Flat Earth theory

[LoneBear]

I've been noticing the recent upswing in Flat Earth theorists... which I find rather curious.

I'm listening to Eric Dubay Real Flat Earther Interview at the moment:



It is interesting because it is almost a "cultural vMeme" transition, where all the muggles that have been stuck in the blue/orange/green vMeme (religion, science, New Age... not much difference), have become dissatisfied with the answers those vMemes have been providing, and are now in the transition zone (a cultural Dark Night of the Soul), looking for a new vMeme to provide better answers.

The normal transition would be to yellow, Tier 2 "systemic," which would lead to theories like the Reciprocal System (Larson was a "yellow" thinker, Nehru a "turquoise"). But it looks like there is a deliberate attempt to divert that back to the blue "truth force" system, with a New Age twist of disinformation. They like the "total nonsense" route as they used in modern astronomy. Make totally ridiculous claims (blue "faith"), then claim they are suppressed super-secret information that is being leaked out (green "conspiracy"). And from what I'm hearing right now, most of the "proof" seems to require having no basic background in common sense in Nature (actually, they are talking about a NASA/government coverup, so it MUST be true).

As for my perspective on the Flat Earth... it's a matter of perspective transformation. All the existing theories ASSUME that space and time work exactly the same EVERYWHERE, as they do, right in front of our nose. The RS demonstrates that is not correct, and that there are at least 6 different "speed ranges" where different rules apply, of which our conventional experience is the bottom "1-x low speed" range. So what you see and experience totally depends on how you observe, and what you observe. It is not static. If you don't believe that, look through the glass of a crystal ball and try to navigate a room with spherical projection--not a straight line in the place!

Using the scalar perspective that is "geometry free," we would tend to view the universe as spheres (every direction from a location). And that is what we tend to see. But when we observe from inside that sphere... well... the lawn looks pretty flat to me.

[MrTwig]

It is simply amazing that with all stuff that we are taught that anyone could so drastically revert so quickly to a prior belief. It is almost as if every belief though out history is repeating. Could it be like that one man said history is now repeating all over again only at an accelerated pace? He said that it was like those coin drop machines that are cone shaped and with each revolution it goes faster and spiraling toward the bottom hole. He talked about a step system that had like an evolving reasoning. The only thing is I believe he was talking 2012.

[daniel]

I am really amazed at the increasing popularity of the Flat Earth theory. Personally, I've not seen anything to indicate the Earth is flat, other than the maps of the gods when they had their colony ship parked over the North Pole. But that was just a radial projection to fit on a dais.

However, it seems to me that it should be rather simple to prove if the surface is flat or curved, particularly for this group of people. All that would be needed is to pick a nearby astronomical object, like the sun, moon or a planet, and get people from different parts of the globe to take an elevation sighting on it at exactly the same moment. Given that angle and their latitude-longitude, one could triangulate on that astronomical object.

For example, if the moon was above the United States, it would appear near the horizon from China or Europe. If the Earth were flat, than those angles would be significantly larger than if round. (Take the folks in China and Europe and "level them out" to the plane of the USA--the moon would then have to be much higher in the sky.) I'm sure a math whiz like Gopi could work out the geometry in no time.

Of course, I cannot see how the sun or moon could ever set on a flat Earth model--it would just get very low in the sky, then come back up. Actually, that should be a fairly easy computer simulation that could probably be done as an animation in POVray. Maybe I'll do one if I get the time.

[LoneBear]

I've been wondering why the Flat Earth movement is getting such a religious following, as most of the arguments need to be taken on faith, not science. Then it occurred to me... RS2 pretty much proves the hollow planet model with a habitable interior. If you've got a flat Earth, then you can't have a hollow sphere with another civilization inside it, can you?

[Djchrismac]

I am really amazed at the increasing popularity of the Flat Earth theory. Personally, I've not seen anything to indicate the Earth is flat, other than the maps of the gods when they had their colony ship parked over the North Pole. But that was just a radial projection to fit on a dais.

>>>

Of course, I cannot see how the sun or moon could ever set on a flat Earth model--it would just get very low in the sky, then come back up. Actually, that should be a fairly easy computer simulation that could probably be done as an animation in POVray. Maybe I'll do one if I get the time.

After your initial post on the flat earth theory and the paper by Miles I hadn't noticed much being said about it but that has changed recently...

I've been wondering why the Flat Earth movement is getting such a religious following, as most of the arguments need to be taken on faith, not science. Then it occurred to me... RS2 pretty much proves the hollow planet model with a habitable interior. If you've got a flat Earth, then you can't have a hollow sphere with another civilization inside it, can you?

I reached the same conclusion, it is misdirection away from the hollow earth as proven by RS2. Below is an email I received from someone on the topic along with my response, which unfortunately never reached them as they didn't provide a valid email address:

Chemtrials I have know about for years it sickens me 2 ma man.

But check out ifers.boards.net

The earth is FLAT, we have never been to space and satellites dont exist or the ISStation.
Blew my mind but I know it's the truth

Regards,
Hi big Man | scottishguy@justwantedtotellyou.com

My response:

I'm afraid you are falling for misdirection and not applying any common sense to your flat earth belief. Have you never been up a mountain? If you would like some proper answers, the following links will provide them:

http://www.conscioushugs.com/daniel-papers/
http://www.fora.conscioushugs.com/viewt ... ?f=5&t=288
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1645
viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1736
http://mileswmathis.com/flatearth.pdf
http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html
http://reciprocalsystem.org/PDFa/At%20t ... Bruce).pdf
http://reciprocalsystem.org/
http://rs2theory.org/

Don't waste your time with the flat earth nonsense, it is distracting from the truth that the earth (and indeed all planetary bodies) is hollow.

Please take the time to thoroughly read through this information, especially the Daniel papers and rs2. You will find it fascinating, informative and genuine.

Cheers.

I thought this was hilarious...

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

scottishguy@justwantedtotellyou.com

It's like someone shouting out "you believe in the wrong god" before running away and not providing any further details...

[Ilkka]

About moon and sun.

Early this week in morning when sun was still quite low, I was seeing that the shadow of the moon is not maching the very angle of the sun light hitting it. But then it hit me that the "illusion" must be because of the atmosphere is round and "fish eye" phenomenon or something like that which obscures the vision. Or that the moon projection is still in summertime

[daniel]

Let me start with a couple of facts to disprove the Flat Earth theory...

1. If you look at ocean floor ages, it proves the Earth is expanding from the major fracture zones. If you reverse the trend, all the continents fit together as pieces of a SPHERE, not of a DISK.
2. An amateur took a video of a three-masted schooner heading out across the ocean, using a telephoto lens. It clearly shows the ship disappearing over the horizon, with the tips of the mast the last to go... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dV0h68YU0iQ

If you look at the agenda of the Flat Earthers, a few things become apparent:

1. There is a lot of money involved in producing the videos and propaganda.
2. They want the Earth to be an artificial environment, like a terrarium.
3. If it is artificial, then someone bigger and stronger--a kind of "great architect" must have built it.
4. The Powers That Be are not letting you access these macro beings--they are hiding God from you.

For propaganda to work, it must contain SOME truth...

1. There IS a barrier that creates our environment, but it is a natural one--the gravitational limit. Nobody built it; it is just the way things work in a motion-based Universe.
2. There ARE flat areas on the Earth, usually found where mountain ranges have expanded apart, leaving a concave bowl between them (a valley). Take a convex Earth + concave bowl = flat plain. And I mean FLAT--no curvature may be present for hundreds of miles. (The early satellites discovered this many years ago, as the gravitational pull changes as they went orbited the planet, causing satellites to drop in orbit, then shoot back up.)

People are abandoning religion, and in particular, religious leaders. The "I'm a messenger from God, so you must do what I say" is no longer working. So we need a new god and, of course, new messengers. How about a Great Architect that build this shield over our world? I know it sounds a bit Masonic, but hey... it's not like the Masons control the world already, is it? If holographic technology can make Godzilla appear out of the Sea of Japan, just think what they could do with the return of the Gods--you're in a cage and the New World Order are Our official representatives. Better do what you are told!

The whole Flat Earth scenario wreaks of Project Blue Beam. And if you take to notice HOW these videos are presented, rather than WHAT they are presenting, one is tempted to contact the authors and tell them that, "Detective Sergeant Joe Friday just called and he wants his dialogue back!"

There are a good number of Flat Earth researchers that are honest enough in that they "just want the facts, Ma'am." But they need to carry their research one step further and realize what the concepts of Projective Geometry involve, or as the Greeks put it in Plato's time, the allegory of the cave. The Flat Earth is a projection of a spherical world, in other words a two-dimensional expression of a 3-dimensional object. Or as Ra might put it in the Law of One material, a "2nd density" view.

So what happens if we take a 3rd density view? The projection then becomes a sphere, the round Earth, and the object casting it a hypersphere, a 4D sphere with the extra dimension consisting of the volume expressed between the outer and inner gravitational limits. That is the direction we are heading with RS2--outward to bigger and better understanding of 3rd/4th density concepts, not bouncing off the shield and heading back to 2nd density understanding. And if you notice, a great deal of stuff these days is devolving--not evolving.

It's the "recursion of cages," but that still does not imply there must be an Architect of it. Most of that comes from the fact that humanity was genetically engineered to be slaves to superior beings, and if there aren't any around, they will find someone to fulfill that role (leaders, priests, gurus, etc).

"Every dogma has its day," and scientific/religious dogma has reached its day... so do we move forward into uncharted territories, or just stick with "what's worked" for the last 6000 years?

[LoneBear]

Something else to add... look at this image of the day/night cycle of the Flat Earth model (from The Flat Earth Society, http://tfes.org):


I duplicated this using POVray and made an interesting discovery, which is obvious once you know what to look for...

If you are on the equator during the spring/fall equinox, there are 12 hours of day and 12 hours of night. But in the Flat Earth model--that never happens. The best you get is 7.6 hours of daylight and 16.4 hours of night. The daylight never gets longer than that. Look at THEIR image and notice the arc length from Ecuador across the Sahara (the equator)--it is only about a third of the dark section.

If you want the math, the distance from the pole to the equator is 1/4 the circumference of Earth. Given a circumference of about 25000 miles, that is 6250 miles from the center (North Pole) to the equator. They place the sun at 3000 miles up, with a cone of light that covers pole-to-pole at the equinox, making a circle of light 12500 miles in diameter. The orbit of the sun at 6250 miles out would be 2*PI*6250 = 39270 miles. 12500 (lit area)/39270 (total distance) = 0.318 (32% of the path) * 24 hours = 7.6 hours. (Approximate; it is actually a little smaller than that, since the equator is an arc, not a straight diameter.)

[DSKlausler]

1. ...
2. ...
3. If it is artificial, then someone bigger and stronger--a kind of "great architect" must have built it.
4. The Powers That Be are not letting you access these macro beings--they are hiding God from you.

Please pardon the intrusion, and delete if warranted.

Daniel: if you don't mind, who are these "macro beings;" what is this "God" you mention?

Thank you for your patience.

[daniel]

Daniel: if you don't mind, who are these "macro beings;" what is this "God" you mention?

Macrobes (macro beings) was a term used in 16th century sorcery to describe the existence of entities that exist on a higher "scale" of life than we do, much like we would be macrobes to bacteria. It is the reciprocal of a microbe. The New Age is full of indirect references to them, from Avatars and Archons to Logoi. Gaia, the consciousness of the planet, can be considered a Macrobe, as we are but bacteria on it's skin.

The God would be Jehovah or YHWH (ENLIL), since the Flat Earth mythos is always full of references to the Christian God saying the Earth is flat.

[DSKlausler]

1. There is a lot of money involved in producing the videos and propaganda.
2. They want the Earth to be an artificial environment, like a terrarium.
3. If it is artificial, then someone bigger and stronger--a kind of "great architect" must have built it.
4. The Powers That Be are not letting you access these macro beings--they are hiding God from you.

Macrobes (macro beings) was a term used in 16th century sorcery to describe the existence of entities that exist on a higher "scale" of life than we do, much like we would be macrobes to bacteria. It is the reciprocal of a microbe. The New Age is full of indirect references to them, from Avatars and Archons to Logoi. Gaia, the consciousness of the planet, can be considered a Macrobe, as we are but bacteria on it's skin.

The God would be Jehovah or YHWH (ENLIL), since the Flat Earth mythos is always full of references to the Christian God saying the Earth is flat.

And hiding THIS "god" is a bad thing? Well maybe, it would be a real change to have the overlords revealed. However, I would much rather have SOURCE available, then this interloper.

[Lozion]

1. There is a lot of money involved in producing the videos and propaganda.
2. They want the Earth to be an artificial environment, like a terrarium.
3. If it is artificial, then someone bigger and stronger--a kind of "great architect" must have built it.
4. The Powers That Be are not letting you access these macro beings--they are hiding God from you.

Macrobes (macro beings) was a term used in 16th century sorcery to describe the existence of entities that exist on a higher "scale" of life than we do, much like we would be macrobes to bacteria. It is the reciprocal of a microbe. The New Age is full of indirect references to them, from Avatars and Archons to Logoi. Gaia, the consciousness of the planet, can be considered a Macrobe, as we are but bacteria on it's skin.

The God would be Jehovah or YHWH (ENLIL), since the Flat Earth mythos is always full of references to the Christian God saying the Earth is flat.

And hiding THIS "god" is a bad thing? Well maybe, it would be a real change to have the overlords revealed. However, I would much rather have SOURCE available, then this interloper.

Source. Time to debunk this new age term as well no?
If Logoi are Macrobes then what is Source in reciprocal terms?

[LoneBear]

And hiding THIS "god" is a bad thing? Well maybe, it would be a real change to have the overlords revealed. However, I would much rather have SOURCE available, then this interloper.

And if there is no SOURCE other than "natural consequence?"

I think the point being made was that the Flat Earther's are pulling a magician's trick--there is no Wizard behind the Curtain pretending to spit smoke and fire to impress the visitors from Kansas... as a matter of fact, there isn't even a curtain! But through the suspension of disbelief they get your imagination to make that curtain--and if there is a curtain, it must be hiding something! As Alfred Hitchcock demonstrated with his stories, the imagination can exhibit a far stronger emotional response in a person than anything graphic. You then ignore "just the facts" and believe the absurd--totally on faith. It's an old trick--almost all of our science is based on it. Quarks? Supermassive black holes? The Big Bang? Any 2-year-old will tell you "you've got to be kidding?!" until they are forced to believe it under coercion.

I've gone over a lot of the Flat Earth material, and what I find is a consistent pattern: take an exception to a rule, and magnify it to ridiculous proportions so it looks like it IS the rule. (Tell a lie often enough, and people will believe it is true.)

The most recent event there is that mirage of Chicago taken 60 miles away. If you can see 60 miles over flat water, than the Earth must be flat, right??? Wrong. If you looked at any other time outside that 20 minutes it was present, the mirage was gone and only water remained. I guess the Earth decided to bend itself back. Of course, they omit that bit. Here is the original video:

[DSKlausler]

Source. Time to debunk this new age term as well no?
If Logoi are Macrobes then what is Source in reciprocal terms?

I guess that I didn't even realize that it was a new age term. I meant it in the most generic sense: the primary cause of everything... hmmm, that does sound new-agey. Doesn't really matter to me if there is such a construct or not, I just refuse to bow down to ANY that would claim rule or ownership. Additionally, I refuse to accept that this human condition on this planet is of natural consequence; and as vague as it may be: it seems wrong, way wrong. Of course, I am only a severely conditioned animal.

[daniel]

I guess that I didn't even realize that it was a new age term. I meant it in the most generic sense: the primary cause of everything... hmmm, that does sound new-agey. Doesn't really matter to me if there is such a construct or not, I just refuse to bow down to ANY that would claim rule or ownership.

The Reciprocal System is a steady-state theory in that there was no creation of the Universe and there will be no termination of it, either. Since we are stuck in a life-death cycle all around us, it is difficult for most people to conceive that something as large as the Universe can be "immortal" and just exists of and for itself. So I see it as the Universe existing outside of causality, so there is no primary cause, nor secondary effect.

BTW, "Source" is a medieval term to refer to the Source of All Evil, that sits in reciprocal relation to the Host of All Good (Gud or God).

Additionally, I refuse to accept that this human condition on this planet is of natural consequence; and as vague as it may be: it seems wrong, way wrong. Of course, I am only a severely conditioned animal.

It depends on where you delimit the concept of "natural." Since everything exists in Nature, all there is, is "natural consequence." Personally, I draw the line at free will and consider "natural consequence" to be where things would be predestined to go, if conscious free will had not been applied to change its course. So I would agree with you that the current human condition is not a natural consequence, but an act of free will.

[DSKlausler]

Sorry to throw this so far off-topic.

The Reciprocal System is a steady-state theory in that there was no creation of the Universe and there will be no termination of it, either. Since we are stuck in a life-death cycle all around us, it is difficult for most people to conceive that something as large as the Universe can be "immortal" and just exists of and for itself. So I see it as the Universe existing outside of causality, so there is no primary cause, nor secondary effect.

I accept that.

BTW, "Source" is a medieval term to refer to the Source of All Evil, that sits in reciprocal relation to the Host of All Good (Gud or God).

Thanks for that.

It depends on where you delimit the concept of "natural." Since everything exists in Nature, all there is, is "natural consequence." Personally, I draw the line at free will and consider "natural consequence" to be where things would be predestined to go, if conscious free will had not been applied to change its course. So I would agree with you that the current human condition is not a natural consequence, but an act of free will.

It is this claim of free willI that I take issue with - at least in today's world. How is it that some use this free will to limit [what should be] my free will?

[daniel]

It is this claim of free willI that I take issue with - at least in today's world. How is it that some use this free will to limit [what should be] my free will?

They do not limit your free will, they just use their free will to make a specific path more attractive to follow. People are generally lazy and almost always take the path of least resistance. I'll bet you bought a car that you did not design and build yourself, using slips of paper that were handed to you to make the purchase with, that you got when you sold your life in exchange for promises.

[DSKlausler]

It is this claim of free willI that I take issue with - at least in today's world. How is it that some use this free will to limit [what should be] my free will?

They do not limit your free will, they just use their free will to make a specific path more attractive to follow. People are generally lazy and almost always take the path of least resistance. I'll bet you bought a car that you did not design and build yourself, using slips of paper that were handed to you to make the purchase with, that you got when you sold your life in exchange for promises.

Ugh, so my free will is effectively buried from generations of [legal] attachments and the like... many of which I was ignorant of while tacitly agreeing to. This day, it is my laziness that prevents me from detaching. Given this world, do you know where detachment leaves me? 5 guys in the woods - not that that is a bad thing, of course. An alternative would be a Sanctuary of some kind, correct? Hmmm, heard of one of those somewhere.

[pgolde]

I'll bet you bought a car that you did not design and build yourself, using slips of paper that were handed to you to make the purchase with, that you got when you sold your life in exchange for promises.

My Monday morning smile, depressing as the reality of it is. Selling my life in exchange for promises, yup, off to work I go. I am working towards the alternative, slow but steady.

[dave432]

This day, it is my laziness that prevents me from detaching. Given this world, do you know where detachment leaves me? 5 guys in the woods - not that that is a bad thing, of course.

I had a similar thought this weekend when watching the last part of the movie Escape from New York. It was the first VHS movie I ever bought as I recall. The film has some good action but I think the main appeal for me with this film has always been the gags, and the musical score and main theme are real catchy.

I was wondering what message the film is ultimately sending and it may just be that if you detach from the mainstream you end up, not walking into the sunset with a promising future, but into the lonely, hopeless void. If you've seen the movie, Snake Pliskin (Kurt Russell's character) uses his free will to take the less attractive and more difficult path, but he pays for it by walking alone into the night (with no destination -- he just walks out of the scene into the darkness), injured, and jobless. I guess he was headed for "the woods" as you say. So the message I took from the ending is that this is what happens when you buck the system in any way, you'll limp through life alone.

Those messages are all around us, but I don't think things have to be quite that drastic. One can still take an active part in life even with a world view that is out of step with the mainstream.