The following is so bizarre that I had a very hard time getting familiar with it but it raises some good points.
EARTH IS NOT ONLY FLAT-- IT'S A CRATER IN GREATER EARTH.
This new kid on the block as of August 2020 and now into Sept. 2020-- with a significant new rabbit hole to explore-- is "GodGevLamSte". He's pulling together a lot of various features of what flat-earthers have been talking about. In the past, I've tried to confine my own work to confirmation of a flat or spherical Earth based on the circumference around 60S vs. 60N. "GGLS" 's approach however is too interesting for me to ignore. He's basically saying that the Moon is a reflection of a LARGER or GREATER Earth-Plane in which our own EARTH is seen as a CRATER reflected on the moon. The GREATER Earth-plane is clearly seen in the Moon-mirror... and Earth is clearly seen as Sulpicius-Gallum-M, a crater. The entrance to the GREATER-EARTH-PLANE occurs south of South America into Antarctica and might look something like this...
https://www.livescience.com/59720-curious-stories-about-eclipses.html
NASA'S MISSIONS HAVE FLOWN OVER GREATER EARTH
NASA is not flying "into space" but rather over the Greater Earth Plane. Their photos of "the moon" are, in fact, photos of the surface of the "land beyond the South Pole" described by Admiral Byrd in the 1950's. In the following photo, you can clearly see the Earth Crater in the Plane of Greater Earth.
http://fisherka.csolutionshosting.net/astronote/plan/dhccat/img/Sulpicius%20GallusDMR.jpg
MOON MAP ON WIKIPEDIA IS GREATER EARTH MAP
I lost interest in moon maps a long time ago because, after all, there's only so much to be seen on a "lifeless planet". However, given GGLS's new perspective, the moon-map becomes the Greater-Earth-Plane-Map. In the following Wiki Moon map, you can see our Earth-Crater, Selpicius-Galum on the right and little lower than the middle.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/PytheasCraterLOC.jpg/900px-PytheasCraterLOC.jpg
Here's another map of Selcicius Gallus / Our Earth
http://www.refractorland.org/HMA/Images/23.gif
Tuesday, September 1, 2020
Crater Earth Map changes everything.
The above is a closeup of CRATER EARTH-- with the true shape of NORTH AMERICA... and surrounding ice wall. ASIA CHINA RUSSIA INDIA are above this depiction of NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA... Admittedly there are weird shapes here... like on the right, you have a very weird rendition of Antarctica... On a typical flat earth model, Antarctica surrounds the other continents... but here, we see Antarctica on the right... so what's on the other side? I have not drilled down on this model far enough to answer this but it's a model with lots of legs. Soon I'll put posts to the creator of the model on this blog. Then I'll set up a NEW EXPEDITION ... base on this model. Thanks for the comments below.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Robot Sailboat "SailDrone" proves Earth is a beach ball, not a pancake or hyperD shape?
1. Robot Sailboat "SailDrone" proves Earth is a beach ball, not a pancake or hyperD shape?
SailDrone says they sailed their robot 22000 Kilometers = 13670 miles in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica-- without mentioning latitude-- but it looks pretty close to 60S. I've previously determined that an Antarctic circumnav would be 60,000 miles on flat earth but 15,000 miles on a sphere. Saildrone claims they sailed 13,670 miles-- in 6 to 7 months around Antarctica in the Southern Ocean (the ocean area south of 60 deg south). Thus, they claim, indirectly, to have proven that Earth is spherical (15,000 mi)-- without having made reference to that fact-- and so far. Apparently it's not even an issue for them. Ha ha. I'll email them on this point later. I don't believe they can just walk around the planet these days, claiming it's a beach ball-- without at least some reference to proving it to be "not flat". There are lots of people involved in this so I'll start creating a mailing list and hit them up on this point.
NUMERACY is nobody's strong point (except in China)
I have not seen anyone else use SailDrone's data in the context of disproving flat earth. (yet) I'm the first that I know of. (That's why I'm famous (not)). If you're INNUMERATE, you won't get the first paragraph. Don't worry-- you're in good company. I myself have to read my own paragraph a few times to understand it. Let's review the numbers for the illiterate number people-- s-l-o-w.... 60,000 is the distance around Antarctica on a flat earth. 15,000 miles is the distance around Antarctica on a spherical Earth-- shaped like a big friggin' Beach Ball that flies through Outer Space. So if someone SAYS they sailed around Antarctica and the distance is closer to 15 than 60 thousand miles, they you know they're claiming, indirectly, that Earth is Beach Ball... consistent with Earth being a Beach-- and we're all on vacation. Pina Colada waiter!
2. Rick Potvin chuckles.
After reviewing this SailDrone case over that past hour-- but having discovered it a few months ago-- it amuses me that SailDrone, a robot, becomes the latest claimant to have proven the Earth is a (beach)ball. I was planning to move my virtual proof to the air using jet turbine engines for the trip-- from my preferred method of a cruise ship-- and this latest claim sort of blindsided me. See this Jet Turbine Engine?
It took me a few months to recoup, regroup and steady myself-- mentally-- on this point of SailDrone's claime-- and to gain sufficiency to make a statement on it. Now, I'll try.
By the way, cruise ships likely use jet turbine engines too-- secretly. And so do cargo ships. And jet turbine engines use perpetual energy-- that's why Chinese imports brought across the ocean are so cheap... transportation adds nothing to the slave labour costs. That's another (far-out) topic. But jet turbines fly over my house every day and there isn't a day goes by that I don't admire how the wings actually do NOT carry tons of liquid fuel-- yet people think they do. What a hoax that is. See more when you search on "jet fuel hoax".
Do you think those wings have tons of liquid fuel in them? Ha ha. No, you idiot. They don't. What a maroon. (For snowflakes, I'm intentionally insulting the reader in a friendly way).
3. Tom Rainbow and Doug Platt.
I'll try to use the writing style of Tom Rainbow introduced to me by Doug Platt-- in Analog magazine in 1985. Is Jerry Searcy dead? Frozen? Saul Kent?
4. SAILDRONE with and without a sail...??? Some of the photos and depictions of this robot drone are conflicting. The first photo below shows a kind of box without a sail. Did someone forget or neglect to Photoshop the sail in? The second and third depictions show different solar panel configurations. The last photo shows a horozontal sail attached to another piece but it's missing the bar on the other side. Is this even a device that exists in reality?
5. STRUCTURE of the drone is questionable.
I have not studied the structure of this marine drone enough to understand how it works. On first appearance it reminds me of the comedian Steve Martin's 1970's act-- seen on the right-- where he pretended that his head had an arrow piercing it. It seemed funny to me at the time-- but not so much now with today's world. Current comedy is the crazy "sail" of the Saildrone. What the hell is it supposed to do, set up like that? It seems as moronic or comedic as Steve Martin was to me at the time. This thing is supposed to have survived the Southern Ocean circumnavigation on its own-- as a robot? It's hard to believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof-- it's been said. Where's the proof?
5.1
Someone posted interesting sail-structure questions in a forum I ran across.... but these queries have not been answered by anyone from SailDrone (of course).
freedomev • 5 months ago
Interesting though one sees they have little understanding of air foils which are far superior and more survivable done right. Fact is they could just use a smaller foil, smaller than the sq sail, not the huge one shown for those conditions. Being able to do things like closer to shore where a sq sail version could get caught on a lee shore, driven into the rocks, ice, a foil one would easily sail to 30 degree of the wind, taking out if needed. Another is solar power is pitiful there when they have sail power that with a propeller could generate far more power 24-7 plus give emergency maneuvering out of say an icebreg's way. Or a wind generator. In those speeds a 12' dia one would make 10x the solar panels output or more. From my experience 50' waves in such conditions really don't matter to such a small boat as mostly underwater will just gently go with, though them.. I'll never forget saving a lady friend/neighbor anchored on a boat in hurricane Gloria with 80mph winds getting there by boat wasn't happening so I put on my snorkel gear and jumped into the water. It was like another world you couldn't even tell there was a hurricane above. I expect it is the same for mostly underwater drones like this one.
6. The INVENTOR Richard Jenkins- ENTREPENEUR-- really?
Richard Jenkins-- SailDrone developer-- has a checkered history to say the least. It's hard to believe when you read it. I won't go into it here. It just seems unlikely. He's a Horatio Alger story-- about a guy who pulls himself up by his own bootstraps and eventually attracts venture capital from the wife of the owner of Google and a guy from Hong Kong who is among the world's wealthiest guys. Now he's selling his SailDrones to various entities trying to moniter carbon dioxide-- which climate fanatics claim is warming our "plane-t"- but which the rest of us were taught that plants use to breathe. (Why don't they plant more trees to use up the CO2? What a concept.) The only interest I have in SailDrone is its claim that the distance around Antarctica is 15,000 miles at 60S... so I'll keep my target in sight on that point.
7. Here's the SailDrone in Antarctica waters. (but who took this picture?)
Who took this snapshot? How is this snapshot possible other than by fakery? The drone is supposed to be autonomous and on it's own yet here we have a vantage point where we see the drone from "shore". This lends itself to the idea that the entire program is fake. And that therefore, the claim that they've measured the circumference of Antarctica as 15,000 is phony baloney.
SailDrone says they sailed their robot 22000 Kilometers = 13670 miles in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica-- without mentioning latitude-- but it looks pretty close to 60S. I've previously determined that an Antarctic circumnav would be 60,000 miles on flat earth but 15,000 miles on a sphere. Saildrone claims they sailed 13,670 miles-- in 6 to 7 months around Antarctica in the Southern Ocean (the ocean area south of 60 deg south). Thus, they claim, indirectly, to have proven that Earth is spherical (15,000 mi)-- without having made reference to that fact-- and so far. Apparently it's not even an issue for them. Ha ha. I'll email them on this point later. I don't believe they can just walk around the planet these days, claiming it's a beach ball-- without at least some reference to proving it to be "not flat". There are lots of people involved in this so I'll start creating a mailing list and hit them up on this point.
NUMERACY is nobody's strong point (except in China)
I have not seen anyone else use SailDrone's data in the context of disproving flat earth. (yet) I'm the first that I know of. (That's why I'm famous (not)). If you're INNUMERATE, you won't get the first paragraph. Don't worry-- you're in good company. I myself have to read my own paragraph a few times to understand it. Let's review the numbers for the illiterate number people-- s-l-o-w.... 60,000 is the distance around Antarctica on a flat earth. 15,000 miles is the distance around Antarctica on a spherical Earth-- shaped like a big friggin' Beach Ball that flies through Outer Space. So if someone SAYS they sailed around Antarctica and the distance is closer to 15 than 60 thousand miles, they you know they're claiming, indirectly, that Earth is Beach Ball... consistent with Earth being a Beach-- and we're all on vacation. Pina Colada waiter!
2. Rick Potvin chuckles.
After reviewing this SailDrone case over that past hour-- but having discovered it a few months ago-- it amuses me that SailDrone, a robot, becomes the latest claimant to have proven the Earth is a (beach)ball. I was planning to move my virtual proof to the air using jet turbine engines for the trip-- from my preferred method of a cruise ship-- and this latest claim sort of blindsided me. See this Jet Turbine Engine?
It took me a few months to recoup, regroup and steady myself-- mentally-- on this point of SailDrone's claime-- and to gain sufficiency to make a statement on it. Now, I'll try.
By the way, cruise ships likely use jet turbine engines too-- secretly. And so do cargo ships. And jet turbine engines use perpetual energy-- that's why Chinese imports brought across the ocean are so cheap... transportation adds nothing to the slave labour costs. That's another (far-out) topic. But jet turbines fly over my house every day and there isn't a day goes by that I don't admire how the wings actually do NOT carry tons of liquid fuel-- yet people think they do. What a hoax that is. See more when you search on "jet fuel hoax".
3. Tom Rainbow and Doug Platt.
I'll try to use the writing style of Tom Rainbow introduced to me by Doug Platt-- in Analog magazine in 1985. Is Jerry Searcy dead? Frozen? Saul Kent?
4. SAILDRONE with and without a sail...??? Some of the photos and depictions of this robot drone are conflicting. The first photo below shows a kind of box without a sail. Did someone forget or neglect to Photoshop the sail in? The second and third depictions show different solar panel configurations. The last photo shows a horozontal sail attached to another piece but it's missing the bar on the other side. Is this even a device that exists in reality?
5. STRUCTURE of the drone is questionable.
I have not studied the structure of this marine drone enough to understand how it works. On first appearance it reminds me of the comedian Steve Martin's 1970's act-- seen on the right-- where he pretended that his head had an arrow piercing it. It seemed funny to me at the time-- but not so much now with today's world. Current comedy is the crazy "sail" of the Saildrone. What the hell is it supposed to do, set up like that? It seems as moronic or comedic as Steve Martin was to me at the time. This thing is supposed to have survived the Southern Ocean circumnavigation on its own-- as a robot? It's hard to believe. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof-- it's been said. Where's the proof?5.1
Someone posted interesting sail-structure questions in a forum I ran across.... but these queries have not been answered by anyone from SailDrone (of course).
freedomev • 5 months ago
Interesting though one sees they have little understanding of air foils which are far superior and more survivable done right. Fact is they could just use a smaller foil, smaller than the sq sail, not the huge one shown for those conditions. Being able to do things like closer to shore where a sq sail version could get caught on a lee shore, driven into the rocks, ice, a foil one would easily sail to 30 degree of the wind, taking out if needed. Another is solar power is pitiful there when they have sail power that with a propeller could generate far more power 24-7 plus give emergency maneuvering out of say an icebreg's way. Or a wind generator. In those speeds a 12' dia one would make 10x the solar panels output or more. From my experience 50' waves in such conditions really don't matter to such a small boat as mostly underwater will just gently go with, though them.. I'll never forget saving a lady friend/neighbor anchored on a boat in hurricane Gloria with 80mph winds getting there by boat wasn't happening so I put on my snorkel gear and jumped into the water. It was like another world you couldn't even tell there was a hurricane above. I expect it is the same for mostly underwater drones like this one.
6. The INVENTOR Richard Jenkins- ENTREPENEUR-- really?
7. Here's the SailDrone in Antarctica waters. (but who took this picture?)
Who took this snapshot? How is this snapshot possible other than by fakery? The drone is supposed to be autonomous and on it's own yet here we have a vantage point where we see the drone from "shore". This lends itself to the idea that the entire program is fake. And that therefore, the claim that they've measured the circumference of Antarctica as 15,000 is phony baloney.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)