“Shipping routes red black” by B.S. Halpern (T. Hengl; D. Groll) / Wikimedia Commons. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shipping_routes_red_black.png#/media/File:Shipping_routes_red_black.png
Look at the map and study the Southern portion. Does it make sense to anyone why commercial ocean vessels travel from Brazil to South Africa, yet go up Indonesia THEN down to Australia.
Why does Argentina have to ship/receive goods up to Brazil and then across. Why do tankers and commercial ships not go direct?
And all undersea cables which carry 95% of all communications go along the same as shipping routes. hmm
International Submarine Cable Routes —-Courtesy: Global Marine Systems Ltd
See related:
Satellites Don’t Exist. Part I
Satellites Don’t Exist Part II
Aplanetruth.info 
As someone that actually works on merchant vessels, there are two main reasons that come to mind…
1) The conditions in the South Pacific can be very inhospitable and unpredictable. At certain times of the year it is almost inhabitable for ships below a certain size. As a general rule, the further south, the rougher and more dangerous it can be. This is a fact. It has been well known and well recorded for centuries, since the old Clippers used to run around Cape Horn. As such, shipping companies do their best to avoid these waters, in the interest of preserving cargo and lives. This is the primary reason for the Suez and Panama Canals, both of which allow ships to move between oceans without straying too far South.
2) Because the Earth IS round, the shortest route at sea is not to sail a straight line from A to B, but to sail a Great Circle Route. For the reasons stated above, navigators in the Southern Hemisphere will typically choose to sail a Great Circle that takes them North, rather than South.
Also, there are so few shipping routes between South Africa and Australia, because ships usually run from a producing country to a consuming country. That’s why the darkest lines all run from Asia to Europe or the USA. Or from South American to Europe.
As for the cables, the reason that the red lines look curved can be found in my second point. Because Earth is round, the shortest distance is not necessarily a straight line, but a Great Circle Route. If you’re unsure what a Great Circle is, the most famous example would be the Equator. It is any circle that bisects the centre of the Earth.
The reason none of the lines run across the Southern Pacific is twofold.
1) As I explained already, the South Pacific is a very difficult environment to operate in. Cable laying operations are some of most difficult and dangerous tasks for a ship and require highly specialised equipment. Why make it any harder by trying to do it in towering waves and howling winds?
2) Why would there be any major cables in the South Pacific, there are no major land masses?
I appreciate your commitment to propagating this bizarre conspiracy, but you really ought to find some more substantial evidence before posting it all over the internet.
LikeLike
baloney,
they put a man on the moon in 1969...oops, what does rough seas have to do with laying submarine cables? rough seas??? really? we are talking the entire Southern Oceans.LikeLike
Those cables are laid by specialist deep sea ships, which operate on the surface of the ocean. Look it up. Global Marine Systems, the organisation that you sourced your picture from, operate a number of cable laying ships. I know people that work on them. They don’t use submarines. The cables themselves are referred to as submarine cables, because they are below the water, i.e.: submarine. The ships that lay them float on top.
Well the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans are just as notorious among seafarers, for the same reasons. Google ‘roaring forties’ or ‘furious fifties’ or ‘Cape Horn storm’ watch real live video footage of 300+ metre tankers flexing and bending and twisting almost to breaking point as they get tossed about by waves. You can tell me that you don’t believe in the moon landings or 9/11, but you can not honestly tell me that you don’t believe in the power of the sea.
I’ve read a decent chunk of your website at this point and I’m yet to encounter anything that suggests you’ve put any modicum of rational, critical thought into anything you have published here. If you can offer me one piece of evidence that has any substance at all (by which I mean that a well read five year old couldn’t completely discredit it) then I will eat my hat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
George, I’m wondering what you make of the airline traffic and the apparent loss of GPS in the southern regions? And also, I’m curious about what you make of the lack of stars in the lunar landings as well as the astronauts stating they didn’t notice the stars when they were on the moon? I’m just researching this and have a lot of questions. Thanks!
LikeLike
I’m not George, and all the answers to your questions are easily google-able. But here goes anyway 🙂
Airline traffic: Qantas flight 27 flies four days a week, Sydney, Australia to Santiago, Chile. The flight takes 12.5 hours.
See https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=SYD;t=SCL;mc=m;q=sydney+to+santiago
Therefore the Gleason flat Earth map cannot possibly be a true representation of Earth. The Gleason map is merely a projection that accurately shows distances from any point to the North Pole. It is not accurate in representing the distance from Sydney to Santiago.
GPS loss in southern regions: show us a link that says this. The only reports I have seen are a talking about faulty receivers.
Lack of stars: this is so easy and, again, very easily googled. Take your camera. Go outside at night. Take a picture of something that is lit up and have sky in the background. Look at the picture. See any stars? When you take a picture of something that is lit up, the stars are too faint to be recorded. Even if you point your camera at only the sky, only the brightest objects like the moon or venus will actually appear in the picture. I don’t know why people insist that this isn’t so. Just go outside and try it for yourself.
Astronauts not seeing stars: need link. The only reference I can find is an astronaut talking about “the vast black emptiness of space,” and that is not the same as saying “I did not see stars.”
As you can see, I took your questions seriously and spent some time answering them to the best of my ability. If you are serious about talking about whether or not the Earth is truly flat, please take my response seriously and please provide a response.
LikeLike
Therefore the Gleason flat Earth map cannot possibly be a true representation of Earth. The Gleason map is merely a projection that accurately shows distances from any point to the North Pole. It is not accurate in representing the distance from Sydney to Santiago.
1) Thank you for doing your own research and not parrotting and pasting…
I’ll stay with the Gleason maps projection over the admittedly, blatantly false world map commonly azimuthal equidistant distorted map used by all today.
GPS loss in southern regions: show us a link that says this. The only reports I have seen are a talking about faulty receivers.
2) There is NO GPS. It is simple cell phone tower and Over the Horizon radar triangulation. So that part of the question needs reframing. 95% of all communications are by cable across the oceans.
Lack of stars: this is so easy and, again, very easily googled. Take your camera. Go outside at night. Take a picture of something that is lit up and have sky in the background. Look at the picture. See any stars? When you take a picture of something that is lit up, the stars are too faint to be recorded. Even if you point your camera at only the sky, only the brightest objects like the moon or venus will actually appear in the picture. I don’t know why people insist that this isn’t so. Just go outside and try it for yourself.
Astronauts not seeing stars: need link. The only reference I can find is an astronaut talking about “the vast black emptiness of space,” and that is not the same as saying “I did not see stars.”
3) Take your camera and zoom and you will get stars your camera. WE see stars THROUGH the occulted side of the Moon. We see stars when we are in a an airplane up high. We see stars during No moon away from all light pollution, yet in the vacuum of space, where no atomsphere exists astro-nots cannot see stars, but wait…NASA says the astro-nots navigated by stars, Buzz Aldrin to Edgar Mitchell to others spoke to seeing “billions and billions of stars..yet none ever, well sometimes, show up on “official” NASA images. hmmm.
The reason why they cannot show stars is that any amateur astronomer would immediately be able to show that the comsic stars where not where they should be, over the tens of thousands of alleged space pictures, and NASA hoax would be exposed.
Stars Through a Translucent Moon You Can See For Yourself
As you can see, I took your questions seriously and spent some time answering them to the best of my ability. If you are serious about talking about whether or not the Earth is truly flat, please take my response seriously and please provide a response.
Thanx for the questions. I/WE in the FE DO NOT come close to having all the answers, but there is so much evidence that the heliocentric model is a complete falsehood, that the default cosmology would align with most ancient cosmology belief of 5,000 years.
Keep searching, thinking and questioning.
LikeLike
“I’ll stay with the Gleason maps projection…”
Why? I just demonstrated that it can’t possibly be an accurate representation of Earth. If you can fly from Sydney to Santiago in 12.5 hours, then the Gleason map is simply wrong. I appreciate that you replied to my message seemingly in earnest, but how can you say you will “stay with the Gleason maps” when it’s clearly wrong. What is your counter-claim that makes it reasonable to “stay with” an incorrect map?
“There is NO GPS”
The question asked by truthfarmer, to which I was responding, implied that there is such a thing as GPS. I have used GPS units in remote areas where there is no cell tower coverage and they worked perfectly well. How do you account for GPS working in places where there is no cell coverage and no military OTH radar?
“Take your camera and zoom and you will get stars your camera.”
Yes indeed. But that’s not what I said. I said take a picture of a lit up object with sky in the background. If you do that, you won’t see stars in the pictures, and that’s why there’s no stars in the space photos that were referenced.
“We see stars… we see stars… we see stars…”
You’re talking about seeing stars with your eyes. Again, that’s not what truthfarmer and I were talking about. We were talking about photographs.
“spoke to seeing “billions and billions of stars””
So they did see stars, or at least claim to. The claim that “astronauts did not see stars” is incorrect, then.
“yet none ever, well sometimes, show up on “official” NASA images.”
Again, that’s because of how cameras work. If you take a picture of a lit object with night sky in the background, you won’t get stars in the picture. Sorry if I am repeating myself, but this is very simple and straightforward.
Please don’t take me wrong. I am fully willing to believe that NASA is a bunch of nazi liars, that the moon landing may have been faked, that there is poison in vaccines. However, on evaluation of the arguments and the evidence, the idea that the Earth is flat is wrong. I have not seen a single bit of evidence on this site or any other that is not easily refuted – without any help from NASA.
My mind remains open, however. Again, I have taken what you have said seriously and made a serious effort to respond. I ask that you, or truthfarmer, or anyone else also take the discussion seriously and reply with honest arguments. Be aware, however, that we cannot both be right. And if you have an honest debate in a situation where both sides can’t be right, then someone is wrong, and the wrong parties ought to admit the same. There is no loss of dignity in doing so.
I await a reasoned response.
LikeLike
jwlpeace? truthfarmer? anyone? I am asking honest questions here and providing facts to back my position up.
Qantas flight 27 proves the Gleason map is not an accurate representation of Earth. What is the FE community’s fact-based response to that? Have any of you bothered to take pics of a lit object with night sky in the background to see if the stars show up? Why does GPS work in remote areas where there are no cell towers?
I’ve taken the time to read and evaluate what is being presented here. I’ve provided facts and reason to explain it’s not correct. I have acted without malice, in the pursuit of truth.
If it is truth that we are all seeking here, where is the response? Shall the readers of this thread assume you are admitting, through your silence, that you are wrong?
LikeLike
jwlpeace? truthfarmer? anyone? I am asking honest questions here and providing facts to back my position up.
Facts? have you flown on Flight 27, or just seen it listed on a screen on your computer? We have proven, with people actually trying to board these alleged flights and they DO NOT FLY. Also, check out my work on cables and communication lines all running E/West with no South/North. hmmm.
Qantas flight 27 proves the Gleason map is not an accurate representation of Earth. What is the FE community’s fact-based response to that? Have any of you bothered to take pics of a lit object with night sky in the background to see if the stars show up? Why does GPS work in remote areas where there are no cell towers?
Yes, I’ve taken pictures of stars with Zoom and got recorded. Yes, I’ve taken movies of the Moon in FRONT OF CLOUDS, WTF?. GPS is just ground based radar and cell towers, as I said to you previously. Read more in my blog.
I’ve taken the time to read and evaluate what is being presented here. I’ve provided facts and reason to explain it’s not correct. I have acted without malice, in the pursuit of truth.
If you’re in pursuit of truth, provided proof, not just statement of “fact”. I have over 160 posts with PROOF, EVIDENCE, RESEARCH, EXPERIMENTS and COMMON SENSE. Where is your “proof” or work.?
If it is truth that we are all seeking here, where is the response? Shall the readers of this thread assume you are admitting, through your silence, that you are wrong?
Do your own homework, the evidence is there for those with eyes to see, ears to hear and independent thought that does not just parrot what NASA and all have programmed you to think.
LikeLike
Sir, you scream in all caps demanding evidence, but then you turn right around and say “We have proven, with people actually trying to board these alleged flights and they DO NOT FLY.”
You have proven this? Where is the proof? This is just a statement on your part. You go on to say “If you’re in pursuit of truth, provided proof, not just statement of “fact”.” Do you not see the contradiction here?
So, please,provide me a link that leads me to this “proof” you speak of. I provided a link to backup my assertion, where is yours?
Since you clearly could not refute what I have been saying about Qantas flight 27, you added in the bit about cable lines. Running communication lines under the northern ice would very difficult, and there would be no purpose for lines to go over the land mass of antarctica. Just like with the shipping lanes, the lines goes where the demand is. This is very simple.
“Yes, I’ve taken pictures of stars with Zoom and got recorded.”
So what? That’s not the experiment I suggested. Go back and look. I said it over and over and over again. Take a picture of a lit object with night sky in the background. The resulting photo won’t show stars. Why do you keep going back to this ‘zoom’ thing? Why is it so hard for you to admit that you are wrong, when this point is very, very easily demonstrated with your own camera?
“GPS is just ground based radar and cell towers, as I said to you previously. Read more in my blog.”
That is your response? You made a statement, and I refuted it, and then you simply made the statement again. That’s not a debate. “Read more in my blog” is not answer.Where in your blog is there proof, evidence, research, experiments, etc that GPS is really cell towers? It isn’t true just because you say it.
“the evidence is there for those with eyes to see, ears to hear and independent thought that does not just parrot what NASA and all have programmed you to think.”
Excuse me, but did you miss the part where I said I don’t trust NASA? I also don’t think vaccines are good for you. I also think 9/11 was an inside job. I also think the holocaust was exaggerated. I also think the Catholic Church (in particular the Jesuits) is pure evil.
But when it comes to flat Earth, I’m sorry, but you have not made your case using “PROOF, EVIDENCE, RESEARCH, EXPERIMENTS and COMMON SENSE” as you scream at others. Each and every point you make has been refuted.
I’ll make this simple. Prove to me that Qantas flight 27 “DOES NOT FLY” as you scream. Don’t tell me to read your blog. Don’t tell me to do my own research – I already have. Show me how my research is wrong. You can’t, because you’re wrong.
I have taken each point of yours seriously, without getting upset, screaming in all caps, calling you names, or any other bad behavior. I am engaging in an honest debate. When are you going to do the same?
LikeLike
Sir,
You said you had “PROOF” that flights like Qantas flight 27 “DO NOT FLY.”
I asked you to show me the “PROOF.”
You responded by banning me.
It’s obvious that you are not being honest about what is being presented here. The question remains, why?
LikeLike
Roundie, you were not banned. I screen for comments that are relevant to the subject debate at hand. I said there were several people in the FE movement who have tried to book or board these flights yet they did not fly or were cancelled. The info is in the old IFERS site, which has been shut down and I’m trying to find it. There is no agenda here, and if you bother to even look at the mass evidence presented in my blog, this is just ONE subject of my over 150 posts to date. If this info isn’t helpful or you cannot subscribe to the possibility of FE, simply MOVE ON. this site is not for you
LikeLike
Wager: Those who believe in the Gleason Map as well as FE.. mutually inclusive.
I wager you to a free trip to Santiago. If i can get there in 12.5 hours from Auckland (which is IMPOSSIBLE) you will pay for my 7-day stay at a 5Star Hotel. Should i lose i ‘ll pay for your 14-day stay anywhere in the world of your choice. Paris/London/NewYawk..etc
Skype you at the departure lounge and on arrival at Arturo Benitez airport…holding the day’s frontpage of the Santiago Times.
LikeLike
I think truthfarmer suggested “loss of GPS” not “there is no GPS”.
If the earth is flat and therefore satellites don’t exist then how does GPS work?
Well my iphone GPS uses cell tower triangulation in urban and some country areas.
This simply positions me on a map.
Here is another way. Very High Frequency Data Link. VDL
“Not all worldwide data sources (e.g., most European data) or satellite/VDL data are freely available on FlightAware.com”
source: http://flightaware.com/about/faq#intl
Flight aware use a variety of information sources to patch together an implied flight path.
This included ground radar, airport data including arrival and departure announcements and for long sections “estimated” position and “flightaware approximate” position.
Here is some information on VDL.
“The Automatic Identification System (AIS) is included
in the International Convention for Safety of Life at
Sea (SOLAS), and large ships began fitting AIS in July
2002.”
Source: https://www.amsa.gov.au/forms-and-publications/Fact-Sheets/AISB_Fact.pdf
Why on earth would you construct a land based system in 2002 if you could just use a couple of the 20,000 satellites designed for this GPS purpose?
Flightaware says that they use a VDL system for some of their positioning data.
So we can see there is VDL for SOLAS and there must also be a VDS system for airlines.
LikeLike
“I think truthfarmer suggested “loss of GPS” not “there is no GPS”.”
If you lose something, it implies that you had it – and that it existed – before you lost it. No?
“Well my iphone GPS uses cell tower triangulation …”
Yes, tower triangulation exists. That does not mean GPS does not exist.
My GPS works in remote areas where there are no cell towers and no military installations. Why?
LikeLike
If you lose something, it implies that you had it – and that it existed – before you lost it. No?
Roundie, this is semantics and does not help your argument.
I feel that you intentionally missed my point.
Let me rephrase. Loss of GPS “signal”.
What is GPS? Global Positioning System. This is just a name.
It could just as easily be called Blue Pill Positioning System.
It is a system that positions a device on a map.
You would think that if it was a satellite based system circulating around a globe or geostationary around a globe then there would be complete coverage.
What we find is that the blank spots where you get no GPS signal are representative of the expected limitations of a land based system.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s no semantics to it. Either GPS exists or it doesn’t.
My phone allows me to choose between tower triangulation and GPS, with GPS being the more accurate of the two. When I go (way) out to the country, triangulation doesn’t work because there’s no towers, but GPS still works. Why?
I can think of lots of reasons for GPS signals to fluctuate and be stronger or weaker in different places. Urban areas with tall buildings can have weak signals. Mountains can block signal. You won’t get signal underground or in a submarine. That’s all a result of the nature of the waves used by GPS.
And that explanation is far more reasonable – and reasoned – than the theory that there’s no GPS at all – that all the GPS manufacturers are lying – that all the scientists and engineers involved are lying.
I don’t think your position has any actual evidence behind it. That the signal is weak in certain places (still waiting on a link where I can read about that) there are numerous reasonable explanations.
LikeLike
Here is some interesting information from Flightaware regarding QFA27.
This flight is only partially tracked while about half of its trip is estimated.
There is one hour of flight time between Sydney and Auckland where the flight path is estimated only.
Also from halfway between NZ and Chile to arrival there is estimated flight path only.
No direct tracking from any source.
Source: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA27/history/20160201/0150Z/YSSY/SCEL
Source: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA27/history/20160201/0150Z/YSSY/SCEL/tracklog
LikeLike
Hey there,
I’m asking questions, not trying to argue here. I’m new to this idea and have to say that there is an awful lot of evidence in support of a flat earth theory. I am not ready to yet flatly dedicate myself to the position, but it’s sure looking good for flatter earth. I still have some questions of my own.
From what I have been able to surmise, on the GPS, once the planes are out of reach of ground signals, they seem to blip off the tracking. Then when they get close to their destination or stop, they reappear. Why might that be in a globe earth model?
Serious question. Apparently it is the same for freighliners on the oceans. If it’s a globe, then why/how can that happen? I’ve never been south of the equator, so can’t speak to it myself.
I think I may be getting this off topic, and don’t desire to do so.
LikeLike
“have to say that there is an awful lot of evidence in support of a flat earth theory. ”
No, there isn’t. Please tell me what evidence you are talking about. Every point on this blog regrading flat earth is easily refuted. When pressed with actual facts and reason, the response is silence and banning. What evidence?
GPS satellites are transmitters, not receivers. So in order to report location to someone else, a plane still needs a communication method, and that is most likely to be ground based. It’s very simple and reasonable, unlike the “GPS doesnt exist” theory.
LikeLike
Move on Roundie. This site is not for you. move on.
LikeLike
I agree with you truthfarmer.
You would think that if it was a satellite based system circulating around a globe or geostationary around a globe then there would be complete coverage.
What we find is that the blank spots where you get no GPS signal are representative of the expected limitations of a land based system.
BTW GPS does not mean satellite. it means positioning a device on a map to represent where you are in the world.
LikeLike
My point is that while flights and ships are GPS tracked in the northern hemisphere, and maintain signal, in the southern hemisphere (presuming the globe model) they are only tracked nearer to coasts. That doesn’t make sense in a global positioning satellite scenario. It does make sense in a land based scenario. If someone is stridently attached to GPS as explained by mainstream as literal fact, I would really like an explanation. Seriously.
The one thing that is holding me up on committing to flat earth theory is sunrise and sunset. I can’t find a sensible explanation. The perspective attempt at an explanation does not cut it. I’m reading Enoch to see if that gives me a better clue…Shalom.
LikeLike
Hi truthfarmer
Here are a couple of my leasons on perspective.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iMwwrCR_Xww
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5u9SIGMnMxA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZlS5SG8pDw
LikeLike
Thanks. I will download and watch with interest!
LikeLike
Hi jwlpeace and others
I spoke with a friend last week who flew with his family direct from Sydney to Santiago.
This was just after Xmas so early January this year. His wife is form Santiago.
He confirmed direct flight, no stops no refueling.
He followed the flight path on the on board flight tracker.
There were two things that caught my attention about what he said.
One was that they averaged over 1000kph.
The other was that he didn’t see why they needed to fly south of New Zealand.
Here is what he would have seen.
Source: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA27/history/20160201/0150Z/YSSY/SCEL
This got me thinking. Then i heard a comment from David Weiss.
He said we don’t really know how fast these planes can fly.
My view is that commercial airplanes measure airspeed, therefore, 1000kph is speed through the air.
What if the air you are in is moving too. Just like hot air balloons shift height to find different air currents.
You can then travel much faster in relation to the ground.
Much like these turtles in Finding Nemo.
So here is the reason that the direct flight from Sydney to Santiago travels south of NZ.
They are picking up a seriously strong air current. Check out the link below.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/250hPa/azimuthal_equidistant
LikeLike
Interesting…I was just reading this comment from over on my YT site
” noloferratus 18 hours ago
I can see that your right in that the NASA images supposedly of the Earth have been hoaxed. Also I’ve been watching aircraft in the Southern hemisphere on Planefinder.net. It turns out that aircraft from South America do indeed seem to often vanish in mid flight before reaching their destinations on another continent. Also I saw a plane that was to land at Perth seem to begin it’s flight several hundred miles out in the Indian ocean where there was no place to take off from. The Moon landing photos have been proven to have been hoaxed by physicist David Groves who is an expert at photography.”
LikeLike
cheers jwlpeace
i really like http://earth.nullschool.net
incredibly or not you can switch to an AE projection
LikeLike
Before I begin, I will say I’m new to this FE theory–and it’s only a theory at this point. Also, I’m a retired US Air Force pilot with over 4,500 hours of worldwide flying, where I’ve touched every continent and over 50 countries, except for Antarctica (we were weathered out en route to McMurdo); thus, I have extensive experience and can intelligently discuss worldwide flight routes and traffic.
Some points to consider in this dialog: 1) any and all flights (commercial or military) are required to be within 3-4 hours of conducting an emergency landing (they must have an Equal Time Point), which clearly cannot occur on the water, and hence, staying close to land is a necessity; 2) even across the North Atlantic, flights are required to make position reports every 10 degrees of longitude–it’s still the old-fashioned method–even with GPS (ground stations do the tracking, because GPS is transmit only); 3) I’ve lost ALL navigation systems before and had to make my way across the ocean using only the sun and other celestial bodies–you MUST take into account precession and the rotation of the earth when using celestial navigation and figuring lines of position, etc.; 4) my flying career began without the use of GPS–we used inertial navigation and doppler radar, and both were quite accurate; 5) having flown at altitudes near 50,000 feet (can’t go above without a pressure suit), I’ve SEEN the curvature of the earth–you must be above 43,000 feet to discern it; 6) I have friends of mine in the U-2 and former SR-71 programs–unless they’re lying about it, they can empirically defend a globe model.
That said, being a Bible-believing Christian, I believe the FET (i.e., a geocentric model) has its merits: It’s the ONLY model that MUST have a Designer; in this case, God. It simply cannot evolve from some contrived Big Bang model of cosmology. The Globe Theory, on the other hand, which could work and still require a Creator, leaves this question open to doubt.
Now, here’s what I find fascinating about this: Until about 500 years ago, nearly EVERYONE believed the earth was flat. Until, of course, a Dominican named Nicolas Copernicus introduced us to the Heliocentric Model. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to readily ascertain the Roman connection and an eventual Jesuit embracing of the model. Of course, this order’s aim is to destroy Protestantism (those of whom supported the Geocentric Model) and debunk the Bible and its claims; moreover, it shapes the battle space for Romanism to invoke its full authority. Before 500 years ago, you’d be hard-pressed to find an atheist; today, it’s commonplace. And let’s not even entertain the idea we are smarter today than we were back then–rubbish. We simply have introduced more doubt into the system, which has opened a doorway (a Pandora’s Box of sorts) into occult thinking, which is anti-thetical to a Bible-based model.
To this end, I think we need to re-examine both arguments carefully and prayerfully. In the end, we also need to examine what the Scripture says regarding this issue–in the end, it won’t be wrong. Thanks for the interesting discussion.
LikeLike
Since you are a “retired US Air Force pilot with over 4,500 hours of worldwide flying, where I’ve touched every continent and over 50 countries” and also a “Bible-believing Christian,” a very obvious question comes up:
Who would Jesus bomb?
I’m sorry, but you can’t possibly be a decent person if you flew 4,500 hours for the USAF. You’re someone who follows illegal orders which result in the death of completely innocent people. So anything else you have to say is rather suspect.
LikeLike
What an idiotic comment. This is how you treat newcomers?
LikeLike
I agree grs.
History that is not very understanding of you.
AD welcome aboard.
Plenty to think about here.
LikeLike
And yet…. Who would Jesus bomb?
If you go around wearing your ‘service’ on your sleeve, proudly telling everyone how you followed illegal and immoral orders, then expect to get called on it. And if you add Jesus to the mix, expect to have the world see what a true hypocrite you are.
Murder is murder. Having a uniform on doesn’t make it not murder. Americans are filthy murderers who go around speaking about their murder with pride. And you two step in to defend this kind of filth – what is wrong with you?
LikeLike
I am an American and I am not a murderer, nor will I ever be. It’s not wise to paint with a broad brush like that. I am not standing up for America or the military actions of this government and I must say that I completely agree with your statement, “Murder is murder. Having a uniform on doesn’t make it not murder.” That is on point and I have said that myself many times, but not all Americans support the murdering and wars perpetrated by our completely corrupt and controlled government. Food for thought.
LikeLike
Crazy what reason doespecially the government have to lie to us daily pilots astronauts many more are lying to us end the lies now speak out bring proof stand in a big crowd they can’t stop us all we must invoke change I want answers now!!! I AM CANADIAN
LikeLike
Isn’t it rather obvious; the ships go where their cargo needs to travel, as well as following routes that make sense for ocean-going vessels.
Maybe they want to stop along the way with cargo for these places. If someone wants to find out, it seems like some research should be looked into.
I doubt simply guessing as to why they use the routes they do would yield anything useful.
LikeLike