Author Topic: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?  (Read 69050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #720 on: February 04, 2018, 01:08:PM »
One of these days they're going to hit us. As long as they keep on aiming at us, we're safe. Come now. Look at her face! "Dropping from nowhere after a year! " - Cable from Gainsford. - Read it! "Leaving today for London with Conway aboard S.S. Manchuria. "Conway can tell nothing of his experiences. Let me have it. "Aboard S.S. Manchuria. "Last night Conway recovered his memory. Talked about Shangri-La. "Telling a fantastic story about a place in Tibet. "Insisted upon returning there at once. "Locked him in, but he escaped and jumped ship at Singapore. "I'm leaving ship to overtake him, as fearful of his condition. "Wrote down details of Conway's story about Shangri-La, which I am forwarding. "Lord Gainsford. " Here's Gainsford now. - It's good to see you back. - Glad to see you. - It's good to see you again. - Thought you would never come. - Sit down. Have a drink. - Scotch and soda. I'm parched. Here you are. Ready and waiting. - Any news of Conway? - We're eager to know what you discovered. Where is he? Gentlemen, you see before you a very weary old man... ...who has just ended a chase that lasted nearly 10 months. You never caught up with him? Since that night he jumped off the ship, till two weeks ago... - ... I've been missing him by inches. - You don't mean it. - Was he that determined to get back? - Determined? Gentlemen, in the whole course of my life, I've never encountered anything so grim. During those last 10 months, that man has done the most astounding things. He learned how to fly, stole a plane, got caught, put in jail, escaped... ...in an amazingly short space of time. This is only the beginning of his adventure. He begged and fought, pushing forward to the Tibetan frontier. Everywhere I heard these amazing stories of the man's adventures. Positively astounding. Till eventually... ...I trailed him to the most extreme outpost in Tibet. Of course, he had already gone. But his memory... His memory will live with those natives for the rest of their lives. "The man who was not human," they called him. They won't forget the stranger who tried six times... ...to climb a mountain pass that no other human being dared to travel. And six times was forced back by the severest storms. They won't forget the madman who stole their food and clothing. Who they locked up in their barracks and who fought six guards to escape. Their soldiers are still talking about their pursuit to overtake him... ...and shuddering at the memory. He led them the wildest chase through their own country. Finally, he disappeared over that very mountain pass... ...that they themselves dared not travel. And that, gentlemen... ...was the last that any known human being saw of Robert Conway. That's what I call fortitude. - Think of it. - Tell me something, Gainsford. What do you think of his talk about Shangri-La? Do you believe it? Yes. I believe it. I believe it, because I want to believe it. I give you a toast. Here's my hope... ...that Robert Conway will find his Shangri-La. Here's my hope... ...that we all find our Shangri-La.
                 
Read more: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/movie_script.php?movie=lost-horizon
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #721 on: February 04, 2018, 01:44:PM »
No Admiral Byrd transcript here then..
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #722 on: February 04, 2018, 02:15:PM »
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's because the earth is flat, not a globe...

It was very misleading of you to state "the sun must be outside the firmament" if that applies only some of the time... Its not misleading at all, its quite natural...the firmament couldn't reasonably be described as impenetrable if the sun is sometimes below it and sometimes outside it. Yes, it can, and it does, made possible by the technology being adopted to project its image, within the earths 'firmament', partially outside of it, and sometimes completely outside of it...
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 02:17:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #723 on: February 04, 2018, 03:36:PM »
Secrets of the Flat Earth...

The ring growths concealed inside the barked trunks of trees are representative of the Geocentric module of the flat earth...
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 03:40:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #724 on: February 04, 2018, 04:44:PM »
(1) - http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/antarctica/antartica11.htm


by Erich J. Choron
from GreyFalcon Website
 
In 1947, Admiral Richard E. Byrd led 4,000 military troops from the U.S., Britain and Australia in an invasion of Antarctica called “Operation Highjump”, and at least one follow-up expedition.
 
That is fact. It is undeniable. But... the part of the story that is seldom told, at least in “official” circles, is that Byrd and his forces encountered heavy resistance to their Antarctic venture from “flying saucers” and had to call off the invasion.

« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 04:49:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #725 on: February 04, 2018, 06:20:PM »
(1) - http://exopolitics.org/did-us-navy-battle-ufos-protecting-nazi-antarctic-sanctuary-in-1947/


Did US Navy battle UFOs protecting Nazi Antarctic sanctuary in 1947?

Written by Dr Michael Salla on October 25, 2012. Posted in exopolitics research, world politics
inShare

Subscribe: SpecificFeeds

Nazi Uboats reaching Antarctica with accompanying UFOs. Artwork, Jim Nichols.

An extraordinary 2006 Russian documentary was recently translated into English revealing new information about a US Navy Antarctica expedition in 1946/47. Originally scheduled for a six month period, the “scientific” expedition was officially called “The United States Navy Antarctic Development Program,” and given the operational name Highjump. The naval component of Operation Highjump was known as Task Force 68 and comprised 4700 military personnel, one aircraft carrier (the USS Philippine Sea among the largest of all carriers of the time), and number of naval support ships and aircraft. The Naval expedition was headed by famed polar explore Admiral Richard Byrd, who had been ordered to: “to consolidate and extend American sovereignty over the largest practical area of the Antarctic continent.” Byrd’s expedition ended after only 8 weeks with “many fatalities” according to initial news reports based on interviews with crew members who spoke to the press while passing through Chilean ports. Rather than deny the heavy casualty reports, Admiral Byrd revealed in a press interview that Task Force 68 had encountered a new enemy that “could fly from pole to pole at incredible speeds.”

Admiral Byrd’s statements were published in the Chilean Press but never publicly confirmed by US authorities. Indeed Byrd did not speak again to the Press about Operation Highjump, leaving it for researchers to speculate for decades over what really happened, and why Byrd was silenced. After the Soviet collapse in 1991, the KGB released previously classified files that cast light on the mysterious Byrd led Naval expedition to Antarctica. A 2006 Russian documentary, recently translated, made public for the first time a 1947 secret Soviet intelligence report commissioned by Joseph Stalin of Task 68’s mission to Antarctica. The intelligence report, gathered from Soviet spies embedded in the US, revealed that the US Navy had sent the military expedition to find and destroy a hidden Nazi base. On the way, they encountered a mysterious UFO force that attacked the military expedition destroying several ships and a significant number of planes. Indeed, Operation Highjump had suffered “many casualties” as stated in initial press reports from Chile. While there is a possibility the report resulted from US disinformation fed to a known Soviet mole, the more likely explanation is that the report exposes the first known historical incident involving a battle between US naval forces and an unknown UFO force stationed near Antarctica.

It is a historical fact that Nazi Germany devoted significant resources to the exploration of Antarctica, and established a prewar presence there with its first mission in the Antarctic summer of 1938/1939. According to a statement by Grand Admiral Donitz in 1943, “the German submarine fleet is proud of having built for the Führer, in another part of the world, a Shangri-La land, an impregnable fortress." If the fortress was in Antarctica, was it built by the Nazis, or discovered there? After the defeat of Nazi Germany, according various sources, elite Nazi scientists and leaders escaped to this impregnable fortress by Uboats, two of which experienced difficulties and surrendered in Argentina.

In the Soviet intelligence report, never before known testimony by two US Navy servicemen with Operation Highjump was revealed. A recent article in New Dawn by Frank Joseph gives a detailed analysis of the two eyewitness accounts, only the latter of which was mentioned in the 2006 Russian documentary. John P. Szehwach, a radioman stationed on the USS Brownson, gave testimony of how UFOs appeared dramatically out of the ocean depths. On January 17, 1947 at 0700 hours, Szehwach said:

I and my shipmates in the pilothouse port side observed for several minutes the bright lights that ascended about 45 degrees into the sky very quickly… We couldn’t i.d., the lights, because our radar was limited to 250 miles in a straight line.[Our Real “War of the Worlds"]

Over the next several weeks, according to the Soviet report, the UFOs flew close over the US naval flotilla which fired on the UFOs which did retaliate with deadly effects. According to Lieutenant John Sayerson, a flying boat pilot:

The thing shot vertically out of the water at tremendous velocity, as though pursued by the devil, and flew between the masts [of the ship] at such a high speed that the radio antenna oscillated back and forth in its turbulence. An aircraft [Martin flying-boat] from the Currituck that took off just a few moments later was struck with an unknown type of ray from the object, and almost instantly crashed into the sea near our vessel…. About ten miles away, the torpedo-boat Maddox burst into flames and began to sink… Having personally witnessed this attack by the object that flew out of the sea, all I can say is, it was frightening.”[Our Real “War of the Worlds"]

There is a major problem with Sayerson’s quote. There has been no torpedo boat named Maddox in the US Navy.   In the Russian documentary, the incident described by Sayerson (misspelt Sireson) refers instead to the destroyer “Murdoch.” There was, however, no destroyer named “Murdoch” active in the US Fleet in 1947. Instead there was a destroyer named “Maddox” (DD-731), but it did not serve in Operation Highjump. In fact, the USS Maddox was the destroyer fired upon in the Gulf of Tonkin incident of 1964.

According to Frank Joseph the USS Maddox was “either a torpedo boat, or torpedo-carrying destroyer.” He goes on to explain what may have happened to the Maddox mentioned in the Soviet report:

A USS Maddox was indeed sunk by enemy action, but five years earlier by a German dive-bomber during the Allied invasion of Sicily. Actually there were at least three American destroyers known by that name (DD-168, DD-622 and DD-731) all of them contemporaneous. The US Navy has long been notorious for falsifying the identity of its ships and re-writing their histories if they embarrass official policy…. So too, the “Maddox” cited by Soviet espionage was similarly consigned to an official memory hole.[Our Real “War of the Worlds"]

If Joseph is correct, then it is very possible that a USS Maddox was destroyed during Operation Highjump, and the US Navy changed official records to hide this. An alternative explanation is that the 1947 Soviet report contained U.S. orchestrated disinformation that was being conveyed to Soviet authorities by a Soviet mole known by the US intelligence community. Though plausible, this is highly unlikely given that the US and USSR were still allies at the time of Operation Highjump, and had a common interest in finding and destroying any hidden Nazi base(s) in the South Atlantic.

(2) - https://youtu.be/MwUpPwyyvLw

 The destructive technology used by the UFOs in the Soviet intelligence report was not something that had been developed by the defeated Nazis who had only shortly before been forced to retreat to the South Atlantic. It appears the UFOs were not intent on destroying Task Force 68, but forcing it to turn back. Were the UFOs protecting the retreating Nazis and/or their own presence in Antarctica? Was the Stalin era report disinformation deliberately fed to Soviet authorities by US intelligence? What is the most likely answer is that the Soviet era report released in the 2006 Russian Documentary was substantially correct. This suggests that Admiral Byrd’s initial press report was accurate – a new enemy that could fly from pole to pole at “incredible speeds” had emerged. Most importantly, the UFO force had inflicted heavy casualties on the US Navy that was powerless to oppose it. The world’s first known battle between the United States military and an unknown UFO fleet based near Antarctica very likely occurred in 1947, and the general public has never learned about it until now.

© Copyright 2012. Michael E. Salla. Exopolitics.org

Permission is granted to include extracts of this article on websites and email lists with a link to the original. This article is copyright © and should not be added in its entirety on other websites or email lists without author’s permission.

Further Reading

Battleship – is an extraterrestrial invasion possible?

Pentagon plans for Alien invasion exist according to military professor

Are Extraterrestrials the Enemy?

"Foundations for Globally Managing Extraterrestrial Affairs – The Legacy of the Nazi Germany-Extraterrestrial Connection."
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 06:39:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #726 on: February 04, 2018, 06:25:PM »
It's because the earth is flat, not a globe...
It's related to the distances of the sun and moon from the observer, not whether the earth is flat or round.

made possible by the technology being adopted to project its image
Even a projected image would have a different angular width as measured by observers at different distances. Such observers could be at different locations on Earth or one could be on Earth and another in an aircraft in flight above Earth. This applies regardless of Earth's shape, as it's just a matter of distance. For a very distant  sun and moon (or sun image and moon image), the difference in angular width would be so small that it wouldn't be noticed.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #727 on: February 04, 2018, 06:39:PM »
No Admiral Byrd transcript here then..

Admiral Byrd didn't make such transcript, someone had a vivid imagination after watching Lost Horizon and made their own Shangri La using Byrd and Antartica. Maybe your transcript doesn't contain the lines

"You, my son, “will live through the storm. You will preserve the fragrance of our history and add to it a touch of your own mind. Beyond that, my vision weakens … but I see in the great distance a new world starting in the ruins stirring clumsily  but in hopefulness, seeking it’s lost and legendary treasures, and they will all be here, my son, hidden behind the mountains under the blue moon, preserved as if by a miracle…”

BUT the actual movie DOES - move the time bar to about 1.18.00 and let it play. The sound isn't exactly high quality but it's good enough!
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #728 on: February 04, 2018, 06:51:PM »
It's related to the distances of the sun and moon from the observer, not whether the earth is flat or round. It's related to an observer stood on a flat earth, rather than an observer stood on the earth being a globe...
Even a projected image would have a different angular width as measured by observers at different distances. Which is what happens when the powers that be deflect the projected images of the sun and the moon off the inner edge of the earths 'firmament' using laser technology...Such observers could be at different locations on Earth Yeah, they could be...or one could be on Earth Yeah, that's what happens...and another in an aircraft in flight above Earth. Yeah, quite true...This applies regardless of Earth's shape, No, it doesn't...as it's just a matter of distance. The distance would be the same for occasions where it was only one observer, but when there are two or more, the distances would be different because of the alleged curvature of the earth, as opposed to the flat earth...For a very distant  sun and moon (or sun image and moon image), the difference in angular width would be so small that it wouldn't be noticed. It would, because of the instrumentation of the curved earth, as opposed to the flat earth and perspective...
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 06:54:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #729 on: February 04, 2018, 06:57:PM »
Admiral Byrd didn't make such transcript, someone had a vivid imagination after watching Lost Horizon and made their own Shangri La using Byrd and Antartica. Maybe your transcript doesn't contain the lines

"You, my son, “will live through the storm. You will preserve the fragrance of our history and add to it a touch of your own mind. Beyond that, my vision weakens … but I see in the great distance a new world starting in the ruins stirring clumsily  but in hopefulness, seeking it’s lost and legendary treasures, and they will all be here, my son, hidden behind the mountains under the blue moon, preserved as if by a miracle…”

BUT the actual movie DOES - move the time bar to about 1.18.00 and let it play. The sound isn't exactly high quality but it's good enough!

Opps - for got the link  ;D ;D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiNVerU1hBA
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #730 on: February 04, 2018, 08:07:PM »
It's related to an observer stood on a flat earth, rather than an observer stood on the earth being a globe
If the observer is in an aircraft, why would the shape of Earth below affect his observation of the angular width of the sun or moon?

Which is what happens .  .  . when there are two or more, the distances would be different because of the alleged curvature of the earth, as opposed to the flat earth
Observers at different locations could both be flying, and the observers' distances could then vary appreciably, regardless of whether the ground (or sea) below was curved or flat. Why would the shape of Earth below prevent observers from being at quite different distances from what they're observing? Even if the observers' distances from the sun (or moon) differ by only a few miles, that would have a significant affect on the angular width for the sun (or moon) that they observe.

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #731 on: February 04, 2018, 08:30:PM »
If the observer is in an aircraft, why would the shape of Earth below affect his observation of the angular width of the sun or moon? The perspective of the observer in the aircraft would be different to the observer on the flat earth, or god forbid on a globe earth... Observers at different locations could both be flying, These observers would have the same perspective if they were flying together in the same plane at the same altitude, but if they were in different planes at different altitudes their perspectives would be different, this would also apply for this same argument if you introduced an observer on the flat earth, observers on the flat earth, an observer on a globe earth, or observers on a globe earth - each observer would have their own perspective...and the observers' distances could then vary appreciably, Yeah, which can be put down to 'relative perspective'regardless of whether the ground (or sea) below was curved or flat. Er, no it would matter whether an observer was airborne, or if an observer was standing somewhere on the curve of the earth, or stood somewhere on a flat earth, except for cases which involved comparisons of two observers in the same aeroplane flying at the same altitude, or two observers standing at the same point on the earth irrespective of whether you believed in a flat earth, or a globe one... Why would the shape of Earth below prevent observers from being at quite different distances from what they're observing? Altitude, and perspective...Even if the observers' distances from the sun (or moon) differ by only a few miles, that would have a significant affect on the angular width for the sun (or moon) that they observe. That would depend upon whether one observer was airborne and the other observer stood below on the flat earth, or if the two observers were stood on the earth a few miles apart, since in the first instance it would be a matter of altitude and perspective, whereas in the latter case, it would just be a simple matter of perspective...
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 08:33:PM by mike tesko »
"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline mike tesko

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51079
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #732 on: February 04, 2018, 08:39:PM »
Admiral Byrd didn't make such transcript, someone had a vivid imagination after watching Lost Horizon and made their own Shangri La using Byrd and Antartica. Maybe your transcript doesn't contain the lines The words in Byrds Diary read, '’ ‘Yes, my son,’ replied the Master, ‘the dark ages that will come now for your race will cover the Earth like a pall, but I believe that some of your race will live through the storm, beyond that, I cannot say. We see at a great distance a new world stirring from the ruins of your race, seeking its lost and legendary treasures, and they will be here, my son, safe in our keeping. When that time arrives, we shall come forward again to help revive your culture and your race....

"You, my son, “will live through the storm. You will preserve the fragrance of our history and add to it a touch of your own mind. Beyond that, my vision weakens … but I see in the great distance a new world starting in the ruins stirring clumsily  but in hopefulness, seeking it’s lost and legendary treasures, and they will all be here, my son, hidden behind the mountains under the blue moon, preserved as if by a miracle…”

BUT the actual movie DOES - move the time bar to about 1.18.00 and let it play. The sound isn't exactly high quality but it's good enough!

The sentences are not the same, and in any event how do you know that Admiral Byrd himself had not seen the movie in question, or that it was what contributed to his desire to carry out an expedition in and around the south pole? Additionally, how do you know that the 'MASTER' hadn't seen the film himself and utilized part of the script when he eventually spoke to Admiral Byrd?

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when we first practice to deceive"...

Offline Reader

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2456
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #733 on: February 04, 2018, 09:34:PM »
[Why would the shape of Earth below prevent observers from being at quite different distances from what they're observing?] Altitude, and perspective
I didn't ask about observers at the same altitude. I asked why the shape of Earth would prevent observers (who could be at different altitudes and locations) from being at quite different distances from what they're observing. Hence "altitude and perspective" doesn't answer that question.

What I asked is logically similar to asking about two observers who may or may not be equidistant from Sheffield. If Leeds can be seen by both observers, the proportion of each observer's field of view that Leeds occupies is unaffected by the shape of Sheffield, but is affected by the distance of each observer from Leeds, and these distances from Leeds aren't necessarily equal.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 09:43:PM by Reader »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27076
Re: Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?
« Reply #734 on: February 04, 2018, 11:36:PM »
The sentences are not the same, and in any event how do you know that Admiral Byrd himself had not seen the movie in question, or that it was what contributed to his desire to carry out an expedition in and around the south pole? Additionally, how do you know that the 'MASTER' hadn't seen the film himself and utilized part of the script when he eventually spoke to Admiral Byrd?

Oh come on Mike, you know they are enough the same, which is why you asked about the movie. I thought you didn't like people trying to pull the wool? The guy who said the diary is from Admiral Byrd is clearly full of it!
Few people have the imagination for reality