Flat Earth theory / Eric Dubay.
I'd love to see what sources people are digging into to wrap their heads around this one.
I dont know how we could ever prove if the earth is actually flat or not until we are able to ACTUALLY travel into space because until then we are trusting statistics and measurements done by the very people who most of us dont trust. If I had to make a guess the answer lies somewhere in the middle but what that answer is I have not a freaking clue because Eric made some amazing points but it is still hard to believe everything he said.
The New York Times just released a video called "Stunning Views of Earth From Space". It has a some interesting footage worth analyzing: http://nyti.ms/1FlpITL
I understand your point and its hard to get past the video, but what I cant discount is the image from inside the module. The horizon is at eye level. One of the two cameras can not be showing the correct image since the one outside shows the horizon well below even though its at an elevated point and angeled down and the one inside should be level with the ground but the horizon is well above where it should be is the camera on the outside were an accurate image.
The theory goes that what we consider the "Heavenly Bodies" are just projections of some sort, so that argument won't get very far with the Flat Earth believers.
Granted it's not a popular theory and might be 100% bull, but the guy seemed genuine, educated and passionate in his presentation and gave some small "huh..." tidbits which were well worth the length of the interview. I'll be listening to this one for the third time soon. If nothing else, the interview's a great listen for a sic-fi story feeling, it's not required that you believe everything (or anything for that matter) these people say anyways.
So you openly admit you didnt listen to the entire show but sit here and bash him for things he ACTUALLY addressed.....who are you Opie Greggshells Hughes? How about not acting like a pretentious shill and go listen to the entire show before spouting off this skeptical nonsense.
Interesting episode to say the least. I never thought I would give an ounce of credence to Flat-Earth theory but I heard things there that made me think about it. Do I believe the Flat-Earth theory? No, I just can't fully wrap my mind around that, but now I'm not quite sure the Ball-Earth theory quite explains everything all nice and neat and orderly either anymore - I mean, yeah, ball-Earth makes sense and I am most comfortable with that, but maybe I just don't have all the answers I thought I did. Is it possible NASA knows a few more things they just aren't telling us about?
^ Agreed. Always disappointing.
Well I respect the guy for taking an impossible stance. One simple way to debunk it though would be 'where exactly is the edge?' if it's near me I'll go and check and if it's somewhere else then maybe someone else could check.
I've been spending the last few years studying the electric universe and this goes against so many aspects of it that it's hard to know where to start.
But worth listening to anyway.
I think it's worth examining the myth of the International Space Station. How was it launched into space? Why is there no evidence or video of this? Why is there no recorded evidence of any ship "breaking through" the atmosphere into "weightless space". These are all unproven myths, imo.
You'd have to go through the Hollow Earth/Underworld to see what was below.
This is a great example of how our pre-conceived notions can overpower our actual eyesight. We think the earth is curved, therefore we see curvature. And there may also be a slight curvature or our "oblate spheroid" planet that bulges at the equator without us necessarily living on a big, blue marble globe.
The real rabbit hole of the flat earth implies that NASA lied with the 'big, blue marble' image, and that the ISS is a lie, and that every photo from "space" is a cgi lie. That's a big pill to swallow; but, it's possible. What I think these screenshots depict is a mostly brown, mostly land Earth with a blue tint but absolutely no cloud formations at that height. If you go higher, say into "space", is that when then cgi cloud formations are visible? What I'm saying is that NASA's photo of blue marble earth looks nothing like this photo, which is from the highest verifiable height of a non-NASA photograph.
Can't we get some remote-viewers to describe earth as it looks from space to clear up this confusion =p
Personally I think that the images are a product of some sort of a lens affect. If you take the supposed circumference of the Earth and calculate it down to the size of a basketball and then take the distance in height he was and convert it to the ratio of Earth to basketball, you can come up with a perspective that he should have been at. put your eyeball the calculated distance from the basketball that represents the distance from Earth that Felix was at and see for yourself if the curvature of the Earth would be so pronounced. Then you can look out horizontal to the basketball and see if the horizon of the basketball comes up level like the picture from inside the module shows.