Flat Earth

[Pseudonym]

When I finished college, I went to work for the Department of Defense. Much of my work at that juncture of my life involved what is referred to as delivery systems. The general categories of delivery systems are missiles (guided and ballistic), aircraft and artillery. Part of the necessary accuracy of delivery system involves calculations for the Coriolis effect. Delivery systems that involved the “polar” regions required that calculations include reversal of the Coriolis effect when crossing the polar regions.

There is a great deal of consistency in calculating delivery systems, weather patterns and ocean currents. I have also been involved in placing satellites into various orbits. Though I was not involved in the James Webb space telescope project – I followed closely the calculations for placing that telescope in orbit.

I do not care much what individuals choose to believe about a flat verses globe earth or gravity or in what ideas they put their trust. But for myself and my trust; I can state with complete assurance – if someone was to make the calculations assuming the earth is flat or that gravity does not define attractions between two fermion type of objects – they will be unable to have an accurate “delivery system” for much of anything beyond 25 miles and they will never be able to place a satellite into any orbit. You can all make up your own minds but for me – I would not even take an ocean voyage if the navigator believed exclusively in the flat earth theory.

[Pazooka]

This seems rather silly to me, and my apologies in advance if I am overly simplifying the issue...But I have looked through a fair amount of telescopes in my life...

....and everything I have EVER seen is a sphere, a round sphere. Why would the planet we are standing on be any different??? What would be the purpose???

A flat earther would say:
Just because the balls on a pool table are spheres, it doesn't mean the table is.

Or…just because all the light bulbs above your head are globes doesn’t mean the floor beneath your feet is

[larsenb]

When I finished college, I went to work for the Department of Defense. Much of my work at that juncture of my life involved what is referred to as delivery systems. The general categories of delivery systems are missiles (guided and ballistic), aircraft and artillery. Part of the necessary accuracy of delivery system involves calculations for the Coriolis effect. Delivery systems that involved the “polar” regions required that calculations include reversal of the Coriolis effect when crossing the polar regions.

There is a great deal of consistency in calculating delivery systems, weather patterns and ocean currents. I have also been involved in placing satellites into various orbits. Though I was not involved in the James Webb space telescope project – I followed closely the calculations for placing that telescope in orbit.

I do not care much what individuals choose to believe about a flat verses globe earth or gravity or in what ideas they put their trust. But for myself and my trust; I can state with complete assurance – if someone was to make the calculations assuming the earth is flat or that gravity does not define attractions between two fermion type of objects – they will be unable to have an accurate “delivery system” for much of anything beyond 25 miles and they will never be able to place a satellite into any orbit. You can all make up your own minds but for me – I would not even take an ocean voyage if the navigator believed exclusively in the flat earth theory.

The flat earth hypothesis is extremely limited in both its overall model (apparently they haven't even settled on one given model) and its ability to explain, let alone calculate phenomenon such as the Coriolus effect. And in terms of placing a satellite into orbit, from what I've heard from FE proponents here, they believe that the existence of 'orbiting' satellites is a hoax, and that any technology that allegedly uses satellites is achieved by suspending the 'satellite' technology from balloons.

So are you sure your were really involved in launching satellites via rockets . . . . or perhaps the rockets were used to get the balloons to a greater height (tongue-in-cheek)

[Pseudonym]

When I finished college, I went to work for the Department of Defense. Much of my work at that juncture of my life involved what is referred to as delivery systems. The general categories of delivery systems are missiles (guided and ballistic), aircraft and artillery. Part of the necessary accuracy of delivery system involves calculations for the Coriolis effect. Delivery systems that involved the “polar” regions required that calculations include reversal of the Coriolis effect when crossing the polar regions.

There is a great deal of consistency in calculating delivery systems, weather patterns and ocean currents. I have also been involved in placing satellites into various orbits. Though I was not involved in the James Webb space telescope project – I followed closely the calculations for placing that telescope in orbit.

I do not care much what individuals choose to believe about a flat verses globe earth or gravity or in what ideas they put their trust. But for myself and my trust; I can state with complete assurance – if someone was to make the calculations assuming the earth is flat or that gravity does not define attractions between two fermion type of objects – they will be unable to have an accurate “delivery system” for much of anything beyond 25 miles and they will never be able to place a satellite into any orbit. You can all make up your own minds but for me – I would not even take an ocean voyage if the navigator believed exclusively in the flat earth theory.

The flat earth hypothesis is extremely limited in both its overall model (apparently they haven't even settled on one given model) and its ability to explain, let alone calculate phenomenon such as the Coriolus effect. And in terms of placing a satellite into orbit, from what I've heard from FE proponents here, they believe that the existence of 'orbiting' satellites is a hoax, and that any technology that allegedly uses satellites is achieved by suspending the 'satellite' technology from balloons.

So are you sure your were really involved in launching satellites via rockets . . . . or perhaps the rockets were used to get the balloons to a greater height (tongue-in-cheek)

I guess anything is possible - but then it would be most difficult to explain a patent I have (through Boing) relating to the 1553 protocol platform used on a number of orbiting communication and military satellites. The global conspiracy to hide a flat earth apparently involves an awful lot of extremely stupid international and very independent scientist like myself.

[Pazooka]

When I finished college, I went to work for the Department of Defense. Much of my work at that juncture of my life involved what is referred to as delivery systems. The general categories of delivery systems are missiles (guided and ballistic), aircraft and artillery. Part of the necessary accuracy of delivery system involves calculations for the Coriolis effect. Delivery systems that involved the “polar” regions required that calculations include reversal of the Coriolis effect when crossing the polar regions.

There is a great deal of consistency in calculating delivery systems, weather patterns and ocean currents. I have also been involved in placing satellites into various orbits. Though I was not involved in the James Webb space telescope project – I followed closely the calculations for placing that telescope in orbit.

I do not care much what individuals choose to believe about a flat verses globe earth or gravity or in what ideas they put their trust. But for myself and my trust; I can state with complete assurance – if someone was to make the calculations assuming the earth is flat or that gravity does not define attractions between two fermion type of objects – they will be unable to have an accurate “delivery system” for much of anything beyond 25 miles and they will never be able to place a satellite into any orbit. You can all make up your own minds but for me – I would not even take an ocean voyage if the navigator believed exclusively in the flat earth theory.

The flat earth hypothesis is extremely limited in both its overall model (apparently they haven't even settled on one given model) and its ability to explain, let alone calculate phenomenon such as the Coriolus effect. And in terms of placing a satellite into orbit, from what I've heard from FE proponents here, they believe that the existence of 'orbiting' satellites is a hoax, and that any technology that allegedly uses satellites is achieved by suspending the 'satellite' technology from balloons.

So are you sure your were really involved in launching satellites via rockets . . . . or perhaps the rockets were used to get the balloons to a greater height (tongue-in-cheek)

I guess anything is possible - but then it would be most difficult to explain a patent I have (through Boing) relating to the 1553 protocol platform used on a number of orbiting communication and military satellites. The global conspiracy to hide a flat earth apparently involves an awful lot of extremely stupid international and very independent scientist like myself.

I guess we’ll just take your word for it, anonymous internet stranger

[Shawn Henry]

I'm not even sure I believe Moses wrote it.

The point there is that you can be sure Joseph Smith wrote the two creation accounts in the Pearl of Great Price.

[Shawn Henry]

There seems to be many possibilities better than Flat Earth.

I'm not saying that should be our interpretation, but the point there is that the 3 accounts completely debunk the heliocentric model. We know for sure that two of these accounts are from JS, so there shouldn't be a translation issue. Thank you for those other accounts, but I still feel that there can be no doubt that waters of the earth are above every single star we see, it is clearly a closed system and that is the death knell of our current model.

[Shawn Henry]

This seems rather silly to me, and my apologies in advance if I am overly simplifying the issue...But I have looked through a fair amount of telescopes in my life...

....and everything I have EVER seen is a sphere, a round sphere. Why would the planet we are standing on be any different??? What would be the purpose???

What could it possibly matter what shape you see when we know all the lights are underneath the earth's waters, right here in earth's firmament. The Pearl of Great Price creation accounts debunk the heliocentric model.

By the way, how would a disk look through a telescope as opposed to a sphere? (not that that matters)

[Shawn Henry]

The global conspiracy to hide a flat earth apparently involves an awful lot of extremely stupid international and very independent scientist like myself.

Government compartmentalization solves that problem real quick. Just because someone is paying you to work with certain things doesn't mean that's reality. It wouldn't be that hard at all to sit someone down if front of a Nasa control room monitor and have him think that what he is seeing is real. That's how compartmentalization works.

By the way, scientists as a whole, are a very stupid people, spiritually speaking. They are the 'wise and learned' that the scriptures warn us about. They are the first among us to put all their trust and learning in the arm of flesh.

[Pseudonym]

When I finished college, I went to work for the Department of Defense. Much of my work at that juncture of my life involved what is referred to as delivery systems. The general categories of delivery systems are missiles (guided and ballistic), aircraft and artillery. Part of the necessary accuracy of delivery system involves calculations for the Coriolis effect. Delivery systems that involved the “polar” regions required that calculations include reversal of the Coriolis effect when crossing the polar regions.

There is a great deal of consistency in calculating delivery systems, weather patterns and ocean currents. I have also been involved in placing satellites into various orbits. Though I was not involved in the James Webb space telescope project – I followed closely the calculations for placing that telescope in orbit.

I do not care much what individuals choose to believe about a flat verses globe earth or gravity or in what ideas they put their trust. But for myself and my trust; I can state with complete assurance – if someone was to make the calculations assuming the earth is flat or that gravity does not define attractions between two fermion type of objects – they will be unable to have an accurate “delivery system” for much of anything beyond 25 miles and they will never be able to place a satellite into any orbit. You can all make up your own minds but for me – I would not even take an ocean voyage if the navigator believed exclusively in the flat earth theory.

The flat earth hypothesis is extremely limited in both its overall model (apparently they haven't even settled on one given model) and its ability to explain, let alone calculate phenomenon such as the Coriolus effect. And in terms of placing a satellite into orbit, from what I've heard from FE proponents here, they believe that the existence of 'orbiting' satellites is a hoax, and that any technology that allegedly uses satellites is achieved by suspending the 'satellite' technology from balloons.

So are you sure your were really involved in launching satellites via rockets . . . . or perhaps the rockets were used to get the balloons to a greater height (tongue-in-cheek)

I guess anything is possible - but then it would be most difficult to explain a patent I have (through Boing) relating to the 1553 protocol platform used on a number of orbiting communication and military satellites. The global conspiracy to hide a flat earth apparently involves an awful lot of extremely stupid international and very independent scientist like myself.

I guess we’ll just take your word for it, anonymous internet stranger

Especiallly if someone does not understand what 1553 protocol platform is and how it is utilized in various satellites. You can Google 1553 data bus if you like.

[h_p]

I'm not even sure I believe Moses wrote it.

The point there is that you can be sure Joseph Smith wrote the two creation accounts in the Pearl of Great Price.

And how could I prove that, as well as prove that he meant it as a description of a flat earth to the same degree demanded of proof of a globe earth?

[Shawn Henry]

And how could I prove that, as well as prove that he meant it as a description of a flat earth to the same degree demanded of proof of a globe earth?

I'm not saying he meant it as a description of the earth. He meant it as a description of the heavens and it debunks the heliocentric model. Either all the stars are under the earth's waters or the translation is wrong.

[BeNotDeceived]

And how could I prove that, as well as prove that he meant it as a description of a flat earth to the same degree demanded of proof of a globe earth?

I'm not saying he meant it as a description of the earth. He meant it as a description of the heavens and it debunks the heliocentric model. Either all the stars are under the earth's waters or the translation is wrong.

Huh?

[h_p]

And how could I prove that, as well as prove that he meant it as a description of a flat earth to the same degree demanded of proof of a globe earth?

I'm not saying he meant it as a description of the earth. He meant it as a description of the heavens and it debunks the heliocentric model. Either all the stars are under the earth's waters or the translation is wrong.

I'd say there are other interpretations than that. And one guy making a statement doesn't debunk anything. If that were true, Pseudonym's statement just debunked flat earth, but it was just summarily dismissed here because it doesn't match someone's belief. It's simply a statement. Your choosing to believe in it doesn't suddenly make the world go flat.

Prove to me that Joseph Smith wrote that and he intended it as a description of the way the universe actually is, to the degree that you would demand someone prove the world is round. If you can't do it, then don't use it as an argument for flat earth.

[Shawn Henry]

Huh?

Care to elaborate?

[Shawn Henry]

I'd say there are other interpretations than that. And one guy making a statement doesn't debunk anything. If that were true, Pseudonym's statement just debunked flat earth, but it was just summarily dismissed here because it doesn't match someone's belief. It's simply a statement. Your choosing to believe in it doesn't suddenly make the world go flat.

Prove to me that Joseph Smith wrote that and he intended it as a description of the way the universe actually is, to the degree that you would demand someone prove the world is round. If you can't do it, then don't use it as an argument for flat earth.

I'm not saying to credit anything I say. You are free to consider me an idiot and I won't take any offense to it. I'm just asking you to consider what JS's translation says. Let the English stand on its own as written.

Do you read it as saying all the stars and the entire firmament are underneath the earth's waters? Who cares what shape the earth is, the question is whether the Lord told the truth when he gave us the creation accounts.

Feel free to believe the heliocentric model, but at least explain how the earth's waters are above the big dipper, Andromeda, and the entire Milky Way. Do you really believe a future deep space mission would go past the Milky Way and then run into the earth's waters? If not, the creation account is flat out wrong. Are you comfortable with JS saying, well my intentions were right, even though I was completely wrong?

[FrankOne]

Like this one?

Lest it breed more accusations of conspiracy and photoshop, there's this disclaimer in the description:

THIS WILL SHOW LIVE and PRE-RECORDED FOOTAGE - depending on signal from the station or if the ISS is on the night side of Earth.

When the feed is live the words LIVE NOW will appear in the top left hand corner of the screen.
As the Space Station passes into a period of night every 45 mins video is unavailable - during this time, and other breaks in transmission, recorded footage is shown .
When back in daylight the live stream of earth will recommence

I believe these sites don't show any pre-recorded footage:
https://www.n2yo.com/space-station/
https://www.burlesonisd.net/Page/1271
https://www.spacetv.net/live/iss-live-c ... telemetry/

apparently, trillions have been spent on this coverup. Since the 1950's. Innumerable people employed in projects that don't do anything or go anywhere. As i said, my nephew is a physicist that has developed a new rocket fuel and catalytic agent for rocket thrust delivery. A billion will eventually be spent and apparently another billion lost by hapless idiot investors to do......nothing...and go nowhere. Elon Musk is apparently in on it as well, spending billions to do nothing and go nowhere. (all the above also includes the concept that nothing can actually orbit this earth).

I'm not sure where the klowns are or are not.

[BroJones]

Allison wrote (to me): "What data?"

I'm referring to data regarding lunar eclipses (in particular, "blood moons") and solar eclipses.
I have personally observed both - that constitutes my data! Personal observations.

So we need a starting point - and I suggest personal observations, yours (and husband's) and mine. So - have you guys observed blood moons and solar eclipses?

[The Red Pill]

This seems rather silly to me, and my apologies in advance if I am overly simplifying the issue...But I have looked through a fair amount of telescopes in my life...

....and everything I have EVER seen is a sphere, a round sphere. Why would the planet we are standing on be any different??? What would be the purpose???

What could it possibly matter what shape you see when we know all the lights are underneath the earth's waters, right here in earth's firmament. The Pearl of Great Price creation accounts debunk the heliocentric model.

By the way, how would a disk look through a telescope as opposed to a sphere? (not that that matters)

This world has fallen since the creation. You don't seem to be taking that into account. It could have been moved to an entirely different location in the process...an entirely different setting.

Big difference between 2D and 3D. A disk is 2D. Even looking at the moon with decent binoculars...you can see the curvature of the sphere. It's not a disk.

I appreciate your zeal on the issue. But the current world we live on and It's current location in the galaxy...and all the visual and empirical observations...and predictive movements...just don't support your theory.

Maybe it was exactly what you describe at creation, but it isn't now.

[Shawn Henry]

Maybe it was exactly what you describe at creation, but it isn't now.

The Bible is quite clear that the waters are still above the firmament. It was that way after the flood and before the flood. The gates of the heavens above opening and pouring down the waters from above is the very cause of the flood. Nice try.

Just admit it, you don't believe JS translated the PoGP correctly.

[The Red Pill]

Maybe it was exactly what you describe at creation, but it isn't now.

The Bible is quite clear that the waters are still above the firmament. It was that way after the flood and before the flood. The gates of the heavens above opening and pouring down the waters from above is the very cause of the flood. Nice try.

Just admit it, you don't believe JS translated the PoGP correctly.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am and will always be an ardent supporter of Joseph Smith. I don't believe the ridiculous church history depiction of him. God chose him, out of billions, for the restoration. There are reasons for that.

My belief in a current spherical earth has nothing to do with Joseph Smith.

[Allison]

Allison wrote (to me): "What data?"

I'm referring to data regarding lunar eclipses (in particular, "blood moons") and solar eclipses.
I have personally observed both - that constitutes my data! Personal observations.

So we need a starting point - and I suggest personal observations, yours (and husband's) and mine. So - have you guys observed blood moons and solar eclipses?

So, by data, you only mean observations? Yes we have seen both solar and lunar eclipses. Do they prove curvature?

[Shawn Henry]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am and will always be an ardent supporter of Joseph Smith. I don't believe the ridiculous church history depiction of him. God chose him, out of billions, for the restoration. There are reasons for that.

My belief in a current spherical earth has nothing to do with Joseph Smith.

I'm just trying to get you to look at his text in his 2 creation accounts. He specifically says all the stars are underneath the earth's waters.

Perhaps a better question is for me to ask you if you fault me for believing him at his word and his ability to translate? I'm just trying to get some feedback as to how his translation wouldn't be dead wrong.

By the way, Red Pill, always remember I love you.

[gradles21]

Allison wrote (to me): "What data?"

I'm referring to data regarding lunar eclipses (in particular, "blood moons") and solar eclipses.
I have personally observed both - that constitutes my data! Personal observations.

So we need a starting point - and I suggest personal observations, yours (and husband's) and mine. So - have you guys observed blood moons and solar eclipses?

So, by data, you only mean observations? Yes we have seen both solar and lunar eclipses. Do they prove curvature?

lunar eclipses aren't proof of a sphere earth, in fact to the contrary. When I cast a shadow of a basketball onto a tennis ball the shadow is a straight line, it's not curved like we see during an eclipse.

[The Red Pill]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am and will always be an ardent supporter of Joseph Smith. I don't believe the ridiculous church history depiction of him. God chose him, out of billions, for the restoration. There are reasons for that.

My belief in a current spherical earth has nothing to do with Joseph Smith.

I'm just trying to get you to look at his text in his 2 creation accounts. He specifically says all the stars are underneath the earth's waters.

Perhaps a better question is for me to ask you if you fault me for believing him at his word and his ability to translate? I'm just trying to get some feedback as to how his translation wouldn't be dead wrong.

By the way, Red Pill, always remember I love you.

Of course, I don't find fault with you believing him at his word. I take him at his word as well. I have pondered the water question as far back as my mission...so it's not something I haven't thought about.

I just think we both don't see the bigger picture yet. Something that would explain everything...and make perfect sense. I personally, leave this one on the "need further light and knowledge to fully comprehend" list.