Natuurlijk hebben de mensen die geloven in de wereld als een globe een heleboel argumenten tegen het vlakke aarde model. Maar ik heb de afgelopen tijd door onderzoek gezien dat deze echter niet echt sterk zijn.  Hieronder een lijst met de meest voorkomende argumenten en de ontkrachtingen

Globalist Argument 1:

Er wordt regelmatig gesteld dat omdat we alle andere objecten in de lucht zien als een bol of schijf, onze aarde daarom ook wel een bol moet zijn. Maar is dit werkelijk zo ?

Als je geboren bent in Azië en je hebt Aziatische ouders en je leeft in Azië, betekend dat dan dat er op de aarde alleen maar Aziatische mensen wonen?  Natuurlijk niet !!

Hiermee is dit gelijk het meest onzinnige argument van allemaal. De aarde kan heel goed het middelpunt van het universum zijn. En dat alles zich boven de vlakke aarde afspeelt

Globalist Argument 2:

Als de aarde vlak is zouden de schepen toch van de rand afvallen? Dit is een van de argumenten die geheel ongegrond zijn.

Het geeft blijk van het feit dat deze persoon zich nooit serieus in de vlakke wereld theorie heeft verdiept.  De foto hiernaast geeft een beeld weer van de oude historie waarin het onbegrip voor de vlakke wereld werd weergegeven.

Men dacht dat er een punt was waar de aarde eindigde en men er dus af zou vallen.  In het vlakke wereld model is er echter geen rand waar je van af kunt vallen. De wereld is daar in tegen omgeven door een grote ijsmuur , Antarctica genaamd.

Dit is het grote verschil met het globe model waarin Antarctica een continent aan de onderzijde van de wereld is. Waarschijnlijk is Antarctica dus een grote ring om alle continenten heen. Afvallen is dus niet mogelijk omdat het water   door de ijsmuur tegen gehouden wordt.

Deze omheining is een 60 mtr en hogere muur van ijs en steen:

Het bijbel model kijkt meer op de onderstaande manier naar de wereld :

Het argument dat we van de wereld afvallen kunnen hiermee wegstrepen, het is een argument dat gebaseerd is op te weinig kennis van zaken.

Globalist Argument 3:

Mensen zeggen: Als de wereld vlak is, hoe kan iemand dan een reis rondom de wereld maken ?

Het antwoord is echter heel simpel, je reist gewoon in een cirkel over de evenaar zoals hieronder aangegeven:

Globalist Argument 4:

“Hoe zit het met de tijd zones op een vlakke aarde?”

Dit argument gaat er van uit dat de vlakke aarde beschenen wordt door een zon die er recht boven hangt.

Het vlakke aarde model behelst echter iets anders. Alle continenten bevinden zich in een cirkel rondom de noordpool zoals hieronder aangegeven. Waarboven de zon, op een vrij korte afstand, over heen draait in cirkels.   Door het maken van deze cirkels worden dus ook de tijdszones gecreëerd .

In de zomer op het noordelijk halfrond draait de zon dicht bij de noordpool, waardoor het daar dan ook 24 uur licht is. In de winter maakt de zon groter cirkels en meer naar het zuiden. Omdat deze cirkels dan groter zijn, beweegt de zon zich ook sneller. Dit verklaard ook waarom het sneller schemert hoe verder je naar het zuiden gaat.

De maan bevindt zich ook in dit systeem en beide objecten zijn dan ook veel kleiner en dichterbij dan in het globe model.

In dit model, werkt de zon als een schijnwerper met een gerichte straal, waarbij de onbelichte gedeeltes in het donker blijven. Dit geeft effectief het zelfde resultaat als in het globe model aangaande de tijdszones.

Het helpt ook bij het verklaren van het experiment van de recht in de grond gestoken stokken, waar bij op verschillende plekken op aarde verschillende lengtes van schaduwen zullen ontstaan. Als de zon die veel kleiner is en veel lager staat, recht boven de ene stok schijnt zal deze geen schaduw geven, terwijl de stok die een stuk verder weg staat wel een schaduw geeft.  Het is geen hogere wiskunde toch ?

Globalist Argument 5:

Dit argument is wat interessanter:  Veel mensen zeggen; Ik heb gevlogen in een vliegtuig en ik heb echt de kromming van de aarde gezien ! Daarom moet de aarde wel een bol zijn.

Ik moet toegeven dat ik dat ook gedacht heb,dat je door het raam daadwerkelijk de kromming van de aarde ziet.  Maar wat er daadwerkelijk gebeurt is het resultaat van jarenlange mentale programmering . We hebben tenslotte geleerd dat de aarde rond is en ons brein wil dit dus ook bevestigen ook al bewijzen foto’s die je neemt dat de horizon gewoon vlak is.

In de onderstaande link, van Joseph Jordan ,  wordt dit bediscussieert;

http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf

Dit artikel zegt;

“Interviews met piloten en reizigers die op grote hebben gevlogen hebben onthuld dat maar weinigen van hen onder de 15 kilometer een kromming aan de horizon waarnemen.  Natuurkundige op het gebied van hoge hoogtes en ervaren lucht waarnemer David Gutierrez rapporteerde dat in zijn vluchten in een B67, dat de kromming van de aarde tot 15 kilometer niet tot nauwelijks waarneembaar is, maar van af ca 18 kilometer is dit duidelijk waarneembaar. Gesproken hebbende met vele andere hoge hoogte vliegers (SR-71, U2, etc.), Gutierrez bevestigt datr zijn gevoel van de kromming het zelfde is als dat van hem. “Passagiers van de Concorde (18 km) bewonderen routinematig de kromming van de Aarde.”

Volgens dit artikel is het dus boven de 19 kilometer duidelijk dat de aarde een kromming heeft. Prima, kijk nu maar eens naar de onderstaande video die door amateurs is gemaakt met een normale camera zonder een fish-eye lens:

Als de kromming van de Aarde duidelijk te zien zou zijn boven de 18 km ( een hoogte die 99% van ons nooit met eigen ogen te zien zullen krijgen), waarom is het dan niet zo duidelijk op een hoogte van 23 km met een camera die ronddraait en ons een uitzicht geeft van 360 graden rondom. Ook bij verschillende hoeken  geeft het beeld een vlakke aarde weer als we parallelle strepen over de foto’s zetten?

Bovenstaande foto, geïnverteerd en met contrast en verzadiging verdraaid, laat geen bolling zien maar eerder een afwijking de andere kant op die waarschijnlijk aan een lens effect kan worden toegeschreven. Maar al met al lijkt de horizon toch behoorlijk vlak te zijn. In het slechtste geval kunnen we hier in ieder geen kromming van de aarde vaststellen.

Zelfs de auteur van het bovenstaande artikel steld…

Het vaststellen van de kromming van de aarde is een lastige zaak en ook nog erg afhankelijk van psychologische effecten: Veel is er geschreven over de suggestieve effecten van het zien van de kromming van de aarde vanuit de ruimte.

Mensen hopen en verwachten vaak de kromming te zien, en zien die dan ook , onafhankelijk of die er nu werkelijk is.

Uiteindelijk, geloof ik dat we met zijn allen gebrainwashed zijn door de NASA met hun beeldmateriaal dat altijd met een Fish-Eye lens is opgenomen. En dat we hierdoor overtuigt zijn dat we een kromming waarnemen . Hier een voorbeeld van verschillende lenzen en camera’s en wat het effect is op wat je waarneemt:

Bovendien zeggen mensen vaak dat ze schepen over de horizon zien gaan. Maar als je met een telelens inzoomt dat komt zo’n schip weer boven de horizon uit, duidelijk zelfs. Het schip is dus niet over de horizon gegaan. Een horizon die per kilometer in het kwadraat, 7,8 cm daalt. Anderen hebben vergelijkbare experimenten gedaan. De meest bekende daarvan is het Bedford kanaal experiment;

En hier nog iets om je over te verwonderen:

De Chicago skyline gezien van af Grand Mere State Park (de andere kant van het meer van Michigan)

Hier hebben we een onmogelijkheid. De afstand tussen Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville en Chicago is ongeveer 100 km. Op deze afstand zou Chicago bijna 780 mtr onder de horizon moeten liggen, aangenomen dat we op een bal leven waar de kromming 7,8 cm per kilometer kwadraat is. Het wordt hier uitgelegt als zijnde en luchtspiegeling, ja geloof je het zelf !  Een super heldere luchtspiegeling zonder vervorming ?

BERRIEN COUNTY, Mich. – A picture of the Chicago skyline taken almost 60 miles away, is actually a mirage.  Joshua Nowicki (@StartVisiting) snapped the pic Tuesday night from Grand Mere State Park in Stevensville. Under normal conditions, even when extremely clear, this should not be visible, due to the curvature of the earth. The Chicago skyline is physically below the horizon form that vantage point, but the image of the skyline can be seen above it.

This is a form of Superior Mirage , superior in this meaning the mirage or image of the skyline is seen above where it’s actually located. The clear skies, and cool weather ( aided even more by the cool lake water) creates an inversion. A layer of air near the surface that’s cooler than air higher in the atmosphere. This creates a bending or ducting effect where the light ( image) instead of going in a normal straight line into space, curves back towards the surface of the earth.

Source: http://www.abc57.com/story/28925566/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

I’m sorry, but this is total B.S.! I’m not buying it and listening to the guy selling this crap, I’m not even sure he buys it either. Note the horizon is perfectly straight all the way across. The buildings are not leaning away or to either side. They are straight up and down and looking quite solid. I’d bet they would look perfect through binoculars or a telescope.

At this point, I do not believe we have any conclusive evidence for a curvature – at least nothing I personally will trust without doing an experiment of my own. And that is exactly what I intend to do sometime in the not too distant future. But what the above news clip shows me is that if I were to do any kind of experiment along these lines and we are able to see something that should not be there, then it’s going to be written off by all the monkeys suffering from cognitive dissonance as a “mirage.” Sorry Charlie. No. When something like this can be repeated over and over again, it’s called empirical evidence.

UPDATE 5/12/2015:

Speaking of empiracle evidence… I recently began to do some of my own testing of the curvature. On April 30th, my wife and I flew to San Diego for a conference. Even though nearly the entire flight at 37,000 ft was over cloud cover, I still could only see a totally flat horizon out of my window:

As soon as we arrived in San Diego, Sheila and I got a bite to eat at a restaurant near the USS Midway aircraft carrier. We had the time, so we went on the tour of the ship (AMAZING!). I didn’t get very far into the tour, when I saw this Azimuthal (Flat Earth) Map on a plaque hanging over a display of a model of the ship:

I also got a great video clip of the tour guide explaining how all GPS is run by the United States:

So, we just “let the world use it.” Convenient.

Later in the week, I went to Malibu. I saw a good place to pull over and check the horizon. The buildings and island in the distance gives you a sense scale/distance from the camera. Note the totally flat horizon:

Panning to the right. Flat as a pancake:

Continue to pan right. Still flat:

Panned all the way to the right. Flat:

Later in the week, I met with my friend Jef Anderson and we had some interesting discussion. He told me about being a lifeguard in Ventura and how on a clear day, he could see the Anacapa Arch island bridge from the beach. This 40ft high arch is more than 18 miles away from the Ventura County Fairgrounds, which means it should be considerably below the horizon and NOT visible IF we are on a curved earth. Yet, somehow, everyone there has seen it on clear weather days. Hmmmm…

Spherical geometry proves the following elevation loss in all directions from a fixed point observer on a sphere with a 25,000 mile circumference:

1 mile – 8 inches

2 miles – 32 inches

3 miles – 6 feet

4 miles – 10 feet

5 miles – 16 feet

6 miles – 24 feet

7 miles – 32 feet

8 miles – 42 feet

9 miles – 54 feet

10 miles – 66 feet

20 miles – 266 feet

30 miles – 600 feet

40 miles – 1066 feet

50 miles – 1666 feet

60 miles – 2400 feet

70 miles – 3266 feet

80 miles – 4266 feet

90 miles – 5400 feet (over a mile now)

100 miles – 6666 feet

With the above in mind, check out the following graphic, which Jef sent to me:

So, my friend took this little math problem to a college level math professor. After the guy said such a thing should not be seen, Jef said, “But we’ve all seen it. I’m referring to the Anacapa Island arch.” Doh! In a text message to me after talking with the math professor, Jef said, “Needless to say, the math guy was intrigued.”

So am I.

What I am perhaps more intrigued about myself was my ability to take some truly amazing pictures of Mars from my Spirit Airlines seat on the plane ride home:

As you can see in the pic below, I was sitting just behind the wing. Funny how a curved window, especially if slightly out of focus can create an amazing illusion of a curved “planet” in space:

Now, of course, these pics were all taken with my iPhone camera, which has a limited depth of field. With the proper lens, and F-stop setting, shooting out of a round window (like oh, I don’t know… say that of a “space capsule”), instead of a rectangular window like in my plane, the window’s edge could be completely out of focus and the background “planet” can truly shine. Even still, here’s where I adjusted my iPhone camera’s focus to be on the ground in order prove the point. And wow – check out at those Martian mountains and valleys in this pic:

Taking a little tour around the side of the red planet:

Woah! Look at that! Is that a road or a carved canal on Mars…

Maybe we should spend a few billion dollars to go check it out!

Yep. I’m on to you now NASA, you clever dog you:

Oh! And I almost forgot to mention this, but while I was out orbiting Mars, I saw the International Space Station up there too! Can you believe it? Cool huh?

But then, when I came back to Earth, I saw the ISS there too! How did that happen? Are there two space stations now? Hmmmm…

So, why am I wasting time showing you all of this? Because NASA did the same thing I did above to fool you back in the late 60s:

If that’s not enough for you please consider what Math Boylan has to say about NASA foolery and his own role in bringing fake imagery to us (Caution: these clips contain foul language):

Consider also how Stanely Kubrick got us to believe in space travel and orbiting around our earth back in 1968, before we allegedly put a man on the moon:

See, what I am showing you here is that you simply cannot trust what NASA, the government and pentagon are telling and showing you. It’s too easy to fake. Especially nowadays! So, again… when it comes to the issue of the earth’s alleged curvature, I will only believe what I can personally test myself. I would suggest you do the same, because it is very difficult to form any real conclusion concerning the curve from other sources. You have NASA and others shooting everything with a fish-eye lens, making you believe the earth is a ball. But then, you also have videos like this one, which challenges that view:

Globalist Argument #6: Many will point to the fact that there are some stars visible in the southern hemisphere that cannot be seen in the norhtern. Fair enough. But it seems to me that this is easily explained. Imagine an extremely large bowl over a massively huge plain. Now imagine you are under the central (northern) area of the bowl. You see Orion, perhaps the most recognizable of all the constellations, and one that is visible in both hemespheres. He looks quite big with his head facing upward toward the north. Then, you go toward the outer (southern) regions of the plain and look up again. Not only does Orion look inverted (because you are essentially now looking up his skirt), but you also see stars on the lower ends of the dome that were not visible to you when you were much further away, under the center of the dome.

The Orion constellation is interesting to me for many reasons, but since it is so clearly visible in both “hemispheres,” I tend to believe that Yeshua will return from that general direction, thus, every eye will see Him. For interesting potential comfirmation of that idea, see:

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/blackpyramidweye.php#.VVPGkvlViko

Globalist Argument #7: Someone recently sent me this video, claiming to debunk the Flat Earther’s claims concerning the South Pole:

At first, I thought it might be a nail in the Flat Earther’s coffin. That is until I looked up the Antarctica Flights website and saw their flight path. Now, I’m not defending the Flat Earther’s here, but the debunkers are saying we are “flying over the South Pole.” I think not. They are flying over the eastern territories:

Since 1994, Antarctica Flights, in conjunction with Qantas, has taken thousands of passengers on memorable sightseeing flights over East Antarctica, Australian Antarctic Territory and New Zealand’s Ross Dependency.

Source: http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/What-To-Expect

As I looked over those territories, I couldn’t help but laugh when I saw “Shackleton’s Nimrod Hut.” I know the Nimrod Hut is named after Shackleton’s dwelling place, who went down there on a ship named the Nimrod. His trip was called The Nimrod Expedition. Again… you can’t make this stuff up. Why is Nimrod always somehow involved? Whether we’re talking about the the governments of the world or their military, NASA and their various missions (Apollo, Orion, etc.) and now this? Always Nimrod… and of course his sister-mother-wife Isis/Ishtar/Columbia. Always.

Whenever I see Nimrod involved, my radar lights up with red flags. And so should yours.

Those are the top few questions I’ve seen on my Facebook page challenging the Flat Earther’s point of view. But then someone posted this video:

Here’s where I started having some doubts in my own position concerning the spherical earth. When I tossed out NASA, the military and world governments as sources for “proving the earth is round,” I looked for other arguments I could give to support my current belief that the world is round. Watching the above video as a typical example of “proof” for a round globe, it honestly left me cocking my head thinking, “Really? These are the Top 10 Reasons Why We Know the Earth is Round?” So, I decided to flip the board and see how I could argue against these points:

Reason # 10: Just because the sun, moon, and other planets are round, that does not mean the earth “has to be” round too. That’s an assumption. That would be like growing up in Africa as a black man, seeing only black people all around you and assuming all people are black. Or growing up in Asia, seeing only Asian people all your life and assuming everyone in the world must look like you, your family and friends. You get the picture. It’s an assumption, nothing more (see Globalist Argument #1 above).

Reason # 9: Time Zones still work in the flat earth model. In fact, there is no difference in that concept (see Globalist Argument #4 above).

Reason # 8: Admittedly, the Coriolis Effect is a good argument and one that I honestly do not have a counter-argument for… but that doesn’t mean there are none. See, with this one, we are proceeding from a premise to derive a conclusion, without considering any other potential premise that could lead to the same conclusion. But how would you know unless you started looking? For example, nearly all Nephilim researchers proceed with the assumption that Genesis 6:4 indicates multiple incursions after the Flood based on the one phrase, in one sentence in the whole Bible that reads, “and also after that.” So, they don’t even bother looking for other alternatives for the post-Flood return of the Nephilim. I left that pre-conceived notion, which is held by most, and as a result, I found lots of evidence for what I believe to be a far more plausible, and textually supported thesis. But I never would have even gone down that route had I not challenged the original presuppositions. I suspect we still have much to learn regarding the Coriolis Effect – especially if the Flat Earthers prove to be correct. I remain open to other possibilities for this one, while still considering it one of the stronger “proofs” for a round earth.

Reason # 7: 90° Triangles. OK. I can accept this as a good argument, though I fail to see what it proves. How many massive 90° angle triangles are there drawn on this earth? Just because you can draw three 90° angles and get a triangle on a ball, that doesn’t mean the earth is one. Who “walks 10,000km, takes a right, walks 10,000km more, takes a right and 10,000km later ends up where they started” anyway? I mean, it sounds good, but in terms of miles, that equates to traveling on three 6,213.7 mile legs of a journey! I am unaware of anyone who has done this to prove the earth is a globe. If you are, please let me know.

Reason # 6: This argument shows a lack of understanding of the various flat earth models concerning the sun and its relation to the “circle” of the earth. I often get the impression the “Round Earthers” think the “Flat Earthers” believe there is just a piece of paper on the ground labeled “Earth” and a light bulb strait overhead labeled “Sun” when they make these arguments (see Globalist Argument #4 above… again).

Reason # 5: The changing of star views from North and South is quite interesting, but not really the best argument if you ask me (see Globalist Argument #6 above). As an artist, I know I could design something in a way that certain things would be visible from one angle and not from another, assuming the surface is big enough (and it is in this case) to do that and the “dome” overhead is shaped just right to create whatever illusion I desire to convey to the audience. Stage magicians create illusions all the time. Also, take the recent BET Music Awards ceremony, where at one particular spot, some of the speakers had an upside-down shadow of themselves falling on the ground/wall behind them, while everyone else had normal shadows being cast on the ground. If the set designers of the BET Music Awards and stage magicians can do it, don’t you think YHWH could do the same thing (and a whole lot better) if He wanted to? I personally think the Flat Earther’s model of the earth with the southern hemisphere sloping upward could account for this. It’s an OK argument, but not a powerful enough one to be conclusive proof of a globe in my opinion.

Reason # 4: Ferdinand Magellan circumnavigating the earth is a lame argument (see Globalist Argument #3 above). Going in a circle still works just the same on a flat disk as it does on a globe. Think about a record player. The needle starts at one spot on the disk, goes in one direction and returns to the same spot (give or take a fraction of an inch due to the grooves).

Reason # 3: Ships on the ocean has to be about the most lame of all of the arguments (see Globalist Argument #5 above). The eye gives us the illusion of ships disappearing over the curve. Great. Go to the beach and do it. Wait for a cruise ship to disappear to your eyes. Then, go get a high-powered set of binoculars and TA DA! POOF! There it is again, looking just as it did before. Keep watching until you see it again appear to disappear. Then, assuming it’s a nice clear day, go get a powerful telescope and check it again. TA DA! POOF! There it is again. This is not possible if the earth is curved. Also, if the earth were curved, then from your angle, distant cities should look like they are all leaning away from you, and not look straight up-and-down as – what do you know? – they do! They even draw this out at 1:51 in the video. Note how the cities look compared to the stick figure. On a curved earth, the buildings are leaning away from you. But that’s not what you’ll see with your eye, your binoculars, a telescope or anything! This is definitely not worthy of being in the Top 3 in this list.

Reason # 2: The lunar eclipse is a really good argument, and so far, I don’t have a good argument against it, which is one of the reasons I do still believe in a globe model myself. This along with comets and meteors remain unresolved in my mind when considering the Flat Earthers model. I have not heard an argument that really makes sense to me to refute this one – but then, I also have not looked into all of the claims concerning the “weirdness of the moon” that I keep hearing others talking about concerning ‘crrow777’s’ lunar wave videos. Still, there are aspects of the moon that don’t make sense to me if it is rotating around the earth as it rotates around the sun. The phases should change in ways they do not. The moon is quite mysterious to me for a number of reasons. This one definitely deserves a spot in the Top 3, if not the #1 slot in my opinion.

Reason # 1: The #1 reason we know the earth is round is because we have “photographic evidence?” We’re talking about “evidence” that is proven to be composite images and in some cases just artistic paintings and creative PhotoShop work! This “#1 proof” is primarily supplied to us by an occult, Luciferian, Freemasonic organization founded by Project Paperclip Nazis who have a thing for Antarctica and who have been lying to us for decades. I’m supposed to accept that as the best proof? LOL! Please. Sorry. Nope.

So, really, for me, looking at the “TOP 10 Reasons Why We KNOW the Earth is Round,” quite a number of them are really lame arguments. With the exception of just 2 of these 10 arguments (#8 and #2) , I really don’t think we have a very strong case. And of the 2 that I can accept and not (yet) poke holes in, I have not taken the time to look for any alternative possibilities. So, at best, I have just 2 reasons to believe the earth is round in the usual arguments given to support it:

1) The Coriolis Effect
2) Lunar Eclipses

Nearly every other argument I’ve heard or read can also – at least in my mind – be explained away with reasonable, plausible, differing points of view. I said “nearly” because not all are so easily refuted. In fact, the following video is definitely worth watching as one that aims to debunk the Flat Earther’s views (it’s probably the best one I’ve seen):

And so… the quest for truth begins.

– See more at: http://testingtheglobe.com/quest2.html#sthash.sfu55n0e.dpuf