Byrd went there.

It's impenetrable, too...

heading_flatearththeory.jpg

Every nation has agreed to a treaty.

I find this hard to follow, as you earlier scored out impenetrable, now you say it's impenetrable, and yet you also say Byrd went there (where? beyond the ice?).

Historical sources say Byrd flew over the south pole, but in the above model there is no south pole.  

Nevertheless I am curious, do you have a source for the highly polished mirror-like metal?  

Finally, in the model above (to get back on this thread's topic), how does it explain a lunar eclipse?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Any claims to have gone to or be in 'outer space' would be.

No, Antarctica exists (just not now we were taught/told). - I said Antarctic polar exploration, meaning Antarctic exploration based on the assumption of an Antarctic continent centred on a south pole! 

Correct.

Not necessarily. -

It's actually possible to travel to Antarctica.

(It's just not possible for us to travel to the moon.)

Correct.

NASA was created to deceive.

People can mistakenly believe and subscribe to flawed theories.

Scott, Shackleton and Amundsen would surely need to be considered part of the conspiracy if they were claiming they went to the south pole.  Unless you mean they were just mistaken in their own flawed theories that just happened to coincide? In that case they might not be personally intentionally be part of the conspiracy, but their exploits would need to be 'part of' the conspiracy in the sense that whoever was perpetrating the conspiracy would be using their 'evidence' (mistaken belief) of visiting the pole as part of the conspiracy.  The obvious question then  is how do we know who is consciously part of the conspiracy? When did the conspiracy start?  Who's to say Copernicus and Galileo weren't part of the grand conspiracy? After all, NASA base their missions strongly on Copernican heliocentric assumptions! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wereldkaart-pinguin-projectie.jpg

heading_flatearththeory.jpg

Now here's a question for everyone.

Suppose you're in a ship positioned just north of the northernmost point on Antarctica. You sail on a straight course due east.  Where do you end up?

(a) Where you started from.

(b) You crash into Antarctica (whose frigid shore is on your right.) 

(c) You go off at a tangent (and eventually hit another continent, not Antarctica).

Edited by exile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, exile said:

wereldkaart-pinguin-projectie.jpg

heading_flatearththeory.jpg

Now here's a question for everyone.

Suppose you're in a ship positioned just north of the northernmost point on Antarctica. You sail on a straight course due east.  Where do you end up?

(a) Where you started from.

(b) You crash into Antarctica (whose frigid shore is on your right.) 

(c) You go off at a tangent (and eventually hit another continent, not Antarctica).

I know, I know this one, you hit the ice wall and get shot by the (NATO/NASA) soldiers guarding the ice wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admiral Byrd was a Freemason so Scotty CTA simply must take him at his word. Well Byrd (as far as I am aware) believed in the principles of north and south pole. He claimed to have been the first to fly  over the North Pole in the 1920s but this was proven later not to be the case. He did visit both the north and south pole in his lifetime though so I'd guess he was not a Flat Earth proponent.

Edited by Caledonian Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

I know, I know this one, you hit the ice wall and get shot by the (NATO/NASA) soldiers guarding the ice wall.

I'll take that as a (b)! 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/31/2018 at 10:59 AM, biffer said:

According to a large number of flat earthers, Australia is a myth, it doesn't exist.

Never heard that.

I believe that Australia exists.

8 hours ago, exile said:

Just importing from another thread to avoid derailing that

I find this hard to follow, as you earlier scored out impenetrable, now you say it's impenetrable, and yet you also say Byrd went there (where? beyond the ice?).

An ice wall wouldn't be impenetrable, though.

73b69ac373fbc1bc5f407e3a72961d34.jpg

The 'dome' would be after the ice wall.

Byrd could have travelled past the ice wall ('Operation Highjump'... Get it?) to the dome.

8 hours ago, exile said:

Historical sources say Byrd flew over the south pole, but in the above model there is no south pole.  

Correct.

8 hours ago, exile said:

Nevertheless I am curious, do you have a source for the highly polished mirror-like metal?  

One of the most intriguing texts in Scripture is found in the creation account in Genesis 1:6: “And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters’” (ESV). The Hebrew word for “expanse” is “raqiya.” It literally means a firmament or a visible arch in the sky. The NIV translates the word there as “vault.” Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary adds “firmament—an expanse—a beating out as a plate of metal.”

We have more references for this. In Job 37:18 it reads, “Can you, like Him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?” The Hebrew word for “spread out” is from the Hebrew word “raqa.” Does that look familiar? “Raqa” is the Hebrew root for “raqiya” that was used in Genesis. It literally means to “pound the earth, by analogy to expand (by hammering), by implication it means to overlay (with thin sheets of metal). Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says it means a “molten looking glass—image of the bright smiling sky. Mirrors were then formed of molten polished metal, not glass. 

Another interesting passage that unfortunately loses its meaning by some translations is found in Amos 9:6: “It is He that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name” (KJV), however. The ESV renders the verse this way: “who builds His upper chambers in the heavens and founds His vault upon the earth; who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out upon the surface of the earth— the LORD is His name.” The Hebrew word translated as "vault" is ‘aguddah’ whose verb form means to "bind, fit, or construct." Commenting on this verse, Richard S. Cripps states that "here it seems that the 'heavens' are 'bound' or fitted into a solid vault, the ends of which are upon the earth."
 

Regarding those that believe the Bible teaches a “sphere," N. F. Gier, in his book “God, Reason, and the Evangelicals” says: In the Anchor Bible translation of Psalm 77:18, Mitchell Dahood has found yet another reference to the dome of heaven, which has been obscured by previous translators. The RSV translates galgal as "whirlwind," but Dahood argues that galgal is closely related to the Hebrew gullath (bowl) and gulgolet (skull), which definitely gives the idea of "something domed or vaulted." In addition, Dahood points out that "the parallelism with tebel, 'earth,' and 'eres, 'netherworld,' suggests that the psalmist is portraying the tripartite division of the universe--heaven, earth, and underworld."

He goes on to say: Some evangelicals claim that the Bible contains at least three references to a spherical earth (Is. 40:22; Job 22:14; Prov. 8:27). But this is just wishful thinking and an obvious imposition of modern cosmology on the Hebrew world-view. The Hebrew word hug used here cannot be translated as sphere (which is rendered by a different word), but must again be interpreted as a solid vault overarching the earth. Therefore I follow the Anchor Bible translation of Is. 40:22: "God sits upon the dome of the earth." Job 22:14 says that God "walks on the vault (hug) of heaven," again suggesting something solid. Hug can also refer to the circular perimeter of the sky-dome: "He drew a circle (hug) on the face of the deep...and made firm the skies above" (Prov. 8:27-28).

You may be asking, how is there a vault if we can see out into the night sky? God has placed the "heavens" within the dome. The references used here in the Hebrew referring to metal simply are referring to the “strength” of the dome, not necessarily its composition, which certainly could be transparent to allow for the blue sky which was separated the "waters from the waters."

Another verse that I wanted to reference regarding this subject is found here: “No one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven, the Son of Man - John 3:13.” This quote comes from Proverbs 30:4: "Who has ascended to heaven and come down? Who has gathered the wind in his fists? Who has wrapped up the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, and what is his son’s name? Surely you know!"

9 hours ago, exile said:

  Finally, in the model above (to get back on this thread's topic), how does it explain a lunar eclipse?

You're assuming that lunar eclipses happen the way you have been taught that they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

An ice wall wouldn't be impenetrable, though.

73b69ac373fbc1bc5f407e3a72961d34.jpg

The 'dome' would be after the ice wall.

Byrd could have travelled past the ice wall ('Operation Highjump'... Get it?) to the dome.

 

You would think a 50000 mile long 150ft high ice wall would be a major destination for adventure tourists.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

You would think a 50000 mile long 150ft high ice wall would be a major destination for adventure tourists.

 

Even Mexican ones!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets just say this ice wall 150ft high existed. K2 is 28,000ft high or so and in the death zone altitude wise. Who gives a fuck about some shite arsed 150ft (above seal level) wall. Any half decent ice climber could scale that in the time it took  to post pish on here.

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Toepoke said:

You would think a 50000 mile long 150ft high ice wall would be a major destination for adventure tourists.

 

Yeah, but since most tourists will be there on a ship for a day going at maybe 20mph, I guess seeing 500 miles of ice is enough for anyone, Also presumably lots of bits fall off and there will be some gradual 'ice flows' that'll keeep most tourists happy. Considering that lots of tourists go to Dubai and think it's fab , ignoring the obvious contradictions and quote 'a cheap holiday in other peoples misery' I wouldn't base my thoughts on tourist observations. I guess the main problem would be 'explorers' that might get to the dome, who will prevented from doing that by sojers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Lets just say this ice wall 150ft high existed. K2 is 28,000ft high or so and in the death zone altitude wise. Who gives a fuck about some shite arsed 150ft (above seal level) wall. Any half decent ice climber could scale that in the time it took  to post pish on here.

I agree with thplinth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given all the amazingly cheap drone technology in the last decade it is amazing that no one thought to see over the ice wall using drones launched from ships parked a few hundred meters from the ice wall. With enough drones we could maybe swarm all the guards and one drone would get through and transmit pictures back from the edge of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, thplinth said:

Given all the amazingly cheap drone technology in the last decade it is amazing that no one thought to see over the ice wall using drones launched from ships parked a few hundred meters from the ice wall. With enough drones we could maybe swarm all the guards and one drone would get through and transmit pictures back from the edge of the world.

FFS. Drones have been programmed with GPRS , GMS, other anacroym technologies that have been designed by the illuminati/masons/devil worshippers conspiracy so as not to reveal gods truth. Get on the fuckin programme. FFS. Soon as they hit the ice wall they're done.

Edited by Eisegerwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i was even slightly rich, I could charter a boat, go to the ice wall, float a relay transmitter from a modified weather balloon, launch a modified drone with a go pro and send it on a suicide mission to the end of the world and relay back all the pics. Imagine the views on you tube if you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2019 at 5:22 PM, Toepoke said:

Here's a list of claims from previous flat earth threads on here:-

1) South Pole does not exist. 

2) Earth is surrounded by an impenetrable ice wall.

But you later scored out impenetrable

21 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

 

Admiral Byrd went there.

It's impenetrable, too...

 

 

Quote
3 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Never heard that.

I believe that Australia exists.

An ice wall wouldn't be impenetrable, though.

Do you see why I'm confused?

Edited by exile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

 

You're assuming that lunar eclipses happen the way you have been taught that they do.

I'm just asking you how you think lunar eclipses are caused, in your domed-worldview?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any more takers for the ship (Antarctic circumnavigation) question, (a) (b) or (c)? 

Edited by exile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thplinth said:

If i was even slightly rich, I could charter a boat, go to the ice wall, float a relay transmitter from a modified weather balloon, launch a modified drone with a go pro and send it on a suicide mission to the end of the world and relay back all the pics. Imagine the views on you tube if you did.

You're not really getting this are you.Relay transmitters, weather balloons and Go Pro's are programmed and designed by the illuminati/masons/devil worshippers conspiracy so as not to reveal gods truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, exile said:

But you later scored out impenetrable

I did so because the ice wall wouldn't be impenetrable.

Perhaps you were assuming that the dome comes down at the ice wall.

It doesn't.

The impenetrable dome is beyond the ice wall.

Admiral Byrd could have easily got past the ice wall and travelled to the dome.

His discovery initiated the 'Antarctic Treaty'.

a5491cd4e938efeb5f9ccd076a285817.jpg6633c1da105bbb4c44f46f50ded8c4fe.jpgba33bf24a89d1c82d950887745212341.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Scotty CTA said:

I did so because the ice wall wouldn't be impenetrable.

Perhaps you were assuming that the dome comes down at the ice wall.

It doesn't.

The impenetrable dome is beyond the ice wall.

Admiral Byrd could have easily got past the ice wall and travelled to the dome.

His discovery initiated the 'Antarctic Treaty'.

a5491cd4e938efeb5f9ccd076a285817.jpg6633c1da105bbb4c44f46f50ded8c4fe.jpgba33bf24a89d1c82d950887745212341.jpg

 

https://flatearth.ws/admiral-byrd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Toepoke said:

You would think a 50000 mile long 150ft high ice wall would be a major destination for adventure tourists.

It's extremely expensive, but tourists do go to Antarctica and get told that they are at the South Pole because they put an actual pole out as proof (and they believe them).

c1.jpg

3 hours ago, thplinth said:

Lets just say this ice wall 150ft high existed. ..

 

3 hours ago, thplinth said:

Who gives a fuck about some shite arsed 150ft (above seal level) wall. Any half decent ice climber could scale that in the time it took  to post pish on here.

Correct. That's why I'm saying.

The ice walls hold the oceans in, but the ice wall itself isn't a major obstacle for exploration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×