Tag Archives: flat earth

Warm underground caves found in Antarctica?

It was reported in the media a bit over a week ago that researchers found a “secret, warm oasis beneath Antarctica’s ice” and that there could be undiscovered animal species there. Apparently these warm caves are 20-25 degrees Celsius, and you can wear a T-shirt there, despite being surrounded by snow and ice. The heat, and possibly light, supposedly originate from an active volcano.

Assuming that this is all true, it is likely to fuel speculation about Hollow Earth, or perhaps an underground sun that heats the place up. Or maybe the Nazis found these caves back in the 30s or 40s when they founded their alleged Neuschwabenland base there with flying saucers and all. It is quite extraordinary if this discovery is true. Warm, habitable caves in the coldest place on earth (since Antarctica is supposedly too cold for planes to fly over), and you just have to wonder how far the caves stretch.

Yet I won’t buy this news at face value. It might very well be a distraction or deception of some sort. Let’s say that flat earth researchers are onto something with their claims of a round ice wall surrounding the round disc of the earth. Maybe this discovery is supposed to draw attention away from the possible fact that the very shape of Antarctica is different than we’ve been told. Maybe they want us to be imagining what is underneath Antarctica instead of what is beyond it, such as the Firmament.

Or maybe this cave discovery is laying the groundwork for a Project Bluebeam-type of deception. Some time ago an alleged fake tweet by Buzz Aldrin emerged showing a pyramid-like mountain in the antarctic with the text: “We are all in danger. It is evil itself.”


Maybe the powers that be want us to believe at some point that scientists discover a frozen alien civilization under the ice, and when they are defrosted, they turn against us, and we need another, benign alien race to save us. It’s just one example of a possible silly psy-op they might be pulling on us.

There have been some important visitors to Antarctica as of late. US Secretary of State, John Kerry, visited it last year. So did the russian patriarch Kirill a week after meeting with pope Francis. There are also rumours that Obama visited the alleged continent last year during his trip to Argentina.

Could there have been some sort of discovery in Antarctica yet to be announced to the public? Did they manage to make a dent in the Firmament? Is it all a psy-op of some sort? Why this focus on Antarctica as of late? Is the discovery of the “oasis caves” related to these political visits?

I don’t have any of the answers, except that I don’t buy the story of underground caves heated by an active volcano. Maybe the caves exist, maybe they’re warm, but the claim that they are heated by a volcano sounds dubious. Then again maybe the whole story is fiction. The caves are supposedly located “around and beneath” mount Erebus. Interesting name. Erebus is a primordial deity from Greek mythology associated with darkness and born of chaos. The description reminds me of the Egyptian chaotic frog god, Kek, who is revered by many in the far-right nowadays. I cannot say what the ultimate significance of Mt Erebus here is, except this cave business along with Erebus sounds like a manufactured narrative to me, instead of a spontaneous discovery.


P. S.

I thought I should add this “confession” I found on a discussion forum a while ago, about supposed discoveries in the antarctic and how Masons are involved. It’s probably fiction, but at least it’s interesting fiction.



Researchers find secret, warm oasis beneath Antarctica’s ice that could be home to undiscovered species: http://nationalpost.com/news/world/researchers-find-secret-warm-oasis-beneath-antarcticas-ice-that-could-be-home-to-undiscovered-species

Antarctica’s ice caves could be hiding undiscovered species of plants and animals: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-08/antarctica-ice-caves-research-new-species-of-plants-and-animals/8884508

Kerry to become highest-ranking US official to visit Antarctica: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/304401-kerry-to-become-highest-ranking-us-official-to-visit-antarctica

Patriarch Kirill meets penguins at Russian base as he becomes first Orthodox leader to visit Antarctica: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12162705/Patriarch-Kirill-meets-penguins-in-Antarctica.html

Antarctica – Which Conspiracy Theory Explains all the Celebrity Visits in 2016?: https://endtimesand2019.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/antarctica-which-conspiracy-theory-explains-all-the-celebrity-visits-in-2016/

Erebus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erebus


Kabbalistic Origins of the Copernican Model

The Copernican heliocentric model and the Big Bang are the basis to the understanding of the cosmology of modern science. Those who tend to look at things critically have probably found these claims somewhat questionable, and there are claims that these ideas, and others concepts of modern science, such as Evolution, are actually of occult or religious origin. There is also alleged Jesuit involvement in our current understanding of the universe. While there are certainly plenty of material on the internet about this, I decided to take a look at it myself. In this article I’ll focus on Nicolaus Copernicus and his ideas. Next time I’ll look at the Big Bang.

However before I move on, I’d like to share my take on the Jesuits, or the claim you see here and there: “It’s the Jesuits.” Jesuits are actually the first conspiratorial group I ever heard about. When I was a child learned that Jesuits embodied the maxim: the ends justify the means. I’m not sure where I learned, maybe from my parents, but ever since I had had the idea of Jesuits of being some sort of conspiratorial cabal. That was years before I even heard the names Freemason or Illuminati. Then around ten years ago, when I was getting serious about learning about conspiracies and secret societies, I heard from a Christian friend that Jesuits are actually really nice, he said they are sort of like hippies. That confused me greatly.  He seemed to be describing a completely different group from the historical Jesuits. Both because I suppose I associated Jesuits with my former childhood self, and my friend’s confusing comments, I hadn’t looked much into Jesuit conspiracy theories in my conspiracy theorist “career”, but maybe a couple years ago I saw some articles about Jesuit universities.

I’ll this article from NY Times as an example from 2013. It describes how the Jesuit Georgetown college celebrated OUTober, an LGBT gay-parade with students prancing around wearing pink shirts. My friend’s view of Jesuits must have originated from these kind of liberal, tolerant modern Jesuit colleges. The Jesuits have been, and still are, all about pursuing their own nefarious agendas and subverting society’s values. It’s just that the times are different, and they are using different methods nowadays. A few centuries ago they were probably more focused on sequestering knowledge, assassination and more traditional cloak and dagger stuff, now they are putting on a benevolent mask and are engaging in social engineering, such as LGBT agenda.

Yet I still do not agree that “it is the Jesuits”. You see and hear these people saying “it’s the Jesuits and that guy never mentions the Jesuits, so he must be a shill”. The next guy says: “No, it’s actually the Freemasons. You’re the shill.” Whereas the third guy claims: “It’s the Jews.” I think these groups, and many others are part of the secret society control system, but I do not know who or what group is on top of it all, nor do I trust anyone who claims they know the truth, unless they are a member of the group that rules over all other groups.


Copernicus and Kabbalah

Let’s move on to Nicolaus Copernicus and the heliocentric model of the solar system. Before Copernicus’ theories, most Europeans believed in the geocentric Ptolemaic system. According to Wikipedia, Copernicus had formulated his theory already in 1510, but his book “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres” was published after his death in 1543. Interestingly in the Controversy-section of the article it states:

“The immediate result of the 1543 publication of Copernicus’s book was only mild controversy. At the Council of Trent (1545–63) neither Copernicus’s theory nor calendar reform (which would later use tables deduced from Copernicus’s calculations) were discussed. It has been much debated why it was not until six decades after the publication of De revolutionibus that the Catholic Church took any official action against it, even the efforts of Tolosani going unheeded. Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo.”

I suppose the Catholic church created the controversy on purpose, since Copernicus’ theories had not caught on in the regular people. So they turned Galileo into this oppressed anti-hero basically to advertise the Copernican model as the new and exciting thing that the establishment supposedly is afraid. Sort of how they got a lot of people, myself included, to support Donald Trump. (Although my support of him wasn’t really so much because the establishment pretended to hate him, but because of Hillary Clinton and Pizzagate, but that’s another story.)

Let’s get back to Copernicus. His book was called “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres”. Just the name itself reminds me of the Tree of Life of Kabbalah and Sephiroth spheres on it, or the Norse World Tree with the hanging worlds on it.


I used to think this similarity pretty much proves there is some truth to Kabbalah and the ancient myths, but now I am skeptical of the modern cosmology, so I am more inclined to think the “scientists” who have been pushing this model do so because their religion says so. Nowadays many of the flat earthers believe in the Biblical geocentric, domed-model. I suppose I am one of them, but I am happy to admit I could be wrong. There does seem to be some sort spiritual and scientific battle between these two religious concept going on. One of them could be right, and one wrong, or perhaps both are simply religious ideas.

Anyway, the heliocentric model that Copernicus was pushing is rather Kabbalistic. A Kabbala site called Revealing Science of God says: “It should be noted that the 16th century also witnessed perhaps the first scientific verification of Kabbalist teaching with the book written by Copernicus. The Kabbalists never taught the Earth to be the center of the universe, and Copernicus’ discovery proved them right.”

Another blogger on WordPress had written an article titled: “Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods”. He quotes Copernicus saying: “Nor is it necessary that these hypotheses should be true, nor indeed even probable, but it is sufficient if they merely produce calculations which agree with the observations…” This sort of reasoning does indeed seem Kabbalistic.

Torahscience.org has an article states that the Torah, i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament, has a geocentric universe. However, when a “holy” Rabbi Ruzhiner was presented with Copernicus’ theories, people expected him to deny them, however the Rabbi responded as follows:

“When he was informed of this, the Holy Ruzhiner remained completely composed and his response was a very special one. He said that whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth depends on the service of the tzaddikim, the righteous Jews of the generation. The answer to the question of “What revolves around what?” is not an absolute answer. If, for instance, the tzaddikim in this generation would serve God in a manner in which it would be correct to see Pluto as the center of the solar system, then in some mysterious way scientific discoveries would adapt to reflect that change.”

Those “tzaddikim” are probably the good Jews who believe in Kabbalah and the Talmud instead of the Torah.

Later on the article gives another example of this: “Accordingly, the variation between geocentricism and heliocentricism can be compared to a difference between a service of God that sees man (on earth) as the center, with God, as it were, revolving around man and caring for all of man’s needs; or perceiving God as the center, whereby man is obligated to God and His commandments.”

According to Kabbalah, it would seem, anything can be anything as long as you can bullshit and fast talk others to believe in it. Even the laws of nature and God are subject one’s ability to make stuff up. I have noticed similar things have permeated all aspects of modern society. Feminism is one example. They say rape is power + privilege, and since White women have them, they cannot be raped. Alternatively, a woman who had consensual sex with man can turn the act post coitum into a rape if she regrets later her promiscuity. Once again, twisting words around can supposedly change reality to suit one’s needs.

I do not know whether Nicolaus Copernicus had studied the Kabbalah, but he did seem to adhere to many Kabbalistic notions. I also do not know if there is any connection between Copernicus and the Jesuits. The Jesuit order was officially formed 1540 and Copernicus died 1543, so it is possible they might have had something to do with it, but I haven’t seen any actual evidence of this.


The Catholics

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that during Copernicus’ lifetime, the Catholic church seemed to be fine with his theories:

“Pope Clement VII (r. 1523–1534) had reacted favorably to a talk about Copernicus’s theories, rewarding the speaker with a rare manuscript. There is no indication of how Pope Paul III, to whom On the Revolutions was dedicated reacted; however, a trusted advisor, Bartolomeo Spina of Pisa (1474–1546) intended to condemn it but fell ill and died before his plan was carried out. Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy.”

So Pope Clement VII, who appears to have died before Copernicus, reacted favourably to his theories, and the Pope who succeeded him was Paul III to whom Copernicus dedicated his book. Had the Catholic church been hostile to Copernicus’ theories, you might interpret this as a kind of FU from Copernicus, however it does not appear that was the case. There probably were many individuals who did not appreaciate his un-Biblical cosmology, but overall, as Stanford Encyclopedia stated, the heliocentric system was not a heresy.

Interestingly, as is mentioned above, Pope Paul III’s advisor, Bartolomeo Spina, wanted to condemn Copernicus’ book, and presumably he could have influenced the Pope as well, but he fell ill and died. Convenient, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps he was poisoned. His Wikipedia page doesn’t say much, but it says Bartolomeo Spina was involved in prosecuting witches, so he probably understood the Copernical model as the occult concept that it is.

There are some claims that Nicolaus Copernicus may have been a prist. At least he did not marry, and he was a member of the Third Order of Saint Dominic, which is some sort of lay Dominican order. The New Advent website states:

“After his university studies Copernicus practised medicine for six years (1506-1512) at Heilsberg, being sought by bishops and princes, but especially by the poor, whom he served gratis. There is no document to show that Copernicus ever received higher orders. His medical practice, which was only private, would not speak against him being a priest, and the fact that in 1537 King Sigismund of Poland put his name on the list of four candidates for the vacant episcopal seat of Ermland, makes it probable that, at least in later life, he had entered the priesthood.”

So he might have died a Catholic priest. I’ve uncovered no evidence of any involvement of Jesuits with Copernicus himself. The Catholic church, however, did seem be in good relations with him.

Copernicus certainly seems to have been influenced by the Kabbalah, and it was all approved by the Catholic church.

Next time I’ll focus on the Big Bang theory and it’s obvious occult origins.



A Rainbow Over Catholic Colleges
How Georgetown Became a Gay-Friendly Campus: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/how-georgetown-became-a-gay-friendly-campus.html

Nicolaus Copernicus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

One Possible History of Kabbalism: http://www.revealingscienceofgod.com/index.php?page=one-possible-history-of-kabbalism

Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods: https://migchels.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/copernicus-and-his-kabbalistic-methods/

Science Versus Torah?: http://www.torahscience.org/natsci/astronomy_rav2.htm

Nicolaus Copernicus: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/

Bartolommeo Spina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolommeo_Spina

Do you have a calling to be Third Order of St. Dominic?: http://www.sacredheart-op.org/Vocations.htm

Copernicus: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm

The Jesuits & The Globe Earth: The Mother Of All Conspiracies!: https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/the-jesuits-the-globe-earth-the-mother-of-all-conspiracies.html

The Invisible Curve

I saw a Youtube video yesterday by Marty Leeds addressing another video from Cody Labs channel. The Cody Labs video supposedly demonstrated the curve of the earth by showing a tall chimney in the distance filmed a long distance away from a flat-looking sandy beach. The bottom of the chimney was not visible, which according to Cody means it’s hidden behind the curvature. Whereas Marty Leeds, referring to claims by other flat earthers, ODD TV and Rob Skiba, suggest the bottom part of the chimney is obscured due to atmospheric lensing.


Flats and Slopes

What ever the effect that obscures the bottom part of buildings at a distance is called is one thing, but I’m doubtful they’ve hidden behind any curve of the earth. I’ve seen plenty of videos people claiming something is obscured by earth’s curve, and I’ve noticed one thing that seems in common with them: they usually show a flat plane that suddenly just drops down. The land looks flat, there is no curve visible with the eye. No-one ever sees it with they naked eye, yet it’s supposedly there.

To illustrate what I mean, I made this illustration (the small stick-figure observer is on the left, and the chimney on the right):

On the left side image is how all of these curvature demonstration videos that I’ve seen tend to be, and on the right is how it allegedly is. This is assuming that the chimney, or another building, is obscured by the curve. This applies whether we are talking about a video taken over land or water. The land always looks flat, not necessarily perfectly flat, but certainly not round, but magically when you go far enough the earth supposedly curves. We never see the visibly round earth of the illustration on the right. There are round hills on the earth. I’ve seen them. You can see they are round, but the earth’s curvature is like an elusive fairy, always lurking just beyond your eyesight, yet it’s there. They assure us it’s there, at least.

Another thing I just thought of is, if the earth is curved, and buildings far away from us curve away, then shouldn’t the top of the building always be further away from us than the bottom? Like in the illustration above, the top of the chimney is leaning away from us. I suppose someone could test this somehow, are buildings far away from us leaning away?

I am sure a spherical earther would answer the conundrum of the invisible curve to say that the earth is so big that we don’t see the curve. I would ask them then, how do they know it’s curved then? The earth’s curve never looks curved. It’s always flat until there is a sudden slope down at a distance. Based on these claims and observations the earth would be shaped more like this:


Except that we don’t really see the angle or the slope. It looks flat, but it’s not. Let’s say that Cody was standing on number 8, and taking pictures of the chimney which is at number 10. If he was to walk from 8 to 10, would he experience a sudden slope down at some point? I don’t think so.

Even if land was somehow curved despite not being visible to the naked eye, water certainly is not. Water does not curve, which means are not living on a ball that has a surface of 70% water.


Ad Hominems

Marty Leeds also requested that someone answer the question, how far up do you have to go to see the curvature. And that people did so without trying to dodge the question by addressing another question, or by berating the flat earther with ad hominem insults. This is a nice approach, even if it is increasingly rare. Cody Labs was a rare exception in that he seemed polite and professional even if I disagree with his conclusions.

To illustrate a more common approach to tackling flat earth research we can go this video titled “The Earth is a Sphere and Flat-Earthers are Worshipping the Anunnaki! with Peter Kling” from Russell Scott’s channel. I’ve never heard about Peter Kling or Russell Scott before, but the title basically says it all. According to the video since the Anunnaki of myth ruled over a flat domed earth, flat earthers that believe the earth is shaped like that are worshipping the Anunnaki. Of course the God of the Bible, or the gods of many other cultures ruled over a similar earth as well, but let’s not put facts in the way of a convenient guilt trip narrative. Another claim I’ve heard is that flat earth is like a gnostic secret. When you’ve “indoctrinated” into the flat earth narrative then you’re indoctrinated into a gnostic secret that makes you feel better than others. No, that’s not it at all. Flat earth is the common sense observation, the spinning heliocentric earth is the “gnostic” narrative you learn from high priests of science but have no way of verifying for yourself.

I’d just like someone to actually demonstrate curvature. Show it. Don’t show curious facts, such as ships disappearing behind the horizon and claim it’s due to the curvature. If the earth is a curved ball, they should have no problem demonstrating it with modern technology. Alas, no such thing has ever been made.

I suppose I have to point out that the pictures from NASA are not photographs, they are photoshopped. This is admitted by NASA. Moreover, we all know the earth is pear shaped anyway. Curves work different on a pear than on a ball, apparently.



Measuring Earth’s Radius With A Telescope?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcdBFfoi3uU

We Need to Talk About Flat Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xJKmKj3Vtk

The Earth is a Sphere and Flat-Earthers are Worshipping the Anunnaki! with Peter Kling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snHKEnuB64w&t=

Cubical Earth Model

I was lying in bed wondering about all things conspiratorial, metaphysical and biblical when I had an alternative interpretation for the shape of the earth pop in my head.

If you want to see the model I am proposing, I suggest you skip down to the My Model paragraph. It’s late, I’m half asleep so I ramble on about stuff that probably isn’t news to most people.


Flat Earth confessions and Biblical rambling

I don’t consider myself a flat earther, but I am almost a flat earther. The claims of the “scientific” establishment that the earth is spherical sound flimsy at best. The pictures we have of a spherical earth that is actually shaped like an oblate pearoid from NASA are all photoshopped. Moreover I’ve seen plenty of videos from flat earth researchers with weather balloons high up showing no curvature. I’ve seen people show videos showing a city on the other side of a huge lake although the city should be hidden behind curvature. And of course the behaviour of water, i.e. always trying to find level, makes no sense on a sphere. Out in the real world water never behaves like it does on the NASA pictures of the “blue marble” where water curves around the ball. Therefore I don’t think there is curvature.

I also do not think the earth is moving. I reject the heliocentric Copernican model, like most flat earthers. Yet why I don’t consider myself a flat earther is that I don’t subscribe to any particular flat earth model. I don’t necessarily think the earth is flat. Currently though based on what I’ve seen, there seems to be no curvature, i.e. the earth seems flat, but the keyword is “seems”. It is possible we are missing a key piece in puzzle that would turn everything upside down. It is possible (although I don’t think so, yet it is possible) that much of the evidence for flat earth has been faked somehow. So I don’t like to call myself a flat earther. You might think this is an insignificant semantic difference, but it is very significant to me.

What I do believe, however, is that the Bible is the most reliable source of information when it comes to the nature of earth. I don’t consider myself Christian. I do not think that the Bible is necessarily the infallible word of God. I have not found Jesus. I consider myself a skeptic when it comes to most things. This means I tend to resist believing in anything until I have to admit to myself the weight of evidence forces me to believe in what is in front of me. Over the course of many years and theoretical ruminations I have been forced to admit to myself that the Bible usually knows better than all of modernity. Whether its me coming to understand how atheism is deluded cult, or that the Theory of Evolution is a lie or a delusion. I came to understand these things based on reason and observation, which eventually lead me to pay more attention to the Bible.

I don’t know if the Bible is perfect or not, or if it’s been altered or not, or if some sections of it have been cut out. I don’t quite know who or what Jesus is, but as the rulers of this world seem to despise him, there must be something significant about him.

The Bible then is probably the most reliable source when it comes to the shape of the earth (there might be other ancient texts like that, but I don’t know about them). Let’s see some of the basic ideas that flat earther’s usually mention:

1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast…”

Clearly according to the Bible the earth is unmovable. Very different to the “everything is spinning” -model of Copernicus. The earth is also apparently set on pillars.

1 Samuel 2:8 “For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s, and on them he has set the world.”

This however opens more questions, such as what are the pillars set on? The Bible also refers to “four corners” of the earth:

Ezekiel 7:2 “An end, the end is come upon the four corners of the land.”

This might mean the earth has four corners, or it might simply be a metaphorical expression.

Genesis 1: 6-7 “And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.”

I’ve found the notion of the Firmament fascinating even before I really understood what it is. It is some sort of solid substance, like a brass mirror that separates the waters above (outer space in modern parlance) from the waters below on earth. This is usually conceived as some kind of dome, like that of a snow globe.

I believe the Firmament exists, although I don’t know it for a fact. It is not necessarily though shaped like a dome though. As far as I know, the Bible does not describe its exact shape.

The earth seems be a circle of some kind, or there is a circle on the earth:

Proverbs 8:27 “When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,”

Now this passage varies significantly in different translations:

King James: “When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:

New Living Translation: “I was there when he established the heavens, when he drew the horizon on the oceans.”

According to my understanding “circle” is the most accurate translation. King James’ “compass” reminds me of the Masonic square and compass. Living Translation’s replacement of “circle” with “horizon” is weird, and seems like deliberate disinformation to me.

Let’s get on with the show. My point is that the Bible does not make clear what the exact shape of the Earth is, but it does mention certain distinctive attributes such as the Firmament and lack of movement. Many flat earthers say the Bible is a flat earth book. I wouldn’t go that far, but certainly the Bible is more a flat earth book than heliocentric spinning ball book.


My Model

It’s late, half of my brain is half asleep and finally I can get on with showing the model I came up with. I’ve heard some people mention before that maybe the earth is a cube, but I hadn’t really seen a proper model of it. Anyway, here is the model I envisioned:

The circle of the earth is on the bottom of this cube. The Firmament is the top of the cube, or its “lid”. The cube has walls, probably of some solid material. The reason we don’t see the walls even from a high mountaintop or an airplane is that the earth is so huge, the walls are far, far away. So basically the proportions on the picture are wrong. The circle in the center should be smaller, or the cube around it should be bigger, but you should get the point.

If the earth has pillars, they would probably be under the box, or perhaps they are on the four corners of the box. The blue/green area in the middle would probably be something like the commonly used flat earth map:


Perhaps around the edges are the ice walls that many theorize about, or something else. There might be hundreds of thousands of kilometres, maybe even millions, from the edge of the ice wall to the walls of the box.

The box picture above is basically what I imagined. However as I was googling for a suitable cube, I found this crop circle image:


It supposedly appeared in 2012 on a field in Britain, I believe. Perhaps that is actually the shape of the earth. On the outside is the circle of the earth, and within the circle is the box. And we are within the box.

One interesting bit I noticed is that if you put “circle inside a cube” into Google image search, you don’t really find any circles inside a cube, but you get pictures of a sphere inside a cube. Were those pictures made by spherical earth Creationists?

I also had an interpretation of outer space, or the blackness we see at night with stars twinkling up there. It might actually be a reflection of hell. Maybe it’s a mirage, an upside down image of hell that is below us. The stars are fallen angels trapped in hell cajoling us with their light. This could be what “as above, so below” means. We don’t see hell from the box, but we see a reflection of it at night. During the day, perhaps we see heaven. This is just an idea though.

I don’t believe in this cube model myself either. Yet the idea popped into my head so I thought I should share it. Maybe someone else has already come up with a similar model, but I haven’t seen it yet.



Thinking outside the box: ‘Crop cube’ that looks like a 250ft 3D block appears in field of wheat: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2209554/Crop-cube-looks-like-250ft-3D-block-appears-field-wheat.html

How does Water curve?

Last summer I was sitting at the table at my friend’s cabin looking at the wide river or estuary. The water was very flat despite flowing forward. I said out loud to my friends: “If the earth is round, why is the water so flat?” Back then I had already done some research on the concept of flat earth, but was still very much on the fence. I’m still on the fence, since I need some new hard evidence to convince me that the earth truly is flat instead of internet conjecture, but I am very doubtful of the heliocentric spinning ball model.

Last week I went on a large cruise ship between Finland and Estonia and I was reminded of the flatness of the sea. Here is a very ordinary picture of the sea. Looks flat to me.


Yet when we see a picture of the spherical earth, the water seems curved. This does not make sense. How does water bend like that? It doesn’t, water always becomes flat and level unless an external force makes it move.


Is there an external force forcing water to bend like that? Does gravity do that? If that is so, is there any actual pictorial evidence that water bends like that other than composite images from NASA taken from extreme distance? Can you demonstrate the water curve under laboratory conditions? The whole idea of water forming convex shapes is absurd.

I am not suggesting this necessarily means the earth is flat, but that water is, and that fact would suggest that the earth is not round. At least not in the sense we are told.

Do even The Powers That Be know the shape of the earth?

The Flat Earth debate has gained traction in recent months, and I’ve been fascinated by the topic as well. The flat earthers have managed to convince me that the round earth model is questionable, but I haven’t jumped onto the flat earth bandwagon either. I am not a flat earther, nor a round earther. I simply do not know what the shape of the earth is, and I’m not whether anyone does.

The very simple reason why I have began to question the spherical earth model we have assumed to be correct since that’s what we’ve been told is that there no, or at least very few, photographs of the earth, and the scientists do not seem unanimous on the shape of the earth either. The flat earth researcher Eric Dubay has pointed out that we are usually told the earth is round, however nowadays scientists claim the earth is an oblate spheroid, yet Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a supposed expert,  said it’s pear-shaped.


Is the earth round?

Oblate sphreroid

An oblate spheroid?


Or pear-shaped?

Eric Dubay’s suggestion is that the earth is flat. Might be, but I suggest that perhaps no-one knows what the shape is.

Most, if not all, of the photos we’ve seen of the earth are computer composites, not unaltered photographs. And I’ve never seen anything that resembles an actual photo of the earth where the earth looks like an oblate spheroid or a pear. So where do these “experts” get the notion that the earth is not perfectly round, yet it is sort of round? If people have sent dozens of shuttles into space, why aren’t there dozens or hundreds of photographs of the earth? There are supposedly over 2000 satellites orbiting the earth, and several probes have been sent out into space. You’d think some of them would take pictures of the earth for all to see.

I think the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from these discrepancies is that either they, i.e. people in charge of space agencies, refuse to show us actual photographs of the earth, or they cannot even take those photos. If the first possibility is correct, then there must be something about the earth they don’t want us to know. The earth might be flat, or there might an alien mothership or Nibiru in orbit around the earth, or perhaps photos of the earth would reveal the existence of a secret continent on our planet that we not know about. These are just hypothetical scenarios, though.

Another possibility is that humanity has been unable to go into space, as is therefore unable to take any picture depicting the earth in its entirety. A solid barrier might encase the earth, such as the biblical Firmament, or perhaps there an energetic barrier such as the Van Allen belt that prevents passage. I remember hearing years ago Michael Tsarion say that the earth is surrounded by a Stargate that prevents anything from leaving. It sounded far-fetched back then, but an intriguing possibility that I am not considering seriously. Alternatively, alien overlords, the true rulers of our planet may tell us that if someone sends a probe out into space they will nuke the whole planet.

The bottom line is, I don’t know what the shape of the earth is, or what’s out there in space, and I’m beginning to think no-one really knows, but for some reason there is a vast conspiracy to feed us these accounts of moon landings and other NASA lies. For all I know the earth is round, flat, a cube or a Möbius Strip, but I don’t want to jump on any bandwagon simply for the sake of belonging. I just want the facts.

I do think that many of the flat earthers are either co-intelpro agents, or simply people who jump on the bandwagon to be cool and contrarian, but not all of them are like that. Some of them seem genuine and intelligent. Many of the round earthers have a really strong emotional reaction when someone speaks the heresy that earth might be flat. They react with emotion, and herd-mentality, and resort to name calling and foul language instead of looking at the facts. The fact is, you don’t know how the earth is shaped unless you’ve been up there in space.



Neil DeGrasse Tyson Says Earth is Pear Shaped: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4E9G8fbnZ24

How many man-made satellites are currently orbiting the Earth?: http://www.windows2universe.org/kids_space/sat.html

NASA: Earth from Space: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50gC2rY-30w

The Firmament

The Bible describes a firmament separating earth from the heavens. The firmament seems to be some sort of solid barrier or dome that is around or above the earth. This differs significantly from the modern scientific view according to which the earth is surrounded by the atmosphere with different gases, but nothing solid.

The notion of the firmament has risen in relevance mainly due to the Flat Earth debate that has emerged fairly recently. Although if the firmament actually exists, it does not necessarily imply the earth is flat. A round, bubble-like firmament could encase the earth as well a dome might encase of flat earth. Therefore I won’t be discussing the shape of the earth in this post.

I think I should point out I am not a flat earther, nor a round earther. I am a truth seeker, and I do find the current flat earth debate relevant as there are many questions as to the nature of our world. If you think it is dumb merely to entertain the possibility that the earth might be flat, please forever hold your speech.


The Firmament and the Stars

Let’s see what the Bible says about the firmament.

Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
One interesting point is that according to the Bible there is supposed to be water above the firmament, i.e. in outer space. Is that why in science fiction shows like Star Trek and Star Wars they fly around in space ships and starships, and have a starfleet? Speaking of stars, what is the relation of the firmament to them?
Genesis 1:
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
The Bible says that the stars and the “two great lights”, presumably the sun and the moon, are in the firmament. The firmament is often depicted something like this (along with the flat earth):
There is one detail I do not agree with. The image shows the sun, the moon and the stars beneath the firmament, not inside it. This is my interpretation of the firmament with the sun, moon and the stars within it (and you can clearly recognize my superior artistic ability):


According to my understanding of the biblical description, what we call space (with the sun, moon and stars) is the firmament. The firmament is not behind them. Behind the firmament should be water. When we look up at the night sky and see stars and constellations we are seeing inside the firmament.


What is the Firmament made of?

The book of Job, which is supposedly the oldest book in the Bible describes the firmament as follows:

Job 37:18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Other translations of the Bible describe the firmament as ” a mirror of cast bronze” or a “cast metal mirror”. The Hebrew word used here is “raqiya” or “raqia”,  which is an “extended surface, (solid) expanse (as if beaten out”, according to Biblehub. Robert J. Schadewald describes the meaning of “raqia” as follows: “In ancient times, brass objects were either cast in the form required or beaten into shape on an anvil. A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl.” Most of this biblical information is, by the way, from Rob Skiba’s brilliant flat earth research site Testing the Globe.com.
So the firmament that allegedly covers the heavens is a glass-like or metallic expanse. It is reflective like a mirror, or possibly transparent even. Do we have any evidence of such a thing? As far as I know, no-one has flown up there and said they’ve seen the firmament up there, but there is evidence of on the ground of mysterious glass-like debris.
Tektites “are gravel-size bodies composed of black, green, brown or gray natural glass formed from terrestrial debris ejected during extraterrestrial, meteorite impacts.” It is, according to modern science, glass from the skies.
There is also mysterious glass in the Libyan desert. I’ve heard theories it’s there, because of a nuclear detonation in the ancient world. It’s possible, or it could be from the firmament. I’m by far not the first person to make the suggestion that tektites or the Libyan glass are from the firmament, but I do find it compelling evidence. To be sure, however, we’d have to send a trustworthy explorer or probe up in the stratosphere to be sure whether there actually is glass in the sky or not. NASA or the space agencies are not a trustworthy source.
Although I’m not a Christian and not obliged to believe the Bible, I’ve began to notice in recent times that the Bible seems to be more accurate in describing reality than most of the so-called science in modern times. I do think it is possible that the firmament does exist. If it does not it could explain why NASA has faked their moon landings, and why it’s impossible, or at least even harder than thought before, to go into outer space.

Raqia: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7549.htm

Tektites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tektite

Libyan desert glass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_desert_glass

Glass sky, Libyan Desert Glass, indeed this could be an answer !! : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P_oNZPw79o