What globe? Flat Earth and Flat-Earthers

[MatiaS]

There's a difference: we are not pointing to or entertaining any evidence of "reptilian beings" walking down the street or hiding under the British Royal family's skin. Our theories in that regard are just that, theories, and rather abstract ones.

Well yes, claims are not being made - as in some places - that the Queen is a shapeshifting reptile. Isn't it true though that we continually suppose the influence of the so called 4dSTS?

Isn't one of the foundational viewpoints - as to the regards of the nature of this reality - held on this forum the idea of us "going for the gold through the door" and consequently getting trapped in the workings of 4dSTS manipulations? Is there any actual proof this?

Aren't comments constantly being made all over the forum about the possible involvement of 4dSTS at every turn of our lives? We openly hypothesize about how or why they might be doing what they're doing. Concrete proof will always of course be elusive on such an abstract topic.

It is through this process that we progressively refine that value system and in doing so define what is the truth. In short, the same thing everyone else is doing, in their own way and based on their essential nature(s).

This is what I feel I'm doing to the best of my capabilities. I don't have many "passions" in my life, music and the written word could rank somewhere close to being considered a "passion", but nothing stirs my internal fire more than the quest for the truth. As you point out, my way of going about The Quest, is my own, as your way is your own.

The reason for my joining the forum was precisely this; to associate more closely with others who I perceive to have this same urge to get to the bottom of things, and to share my own perspectives as the number of people I can have these conversations with on a regular basis face-to-face are limited to the low single digits.

The extent of the meaning in any contribution is directly proportional, it seems, to a person's willingness to question their own assumptions, which in itself is a function of the 'purity' of their desire to know what *actually* IS rather than what they would whimsically like to believe.

In my introductory post - after having lurked for a short time - I believe I even made a remark about how positively surprised I was about the "general level of consciousness" to be found on the forum. People who are self-aware (at least judging from the way they write about themselves) and willing to help others become more so also. Willing to question everything, in regards to themselves and the nature of our reality. Awesome, just what I want to be doing as well.

As I'm trying to make clear, the 'purity' of my desire to know what *actually* IS, is in my own perspective not up for debate. I'm constantly occupying my mind with thoughts that are aimed towards understanding the difference of the subjective and the objective.

I don't "whimsically like to believe" the world be neither flat nor a globe. If anything I'm trying to find out my core beliefs (about anything and everything) and understand why they're there in the first place. Then cross-reference my beliefs with what I actually perceive through my own senses to try to inch my way towards an objective understanding.

As the C's have also said, paraphrasing: Our greatest capacity to alter our reality lies in accessing our belief center.

So with that in mind, couldn't there be truth in the comment made by riccadus:

Is the nature of the earth dependant on the consensus belief of the inhabitants at any point in time?

If our beliefs are in fact altering the shape and form and our experience of reality, is it then too big of a conjecture to think that if billions of people believe something to be true, then the objective reality, whatever that is, will appear subjectively in accordance with the peoples' beliefs?

If our beliefs in fact have the power to alter reality, are we altering the objective reality? If we only alter our subjective experience by altering our beliefs, then how does that help us come closer to objectivity?

 

[Joe]

Well yes, claims are not being made - as in some places - that the Queen is a shapeshifting reptile. Isn't it true though that we continually suppose the influence of the so called 4dSTS?

Yes, we "suppose the influence" in more or less the same way that influence of "the devil" has been supposed since time immemorial, albeit with a bit more filling in of the details.

Isn't one of the foundational viewpoints - as to the regards of the nature of this reality - held on this forum the idea of us "going for the gold through the door" and consequently getting trapped in the workings of 4dSTS manipulations? Is there any actual proof this?

As I've said, that's part of a spiritual narrative/abstract cosmology, it's narrative, myth, analogy. There's no evidence for the historical accuracy of the parables in the NT either, because that's not the point.

Aren't comments constantly being made all over the forum about the possible involvement of 4dSTS at every turn of our lives? We openly hypothesize about how or why they might be doing what they're doing. Concrete proof will always of course be elusive on such an abstract topic.

I wouldn't describe it as "constantly ... all over...", far from it in fact.

As the C's have also said, paraphrasing: Our greatest capacity to alter our reality lies in accessing our belief center.

So with that in mind, couldn't there be truth in the comment made by riccadus:

If our beliefs are in fact altering the shape and form and our experience of reality, is it then too big of a conjecture to think that if billions of people believe something to be true, then the objective reality, whatever that is, will appear subjectively in accordance with the peoples' beliefs?

If our beliefs in fact have the power to alter reality, are we altering the objective reality? If we only alter our subjective experience by altering our beliefs, then how does that help us come closer to objectivity?

I understood that Cs comment as altering (i.e. expanding) the scope of what you can see, rather than changing what Is to conform to your current beliefs. It's the difference between attempting to expand our minds to access more of reality (what IS) and attempting to reduce reality to the current confines of our minds.

From the pov of evolution of perception/consciousness, it doesn't seem consistent that, when attempting the former, the result would be the earth changing from a sphere to a flat plane. Then again, maybe it depends on the limits of a person's imagination or some other limits.

 

[Brewer]

As stated previously, I'm not a flat earther however I believe that at least part of human space exploration is fabricated.

When I first joined the forum, certain topics were more or less off limits. Islam was one of them, however the truth won out and

L) Yes... I guess I'm gonna put the cat among the pigeons.

Islam had it's session, it's now there in the background and there to be discussed in a healthy manner. It doesn't dominate anything, nor does it 'waste' anyone's time unless they want it to. We could do the same with space.

I love the C's reactions to these questions!

(Galatea) Was the death of Aaliyah similar to Diana's in that it was like an omen?
(L) Who's she?
(Galatea) A singer. She died.
A: No
Q: (Galatea) Was she murdered?
A: No
Q: (Galatea) So it actually was an accident.
A: Yes
Q: (Galatea) Damn. What about Bruce Lee's death? Was he murdered?
A: Puhleeze!
Q: (Galatea) He wasn't?
A: No
Q: (Galatea) Okay. Okay, one last one: Was Kurt Cobain murdered?
A: No
Q: (Galatea) So everything they say is true about him? He did commit suicide?
A: Yes
Q: (Galatea) Oooh. Okay, I'm done.
A: You need different "heroes".

and

Q: (L) When did "name" die (where "name" is replaced with those provided in the list in the background section)? (laughter) They want to know when did Jim Morrison die, Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain, Natalie Wood, Elvis Presley, John Lennon...
A: Oh puhleeze! Does the person or persons asking these questions not have a few firing neurons to do research and draw conclusions themselves? These questions are so trivial that it actually makes our nonexistent jaws drop.

If these pop icons and their untimely demise are indulged with frivolous questions why not ask a space related question like?

"Were Grissom, White and Chaffee murdered in the Apollo I capsule fire?"

Grissom was highly critical of the Apollo program, he even hung a lemon off a NASA simulator! His widow and sons believe he was murdered. What is true is that their capsule was a death trap for various reasons.

Perhaps one day the C's will take the initiative and answer a question that was never asked, at least directly, one that was perhaps on the minds of many forum members when this gem appeared back in 2010...

A: The gay "movement" is a CIA program incepted by 4D STS designed to set up antipathy, differences, and to identify individuals for purposes of inflicting further suffering.
Q: (L) Huh.
A: It is the soul that counts.
Q: (L) Have we finished with that one? Okay. I would like to know what is the cause of Martha Crow's death?

Pity the CIA comment wasn't followed up at this time and once again a death question was asked. A pertinent question about the Minnesotan feminist Martha Crow, a rather tragic figure whose life and programming is a valuable lesson.

Another reason to ask is that it could save some embarrassment. Imagine if, through mainstream sources it's revealed there was a ton of fakery going on for the last 7 decades and it was completely missed by us? Imagine if Putin revealed that the Soviets faked some of their missions in order to egg the USA on knowing that the US would fake some of theirs to save face? It would be embarrassing, especially since you have a unique information gathering network that transcends time and space at your disposal.

The past two years have shown us just how easy it is to fool people and how readily they believe despite the unlimited information at their fingertips. They want to believe what the government tells them and it would've been all the more easier 6 decades ago and onwards. It's very likely that like every government institution in the western world is corrupt and has been for decades. I'd imagine NASA wouldn't be any different.

A: You need different "heroes".

Very true! NASA was once my hero too, naturally it diminished over time but it died in 2018 when I began to research it!

So can we ask a few questions?

Puhleeze!?

 

[Brewer]

A fellow traveler on the forum just reminded me of the latest session where a fellow forum member was indulged with considerable resources regarding her personal issues. I don't begrudge her indulgence, it was freely offered but can we just spare a few questions on the space narrative? Shutting down discussion is not the way, if you indulge others, indulge us. You do after all have a communication with entities that transcend time and space. If it contradicts anybody's worldview then just allow us our own corner to discuss things.

I left the bulk of the matrix, I'm doing OK and the Universe keeps providing I can share if you're willing. Please open the channels and don't censor.

Thanks, peace and love, Brewer

Q: (L) So, we did those... Oh! Before I come back to Jar's question, I want to ask something for [Redacted]. [Redacted] has got a whole lot of issues. She's got a whole thread about it, and I'm sure members are aware of all that. So, you'll know why I'm asking this question for her even though it's a personal one. What I'd like to know is: Is there any general guidance that can be given for [Redacted]?

A: [Redacted] was given the key to solve her many inner conflicts years ago. The conflict is between her inner true being and her false personality that always seeks the least painful solution.

Q: (L) So, by seeking the least painful solutions in the short term, she ends up with longer term, more painful situations?

A: Exactly.

Q: (L) Anything else?

([Redacted]) And I haven't a clue.

A: All that glitters is not gold.

Q: (Artemis) Do you meditate?

([Redacted]) Um... Can I ask... How can I get rid of the anxiety?

A: Stop the energy drain.

Q: ([Redacted]) Can I ask if I need to take something to help me before I do that, what could it be?

A: There is no physical solution. What do you fear most?

Q: ([Redacted]) I guess I'd have to say what I fear most.

(Joe) It was a question.

([Redacted]) What do I fear most? I fear that I'm going to feel this way forever.

(L) So that's your greatest fear?

([Redacted]l) No, it's not... My greatest fear is that I'm not gonna have done the Work on myself.

A: That is the conflict. You are not doing the Work.

Q: ([Redacted]) Oh.

A: Where is most of your energy going?

Q: ([Redacted]) All my energy is going into what's going on with my health right now.

(L) I think you missed a stage there.

([Redacted]) Yeah, I didn't quite get everything that they said.

A: Your energy was drained in order to get you in this state.

Q: ([Redacted]) Okay... By who? Or what?

A: Who? What? Illusions is the usual answer.

Q: ([Redacted]) Okay.

A: Who???

Q: ([Redacted]) Could it be, um, the person I live with?

A: Up to you to recognize and ponder.

Q: (L) Alright. Is that enough? I feel...

([Redacted]) I'm sorry I wasted too much time on this.

(L) I don't think it's a waste, but I think it's pushing the limit.

([Redacted]) Right, I'm sorry.

 

[BHelmet]

I just want to say I think it is important to keep all these theories as separate threads. Many mud flooders are also flat earthers and the one detracts from the other. There is a global liquefaction thread floating around somewhere.

(Matias, those beautiful cathedrals might fit well in there. Or perhaps the timeline thread. If there is a 460 year error in the past 2000 years, which is a LARGE margin of error, who can guarantee those beauties were built in 1200-1400? Because some historian who is quoting other historians who never existed said?)

 

[Cosmos]

[...] I did find his images of below ground windows and doors in buildings interesting, although it would have been nice if he had given precise locations of the pictures rather than ascribing them all to the same cause. It's very obvious that a lot of them are basement windows.

Here are numerous examples, considered in the context of a mysterious mud floods.

Mud Flood, Dirt Rain, and the story of the Buried Buildings

The MUD FLOOD Apparently, there is this theory in Russia, that Peter the Great was not the founder of Saint Petersburg. He did not build it, he dug it out. Yes, you heard it right. Supposedly, a whole lot of dirt was removed, and from beneath emerged the city. This is clearly not an official...

stolenhistory.org

There is a lot of material in Russian, really impressive. Whole underground storeys discovered during excavations all over Russia. We know about ancient Rome, but in these cases there exists documentation indicating that whatever happened, happened within the last 300 years. Not to mention that, as far as I know, there were no towns in Russia built of bricks earlier than that. The official soil accumulation narrative is full of holes. There are places where town markets were discovered several meters under current ground level.

A short video of Moscow museum of science and industry (posted in comment section of the above linked post). It's in Russian, but the footage speaks for itself.

"Foundation" of the Polytechnic Museum in Moscow after removing 4 meters of dirt

The Bolshoi Theatre in St Petersburg goes 27 meters underground!

Video in English with examples:

In short, no one really knows so far.

I did a bit of research and I think the most logical explanation is that those houses were built in that way and in some cases a mixture of "built in that way" together with sinking into the ground over time + raising of the street levels over time might play a role (several new pavement layers over time for example).

I think it is called a Semi-basement:

In architecture, a semi-basement is a floor of a building that is half below ground, rather than entirely such as a true basement or cellar.

Traditionally, semi-basements were designed in larger houses where staff was housed. A semi-basement usually contained kitchens and domestic offices. The advantage over a basement is that a semi-basement is lighter as it can have windows, albeit interior windows that are often too high to enjoy a view. Historically this was an advantage as the servants, who traditionally inhabited such a floor, would not have the opportunity to waste time by looking out of the window.

The feature also has the aesthetic value of raising the ground floor, containing the building's reception rooms higher from the ground in order that they could enjoy better views, and be more free from the damp problems which always arose before the days of modern technology.

Today, London estate agents when selling former servant's rooms as modern apartments often refer to the semi-basement as the "garden floor".

If you look at the pictures above it is easy to go "oh wow what happened? We can see those "mud buried houses" pretty much everywhere on earth!". If you think it through though, it seems to me to be quite a stretch to attribute this to "mud" or "global mud flood" and there are quite a number of leaps of faith you need to do.

Why do so many old buildings have half-buried windows? Also, I have seen some old excavations that have levels that are underground, complete with windows and doors. Why?

It was a standard building method in 18th and early nineteenth century city houses. You dig down about a quarter of a floor, throwing the soil forwards to raise the road. This means that you have a half-sunk basement, with those half buried windows giving light but not view to it. This is the servants area, with the kitchens. Half sinking the basement means that you have a few steps up to the front of the house, which looks very grand. These steps form a bridge over the space on front of the lower windows, called the “area”. The other side of the area was the coal cellar, under the pavement/sidewalk. So coal deliveries could be made from the road through a manhole straight into the cellar, from which the servants took it as needed. At the back of the house, you didn’t have the spoil thrown up at the front, so the basement floor was only slightly sunk relative to the garden. There might well be an iron staircase down to the area, which allowed the door into the area to function as a servants entrance.

Here are the links I looked at:

Why do so many old buildings have half-buried windows? Also, I have seen some old excavations that have levels that are underground, comp...

Answer (1 of 7): That was the only way to get natural light and ventilation into a basement. Later, they became required for emergency fire exits. But once you have an outer basement room with direct light from a ‘half buried’ window, they put windows in that room’s inner walls to let some light ...

www.quora.com

Semi-basement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Pros and Cons of Renting (or Buying) a Basement Apartment

Alexa Blay and her husband rented a basement apartment in Toronto, Ontario, for about a year and a half. On the upside, she estimates they saved about $300 a month on rent. Plus, the landlord threw in perks like free parking and utilities that weren’t typically extended to renters in nearby...

www.apartmenttherapy.com

Why did some smaller homes from 50’s have half basements, one half finished for occupancy and the other unfinished crawl space with gravel?

Answer (1 of 15): Question: “Why did some smaller homes from ‘50s have half basements: one half finished for occupancy and the other unfinished crawl space with gravel? Many of the houses houses built in America in the 1950s were starter homes meant to solve the housing shortage created by both ...

www.quora.com

What is a Partial Basement?

A partial basement is a finished excavation under a house that extends to only half the length or width of the structure above it...

www.homequestionsanswered.com

Why are most of the houses half buried in the ground? (Sioux Falls: new house, construction) - South Dakota (SD) - City-Data Forum

Still looking around on Zillow at houses in Sioux Falls and notice that a lot of them follow a basic design where the bottom story is half buried in

www.city-data.com

 

[BHelmet]

I have to disagree with the above. In my experience, humans look for the easiest way to accomplish things. Building something and then partially burying it is a hell of a lot of work. Moving the earth is a massive chore. Furthermore, basements and underground structures are subject to water seepage, mildew and mold. As far as we know, they didn’t have the earth moving equipment to make this an easy task.

Option 1 - let’s build this on a flat surface above ground and call it a day

Option 2 - let’s dig a hole and build it and then partially rebury it

Option 3 - let’s build on flat ground and then partially bury it by raising the street level of the entire town

Gentlemen, get your shovels.

 

[BHelmet]

There again, this should be in the mud flood thread. It has nothing to do with the flat earth thing.

 

[Possibility of Being]

I think it is called a Semi-basement:

Semi-basement is one thing. Half-windows right above the street level and one shallow storey underneath are very common in older cities/towns. But if you have a house entry and full-size windows (sometimes columns too) buried several meters under current ground level, it's an utterly different - and puzzling - thing. Frequent floods, mud floods included, seem to be the best hypothesis so far, but it still leaves many questions not answered.

 

[Joe]

If we are serious about trying to understand what it going on with some of these buildings that appear to have doors and windows well below ground level i.e. completely buried and therefore cannot be basements, we need to identify such buildings, provide the name, location and images of the offending doors and windows.

 

[Cosmos]

I have to disagree with the above. In my experience, humans look for the easiest way to accomplish things. Building something and then partially burying it is a hell of a lot of work. Moving the earth is a massive chore. Furthermore, basements and underground structures are subject to water seepage, mildew and mold. As far as we know, they didn’t have the earth moving equipment to make this an easy task.

Option 1 - let’s build this on a flat surface above ground and call it a day

Option 2 - let’s dig a hole and build it and then partially rebury it

Option 3 - let’s build on flat ground and then partially bury it by raising the street level of the entire town

Gentlemen, get your shovels.

Well, as I understand it, most houses have been and are still build with what is called a foundation. And that foundation is by definition below ground level. So most houses are build with a foundation and for that you need a hole, which is dug out before the house is built. And in the bottom of that hole (below ground level) the house is started to be build. As I understand it, in those „semi-basement“ buildings, it was/is done similarly, with the difference that the foundation there is a semi basement instead of a complete basement/cellar/foundation. Like an additional ground floor (with more or less normal sized windows doors etc) that is below ground level.

 

[Jones]

Information about soil types and compression strengths (I think that's what you call it) in identified areas would be handy too. I've visited a friends family home and she tells of being able to sit under the house in the shade to play when she was a kid. 60 years later and a fist wouldn't fit between the bottom of the house and the ground - the house has sunk about 3 feet in that time. That's in black soil with a high clay content and raised on stumps.

Type of foundation would also have an impact. In some older homes foundations were prepared only under weight bearing walls and floors were filled in later. So the weight bearing part of the structure could subside faster than the floor.

 

[BHelmet]

I live in the western USA and most every residence is on a slab or post and pier or perimeter blocks. And yes I realize on the east coast basements are a thing. And I guess it is necessary to differentiate between smaller residences and larger buildings. I agree with Joe that we need to delve into specifics of what and where and when if we are serious. I have been reluctant to put in the work but I guess it’s time.

 

[Laura]

Builders have long known that in most places, you have to dig down to hit a surface that will reliably support a structure. The bigger the structure, the more important this part of the building process becomes.

In all times, I think, housing for the masses has been built more cheaply and with less intention that the structure survive more than a generation.

In olden days, though, even ordinary homes were often built with basements of some sort because they were needed for food storage - people did not have refrigeration and storage underground kept food cool. In some areas, basements were important for other survival reasons as well: attacks from hostiles, violent weather, etc.

In short, there are many reasons to dig down for foundations and to build basements. Monumental buildings require a whole lot of underground support to keep them from falling down! We've toured a few castles and have been absolutely staggered by some of the effort that went into building the underground supports.

 

[MatiaS]

So if nobody minds I will steer this thread back towards the intended topic. I have also been looking more and more into what colloquially can be called the 'mud flood theory' and I also think it deserves to be handled in a thread on its own. There are a number of researchers to be found on YouTube who are doing great work, it's a shame that most of them also are proponents of flat earth, as I think it will steer many people away from their research, even though it's - IMO - excellent. Moving on though.

Yesterday I watched another installment in the 'Lost History of Earth' series by EWARANON and it raises some interesting points. A caveat for anyone willing to check out the content is that the kind of hyperbolic presentation style he opts for definitely will be off-putting to some, but I would still encourage folks to look past that and concentrate on the information being presented.

The video starts of with some explanations about time, and how the sun and moon are reluctant to keep perfect, steady time that would perfectly align with our mechanical clocks and calendars. He talks about the Jesuit funded astronomers that put in the work between 1500s and 1800s to map and understand and explain the stars above and the earths relation to them. He also talks about how some cathedrals worked as heliometers and talks about a book called 'The Sun in the Church: Cathedrals as Solar Observatories' by one J.L Heilbron, and explains some of the conclusions the book makes observing the politics of the time.

Starting at 19:38 is Part 3 which covers the obliquity of the ecliptic, which I suppose most of the peeps here would be familiar with, it's however a very thorough and clear explanation, and it's never a bad idea to brush up on the basics I suppose. He also explains the three 'Milankovich cycles', "which describe the changes in the earths movement and the impact it has on seasonality and locality of solar energy."

Around 26:15 he shows with the help of the abstract concept known as the 'celestial sphere' the movement of the sun throughout the year. He presents both the heliocentric and geocentric models.

At 34:26 part 4 starts which goes into the equation of time, and a deeper look again at why our mechanical clocks will never stay exactly in sync with solar time. This part also includes information on the analemma and some hypothesizing about the possibility of the obliquity having been different in former times, and still changing today.

At 49:34 he introduces the work of a Mr. George Dodwell (who's work he provides the following link to: https://barrysetterfield.org/Dodwell/Dodwell_Manuscript_1.html), an Australian astronomer who was investigating the obliquity of the ecliptic by studying ancient astronomical and solar observatories and the data the ancients collected on the obliquity. He presents his findings in a graph called 'the curve of obliquity'. His findings are that the obliquity has in fact been shifting (oscillating), and moreover, that in the curve, there is to be found a 'curve of recovery', which would suggest that the change of the obliquity is stabilizing, as the result of an earlier event which would have made the obliquity shift quite dramatically (he equates this to the Great Flood). What makes this even more interesting is that - as also posited by this forum recently - there probably have been added a number of years to our chronology, therefore the graph presented (spanning from 2000BC up to the present) would be compressed even further.

At 53:25 starts the "finale" of the video. For me truly the most interesting question raised by the video. Angkor Watt (Cambodia), Chichen Itza (Mexico), Temple of Abu Simbel (Egypt), Padmanbhaswamy (India), Newgrange (Ireland), Grianan of Aileach (Ireland) are used as the examples.

He cites the work of Dr Jayasree Saranathan (more info here: My research paper on Siddhantic concept of the equinoxes offers newer insights to emerging trends in Science on Precession (Part 1)). He talks about how the Gregorian calendar was introduced in part to stop the calendar from drifting from the equinox date of March 21st, doing this, I assume by introducing the leap year. According to the heliocentric model the intersecting point between the celestial equator and the ecliptic (the equinox) should be moving westward at a rate of 1 degree every 72 years because of the precession of the equinox. Saranathan states: "As per precession theory, this date must have drifted by 5.9 days since the inception of the Gregorian calendar 439 years ago, but is found to be occurring on the same date."

All these structures therefore should not align with the equinox in our time, if they were built hundreds or thousands of years ago as we're told. But as the video shows, on the dates of the equinoxes, the sun can be seen to perfectly align with these structures. How and why?