The Earth is a concave sphere, it is also an immense plain and it is also globular, the Bible says

According to Barnes’ Notes on the Bible:

“The common representation is, that the heavens are stretched out as a curtain or tent, or sometimes as a solid concave sphere in which the heavenly bodies are fixed (see the notes at Isaiah 34:4), and that the earth is an immense plain, surrounded by water, which reached the concave heavens in which the stars were fixed. Occasionally, the earth is represented as supported by pillars, or as resting on a solid foundation; and once we meet with an intimation that it is globular, and suspended in space.”

The Earth is both, flat and round, the Vedas say

Michael Cremo – American independent researcher and alternative archaeologist, author of the books “Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of Humankind” and “Human Devolution: The Vedic Alternative to Darwin’s Theory” – (you can listen to the full presentation here at 1:22:15) says:

According to the Jyotish Shastras – Vedic astronomical texts – the picture of the night sky and the Earth is very similar to the picture of modern science. Our observation of the sky is based on our own senses or aids such as telescopes. But the ability to perceive things as they are depends on our sensory capacities. At such a level of perception, the Jyotish Shastra describes the Earth as a sphere with dimensions similar to those calculated by modern science. But this is not a complete picture of reality.

With expanded perception, the same thing described as a sphere could also appear as a series of ring-shaped islands and oceans, as described in the fifth canto of the Shrimad Bhagavatam. The purpose of this description is to help us understand our place in the universe based on consciousness. However, the level of perception required to directly perceive this reality is not available to our current senses. Shrimad Bhagavatam gives this description from a source that has the ability to perceive this reality and convey it to us.

According to the flat representation, the Earth is the central island among 9 ring-shaped islands called Jambudvipa. The difference between the flat representation of the Earth given in Shrimad Bhagavatam, and the sphere, described in the Jyotish Shastras, can be seen as a mutual projection from different dimensional levels.

If we wanted to imagine a flat representation of the Earth, could that representation look something like this (image taken from here):

But let’s go back to the world we are told we know.

Flat Earth messages in movies

Many people do not know that the parallelism of the two Earth models comes from one and the same source. The first model, generally accepted by the vast majority of people, promotes the round and rotating Earth model in education and the media. Another model, the opposite of this first one, can be found in subliminal messages in movies, music, TV, and in government documents.

This link contains a video of flat Earth subliminal messages that have been shown for 57 years through 51 movies, music and TV shows, from 1960-2017 year.

In the movie Bone Tomahawk (2015), cowboys ride across a flat prairie. One of them says to the other:

“I know that the world’s supposed to be round but I’m not too sure about this part.”

In 2003, the Annals of Improbable Research published a shocking study that Kansas was flatter than a pancake. Geography professor Mark Fonstad from the University of Southwestern Texas is responsible for this . University of Kansas geography professor Jerome Dobson and his colleague Joshua Campbell from the State Department’s Bureau of Geography conducted a “geomorphometric analysis” and published the results in the article ” Flatness of American States ” in Geographical Review , a peer-reviewed journal of the American Geographical Society. The results showed that there are states flatter than Kansas. They ranked them according to flat, flatter and flattest marks and got a list of the 10 flattest states in the USA led by Florida (Florida, Illinois, North Dakota, Louisiana, Minnesota, Delaware, Kansas, Texas, Nevada, Indiana).

Salar de Uyuni in Bolivia is the largest salt flat in the world. According to wikipedia, its diameter is 129 km and the area is 10,582 kilometers or 4,086 square miles, and according to NASA it is approximately (!) 8,000 square kilometers or 3,100 square miles. The salt flat is so perfectly flat that if you stand at one end of it, you will see the other 160 km away, which is not possible according to Google’s curvature calculator. When 2.5 cm of rain falls, it becomes the largest natural mirror in the world.

How many perfect plains of 10,000 (or 8,000, as you prefer) square kilometers and America’s flattest states can fit on a globe? If all the plains that there are, except those listed, elsewhere in the world, were drawn on Google Earth’s perfect sphere, what would that sphere look like?

A clip from the movie The Giver (2014) shows a map on which a circle is drawn with broken lines, within which Community A, B and C live. The land that extends beyond the circle is visible. Along the dotted line on the outside it says “the outer edge” and “boundary of memory”.

In a clip from the movie A Few Good Men (1992), a heated conversation takes place between a military lawyer (Tom Cruise) and a colonel (Jack Nicholson). The colonel responds to the lawyer’s insistence on the truth:

“You can’t handle the truth. We live in a world that has walls and those walls must be guarded by men with guns.”

Where do “walls” begin and end? Let’s imagine that there is a possibility to freely explore what we are told is Antarctica. Its image on Google Earth gives the impression that it can be moved from one end to the other, but there is nowhere to go from it. If so, why does a military destroyer appear in front of you when you approach the 60th parallel without permission, as shown in the video at the end of this text ? What are researched by scientific communities that are “supported” by the military? That what is inside or outside the restricted zones, or both?

Let’s also imagine that we jumped over one of the thousands of kilometers of dog and rabbit fences in Australia, that the “system” didn’t locate us, we move freely in the opposite direction, away from the fence. Where could we meet at some point? On what is called Antarctica, or on the land unknown to us shown on the cartographer Urbano Monti’s map from 1587, on which there are cities in North America that should not be there at that time, and there is neither Antarctica nor Australia that should be there ?

If beyond the forbidden zones, the North and South Poles, the imaginary points of East and West, there is nothing to go to and nothing to come to us from, do “walls guarded by men with guns” make sense on a round Earth?

The book Worlds Beyond Poles (1959) by F. Amadeo Giannini – a summary of the most important parts of which can be viewed here , read in full here , or purchased here – describes the land routes from Earth to every land area of the universe about us which is all land . … Such routes extend from beyond the North and South Pole, so-called “ends” of the Earth, as decreed by theory. There is no northern or southern border of the Earth.

If Giannini is right when he says that behind the so-called “ends” of the Earth is a land full of human, animal and plant life, then “walls” make sense from the perspective of those who built them. If Giannini is right when he says that behind the so-called “ends” of the Earth there is land, ice, water, then again land, ice, water…, would we be able to find out what the Earth looks like in that case?

In the film Man in Black (1997) , there is a dialogue between Edwards (Will Smith) and Kay (Tommy Lee Jones):

Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle that.

Kay: The person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. 1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago everybody knew the Earth was flat, and 15 minutes ago, you knew humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you will know tomorrow. “

From the layers of meaning hidden in the dialogue, which does not mention the globe, the last sentence stands out – “Imagine what you will know tomorrow .” What does the message of this sentence refer to – a paradigm shift?

Something else is interesting here. Under each video that the algorithm recognizes as the so-called “flat Earth” Wikipedia puts the following warning:

“Flat Earth / Wikipedia – Flat Earth is an archaic and scientifically disproved conception of the Earth’s shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, notably including ancient Near Eastern cosmology. The model has undergone a recent resurgence as a conspiracy theory.”

When someone makes a video with clips from 51 movies (there are more than that number), made by “their” Hollywood, then under that video “their” Wikipedia puts a warning about flat Earth as a conspiracy theory. What is the “catch”? Can we recognize a similar or the same pattern elsewhere?

What do experts say about NASA’s use of a flat, non-rotating Earth model in the equations?

Along with other documents using the flat, non-rotating Earth model, NASA‘s 1988 Reference Publication 1207 – which refers to “… an aircraft of constant mass flying in a stationary atmosphere above a flat and non-rotating Earth ” – has been shared the most on the Internet and caused violent reaction.

In the article Flat Earth in Russian, military, CIA’s and NASA’s documents, which this article continues, 18 documents from the period 1948-2010 are presented, of which 13 are from NASA, 2 from the CIA, i.e. Russian, and 3 from Army Research Laboratories. All documents use a flat, non-rotating Earth model. The mentioned NASA Reference Publication 1207 can be seen under serial number 11, and the image of the cover and the page from which the quote is taken are also transferred here.

In regards to the internet backlash, here’s a question posed on physics.stackexchange.com : Why would NASA even model anything that references a flat Earth, if the Earth isn’t flat? Why would NASA even allow this to be published if it was false? Just because it says ‘Model’, doesn’t mean ‘Not for consumption’.  The following is the answer, dated December 8, 2022, which is partially transmitted:

Let’s be clear: The Earth is not flat (and it does rotate) and everyone at NASA is very much on board with that fact. But this report was written in 1988, when there weren’t any public-communications concerns about people who misinterpreting technical language, because the nonscientific flat-Earth theory was not a thing at the time. If the report was written now, the authors would likely take due care not to write in language that can give rise to misunderstandings if it is attacked by people intentionally looking for things to misinterpret. But it wasn’t written now: it is historical literature, and should be understood in its context.

However, the 18 years younger NASA’s document (serial number 17) from 2006 uses the same technical language and says that “… the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat earth “. If we take into account the document (serial number 2) of Russian astrophysicists from 1957, which also uses the term ” flat Earth“, it follows that American (and Russian) scientists have been using the same technical language for more than half a century.

USA TODAY in a January 10, 2023 article titled “Fact check: NASA says Earth is a globe, uses ‘flat, non-rotating’ model in equations” also discusses the disputed NASA’s document. Experts say that ” the model of a flat, non-rotating Earth is a common technique for generalizing mathematical equations”, the text says.

The reports in  the post are real and use the term “flat, non-rotating earth.” They are not, however, evidence NASA believes in the flat Earth theory, said Robert Margetta, NASA’s public affairs officer. “These models are widely used, not only for computer applications but also for quick approximations.”

Hank Pernicka, director of Missouri Science and Technology’s Space Systems Engineering Laboratory, said this is common practice for aerospace engineers . It makes our modeling equations much easier to manage,” he said in an email to USA TODAY. If so, what does the harder way of managing equations look like?

Don Durston, an aerospace engineer at NASA’s Ames Research Center, explained that the NASA’s document is also “focused on short-range trajectories and motions”.“(The authors) don’t care what the Earth is doing below the plane and there is no need to include terms of the Earth’s rotation.“ If so, what kind of “trajectories and motions” are the two documents aimed at, one from 1997, the other from 2002 (serial number 13 and 16), about the SR-71 high-flying aircraft, which for its career flew at a speed of 3.2 Mach/h, i.e. at a speed greater than 3,675 km/h (1 Mach = 1,225 km/h ), also known as Blackbird, which was also used for “to film with an ultraviolet video camera, celestial objects in wavelenghts that are blocked to ground-based astronomers”?

Of the 13 NASA’s documents in the article cited above, 7 of them use the verb/noun assume/assumption in a context like this: “ the equation is based on the assumption of a flat, non-rotating Earth“. The other 6 documents talk about “an aircraft flying over a flat, non-rotating Earth “. In connection with the use of the verb/noun assume/assumption , the Cambridge Dictionary defines assume as “to accept something to be true without question or proof “; Oxfod Dictionary as “to think or accept that something is true but without having proof of it”. In that case, does the statement that “the expressions ‘flat, non-rotating earth’ … are not evidence that NASA believes in the flat earth theory ” contradict the meaning of the word assume?

When experts’ answers are highlighted such as: historical literature, common practice for engineers, generalization of mathematical equations, fast approximation, easier management of equations, unimportant what the Earth is doing under a flying airplane … what impression do you get? That these answers are actually answers in abstractions?

Do we know what we don’t know?

A document by Russian astrophysicists from 1948 (serial number 1, CIA-RPD80-00809A000600231031, declassified in 2011) in which it is said that “the shape of the Earth is unknown” is a real challenge to think.

If the conclusion from this document is compared with two contradictory statements:

ALBERT EINSTEIN (1922) – “The motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun. ” (How I Created the Theory of Relativity , Physics Today, Aug 1982)

USA TODAY (2023)- “Earth is a globe, NASA uses ‘flat and non-rotating model’ in equations .”

– will we come to the conclusion that ” the false science of our day takes for granted that we know what we cannot know, and that we cannot know the only thing we really know. “ – so writes the great Russian Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy in his essay On Life (here , p. 67), interpreting what Confucius said that “true knowledge consists in knowing what we know and not knowing what we do not know “ .

Now let’s try to use Tolstoy’s interpretation for the topic of this article and see what we get:

WE KNOW (that the Earth is a globe) WHAT WE CANNOT KNOW (what shape the Earth is) AND WE CANNOT KNOW THE ONLY THING WE REALLY KNOW (that the world we live in and over which NASA aircrafts fly is flat).