Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?

[mike tesko]

How did you apply that to conclude that the sun is much closer than 100 miles from Earth?

Clouds behind and in front of the sun...

Highest clouds in altitude, and inner edge of 'firmament' at about 73 mile's, inner Van Allen belt set at around 620 miles in altitude, outer Van Allen belt set at around 1,700 miles in altitude - sun can't be beyond these planes of altitude, the atmosphere is too dense in either of the two Van Allen belts to enable the sun to be seen and felt by an observer on the surface of the flat earth, or the globe earth models!

[mike tesko]

Clouds behind and in front of the sun...

Clouds behind, and in front of the moon...

[mike tesko]

A great deal has happened since Admiral Byrd's expedition to the South Pole in February, 1947...

[mike tesko]

What does anyone make of the following claim:-

(1) - https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/913279/Aliens-in-UFOs-prevented-nuclear-WW3-between-US-Russia

Please press start arrow in video footage, thank you!

(1) - https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/weird-news/679045/Aliens-news-WW3-US-Russia-nuclear-weapons-ufo-video-Trump-Putin

[Reader]

Clouds behind and in front of the sun...

I thought that concept was for the moon. If, however, the sun were closer than the highest clouds, that could be described as much closer than 100 miles, and it would also mean the sun was well below the inner firmament, but you stated earlier (in this post) that the sun must be outside the firmament.

Do you agree that if the sun is anywhere above Earth (close or not close), there is a location on Earth that is directly below the sun, so that an observer at that location would have the sun directly above them? The location would vary, depending on the date and time, of course.

[Caroline]

Maybe the script of that film were based upon the diary entries of Admiral Byrd? When was the movie produced?

1937 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029162/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

[mike tesko]

1937 - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029162/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

It was also filmed and produced in 1973..

Now, which version includes the comments you drew my attention to?

(1) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029162/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
(2) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070337/locations

[mike tesko]

I thought that concept was for the moon.  It applies to the moon, yes...If, however, the sun were closer than the highest clouds, Which it is at certain times.. that could be described as much closer than 100 miles, Correct, and at other times much further above them...and it would also mean the sun was well below the inner firmament, Sometimes it is, but not at other times.. but you stated earlier (in this post) that the sun must be outside the firmament. Correct, and sometimes it is...

Do you agree that if the sun is anywhere above Earth (close or not close), there is a location on Earth that is directly below the sun, The sun is always above that part of the earth that it illuminates... so that an observer at that location would have the sun directly above them? However, it can't be said to be above the earth in the parts of the earth the sun is not illuminating...The location would vary, depending on the date and time, of course. In parts of the flat earth which are illuminated by sunlight the sun is always above all those regions of the earth, only at different altitudes from say the location of an observer on one part of the flat earth, as opposed to another observer in another part of the flat earth, its down to perspective, and density in the atmosphere inside the earths dome (which accounts for sunrise and sunset, to different observers in / at different locations upon the illumuinated and darkened parts of the flat earth)...

[mike tesko]

I thought that concept was for the moon. If, however, the sun were closer than the highest clouds, that could be described as much closer than 100 miles, and it would also mean the sun was well below the inner firmament, but you stated earlier (in this post) that the sun must be outside the firmament.

Do you agree that if the sun is anywhere above Earth (close or not close), there is a location on Earth that is directly below the sun, so that an observer at that location would have the sun directly above them? The location would vary, depending on the date and time, of course.

As can be seen, or viewed, by an observer on the flat earth, there are clouds behind and in front of the sun at one time or another!

It is inappropriate for anybody to simply say that what is being seen, or what has been seen, is nothing but an optical illusion, but that the sun is really 93 million miles away! The sun is not 93 million miles away, and if anybody chooses to believe that what is being seen, or has been seen, and captured in video footage and on camera being nothing but an optical illusion, then I have this to say to all of such people, I will say to each and everyone of you who believe in the optical illusion phenomena, that the sun itself is an optical illusion, it's not a physical manifestation but rather an illusionary one!

[mike tesko]

How remarkable, that during a solar eclipse, that the shadow of the moon takes on the exact same size and shape as the sun itself to an observer upon the earth or from somewhere in altitude inside the earth's dome!!!

[Caroline]

It was also filmed and produced in 1973..

Now, which version includes the comments you drew my attention to?

(1) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0029162/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2
(2) - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070337/locations

Well, Ronald Coleman wouldn't have been in a 1973 movie being as he died in 1958. The line I posted is from the 1937 film which is why I posted the link for it.

However, I am sure you won't take my word for it so here is the Wiki page for the same movie and it contains the same quote.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lost_Horizon_(film)

[mike tesko]

Well, Ronald Coleman wouldn't have been in a 1973 movie being as he died in 1958. The line I posted is from the 1937 film which is why I posted the link for it.

However, I am sure you won't take my word for it so here is the Wiki page for the same movie and it contains the same quote.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lost_Horizon_(film)

I don't see anything at this link which proves what your suggesting, or disproves what I am saying!

[Reader]

. . . it is at certain times...  and at other times much further above them... Sometimes it is, but not at other times

Does that apply to the moon as well? How come the moon and the sun always appear to have about the same angular diameter (namely, half a degree) in the sky when they can be seen clearly? Such observations indicate that the distances of both the sun and moon from any observer on Earth don't vary enough to cause an easily noticeable change in the apparent angular diameter of either.

It was very misleading of you to state "the sun must be outside the firmament" if that applies only some of the time... the firmament couldn't reasonably be described as impenetrable if the sun is sometimes below it and sometimes outside it.

[Caroline]

I don't see anything at this link which proves what your suggesting, or disproves what I am saying!

It proved that the quote didn't come from Byrd.

[mike tesko]

It proved that the quote didn't come from Byrd.

No, it doesn't because you haven't proved or established that those words were spoken in that version of the film, it is probably the case that if those words were spoken at all, they were spoken in the latter production of the same movie...