I started this blog in 2015 to explore the idea of travelling around Antarctica to test for distance. It turned out that going south of 60S Lat isn't legal-- so I proposed a trip around 60 or safely north of 60S at, say, 55 S latitude. The idea was to make a distinctive proof that was orders of magnitude different than the distance at the same northern latitude if Earth is indeed flat. For example, the trip around 60S would be 70,000 miles on flat earth vs. 15,000 miles on a spherical earth if we travelled around antarctica. That's more than 4X larger-- and would consistute a definitive proof with a pretty big margin for error possible-- that lets us still get the idea confirmed.
Given the legal problem of going south of 60 however, that trip would be somewhat less than 70,000 miles on flat earth.. I forget what my earlier calculation was without looking but-- lets say its around 50,000 miles at 60 degrees south. That's still a fairly big difference from the spherical 60S which might be around 30,000 miles. I should really sit down and get those numbers.
The reason I'm posting today however is because I found Chippy's video from 2016 April on this idea-- and he proposes a confirmation at 33 deg. S. His reasoning is that we can use the number 33 to throw back at the Illuminati who like numbers like 33. The problem is that he still has to cross over land into several countries. My proposal of 55 degrees south is more easily done on one boat on water without hitting land. I'll write Chippy with this idea.
Here is his entry...
Given the legal problem of going south of 60 however, that trip would be somewhat less than 70,000 miles on flat earth.. I forget what my earlier calculation was without looking but-- lets say its around 50,000 miles at 60 degrees south. That's still a fairly big difference from the spherical 60S which might be around 30,000 miles. I should really sit down and get those numbers.
The reason I'm posting today however is because I found Chippy's video from 2016 April on this idea-- and he proposes a confirmation at 33 deg. S. His reasoning is that we can use the number 33 to throw back at the Illuminati who like numbers like 33. The problem is that he still has to cross over land into several countries. My proposal of 55 degrees south is more easily done on one boat on water without hitting land. I'll write Chippy with this idea.
Here is his entry...
Published on Apr 8, 2016
#FAIR USE# - 2016 "Flat Earth" - I propose a rather simple way of TESTING THE GLOBE - to either PROVE or DISPROVE if we live on a SPHERE - or on a flat, stationary earth.
All that is needed is a way to circumnavigate around a Southern Parallel - to "test the globe" - to see if the numbers are correct - or if we've been LIED to.
On the back of the 1920 John George Abizaid Stationary, Flat Earth Map - there is a simple way to PROVE that we DO NOT live on a globe.
I use the 33° South Latitude in this video as a way to throw that number back in their faces & mock tptb.
Mr. Abizaid, Gleason, Voliva (& others) claimed the distance around the SH is far greater than the distance around the same latitude in the NH, which PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that (incontrovertible evidence) that we DO NOT live on a SPHERE.
We've had endless "Flat Earth" talk & speculation. The time is NOW for SOMEONE to step up and form a SAILING expedition.
I've also looked at the 56° Southern Latitude... (all water) and ONE SHIP... set sail from the Southern tip of South America - and travel around in one big circle - if the ship can stay on the 56° Latitude line the entire time, it will prove the earth is not a globe because the circumference will be much greater around than what the globe model claims.
The distance of this journey should end up being two or three times greater than what the globe model claims it is.
Plus, sailing around the S 56° latitude would not require permission from the "Antarctic Treaty" because there will not be a need to cross below the S60° Latitude into the "Southern Ocean". No vessel can enter waters below the S60° without permission.
So, an expedition like this should not need to deal w/jumping through the many Antarctic Treaty "hoops" - as the vessel would not be going anywhere near making an approach towards "Antarctica".
It would simply be taking a cruise around the S56° southern parallel - to see if the distance we've been told is correct.
If the mileage is far greater than it should be... then "the globe model" will have been proven to be false!
Thank you,
Chippy ☺
All that is needed is a way to circumnavigate around a Southern Parallel - to "test the globe" - to see if the numbers are correct - or if we've been LIED to.
On the back of the 1920 John George Abizaid Stationary, Flat Earth Map - there is a simple way to PROVE that we DO NOT live on a globe.
I use the 33° South Latitude in this video as a way to throw that number back in their faces & mock tptb.
Mr. Abizaid, Gleason, Voliva (& others) claimed the distance around the SH is far greater than the distance around the same latitude in the NH, which PROVES beyond a shadow of a doubt that (incontrovertible evidence) that we DO NOT live on a SPHERE.
We've had endless "Flat Earth" talk & speculation. The time is NOW for SOMEONE to step up and form a SAILING expedition.
I've also looked at the 56° Southern Latitude... (all water) and ONE SHIP... set sail from the Southern tip of South America - and travel around in one big circle - if the ship can stay on the 56° Latitude line the entire time, it will prove the earth is not a globe because the circumference will be much greater around than what the globe model claims.
The distance of this journey should end up being two or three times greater than what the globe model claims it is.
Plus, sailing around the S 56° latitude would not require permission from the "Antarctic Treaty" because there will not be a need to cross below the S60° Latitude into the "Southern Ocean". No vessel can enter waters below the S60° without permission.
So, an expedition like this should not need to deal w/jumping through the many Antarctic Treaty "hoops" - as the vessel would not be going anywhere near making an approach towards "Antarctica".
It would simply be taking a cruise around the S56° southern parallel - to see if the distance we've been told is correct.
If the mileage is far greater than it should be... then "the globe model" will have been proven to be false!
Thank you,
Chippy ☺
It's a good idea, but if the earth really is 50,000+ miles in circumference around S56° then it would also be time-consuming and potentially dangerous. Not sure who would be up to the task, but seeing as there's no shortage of thrill-seekers and explorers, it's rather curious that nobody has stepped up to the plate and discovered the truth one way or the other. Could be that people are afraid of having their illusions shattered.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely correct-- time-consuming and potentially dangerous. I don't even go out at night anymore. The health flyers say my testosterone is dropping after 50 so I'm not likely going to go myself. Let's hire younger guys.
ReplyDeleteVery good point about about looking for thrill seekers-- who, by the way, they say are biochemically set up that way somehow. They like the adrenaline rush. Maybe I should start thinking about advertising in publications that go out to skydivers, scuba divers and mountain climbers. And set up a gofundme for them.
Good points, thanks.
One more thing-- the sail boaters who say they're doing the circumnavigation in the Vendee race might be a source of leads. I think a crew of these types along with a hired boat captain might be the ticket-- the gofundme will be used to pay them and set up a online tracking system.
DeleteThat sounds logical on its face, until you realize that those Vendee races are deliberately staged that way in order to get around having to perform a true circumnavigation. If the earth is spherical as we've been told then circumnavigating near the coast of Antarctica wouldn't pose much of a problem as the distance is far shorter than on the flat earth model.
DeleteThe dead giveaway to all of this is the UN Antarctic Treaty, coupled with Operation Fishbowl and subsequent formation of space agencies of various countries, practically in unison. This is no insignificant matter as countries can hardly agree about anything, not to mention the Cold War between the two major powers at the time, coming off World War II. Subsequent to Admiral Byrd voyaging down to Antarctica with a massive military crew, they all agree that Antarctica must be protected and kept off-limits, astonishingly. Furthermore, after C.S. Lewis writes about satellites and such, lo and behold - governments are able to take his product of science fiction and turn it into a reality ...and nobody questions this?
It is astonishing to my mind that the world can be filled with all sorts of thrill-seekers, explorers and others in search of verifiable truth, i.e. real science, yet not a single person or crew has stepped up to the plate and circumnavigated between S56-60° (at least that we know of). Furthermore, there's yet to be a single verifiable circumnavigation of the world heading directly south and coming up the opposite side. All the modern advancements in aviation and technology makes this sole omission really stand out and demand further scrutiny.
You're right. The Vendee staging is an awful lot of trouble to go through. I wonder what they're actually doing. I would have thought the holes in their story would have been more obvious by now for the world to see. It's amazing how the deception can continue.
DeleteI think it was Arthur C Clarke who invented the satellite idea, not CS Lewis.
I think of all wealthy retirees who have time and money to do the yacht circumnavigation at 60S to be the ultimate boring people. You'd think a few would have taken up the challenge and blogged about it by now.
Going south and coming up the opposite side isn't a recommended voyage since we both know that won't likely work. I would simply like to go around 55-60 S-- comfortably-- with navigators who know how to measure distance-- AND take night sky pics along the way. A jet trip shouldn't be too difficult either-- private jet refuelling at South Africa, Chile and New Zealand if needed.
Thanks. You're probably right about Arthur C. Clarke, I must have gotten them mixed up.
DeleteAs you said, there are plenty of wealthy individuals who have the means necessary to try it, yet they haven't. How come?
When I mentioned circumnavigating due south, I meant by some form of aircraft, be it plane, drone or whatever. Someone could also use an aircraft to perform the S55-60° circumnavigation. Why doesn't anyone do so? There have already been several instances of circumnavigation along the equator line, which on either earth model would just make a circle roughly 25,000 miles long. But still, no circumnavigation southward.
Flat earth has been garnering huge attention as of late, so at some point someone is going to try it. There's even been a segment about it on a Dutch TV show, which you can view here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSzEJDKHq7g
I love how heliocentric defenders try to ridicule the notion that Antarctica is heavily guarded, as though it would require hundreds of thousands of troops amassed around its circumference. Actually, all that's needed is to position radar around the vicinity near Argentina and heading eastward toward Australia & New Zealand. Since anyone charting a flight would have to allow air traffic controllers to know in advance where they're going and keep tabs on them, in any instance of someone veering off southward toward Antarctica without permission, all they'd really have to do is send one fighter jet to intercept and escort the aircraft back (and then the pilot would inevitably get in trouble). Anyone traveling by boat could at best make it to the huge ice wall, perhaps get near some penguins or something to that effect. There's no way that any seafaring adventurer is going to climb on the ice, make it all the way to the south and then trek all the way back again without dying from the bitter conditions. People like Norwegian Jarle Andhøy who go there by boat wind up getting arrested and fined (and, in that instance, some of the crew got killed). Therefore, the notion that there's submarines and military presence all around the circumference is ridiculous on its face. Of course the people presenting such arguments know this and that's why they bring it up, in order to make the flat earth argument sound ridiculous.
Math Boyland seriously proposed crossing toward the south (perimeter) with some kind of expedition-- which discredited him in my view. I tried to post a message to him about it but never got through.
DeleteThe guy who wrote 200 reasons the earth is flat with a monotone voice who lives in Thailand--- uhh...eric dubay... http://www.bing.com/search?q=200+reasons+why+the+earth+is+flat&go=Submit&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&pq=200+reasons+why+the+earth+is+flat&sc=2-26&sk=&cvid=9DAA10C649294FDD987154FB55C460C7
...proposed two ships sail in opposite directions to see when they meet-- which I view as overly complicated. He banned me from his forum for unknown reasons.
I haven't posted to Chipppy's forum but am currently interested in his similar view as mine-- that a simple circumnav around 55-60 should be a nice easy and fun proof of concept that has the potential to blow the lid off the kettle.
The dutch tv show was fun-- good joke-- that's why they call it an airplane not and aircurve... haha... and note the dutch audience didn't flinch when the pretty host called the globe bullshit-- no reaction-- for strong language.
You pointed out something above I hadn't thought of quote "There have already been several instances of circumnavigation along the equator line, which on either earth model would just make a circle roughly 25,000 miles long. But still, no circumnavigation southward"... I'd like to find those missions run along the equator... might be an important starting point.
While Eric Dubay does aggregate pertinent flat earth info, but he strikes me as a disinfo shill with some bizarre mysticism beliefs. Researching this stuff entails wading through a lot of ulterior motives and nonsense, because literally anyone can present themselves as being FE researchers or "truthers". For instance (and without naming names), a lot of well-known FE channels on YT also misdirect their audiences in various ways. For example, trying to link the Vatican with Freemasonry or other such drivel. Copernicus hypothesized the heliocentric theory as is used today. Galileo was placed under house arrest for what was considered a heretical view. But many of those within the Church allowed themselves to be taken in by the heliocentric theory and believe that we're drifting through space on a magic sphere, which contradicts Scripture. Later on, many atheists deliberately began spreading the lie that Galileo was persecuted, including that he was brought to some underground dungeon where the Church threatened to torture him, etc. in order to present him to the public as some sort of martyr for science. But I digress.
DeleteI've watched some of Chippy's videos dealing with Antarctica and circumnavigating. Funny, I couldn't help but notice that he shut off comments on some (all?) of his videos, because there were some interesting discussions on some of them which are now gone.
Yes, the Dutch segment was good. Had the same thing been on TV here in America, the host would've inevitably ridiculed the guests and took cheap jabs at them for the audience's amusement. It's amazing just how effective the constant brainwashing of outer space has been. No testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable evidence necessary. Just take NASA and other space agencies' word for it and that's the end of the discussion.
About circumnavigations along the equator: there are some YT videos compiling these and showing each navigator's chosen routes which you should be able to find. Some of the other intriguing stuff that I've seen include: sending radio signals from America all the way across the Atlantic Ocean to England before satellites were "invented" (i.e. floating on high-altitude weather balloons), the first picture of the earth from 1966 (see here, it's laughably fake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9PDTrTjBCU ), and stars disappearing after reaching certain altitudes. That last one is the most perplexing. It got me wondering if maybe the stars sort of only follow where it's dark and not where it's light (as there would presumably be no need during the daytime). What do you think?
Genesis 1:14-18
Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.
God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,
and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.
Wow, Chippy turned off comments? Just a thought-- My comments won't access on Youtube now either-- due to my falling behind on my oh-so-essential-browser updates.... Maybe your browser is out of date. I don't trust youtube anymore. Just a side-note-- let's all diversify our publication hosts just in case one fails us.
DeleteYou: About circumnavigations along the equator: there are some YT videos compiling these and showing each navigator's chosen routes which you should be able to find
Me: Equator not good enough... have to go south, young man. That's where distance diverges from same-latitude-distance-in-the-north.
you: stars disappearing after reaching certain altitudes. That last one is the most perplexing. It got me wondering if maybe the stars sort of only follow where it's dark and not where it's light (as there would presumably be no need during the daytime). What do you think?
Me-- I haven't considered this. I've never observed it and have never read about it.
you: Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;
and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.
Me-- God's quotes should have been more precise. I demand a meeting with God to discuss his negligent lack of detail-- which has ultimately left us in the position of having to look bad.
I'm glad you finally warmed to Chippy as a good source of Antarctic research! With Admiral Bird, Commander Chipmunk and Captain Rick at the helm of the Good Ship Longwayround, we will eventually get to the "bottom" of this Antarctic conundrum!
ReplyDeleteAhoy!
Yeah, I might actually sell the house to do it-- go for broke sort of. But I would need a piano on board the ship... and now that I'm thinking of it-- I might set up a permanent "merry-go-round" cruise ship company that would continually make the go-round since the cruise ship business is still viable it seems. Might as well dream big-- to counter the big lie.
DeleteEntertainment on board would include Around the World by Daft Punk
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=around+the+world&FORM=HDRSC3
I have found a way to use - for the purpose of determining the shape of the world - some very accurate measurements between various locations around the world that have been verified by thousands of ordinary people. I set up experiments using those measurements and used that data in this video, https://youtu.be/4Q9P30ght40, to present an easily repeated physical modelling of how and why those distances change both when a globe model is transformed into a FE model and when a FE model is transformed into a globe. Carefully scrutinizing the results of this test could save you the expense and disappointment of selling your house and finding that the distances you measure will show that the earth is a globe.
ReplyDeletesorry for the delay in responding--- I must have missed the email forward. This is a preliminary response-- not a final one since I don't have time to go through your (long) argumrnet right now. As far as I can tell, you're concern is the extra distance on the southern hemisphere-- which is precisely what I'm on a mission to EITHER prove or disprove. Hey, thanks for responding.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHi Rick, I was just wondering if you have had the time yet to watch the video I linked to. If so, please let me know your assessment of its argument and conclusion. Thanks.
DeleteOk I'm watching it again this morning. I'll respond shortly.
DeleteOk, I went through the entire thing, but skipped forward in the second half... it's fairly laborious and the background saxaphone music had to be silenced-- drove me nuts. To your point--->
DeleteGlobe projection couldn't have been created from flat projection since there would be large areas of earth missing-- that are present on flat earth map-- that have to disappear on globe earth because--- when you take globe earth apart, as in the grapefruit demo, we can see that large areas would have to be filled in, in the south.
My comment on that-- You're right as far as that goes. I kind of looked at that before from the point of view of Antarctica as an island vs. a rim here...
https://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/search/label/some%20interesting%20diagrams
My version of cutting up the island, reversing the pieces and trying to match them up backwards was messy and didn't really work, but I started down that path as you can see. Your demo is more inclusive and better in a way [make it shorter/remove music-- suggested].
MY CONCLUSION right now-- I like your point-- but I can't give up selling my house to plan a 60S perimeter trip based on it... just yet. From my analysis, you ARE correct-- there IS land that MUST go missing when going from flat to globe.. and the way to explain the MISSING land-- in my view-- is that "they" are HIDING it in a clever way. MY voyage around 60S would potentially PROVE that there is EXTRA "area" down there... consistent with flat earth Gleason map. Now-- next point re: Australia.
Australia provides a great opportunity to go across land, a relatively short distance, east to west, latitudinally, to show that there is MORE land there than we calculate from the globe. I ended up tracking BLOGS of travellers across Australia... but of course, my results were inconclusive. Here's one post I did on that idea...
https://rickpotvinflatearth.blogspot.com/search/label/Perth%20to%20Sydney
I can't seem to find the rest of my work on that analysis right this minute-- I might have it on my computer but never polished it up for posting. Maybe I'll do that in coming weeks... and let you know when it's posted. The basic idea is that I think I can prove that the actual distances people are travelling are larger than what USGS, the source of all maps in the world (?!)... say. So the answer to your Grapefruit Demo is: "They" are hiding the extra SKIN that they had when going from the globe to the flat model! They started with a flat grapefruit skin.
On the tin foil demo, the scrunching up in the southern hemisphere is equivalent to the HIDING of the extra land.
Incidentally, I'm updating my plan for a trip around 60 S. by reviewing the type of engine I'll be using-- on either a plane or boat since I've been reviewing how planes and ships are actually propelled these days. It's quite shocking-- but I'll save that for another response.
THANK YOU for your pushing me again to look at your analysis. Are you happy with my answer? ... that "they" are hiding the extra land-- that USGS and cartographers are conspiring to scrunch the tin foil in their globe projections by faking their numbers? Because that would be my considered response. Adam Carter was frivolous about his scrunching however I would say to him that to the degree the foil was srunched is the degree to which 'they' are hiding earth-area.
Q.E.D.
Check.
Bingo.
ha!
Yesssssss.
Voila.
Measuring distances over on water is not easy. The usual methods involve "assuming the globe", sextants, etc. All invalid.
ReplyDelete