Is the earth round/spherical?

[Apech]

Cities under cities i think is common. 

 

but for isis...

 

After a quick google search i'd say he probably got information from cites similar to this.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/16/broken-ruins-ruined-societies-it-s-not-just-isis-destroying-history.html

 

But i cant say for sure, sometimes people have to do the digging themselves. 

 

 

Oh yes cities under cities is common.  As are sacred sites under sacred sites.  the norm in fact.

[MooNiNite]

Nope, that's not stupid at all. That's what I did.

 

Why do commercial planes not fly over the north pole? For example when we fly to Moscow, Russia from the USA

[MooNiNite]

Ha !  both of those links show a spherical solid earth !  

 

Do we have any good/real photos of the northpole?

Edited November 3, 2015 by MooNiNite

[Nungali]

Yes it does. It completely rewrites the history books. Especially the dating of the Sphynx.

 

 

 

 

 

This is basically exactly what I was trying to ask Marblehead. The stonework of ancient cultures actually gets more sophisticated as we go back in time. Saksaywaman for example. 

 

"Gobekli Tepe consists of large stones, so we have people that were already capable of building these large structures 12,000 years ago." The carving is also outpressed. 

 

The deliberate burying of the site is also very interesting. 

 

 

Ya got me there ..... yes,  its was all filled in ... why ....  and I wanna know why ! ? 

 

 

Re the dating of the Sphinx ... I have seen and read  a lot of debate about that from various sides.

 

But even on recent TV docos, they presented the numerous sides and weighed the evidence ....    I still havent seen anything that causes  great doubt on deeper analysis from the current mainstream ideas. 

 

You know, whole giant threads could be made of all the things you are firing away here .   Maybe this forum isnt specialist enough for you. I know a great one that does specialize in such things ... and also has interesting people posting on it, like  educated Egyptologists, historians, people in the field, like masons and engineers ... they can really answer your questions, and many of them are answered there.  Let me know if you are interested. It helped me with a lot of my curiosities .

 

As far as moving giant blocks goes ... with simple tools and techniques ... and a scad of human ingenuity ... check out these two short clips ;

 

 

 

 

 

one of those 'engineer guys'  : 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCvx5gSnfW4

 

I

[Nungali]

double dip 

Edited November 3, 2015 by Nungali

[Nungali]

It is taoism 101.  Sorry if it's being wasted on you, but you weren't my target audience, I know you are not into taoism.  I assert the earth is square.  I assert it is round.  I assert it is flat.  I assert it is a torus.  I assert it is a spinning top.

 

All you have to do is read my posts in sequence without looking for a way to troll them and try to get what I'm getting at.  It isn't even taoism 101.  It is reading comprehension 101.  I know you can do it.  I'm rooting for you -- right into the spiral earth, just as my taiji teacher taught me to root.  We call it peng force.  Good luck.   

 

 

Yeah ... well, I was being more  in 'off topic' than  in 'taoism'.     You used 'is'  and 'assert' a lot .

 

I prefer 'like'  and seems  and the separation of planes  and things like that .   On some 'planes'  ( or perspectives) the earth seems like it is flat, it seems like it is round ... if you viewed the solar system travelling at a certain speed it would seem to be like ....   the earths  axis moves in precession like a top's axis does. 

 

I was just trying to address a point in a post of yours ... in sequence . 

 

But since you see my persistence in that, as trolling, and I am seeing your answers as evasion  ....     <shrug> 

[haedon]

I believe that earth is spherical because sphere refers to object while circle refer to figure. Earth is object and not merely figure.

[Brian]

Why do commercial planes not fly over the north pole? For example when we fly to Moscow, Russia from the USA

Originally, the reason was primarily magnetic -- magnetic compasses become useless in the vicinity of the magnetic poles because the field lines converge. I'd imagine part of it was also related to the problems associated with rescue from that region in the event of a forced landing, too. Now, though, planes have GPS-based navigation systems which work there. The problem is still magnetic in nature -- in a manner of speaking...

 

The Sun discharges enormous volumes of charged particles in all directions constantly, with occasional and periodic discharges which are almost incomprehensible in magnitude. The Earth's magnetosphere shields the planet's surface from almost all of this "solar wind" (which are travelling away from the Sun at roughly 2 million mph) by deflecting much of it and by channeling much of it to ground along the magnetic field lines. People living in higher latitudes, either North or South, see the effect of these streams of incoming charged particles in the form of the Aurora Borealis or Aurora Australis, respectively. These light displays aren't the problem -- the problem is the inductive currents these moving charged particles can generate in electrical systems and electronics circuity. Satellites or aircraft intended to operate in the Van Allen Belts (the layers of charged particles held in the space around the planet by the magnetosphere) or in the atmosphere near the magnetic poles need substantial shielding to protect them from this electromagnetic interference, which can disrupt or damage onboard systems, but the more simple and more cost-effective solution for those craft which don't need to be in that environment is to simply avoid those areas. No need for conspiracy theories when simple physics holds the answers.

[Brian]

Do we have any good/real photos of the northpole?

 

 

Do you mean the magnetic pole or the geographic pole? (They are currently over 700 miles apart...)

 

In either case, try Google. Seriously. Go to Google (or whatever search engine you prefer), click on Images and type in something along the lines of "north pole" -- you might be surprised at what you find. (Same goes for "south pole" as well...)

[Apech]

...

 

 

Do you mean the magnetic pole or the geographic pole? (They are currently over 700 miles apart...)

 

In either case, try Google. Seriously. Go to Google (or whatever search engine you prefer), click on Images and type in something along the lines of "north pole" -- you might be surprised at what you find. (Same goes for "south pole" as well...)

 

 

Brian,

 

I did what you said and I got this:

 

[Brian]

Brian,

 

I did what you said and I got this:

 

You need to zoom out on that photo...

[Apech]

You need to zoom out on that photo...

 

 

I've heard that he is not real but a creation of NSA and Government Obama health Care scam robbing fascist communists - is this correct?

[Marblehead]

Do you mean the magnetic pole or the geographic pole? (They are currently over 700 miles apart...)

 

In either case, try Google. Seriously. Go to Google (or whatever search engine you prefer), click on Images and type in something along the lines of "north pole" -- you might be surprised at what you find. (Same goes for "south pole" as well...)

When in the Army a few of my assignments involved long range HF communications and when constructing my antenna I would have to factor in the difference between geographic North and magnetic North as well as time of day for the frequency to use because of ionosphere refraction of the signal.  Don't get it right you get no communications. 

[MooNiNite]

 

 

Do you mean the magnetic pole or the geographic pole? (They are currently over 700 miles apart...)

 

In either case, try Google. Seriously. Go to Google (or whatever search engine you prefer), click on Images and type in something along the lines of "north pole" -- you might be surprised at what you find. (Same goes for "south pole" as well...)

 

Well most of the photos on google are not actually real. In case you didn't know that. 

 

Here is the most real photo I have come across

 

http://mashable.com/2012/06/18/nasa-north-pole-blue-marble/#31u6Vn0Ewuqw

 

However, it is also composite photo, Meaning they took dozens of different photos and put them together to create this picture.

 

This photo "took Suomi 15 trips around the Earth to complete."

 

Yet, it is still very cloudy and not easy to distinguish. 

[ralis]

Well most of the photos on google are not actually real. In case you didn't know that. 

 

Here is the most real photo I have come across

 

http://mashable.com/2012/06/18/nasa-north-pole-blue-marble/#31u6Vn0Ewuqw

 

However, it is also composite photo, Meaning they took dozens of different photos and put them together to create this picture.

 

This photo "took Suomi 15 trips around the Earth to complete."

 

Yet, it is still very cloudy and not easy to distinguish. 

 

On what basis are the photos not real? I suggest you do a little research as to how this technology works. 

[MooNiNite]

On what basis are the photos not real? I suggest you do a little research as to how this technology works. 

Very similar to the photos of planet earth they are not real because they take photos of small areas and then combine them to create a larger photo. You're looking at confetti 

[ralis]

Very similar to the photos of planet earth they are not real because they take photos of small areas and then combine them to create a larger photo. You're looking at confetti

 

What is wrong with that? It is not as if the satellite has a Nikon 35mm camera with a Zeiss wide angle lens. The technology is more sophisticated than that. You seem a little paranoid.

Edited November 3, 2015 by ralis

[MooNiNite]

"Composite pictures are usually presented as one final picture, with added elements from some other images, thus changing the meaning of the original. These can also be called photo-montages, which are usual in, say, humorous photo works, but quite unwelcome in journalistic or other documentary type of photography, since any added element change the document by removing its credibility."

 

 

Here is how they used to do it before they started using photo shop.

 

http://gizmodo.com/this-is-how-nasa-made-composite-images-before-photoshop-1441930746

[ralis]

"Composite pictures are usually presented as one final picture, with added elements from some other images, thus changing the meaning of the original. These can also be called photo-montages, which are usual in, say, humorous photo works, but quite unwelcome in journalistic or other documentary type of photography, since any added element change the document by removing its credibility."

 

 

Here is how they used to do it before they started using photo shop.

 

http://gizmodo.com/this-is-how-nasa-made-composite-images-before-photoshop-1441930746

 

Your world view is such that we are being lied to regarding the shape of our planet? 

[MooNiNite]

Your world view is such that we are being lied to regarding the shape of our planet? 

 

I would say that it is far-fetched, but possible.

 

Right now the north pole has my primary interest. 

 

Overall, it really depends how much you trust the people editing the photos. 

Edited November 3, 2015 by MooNiNite

[MooNiNite]

Has anyone seen this?

 

[ralis]

Has anyone seen this?

 

 

I am done discussing this with you. Your incessant need to derail this topic with conspiracy theories and other minutiae is not interesting in the least. I suspect you are possibly too young to reasonably discuss any subject. If you wish to engage in a reasonable discussion, then post accordingly.

[MooNiNite]

This Telescope that can see New York from London is interesting

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1021258/The-amazing-telescope-lets-New-York-Londons-Tower-Bridge.html

 

 

The always horizontal horizon is somewhat interesting

 

http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/01/flat-earth-horizon.html

[MooNiNite]

I am done discussing this with you. Your incessant need to derail this topic with conspiracy theories and other minutiae is not interesting in the least. I suspect you are possibly too young to reasonably discuss any subject. If you wish to engage in a reasonable discussion, then post accordingly.

 

Ok mr. composite photos. 

 

Also that isn't a derail as it questions the validity of NASA. (the organization taking the photos of earth)

Edited November 3, 2015 by MooNiNite

[ralis]

Ok mr. composite photos. 

 

Also that isn't a derail as it questions the validity of NASA. (the organization taking the photos of earth)

 

To question is one thing, but providing no evidence lends no credence to your supposition.