wolfy

How can a solid rotating Earth drag the atmosphere with it? Think about it. Realistically if this was the case, then a helicopter hovering in that atmosphere, the pilot should be watching the Earth move at about 1000 mph under it. If the atmosphere somehow sticks to the solid Earth and moves exactly with it, then why do clouds move in different directions? Does it seem plausible to you lot that air will follow a solid exactly and any solid object that rises up from that solid, like a plane or helicopter is going to be exactly dragged with that air and solid and no effect will be on them? This is supposed to be happening all the way to the edge of space, yet we are told the edge of space , there is no air pressure, so why don't these so called high altitude planes see the Earth passing under them at over 1000 mph....I mean, surely there's no air drag with the Earth against that, so what's making them follow a set pattern?

It's easy to pick out a person or persons as nutters or unstable or whatever. All that it needs is for that person or persons to have a different outlook on things against the norm. It's understandable to be fair, because it's human nature and always has been. I mean, let's face it - I'm putting my thoughts forward with no direct evidence against widespread mainstream views. It's a loop the loop kind of thing. Cranky. It's akin to the tramp with the sign proclaiming, "the end of the world is nigh." I mean, pffft, me saying the world is not a rotating globe when it's as clear as day it's a globe and everyone walking about can see that, right? Gravity proves everything in space because all the planets are there and do what we are told they do, correct? Spacecraft have went to the moon with men and to distant planets millions upon millions of miles away and sent photographs all the way back through space, into our atmosphere and right to the control centre where they download them, then show us the amazing close ups. It all seems feasible, right? I mean, go and walk into a pub and sit at any table - then tell the people sat at that table that the Earth is not a globe and that it's sort of like a half sphere with an ice dome. You will be told to leave the table or ridiculed right there, or the people will slowly make their excuses and leave, after telling you it's a big marble like ball in space. They will tell you this, not because they are ex-astronauts or scientists - they will tell you this because that's what everyone knows and it's well documented in the media - films - documentaries and you name it. Of course, you get your amateur astronomers who tell you about star constellations and the little blobs of light up in the sky. They can show you the great bear and all the other shapes from dotted stars. They can tell you all about the distances of many, because they've memorised it all and have little maps. What they are mapping is what's been told and seen by telescope, so they don't need to question it, as it's real to them. Try telling them that they are reflections and they are not light years away stars as burning suns and they will argue and call you a crank. You can't blame them really. Who wants to spend years memorising books about our Earth and universe; trying to figure out what string theory is and warped space time - gravity - special relativity - general relativity - speed of light - the big bang - Higgs boson and so on and so on, to be told that what they have spent years memorising, could be based on fiction or not quite what they thought? No intelligent person is ever going to shove all of what they memorised to one side just because some potential nutter has questioned it all without evidence. You see, hypothetical thoughts by ordinary people do not count against hypothetical thoughts of trusted scientific geniuses, because their thoughts are classed as close to the reality, no matter what they come up with. I don't expect anyone to take what I say even 1% remotely seriously. I know that some will look at stuff (those who are interested in stuff like this) and think, "hmmm, maybe it's possible that we aren't told the entire truth." Whether people put that into type or simply prefer to just think on it without making themselves look silly on a forum, for others to simply brush it aside, is down to each individual and whether they can handle the jokey digs or put downs. I understand all that. Normally when I put out my thoughts, it turns people into scientists. It actually makes people look for arguments against what I'm saying by actually brushing up on what they were told. You see, like I said: most people know we live on a rotating globe that is a sort of bluey white with green and brown land mass. It's in our faces all of the time through TV, etc.. What most people don't fully know, is all the rest of the stuff that goes into making it what they say it is - and does. Just in case anyone here wants a quick brush up as to how we are told Earth is in space - it's basically like this: We are told the Earth rotates at 1038 mph at the equator, then gradually less as you move towards the north or south poles. We are tilted on a 23.5 degree axis as we hurtle around the sun at around 65,000 mph. We don't perfectly circle this sun, we move around it in an elliptical orbit, meaning we move closer to the sun as we go around it, then farther away as we come back around. How we do this is not up for question, we are told we do, so we do. The sun is 93 million miles away - a big ball of fire in a vacuum. It is over 1 million km in diameter and we get our light and heat from it, through this vacuum, because the light/heat waves travel through this vacuum and hit our atmosphere, which agitates it. How the heat travels is down to radiated waves - somehow - that need no medium to travel through, apparently. In this elliptical orbit of Earth around the sun, the sun actually comes closer to Earth by about 5 million km. Much hotter, right? Nope... it actually does this in December. Winter time. Why question what they tell us? For all of the things that you see everyday, like the sun setting and rising, etc, the globe model has to fit what we see. The time spent fitting it all together has been long enough to iron out the flaws as time has went on, with people questioning the model. This is where stuff keeps getting made up to cater for it all, Like what I explained above. If you study the globe model with a full on trust that it is what we are told, then you have no reason to think otherwise. If you study it and allow yourself to think about it, then explore other ideas, you might find it to be as nonsensical as I do. The choice is entirely yours, of course. I'm just explaining why I don't follow the indoctrinated view of it all, considering I spent many many years of doing exactly that.

It's ok if you're getting tired. Just take a rest. Any more questions, just ask.

Yep, that would be fine, as long as I had full camera view of it all and the supposed astronauts getting inside and taking off, it would be enough for me.

Well, yeah, I suppose most would know that, I'll give you that.

I don't need to. We all know what green screen is, don't we?

Not quite. It's because she is stood near a green screen with the silly rocket video played on it. A little stage blower and some noise, then voila, job sorted for the masses to enjoy as being real. They are telling us to our faces that it's all a circus act and they are telling us we are all clowns for believing it.

Not very far.

For obvious security reasons? They let female reporters stand right near them in that video I posted. I feel sorry for the watchman in that little silver caravan next to the launch pad. You see, security clearance is the key with all of this stuff. We will never get to see any of it because it's shrouded in secrecy. the Russians just let any clown on. I think people looking at that video can clearly see how they are taking the piss out of the public. If not, then maybe one day they will see it, because this stuff just gets more ridiculous and in your face as time goes on. It's like they are taking turns in how they can do the most ridiculous things to laugh at us all, whilst we stand back in amazement. The parachute example you put out is not the issue. You stated that it does'nt matter about mass and you even tested a knife and tennis ball to prove it. that video tells you, it's not true.

Just that it looks legit and not just a small ballistic missile disguised as a space rocket and bigged up for TV. Then I'd look inside to see where the astronauts sit, see if it matches TV. You know, stuff like that.

Renton: I would preferably like to be stood as close as this to the rocket. This way I won't need any special clothing or ear plugs. Maybe I could grow my hair a little to deflect the noisy blast from this huge thunderbird rocket, complete with Virgil puppet inside. Once I see Virgil prance over to the rocket and jump inside , I will be convinced. These rockets are nothing compared the the NASA ones, are they? I mean, you have to stand about 10 mile away from those. These ones you can watch close up. Almost like watching farmer Giles plough his field in his little tractor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D26xtDrhTs

Yes the ball was slowed by air resistance. We are told that any two objects of the same shape no matter what their mass is, will fall at the same rate. It's obviously not true. The simple fact is, a more dense object against a similar less dense object will fall faster because the air resistance under it is more easily pushed around it. The heavier the objects, the higher drop is needed to properly see the result by eye alone. Denpressure is gravity, 100% as far as I'm concerned. One piece of evidence that would make me change my full view to mainstream view would be to watch a real space rocket launch. there are conditions to this. 1. I have to be able to inspect the rocket on the launch pad to make sure it's the real thing. 2. I have to be able to watch the astronauts get into the rocket with no visible means of getting out of it at launch. These alone would change my mind and accept I've been wrong. As an added bonus, I'd like to watch the rocket all the way into space with the special cameras they have, that they show us on TV, except I want to view it in real time from the off. This is not paramount but would fully nail it. What's my chances of doing this?

I'd like to see the video of this so I can rip it to bits.

What did you think about the football and cannon ball, Renton?

I'll wait for you to put it up for me, so I can see it on here. Thanks.

I can't bring up the link at all, so no, I don't know what it's about. If someone gives me a hint of what it's about I might be able to see what's what.

I can't watch the video, so I don't know what you're showing.

They are reflections through the crystal of the centre of the Earth's circle. Just small points of light scattered and reflected over the dome. Think of it like a planetarium or think of what happens with those fibre optic lights that shine on your ceiling, if you've seen them. If not, look it up. Obviously I'm not saying the stars are fibre optic light, I'm saying it's a similar thing happening, except through points of crystal.

For us to hide something big would be extremely hard. I accept that. For those at the top to keep up a ruse is not so hard when you control all avenues of mainstream networks/media. All you're up against are whistleblowers that have to tell people about discrepancies in a trickle like fashion. How many people will believe that person, espcially if the media get a hold and publically humiliate that person as a disgruntled employee that was sacked for trying to (add in any crime) go aginst the system. That person then becomes a nut case, just like anyone who has a different thought process will be. Once you get the majority thinking the same, it's hard to change their minds or get them to even think alternately. People's mindsets are easily manipulated by the masses or by one gossip that has some status. A good story teller can captivate an audience. Once that audience is on side, no outsider will change that anytime soon, unless they can show why the good story teller was telling fictional stories to manipulate them. It's not an easy task.

My way of thinking does not go down well in mainstream so I'm not going to tell people that this is the way to learn. They have to follow the indioctrinated way, because that's what they are judged on. They regurgiate what they are told to regurgitate over the course of a year and marked on it. It wouldn't be fair on my kid to have a question of "who was the first man on the moon" for him to write, " there is no real moon and no man has ever went." Unfortunately it's a case of kids being allowed to go with protocol and like religion, let them decide what's what later in life if they wish to do that. My thoughts are my own.

I don't know the reasons as to why the globe model came about. It could be some kind of god worship or sun worship of those times, putting the sun as the centre with us merely feeding off it. Today it certainly benefits in many ways. I think you know my thoughts on that with so called satellites and expensuive so called space missions,etc, etc, etc. It also gives people a sense of knowing the full world with it being a supposed ball. Maybe we don't know the half of it, who really knows. I can only speculate.

Well, I shouldn't really have to show you this. Concentrate on the football and the cannon ball. Like you said, it does matter about the density or mass, so similar balls just different mass. Like I said. Gravity does not exist and atmospheric pressure is what we are told gravity is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYz_K3mwq6A

The Foucault pendulum does not prove a rotating globe at all. This gets used as proof and you know yourself it's nonsense and proves nothing. All it proves is that a pendulum moves around a circle as it swings. This is supposed to say that the Earth is rotating under it. The pendulum swing no matter how accurately it's set in straight motion, is going to veer off it's track as it displaces the air in front of it, so it's return swing will very slightly veer off course by a fraction. It will do this for as long as it swings, which proves absolutely nothing in either sense.

I see a flat and level horizon, so there's my direct evidence. So what now?

4 metres? You might as well have done it from 4 feet and saved yourself the trouble because they will obviously look to you like they hit the floor at the same time. Try a tennis ball and an iron ball of the same size- ish and drop them from a high tower of some description, then have someone with a video at the bottom, then you will see the difference.