Friday, 18 September 2015

One Question for Flat Earthers

If, as you claim the earth is a flat disk which is not spinning in space, then why does my 30 year old 6 inch reflecting telescope have an equatorial mount and an electric motor?


Here is a nice man showing what they are used for.




FLAT EARTH - THE GREATEST PSY-OP OF THE ELECTO-MAGNETIC AGE


You can see how the denial and cult fanatic 'swarming' mentality has developed into a psychic wildfire. This was actually quantified by a documentary production team in 2012 when the Comet Death cult in France were sent out to do the same to me then. The cult leaders can only 'ground' their 'control' upon the followers by infusing them with an 'with us or against us', now or never, 'book burning' hysteria associated with the dogma of the cult. Researchers dealing with cult dynamics have even plotted it on a bell curve and the various points at which the inner cult 'family leaders' activate the fanatics until a peak is reached. It is all about energy warfare and brain chemical (wild fluctuations of dopamine and norepinephrine) in the cult fanatics being optimised constantly.


The hate sites will be set-up next. That still won't make the world flat, any more than it made the dead-eyed psychotic son-in-law of a 300LB chain-smoking, attempted murder suspect make his own 'comet clusters' delusions arrive by the many, many prediction dates which have all long come and gone...

66 comments:

  1. One simple question has put the entire Flat Earth Theory to bed for good.

    Thanks Thomas. The earth is a spinning sphere. Case closed. I am ashamed to admit I got sucked into this last summer. I might also add that I felt very under pressure by the Flat Earth guys to just accept everything they claimed which proves the earth is flat. Looking back on it now it seems like the Jehovah Witnesses putting their shoe in my front door.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. sorry,that requires some explanation!
      you seem to be quite unwilling to entertain some obvious facts and obvious problems!
      don't get me wrong! i'm listening!

      Delete
    2. You are a liar once you go flat you never go back!

      Delete
    3. Lots of ex Jehovah Witnesses, Born Agains, Scientologists etc in the Troof and Comet Death Cult alt media scene. Once easily brainwashed, ALWAYS easily brainwashed.

      Delete
  2. Does an equatorial mount with a clock drive prove the Ball Earth theory? If so, please explain. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes see the answer I gave to Joseph below.

      Delete
    2. It's impossible to explain these things to a "flat earther" for the simple reason that they are too thick to understand, this is compounded by the strange phenomena that anything a flat earther can't understand is projected onto the other as being nonsense.

      Delete
  3. Does the equatorial mount prove the Ball Earth Theory? Does it work on a Flat Earth model also? Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The equatorial mounts compensates for the distance the telescope is located from the equator. This being, north-south on the outside of a sphere. You would not need to adjust this angle otherwise as you move your telescope from one degree of latitude to the next.

      The motor allows the telescope to keep the star or object being observed within the field of view as the star is constantly moving away as the earth rotates. The more the telescope is zoomed in, the quicker the star, planet or other object leaves the field of view.

      Telescope photography was the reason why equatorial mounts were developed. To compensate for the earth's rotation and the latitude of the telescope along the outside of a sphere.

      Apart from getting into a spaceship, I can think of no more effective method of demonstrating the earth is a spinning ball than the need for an equatorial mount on a powerful telescope.

      Delete
    2. If the earth was flat and not spinning then no need. Just point at the star and not worry about where you are on the surface or the object leaving the telescope's field of view due to the rotation.

      Unless one believe the stars and planets are moving around the earth and the sphere of the earth is not spinning.

      Delete
    3. wrong! it only proves the sky moves,which everyone knows anyway!

      Delete
    4. yes, of course that's what's happening. nobody's saying the stars aren't moving, we're saying the earth isn't.

      nothing you have said about your equatorial mount proves a damn thing. it just proves the stars are moving, well done.

      Delete
    5. If the adjustment is to keep the object in frame, then it can be seen that the sky luminaries are moving. Have a look at time-lapse photography.
      But I will still listen to your video.

      Delete
  4. THanks for the explanation Thomas. Would it therefor be safe to assume in theory that if the Earth was fixed and flat with the Heavenly bodies in rotation above, the same observational pneunomena would occur, as to say the distance of the observer to the perceived equator- or parh of the Sun, as may be the case.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Regarding stars and objects rotating around the earth, in theory, yes. But this is only the secondary function of the mechanism on the mount. Its main function is to compensate for the position of the telescope located along the arc of the curved surface of the globe. The motor would not work otherwise.

    A few years back I went on a camping holiday in Italy and took the scope. I had to readjust the setting of the angle because I was closer to the equator in southern Italy than where I live in Ireland. It was several degrees in difference.

    This is also why the Northern and Southern Lights are only visible from polar, or near polar regions. They are hidden by the curvature of the earth unless you live in high northern latitudes. If you place an LED on the top of a tennis ball (to simulate the aurora) and then move the LED away from you, the light is blocked by the curve of the ball as you turn it.

    Same reason the pole star is not visible south of the equator and the southern cross is not visible north of the equator. Where you are on the ball determines being ale to see specific stars and the angles they are at from your point of view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. seems pretty stupid for a proof of the globe. I mean look, snipers.....

      Delete
  6. Hmmm. The leads are weak...

    ReplyDelete
  7. More non-proof "proof". Next...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have politely and correctly answered all the questions put to me and as yet not a single person who supports the Flat Earth theory has answered mine.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks again Thomas.Regarding your camping trip. Is it safe to assume again that the same angular adjustments you needed to make would apply on both Ball and Flat Earth models? Also, concerning the Aurora, could it be it is simply too far away from the equator/path of the Sun to be observed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The angle would be the same on the earth all over the world. No need for a mount that is balanced and works on the same principle as the human inner in ear in that it needs to locate the center of the earth. (inside a sphere)

      Delete
  10. It works on a stationary flat Earth, over which the firmament rotates Ann :-) It's flat! According to my friend Mike Croley

    ReplyDelete
  11. you obviously have not really researched this

    ReplyDelete
  12. The key here is telescope. You have to magnify to see depth of field in the planetary and star field. Just as you have to magnify to see into the atomic field. We live on the Earth, it is a planet, in the planetary field, thus, it is outside of our volume. A volume is defined by 3 dimensions, height length and width, but the universe does not, and cannot have a single volume. It must contain a minimum of 5 volumes. And a volume outside of our own, such as the planetary field, is outside of our 3 dimensions in our volume on the crust of the Earth.
    The reason that there are a minimum of 5 volumes of "things" in the universe is because of geometry.
    It takes a minimum of 2 points to make a line, the 1st dimension; 3 lines make an area; the second dimension; 4 areas make a volume, the third dimension; so, 5 volumes must make the 4th dimension.
    The universe is the fourth dimension, therefore it must contain a minimum of 5 volumes, and as the Earth is outside of our third volume, in the fourth volume, it is perceived as flat.
    The problem with the flat earth circle agents is that the people who are sponsoring it, do not believe the Earth is flat themselves, and when this is pointed out to them they try to argue against geometrical facts that the Earth is of, and in, a different volume than we are, therefore the Earth is flat for us, in our volume because it is in a greater scale than people are. The same is true for atoms and molecules, the table looks flat, but it is made of little round atoms, huge relative distances apart.
    BTW photons are in the smallest volume, and galaxies are in the greatest volume. (that makes five volumes, all together, this is what gives us energy, matter, space, and time.
    Because you are using a telescope you are dabbling into a greater volume outside our own, making your question a moot point. The Earth is round, but it is not in our volume of 3 dimensions, and anything outside of our volume is 2 dimensional to us.
    Turning on this electrifying light will put the gas lighters out of business.
    Cheers, and Happy New Year

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This was the exact same conclusion that I have arrived at when I started to meditate on the geometry factors surround the Flat Earth claims.

      Thank you soooooooo much for explaining this very concisely. You description of this Universal geometry is exactly what I suspected it to be like. Thanks again. I'm cutting and pasting this on my Facebook page now, I hope you don't mind. Thanks so much. - T.R.M.

      Delete
    2. Yes, post this everywhere, if you understand it.
      i got a video called "The Five Volumes" on YT. rongrite

      This is the scaffolding of this physical universe.

      We exist in a volume, and all volumes are just as vast, and each volume has its "items" of scale. photons, protons; people; planets; and galaxies. These are "things" of each volume. It's their size difference that show us the existence of the five volumes. For instance, our DNA molecule is 100 million times smaller than us, while the gassy giant planets, like Saturn, are 100 million times bigger than us, and there is a greater volume, and a lesser volume than these. We are "stuck in the middle" in this sense in our third volume, between the stars and the atoms, and galaxies and photons.
      The heavens are in greater volumes,and all the things in them are made of atoms and molecules of a smaller volume, we see them with the photons from the smallest volume, even the galaxies in the greatest volume. The universe, is the construction of the 4th dimension, like the "volume," is in the third dimension, "area," is the construction of the second dimension; and the "line," is the first dimension, (the "point," has the zero dimensions, but shows a single position in a greater line, area, volume, or universe. A dimension is just a length)
      Remember, the five volumes are not the dimensions themselves, but the "realms" of scale, in this fourth dimension; this universe.

      Delete
    3. To put this another way, no matter where one goes on the Earth, or in the solar system for that matter, we are going to be the same size, and in this same volume we are in now. Another planet would be flat too, to us. Not because it is flat, but because it is so much bigger than us that we only experience 2 of its 3 dimensions. Planets, and stars, are in a greater volume than ours, just as atoms are in a smaller volume than ours. We can only "know" the 3 dimensions of our volume, the sky can only show us 2 dimensions at a glance, the Earth can only show us 2 dimensions, and the atoms only show us 2 dimensions. All volumes outside our own, are flat, thus the Earth must be flat as well, as it is in a greater volume that we are.
      The Earth is round in its volume, but we are not in the same volume as the Earth. And as we live in this smaller volume, the Earth, in its greater volume, for no other reason, is flat.

      Delete
    4. Is the table flat?
      The table may appear to be flat but it is made of molecules and atoms, that are relatively vast distance apart, which are NOT flat. The table top is not flat, but only appears flat to us because it is in the same volume as us. Outside our volume the table cannot possibly be flat.
      This is true, as well, for the Earth, it is outside of our volume and does not share the same 3 dimensions with our volume. This is why the Earth is flat, and for no other reason.
      The flat-Earth is a loaded phrase. The people promoting the psyop believe they are pulling the wool over everyone's eyes, but the psyop fails, because the Earth can be explained, and rationalized, in this way, as actually being flat because it is outside our volume!
      Arguing that the Earth is round, is what they expect, but showing that the Earth is actually flat because the universe, this construction of the 4th dimension, must contain at least five separate volumes, discredits the plans of the flat-earth pundits, by promoting a belief, they thought could easily be later dismissed, that the Earth is flat.
      The Earth is a planet, and planets are in the 4th volume, people are in the 3rd volume. Things, like planets, outside of our volume, must be seen as being flat, from a human perspective.
      It's simple geometry.

      Delete
  13. The answer to your question is "30 Kilometers an Hour", give or take a few kilometers per hour, entitled "The gedanken experiment" in this Link: http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html

    A short Quote:
    "Be this as it may, such an earth-centered explanation of the available data does, of course, not prove the geocentric theory. Logically, the existence of another, even a heliocentric, version is thereby not excluded. In any case, whatever the correct equation, it will have to account for the fact of the 20”.5 angle of Bradley's telescope and, consequently, for the 30 km/sec velocity of either the earth or the sun and all stars. And it is this “either-or” cast that makes it possible to refute the specious ”aberration of starlight” by means of an indirect demonstration: a demonstration which does not only overthrow the Copernican theorem, but also exposes a fatal flaw in its Einsteinian offspring, now beguiling the world."

    I don't own and have never owned a high powered telescope. So I ask you to explain to me, after you go read that page FULLY, what all this means and why it does or doesn't explain your need for an Equatorial Mount. Seriously, explain this to me like I'm 5 years old because I know nothing about telescopes, I'm not kidding. If you somehow fail to prove your explanations for the "30Km/h" I'm sure I don't need to tell you Trolls will be Fed and by you. I have no invested interest in this, I personally and actually don't care either way whether it's flat or not. For the record I say it's all of the above. "Every 3rd dimensional object consists of the 1st and 2nd dimensions."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction, it's not 30Km per Hour. It's 30Km per Second. The question remains the same as to it's affect on an Equatorial Mount apparatus.

      Delete
    2. Still waiting for your reply on the Gedenkenexperiment regarding Airey's Failure.

      Delete
  14. Hi Thomas, it seems to me that because there is movement thus meaning one needs a motorized equatorial mount ipsofacto the world is a ball is an assumption. I'm not versed on said mount but reading about it it seems to be a device that uses the earth's axis or the axis that the sky appears to revolve around to position and track celestial objects from different positions on earth. We know that sky moves above us so u prove nothing there and we know also that as our position changes on earth the angle changes in relation to and how we see the stars, that's why stars have been used as navigation because we are able to judge our position on earth from them. The fact that we use this device doesn't really seem to prove the ball theory. Why don't u address the fact that I can see noarlunga jetty that stands at 4meters high from 9 miles away from eye height of less than 6ft

    ReplyDelete
  15. thomas shillidan strikes again. there is zero evidence to support the globe. absolutely none. airys fail and the michaelson morely exps proved earth was not moving.einstein said there was no exp that cd be done to prove it was. you shillidan are not genuine in any shape or form as your condemnation of the hampstead childrens testamony clearly showed. there is no curvature to the earth. where as it shd be clearly seen particularly at altitude. after ww2 top nazi scientists such as werner von braun and others working on mind control were covertly shipped to usa under operation paperclip. they founded nasa. by the 60 s every home had a tv in time for the fake moonlandings and fake pic of earth. immediately the world was fooled into thinking earth was a ball space travel was real and men were on the moon. the moon landings were as fake as you are and easily seen to be so if people question what they are programmed never to question as millions have done this year and have seen for themselves earth is flat as water lies at sea level . there is insurmountable evidence earth is not a spinning ball and none that it is. it exists only in the programmed mind.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Flat Earth is complete nonsense, but what with the Concave Earth? I did some experiments that are puzzling.

    About experiments and the Concave Earth: http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/

    ReplyDelete
  17. The Flat Earth is complete nonsense, but what with the Concave Earth? I did some experiments that are puzzling.

    About experiments and the Concave Earth: http://www.wildheretic.com/concave-earth-theory/

    ReplyDelete
  18. The positions of celestial objects are calculated with angles 0 to 90 with the horizon of a flat plane being zero.
    The azimuth heading is also calculated from a circle on a flat plane.
    On a flat plane you also have to adjust your angle of elevation when you move to a new location.
    what this comes down to is which one you believe to be true, even though plotting of celestial objects is illustrated as a ball or dome over a flat plane.
    I believe it is you beliefs preventing you looking into flat earth properly, even if to admit that no one thing can prove whether we are on a globe or a flat plane(t).
    I have made a video response to your New Year message to flat earhers on YT channel phuketword

    ReplyDelete
  19. We're still waiting for you prove the globe Sheridan. Scopes work either way. Pagan Goddesses prove nothing. The only problem with the ears is that you don't use them and your eyes as well I guess. Is there something wrong with your hand too where you can't click to watch a few videos. Do some research on the flat earth proofs, debunk them and get back to us. No, looking at the beach doesn't count and enable youtube comments for heavens sake it just shows your unwillingness to take criticism

    ReplyDelete
  20. We're still waiting for you prove the globe Sheridan. Scopes work either way. Pagan Goddesses prove nothing. The only problem with the ears is that you don't use them and your eyes as well I guess. Is there something wrong with your hand too where you can't click to watch a few videos. Do some research on the flat earth proofs, debunk them and get back to us. No, looking at the beach doesn't count and enable youtube comments for heavens sake it just shows your unwillingness to take criticism

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bill Shackleton:

    "We're still waiting for you prove the globe Sheridan."

    FOLLOWED BY

    "Is there something wrong with your hand too where you can't click to watch a few videos."

    and that my friends sums up Flat Earth 'Research' in a nutshell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. You're kidding me right? I posted this link about Airy's Failure. Then you completely ignore it, while pointing fingers at other people asking simpler questions, calling it research. Ha!

      Here is the Link Again: http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html

      Read the $#%$# Page! And explain it to me LIKE I ASKED YOU TO!!! Or shutup about asking people to provide you with evidence that you're just going to ignore anyway Mr. Shillidan.

      Delete
    3. The topic of Flat or Heliocentric earth is clearly a hot topic and very much up for debate. Some of the flat earth and globe earth views are extreme and without evidence. I would love to discuss the topic with Thomas Sheridan in a rational way. I have a massive amount of respect for Mr Sheridan and his research. I would dearly like him to put his views on psychopathology and flat earth on Flat Earth UK. Thomas Sheridan is no fool and a high profile opponent of the flat earth. I would like thise views to be heard by a captive flat earth audience but free from childishness and insulting comments. Thank you Thomas Sheridan for entering the debate! I for one value your opinions as a flat earth advocate and hope you continue in the debate.

      Delete
    4. Aside from Flat Earth comments Mr. Sheridan has made.
      He flat out lied saying: "There are no Satanic pediphiles running around." I have massive disrespect for liars that support organizations by spreading lies for them.


      Regarding Flat Earth comments. It is very unfortunate for Flat Earth Society that Mr. Sheridan has joined into their debate. Flat Earth doesn't need Chaos Agents in there midst. They will do better debating with a willing scientist, not some person with literally a Dark Background.

      I'm glad I used offensive words in my post. I see now that using cuss words gives Mr. Sheridan an excuse to ignore the evidence he asked for in the form of Airy's Failure. I assume now he'll take it off his Blog and attempt to make a reply to me on some other forum that I am not apart of, so he can use slander and defamation like most paid disinformation shills do, knowing full well how unlikely it will be that I will encounter such a post. Perhaps another one of his friends will post more stuff about Flat Earth people being schizophrenic again, that will be nice to hear more about that. I am well familiar with the loosing sides tactics and how they quickly research the oppositions individuals then post Trolling comments looking for a reaction, like for example using the "Schizophrenia" topic to Troll with. Which by the way I don't understand how that person concluded that Flat Earth people are Schizophrenic. When it all comes out, what matters is that Thomas Sheridan gets the level of exposure that he's always wanted and perhaps considerably more. Talk hard.

      Delete
  22. tinyurl.com/FlatEarthRevolution

    ReplyDelete
  23. tinyurl.com/FlatEarthRevolution

    ReplyDelete
  24. Had to make a comment regarding Flat Earth - Blown Wide Open. Just a look at the clear overwhelming dislikes to likes on YT should tell you something Thomas. You threw everything but the kitchen sink at this one and IMO achieved nothing but making yourself look unhinged. You started the chat stating that involving yourself in this 'cult' (i.e looking with a rational mind at the info presented)is highly dangerous, yet you have quite nonchalantly/flippantly stated in the past that you are working on creating a 'tulpa'. Do I need to elabourate?
    I would agree that the 'Flat Earth Movement' has some highly dubious spokespeople and many gullible and offensive idiots involved within it, but that does not mean that it is all a big psyop as you have suggested. Some of the info I have tapped into on the IFERS (International Flat Earth Research Society) forum which has been taken down recently is really quite compelling.
    Does this mean as you have suggested, that I am at the mercy of Mossad, the Iranian Intel Agency, Russian Intel Agency and am in a lot ways no different to Evangelistic Christian Zionist Proddies and other fanatics who could with a little more mind control and encouragement start shooting the place up for the greater good? My gods man, you can't be serious!!
    You are basically saying that NASA which clearly has Hollywood connections is a force for good that the Ruskies are trying to take down and/or humiliate.
    You even threw in comparisons with the Hampstead Satanic Panic nut bags which I thought was a low blow.
    You often make quality points and observations in your work Thomas, which is why I like to follow you, but you are equally inconsistent, hypocritical and plain nutty at times bro.
    Still luv ya. Happy New year and all that tat.
    John

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here is the Information you Requested:
    http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html

    Go read that page and then explain it all to us. Or stop asking people to provide you with information you are just going to ignore away and shut the @#$# UP!

    ReplyDelete
  26. In reference to celestial bodies;

    Why have we been seeing these same constellations for 1000s of years? NASA claims it because stars are 1000 of light-years away so it take 1000s of ears for the light to reach us..I have a few problems with this claim. The Milkyway galaxy is estimated to be 100,000 light-years in diameter and was formed 13.6 billion years ago. So theoretically speaking the light from every star shouldve been visible from every point in the galaxy within the first 100,000 years of the galaxy's formation. Also I wonder why NASA sends billion dollar spaces probes to take photos of Jupiter if their high-powered telescopes can see into a galaxy millions of light-years away. As a matter of fact, there is a photo NASA released of them taking a photo of the Galileo space probe taking a photo of Jupiter...this seems redundant. I live in North Carolina in the U.S. I believe America has a huge part in deceiving people, although i have not seen acult like followings here in the states. I do imagine there are crazy people making cults in other places..it may be here where I live just not well known. We live in a time full of disinfo and trolls. Its difficult to know what's real and who's working for the government. So keep your guard up and take everything with a grain of salt...including this comment

    ReplyDelete
  27. As someone who's even more receptive of fringe "conspiracy theories" than Thomas, I literally can't believe anyone would entertain the notion of a flat earth. Look at a satellite photo of the earth. Better yet, stand at a high elevation and look at the horizon. How fucking retarded can someone be? Maybe there are strange optical anomalies. All that proves is that you don't understand optics or math well enough to weigh in.

    I had no idea this was becoming a "thing." Is Paul McCartney dead? Maybe, maybe not. Was Sandy Hook a real shooting? Probably not. Is the earth flat? No – and we have mountains of incontrovertible evidence outweighing a few not-very-interesting brain-teasers. The fact that the earth is a sphere is better-established than the fact of gravity. Only a schizophrenic could have a sincere belief in the notion of a flat earth, and schizophrenics can't construct intelligible sentences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In many ways the flat earth stuff is proof that Transhumanism is a real thing. Many people believe YT videos more than the reality they exist in now. The Flat Earth on YT, is more real to them than the spherical one they are standing upon.

      Terrifying actually.

      Delete
    2. I will rather wax math any day. Than listen to your opinionated biases. Your avoiding the math right now while avoiding explaining Airey's Failure. Please at least provide some conjecture if you don't have solid evidence to object Airey's Failure.
      Been waiting since New Years for you to respond.

      Delete
  28. Gordon Bennett, I've had to listen to this speeded up. Talk about irrelevant. Not special and not sobering. I don't know whether it's round or flat. What we need is 'experimentation'.
    Anecdotal nonsense at best, Cointel pro at worst. NATO and soldiers doing their best, Ha Ha. Right or wrong, you don't look good Sheridan especially with your past nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Gordon Bennett, I've had to listen to this speeded up. Talk about irrelevant. Not special and not sobering. I don't know whether it's round or flat. What we need is 'experimentation'.
    Anecdotal nonsense at best, Cointel pro at worst. NATO and soldiers doing their best, Ha Ha. Right or wrong, you don't look good Sheridan especially with your past nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I fail to see how that is proof that the Earth is a 'globe' in fact, that's a baseless presumption. You do realize the reason why the Globe was created was that Pythagoras (who contrary to popular belief did not adhere to the heliocentric model) thought the moons phases were caused by Earth's shadow, this of course turned out to be wrong. His belief was that there was a Hearth or Central Fire that every sphere was spinning around, and you should also note that his reason for this belief was contingent on his bias that he wanted to prove that he can understand everything in the universe using trigonometry and finding the hypotenuse, and the spheres were a direct relation of his theory of music and color, and hence that the "planets" being round were like notes.

    Aristarchus came up with the heliocentric model as a joke to a stoic who worshiped the sun but knew the Earth was geocentric. So he later wrote a book that outlined a thought experiment on what if the earth revolved around the sun. He himself did not believe it, and this is well understood, but it was Copernicus who brought both of those models for his masonic deception which he was ushered in as a canon of the Catholic Church to falsely present it without "bias."

    When he actually got to the point of explaining the telescope I had to sigh.

    He's telling you right there. THE SKY IS A SPHERE. Not the ground. You're misunderstanding this. He -thinks- that the sky is seen as a sphere because it follows the curvature of the Earth, and space would otherwise not be seen as a sphere (relatively if you were not on Earth) but this is wrong...

    You're seeing the sky as a sphere because it IS a sphere/dome, spinning, and thus the adjustments made to 'account for curvature' as it appears in the sky is just a shill explanation claiming the earth is curving so the celestial bodies appear to curve with it (due to rotation).

    I find it hard to believe you even looked into the Flat Earth seriously if you couldn't even deduct this obcvious distinction for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too am surprised that Thomas made a video concerning the Flat Earth topic. Since he is so unwilling to review and discuss the discoveries that lead to such flat earth conclusions.

      I get the impression that Thomas is just looking for Click-Bait material while actually not being interested or versed on the material he's posting to raise his Hit Counter, and making a good sum with forced web advertising on the side I bet, while we come to his site following his Click-Bait traps.

      My advice: Boycott Thomas.

      Delete
  31. I just posted this on Google + and set it to Public. I didn't send it to anyone in particular. Flat Earthers are commenting on it already-all emotional, negative stuff. They don't answer your question. I even cut and pasted your explaination of an equatorial mount in the comments section for the ones too lazy to even look at this post. They have no answer to your question and avoid it. Not an original thought among them. They just repeat what Eric Dubay and co. have already said in YouTube videos. They certainly qualify as a Cult in my book. Thank you Thomas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typical Mind Control Cult Reaction.

      Delete
    2. I've been posting since New Years Day. I direct my posts to Thomas in particular. Flat Earthers are commenting on my posts already-all expectant, positive stuff. Thomas refuses to answer my question. I even cut and pasted (http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/no066/vdkamp.html) the material pertaining to my question of an equatorial mount being affected by Airy's Failure in Thomas's blog section for the ones too lazy to even listen to the news. The shills just repeat what Thomas Sheridan and co. have already said in his Blog posts. They certainly qualify as paid Shills in my book. Thank you Truthers.

      Thomas Sheridan is following Typical Mind Control Cult Reactions. He points fingers at others using slander and defamation tactics against those who question Ball Earth, while refusing to answer questions even after being provided content material.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. After reviewing this blog. I see the question has not been specifically asked. So here it is:

      "Thomas Sheridan, please explain to your viewers, in a paragraph or more, 'How does the Gedenkenexperiment regarding Airey's Failure have an impact on a Telescope's Equatorial Mount?'"

      It is now Official! The question has been asked, Officially by me. I'm sure there is no need for me to paste the link that I've been sending you to read, again.

      I await a non-defamation, non-slander, non-aloof, and intelligent paragraph or more reply that relates to Airy's Failure. Thanks in advance.

      Delete
  32. Oh for Chissake, knock it off with the flat earth shit.I've a feeling many of you are doing it to to be dicks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We failed to debate: Equatorial Mount vs. Airy's Failure.

      At least we proved these blog readers are open minded to Transhumanism. Since I am convinced that is all that will be solved on this particular blog post. I can settle for that I suppose. Praise Transhumanism! Long live the Cybernetics, because I don't know Telescopes are cyber and transhumanistic.

      Delete
    2. Almost forgot to mention, we also concluded that most of the readers of this Flat Earth post are schizophrenic and enable to write proper sentences.
      Quote Anonymouse: "Only a schizophrenic could have a sincere belief in the notion of a flat earth, and schizophrenics can't construct intelligible sentences."

      Sadly we did not hear any debates Pro-Equatorial Mount, or Non-Pro-Airy's Failure. Or even vice versa for that matter, sadly, oh I already said that was sad we didn't hear more about it, sadly enough.

      Delete
  33. "If, as you claim the earth is a flat disk which is not spinning in space, then why does my 30 year old 6 inch reflecting telescope have an equatorial mount and an electric motor?" - Simple..... so you had to spend more money to learn nothing matey!!!

    ReplyDelete