credit to Eric Dubay. This is so self explanatory that it boggles the mind how anyone could think otherwise that we are stationary, the stars revolve in the firmament above and the round ball, globe theory is utter and completer nonsense.
“Star trail time-lapse photography is absolute proof that Earth is the stationary center of the universe around which everything in the sky revolves. If the Earth’s supposed motion was what caused the star trail effect, Earth would have to be performing daily 360 loop-de-loops, inverting upside down, coming back around, and NOT rotating on an axis, otherwise the same stars would not remain visible in the sky for well over 12 hours (as they do), and would all move across the sky horizontally! The fact that we can see the same stars all night long revolving perfect circles around Polaris proves it is the stars moving relative to a fixed.”
Aplanetruth.info 
Interesting. By the way, why can’t we see Polaris from the Southern hemisphere? I guess it’s because it’s very close to the horizon? But then, how is it possible to see nice circular star trails in the sky in the Southern hemisphere too (example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-VWJHRN7cw)? Oh, and did you notice how the star trails filmed in the North hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise, while star trails filmed in the South hemisphere rotate clockwise? I’m confused, shouldn’t the stars rotate in the same direction no matter were you are on the flat Earth?
LikeLike
Interesting is right. I’ve just begun to look into the whole Southern stars theory(s). How can stars rotate in different directions on a flat earth model? The cannot, yet could be due to the perspective viewpoints. One thing for sure is that the round spinning ball theory cannot be. If we travel halfway around the Sun, in 6 months our perspective of how we view the stars would be completely different since we are now some 216.5 million miles away looking at the Sun.
look at this thread and see what you can glean.
http://ifers.boards.net/thread/112/star-trails-northern-southern-hemisphere
according to Eric Dubay, the reason we see it appear to circle is due to where we are viewing. Also similar to perspective about us seeing the Sun go down in the West, yet it is really just continuing on its circular path above us just a few thousand miles above.
“Which direction is the camera facing exactly? And what do the star trails to the North look like from there? I would like to see some independent astrophotographers in the Southern hemi-flat film star trails simultaneously North and South (and East and West too, if possible). I would also like to know the inclination of the camera. How high in the sky is the center of this rotation? Does it get higher and higher the further South you travel? And at the fake South Pole, is fake Sigma Octantis exactly overhead as it should be? Do ALL the visible stars in the sky there rotate around this central point as they do around Polaris? All of these must happen to fit the ball model. The burden of proof is completely on the ballers. ”
This also explains why we cannot see all stars in the sky. They are too close and when we go south we see those stars but not northern. If things are closer to Earth we would not see them all. The fact that telescopes never have to move at night except for ‘drift’ is another argument for FE. If we are spinning at 1,000 mph, going around the Sun at 1,000 mpSECOND, then going around the Milky Way at some 500,000mph all the while still accelerating a the speed of light from the Big Bang…and the no adjustment of your telescope is needed…WTF?
Interestingly, the whole 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth was created because down at the Tropic of Cancer, (which just happens to be 23.5 degree) they reported being able to see the North pole star. If on a globe, you should not of been able to see the North star past the Equator, so they just tilted the Earth and made up “processional axis rotation”.
Also, according to current legend, the South pole star is not visible by the naked eye, or even with a store bought telescope, so once again we have to take the scientists, err storytellers word for it.
hope this helps a little
LikeLiked by 1 person
Note that the southern tropic is Capricorn, not Cancer.
But the answer to this conundrum, whereby star trails in the north travel ACW, but those in the south appear to travel CW, lies in the determination of the centre of rotation.
Clearly, in the north, the COR is Polaris.
But in the south, the COR is not defined.
We are told that it is sigma octantis; but this star and its associated Southern Cross, rise and set in the same way as other star groups; ie they are peripheral stars in a great wheel, and do not define a COR.
Thus, we cannot define a directionality without knowing a COR; for example, if the COR is above the line of stars tracking L-R in the sky, then these stars are rotating ACW, which fits the FE hypothesis.
However, if the COR is below the line of stars, then these stars are rotating CW, which we are told is the case; but illogically, for the reasons given.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I lost at least 120 IQ points reading this bullshit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Our view of the stars is not completely different over the course of 6 months of travel around the Sun because the closest star to the sun is 115000 times greater than the distance we travel during that six months. Our perspective does change slightly though, although it’s not visible to the naked eye due to the great distances. Do a little research on stellar parallax. The slight variation is measurable by astronomers and is used to determine the distance of stars from the Earth.
Polaris is NOT the center of rotation of the northern night sky. It is really really close, but if you are using an equatorial mount like I do for my telescope, you use a polar scope to align with Polaris and then offset by a very slight amount based on the markings in the polar scope and the date and time of your alignment. The exact same thing is true in the southern hemisphere, except there is no star visible to amateur telescopes that is as close as Polaris is in the North.
Combine the clockwise/counterclockwise apparent rotation of the stars in the night sky with the fact that at noon in New York you can call a friend in Tokyo and find out it is midnight is proof the earth is a sphere. Of course not many people who are flat earthers have friends they can call on the other side of the world.
Every time a total solar eclipse is predicted and then occurs, this is proof the earth is a spere. No one who calculates the motion of celestial bodies with such precision believes the earth is flat. If the earth was flat, their calculations would not work.
Download a copy of Stellarium and you can see the stellar movements from anywhere on Earth. Study them, and join an astronomy club. In 30 days you will understand the earth is a sphere.
LikeLike
I haven’t thought this through fully, so forgive me if I’m ignorant, but I don’t understand how the position of the stars can vary depending on the time of year. For instance, Alpha Centauri is apparently visible in the Northern Hemisphere in May, but heads South after that. So on the flat earth model wherein the firmament spins around the North Star, how does one allow for the shifting position of some stars throughout the year? The stars are meant to be fixed in the firmament, so could there be another movement of ‘the dome’, ie like a rocking motion, not just a spin around a disc? And if that’s the case, then the cosmos is a place of rock n roll 😉
LikeLike
Thx for your answer and for the link. In the thread you linked I found this link, apparently showing what you see at the Equator: http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html#Picture2
It seems like the stars rotate around 2 fixed points, not one???
LikeLike
If the earth was flat the star trails would be in the same direction anywhere on earth. Obviously in the Southern Hemisphere the trails orbit the South Pole. Point your finger away from your face and rotate it clockwise and and continue rotating clockwise as you point it toward your face…magically you’re now rotating your finger counter clockwise. Before you try to figure things out ask me ..I’m a Mechanical Engineer but you should be able to figure these things out on your own
LikeLike
The polestar (polaris) of course proves that the story is wrong (and humanity is effectively braindead). The star trails do NOT prove that the earth is the center of the universe.
Since the 1970’s the government can send images to our eyes. The stars we “see” are not reality. Here’s the report from 1968 about an experiment where pigeons were sent visual images to their eye – Siegel “A Device for Chronically Controlled Visual Input”: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1338526/pdf/jeabehav00153-0059.pdf
This is also the explanation for seeing a “rainbow” which is just as ridiculous as the polestar (is it possible that no painter before WW II has ever painted a rainbow?).
LikeLike
How retarded are you? They show up countless times in classical art pieces. They have also been documented innumerable times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Landscape with Rainbow” by Reubens in 1636:
Therefore your statement that there had never been a rainbow depicted before WWII is clearly wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Firestarter,
You seem to like to bluster, and leave it at that. It is generally useful to support an “assertion” with details sufficient to begin to let your readers understand what supports the claim(s) you make.
It would be rather comical if you thought you could just make such “unique” claims and stop speaking; after which you believe you were convincing anyone of you ideas.
LikeLike
http://ifers.boards.net/thread/112/star-trails-northern-southern-hemisphere this link cannot be viewed? do you have other link?
LikeLike
Ifers was shut down a few months ago.
LikeLike
False, this long exspore is aimed at a circumpolar star and proves that the earth rotates. Now, point the camera and in a direction that is not toward a circumpolar star and watch your theory fall apart. Take care.
LikeLike
The answer to this longstanding conflict about the directionality of stars south and north of the equator is resolved with reference to the concept of the centre of rotation.
Clearly, there is one in the north; it is called Polaris, and all stars revolve around it ACW.
However, in the south, there is no analogous star; Sigma Octantis cannot be seen until one is anything up to 16′ south, ( contrast this with the visibility of Polaris in the northern region of earth ) and it is known to rise and set alongside its associated constellation, the Southern Cross.
So these stars are simply members of the peripheral ring of stars.
So there is no clearly observable COR in the south.
These southern stars travel L-R through the heavens when looking southwards, ie from E-W.
Now if their COR is above this line of moving stars, then their direction is ACW, which fits the FE model.
However, if the COR is below the line, then their rotation is CW, as the globe earth proponents aver.
But if the COR is below the line, then clearly, the alleged pivotal star cannot be analogous to Polaris, which is visible to everyone at all times in earth’s northern skies.
The balance of evidence therefore fits the FE model.
LikeLike
Christ I can’t believe how many stupid people still exist in the world to this extent. Not understanding the intricacies of physics is one thing, making a decision to continue to be willfully ignorant is another thing. There is absolutely zero visible evidence how the Earth being flat, and abundant evidence, including our own observation of the Earth from space, that verifies that his round. It doesn’t matter, even before we were in space, people much smarter than anyone here figured that out.
If any of you Fe folks have children, I feel really really bad for their lot in life.
LikeLike
So, a whole lot of nothing.
And by starting your ramble with a blasphemy, we see that you are blinded, and so of course are duty-bound to embrace any satanic theory doing the rounds.
LikeLiked by 1 person
you have observed earth from space?? Please tell us all how because presently humans have not be able to go to space even Nasa accidentally admitted they cannot get through the van allen belts which contain our atmosphere so its pretty safe to assume they damn sure are not observing anything from there either. Its alright it takes a bit sometimes for folks to accepts reality I know I went through it myself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nina,
The van allen belts are a product of a globe earth. You claim their existence prevents us from going into space.
I’m curious; in your understanding: what is the nature of the van allen belts in relation to a flat earth, and what is the nature of space in relation to a flat earth? I sense a contradiction.
LikeLike
Sorry – niva!
LikeLike
When a well packaged web of lies is gradually sold to the masses, generation after generation. The truth seems uderly preposterous and it’s speaker , a raving lunatic.
LikeLike
What the hell did I stumble on… this is like the Twilight Zone… and you guys really believe this nonsense?? Well I say salut and good luck.
LikeLike
Well, its finally clear you really can’t even believe your own messaging, or you prefer to be dishonest to your loyal readers.
You don’t think by deceiving them that they recognize ti themselves? Sometimes? Lack of honesty and admitting something is not totally correct is a sign of disrespect towards others.
If this was a big deal for you, you should have jumped at the chance to answer some very specific questions as to HOW the FE system works. Never happened. All other voices are shills or being paid. How ridiculous or preposterous that sounds.
You may wonder why anyone would make these kind of posts. It is a profound sense of reality and a bit of knowledge, as well as comfort in offering explanations or ideas to help others see the cracks in a proposed world view. And not by using obtuse videos or smart-aleck kids talking back to their teachers, ad nauseum, but by using reasoning and research about facts and reality.
Science works, because bad science is always replaced by real science eventually, The process is self-correcting. Not that there aren’t powerful forces that can shape public perception, but you need real money to spin a false narrative over the long haul.
Science has been doing its thing for millennia, and will be working long after we’re gone. You nor I amount to much of anything in all of this; but a few people that might learn something is a worthwhile cause.
I hope you take this to heart, as there is no ill will towards you personally. I’m for better information, and have pushed back on non-FE posts when they had the wrong information. Stopping voices cold is not a viable choice, as do-gooders with a curiosity and support of reality will try to make a difference.
Maybe we’ll touch base again after a break if an interesting post comes along. I’m very likely to continue watching to see how the public relates to the topics here.
Till then.
LikeLike
I’ve studied the RE vs FE for several years. I could care less one way or the other. Neither effects my life style, paycheck or christian values. I only seek the truth. I do know that I don’t trust the government. They’re all about money greed and power. Global warming cost tax payers billions per year. It was all about a way to deceive and scare the public in an effort to milk them of their money. Once it was disproved, they didn’t scrap the idea and give up billions. They changed the name to Climate Change and it now cost more money. NASA has an annual budget of roughly 19 bil.. and for that we get what ? CGI photos ? In my opinion, it’s just another money maker. A scheme of lies and deception. Most wars have been based on lies… Bottom line… They can’t be trusted.. My hang up with FE is the fact that Polaris can’t be seen from the southern most areas of the southern hem. I’ve read all perspective stuff and just not sold. Good quality high powered telescope and it should be seen. I’m certain they have observatories down under… Now RE.. curvature of the earth. Based on the number 25, curvature can be calculated by a .318 factor. In miles, 1 mile has .318 miles curve. I live on the other side of the lake from New Orleans. Roughly 25 miles. N.O. should be 7.95 miles down ( curvature ). On a very very clear day. I can see the city.. And math doesn’t lie. Numbers are numbers. I think we all can at least agree on that.. So on a globe with a roughly 25,000 miles circumference. There is no way in hell I should be able to see the city.. I’m not asking for anyone to believe me. Do the calculations yourself.. So.. the debate continues.. I’m leaning more FE than RE but aren’t totally sold either way.
LikeLike
John Sims, thank you. This is where I’m at, as well. Yours is the first logical and genuine seeking of the truth I have seen in any of these discussions. The R.E. proponents call the flat earthers crazy, and moronic. The F.E. proponents call the round earthers stupid and idiot. Neither side however, seems able to PROVE their theory. Oh sure, each side can sway your viewpoint with supporting evidence, but evidence is not proof! Both sides have good arguments. I’m surprised to be saying that, as I always found flat earth theory to be pretty out there. However, as I force myself to listen more and more, they do make some pretty compelling and valid points. So, you have my attention. I just need a little more, either way. I absolutely do not trust ANYTHING government or NASA. I want to see some amateur star trail pics from each hemisphere. Some pointing north, some south. I want them all taken from known locations for my own verification. I want the pictures raw, and unedited and able to be dissected to prove they’re legit. If I had the money, I would go out and do it myself, but it’s quite an undertaking to travel around (errrr across?) the world taking pics of stars. I would also love ancient calculations by Eratosthenes “proving” round earth to be picked apart and show me why he was wrong. But like John said above, it doesn’t affect my life, one way or the other. I’m still a slave to the government and the Rothschilds system. I just want the truth. There is no reason for the powers that be to lie to everyone, and yet… Here we are.
Sorry for the double post. Site needs an edit button.
LikeLike
What I have wondered about Erastothenes theory/proofs of round earth is how did he communicate with his mate with the other pole in the ground 500 miles away to record the angle of the shadows? Even 50 miles would have been impossible. This needed to coincide at exactly same time otherwise it is just another theory which is not fact!
LikeLike
Semaj,
Who claims there was a “mate” involved, much less any “communication”? Is this part of your “assumptions”?
LikeLike
FactYouAll. WTF is that reply supposed to mean? Are you saying that no one else was involved, is that your assumption? Are you assuming that no communication was needed? If not how did he (Erastothenes) come to the assumption that the earth is round? Whilst we are at it I don’t give a toss if its round or flat, I just want absolute proof either way.
LikeLike
That is a good point about the communication. Also have you seen the illustration that is posted on youtube of carl sagan explaining erastothenes idea. The illustration he uses in the video, the towers used in his illustration, in scale, must be 100 miles high. I would like at least one time all these globe people use one illustration that works that is actually closer in scale to what they are actually saying.
LikeLike
Semaj,
Well, I just reused a few words you gave us. If these have no known meaning, then they are meaningless, and that concludes your comment, apparently.
It seemed easy enough to find explanations on several sites, and they didn’t refer to the version of the Eratosthenes discovery you allude to (with mates and communication issues). The process was based on observation and calculations,
no assumptions that I know of. The result was remarkably accurate.
Don’t take my word for it; anyone can do their own research, if you have an open mind).
LikeLike
d taylor,
Maybe you can tell us the size a “tower” should be to illustrate this topic to scale?
You can also include a reason why this makes a difference in the observation and calculation.
LikeLike
The tower should be in proportion ( or at least be really,really close) to what ever size (ball, globe, sphere) a person is using in an illustration explaining their idea/proposal.
That is the problem i see with a lot of these statements about earth the sun, moon and all of sciences proposed statements. They are just numbers, equations calculations on paper they simply can not be worked out when ask to produce a model that can show what they are saying can actually happen in real life.
That is why i believe they use these huge numbers, that intimidates most people and in turn people just accept their statements without a challenge the created math is to difficult for the average person to actually see does that really add up to something that can actually work.
Because, all science is doing is, building a house on paper that can never actually be built but it just looks impressive on paper.
Just like i have ask a person to reproduce what they say the moon is doing 230,000 miles away. When we see the moon that is suppose to be in outer space, with the unlit side of the moon being black. So they say our atmosphere is changing the unlit black side of the moon to the blue (the same blue as the supposed atmosphere above the earth). When ask to make a model showing this effect happening, i get that, that is absurd to be able to make a model and make that happen in scale.
LikeLike
d taylor,
In a general sense, your ideas may be important and might make a difference. In general, it may also vary as to what is effective to visualize an idea.
However, in this specific example, would each stick with a height of 1 mm have a reasonable scale on the surface Sagan holds in his hands? Is that size relative to the inter-city distances in the story as told? Could such a stick actually illustrate the story in any appreciable way?
Would a stick 1 inch tall visualize the story better, yet not compromise the fundamental explanation on the nature of shadows discussed?
For me, the math is the story, and the illustration provides visual insight into the story being presented, to enhance understanding of ideas being presented.
LikeLike
Math can be manipulated to make ideas look possible. That is what i believe happens many times in these science theories. Again because they do not worry about what they are saying, (that the math actually has to work in real life), for the scientist the math only has to work on paper.
Example for elon musk he knew his rocket was not going out in to space (because space does not exist) so like a magic trick, get people focused on the landing of the two rocket boosters and then turn around and magically his car is out in space. Going to mars and no one has to actually see the car leaving earth and going through the atmosphere etc.. they just accept when elon shows video of the car in space. That it did happen, because he was able to land rocket boosters, they do not ask for actual footage of the rocket going from take off to leaving the earth atmosphere and into space.
Again the average person who is going about their every day life will just accept what is said.
Three men go to stay at a motel, and the man at the desk charges them $30.00 for a room. They split the cost ten dollars each. Later the manager tells the desk man that he overcharged the men, that the actual cost should have been $25.00. The manager gives the bellboy $5.00 and tells him to give it to the men.
The bellboy, however, decides to cheat the men and pockets $2.00, giving each of the men only one dollar.
Now each man has paid $9.00 to stay in the room and 3 x $9.00 = $27.00. The bellboy has pocketed $2.00. $27.00 + $2.00 = $29.00 – so where is the missing $1.00?
LikeLike
d taylor,
Is it possible to go back to your comment on the scale of the Sagan props used for illustration?
You said “The tower should be in proportion”, and my basic questions were an attempt to confirm this idea, as to what size towers could be in scale yet still demonstrate the ideas being presented.
Can you help us understand in more detail what you were saying?
LikeLike
Well take the sciences statement for the curvature ratio ( i do not know what is stated as, the earths ratio for curvature by the scientific scientist). take that ratio first scale it down to say 10 ft then maybe 1/16 of an inch for the tower. again i can not give exact numbers because i do not have actual measurements for this.
I would like if a person is going to illustrate a point from/for science that what they are saying is happening be better illustrated. Again that is my personal requirement, if they expect for me to believe their examples.
LikeLike
d taylor,
That’s an interesting approach, although the video doesn’t refer to these kind of measurements, and it is not known if Eratosthenes knew of them (unlikely if he was looking to calculate the circumference; which relates as factor for curvature).
I originally thought maybe you were talking about the scale of the known distance between the towers, noted as 800 km. How would you scale a tower based on that measurement? Can a visualization be shown with a scale tower?
LikeLike
I would think that 500 miles can be scaled down, you just may not be able to illustrate it on a poster board. A larger illustration would have to be used. but again that is why they (like this sagan person) can do it this way is because most people do not question them or pay no attention to the details and scale.
LikeLike
d taylor,
I think some math can help with the scale question discussed. Here is a sample calculation:
let’s use a real stick 1m in height, and a board 8m across (to simplify the math).
Stick to stick distance (from video) = 800km = 80000m
the ratio of the stick’s separation distance to this board would be 8/80000 = .0001 – This is the scale for this example.
For a real 1m stick adjusted to the scale of the model; that would be a model stick of 1 * .0001 in meters. .0001 meters = .001 cm = .01mm = .00004 in
So a scale model such as the above would have towers (sticks) 4/10,000 of an inch in height.
All in all, this really wouldn’t be much of an illustration of anything, as the tower/stick would be invisible.
Actually, math (done right) can be quite useful. It can even be checked by anyone for accuracy, and the truth is independent of any one person.
LikeLike
Eratosthenes has been debunked…
LikeLike
Justsaying, We don’t see light: we see color, or a resonant frequency in the visual spectrum. A telescope magnifies: makes things look bigger; it doesn’t amplify the magnitude of frequencies producing color. With distance, the magnitude of frequencies producing color diminish. That may be why Polaris and the Southern Cross are not visible from long distances.
To see Polaris we face north and stars appear to rotate CCW. To see the Southern Cross we do an about face and stars appear to rotate CW. If we observed the Southern Cross while still facing north, stars would continue to rotate CCW.
LikeLike
jtb2017,
You forgot to address the reason for any rotation, much less different rotations. Also – if one looks up at the equator, both CC and CCW patterns are seen. Any reason why this is happening???
LikeLike
Don’t know for sure yet why CW & CCW star trails at the equator. If you twist a rope CW at one end it rotates CCW at the other end. p-brane has a theory of cerpuscular rotation of starlight that may be the answer. I still don’t know.
LikeLike
We know they are in motion because we can watch them move from in their pattern of rotation from anywhere on earth. It is constant and predictable. The reason they are in motion is because that is how they were originally set up. Science admits it, but cannot explain it. They always go east to west over the circle of the earth. CW or CCW is a matter of perspective.
LikeLike
poolman – the topic was “the reason for any rotation”.
Is there any explanation for how the rotation works?
LikeLike
The reason for any rotation, or perceived movement at all, is because they were intended to be signs to mark the seasons and were ‘set’ in motion. The book of Enoch delves into the details.
As for an explanation to ‘how’ the rotation works, we really don’t have a ‘scientific’ explanation. Only science theories. But we KNOW from viewing with our own eyes that there IS rotation AND it is consistent. And predictable. And that it does confirm scripture.
Is there an explanation for how ANY rotation ‘works’ or why any movement at all can be perceived or observed in our realm of existence without starting from a point of assumption? Believers know the following truth…
‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ Acts 17:28
Sometimes it is just as simple as that.
Definition of Occam’s razor. : a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities.
LikeLike
poolman – so you offer: “explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities”.
OK; however, from what you’ve said, there is NO explanation to the observed rotations (Is there an explanation for how ANY rotation ‘works’). I don’t see how occam’s razor even applies in that case.
There is also the claim offered that “The reason they are in motion is because that is how they were originally set up” – basically they exist because they exist; no one knows how it all happens.
From these types of belief structures, can’t anything can be explained (or not, as the case would be), because no further details need be provided?
I think Occam might call this form of pseudo-rationalization a hoax.
LikeLike
That ‘riddle’ d taylor presented to us can only be unravelled if we approach it from another angle (in my opinion at least!). The three men have paid $30, they have been refunded $5 (of which the bellboy pockets $2, so $25 + $3 = $28! There isn’t a missing $1!
It took me a while to get my head around it!
Certainly, he is right “Math can be manipulated to make ideas look possible”! These modern day scientists and mathematicians are no different to the magicians of old, all their ‘facts’ are built on a false premise.
The recently deceased ‘great’ scientist/mathematician Stephen Hawking didn’t understand his own maths, much less anyone else! After all, his own Wikipedia page describes him as a “Theoretical Physicist”! A theory is unproven, until it can be proven:Theatrical physicist?
LikeLike