[Misinformation] Mark Sargent: "The Spinning Ball You Think You Are On Is Flat"

[Swami]

Mark Sargent and Alexandra Meadors review many enlightening concepts regarding the flat earth theory and why it is important to challenge everything we have been taught from our first days in school. Find out how so many of the theories we have been taught can all be seriously questioned such as gravity, a spinning earth, and a far away sun and moon just to name a few. Even plane travel has been mysteriously manipulated to hide the true routes commercial airliners are taking to avoid the reality of earth's shape and size.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGVIL7OkIkA

[Swami]

NASA Insider Exposes the Flat Earth!

Matthew Boylan, former NASA operational graphics manager, worked for years creating photo-realistic computer graphics for NASA. Now a vocal Flat-Earther, Boylan claims that NASA’s sole reason for existence is to propagandize the public and promote this false ball-Earth heliocentric worldview. Originally recruited because of his skills and reputation as a hyper-realist multi-media artist, he started doing projects like photoshopping various lighting and atmospheric effects onto images of Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, Europa, etc. Having proved himself, and wanting to promote him to do more classified work, a room of NASA higher-ups during a party, as a type of initiatory-rite, explained to him and a few others in detail the reality of the Geocentric Flat-Earth model and how they have fooled the entire world!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQt9vq3sdtQ&feature=youtu.be

[Tribe]

ohh i find this stuff fascinating , it is good to question everything ! :)

[Swami]

Eric Dubay Real Flat Earther Interview

Have you ever met a real Flat Earther? Did you know there are fake Flat Earther's too? The entire Flat Earth Society along with people like Daniel Shenton and Mark Sargent are controlled opposition frauds who present themselves as legitimate Flat Earthers but in reality are propagandists, enemies of the plane truth, mixing lies, satire and false Flat Earth arguments into their material to deter neophytes from conducting further research. For example Daniel Shenton and the FES claim Earth is constantly rising up at 9.8 m/s to account for gravity. This is a ridiculous easily proven impossibility, however, as I explain in the following interview, but by making these easily refutable false flat Earth arguments, these agents muddy the waters and poison the well of legitimate flat Earth research. Mark Sargent recently made a few good flat Earth videos to ingratiate himself into the movement, but now he's claiming the Moon, stars and planets are holographic projections, that seasons are caused by unknown processes underneath the Earth, that Admiral Byrd discovered "a semi-permanent barrier" in Antarctica and other non-sense. When I asked him to provide evidence for such outlandish claims (and to refute the abundant evidence to the contrary) he admits to having no evidence but continues to promote and propagate these false claims regardless.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G90A2kg1bWs

[Daozen]

1st post: I think these flat Earth videos are being spread to to deflect the growing awareness that Inner Earth contains more than one parallel civilization.

[Tribe]

thats a interesting take on it contact point :) x

[lift the veil]

So how do they explain the phenomena of the sunrise moving back and forth between the tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn every year? We have to be a sphere tilted on an axis, orbiting the Sun. I have watched the sunrise every morning and observed it moving to the south after every summer solstice and then moving north after ever winter solstice.

http://www.angelfire.com/music2/alchemy/images/sinewavedoubleglobe.jpg

http://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/SunOnCelestialSphere.png

Old maps show the apparent path of the sun, but this is actually a result of us orbiting the sun and moving among the zodiacal signs in our neck of the Universe. The Equinoxes occur when the sun (sine wave path) is directly above the equator, during Aries and Libra.

http://www.werone.co/images/Earth_Tropics_large.jpg

I call B.S. on the flat-earth theory.

[bsbray]

I have to call BS on it too because the model with which they are trying to replace the spherical Earth model, is just not as good of a model.

The video in the 2nd post, "NASA Insider Exposes the Flat Earth!," I actually watched that video previously. I took it seriously for as long as I could before it just started sounding like total nonsense to me. One of the questions I brought up on PA about this was in regards to plane flights, in that flights between certain locations should take a lot damned longer if the Earth is actually flat, among other problems, such as those listed by "lift the veil" in the post above.

Here are three more problems, shooting off the hip:

1) During a lunar eclipse, the Earth's shadow as it moves across the Sun is round. It cannot be seen from everywhere on Earth at once, though if the entire surface of the Earth were flat it would be.

2) It is not day or night simultaneously everywhere on the surface of the Earth, as it would be if the Earth were flat.

3) There are constellations in the southern hemisphere that you can't see in the northern hemisphere and vice-versa. This would not be possible if the Earth was flat, unless all of the stars are holographic projections too, that change depending on the location of the observer.


While I am not going to watch a 2 hour documentary just to hear how they are trying to explain the airplane flight time problem, if anyone else does watch it and cares to post their argument against it, I will be willing to consider it. A 30-minute video about this kind of stuff is more than enough consideration on my part, from what I've seen so far.

I understand all of these ideas that reality itself may be illusion, everything may be a holographic projection of our mind or collective mind, etc., since everything can said to simply be a thought in the mind of God, so to speak. But it would be much simpler and a better-fitting model to reality to just say that if that is the case, then we also have projected a spherical Earth. I agree with the above poster who believes this is a disinformation campaign or psy-op of some sort. I believe in some pretty wild things, but because I have weighed the evidence to my satisfaction and found that it was sufficient to be open-minded. In this case I get the feeling that just because it sounds wild, some people think it must be equally important for consideration, and then it turns out that the arguments do not make any sense at all.

It might be time to revisit Copernicus and his apologists, because this debate is certainly not a new one by any means. The Catholic church used to burn people alive for saying the Earth was spherical and revolved around the Sun.

[Church]

I'm extremely fascinated by this topic. Thank you, Swami.

http://gruposurrealistagalego.blogaliza.org/files/2012/02/Flammarion-3.jpg

[Swami]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/images/gallery/Maps/01%20Flat%20Earth%20Society%20Map%20%28Charles%20K .%20Johnson%29.jpg

[Swami]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/images/gallery/Maps/02%20Orlando-Ferguson-flat-earth-map.jpg

[Swami]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/images/gallery/Maps/voliva_map.jpg

[Swami]

http://s27.postimg.org/4dwqse7ab/nasa_flat_earth.jpg

[lift the veil]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/images/gallery/Maps/voliva_map.jpg

The sunrise path does not travel in a circle, it travels in a spiraling sine wave due to the tilt of the Earth sphere's axis. This is the reason for the seasons.

[Swami]

Flat Earth Podcast with Eric Dubay and Mark Knight

In this highly-informative and humorous podcast President of the International Flat Earth Research Society and webmaster of AtlanteanConspiracy.com, Eric Dubay, talks with fellow conspiracy author and webmaster of WaykiWayki.com, Mark Knight. Topics covered include flat Earth science vs. ball Earth pseudo-science, the various proofs/evidence for the geocentric flat Earth and debunking the supposed proofs/evidence for the heliocentric ball-Earth, the North Pole and South Pole (or lack thereof) and the Antarctic ice-rim, the Sun, Moon, eclipses, seasons, Polaris, stars, planets, NASA, the fake Moon and Mars landings, the controlled opposition Flat Earth Society vs. the legitimate International Flat Earth Research Society, and disinformation agents like Mark Sargent (codename: Sargent Non-Sense)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5aB6oThGK8

[bsbray]

I'd like you guys taking this flat Earth theory seriously to help me understand how this is possible.


So let's take this image:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/images/gallery/Maps/01%20Flat%20Earth%20Society%20Map%20%28Charles%20K .%20Johnson%29.jpg


As you can see, the places near the center of the flat Earth are much closer to one another and take up less space in general than the continents toward the outer part of this flat disc, which become larger and larger due to the nature of this particular geometry.

Let's compare with this image:

http://www.mapsbookstravelguides.com.au/upimages/hema/A4_World_edited-1.jpg



So one thing that should pop out to us immediately between these two images is that, if the first one is accurate, then flying around the farther edges of the flat disc are going to take a lot more time than flying around the inner part of the disc.

Notice that in the 2nd image, Tokyo and New York are about the same distance apart as Brisbane, Australia, and Santiago, Chile. However in the first image, Brisbane and Santiago are about 3 times the distance from each other as Tokyo and New York.

So we would expect that the flight times from Brisbane to Santiago would be about 3 times longer than that of Tokyo to New York.

Flight time from Tokyo to New York: 12 hours 55 minutes = 775 minutes
Flight time from Brisbane to Santiago: 15 hours 40 minutes = 940 minutes
(These times were taken from Google listings of flights, without taking into account the down time at airport stops in-between, but only the time in the air.)

The flight from Tokyo to New York is 84% that of Brisbane to Santiago, whereas it should be more like 33% if the first map is accurate.


So let's start with this problem, since it would probably be easier to explain away by someone arguing from a flat Earth position than would be something like the fact that it's day on one side of the Earth while it's night on the other side (something I have seen for myself in Skype video chats to Russia), etc.

[Swami]

Problem.....

Greenland fits 17 times in Africa

More accurate world-map:
http://s8.postimg.org/jo0dltj6t/Wereldkaart_ware_projectie.jpg

[Swami]

Couple of other 'more accurate' maps

http://s23.postimg.org/mycvqo5xn/world_map.jpg
http://s16.postimg.org/m2utse4vp/world_map_1.jpg

[The One]

Awesome stuff wow

Dont get me started on the south Atlantic anomaly and the so called Van Allen radiation belt

[Swami]

Awesome stuff wow

Dont get me started on the south Atlantic anomaly and the so called Van Allen radiation belt

If it fits the flat earth theory, please do...

[bsbray]

Problem.....

Greenland fits 17 times in Africa

I lined up the lines of longitude, so it doesn't make any difference what size the continents appear to be. It makes no difference to the question I asked above. Notice that New York and Santiago are still more or less on the same vertical line, and so are Brisbane and Tokyo. That's the point, you know, to measure how long it takes to get from one side of the Earth to the other, on the northern hemisphere, and then on the southern. According to flat Earth theory it should be a huge difference.

Brisbane and Santiago are around the 30 S latitude and New York and Tokyo are closer to 40 N latitude, which is probably why there is a 16% difference in flight times (30 degrees from the equator vs. 40 degrees). But it's still not close to 3x as long of a flight as the flat Earth theory would predict.

Seriously, I'm not being dogmatic here. I want to explore what people are seeing in this idea. But for it to ever prevail against the old model, it has to be able to stand up to it logically. So I posted some questions and want to know what the response would be according to this theory.

[Church]

I don't subscribe to this theory, or any theory really, but I can fathom it being possible that when you travel around the outer edge of Flat Earth, you travel faster because of some law or property we aren't familiar with yet. I don't know, maybe it's somehow related to how the outer edge of a carousel travels faster than the inner edge? I'm purposefully being vague because I don't speak for believers of this theory. I'm just saying I can fathom abstract ways that would allow this theory to make some sense.

But this theory does tickle me, pleasantly.

[bsbray]

So I thought, "maybe I missed something farther into this interview that would make more sense to me." So I jumped ahead to around 51:40 of Dubay's interview, and he's asking something like, "If gravity exists then how come when I jump up two feet in the air with both my legs, the gravity should be less there, so why don't I just go flying off into space."

:fpalm:

Seriously, people have already come up with theoretical models to explain this stuff. I'm not saying all the models we use in physics today are correct, because I don't even believe that. But this guy doesn't even understand the scientific models he's trying to replace. Our current models explain all the questions he's asking. You don't go flying off into space because the difference in gravity two feet higher than where you're standing now is basically no difference at all. There is apparently no appreciation for the sense of scale for this guy.

A planet or even a moon is slightly larger than a human being, and since gravity depends on mass, it would logically make a difference according to current science. There is no gaping hole in the physics here that would even allow someone to say "I wonder why the laws of gravity don't explain why I don't just go flying off into space when I jump."

Then he wants to know why gravity keeps us stuck to the Earth but it doesn't cause the Moon to be sucked instantly toward the Earth. That's because the Earth and Moon are not stationary objects, even in relation to one another. There are physical laws, described in mathematical formulas, being taught in universities right now, that can simultaneously explain why we are stuck to the Earth but the Moon is not. Again, I understand that does not automatically make these laws correct, but this guy is asking "why" questions that any physicist would already be able to answer for him, and we don't need 2 different laws, one for the Moon and one for people on the Earth. We have one law that already explains both at the same time.

Then he says that it doesn't make sense that the Moon's gravity causes the tides on Earth because, as Dubay reasons, the Earth is bigger and should have more of a gravitational pull and therefore the Moon should have zero effect on the Earth. So then according to Dubay, if I have a planet with a mass of 10,000 units, and another planet with a mass of 11,000 units, does he not think that they're both going to have an effect on each other just because one is slightly larger than the other? It's not like gravity is turned on and off just by whether or not a larger object is nearby. Again this is really really basic stuff that he would not even be saying if he had taken a physics course. At least then he could argue a flat Earth theory with some knowledge of what it is that he's even trying to debunk.

[Church]

I haven't watched any of those videos, but yes, that's a bit silly. Of course, I'm starting to believe we are all living inside of a computer program, so I can't judge anyone.

:ok:

[Calz]

I haven't watched any of those videos, but yes, that's a bit silly. Of course, I'm starting to believe we are all living inside of a computer program, so I can't judge anyone.

:ok:



http://adnanthetraveller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/thomas-campbell.jpg


Well Thomas Campbell who helped Monroe get started with his brain sync out of body work suggests just the same.

Fascinating reading ...






Most Helpful Customer Reviews


106 of 108 people found the following review helpful


With humor and high spirits, Tom Campbell informally shares with you in his Trilogy, who he is, and how he started on the journey that led to his Big TOE. Campbell's Big TOE, which refers to nothing less than a Theory of Everything, stands on firm ground.

In a bigger picture of our existence than has ever been presented, My Big TOE weaves Philosophy, Physics, and Metaphysics together to create a model of reality through which you can begin your journey towards a higher quality of consciousness.

Campbell's books are derived from his own experiences with altered states of consciousness, his work and experiments with respected people in this field, and the objective verification of the results. The author shows how previously, Philosophy, Physics, and Metaphysics clashed in their isolated quests for answers to the nature of reality, and that by setting the camera of our conscious mind to a wide-angle lens, we can better understand reality in the larger sense.

This is not necessarily an easy read,the book is designed to unfold his model of reality slowly.You cannot expect to breeze through concepts involving the larger reality as you would a novel.The results and the rewards are worth a slow read. The personal asides that the author provides enrich the reading process, and the Trilogy format allows the complex subject matter to be more accessible to everyone.

From those mildly curious to the potentially eternally grateful, please note: from whatever level you personally begin, you cannot go back to exactly the way you previously viewed reality - this Trilogy will reach the core of your being, and you will certainly glean from it something of lasting value.

The true value, however, will lie in your own experiences and explorations, the author cautions, as the Trilogy provides only a framework for your personal quest in search of a higher quality of consciousness and awareness.

While personal effort is expected to achieve results, I appreciate the lengths the author has gone to in order to relate the processes, and the why, of how he arrived at his Big TOE.

I like the why of things, and there is plenty offered here:

* Why you are here and the "point and meaning of both physical and non-physical existence"
* Why our culture and beliefs may inhibit our ability to see the Bigger Picture of reality
* Why improving ourselves is the best way to solve our collective problems, and possibly the best road to Peace
* Why time travel into the future and past is accessible to us
* Why meditation is a good beginning towards all of this; showing you how to create your own mantra based on which of your five senses works best for you
* Why "Spirituality, Consciousness, Love, and Paranormal Phenomena are interconnected"

These are but a few of the answers and profound insights the author presents in this Trilogy.

The noble goals of evolving our consciousness toward the positive side, exploring alternate realities, improving the quality of our being, our life, and our planet, are a challenge the author inspires us to take on.

For all of these reasons and many more besides, I cannot recommend this Trilogy highly enough!


As for "flat earth" ... without digging into it ... would not hundreds of thousands of images from space of the earth being round suggest a statistical likelihood that all such images could not have been at the precise angle necessary to create such an "illusion"???

[Swami]

Thank you for all your answers.

I noticed 'some' tensions going on between Mark Sargent and Eric Dubay, these guys don't like each other one bit, the hegelian dialect being played?

I like what Thomas Campbell says, I've been trying to think like that for a while now to let it sink in.

Anthony Peake speaks about ´Self Feeding Virtual Reality´ with the body as a computer connecting into something bigger. Could that be the computer program Thomas Campbell is talking about....?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1ADH3SO3WQ

So, if we truly live in a computer program, can we hack it...? :eyebrows: