Why is there such a large area not covered? Of the explanations, I once thought a hollow earth theory made sense. The satellites can't pass over a hole. This situation arises at the north pole too. However if satellites are fake, then there must be another explanation. If the earth has an ice rim and the photo above is a transform from a reverse mapping to make it look like an island rather than an ice rim, the the center would represent an infinite plain or the reputed 2 mile high ice wall. The photo would be taken from aircraft-- and then put through a digital math transformation using linear algebra / matrix.
The ice wall is typically referred to as surrounding Antarctica at the coast, but other accounts consider a 2 mile high ice wall further "inland". The photo above with the white circle in the center would have to avoid a compression and tranformation of the flat earth ice wall on the extreme limits of the plain.
A drawing like this can afford to show the South Pole and all the features at the extreme south because the transformation includes an official account of where the official south pole shall be. It's at a point south of McMurdo and east of Casey, further OUT on the plain. McMurdo is considered the gateway to the South Pole for a reason-- it's the most accessible station to the POINT on the "south pole rim" which surrounds the flat earth.
Imagine a circle around the edge of the image above... going through the corners of the square. That would be the "south pole rim". The official south pole would be within range of McMurdo at the top left and Casey also at the top left. But it would be out of range of Halley at the lower right... or even Mawson. The theory seems nuts but I wonder if the linear algebra transformation being done can't account for it. If Earth is flat, somehow there is a math transform being dictated to all agencies that must be used to convert that flat area into a sphere. And for some reason, the math transform, at least on aerial photos, cannot work. Thus they white out the center.
That's my theory for now.
To finish this post tonight, I'll install a video that I think might have some merit. It describes the phenomenon of missing parts of Antarctica from the satellite views-- larger missing areas than I've posted above. Again, it's consistent with hiding the larger plain surrounding flat earth.
how far have you reached in your research?
ReplyDeleteI've lately been stymied by Jungle Surfer's idea that maybe the research stations are fake. That-- and my car's transmission failing and other practical issues have prevented progress on Antarctica lately.
ReplyDeleteHow far have I reached? Good question. I would say that I've reached the point where I understand that we're dealing with a difficult question. It should be easy to resolve but it's not. Right there-- this is a problem.
Where to go from here? Interestingly, your question arrived on the same day that I first thought of Jungle Surfer's problem of fake research stations. We first need to confirm their existence, one by one.
Other than that, I have to solve the problem of whether or not to change the fluid and filter in my transmission. This problem leads directly to Antarctica, since there are many machines-- they say-- in Antarctica-- and all of them have transmissions. The skidoos, tractors, crawlers, vehicles of various sorts, even the stations (they say) that creep across the ice-- would require transmissions, clutches and gears. That requires hydraulic fluids and filters-- and temperature ranges. Maybe by looking at the machines (they say) including planes they use, we can gain insight into whether the stations are real or not.
The perimeter measurement of 60K or 15K seems several steps removed from where I am currently thinking. The more I look into this, the further removed I'm forced to think about the original problem. It's troubling.
The short answer to your question is-- I seem to be falling backwards in my understanding. It's truly a paradox.
I believe any man who reguards himself as truly intelligent understands his lack of understanding and more importanly observation. I personally don't belive the earth is a sphere, but also don't belive it's flat, I understand that I have no true way of knowing besides desuctive reasoning and observation. At that though, I wrestle with the idea that the earth might be in the shape of an M&M candy, bulbous at the equator, but don't regud that as fact either.
ReplyDeletePersonally I have seen and obsevered MANY satilites in the night sky, a few of the ole iridium flares and even a once in a life time, watching the last space shuttle dock on the ISS, International Space Station. So I can truly say regusing satilites as non-existent is LEWD. I have OBSERVED them, and I report that with utmost confidence and respect. Perhaps the obsevable universe is flat? Maybe we should expand this perception to a greater scale, at that we have the troubling CERN progam worshiping the Hindu dieity of destruction, Shiva. I belive if not know in an inexplicable way that they are indeed trying to break the firmement, but where is the firmement? Not to mention the Hebrew translation has been lost in the English diction.
So, deductive resaoning yes?
~M. Jordan Weinrich
mjweinrich117@gnail.com
Well, sure but all of that goes far beyond my current blog's essential feature which is merely to test and verify the distance around Antarctica as being closer to 15,000 or 60,000 miles. I have done neither yet. When I do, I'll consider your post again.
DeleteWhat we do know for a fact though is that the sun moves 15 degrees every hour in its transition across the sky no matter what part of the earth it is observed from. It should be a simple matter then to time how much sunlight each fifteen degrees of Antarctica receives in a single 24 hour cycle and if the true circumference there is 60,000 miles that would mean the sun cannot linger too long in any on place as it moves around this huge outer rim. Any place in Antarctica that receives direct sunlight for more than 8 hours would imply that there's something seriously wrong with your model.
DeleteGoing along with you for arguments sake-- for now-- I would argue that the sun is going to be very low on the horizon on the Antarctic shore--- and that sunrise might be around 10 am and sunset at 3 pm... so direct sunlight might be 5 hours at the height of summer. I'll think on this overnight-- and look up sunrise and sunset times in Antarctica to see if I'm right. I was in the Arctic during midsummer but that was northern hemisphere and the sun actually did NEVER set for awhile.... so I have a feel for this via experience- though at the other "pole". It's definitely weird.
Deletehttps://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AwrTcYM6IoJaR4UAyYiJzbkF?p=sunrise+sunset+antarctica&fr=sfp&fr2=p%3As%2Cv%3Ai%2Cm%3Apivot&stype=web
I don't think any place in Antarctica would get "direct" sunlight for 8 hours even in summer... though the sun would be seen to rise higher and lower as it went around you on the horizon.
Here is my attempt at modeling the Flat Earth and Flat Agartha:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNmF2w0cJ9U&feature=youtu.be
Hmmm.... interesting. The model combines hollow with flat earth. It's not consistent, however, with flat earth stories about going into the hole because as ships or planes go around the edge of the north pole hole, they should still feel gravity and eventually come out to Agartha upsidedown relative to the topside. Your model is more like a sewar hole in the street where you go "one story down". The curved earthen walls of your interior Agartha don't satisfy me as being able to be "held up". Good try though.
DeleteSince you're good at graphics and music, would you care to make a video model with Agartha being on the bottom side of pancake flat-earth? Their sun would revolve the same way our does... "above them"... but on the opposite side of the snow-dome.
They should have an ice wall too.
Thanks for your effort! It was fun to watch.
How about you reverse that math
ReplyDeleteGood idea. A reverse transform might require that matrix type math.
DeleteSatelittes " I Have Seen Them."
ReplyDeleteSorry but I am going to need more proof.
I have looked and looked and have never seen anything except a light in the sky that I am "told is the space station. But when you watch the videos out the windows of the space station, the earth doesn't move, or moves way too fast.
It's all fake.
We see a light. That is all we see. We do not KNOW what it is.
LMAO @ seeing satelittes.
Nasa lies and is not credible.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mCHG6uJH5L8
If you have to fake any of it, it's because you can't do it.
When we research, we find that the distances recorded by explorers are much larger than today but interestingly only in the southern hemisphere.
Distances recorded in the northern hemisphere do not seem to have the same problem.
During the vendee race I believe it was, be boat was said to have sailed over 500 miles in one day.
At that speed a 50,000 mile trip would take less than 100 days. And the further away from the ice they stayed the shorter the route.
Now if the distance was 15,000. It should take less than 30 days.
The good thing about the race is there is no GPS in the southern hemisphere to verify their position so they can say whatever they want to as far as position.
All one has to do to verify this is watch the live flight paths of plane flights over the southern ocean. They are not tracked. So much for satelittes.
your quote " During the vendee race I believe it was, be boat was said to have sailed over 500 miles in one day. At that speed a 50,000 mile trip would take less than 100 days. And the further away from the ice they stayed the shorter the route. Now if the distance was 15,000. It should take less than 30 days. The good thing about the race is there is no GPS in the southern hemisphere to verify their position so they can say whatever they want to as far as position."
DeleteRick says-- all good points-- I didn't know about the claim to the speed. One finer point however is Vendee inhabits 60S latitude so distance on a sphere is >15K mi-- and <25Kmi-- I'll look it up. Still at that speed as you cited from somewhere (I'll hunt for it)-- we have a possible smoking gun.
You are an idiot.
ReplyDelete