The following 16 minute video by one "David Ridlen" goes to great lenghts to debunk flat earth. I do like to stay on topic here with respect to my circnavigation of Antarctica but the soundtrack and video on this piece was so engaging that I think it's going to be of interest to anyone following me here anyway. It's well done from a production standpoint. Some of the arguments even givem e pause. I've been getting hundreds of hits per post here so I try to keep my standards and quality up for viewers-- and thus I think you'll enjoy the following. NOTE IN PARTICULAR the list of required participants in the "grand conspiracy" that Ridlen lists later on. That was my favorite section because I DO believe that ALL the groups he lists are INDEED controlled via blackmail, need to know limitations, and in-group cooperation of one kind or another. It's just a lot of fun to sit and watch and consider his argument-- and to watch the old Gemini spacewalks. I think I saw a wire on one of them-- not sure. Lots to consider here-- but nothing directly related to Antarctica in this one.
Hi Rick.
ReplyDeleteThat is one very slick production. Lot of man hours in producing it I imagine.
The problem still remains that everybody has been taught globe from birth.
I am 45yrs old and never thought to look into any of this until 6mths ago.
The illusion is broken for me.
Phil
It is slick-- and you have to wonder where he got the high def footage of the spacewalks. I'll look again at his site to find sources he used-- obviously NASA has to be one. It DID occur to me that the production quality could only have been handled by an insider- who would neccessarily be a shill for the sphere conspiracy.
DeleteSorry one more comment.
ReplyDeleteDavid Ridlen. Why does he have one eye iluminated in his picture???
https://vimeo.com/user3561749
The thing is now that I am alerted to this insider symbology you can see it used often.
These are not normal people. They truly believe they are better than the masses.
BTW have been enjoying many of your ideas. Especially the Antarctic rim mashup.
Cheers Phil
Mashup is a good word for it-- it was fun. A short time ago, I posted a piece by a fellow who pointed out the similarity of the Antarctica shoreline, as an island-- to the coastal waters of the Arctic, saying that the latter was inspired by the former. That could mean that the Antarctic rim is nothing like what they tell us. So now we have that complication to deal with-- as if it wasn't already tricky enough.
DeleteI didn't notice the one eye- but that's a huge signal. Good find. How did you like Ridlen's citing of all the people and groups that would have to be involved in the conspiracy to pull it off? HE cites them to try to make us think that it's not possible whereas I'm impressed and overwhelmed by the size, depth and extent of the controlled system of information! It has the OPPOSITE effect on me as he obviously intended.
Short anecdote: I have not known many pilots, personally, in my life. However I met one the other day who is a parent of a child taking piano lessons at my store. In a small talk session, I joked about being afraid to fly and how the horizon is cited by pilots to fly straight and how a pilot would have to continually fly downward to stay on the globe. His small talk ceased and he reverted to polite smiles without expanding on any details, consistent with MY theory that EVERY pilot is inducted into a secret agreement to be quiet about such details. Consistent also with the ordinary person's exploration of higher altitudes is the NEW REQUIREMENT that ALL drones including TOYS must now be licensed with huge registration fees. No ordinary person without license *tracking ability by NWO* is allowed to gain any sort of elevation. Huge airline passenger jets ALL have heavy CURVED glass to distort the horizon-- so no clear view of the horizon, again, can be obtained by non-authorized people.
I think the controlled system of information is compartmentalised in layers. Most people just do as they have been taught. Who is going to throw out 12yrs of schooling, 4 to 6yrs of university and 5, 10 or 20yrs of field work and start from scratch with a different model???
DeleteI didn't have to throw all that education out, myself, because they kicked me out of it twice. I still have all my notes-- trying to make sense of it. They didn't even give me my money back. Imagine that. After being kicked out, my most impressive thought (to myself) was... "how can they dump someone like ME out of the system... don't they understand how valuable I am?". What that translates to now is "They understood what a threat I was."
DeleteNice observations Rick
ReplyDeleteOne other thing about the Antarctica race. Bob Williams is from my home town. This race is different to the Vendee.
I believe that Bob tried to get it off the ground but no sponsors or any keen sailors. Bob had a significant construction company and got our local basketball team to national finals as owner in the 1980's.
It remained just a concept until this Russsin guy. I need to look more into him!!
He also has produced details of an around Australia race. Again limited sponsorship and competitors.
http://www.pozible.com/project/22970
This info doesn't really change anything. I think Bob Williams was genuine in his desire to make it happen.
Cheers Phil
wwwoOww! THAT looks like an incredible honest effort. I'll have to examine that further considering Aussie land is so close to the apparent rim. Maybe I need to move to Australia and try to convert my virtual circumnavigation into a real project. And BW is your home town-- so YOU are in Aussieland? Fantastic... I never suspected. So close and yet so far. Amazing. Thanks for your post.
DeleteNice one Rick
DeleteIt has taken the internet to bring like minded people together. Before that they controlled dissemination of information. Now they don't.
They do try to bomb the internet with misinformation, disinformation and mindless drivel but you just need to learn to filter this out. At least that is what i try to do.
As per above. I kicked myself out of uni. I wanted to learn where my interest took me. They said I had to follow syllabus. I was bored out of my brain.
On to Antarctica.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in researching the Sydney to Santiago direct flight. This is one of the sticking points to Flat Earth. QFA27 does exist and i have a Perth friend with a Chilean wife who flew it in Jan this year. Confirmed.
Check out Today's return flight from Santiago. QFA28
It heads very south. Almost to Antarctica.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28
The green section I believe is actual tracking. The grey is estimated. see here.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28/history/20160222/1635Z/SCEL/YSSY/tracklog
On this flight track log it shows this Green section on the previous map to be New Zealand.
Is this perhaps SCOTT BASE ??????? I think so.
There is no sat nav. only ground based and only when it is in range.
If you look at yesterdays QFA27 it appears to be tracked over the ocean by way points (buoys??).
I believe this is a MLAT system. ie. the plane passes 3 way point receivers to plot its position. This is why the last 2 way points are grey not green.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA27
Interested in your thoughts??
Particularly on Scott Base.
Phil
That's more detail than I'm used to managing so I need another day on it but one thing I did note was the notice that read "At least part of this flight occurs outside of FlightAware's primary service area.". THAT is strange. Given the huge amount of realtime detail on that website-- an incredible website-- isn't it odd that FlightAware should actually tell us that "part of a commercial flight" is "outside of our service area"? Wow. Unbelievable. How is POSSIBLE that a commercial flight can be OUTSIDE of this highly detailed and capable technical "service area"???
DeleteYOU point to Scott Base. Well, that is at least CONSISTENT with being "outside of a highly competent and technically capable flight tracking agency's "service area"".....
Why would a flight be "outside of a flight moniter zone"-- on the way from Sydney to Santiago, Chile? Well from our flat earth point of view, they would NOT be able to make that flight WITHOUT refueling. Thus, the UNMONITERED fuel stop was Scott Base.
We can double check the locations and flight paths tomorrow since it's getting late here in Phoenix and my bedtime is 30 minutes away.
Your input is really good here. Thanks.
I'll have to review Scott Base a little more in the morning. It seems to me that it might be well worth our time to try to interview passengers who took that flight to see what fuel stops they made along the way and what they were told. They would have had to either do an IN FLIGHT refueling OR land...and the landing strip at Scott Base should be easily definable.
I'll likely have a nightmare about this tonight. Thanks. (I love nightmares... don't worry)
the moon is round , you can see this just by looking at it with a telescope or binoculars . the moon looks like a basketball . the issue isn't about the moon , it is about the earth . the ship example has been disproved so many times to use this indicates that the author has not even looked at evidence for a flat earth . as it the effect of the earth rotation for a bullet , this is nothing but some kind of voodoo craft . this has been disproven so many times . please look at the flat earth evidence .so fat the video get a zero . this is really disappointing . i would love to find evidence to disprove the flat earth . this video simply fails , thanks for wasting my time
ReplyDeleteBTW the reason they fly south or further south in my opinion is to pick up (make trip faster) or avoid strong circular air flows.
ReplyDeletesee here.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/azimuthal_equidistant/loc=-141.610,54.484
My browser can't see that.
DeleteI should also add after your post above that i did the interview. No stops. No refueling.
DeleteThat is what prompted me to seek another solution to this Flat Earth Problem.
I believe that the Boeing 747-400 is capable of this flight. 4 engines, 14,200km range, capacity for extra fuel tanks.
They go south to pick up the Antarctic circular wind corridor (think slingshot). Or avoid it on the way home.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/azimuthal_equidistant
My point about Scott Base is that in all other flights i have observed (last 4 weeks) they follow the way points. I think they are buoys with tracking receivers.
This one went further south to avoid strong headwinds and so Scott Base tracked it and sent the ident to flight aware in real time. I'm guessing by ongoing arrangement.
You wrote....This one went further south to avoid strong headwinds and so Scott Base tracked it and sent the ident to flight aware in real time. I'm guessing by ongoing arrangement.
DeleteRick says-- but it would have flown directly INTO prevailing Easterly winds if it was flying from Santiago TO Sydney! See this map:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_prevailing_winds_on_earth.png
Hi Rick
DeleteIt's a shame your browser won't let you see the earth.nullschool.net link.
You can see the wind currents and their strength updated daily.
This can be seen on a azimuthal equidistant projection. (Flat Earth)
If you are really keen it works on Firefox.
Prevailing winds are easterly (blowing east from Australia to South America)... The PROBLEM I see is that the flights from, say, Aukland to Santiago-- going east-- fly no further south than -46S. On the return from Santiago to Aukland, they fly -71... ~~~??? ...and Scott Base is at -77.
DeleteI think I know what you're trying to get at with the wind pattern around that flat Antarctica-- I've seen it on youtubes like this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fQ3m0dBO0M
The earth.nullschool can't be seen by my Firefox browser either.
The point here is that the PREVAILING wind is ALWAYS eastward... and that CONTRADICTS the idea that the Santiago to NewZealand flight dips down to -71 deg S latitude on it's way WESTward.
Do you understand my problem?
Hi again Rick
ReplyDeleteI have come across this Ridlen character before - thanks
to Simon Shack at Cluesforum
http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2396321
I too think Ridlen is either one or many people from a
department in NASA whose job is to part defend the
moon/space hoax program.
It is very slick and he/they have all the facts at their
fingertips.
I have just slipped in another comment there - you might
find it under "newest first".
I have just come across this paper
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03014223.2000.9518219
Which purports to show the circumnavigation cruises of
Russian and other ships on scientific cruises.
Naturally, we must believe the scientists, but no
distances or times are quoted, just a circumnavigation.
There are individual references at the end of
the paper to the cruises. [supplied by Quark Cruises, whom
we have already come across....]
I am also having trouble finding anything about the
alleged 1999 Antarctic circumnavigation by Christopher
Wilson FZS which is quoted here
http://www.hollandamericablog.com/tag/amsterdam-destinations-antarctica/
This is about as much as I can find!
https://web.archive.org/web/20120406132030/http://reviewfromhere.com/2012/03/08/guest-post-from-author-christopher-wilson/
Rick
ReplyDeleteYou might like this on Antarctica Cup.
Suggests Bob Williams might be a Freemason. Maybe. Who knows?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKrbeUHpRkBnYXWDW6KKMDW1cP0AoQY3f1P3oJpVxMk5x82WMafWRuWxVMUFCbtbEw7yYOiyYBmz9njPLR6V9zOcyf2wlA&v=k_tDPhbqnbc&time_continue=296
Cheers Phil
Wow-- great find and funny commentary. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThe point about the 16,000 nautical miles rather than 10,000 isn't significant enough for the flat earth model however. If the equator is 25,000 miles, then the rim should be around 60,000. I'll look at distances given 60 degrees south again, however, on the globe vs the flat model to see where 16,000 might come from. The trip should take 2 years by sailboat, much more than 100 days-- if we use Captain James Cook's journey as a rough guide.
The eyes on the silly "artwork" by Robert Williams was a good tell.
It didn't occur to me that only 3 winners had been accounted for. I think there must be something wrong with that theory because I've seen a list of winners for every race. I'll find it again.
With the Antarctic Cup promoted by Bob Williams I think the only one to sail it was that Russian photographed with Sanders. The woman has not yet sailed the course but intends to if she can get a financial backer. Says so on her website.
ReplyDeleteThe other thing is do we really know that the circumference of the equator is 25000 miles???
Who measured it?? How do you measure it??
Was it determined by an estimate of the radius of the nonexistent globe???
How then do we measure the circumference at the equator??
If we use GPS then that is a globe modeled system.
It uses elapse of lat and long and is then converted to the globe model map.
Interesting conundrum.
The video you pointed to is by "GeoShifter" with the Austrian accent and he has many flat earth videos, one of which I just watched on the history of aerial circumnavigations which was very good and well worth watching.
Deletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKrbeUHpRkBnYXWDW6KKMDW1cP0AoQY3f1P3oJpVxMk5x82WMafWRuWxVMUFCbtbEw7yYOiyYBmz9njPLR6V9zOcyf2wlA&v=k_tDPhbqnbc&time_continue=296
I was going with 25,000 mile circumference based on what they're telling us but you're right-- it would have to be confirmed too, now that we're questioning the entire model. Given that, however, then the rim would be 60,000 miles. So we always build models with "some" assumptions. GPS seems like it's all computer-moderated so is now completely untrustworthy insofar as global or flat distances are concerned. Like Willie Nelson sang--we're going to have to go "back on the road again" and find more "primitive" ways to verify our models. I'm interested in sextant reckoning lately.
By the way, in an earlier post, you pointed to the Santiago to Aukland flight which dips to -71 deg south but when I look on my globe, it doesn't appear that dip is really needed. It's way off course from the shortest distance between the two points and it flies directly against the eastward jetstream winds-- which makes little sense. I don't know what to make of it.
While It might sound a bit insane, as I understand it would. But lets face it. The moon just isn't real. Whatever it is, its completely simulated, its a farce, a lie.
ReplyDeleteEx. The carvings are about 4800 years old. The next oldest depiction of the moon known to science is that by Leonardo da Vinci in about 1505 AD. Other ancient lunar maps may lie unrecognized among neolithic (and later) artifacts. For now the products of the artists - and scientists - of Knowth are by far the oldest apparent representations of lunar markings and motions known to us. READ MORE: http://www.disclose.tv/forum/earliest-depictions-of-our-moon-t84676.html
I will however give credit where credit is due. There was just in 2013 evidence of a bone/stone carving with documented pictures of "moon phases" found in France and Germany I believe, however, I can't find any actual pictures of these artifacts that are apparently some 32,000 years old, and I do not give credit to this finding for such reasons, even if I did, the drawing are to basic looking to rule some other result out. Plus, I don't think that rules out the possibility of a false moon altogether.
I'm not arguing tides or anything, just that what we simply see in the sky is not what we are told it is.
Take into account the strangeness of Earth's only natural satellite. It just really fucking weird that we don't see, nor have we seen from our observations of our universe, another natural satellite like it.
I hold similar beliefs to a YouTuber named Crrow777 whom opened my eyes to the lie of the moon. I highly recommend you at least check out his moon hologram videos, as they WILL blow your mind and make you question the very nature of reality itself.
https://www.youtube.com/user/Crrow777
I mention this because in the beginning of the video he spouts "evidence" in support of a heliocentric model based off the moon and how it looks. I'm not going to be spoon fed that bullshit as evidence, because you can't prove to me what is the ground we stand on by pointing up into the sky and saying "look, the moons got round shadows man, must be a ball."
Thanks for the video Rick, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. (I didn't read all of the comment section, it looks like a war zone on this post.)
Ok thanks Schwa-- I stare at the moon after supper on many nights. Sometimes it's low, orange and huge and sometimes its high small and white. Right there-- that confuses me.
ReplyDeleteIf its a hoax, it's a very well developed one because when I was 11 or so, I got an issue of national geographic with a moon map that I treasured and put on my bedroom wall with place names of all the craters on the front and the back side.
It's the level of sophistication of the hoax that gets me. If it's a hoax, it's a multi-generational one-- in human terms obviously. The only element Cro777 doesn't look at is Stichen's anunnaki origin theory-- but even there-- Anunnaki are said to be from planet Niburu-- which then supports the dish plate type solar system.
I mean... WTF, right?
One time I romanced a girl on the phone by noting that we were both in our yards looking up at the same moon despite being a few hundred miles away from one another. She liked that. At least the moon was good for something.
I understand what you mean, the more complicated a hoax is, the more people that need to be involved, the less likely it is for success. However, if the FE model turns out to be true. No one ever even walked on the moon anyways, so would it really be that hard to believe? I've heard crazier theories involving the moon. Alien/Nibiru (related to the anunnaki you mentioned right)/Hollow Moon. All I simply know for myself is that when you look up at the night sky, all you're looking at is a very clever deception. Just a belief of mine. I acknowledge it turns people off. Why wouldn't it though. Its a frighting thought.
ReplyDeleteI, and I'm sure many other young men aspiring for the heart of a woman, have all looked up and done the same thing. Its part of its draw (I myself aspired to buy land on the moon when I was younger, much like your involvement with the poster as a child). Its an enticing object that levels us back down to the earth. Its what we partially measure time with for gods sake. Probably all factors in to why it is there in the first place. Alas though, as I said. I don't admit to know any great truths about it, nor do I buy in to any odd theories involving it. I just simply look up and glare at it now, waiting/wanting/needing to learn the truth. I almost view it as a challenge now. Not quite sure if I look at it with hate or not. I do admit to myself that I don't know exactly what it is. Not the most solid stance right? XD