Could you please watch this video and give me your comments on it?

Question: "Could you please watch this video and give me your comments on it?"

Here is the video:

Sorry for the delay on the reply, I didn't really want to answer this one until the other post was completed because I didn't want to have to repeat myself.

---

Did I Watch It?

Okay, I will admit it up front, I didn't watch the whole video... I was listening for about twenty minutes of him reading off a list of his "proofs" in a monotone voice when I realized he was reading them straight off of his list that was published here:

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

So, I promptly stopped listening to the video and instead read them, which was much faster.  I did skip ahead in the video to see if he added anything else, but it appeared to be word-for-word.

Yes, I did read every one of them, several times, to make sure I understood what was being said.

---

What Did I Find?  

I was a bit disappointed.  I was hoping for something new, something with some meat to it, some validity.  Instead, this "new" video/list was just a rehash of everything that he has said before, with some of them reworded and repeated.  Many of them were the same "proof", just with different locations.  Some of them were outright lies.

But let me back up a bit to give you some background on this.

I first heard of the flat earth society several years ago.  I did some research on it, and went through their published information, their "proofs", and thought that it was a joke.  Not in the way that I was laughing at them, but with them.  I seriously thought it was just a joke website, people collaborating together to put together this fun little website and to sell bumper stickers, kinda like the flying spaghetti monster...  I laughed a bit, and promptly moved on with my other research, mostly forgetting about it.

Fast forward to earlier this year.  Several people I know and respect started discussing the Flat Earth theory.  I initially ignored most of that conversation, I'd been down that road years ago, and thought it was nothing worthwhile even discussing.  But it started to grow and grow, the conversations grew more in-depth, more enthusiastic.  Not long afterwards, these same people started supporting the movement, and talking about it as being gospel.

So... I decided to do some more research on this myself, since I don't like to try to discuss things without actually knowing information about the topic.  I dug into it pretty hard right from the start, I wanted to know as much as I could about what they were discussing.

Honestly, I wasn't looking to disprove the theory, I was looking for proof of it's validity.  Like any of the absurdly strange topics I've researched over the years, I went it it with an open mind, willing to accept new ideas if they are based on verifiable proof.

I was very disappointed.  I didn't find much more than I had found the first time I had done the research on it, nothing provable, just theories based on perception.   I stuck it out for a couple of weeks though, digging deeper, trying to see how they explain away some of the common things like sunrise/sunset, etc...

Finally I had had enough, there wasn't anything new to be found, just a rehashings/rewordings of a book written back in the mid 1800s.  The only thing new was some of their explanations for things, which, if I didn't know they were entirely serious about, I would definitely believe were written as a joke, they were so absurdly "out there".   I stopped my research, and went back to report my findings...

This is where I found my biggest challenge, the cult-like devotion to this theory as being 100% true.  I was dumbstruck by the ferocity that the supporters of this movement portrayed in defending their theory.  Evidence didn't seem to matter, pointing out the inconsistencies didn't matter, nothing would change their minds.  Upon presentation of any evidence that they could not explain away, the response always reverted to "it is faked" or "it is CGI".

I finally had to coin a summary phrase that I could picture them actually saying someday:
"The Earth is flat, and any evidence to the contrary is faked."

I honestly wish this was just an exaggeration, but the more I talk to the FE supporters, the more this statement appears to be true.  They whole-heartedly believe that ALL evidence of a round Earth is faked.

I was seriously hoping that these new 200 "proofs" would present some new information, some solid "proof" that I could look at and say "maybe this theory deserves more research", but I found nothing new.

---

My Comments?

So... Back to my comments on this list.

I started out typing rebuttals for each and every "proof" listed.  It didn't take long before I was starting to enter many of them as "same", because they were just rewordings of other ones on the list.

After finishing a little over 100 of them, I was having problems finding any desire to keep going.  It was tedious and depressing work.  During that time I also found several people starting to post rebuttal videos on it, and didn't really feel like adding to the mix.

This is one guy that is going through the list item by item:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWbGxbcxMBjUVjrLMIk_HQw

So after all of that, I decided that a point-by-point analysis of the list was not necessary.

But, I did want to leave some comments on recurring themes:

---

The Wild Ride

"97) NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever."

This is a good example of a phrase/theme used over and over throughout the list.  Variations of this concept are repeated often and in many ways.  The reason why this particular phrase is repeated over and over again (with slight variations) is to convince the reader that you should feel like you are on a wild roller coaster ride.  Since you don't, his argument is correct.

An explanation:

1. The "tilt" of the Earth is about 23 degrees.  This is what gives us our seasons and weather patterns.  Since gravity pulls you towards the surface, you will not feel a tilt.
2. The "wobble" of the Earth consists of a movement of about 30 feet that takes 433 days to complete.  Thus, nobody can feel the wobble because it takes over 1 year to complete.
3. The "spin" of the earth is actually 1 revolution in 24 hours (0.000694 rpm), which is an extremely slow spin.  The 1000 mph reference comes from the diameter of the Earth means that the outer edge is moving faster.  We don't feel it because of Newton's first law of motion.
4. The 500,000 mph reference is to how fast the Earth is moving around the Milky Way.  Again, we cannot feel this because Newton's first law of motion.
5. The 670,000,000 mph reference is to how fast the entire Galaxy moves through space.  Again, we cannot feel this because of Newton's first law of motion.

What is Newton's first law of motion?

"An object in motion, stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force."

This means that because the Earth is moving at a constant rate, we will never feel the motion of it unless something disrupts that movement.   Just like when you are traveling in a vehicle, you would not be able to notice you are moving if it wasn't for the turns, bumps, or acceleration/deceleration.

Since everything on the surface of the planet is moving along at the same speed, no motion will be felt.  A good example of this is when you are traveling in a plane at 500 mph.  If you drop the book you are holding, does it slam into your chest at 500 mph?  No, everything inside of the plane is moving at the same speed, so it falls straight down onto your lap.

This simple answer clears up almost a quarter of the list.

---

Viewing Objects At A Distance

A surprisingly large number of the "proofs" are similar to this one:

"69) The New York City skyline is clearly visible from Harriman State Park’s Bear Mountain 60 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, viewing from Bear Mountain’s 1,283 foot summit, the Pythagorean Theorem determining distance to the horizon being 1.23 times the square root of the height in feet, the NYC skyline should be invisible behind 170 feet of curved Earth."

Different places, different objects being viewed, but basically the same "proof" reworded.  These are repeated over and over, always with a phrase such as "should be invisible behind a wall of Earth".  This is worded this way to get you convinced that you shouldn't be able to see such objects, when there is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

I've answered the questions about that phenomena in my last blog post:
http://question4xl.blogspot.com/2015/12/why-do-you-say-fe-observations-are.html

So I won't go over all that again, but I did run across another video recently that demonstrates this quite well:

---

Travelling In The South

Quite a few of these "proofs" deal with travelling in the Southern Hemisphere.

-The claim that there are no direct flights between the southernmost cities, that they all travel through the Northern Hemisphere.  

This is an outright lie!  A simple Google search for a flight will list many direct flights, with travel times that prove the FE map as impossible.

https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=GRU,CGH,VCP;t=JNB;d=2015-12-31;r=2016-01-04;mc=m;q=sao+paulo+to+johannesburg

-The claim that nobody is allowed to visit Antarctica, that it is under military lock-down.  

Another outright lie!  People visit the continent regularly, on an almost daily basis.  There are entire cruise industries in South America that make their living off of bringing researchers and tourists to Antarctica.

http://www.seabourn.com/luxury-cruise-destinations/Antarctica-Patagonia?WT.ac=pnav_DestSNhttp://poseidonexpeditions.com/antarctica/

-The claim that nobody can reach the actual South Pole.

Another outright lie!  There is a permanent research facility built near the pole, and tourists travel down there on a regular basis.  They have live webcams setup so you can see what is going on and watch the 24 hour sunlight during the summer months.

https://www.nsf.gov/geo/plr/support/southp.jsp

- The claim that it takes 4 years and 60,000 miles to circumnavigate Antarctica. 

Not "exactly" a lie, but a twisting of the facts.  During the initial explorations, there was a lot of travelling into bays, getting stuck in the ice, backtracking to avoid icebergs, etc.   The distance around Antarctica is well known, and matches the globe model perfectly.  They even hold races around it on a regular basis.

http://www.acronautic.com/antartica-cup-ocean-race/

- The claim that there are no flights over Antarctica.

Another outright lie!  There are daily flights into Antarctica for supply missions and to bring tourists.  They even have charter flights that fly directly over the South Pole.

http://www.coolantarctica.com/Travel/Fly_to_Antarctica.phphttp://www.traveller.com.au/qantas-jumbo-747400-jets-spectacular-southern-journey-over-antarctica-12htsi

- The claim that there have been no North-South circumnavigations.

Another outright lie!  There have been at least a dozen people to travel across Antarctica on the ground, and almost daily flights over the continent.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/travel/felicity-aston-antarctic-explorer/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/11/151109-south-pole-antarctic-explorers-shackleton-expedition/

The reason why most of the flights between different southern continents go through the Northern Hemisphere is because 85% of the world's population live in the North.  Airlines plot their routes depending on where most of the travelers want to go, and the most common destinations are in the north.

The reason why big oil and other companies  are not allowed to explore or exploit materials in Antarctica is not because of a military lock-down.  They cannot venture down there because of the Antarctica treaty that was signed back in 1959, designating the continent as a nature preserve.  Exploitation of it's resources is prohibited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System

What the author of these "proofs" is counting on is that with 85% of the world's population living in the Northern Hemisphere, few people will take the time to research this, and even fewer know people that have been down there.  Personally, I have a friend of mine that travels there a few times a year on research cruises.

---

Lack Of Understanding

There are several "proofs" that deal with this same concept:

"113) The idea that people are standing, ships are sailing and planes are flying upside down on certain parts of Earth while others tilted at 90 degrees and all other impossible angles is complete absurdity. The idea that a man digging a hole straight down could eventually reach sky on the other side is ludicrous. Common sense tells every free-thinking person correctly that there truly is an “up” and “down” in nature, unlike the “everything is relative” rhetoric of the Newtonian/Einsteinian paradigm."

For some reason, the author cannot grasp the concept of the center of gravity being at the center of the Earth.  Everything is pulled towards the center, which is why the Earth is round, why water flows to the lowest point, why weather works the way it does and why no matter where you are on the surface you can find a "level" spot.

Or, more likely, he understands that theory quite well, but to admit it would totally negate all of his "proofs".  It is better for his theory to have people believe that everyone on the other side of the world is hanging upside down.

---

Summary

For those of you that have known me for years, I am as fair an unbiased as I can possibly be.  I am always more than willing to entertain the most bizarre theories and research them to see if they are plausible.  I've changed my mind about many things over the years as a result of this, sometimes quite drastically.  Some of the things I have researched would shock a lot of people.

I also fully believe in the concept of the holographic universe, and multiple realities.  However, this is a shared reality that we are all existing in, and albeit there may be some slight differences, the majority of what is happening to us in this shared reality, the major details, are identical.

This particular "movement" (for lack of a better term) falls into that category, where the evidence is clear and obvious, the reality is a singularity, but the interpretations are vastly different.

The FE theory itself is easily disprovable by any number of different methods.  However, the cult-like following that is emerging and growing steadily is really surprising.

I really don't know what else to call it, it has many aspects of a cult in that it gets people to obsess over it, alienate themselves from friends and family, and totally reject any evidence that disagrees with what they believe.  They gather together for motivational boosts and watch hours upon hours of videos talking about the same "proofs" over and over, while laughing at those that don't believe.

Thus, in my opinion, the origins behind this recent growth in the "movement" are worthy of much more investigation than the theory itself.

---

If you disagree with me or want further explanation on any of these 200 "proofs", let me know and I will delve deeper into the nuances of a particular topic.  Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time going through all of them when others are already doing that.  Just send an email to Question4XL@gmail.com.

I've always said that if someone can provide me with a verifiable proof, I will change my mind about it.  So far, I have yet to see any "proof" that is provable.

Why do you say the FE observations are based off of bad science?

This is a combination of multiple different questions I've had over the last few months.

The summarized question: "Why do you say the FE observations are based off of bad science?"

The reason I say that is because I've gone through EVERY "fact" presented by the Flat Earth Community so far, and not one of them has panned out to be provable scientifically.  Several of them are improvable though, because they are based entirely off of perception.

So, that leads me into the topic of this article...  One thing that keeps coming up over and over again as a "proof" are the videos taken from various shorelines showing objects at a distance.  Time and time again, these videos are presented as proof of a flat earth, but upon detailed analysis most of them actually prove the opposite.

I apologize for the delay in writing this article.  I wanted to try to get as much factual information into it as possible and it took much longer than I had anticipated.

---

The Effect Of Perception

Here is the basic concept of what should be happening (curve exaggerated on purpose):

It seemed pretty simple, you look out straight and level, and measure the drop from where you are looking, and calculate the drop.

But what is actually happening in these videos is something like this:

People tend to look "down" upon the viewing target without even realizing it, and measuring from the wrong angle.  The green arrowed line represents the actual drop, while the blue arrowed line represents the perceived drop.

But what I "know" is irrelevant without proof, I needed to go beyond it being simply what I said, I needed to provide mathematical proof to show what I am talking about.

---

Calculating The Drop

So....  First of all I wanted to find out what is the proper formula to calculate "the drop". 

The simple concept is that you should be able to measure out a certain distance, and whatever formula you use should be able to calculate the drop.  Based on that concept, the criteria I used to evaluate each formula was that if you measure out a distance equivalent to the radius of the Earth, the calculated drop should then equal the radius.

To better visual this, I wrote a short computer program that plotted out the drop for each formula into an image, and wrote the actual drop measurements to a text file.  The correct formula should plot out a perfect quarter-circle.

Disclaimer:  For these formulas, I am using a scenario of the Earth being a perfectly round sphere.  I know it is not perfectly round, but the variations in the diameter at the Equator are approximately, 2/10 of 1% of the total size, so for all intents and purposes we an assume it round, at least for these calculations.

---

The FE Formula

The first formula I tested was the one widely used by the FE community:

"NASA uses spherical trigonometry to determine the curvature of a sphere the size of Earth: 8 X the distance in miles squared."


Or: Drop = 8 + Distance(squared)

(the number 8 representing inches, and the answer is in inches)

First of all, this isn't spherical trigonometry, this is basic math, not even to the Algebra level. 

Second, Spherical Trigonometry is only needed when calculating multiple points on sphere.  If you're only measuring two points, you don't need to go beyond very basic Geometry, which is taught in pre-Algebra classes.

Anyways, the results of this formula surprised me when plotted out.  At a radius of 3959 miles (the officially recognized radius), this formula only curves down 1979 miles at the maximum, almost exactly half of the drop it should have had.

I also found this formula to be tuned a bit to a specific radius, where shorter a shorter radius produces a different shaped curve than a longer one.  So, after little bit of experimenting with different values for the radius, I got the formula to finally show the end right drop somewhere around 8000 miles, but the calculated curve by then was not symmetrical, ending up being almost a straight line about halfway through.

---

The Pythagorean Theorem

The next formula I tested was the well-known Pythagorean Theorem:

Drop = squareroot of Radius(squared) * Radius(squared) + Distance(squared) * Distance(squared)

I knew even before I started that this formula wouldn't plot out correctly, but since a lot of people were talking about it in relation to this topic, I put it in there to see how it would plot out.  Besides, for some reason it "seemed" like this formula was involved somehow.

What this formula actually does is to plot the length of the side of a triangle.  Since the radius is used for both sides of the equation, we basically have a right triangle when at maximum range.

Subtracting the distance from each result, it does provide a curve though.   Surprisingly, it plotted very similar to the formula used by the FE community, for a maximum of 1639 miles, a little less than half the radius,

---

The Correct Formula?

Now that I had a way to test the various formulas, I started looking for one that would plot out the correct curve.

I spent the next several weeks (not full-time, just when I got some free time) going through all of the formulas I could find for this calculation.  What surprised me the most is the similarity between them all, and that none of them seemed to work properly.   A lot of people seemed to try to throw trigonometry into the formula for some reason.  But even then, their formulas never seemed to plot out a good curve.

Then it finally dawned on me to start looking at computer models since it is a common function of programs to calculate curves in order to draw things correctly on the screen.  After a bit of searching, I finally located a few that seemed to work properly.  I tweaked them a bit to make them a bit more simple, and finally ended up with this formula:

Drop = Radius - squareroot of (Radius * Radius - Distance * Distance)

Finally I had a proper formula to work with!    Does it look familiar?  That is because it is a variation of the Pythagorean Theorem, something I vaguely suspected from the beginning.

One added bonus to this formula is that it will also work with any type of numbers.  Unlike most of the formulas I found out there, this one returned the same unit of measurement put in.  I.e., if you enter miles, the answer will be in miles, if you enter feet, the answer will be in feet, etc.

Note: This is a serious problem with a lot of the formulas published on the Internet, in that you would have to put in feet in some places, miles in another, and it would return something else.  Some of the formulas even mixed kilometers and miles in the same equation!

Here is the output image from my program (hard to see at this small size):

The red line across the top is the 8 inches/mile calculation (which turns out to be less than one mile).
The grey diagonal line is simply a 45 degree angle line I used for reference.
The orange line is the Pythagorean Theorem
The yellow line is the FE formula
The blue line is my revised formula

---

Crunching The Numbers

Now that I had an accurate formula to work with, and could plot them all out, I started crunching the numbers to see what they gave.  I had long suspected that the FE formula was incorrect, I was quite sure that it was correct for short distances but exaggerated the curve quite quickly.

I'll say it right up front, I was wrong...  The FE formula IS incorrect, but in the opposite direction.  It actually dampens the slope the further it goes out (when the radius is close to 3959).

But, for the first several miles, the results were surprisingly similar:

FE Formula:
Mile: 1 Drop: 8 Inches
Mile: 2 Drop: 32 Inches
Mile: 3 Drop: 72 Inches
Mile: 4 Drop: 128 Inches
Mile: 5 Drop: 200 Inches
Mile: 6 Drop: 288 Inches
Mile: 7 Drop: 392 Inches
Mile: 8 Drop: 512 Inches
Mile: 9 Drop: 648 Inches
Mile: 10 Drop: 800 Inches

Pythagorean Theorem:
Mile: 1 Drop: 8.00202057027491 Inches
Mile: 2 Drop: 32.0080808116472 Inches
Mile: 3 Drop: 72.0181760852574 Inches
Mile: 4 Drop: 128.032298726903 Inches
Mile: 5 Drop: 200.050438047037 Inches
Mile: 6 Drop: 288.072580215521 Inches
Mile: 7 Drop: 392.098708463309 Inches
Mile: 8 Drop: 512.128802794323 Inches
Mile: 9 Drop: 648.162840273581 Inches
Mile: 10 Drop: 800.200794883131 Inches

Revised Formula:
Mile: 1 Drop: 8.00202082959004 Inches
Mile: 2 Drop: 32.0080849030637 Inches
Mile: 3 Drop: 72.0181967440294 Inches
Mile: 4 Drop: 128.032364074315 Inches
Mile: 5 Drop: 200.050597583468 Inches
Mile: 6 Drop: 288.072911044001 Inches
Mile: 7 Drop: 392.099321340211 Inches
Mile: 8 Drop: 512.129848381737 Inches
Mile: 9 Drop: 648.164515103563 Inches
Mile: 10 Drop: 800.203347581264 Inches

These first few miles are important because 90% of the "testing" done to prove a flat earth is done with distances of 10 miles or less.

---

Where Do We Go From Here?

Now that I've proven that the formulas provided a reasonably reliable measurement in the first several miles (regardless of which one you use), does this make those videos correct?

Not at all.  While the estimated drops were not far off from the real ones, the methods used to observe those drops is still quite erroneous.

For example, let's take this video:

At face value, this video seems pretty convincing.  However, once you start looking at it closer the evidence falls apart quickly.

I went through the video closer, and if you stop it at 30 seconds in, you will see this image: 

This is a view of the Toronto Skyline from across the lake.  Take special note of the white object right below the CN Tower.  That is the top half of the roof of the Rogers Center. 



To better explain this, I searched Google for a picture of Toronto taken from the same direction, and finally found this image:

While it is not a perfectly clear image, it does show all of the shorter buildings that are hidden beneath the horizon in the video.  Notice how none of those shorter buildings, or the large trees are visible at all?

Of special note, the Rogers Center is not a small building:

It stands at 310 feet from the ground at it's center, not to mention that the ground it is built upon is several feet above the water level.

Looking back at that first screenshot from the video, you will see that approximately 2/3 of the Rogers Center is hidden below the horizon.  This means that the video attempting to prove a flat plane is instead proof of a drop of over 200 feet!

Not to mention that there are many other erroneous claims in video.

But this post is not about picking apart a particular video, this is about the methods used.  If you want a particular video dissected, please submit a separate question.

---

So What Is Happening?

So, what is really happening in these videos to make them so inaccurate?  Well, the tests being conducted are not taking all of the various factors into consideration.

Some of the main concerns ignored are:

1. Height of the viewing position.
2. Height of the target.
3. Atmospheric Refraction.

- Height of the viewing position

As was mentioned earlier, these are the IDEAL measurement conditions.  The vantage point is directly level with the surface, and the distance measured is perfectly level horizontally from the vantage point.

However, this is nearly impossible to do.  Getting a camera right exactly at the water level is very hard to do, and risky to your equipment.  Then, maintaining a perfectly level viewing angle is very difficult to do without some sort of leveling equipment.  Simply looking out at the horizon forces a downward angle view, regardless of intentions.

Then, once you move your camera ANY distance above the surface, you have to factor in the "Distance to Horizon" (DTH).

From the the viewing position to the horizon, the drop will be zero.  The measurement to calculate the real drop is done from the DTH to the target.

Here is the formula to calculate the DTH:
DTH = SquareRoot(height above surface / 0.5736)

(Height is in feet, and output is in miles.)

For example, if the target being viewed is four miles away and the camera is six feet (eye level for a lot of people) above the water level, the DTH is 3.2 miles.  That means you have to calculate a drop of .8 miles, for a drop of 6.4 inches.


- Height of the target

The height of the target also has to be taken into account.  This is done identically to the distance to horizon, only from the other side.

For example, if the target is 20 miles away and 300 feet tall  (such as a tall building), and the viewing point is size feet above the water:

Distance to horizon from the viewing point is 3.2 miles
Distance to horizon from the target is 22 miles.
Calculated drop at 20 miles is 266 feet.

Combined, this gives a total of 25.2 miles, which is well beyond the distance between the two.  Thus, the person would be able to see the top 34 feet of the building, while someone at the top of the building would be able to see the entire person.

This scenario is clearly demonstrated in the video posted above.  A scenario I used before to describe this is two people standing on opposite side of  a very small hill.  Since both people can see the feet of the other person, they then deduce that there is no hill.


- Atmospheric Refraction

Nothing gets the people in the FE community riled up faster than referencing atmospheric refraction.

However, it is a well-known and measurable phenomena, easily provable.  This phenomena is what is responsible for all the rippling and distortion in videos and photographs.  It varies by temperature, humidity, and altitude.   At ground level it is the cause for mirages and the weird rippling scene you get when looking out across a parking lot on a hot summer day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Of key note with this phenomena is the experiment most widely referenced in the FE Community, the Bedford Level Experiment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

In this experiment, Samuel Rowbotham would demonstrate his perception of a flat earth regularly to people by bringing them out onto a canal, and viewing a distant object (also on the canal) through a telescope placed inches above the water level.  He conducted this experiment regularly for a few years, until 1870, when one of his supporters, John Hampden, decided to publish a wager of £500 in the newspaper for anyone who could prove the earth was round.

Alfred Wallace took him up on that bet, and conducted similar experiments on the Bedford Level, but placed them high enough above the ground to correct for refraction.  He easily won the bet, and was awarded the money by an agreed-upon referee.

Sadly, Hampden didn't take that well, and brought Wallace to court.  The courts agreed with the findings, but had the money returned due to the issue of gambling.  Over the next several years, Hampden would repeatedly attack Wallace physically, verbally, and in the courts, over and over.  Hampden would be jailed, get released, resume his attacks, and get jailed again.  This went on non-stop until Hampden finally died almost twenty years later.

---

So What Is A Good Experiment?

As you can see, conducting an experiment like this is difficult at best.  You cannot simply bring a camera to the shoreline and claim that as proof.

Based on all of the information listed above, I have thought long and hard about how to conduct a reliable experiment, one that is relatively simple to do and not too expensive.

The following requirements have to be met in order to conduct an experiment that will produce accurate results:

• A calm, open, body of water that extends a minimum of a couple of miles, the further the better.  Rivers will not work because they have a slope to them, and oceans are not recommended due to the size of the waves.
• A good camera with a powerful optical zoom, positioned several feet above the water level on a stable tripod.
• A bunch of identical floating buoys, the more the better, each with a relatively large object floating above the water level at exactly the same height as the camera.  These buoys should positioned in a straight line away from the camera, spaced out evenly to cover as far of a distance as possible.

Once all of the buoys are in place, the view from the camera will show the middle ones slightly higher than either end.

There are other similar experiments possible, I was merely looking for one that someone could recreate with a minimal expense.

Here is a video that shows what I am talking about.

---

In Conclusion

I could ramble on about this for many pages, but this is the basic meat of what I had to say.

If there is a particular aspect of this that you disagree with, or want more information on, feel free to ask a question by sending it to Question4XL@gmail.com.

Why are people still using Facebook and other social programs?

Question: "Why do organizations and people continue using Facebook, and Ben with Wordpress. It has been discussed here and other forums that these are fronts for big government. Is it nobody really cares? It is a puzzle. How much information do they need on us?
Thanks in advance."


Ahhhhh... An interesting question, but you might be surprised by my answer.  *wink*

It is "human nature" to want to connect with others socially.  In the 70s it was the CB radios, in the 80s it was the bulletin board systems/AOL, in the 90s it was the fledgling Internet, in the 2000s it was the Internet w/AIM ICQ, etc. and evolved into Myspace, in the 2010s it has evolved into a myriad of different "social" programs such as Facebook, Google+, and any of the 1000+ other variants of these.

The key part is that people have innate "need" to connect with others, it is a throwback to the time before the "fall of man", when everyone was connected telepathically.  We crave that connection again, and social networks are the next step closer.  We've had several civilizations rise and fall since "the fall", each evolving to the point of starting to create a world-wide data network of some form, before being sent back to the stone age to start over.  This time we made it all the way to a true data network, and humans are irresistibly being drawn towards reconnecting with each other once again.  Regardless of what form of communication they use, they WILL communicate with each other. 

The cabal knows this was bound to happen and are attempting to make the most of it.  It isn't so much about them getting more information about us, it is about controlling us.  They release information and watch our reaction to it.  They then use this information on our reactions to choose what to do next, to direct us in the direction they want us to go.  Social engineering to the max!

Hey...are you a Cheesehead?

Question:

"Hey...are you a Cheesehead?

hi XL, I have been reading your entries on the Fulford blog for a while. You once mentioned all the snow you had, and that you lived close to 1 of the great lakes. while looking at my atlas...I noticed that you must be relatively close to Green Bay, home of the Packers...whose fans are called "cheeseheads"...just a curiosity."

Nope, sorry, I am a Yooper (someone from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan).   I live up by Lake Superior, and have to travel a few hours south in order to reach the land of cheeseheads.  Green Bay gets snow, but only a tiny fraction of what we get up in Yooperland.

Why are they covering up details about the flat earth?

Question:
"I have been VERY lightly following (but mostly scrolling past) the whole flat earth discussion on BFC - which is about the only place I see it brought up in my sphere [hah] of internet daily research sources.I think the reason I mostly dismiss it is because I cannot think of an advantageous reason for TPTB to cover this up. 

So my question is what would be some good reasons for TPTB to cover up the whole flat earth thing? If you can give me some good reasons that may spur me to spend some (precious these days) time of mine in exploring this further."

 

<-snip->

Sorry, I had to delete my response.  I worked on it for days, it was long, it was detailed, it was sarcastic...  After reviewing it, I decided it was TOO sarcastic, so I deleted it.

So, to answer your question in a short form:

Why would they cover ANYTHING up?  They continuously hide details about almost everything, and then spew out disinformation as fact on a regular basis.  This is all intentional, it keeps people second-guessing themselves and others, promotes division and contention, and keeps the people fighting amongst themselves.

This is what they want, the continuation of duality, light/dark, good/bad, left/right, right/wrong, etc...  As long as they can keep us distracted and divided, the more control they have over us.  Remember the old saying "united we stand, divided we fall"?  It is never been more true than in modern times.  Disinformation is at an all-time high, and the stakes of the game are even higher.

It is easy to explain why they hide information about things like the JFK assassination, and the 9/11 incident.  But think about it for a bit...  With JFK, they had probably less than 1000 people involved in that and covered it up quite well, but the truth still got out, is still getting out.  We know what happened.  With 9/11, they had a couple thousand people involved in that plot, and it was much-much more elaborate, and while they "sorta" got away with it, the truth got out, and is still coming out.

Now apply that concept to the flat-earth theory.  The number of people involved in the cover-up of a deception that large wouldn't measure in the thousands, it would be in the MILLIONS, probably closer to a BILLION people.  These are the people that are involved in industries that are inexorably linked to mathematics and design of technologies that involve the Earth being a sphere.  What I mean is that their daily jobs involve working with things that simply wouldn't work if the Earth was flat. 

In our current society, you simply CANNOT hide something that big, something that involves that many people, that efficiently.  The word of the deception would be leaking out all over the place, and on a regular basis.  People would be questioning things much more than they are.

But that isn't happening.  Instead, there is only an extremely small (but quite vocal) group promoting this theory, while providing not a single shred of evidence that is provable.  Their entire argument is based purely off of perception and exaggeration.  

I've spent many hours/days/weeks researching this in quite a bit of detail, trying to find some shred of evidence that is verifiable, but was unable to prove anything.

So, to answer your question on why they would cover it up... They aren't.  There is nothing to cover up.  They do hire a bunch of people to get you "thinking" there is a cover-up, but that just keeps the division going, keeping the people under fighting amongst themselves and under control.

If you'd like more detail on any particular aspect of this debate, feel free to ask, but to me the overall debate is pretty much a dead issue.   I would suggest you don't waste your time on it, it will lead you into a rabbit hole that is full of mud.
 

Why is there no word in English that rhymes with Orange?

"Why is there no word in English that rhymes with Orange?"

Actually, there are a couple of words that rhyme with Orange.  There is Blorenge (a mountain in Wales) and sporange (a sac where spores are made).

If you want to get into more, you can get into "Slant Rhyming", which is what rappers do to make words that normally don't rhyme sound close enough to use in rhymes...

Then, if you want to get into really deep things, check out these words:
http://www.skorks.com/2008/10/here-are-some-words-that-rhyme-with-orange/

But I digress... 

The word "orange" is not the only word in the English language with almost nothing that rhymes with it.  There are several.  But the bigger question, the one you should be asking, is "Why is the English language so messed up?". 

Not only does it have strange words like that with nothing that rhymes, but it also has rules that seem to change on a whim.

Such as this joke that has been circulating for a long time:
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~mbarrien/jokes/english.txt

But it isn't a joke, there is a reason why English is so screwed up (and getting worse), while is systematically being pushed as the future unilateral language to speak in...

Because it is a "dead language". 

I'm not referring to languages such as Latin, where nobody speaks it anymore and it is no longer changing, making it a "dead" language.  No, I'm speaking of a language that is totally devoid of any emotion when speaking it.

Almost all other languages are full of emotion, and how something is said is just as important as what is being said.  These languages are "living", they take on a life of their own just by the pattern of speech used to speak them.

But not English... It is totally devoid of life, and while some emotion is expressed while speaking it, the vast majority of it makes no difference to the ultimate meaning of what was said.

By stripping out emotion from the method of communication, you deaden the conversation.  It has become an integral part of the dumbing down of society in general.

What is happening with the sun?

Question:

"Can you explain why the sun is rising and setting in strange positions?  For instance, it has been rising and setting in the northeast/northwest  for several weeks.  Not too many months ago it was rising and setting in the southeast/southwest.  It has occasionally been due east/west but not often."

This is definitely an interesting topic, but unfortunately I cannot give you a definitive answer on it.

I've been hearing stories like this for the last couple of years, people are reporting the sun is rising in different places daily.  Some are even reporting that the sun is shining from a completely different direction in the middle of the day.  Even the natives up in the Artic are reporting that they have an increase in daylight hours during their wintertime.   Quite often, I'd dismiss this as a propaganda or distraction stunt, but the sheer number of people reporting this, some of whom are quite credible, inclines me to believe otherwise...

From those people that are taking these reports semi-seriously, there are numerous "scientific explanations" for these reports, ranging from continental drift to sinking of the ground in particular locations, to optical illusions, and hallucinations (among other things).

However, there seems to be no verifiable scientific "proof" of any of these things occurring that I know of.  Not to mention that the location of the sun changing that drastically daily would require monumental movements of either the sun,  the earth,  or both.   Such drastic movements would cause major catastrophic events daily.  Which,  obviously, are not occurring.

But while there is no hard evidence of the sun being in alternate locations, there is quite a bit of evidence to point to the sun being in the proper location.    I.e. you can look up in many different scientific books and on many online websites to locate the proper location of the sun at any given time from any given location and see for yourself.  I've tested this a couple of times myself, and every time the sun has been exactly where it is supposed to be.  Also, a good portion of the meteorological system is also based off of the sunrise/sunset occurring at a certain time per day in a given location, depending on where you are on the planet.  Any changes to these predictions would be well documents because of that.

In addition to this, there are plenty of ancient sites that were designed with the summer and/or winter solstice in mind.  Meaning that at sunrise on the solstice, the sun rises in a particular location on the horizon, casting a ray of light in a particular location that only be achieved during said solstice.  These sites were built thousands of years ago, and every year hundreds (if not thousands) of people make pilgrimages to these locations to observe the event on the solstice.   If the location of the sun were in a different location, these sites would no longer work.

Then,  you should include the myriad of other systems that depend of the position of the sun to work. 

Combine all of that together,  and most are inclined to go with the hallucination aspect!   With all of these people claiming they are seeing something that cannot be proven scientifically, you'd think that was the end of it, right?

Wrong! 

What we are living in here on this planet is a shared holographic reality.  Meaning that we all get together at a soul level and decide what our shared reality is going to be.   There might be minor differences in what people experience, but overall we are experiencing the same thing.

So...  If a person gets a "strong" urge to change their reality, then their reality will change (this is how hypnotism works).   If a large enough mass of people decide to change it, then they create a new shared reality.

What I am suspecting is that there is a growing level of people that are on the verge of breaking off into their own separate shared reality, one where Earth Changes have caused the Sun to move to different locations in the sky.   They frequently venture into these alternate realities, but then return to this one.  Perhaps they are even overlapping a bit...

 

Welcome to my blog!

Welcome to my blog, the first one I have ever had. 

Actually, I am not a "blogging" type of person, so don't expect to see daily ramblings about anything in general, like most bloggers.  Instead, I am just here to answer questions.

Simply put, you ask a question, about ANYTHING, and I will give you an answer about it.   I am not an expert on most topics, but for some reason I seem to know a bit about almost everything...  So, when I say ANYTHING, I mean ANYTHING.  No topic is off the table, and I will answer them as truthfully as I can.

Those of you that have conversed with me online for awhile already know that I don't usually say much unless specifically asked, so please be specific in what you want to know.  The number and topic of any posts I make will be entirely up to you, the questioner, so ask away! 

Note that I do not hold any grandiose expectations for this blog, I see it as merely a way for people to get answers to questions they have on things.  They may be a lot of questions, and there may be only a couple.  We'll see how it goes.

To ask a question, send an email to Question4XL@gmail.com. 


~XL