Flat earth inquiry across Lake Ontario

Finally got a chance to take some footage from across Lake Ontario, a distance of 49.9 km or 31.01 miles. This is an unedited video taken with my Nikon P900, the world’s most affordable megazoom camera (83x optical). According to this earth curve calculator, the obscured amount of the CN Tower should be 527 feet, just under 1/3 of the total tower. Clearly we can see much more than 2/3, more like 7/8 of the tower (you don’t even need a zoom camera to see this on a bright clear day – which this was not). Therefore, I conclude that this part of the earth where I live is not conforming to the ball earth curvature formula. I will not wildly extrapolate this to a domed Trueman show structure like Mark S., but I will say that clearly there is a huge problem with the official story that one NASA fake space agency is promoting.

I stood at 62 Anne St. in Port Dalhousie and aimed it directly at the CN tower in Toronto.

Google maps of the shot.

map 1map 2 map 3 curve

75 thoughts on “Flat earth inquiry across Lake Ontario”

  1. Fine camerawork there, Ab, and well done taking an empirical approach to this question. While we’re at it, I suggest a second inquiry which could take Fakeology even further toward settling the shape of the Earth question.

    My suggestion for Flat Earth Inquiry II is to shoot across Lake Ontario in a way that controls for the effects of atmospheric refraction. There’s no need to leave Toronto for this one. All you need is access to a tall building near the shore from which to photograph, and another tall building on the opposite shore (about 30 miles away) to be photographed.

    The idea in this case would be to take two pictures across the lake, each from (nearly) the same coordinates of longitude and latitude, but from significantly different elevations. The pictures should also be taken at close to the same time.

    Example 1: a picture from the shore of Lake Ontario, and a picture from the 30th floor of a nearby building.

    Example 2: a picture from the 5th floor of a building near Lake Ontario, and a picture from the 35th floor of the same building.

    A sufficient difference in elevation between where the two photos are taken should cause noticeably different amounts of the distant building to be visible above the horizon – i.e. the surface of the lake – due to Earth’s curvature.

  2. @Clueseau

    A sufficient difference in elevation between where the two photos are taken should cause noticeably different amounts of the distant building to be visible above the horizon – i.e. the surface of the lake – due to Earth’s curvature.

    As a PR person for the Cambridge/NASA ball model, why don’t you do the experiments yourself and prove that we are dealing with a ball model?

  3. I’m afraid the curve is right in front of you, Ab.

    As you confirmed on YouTube, and from what we can see, your camera height is more like 30 feet, not 5.5. Using the formula the Target hidden height becomes much less: 393 feet.

    A small change in camera height causes a big change in Target hidden height. Maybe your camera height was even higher than 30 feet. That makes the hidden height even smaller.

    Rogers Centre/Toronto SkyDome is 282 feet. It is not visible. Neither are the island and airport.

    Factor in refraction, and this is what you get.

    Nice camera, and good forensic fakeology.

      1. “ST. CATHARINES – elevation: 97.80 m (320.87 ft) ”
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Catharines

        www.google.it/maps/@43.201252,-79.2734198,3a,75y,3.38h,69.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6NW4qV2FQBvFpL12diUilQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

        Using the Earth Curve Calculator, if Ab was standing at 320.87ft of elevation – and at 31.01miles from the Toronto skyline, the hidden bottom part of the same would be less than 55ft (or 16.8m) :
        Target hidden height = 54.9 ft
        dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

          1. Which is: 76 m (249 ft)

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto

            We need of course the exact elevation of the camera and the CN Tower, but from these numbers it looks like you are looking from a higher vantage point to a lower one. This explains the lower Target hidden height, i.e. you are seeing more of the tower’s base.

          2. Let’s, for shits and giggles, do a ballpark calculation, and use those elevations:

            320.87 – 249 = 71.87 feet.

            Into the Calculator with 31.01 miles gives 285.5 feet of hidden height.

            That’s slightly more than Rogers Centre. Which could be about right.

          3. Dear Rgos,
            Not sure what you mean by ‘taking into account the elevation of the Toronto skyline’. It doesn’t seem to me that the base of the CN Tower stands 76m above sea level.

            Hence, what we need are two things :
            – Ab’s (camera’s) exact elevation above sea level.
            – The exact elevation of (the base of ) CN Tower above sea level.

          4. If St Catherine’s sea level is higher than Toronto’s, does that mean the lake slopes down towards the north? Where is the sea level measured? At City Hall? The CN Tower sits on infill, claimed from the lake. It’s as close to lake level as possible (which isn’t sea level AFAIK).

          5. Dear Rgos,
            Not sure what you mean by ‘taking into account the elevation of the Toronto skyline’. It doesn’t seem to me that the base of the CN Tower stands 76m above sea level.

            Simon, what I meant is that when you propose to only use the elevation of St. Catherines, that wouldn’t be correct. You need to use the elevation of Toronto as well.

            Hence, what we need are two things :
            – Ab’s (camera’s) exact elevation above sea level.
            – The exact elevation of (the base of ) CN Tower above sea level.

            Exactly, that’s what I said.

          6. If St Catherine’s sea level is higher than Toronto’s, does that mean the lake slopes down towards the north? Where is the sea level measured? At City Hall? The CN Tower sits on infill, claimed from the lake. It’s as close to lake level as possible (which isn’t sea level AFAIK).

            Those are good questions, Ab. I don’t know, at the moment, what accounts for the differences in elevation between Toronto and St. Catherines or where those are measured.

            I’d suggest you redo the experiment, camera 5.5 feet above lake level.

            I expected greater Target hidden height, I admit, than what we see in your clip. But not being able to see island and airport in front of the tower, Rogers Centre or the road and the entire base of the city to me indicates curvature.

          7. Rgos, I see your point now – and I was wrong to even mention ‘sea level elevations’ – an unnecessary complication. As it is, all we need to compare here is, more simply, Ab’s imagery with other (less distant) shots of the Toronto waterfront scenery – so as to estimate the difference between the visible waterline elevations (of Lake Ontario) with respect to the CN tower and its surrounding buildings. This is what I’ve done in my below graphic / montage, using the useful building heights / data provided by Clueseau. I will concede that my “ca. 200ft” figure is just a rough approximation – but at least it goes to show that Ab’s waterline does in fact hide a considerable amount of the actual, lower waterfront scenery of Toronto.

            Of course, it will be interesting to see what comes out of Ab’s next footage which he will shoot from the beach, at man’s height above the lake’s waterline – rather than from the elevated vantage point of Bayview drive / Ann street.

          8. Of course, it will be interesting to see what comes out of Ab’s next footage which he will shoot from the beach, at man’s height above the lake’s waterline – rather than from the elevated vantage point of Bayview drive / Ann street.

            And may I also kindly ask of our Zapruder to shoot some pictures in addition to film, down at the beach by the knoll. I don’t know the exact specs of the P900 but chances are that a picture gives a much higher resolution than video stills.

            Check. Yes: video HD, pics 4K.

            www.dpreview.com/products/nikon/compacts/nikon_cpp900/specifications

          1. keep pushing the Curve and the JFK BS
            Still waiting for the Twilight answer from the “great” one
            i have a feckin half o year’s worth of crap from pro globalist agents …… i’ll say it again , seek people looking for truth , run a mile from those who claim to have it
            it is feckin obvious whats going on

          2. @Ab

            “If St Catherine’s sea level is higher than Toronto’s, does that mean the lake slopes down towards the north? Where is the sea level measured? At City Hall? The CN Tower sits on infill, claimed from the lake. It’s as close to lake level as possible (which isn’t sea level AFAIK)”

            Read more: fakeologist.com/2015/12/01/flatvideo/#ixzz3tDnVMnS0

            I agree…stuck to your guns, Ab….I am eager to see how this pans out. ,

            “Toronto’s CN Tower’s top is almost the same height above sea level as the top of Ishpatina Ridge. It is 553.33 m-high (1,815.4 ft). Toronto is about 250 feet above seal level, making the top of the CN Tower about 2065 feet above seal level”
            www.ontarioabandonedplaces.com/upload/wiki.asp?entry=6886

            “St. Catherines, Ont is 321 ft.

            www.worldatlas.com/na/ca/on/where-is-st-catharines.html

    1. Hi rgos.

      Below is a picture of the Toronto skyline viewed over water.

      We see Toronto appearing behind the horizon, obscured partly, from the bottom up .
      This is exactly the same way we are said to see ships ‘disappearing’ over the horizon. If the two yachts there were further away, there would come a point where they would appear , behind the horizon as Toronto does now.
      This is the way alternate theorists would say the Sun and the Moon appear to be behind the horizon as they go up and down.

      Now, looking back at that picture can you please answer me this question –

      Do you think the Toronto skyline there, partially obscured behind the horizon, is supporting evidence of a spherical Earth? ( You won’t be alone if you do. Brian Cox says it is and so do all our children’s text books).
      ————————————
      Remember, if you have a strong enough telescope those things that appear to have disappeared behind the horizon return to view as if on the level.
      This applies to this picture of Toronto. With a strong enough telescope you can see beach-to-beach on a calm day. Things that appear to disappear over the horizon at the limit of our lens, then return to view on-the-level with a stronger one.

      I’ve already asked Clueseau this question and I’m glad to say he confirmed himself as a Pear Earth Doubter in that he said that things disappearing over the horizon may not be supporting evidence for a spherical Earth.

      So, my question, put another way – Do you think that’s the edge of the world there in the picture below, rgos?

      1. Tom, what a sophist you are. That’s two questions you are asking.

        Let me answer those in another way: if the earth were flat, Ab would have been able to see the dome, airport and island, filming from a 30 feet grassy knoll as he did.

        That is, if there wasn’t a second shooter.

          1. I don’t know what you mean, Ab, but I think that blur, those ‘anomalies’, are caused by reflection, not refraction.

        1. rgos, I asked you a very basic, specific question, which I’d like an answer on, if you will.

          It’s children’s level Science.
          Do you think the idea of ships disappearing behind the horizon is supporting evidence of a spherical Earth ?

      2. Remember, if you have a strong enough telescope those things that appear to have disappeared behind the horizon return to view as if on the level.
        This applies to this picture of Toronto. With a strong enough telescope you can see beach-to-beach on a calm day. Things that appear to disappear over the horizon at the limit of our lens, then return to view on-the-level with a stronger one.

        I don’t think they do.

        1. Tom said – Things that appear to disappear over the horizon at the limit of our lens, then return to view on-the-level with a stronger one.

          rgos said – I don’t think they do.

          I should have worded that ”as-if on the level.” I’m well aware that you don’t think things are on-the-level, at all, rgos.

          That said, the fact remains and mainstream Science will tell you, that the Earth appears flat in optical experiments and things that appear to disappear behind the horizon, return to view, completely visible, when viewed through a stronger lens.
          This is something that’s been observed countless times and is an established fact (isn’t it? ).

          As I said, if Ab had a stronger telescopic lens and the water was calm, I believe he could see beach-to-beach across the water. The far beach, in this case, being the one on the island just off Toronto city as shown by Ab on his original line-of-sight map.

          Looking at the horizon across water and seeing the phenomenon of ships appearing to disappear from the bottom-up, behind it, was what Aristotle apparently cited as evidence for a spherical Earth all those years ago.

          This is understandable. It makes some sense. It looks like it could be that, doesn’t it?

          Aristotle’s idea though, looks like it could also be ‘old science’. ”They thought they could see the edge of the world man, haha !”

          With a telescope, a ship that appears , to the eye, to have disappeared bottom-up behind the horizon, returns to view fully visible. This, well observed phenomenon, I believe, is a fact we can agree on ?

          This fascinates me as it’s almost as if something magical happens.
          Things that appear to have disappeared behind an impenetrable looming ‘wall’ of water reappear. As if by magic, the ‘wall’ seems to disappear

          Again, I believe this is only based on observations we can agree on.
          Whatever one’s stance is, I think it’s pretty interesting the way that that ‘wall’of water seems to disappear.

          One more time again. Look at the image below and consider that with a strong enough lens one could zoom in right to the beach of that island in front of Toronto.
          The ‘wall’ of water that appears to obscure part of Toronto does not in fact stop us seeing across as if on the level.

          This is acknowledged by mainstream Science and explained with atmospheric refraction. We’re told we can see round the curve ( which they acknowledge is there ).

          The most cogent alternative theory is that what we see is caused by a quirk of perspective. We understand how we can see a long line of telegraph poles appear to disappear bottom up down a long straight road.

          1. As I said, if Ab had a stronger telescopic lens and the water was calm, I believe he could see beach-to-beach across the water. The far beach, in this case, being the one on the island just off Toronto city as shown by Ab on his original line-of-sight map.

            Again, Tom, I don’t think he could.

          2. Tom said – As I said, if Ab had a stronger telescopic lens and the water was calm, I believe he could see beach-to-beach across the water. The far beach, in this case, being the one on the island just off Toronto city as shown by Ab on his original line-of-sight map.
            rgos said – Again, Tom, I don’t think he could.

            Ah yes, perhaps there isn’t a strong enough telescopic lens available on the market (by some way ) that could do the job! Ha. Strictly speaking, fair point.

            However, the fact remains that things that appear to disappear from view behind the horizon, do return to view when observed through a more powerful lens. It’s a proven fact.

            I believe that with a powerful enough telescope we can extend that principle the 31 miles across the water to Toronto.

            At the limit of Ab’s zoom we see the horizon line and Toronto behind it. IF we could zoom in further with a more powerful lens, we should expect to hit the trees on the beach of that little island in front of Toronto. It’s just how it is.

          3. Tom Dapra wrote:

            “It’s a proven fact”
            (…)
            “It’s just how it is.”

            Well, if you say so, Tom, if you say so…
            How can you argue with such absolute certainty ?
            I guess it’s case closed, then. My 200ft reckoning must be an optical illusion. 😛

            Looking forward to your visual proof for this ‘fact’. Surely, someone somewhere must have demonstrated this with a telescope – or such like?

          4. Tom Dapra wrote:
            “It’s a proven fact”

            “It’s just how it is.”
            Simon Shack wrote – Well, if you say so, Tom, if you say so…
            How can you argue with such absolute certainty ?

            Fair enough Simon. I’m certainly not certain of much at all . I think I worded that badly.

            I’m just trying to establish what we certainly can agree on.

            ie Objects over water that are seen to have disappeared over the horizon will return completely to view when viewed through a sufficiently powerful lens at the same elevation.

            Can we agree with certainty on that ?

          5. ie Objects over water that are seen to have disappeared over the horizon will return completely to view when viewed through a sufficiently powerful lens at the same elevation.
            Can we agree with certainty on that ?

            I don’t think so, Tom. No amount of zoom factor is gonna bring things back into view when they are obscured by a wall of water.

          6. Tom wrote:
            “I’m just trying to establish what we certainly can agree on.
            ie Objects over water that are seen to have disappeared over the horizon will return completely to view when viewed through a sufficiently powerful lens at the same elevation.
            Can we agree with certainty on that ?”

            Uh, no Tom. Certainly not.

            You’re funny, mate : you just re-worded the exact same ‘certainty’ of yours. Wordsmith much? May I ask where and why you matured this odd conviction?

          7. Simon said – You’re funny, mate : you just re-worded the exact same ‘certainty’ of yours. Wordsmith much? May I ask where and why you matured this odd conviction?

            I did say I’m certain of very little and was just asking a question in looking for something we can agree on.
            What I thought we could agree on is that a ship that has just disappeared over the horizon to the eye, will then return to view when viewed through a telescope ?

            This guy ‘ziller’ was talking about it, I seem to remember.

            You can watch it happening ( I think! I’m here to learn. I might be confused, please tell me ) if you line up different strength telescopes on the shore.
            A ship will disappear at the limit of one telescope but still be visible in the others. Sight of the ship is lost in each telescope, in order of their strength, as it moves further away.

            I’m not saying it proves anything at this point. ‘ziller’ is, in fact, a keen official Science and maths guy who has been energetically arguing for the existing spherical model. He spoke of these experiments as part of his argument for curved water and as such thought it was accepted as well observed and something we could agree on.

            Simon, you suggested in the chat some months ago that I was a ‘ FE follower’.
            I assumed you’d misinterpreted a comment I’d then recently made there to Jeranism. The comment along the lines of ”Oh hi Jeranism, welcome to Fakeologist, I have followed some of your journey with interest” had come just after I had called him out as an agent in the same chat. When he suddenly came on to the site at that moment saying he wanted to join Fakeologist , I thought it only polite to offer him an honest enough and friendly greeting.

            Where am I at ? Well I’m certainly not certain but the fool that I admit I am, is still compelled ( as I was well over a year ago, long before I’d heard of Dubay, Sargent and Jeranism ) by the idea of perspective as an explanation for what we see when we look across water.

  4. If anyone is at a computer where it’s convenient, one way to get a reasonable idea of how much of each building is visible in this video is by using a known distance as a measuring stick.

    The base of the SkyPod on the CN Tower is 1,109 ft. high.

    www.ieee.ca/millennium/cntower/cntower_overview.html

    Simcoe Place, the squarish building right of the CN Tower, is 486 ft. high.

    www.aviewoncities.com/buildings/toronto/simcoeplace.htm

    Therefore, subtracting one height from the other, the vertical distance between the roof of Simcoe Place and the base of the SkyPod is 623 ft. – if the buildings are at the same elevation, which they probably are.

    This known length of 623 ft. (190 m), converted to pixel distance in a given image, can be used to measure how much of each building is visible.

    PS: Nice moon pics, Ab. There is however an absence of stars, so you’ll understand that I’m bound to ask: Are you sure you didn’t fake them?

    1. I’m too lazy to fake them…no, as Neil said, there were no stars in that superzoom shot that I could see. I wondered would Nikon in on it, so when I focused on the moon, they sub in stock moon shots?

    2. This known length of 623 ft. (190 m), converted to pixel distance in a given image, can be used to measure how much of each building is visible.

      Yes, simple and obvious solution and implemented by Simon below.

  5. Here’s Google Earth (yes, highly suspect, because it uses the sphere model) for broad reference. We are on Ab’s line of sight. Were is the island?

          1. And thanks to all the posters here as well. And thanks to Ab. I want to support you Ab, I like to support you, and I love posting here as well. I see what they are doing, very clearly and yet cannot communicate it to you. I am sorry. It is hard to express the amount of anxiety I get by wanting to participate here. A post about flat earth stuff starts my anxiety level rising. Listening to and watching the flat earthers I clearly hear the insincerity in their voices.

            Their fake hypothesis and fairy tale sciences they somehow pass of as their actual opinions seem so blatantly a joke. But the thing that pisses me off is the high volume of NLP in each and every video and audio. It causes me mental anguish by the mere fact that some of my most trusted truthers, those whom I go to find truth in this world of lies, can’t see how scripted it all is and therefore can’t protect their self intellectually against the NLP. Solution: stop listening. Might not get the nuggets, but definitely won’t get the NLP.

            How do I know NLP is taking place? Because I hear certain phrases repeated here in posts from many members that have been first mentioned in flat earth videos. These phrases can’t possibly be true and are not worth our limited energy to discuss them. Example: Dallas Goldbug.

            Keeping track of what I have heard so far, 95% of flat earther discussions have already been talked about, already been posted about here at fakeologist.com. They are listening to what we say and watching what we post and are just repeating it, with some NLP thrown in as well as some nugget to keep them hooked.

            My anguish caused by these flat earthers is not alone, read this thread for starters.

            I heard a very wise person say that this growing divide that we have here at fakeologist.com is by design, on purpose, to create anguish among members which will then create a division among them.

            If you are interested in flat earth, consider your interests may not be your own, but that they have been given to you through NLP. To be fair, whose interests are really their own, but this campaign is something special. It is specifically by design. That is how all this works in the first place. Attack you without you knowing it. One must have intellectual fortitude to resist the programming lest it suck you in.

            What is wrong with K and Simon? They are practicing and expressing intellectual fortitude.

            Programming is macro and micro. Can be in the evening news and can also right here with us, in our corner of the internet. Ask yourself what are all those disconnected pictures, and connected ones doing in all those flat earth videos, as well as, and most importantly, the verbal nonsense they speak. Write it down and analyze it as I have. NLP.

            These flat earth videos are not free. They come with a cost. The cost is NLP.

          2. @Khammad

            What is wrong with K and Simon? They are practicing and expressing intellectual fortitude.

            So, you are stating Unreal is telling nonsense in the message he wrote down to you. ( Message in the reply section chat Ab-Unreal Paris hoax.

            I will state here again: History is bunk. History describes events but hides what really happened. That’s why we have to learn history. We have to learn history to bring us on the wrong track and keep us on the wrong track.
            History before 1600 a 1700 is full in the dark. ALL history is written down and constructed here in Europe. Calendar construction the same NO exceptions, included Maya calendar ( specialist in this field Volker Dubbers, who goes under the name Tuisto on: de.geschichte-chronologie.de/)
            The families who have the sysytems in their hands decides what you come to know or not. Happily their are still some crumes under the table which are worth studying them.

          3. I have studied NLP in depth years ago.

            I stated my views in a different post dealing with that subject.

            But in case it didn’t carry across i will repeat.

            NLP IS MOSTLY MUMBO JUMBO.

            Most good NLP books will tell you this, there is no secret mind controll phrase you can utter and people cling to your word.

            There is only one way to do mincontroll and its the same way its always been,
            REPETITION.

            Why do you think school is set up the way it is? where you repeat stuff “till it sinks in”.

            NLP is worthless, and even with masterful delivery it just makes you sound airy fairy like a politician (the most common users of NLP).

            Advertisement discovered this years ago when they tried to integrate NLP.

            Very little of it actually did anything (some things did like 5% increased sales, but even then it didn’t stick over time).

            What gets people is and have always been REPETITION.

            Marketing knows this, and inteligence organziations know this.

            Hence you get a endless flow of “schooling” and “news” repeating ad nauseum.

            So @Kham just because someone has a counter argument against you and you cant win by maths alone, does not mean its NLP. Thats a strawman at best.

            And no that previous line was not NLP (or was it?)

            -Zal

          4. Kham, thanks for the like. Here’s one back at ya.

            Regarding the Flat Earth sales reps, notice how one-dimensional their (fake) personalities are. That’s because they’re each wearing a mask, unnaturally static. Their “agreeability for the masses”, as they lull us with fairytales, is practiced with too much monotony and polish for them to be “just folks”. A collection of real people with a nutty “science” theory in common, rather than a collection of actors with a psyop in common, wouldn’t be so skewed toward that sort of plastic personality profile.

            This deserves looking into, if for no other reason than we’re being discouraged from doing so at, paradoxically, a site about exposing media psyops.

      1. You beat me to it, Rgos, was going to post a similar Goo-gle shot myself.
        As it is, we posted almost at the same time today – expect someone to say “rgos and simon are one and the same!”… 😛

        Anyways, and don’t blame me for only stating a plain fact, but I will now express my gratitude to Ab for his help in demonstrating earth’s curvature – empirically – for this is precisely what he has done.

        1. I’m not trying to prove anything really. All I know for sure is NASA lies and I want to know why. Plus I have always been in to photography and needed an excuse to buy this camera.

        2. Simon I thought I’d get a comment on my St Catherine’s 9/11 memorial visit before my flat earth inquiry from you. Either way the flat earth topic seems to provide endless interest and controversy, more than any of these silly shooting or terror hoax events.

          1. Either way the flat earth topic seems to provide endless interest and controversy

            It’s a ‘biggie’ as you quite rightly remarked, Ab, and (intentionally) highly divisive. That is, if we let it be.

          2. Ab wrote:
            “Simon I thought I’d get a comment on my St Catherine’s 9/11 memorial visit before my flat earth inquiry from you. Either way the flat earth topic seems to provide endless interest and controversy, more than any of these silly shooting or terror hoax events.”

            Ab – you’re being a tad childish now, are you not?
            So you didn’t “get a comment from me” about your fine effort photographing that local 9/11 memorial of yours. What should I say – perhaps something like “oh, I’m sorry about ignoring your hard work” ? Besides, how often do you set aside some of your time to comment / contribute over at Cluesforum these days, Ab ?

            As for your present, personal flat earth inquiry, it would be fair and gracious of you to admit that it has fallen flat on its face. The ‘silly terror hoaxes’, as you call them, almost pale in comparison to the silliness of this FE inquiry of yours. The mere fact that you used a “5.5ft” figure (as to your camera’s elevation) to perform your calculations is nothing short of asinine – and makes me question your intentions, your honesty and your intelligence. I really feel sad writing these ‘harsh’ words – yet I feel it has now become an urgent necessity to do so, were it only to have you think twice before ‘playing Rowbotham’ again.

            See, these days (when commenting here) I tend to focus on the PROBLEMS of this tiny – yet steadily growing, ‘free-thinkers-community’ (for lack of a better term) of ours. The “endless interest and controversy” (over the FE theory) which is now, undeniably, heavily promoted by yourself, is a matter of grave concern to me – especially since Fakeologist.com has been, ever since day one, the N°1 promoter of September Clues / Cluesforum – (and I keep appreciating and thanking you for that – as you very well know).

            Of course NASA is lying to us – but ALL of the astronomers since the dawn of times cannot all be liars, nor can ALL of their combined work, data and findings gathered over the centuries be brushed off with a flick of our hands. In fact, what I am soon about to demonstrate and illustrate (‘endless controversies’ and sheer free-time from my Cluesforum moderation commitments permitting) is that some of the more ancient astronomers – foremostly the Mayas – but also Tycho Brahe – got very, very close to figuring out the mechanics and geometry of our so-called ‘solar system’. They only lacked ONE little piece of the puzzle – which they simply could not have at the time. And I believe – very seriously – that I’ve found it.

            ***********************
            As a last little personal critique (we are all entitled to vent our own opinions, no?), I must say that your “Anonymous fakeologist chatbox” has turned out to be an ‘inviting’, go-to-place for all the Nutwork trolls of this world to drop their turds & poo-poo ( anonymously at that) and I can’t say that I enjoy much coming here and seeing the ever-more-frequent troll posts accusing me (or others) of being ‘sinister globular gatekeepers’ or such like. If I were you (I’m not, of course) I would reconsider having that free-for-all Anonymous chatbox’ on my site – but that is of course just my personal opinion.

          3. Simon,
            What is it with you lately? I’ve noticed that your patience with foes and (moreso) fans has become much shorter than in the past. Even our mutual friend Hoi, who has done much to contribute to my understanding of psyops, has received public comeuppance from you. Do you understand that many of us are genuine researchers doing our best with zero nearby support, both emotional and financial? Not all of us can see as clearly as you can from your perch over Rome, so back off and cut us some slack. As our friend Hoi has seen with his own eyes, I work a dawn to dusk job, squeezing in spare moments to run this site. When exactly do you want me to comment on cluesforum? If I have a comment, I do it here, so as to avoid any clues guidelines for posting. Besides, I figure if I’m going to get my head bit off, I’ll comment here, so I can respond for all to see in any manner I choose.

            No, I’m going to leave the anon chat. I figure most can see it for what it is. I can handle the nonsense, so why can’t you? Its mission statement is clearly stated, and I’ve received the odd nugget from people who don’t want to or can’t be bothered to registere for whatever reason.

            I will be forever grateful for cluesforum and all it has done and continues to do for my understanding of our reality. If you choose never to visit here again for fear of being offended by my investigation, no matter how shabby it is to you, then sobeit. The only thing permanent is change, so I’m always ok with any new happenstance that comes my way, good or bad. In the mean time, I’ll stay true to my interests, and no-one else’s.

            I say this with peace and love. www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsK5kCs4EXE

          4. Ab wrote:
            “Simon, what is it with you lately? I’ve noticed that your patience with foes and (moreso) fans has become much shorter than in the past.”

            I’m my same old self, Ab. I have never aimed or asked for fandom – as you well know. My patience is intact – all I wish for is intelligent continuity of our efforts to unveil and expose the clowns of this world.

            Ab wrote:
            “Do you understand that many of us are genuine researchers doing our best with zero nearby support, both emotional and financial?”

            Of course I do. I can only hope you’re not implying that I am in any different situation, Ab. I have zero financial support – I repeat – exactly ZERO financial support. And I am my own man – and have always been – and have had, throughout my entire life, zero connections / affiliations of any kind WHATSOEVER. Yes, I live on a hill overlooking Rome – so what? My ’emotional support’ (as you call it) comes from folks like, for instance, yourself. And that’s why I care about you – and cringe whenever you make a fool of yourself – such as your latest “FE inquiry”.

            Ab wrote:
            “No, I’m going to leave the anon chat. I figure most can see it for what it is. I can handle the nonsense, so why can’t you?”

            Well, Ab – it may well be easy for you to handle, since none of these anon trolls ever accuse you of being some sinister entity. How would you like Cluesforum having a free-for-all chatbox (no registration required) lashing out the sort of things I regularly get on my personal e-mail (and Youtube comment boxes), accusing you of being a jewish / zionist shill’ – and exhorting me to stay well clear of you ? See, I’m sparing you from that shit. I think you should be grateful for this protective stance of mine – towards you.

            Lastly, please don’t you ever compare / associate me anymore with any sort of Ringo Starr. Thanks.

          5. Please don’t protect me… I don’t need it. As for Ringo, I just enjoyed the irony of his no more fans foolish rant. I always thought Best got the shaft.

          6. Since I just wrote that I have ZERO financial support, I feel compelled to rectify a little this statement and pay my respects and gratitude to those who have supported me with their donations over the years – which have covered almost exactly the costs of my various websites’ fees . Thanks and hugs to you all.

          7. i’d like to express my appreciation to simon shack, the man who will one day solve the solar system, for not calling ab a cointelpro agent. i’m tired of that bullshit.

            it’s pretty sweet how you proved the curvature of water by proving that ab couldn’t see some fucking trees in the immediate foreground of his target from 30 miles away. your g factor is obviously off the charts, bro; but you know that already of course.

            go ahead believe your favorite astronomer, historian, or whatever; apparently the narrative device we’ve been told to call tycho was the real deal; simon told us so. is he as real as the actor we were trained to call czar nicholas, simon?

            tell you what- you can stop posting at fakeologist; i’ll try to contribute more here seeing as i won’t be posting on cluesforum anymore. i can’t promise anything though, seeing as i live in my truck and post from here…

            boomerzaustin.com

            …not exactly one of the seven hills, right? you’re coming off as an arrogant prick and i don’t deal with those.

    1. Well done, Rgos. Get ready for a new pseudoscientific principle to suddenly be discovered on Flat Earth to explain away this missing island.

      That is, if the Flat Earth psyop is even still a thing. I noticed a shift in the propaganda campaign last month. My first, as yet unconfirmed, impression was that the PTB were getting an unexpectedly effective response – most importantly from the strategic high ground of Cluesforum – and so moved their Flat Earth pancake to the backburner in favor of the next “cognitive infiltration” scheme in the chute, to be announced. Stay tuned for developments.

    2. GASP ! pictures from AB that goes against my indoctrination. quickly to the calcluator !!!

      the numbers must be wrong, claim refraction , ANYTHING!!!!!

      Ah phew he was not standing on the sea, let us just demand new photos, DEBUNKED LOL!

      Do you people listen to yourselves?

      If the next set of pictures are also flat will you keep doing the aformentioned procedure again (and again) ?

      maybe introduce new maths with a new equation, that always works right?

      Now as far as SimonShack is concerned, im still waiting for that write up of the world according to him, i have asked for it multiple times already (I belive in hearing everyones side, then making up my mind).
      Why even whine untill your view is presented Simon? unless you are making one up as you go.

      I liked the posts TomDalpra posted further below, he has actually taken the time to read up on perspective, i explained it in the chatbox to the right to Kham once, but i belive i got ignored.

      Everyone is so eager to teach everyone basic math, but everyone is ignoring basic perspective.

      As a 3d modeller, perspective is fundamental for what i do, which is why flat earth makes alot of sense to me.

      I have tried HARD to find counter points, even asking leading “FE is a psyop people” to give me theire view on things if its not a ball nor flat. But the silence is deafening, except for Kham, that at least tried with her “greater ball earth” model, that got swiftly debunked (sorry folks, you cant have your cake and eat it too).

      As ive stated many times, the only counter point to flat earth i can find is that the orginal guys and the guys today possibly are all masons, i expected the psyop crowd to either debunk me or prove the mason thing. No one jumped on that either.

      Looks like the “FE as a psyop” crowd are mostly just mad they did not see it first (i might be wrong but that is my take on it) and i have even heard known “schills” (dirty word) claim the exact same thing.

      Jay weidner in a Rense interview says the exact same things as Simon and Kham and cluesau et all on this page “the FE is Nasa damage control”

      Then Bart sibrel comes out saying the same thing.

      Curious.

      Anyway im in this for the truth i honestly dont care either way, i just want to know whats actually true.

      So the “DBA” people need to make alot stronger of a case, possibly explain theire own model (sphere like nasa said, even though nasa is nothing but lies), Or just stop being a peanut gallery.

      I will be the first one to eagerly read your take on the world when you present one “DBA people”.

      My toughts.

      -Zal

  6. Zalian,

    Consider that demographic specific advertising and programming using sound and visual cues, and subliminal messages are in use today. For example, I found super slow speech embedded in the flat earth audios. Why purposely embed that in an audio, unless it was for a purpose. I would conclude NLP is going strong and is becoming increasingly effective. And yes, repetition is part of NLP.

    I have compiled some of Lenon Honor’s Media Manipulation audios and videos and made a post out of them. He provides quite a bit of evidence that supports how NLP is used in media today, including alternative media.

    If you want to understand how media manipulation works on peoples brains, then you will find the following post valuable.

    fakeologist.com/forums/topic/media-manipulation-and-lenon-honor/

    Dallas Goldbug uses NLP. Videre Licet has done some great research in this area and talks about it in an audio chat, sometime in the spring of 2015. She shows how the programming starts at the beginning and continues throughout the viewing of a video, she really breaks it down. I wish I could find it right now.

    1. If you follow that line of thinking, you start thinking of everything like NLP.

      This is one of the things about it, its a vague term describing influence techniques.

      and EVERYTHING is a influence technique.

      People use “NLP” every day and are not aware they are doing it.
      So just because you think you hear it does not mean it is so.

      Also i saw you mention subliminal.
      That has been very overblown and never proven to do anything all (IE inserting a frame of lets say “drink coca cola” in a 24 frames per second film).

      I have alot of movie making software laying round and i’ve tried this, and it did nothing to me.

      The NLP proponents will say that was because i was “aware” of it. But i highly doubt that, its just a cover for theire snake oil, It is a urban legend, and no you wont buy more coca cola.

      Slow speech and even reverse speech are on the same level as subliminal as far as i’m concerned, it’s never proven to do anything all, and the evidence in favor for it strongly relies on you beliving it does
      (and reverse speech is very dependant on your interpertation of it).

      The entire principles behind NLP relies on mainstream psychology, and EVOLUTIONARY- psychology being correct, which they are not.

      NLP is as ive stated over and over worthless.

      Its mostly used for self hypnosis nowadays by repeating “i am great” in front of a mirror lets say 10 times every morning.
      This has been said to have an effect on people, but only IF THEY THEMSELVES BELIVE IT DOES.
      And even then if you scrutinise it, its the repetion that worked.

      Hell i can take it far aswell from the other viewpoint and break down your comments from a NLP viewpoint.

      I noticed you wrote it causes u agony (appeal to emotion) the ammount of NLP in the FE videos, and you showed fortitude by resisting it (a en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_suppression_techniques if i ever saw one).

      Now im not saying you used NLP on us, i am just saying that if you look for it, NLP is used BY EVERYONE ALL THE TIME.

      And NLP is based on really shoddy psychology, usually evolutionary psychology to the tune of
      “if a caveman did x that causes y”, and this is all just rediculuous BS.

      Repetion is the only way of mindcontroll, there really is nothing else.

      You can use all the subliminal weasel words, anchoring and sucessful person modelling techniques you can possibly muster, its still Psuedo science at the very best, and starting to think everything is NLP will slowly drive you insane, because its everywhere.
      Many people started doing this to theire own detriment after reading a few books about it
      (including myself for a few months).

      This is not a healhty state to be in.

      That being said, weaponized language is a thing, and yes NLP is being used, but the stuff you learn in law school is not the same NLP you read in online Books, it has more to do with saying one thing and meaning another in contracts and advertisement.

      NLP the way you describe it just does not flat out work.

      If anything makes people spout “FE lies” as you think of it, its the repetition in those videos that does it, not some vague mind controll language.

      Ever listened to someone trying to use NLP on you? it sounds so fake its laughable, just look at any “political talk show” and you will see this en masse.
      NLP language with alot of fancy words without meaning, does not influence anyone
      (It just makes you look you like you said alot while you did not).

      Repetition of slogans, news, curriculum, jingles on the other hand does.

      -Zal

      1. “If you follow that line of thinking, you start to think everything is NLP”. – Zal

        Unless you find incongruess images and sounds within a video. Then that constitutes evidence. Anyway, advertising uses it daily so clearly NLP or subliminal messaging is effective. Really what we are talking about is messaging put in audios on purpose that the viewer is not consciously aware of. Why would any other agency not use it as they see advertising agencies find it worth their money and time to embed messages.

        Also consider things like how Barry Sotoro changing his name to Barack Husein Obama. To date I have heard on TV, dozens of times, people mixing up Osama with Obama and visa versa. That’s on purpose, to scramble the viewers thinking.

        What we are really talking about is messaging the viewer is not aware of.

  7. Ab,

    I was thinking about your CN Tower pictures. Seems like to be scientifical you need a control picture of the CN Tower to go along with you new CN Tower picture from St. Catherines. Refraction is hard for us to understand and has been claimed to be an issue with seeing or not seeing an object far away.

    One way to check is to take a picture over land of the CN Tower that is 31.01 miles away. You can find the land elevation from google maps and add that to your height in the Earth Curvature Calculator

    With a dry land picture you now have your control in which to also test light refraction over water. Here are a few cities that are about 31.01 miles inland from the CN Tower:
    Halton Hills
    Ansnorveldt
    Siloam
    Oshawa

    The white circle in the picture of the map has a radius of 31.01 miles with a center at the CN Tower so any spot you can get to on the white circle with view of the CN Tower will work.

    Good luck!

  8. I find this FE topic very interesting. Another simple experiment that could be done is to have a precision gyroscope in a gimbal placed on a table. The gyroscope should appear rotate. Gyroscope remains stationary in space and the earth’s rotation would make the gyro appear to rotate during the day. I have seen one youtuber do this and the gyroscope does not move. This would indicate that the earth is stationary.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

wp-puzzle.com logo