Welcome to My Website!

Click Here to Go to Frequently Asked Questions and Misconceptions About the Flat Earth Theory

NEW!!! Read Online Books that PROVE the Earth is NOT a GLOBE! Click Here

Page 2

Go to Page 1

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. As the owner of this website, I will not be held responsible for the information contained herein. I cannot guarantee the truthfulness or accuracy of any information contained on this website or for any information linked to from this website. Jay McMullan (JayMc.com) will not be liable to anyone in relation to the contents of this website, the contents thereof, the use thereof or otherwise in connection to this website. By using this website you agree to the terms of this disclaimer. If you do not agree with these terms you must not use this website.

Are Satellites Deployed by Balloon Instead of Being Launched into Space?

When I first read that satellites may be launched by balloons into the stratosphere instead of orbiting the earth in space, I thought it was a ridiculous theory. But, then I began to see video of our gov't launching satellites BY BALLOON!! Then I ran across the following video!

Project Loon - Improving Navigation

As you can see from the video above, Google has started Google Loon which will put Internet satellites in the stratosphere which will orbit the earth or even stay stationary to deliver Internet service!

I met a man once who worked for the U.S. government. He did a lot of classified things that he couldn't talk about. He told me once that the U.S. gov't is always at least 50 years ahead in technology than what we know of! Just how long have they been sending satellites into the stratosphere and telling us they are in "geosynchronous orbit?"

This next video is very short and it shows a satellite being launched by balloon. This has been going on since the 1950's!

***Language Warning***

NASA SATELLITE LAUNCHED FROM BALLOON NOT ROCKET: BUSTED IN ANTARCTICA

Now, if you REALLY want to know about satellites watch the following video. Here is proof that satellites have been launched by balloons!

***Language Warning***

ALL SATELLITES ARE ON BALLOONS & 50K ft. Altitude Flight Restriction

While it is a fact that many satellites are sent aloft via balloon, there is another piece of technology which tricks us and makes us think that there really are satellites in outer space. It is called "Tropospheric Scatter."

Several years ago, before high speed Internet, we used modems with a regular telephone line. Any time someone was on the Internet, the phone line would be tied up. I, like so many others, paid for a second phone line to our homes.

When high speed Internet service started coming out, I could not get it at my home. I was too far from the source. Finally, Sprint came out with what they called, "satellite" Internet access. It wasn't as fast as cable but it was faster than dial-up. An installer came to my house and put a diamond shaped antenna on my roof and it pointed to the mountains west of Salt Lake City. The installer told me I was barely within the limit of their service.

Even though we called it "satellite" it wasn't. It was a radio beam. I would imagine that is how our Directv and other devices that claim to be using satellite work.

The 2017 Solar Eclipse

On Monday, August 21, 2017 there was be a complete solar eclipse that spanned across the United States. While solar eclipses are not really rare, for them to happen in the same place is very rare and many decades will go by before a full solar eclipse happens again in the same place. There are people who literally fly across the earth to be able to see full solar eclipses.

Obviously, eclipses do happen. Astronomists tell us that the moon gets in between the sun and the earth. Astronomists can calculate when and where solar and lunar eclipses will occur very accurately. Below is a diagram showing how astronomists believe a solar eclipse occurs.

This diagram shows how most astronomists believe a solar eclipse happens. There is a problem with this though. The moon's shadow will be larger on the earth instead of smaller!

There is a problem with the explanation of a solar eclipse. If the moon gets in between the sun and the moon, we see the narrow track of the eclipse. The 2017 solar eclipse will enter the continental United States in Oregon and it will exit the continental United States from South Carolina.

There are several animations available online to help explain how this solar eclipse will happen. Several of those animations show the earth rotating in the opposite direction than what we have always been taught! The way an eclipse happens, it would make more sense IF the earth did rotate in the opposite direction. Seeing animations where the earth is rotating east to west instead of from west to east makes it much easier to show how the eclipse crosses the earth from west to east.

Obviously, we do have solar and lunar eclipses on the earth but I am not sure that astronomists have really understood what causes them. Look the diagram above again. Look at the small black shadow that is caused by the sun shining on the moon. There is a real problem with this.

I have been a photographer for four decades and because of that I understand light and how it behaves. Photography in its purest sense is light and composition. Let me explain what is wrong with that small shadow made from "the moon in between the sun and the earth."

The "Path of Totality" or the dark shadow that will cross this earth will be approximately 70 miles wide. That 70 mile wide swath will be the only place where viewers will be able to see a TOTAL solar eclipse. I live in Florida and what we will see here is just a partial solar eclipse. If the sun really is 93 million miles away from the earth and the moon is over 238,000 miles away from the earth, that shadow from the moon will be BIGGER than the moon, not smaller!

Do this simple experiment: In a dark room or outside at night when it is dark, hold a ping pong ball or a tennis ball against a wall or flat surface and shine the light on it. When the ball is right next to the object, it will appear almost the exact same size.

Now, back away from the wall or flat object and shine the light onto the ball and look at what happens to the shadow on the wall. The shadow gets "LARGER" not smaller! There is a real problem with the explanation for a solar eclipse. We take for granted everything we are taught throughout our lives. You must remember, science and theories change frequently!

Another problem about astronomists' explanation of eclipses is that there have been some where the sun and the moon were visible across the sky at the same time!

In a solar eclipse the sun shines on the moon and earth and the moon's shadow passes in between the sun and the earth. This causes the eclipse on the sun. In a lunar eclipse it is just opposite of that, we are told. The sun shines on the moon and earth again but the earth gets between the sun and the moon, causing a lunar eclipse.

Apparently astronomists have really not determined the exact causes of solar or lunar eclipses! Is there something else up there? Is there a round invisible object floating around that is really the cause of an eclipse?

The August 21st, 2017 Total Eclipse and the Flat Earth - Part I

The August 21st, 2017 Total Eclipse and the Flat Earth - Part II

Moon's 70 Mile Umbra: PERFECT on FLAT Earth [GLOBEBUSTERS]

I have been a professional photographer for four decades. When I saw the drawing above that shows the "umbra" and "penumbra" I had to see if an object will make an umbra. It just didn't seem right to me and that the area of total coverage of the August 2017 was only 70 miles wide, especially when we are told the moon is only 2,159 miles in diameter. The moon is approximately one quarter the size of the earth and it is about 240,000 miles from the earth. We are told the sun is 93 million miles from the earth and is 109 times larger than earth.

I decided to run a test to see how a penumbra and umbra work. I used a studio flash with a 150 watt modeling lamp for my light source (sun) with a honeycomb grid to focus the light into a straighter beam.

For my experiment, I used a photo studio strobe with a 150 watt modeling lamp. I only used the modeling lamp and did not use the strobe.

In the first set of images, I placed my "moon" 29 inches away from my light source. I moved the white background away from moon to show how the shadows change. Bear in mind that this experiment is not to scale. To make it scale, with the moon that size, my light source would have to be all the way at the end of the block or further!

The moon is put almost touching the background. The shadow is almost exactly the size of the earth. As I move the background away from the moon, it is hard to see here but the shadow gets larger.
I move the background even further away from the moon. Notice the umbra and penumbra. It is hard to see here but the umbra is almost the same size as the moon.
And finally, with the moon even further away from the background. There is a less defined umbra.

In the third photo, the umbra and penumbra are easily visible. It is hard to see from the photograph that the umbra (the small inside shadow) is almost the same size as the "moon" because it is further away from the camera than the moon. In the August 2017 eclipse the total coverage path of the moon on the earth, which is the umbra, was only 70 miles wide. It could not be that narrow if the moon is truly 2,159 miles in diameter. This, in itself, proves that the moon is much closer than we have been told.

Another important note I made earlier on this site is that the "Tycho" crater on the moon is said to be 52 miles wide. Can we REALLY see a geological formation on the moon that is 52 miles wide, 240,000 miles away? There is absolutely no way this can be.

In the second part of my experiment, I moved my sun 55 inches away from the earth.

With the sun at 55 inches. With the background moved a little further from the earth.
There is less difference between the umbra and penumbra when the sun is further away from the earth.

We have been told that a moon's shadow in their solar eclipse model gets is much smaller than the actual moon. In fact, if we believe what we are told, the umbra is .032 as wide as the moon. This does not work in my experiment. Maybe the scientists expect us to believe this just work on a much larger scale even though it doesn't work on a smaller scale, just like how they want us to believe that the quadrillions of tons of the world's water sticks to the globe by gravity but yet a butterfly can easily break the bonds of gravity with a flap of their wings.

The Path of a Total Solar Eclipse ONLY works on the Flat Earth!

Sun Path During Eclipse is Evident of a Flat Earth | Debunk This if You Can By Flat Earth Admiral

This is a very interesting video showing how a total solar eclipse only works on a flat earth. It still doesn't answer all of my questions about how a solar eclipse works on a flat earth and I am not convinced the Gleason map is right.

Amazing Video Shows How Planets Rotate Around the Earth

Many people who are in opposition to the flat earth theory don't understand how the stars and planets work in the northern and southern hemispheres. This video does a great job of explaining how it all works in the flat earth model. The only thing I differ with is that I believe the earth is flat and round, not rectangular.

Shocking!!: Astronomers Release this Clip: The Heavens Revealed - This Will Blow Your Mind

Does Maxus 9 Rocket Prove the Earth is a Curved Ball? Updated

The following video was put on YouTube and it attempts to debunk the flat earth theory. Watch the video and then I will show you why the camera in the rocket IS IN FACT using a FISHEYE, WIDE ANGLE LENS.

The following video was put on YouTube and it attempts to debunk the flat earth theory. Watch the video and then I will show you why the camera in the rocket IS IN FACT using a FISHEYE, WIDE ANGLE LENS!

No Dome or a Crystal Ball at 434 Miles!!! Flat Earth & Concave Earth Debunk

Now, I will prove to you that this is in fact, a fisheye wide angle lens taking this video!

I have been a professional photographer since 1978. In those four decades I have done just about every kind of photograpy there is. In the video, above, it is claimed that the Maxus 9 rocket flew to an apogee of 434 miles. The video shows the earth to have quite a bit of curvature. I estimate that, in the frame, we can see approximately one sixth of the curvature of earth. This absolutely cannot happen at an altitude of 434 miles and I will show you why.

NASA is infamous for using “fisheye” lenses when they photograph and videotape images from “space.” The fisheye lenses are extreme wide angle lenses which distort an image and particularly in NASA’s photos and videos, they make the edge of the earth “appear” to be curved. This is an optical illusion.

The video attempts to discredit the flat earth theory but falls completely short. They claim that the video taken from the rocket “is not” a fisheye lens when it is very apparent that it is. They bring in a man that talks about distortion of images with lenses of different focal lengths. One thing he fails to mention is that film size, or sensor size now with digital imaging, makes a difference in what is considered to be a “normal” lens, a “wide angle” lens or a “telephoto” lens.

For a 35mm film camera, a 50mm lens was considered to be a “normal” lens (meaning that it approximates what the human eye sees). This is because the average human eye sees an angle of about 47 degrees. A 35mm frame is 36mm wide by 24mm tall. A medium format camera like a Hasselblad which shoots a 2 ¼” square image on 120 or 220 size film uses an 80mm lens as a standard lens. So, if you put a 50mm lens on a Hasselblad camera, it will be a fairly wide angle lens where that 50mm lens on a 35mm camera will be a normal lens.

I have used a 4x5 view camera for several years now. The image size is just that, 4 inches by 5 inches. Used on a view camera, a 50mm lens and an 80mm lens would both be wide angle lenses! The standard lens for a 4x5 view camera is a 150mm lens. The same 150mm lens on a 35mm and a 2 ¼ x 2 ¼ camera would be a telephoto lens.

A 300mm lens on the 4x5 view camera is a telephoto lens that doubles (approximately) what the human eyes see. Used on a 35mm film camera, that same 300mm lens would be a telephoto lens with 6 times magnification over the standard 50mm lens!

The wider the lens, the greater the depth of field. Depth of field is the area where everything is in focus. You have probably seen photos where a person is in focus but everything behind them is out of focus. In that case, the person falls within the field of focus but the background is outside of the field of focus. This effect can be achieved by using a longer lens (telephoto lens) or a wider aperture on the camera. A wide aperture like f:1.8 is going to give the photograph less depth of field than a lens that is set at f:16. The smaller the number of the aperture, the larger the opening in the lens. So, an aperture of  f:1.8 is going to have a larger opening than an aperture of f:16. The smaller opening will also require a longer shutter speed than the wider aperture.

DLSR (digital single lens reflex) cameras use different sizes of sensors. Nikon, for example, has their FX cameras and their DX cameras. An FX camera uses a sensor that approximates the same image size as a 35mm camera so a 50mm lens is a standard lens, a 35mm lens is a wide angle lens and a 100mm lens is a telephoto. The DX sensors are smaller sensors and a 35mm lens would be closer to a normal lens where a 50mm lens would be a short telephoto.

The top of the line Nikon D5 uses a 36mm x 24mm sensor which is a “full frame” sensor, the same size as a 35mm film camera. The Nikon D5200 uses a sensor that is 23.5 x 15.6mm in size. The DX sensor makes the same lens that would be used on a camera with an FX sensor be magnified by 1.5x. So a 35mm lens (normally a wide angle lens on a 35mm film camera and a full frame FX camera) on a DX camera would give the same image that is almost normal.

The video in question starts with a video of the bottom stage of the rocket. The camera is fairly close to the top of the bottom stage and it is easy to see that a wide angle lens is being used which gives a large depth of field but there is some distortion in the roundness of the top of the bottom stage. You will also notice the large depth of field when the bottom stage falls away from the top of the rocket. Notice how everything remains in focus as the bottom stage and the springs fall away. This is an extremely large depth of field! The wide angle lens allows the video to have the large depth of field.

Another piece of evidence that proves this is an extreme wide angle lens is the amount of curvature you can see from the altitude of this rocket.

The title of this video tells us that the rocket reached an apogee of 434 miles above the earth. Doing some research, I found a chart on Wikipedia concerning the Maxus rockets.

Mission Date Launch site Motor Apogee Payload Modules Comments Reference Report
Maxus 1 1991 May 8 Esrange Castor 4B 154 km
Maxus 1B 1992 Nov 8 Esrange Castor 4B 717 km Successful
Maxus 2 1995 Nov 29 Esrange Castor 4B 706 km Successful
Maxus 3 1998 Nov 24 Esrange Castor 4B 713 km 798 kg 5/ESA Successful Esrange EUP105-99006
Maxus 4 2001 Apr 29 Esrange Castor 4B 704 km 803 kg 5/ESA Mostly successful; parachute failed Esrange EUP110-E15
Maxus 5 2003 Apr 1 Esrange Castor 4B 703 km 795 kg 5/ESA Mostly successful; rough landing Esrange EUP114-E114
Maxus 6 2004 Nov 22 Esrange Castor 4B 707 km 793 kg 5/ESA Successful Esrange EUP117-E146
Maxus 7 2006 May 2 Esrange Castor 4B 705 km 785 kg 5/ESA Successful Esrange EUP124-E36
Maxus 8 2010 March 26 Esrange Castor 4B 703 km 803 kg 3/Astrium ST 1/SSC Successful
Maxus 9 2017 April 7 Esrange Castor 4B   849 kg   Successful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxus_(rocket)

The last entry is the rocket in the video as you can see the date, 2017 April 7. All of the rocket's apogees are listed but our rocket is not. Fortunately, the apogee is listed in the title of the video. The apogee is 434 miles. Just for reference, the highest altitude ever flown by a Space Shuttle was 385 miles. The average altitude flown by the Space Shuttles was 230 miles.

As I noted earlier, we can see approximately 1/6th of the curvature of the earth. In every video and photograph I've seen from NASA of the earth, fisheye lenses are used to give the appearance of a curvature of the horizon! This video ALSO USES A FISHEYE LENS, REGARDLES OF THEIR CLAIMS THAT IT DOESN'T!

In order to see the complete ball earth, with a normal lens with a focal length of 47 degrees, the camera would have to be at a distance of over 9,100 miles! GoPro camera's widest angle lens is 17.2mm. Their website tells us that the horizontal field of view is 122.6 degrees. Using this lens and videotaping from 434 miles, we can see almost exactly one sixth of the earth's horizon. Using extremely powerful CAD software, I show the view with a normal lens and the view with an extreme wide angle lens in the chart below.

All of the drawings below are drawn to EXACT SCALE. Anyone who knows AutoCad software knows how exact it is. That is is the reason it is the preferred software that is used by architects and engineers the world over.

This drawing shows angle of view from a "normal" lens. To be able to see 100% of the earth if it is a globe, the camera (far right)j would have to be at 9,104.5 miles from earth. The camera on the left, at 434 miles would have to have a 10mm lens with an angle of view of 122 degrees. The camera uses a fisheye lens which makes the horizon appear to be curved. NASA almost always uses fisheye lenses to fake this curvature.

This image compares the field of view for a wide angle (fisheye) lens and a normal lens. 47 degrees is the angle an average human being sees out of his/her eyes. Whoever posted the video claims that a fisheye lens was not used. The information I have posted here shows, without any doubt whatsoever, that the video WAS made with a fisheye lens!

Because the earth is flat and the horizon ALWAYS level, the fisheye lens makes the earth to ONLY APPEAR to have a curved horizon! I have never seen a photograph from NASA of the earth that did not use a fisheye lens!

There are very smart, good people out there who can't get past their cognitive disonance. All of us have been told the earth is a globe from elementary school all the way through university. It is very hard to come to the realization that we have been deceived. I do not know the motives behind the video above but I can tell you 100% certainty that a fisheye wide angle lens was on the camera when the video was made.

When you see, what someone claims is a proof of the flat earth model and when you see someone who says they have proof that the earth is a globe. Don't be afraid to scrutinize their information. The video above does nothing to disprove the flat earth model. It doesn't do anything to prove the earth is a globe either. If anything, the video proves that most videos taken from "space" are filmed with extreme wide angle lenses.

The person, "star gazer," who posted the video of the Maxus rocket still claims that the video was not taken by an extreme wide angle, fisheye, lens and he threatens to make a video that will attempt to debunk what I have posted here.

Jay McMullan
WHAT!? Are you serious man?
1. Fisheye lenses generate barrel distortion especially of the horizon which changes from convex, flat to concave depending on the angle of the camera. https://idigitaldarwin.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/tilt-up-or-down.jpg Full article: https://idigitaldarwin.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/7_fisheye_tips/ Example of fisheye lens in a rocket video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4V-SRWG4SM NO BARREL DISTORTION IN THE MAXUS 9 FOOTAGE! PERIOD!
2. 9 104.50 miles to view the whole Earth with ''normal'' lens, focal length 47 degrees?
http://www.jaymc.com/FlatEarth/Images/lenscomparisons.jpg? A) The Maxus 9 footage DOESN'T reveal the whole Earth! B) With focal length 47 degrees IT'S NOT 9 104.50 miles the distance to view the whole Earth, but 30 000 MILES! You can verify that here
http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Flat-Earth%3A+Finding+the+curvature+of+the+Earth and here
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/25509/how-far-into-space-does-one-have-to-travel-to-see-the-entire-sphere-of-earth and here https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/20170427-103131-4a1qo-jpg.26489/ Using Walter Bislin's curvature simulation for a focal length of 90 degrees, 21.6 mm lens at altitude of 700 km/ 434 miles we obtain the following: https://i.imgur.com/5Z6SY9v.jpg and here is a gif comparison Maxus 9 with the curvature simulation by Walter: https://i.imgur.com/GrdfIFs.gifv CONCLUSION: Maxus 9 footage was made with 21.6mm - 22mm lens, 90 degrees focal length, standard wide angle, but DEFINITELY NOT FISHEYE! The 360 degrees video merged 4 cameras of 90 degrees (4*90=360) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdrXvSscTp8 You have 24 hours to remove your ''debunk'' article about my video or I'll make a debunk video about you! Also if you are a professional photographer you should revisit year 1 into your photography studies!


What is a fisheye lens? It is an extremely wide angle lens that typically, because of its angle of view, distorts an image. Some fisheye lenses have a field of view of 180 degrees but not all of them.

"The angle of view of a fisheye lens is usually between 100 and 180 degrees while the focal lengths depend on the film format they are designed for." Wikipedia

The GoPro Hero 4 video camera comes with a 4x3W wide angle lens with a horizontal angle of view of 122.6 degrees. This is most likely the camera that was used on this rocket. GoPro Reference. (Keep reading and you will see that, according to the person that posted the Maxus 9 video, the video was made by four cameras with 21.6mm lenses).

This same trick is used with the images we see from the International Space Station. The extreme wide angle lens makes the flat horizon ONLY APPEAR to be curved! IF astronauts truly are orbiting the earth in the ISS, they cannot see the same view with their eyes that they show on the video they put out to the public.

Another claim star gazer makes is that, in order to see the entire earth from space with a standard 47 angle of degree lens, the viewer would have to be 30,000 miles from earth. I prove this is completely wrong in the diagram above. From 30,000 miles, to fill the viewfinder with the earth would require a lens with a 15 degree angle of view. With a 47 degree angle of view, you would see more than three times the size of the earth as you can see in this diagram. Star Gazer cites a trigonometric calculation he found on the web. IF that calculation was correct, it would show the exact results I show below. AutoCad is used by engineers around the world because of its amazing accuracy.

This and all of the other drawings in this article were made on AutoCad and drawn to EXACT SCALE.

From 30,000 miles, a standard lens with an angle of view of 47 degrees would give a viewing area of over three times the size of the earth. To fill the viewfinder with an image of the earth from 30,000 miles would require a lens with an angle of view of 15 degrees.

On page one of this website, I show NASA's Blue Marble images and I link to a video where it is admitted that these images are computer generated. Apparently, the images of the earth are taken by high flying aircraft or even possibly high altitude balloons and then they are stitched together. After that, shading is added to make the finished image of earth look like a ball and then a specular highlight is added to supposedly mimic the sun. The problem with the specular highlight is, the sun would not make such a small highlight. The reflectance of the sun would be uniform over the entire earth.

I want to show, using the video of the Maxus rocket that I link to earlier on this page, how NASA could fake the earth being round. The images from the Maxus rocket use a video camera with an angle of view of approximately 122 degrees and we know that GoPro's Hero 4 camera's lens is a 4x3 with a horizontal angle of view of 122.6 degrees. I did not know this until after I had made my calculations of the earth being videotaped at 434 miles above the earth according the the video above.

I took a screenshot of the video that was taken from the Maxus 9 rocket. I have no reason to believe that the earth is truly curved but that the camera's lens makes the horizon only APPEAR to be curved. Using a lens with a 122 degree field of view, it would give 30 degrees of coverage of the earth. THIS IS ALL ASSUMING THE EARTH IS A GLOBE! To see if my calculations are correct, using Photoshop, I paste in the same image over and over, rotating it to meet the horizon from the last screen capture as you see below. With a lens that shows 30% of the earth's surface I divide that into 360 degrees and that shows me it should take 12 images to link together to make a complete circle.

This is a screen capture from the video linked to above. I copied this image and then pasted the same image over and over. Each next image is rotated to make the horizons meet.

I have placed 7 copies of the image in a circular pattern to mimic a round earth which is what we are taught from our earliest years. According to my calculations and drawings with AutoCad, it should take approximately 12 images to make the earth look like a globe. Let's see how close I am.

To make the earth appear to be round, it takes 11 plus images. I came pretty close to what this image shows. But, how do we know if this makes a circle? What if I didn't rotate each image correctly. Well, let's take a look.

Before going to the next image, I need to make this point; Even though NASA gives us images of the earth that appear to be completely and fully round, Neal deGrasse Tyson says the earth is an "Oblate Spheroid." This has become very popular with those who still believe the earth is a globe. The globe earthers have jumped on the wagon with Tyson but none of them have proved the earth is an oblate spheroid in any scientific test.

I get silly and sometime hateful responses when I talk about NASA's images being perfectly round and the contradition of such a notion by the oblate spheroid argument. I even had one guy say that the earth is only .03 percent larger at the equater than it would be on a perfect globe He says it won't show on NASA's images because it is too small of a difference. No one knows for sure. The ISS does not get far enough away from the earth to capture a true photograph. NASA says some cameras on satellites have captured images of the earth but they still do not show the earth being an oblate spheroid. Regardless, we have proof that all of the images NASA gives us are CGI, this means they are simply artwork that is pieced together in Photoshop.

In this image, I added the large blue circle on Photoshop and it shows that my calculations of the Maxus 9 rocket videotaping the earth from 434 miles agl. The blue circle is completely round, just as NASA shows in their images. It took over 11 copies of the screen capture.

It is easy to see just how much "curvature" there is in each photo and to know how many miles of the earth's surface there is in each screen capture. A perfect circle is 360 degrees. What we are seeing (if it is not the distortion caused by the camera lens) is a 30 degree view of the earth's curved surface. It is easy to calculate how many miles it is from the start of the hoizon to the end of the horizon. If the earth is 7,917.5 miles in diameter, we will divide that by 12 and then we can see that each image covers approximately 660 miles. Using the Pythagorean model, we know that curvature of the earth calculated by the formula m2 x 8 to yield 3,484 inches, then 290,400 feet and finally 55 miles of curvature. The video sure looks like it is showing more than 55 miles of curvature but that is because the horizon always remains flat and then the distortion of the lens is the reason the horizon appears to be curved.

We believe that this is one of the ways to deceive the public into believing the earth is a globe. They take a distorted image of a portion of the earth using a very wide angle lens, fisheye (from 100 to 180 degrees angle of view) paste them together then start changing colors, adding and subtracting clouds, adding the continents (sometimes to their chagrin because the sizes always seem to change) using shading to make the composite image look round and finally they add a specular highlight to make it appear that the sun is shining on it. Apollo 11 astronauts faked a "photo" of the moon in high altitude or low space orbit of the earth. The next day, they were supposedly landing on the moon, 238,900 miles away.

Update on Maxus 9 Rocket Video

Star Gazer, the person who posted the Maxus 9 Rocket video, says that four cameras were used with 21.6mm lenses with 90 degree angle of view. He says that altogether they make a 360 degree image. He won't answer any of my questions about how he knows that information.

If 21.6mm focal length lenses were used and they each gave a 90 degree angle of view, they more than likely were used on Nikon full frame DSLR cameras. Click Here to test that hypothesis. More than likely these four images were "stitched" together which will change the effective angle of view. It would be like one lens taking a 360 degree image. A full frame Nikon DSLR, an FX, camera uses a 36mm x 24mm sensor. Focal length of lenses are exactly the same as they were with 35mm full frame cameras. The sensors on Nikon DX cameras is 23.5mm x 15.6mm. As I have stated before, focal length changes with sensor size or film size. A 50mm lens on a Nikon full frame FX camera is a standard or normal lens just like it was on a 35mm film camera. On a Nikon DX camera, with the smaller sensor, that 50mm lens becomes a short telephoto which would be equivalent to a 75mm lens on a Nikon FX full frame camera or a 35mm film camera. This is just another proof that you cannot depend on focal lengths unless you know what the camera's sensor size or film size is.

By stitching 4 videos together, instead of having a 36mm x 24mm sensor, you effectively have a 144mm x 24mm sensor, IF you are stitching horizontal images together. If you are filming vertically, the sensor becomes 36mm x 96mm. You can see how this will change the effective focal length of a lens and specifically the 21.6mm lens that "Star Gazer" says was used on these cameras. Since he will not share with me how he knows what kinds of cameras and lenses were used, I will leave it to the reader to calculate the effective focal length of the lens or lenses that made the finished video of the Maxus 9 rocket. Whatever the focal length ends up being, if it obvious that the angle of view shows an EXTREME wide angle view. Not all fisheye lenses show a complete 180 angle of view. As I showed earlier, an article on Wikipedia, states that fisheye lenses start from 100 degrees angle of view and go up to 180 degrees angle of view. I am certain that whatever the effective angle of view is calculated to be with four lenses as Star Gazer claims, they will fall within that 100 to 180 degree angle of view.

Update Number Two: September 30, 2017 - Star Gazer has threatened to "make a video" in which he claims he will "debunk" everything I've written concerning his video. I encourage him to do so. By making a video, if it gets much attention, it will drive more people to this website and then they can take all the facts and proofs herein and make up their own mind about the earth.

A Word About Camera Lenses

When talking about camera lenses, it is more important to talk about "angle of view" than "focal length." Why is that? If we take a 35mm film camera which exposes a 36mm x 24mm piece of film or a "Full Frame" DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) camera which uses a 36mm x 24mm sensor, a 50mm lens is considered to be a "normal" or "standard" lens. The average human eye sees an angle of view of approximately 47 degrees so camera manufacturers, years ago, rounded that number off to 50mm. Years ago, before zoom lenses, photographers would commonly purchase a standard lens (50mm) with their camera. Then, as their funds allowed them to add lenses, they would add a wide angle lens (usually a 28mm wide angle lens with a 75 degree angle of view) and a telephoto lens (usually a 135mm lens with a 18 degree angle of view). Reference Nikon's Field of View Table

The problem with using focal lengths when trying to determine how much angle of view a lens will see is this, it changes with the size of film or camera sensor. While a 50mm lens is a normal or standard lens on a 35mm film camera or a full frame DSLR, on a medium format camera and a large format camera, it is a wide angle lens. The larger the film or camera sensor, the wider the lens will appear. A medium format Hassleblad camera that creates a 2 1/4 inch image on 120 and 220 size film uses an 80mm lens as a standard or normal lens. A 4 x 5 inch view camera which exposes a 4 inch x 5 inch sheet of film, uses a 150mm lens as a standard or normal lens. An 8 x 10 inch view camera uses a 325mm lens as a standard lens. For a 35mm or full frame DSLR, the standard lenses (the 80mm, the 150mm and the 325mm lenses) are all telephoto lenses! The 50mm lens, standard for the 35mm and full frame DSLR is a wide angle lens on any of those other cameras mentioned. So, you can see that it is better to talk about angle of view, which is the same regardless of film size, than to talk about focal length.

This diagram shows the angle of view for three different lenses in the 35mm film format and the full frame DSLR format. Focal lengths vary with the size of the film or camera sensor therefore, what is a standard lens for a 35mm film camera will not be the standard lens for a camera which uses different size film.

Photos from Space ALWAYS Show a Flat Horizon UNLESS an Extreme Wide Angle or Fisheye Lens is Used!

Every photograph or video I have seen from the International Space Station is taken from a camera with an extreme wide angle fisheye lens. These lenses distort the view of the horizon and make the earth APPEAR to be curved. Take this photograph for example:

Most images we are shown from NASA are simply beautiful artwork. They are CGI or computer generated images. It is very hard to know which is real and which is cgi. IF this is a real photograph of the space shuttle from the ISS, they were using an extremely strong fisheye lens with an angle of view close to or equal to 180 degrees. The distortion from the lens makes the earth APPEAR to be curved when it is not.

It is extremely difficult to find any images that are supposedly taken from space that do not use extreme wide angle lenses and usually fisheye lenses. Fisheye lens, according to Wikipedia, begin at around 100 degree angle of view up to 180 degree angle of view. Not all fisheye lenses, especially those around 100 degree angle of view will completely distort the image into a circle like that of a lens with a 180 degree angle of view.

Without any doubt, this image is CGI. It is simply beautiful artwork that someone made on a computer. The ISS is supposed to fly around the earth at 17,150 mph! That is 4.76 miles per second! All of the lights on earth would be blurred and the stars in the sky would not be visible. The artist has also added the haze and a ring of light around the earth as well as adding curvature to the earth when there is none.

This is typical of the images that NASA provides that are supposedly from the ISS. Notice how the wide angle fisheye lens distorts not only the flat horizon, making the earth to APPEAR curved but it also distorts the solar panel that is on the top. It is very easy to see that a fisheye lens is used to make this image and that the curvature is an optical illusion. If there were an astronaut on the ISS, they would not see this image without looking through a camera with a fisheye lens!

Roll Your Mouse Over the Image

This is the very first image ever photographed from space. It was taken by a 35mm camera aboard a V2 rocket at the White Sands Missle Range on October 24, 1946, twelve years before NASA was founded on July 29, 1958. The camera fell from the rocket and was destroyed but the film survived. The camera used a normal lens and you can see that the horizon is completely flat even at the 65 mile altitude of the rocket. 65 miles is 343,200 feet or 104,607 meters!

Roll your mouse over the image and you will see a horizontal line showing the horizon is flat. Link

On a Globe Earth, How High Will North Korea's Hwasong 14 Missles Reach?

Recently, North Korea, under the direction of Kim Jong Un, has been launching intercontinental ballistic missles (ICBM). We also know that they have developed a nuclear weapon.

I was reading about their missles and when I read what the apogee (the highest altitude) of their ICBM is, I did a double-take!

The highest any of the Space Shuttles flew, according to NASA, was 385 miles! The average flight altitude for the Space Shuttles was 230 miles. But we are told that North Korea's Hwasong 14 rocket flew 2,300 miles high into the exosphere with temperatures as high as 1700 degrees Celcius or 3200 degrees Farenheit! Not only would the rocket be melted inside the exosphere but if what we have been told all of our life, the rocket would burn up on reentry to earth.

To get this altitude into my head enough to understand it, I utilized AutoCAD which is extremely powerful computer aided drafting software.

North Korea's Hwasong 14 ICBM is supposed to be able to reach an altitude of 1,800 miles and a range of 4,100 miles. In this drawing, you see the flight path of a Hwasong 14 ICBM. Also, the curved blue line is the average altitude of the Space Shuttles and the purple line represents the maximum altitude of any Space Shuttle. From the black line representing the earth to the red dotted line is the troposphore. From the dotted red line to the dotted green line is the stratosphere. Do we really believe that North Korea's ICBM goes five to six times higher than the ISS? How do they manage to miss all of the space debris and the ISS when a rocket goes this high? Someone is lying to us!

This is NASA's image of earth and all the space junk floating around it. If the International Space Station really orbits the earth and if the North Koreans ICBM goes as high into space as we are told, how does the ICBM keep from smashing into the ISS or other space junk? Also, how does the ISS dodge all of this stuff?

How can North Korea's missles fly into such an inhospitable part of our atmosphere then reenter earth's atmosphere without burning up? I will admit I am not a rocket scientist but I believe this is all ridiculous.

In this image, you see where the Space Shuttles flew and the different levels of the earth's atmosphere.The exosphere is not pictured. It is the last level of earth's atmosphere and lies beyond the thermosphere. The exosphere stretches from 440 miles to 6,200 miles above earth.

 

The large dotted, curved line shows the outer edge of the earth's exosphere. You can see by looking at the red line that North Korea's Hwasong 14 rocket flew into the exosphere.

What stops North Korea's ICBMs to just fly off into space? We are told that "space" starts somewhere around 100 kilometers. It is referred to as the Kármán line.

You can see that the ICBM goes much higher than the Space Shuttle ever flew. That is, if all of this globe earth and space stuff is true. If you believe the earth is a globe and if you believe NASA truly does send rockets into space, how do you explain this?

"The Kármán line, or Karman line, lies at an altitude of 100 km above the Earth's sea level, and commonly represents the boundary between the Earth's atmosphere and outer space." Wikipedia

We are told by globe earth scientists that outer space consists of a total vacuum and that things float in space. That means, in space, there is nothing. There are no air molecules. There is no sound in space because sound waves cannot travel through a vacuum.

We are being told that North Korea may be planning to shoot nuclear missles toward the US. Are we being lied to about that? If we are, why?

Which is Correct, the Globe Map or the Flat Earth Map?

I was converted to a Flat Earther over a period of time and in the last few months I have spent more time than I care to admit looking into the flat earth theory. Obviously, I used to believe, like most of you in the globe map but even if the earth was a ball, the map is extremely inaccurte! For example, Greenland appears to be big or bigger than South America when it isn't anywhere near that large.

I highly recommend you look at the following website: The True Size. You can move states or countries to different parts of the globe and see what the real size is. As you do this, you will see just how inaccurate the globe map is.

What about the flat earth map? I used to think it was right and answered many of the questions about the flat earth theory. Well, I found out that it is not accurate either. For example Australia appears to be much wider than it actually is. In order for the round disk of the earth to have the same surface area as the globe earth, it would have to be twice as big as what the flat earth model map shows. If this map is true, the sun would have to travel faster around the earth in the southern hemisphere than it does in the northern hemisphere.

I don't know what the earth truly looks like and no one else does either. We know that NASA creates all their images of the earth with computers. That is a proven fact and anyone with any common sense knows it. NASA even admits that the images of the earth are all computer generated! You can watch the video, where one of NASA's graphic artists admits that they HAVE to use Photoshop to create images of the earth, if you go to Page One of this website.

In my previous article: Does Maxus 9 Rocket Prove the Earth is a Curved Ball? I show that, with a standard lens, a camera would have to be 9,104.5 miles from the earth to capture it all in a photograph IF THE EARTH IS A BALL.

NASA keeps putting out images that they say are of the earth and they are all perfectly round. Then so many people have heard the earth is an oblate spheroid. This is the most popular trend now even though NASA's images and the oblate sheroid thought can't work together. Neil deGrasse Tyson says the earth looks more like a pear! So, who are we supposed to believe? Certainly not NASA, the people who hold to the oblate spheroid theory or Neil deGrasse Tyson. None of them has seen the earth nor have they see any legitimate images of the earth. On the same hand, the current flat earh map is not correct either. This does not disprove the flat earth model. We just need more information to be able to correctly determine the exact shape of the earth.

Did NASA really photograph the August 27, 2017 eclipse on earth from one million miles away?

From NASA's website:
NASA's EPIC View of 2017 Eclipse Across America

From a million miles out in space, NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) captured 12 natural color images of the moon’s shadow crossing over North America on Aug. 21, 2017. EPIC is aboard NOAA’s Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), where it photographs the full sunlit side of Earth every day, giving it a unique view of total solar eclipses. EPIC normally takes about 20 to 22 images of Earth per day, so this animation appears to speed up the progression of the eclipse.

In my previous article on a video that was taken of the earth from a Maxus rocket, I prove that in order to photograph the entire earth with a standard or normal lens, the camera would have to be at a minimum of 9,104.5 miles from the earth. On this website, NASA claims to have taken photos of the earth from one million miles away during the eclipse of August 27, 2017.

Let's take a look at what kind of telephoto lens would have to be used to photograph the earth from one million miles away. To do this, I draw the earth as a globe as NASA says it is. All of NASA's images show a perfectly round earth even though the modern, popular thought is that the earth is an "oblate spheroid" which means it is fatter at the equater and not a perfect ball as NASA depicts in all of their computer generated images. Neil deGrasse Tyson says the earth "looks more like a pear."

I tried to draw the earth according to the size that we are told it is using extremely powerful AutoCad software. By drawing the earth to scale, 7,917.5 miles in diameter and a line from the surface of the earth one million miles long, it is almost impossible to see the earth at this scale. The angle of view of the telephoto lens that would be required to pull the earth into the camera's view ends up being less than 0 degrees. This is an incredibly POWERFUL telescope on this spaceship IF this is a true photograph of the earth.

I can almost guarantee what NASA presents to us on this website is CGI, a computer generated image. It is not a photograph or a series of photographs. It is simply art work made by a graphic artist!

Since I am unable to determine the angle of view of a camera photographing the earth from one million miles away by using AutoCad, we can calculate it with a little trigonometry. We come up with an angle of view of .2268 degrees! If we divide our eye's normal angle of view, 47 degrees by this, we get 207.23 times magnification! This means, if you are using a full frame DSLR camera or a 35mm camera, you would have to use a lens bigger than 10,000mm! That would also translate into a 408 inch telescope. Sorry, I just don't buy it. I believe NASA has struck again with their fake images of the earth!

What is the United States Government Capable of?

The Flat Earth theory has gained a lot of steam in the last couple of years. I have spent more time than I care to admit looking into the Flat Earth. If you go online and watch Flat Earth videos on YouTube, you will see a lot of videos that say crazy things about what our goverment is capable of. If you are like me, you will probably ignore the videos. I did ignore them until I saw someone who claimed that the U.S. was creating holograms. There were not ordinary holograms. They can be touched! Below, I show you the image that shows what the gov't is doing.

I talked with a man a few years ago. This man had been involved in a lot of top secret missions for the United States. He told me that the U.S. is always at least fifty years ahead of the technology that we see! What if the International Space Station is just a hologram? What else could be done with this hologram technology? I ask you to read the following.

1994: US Air Force Launches Top-Secret ‘Holographic Projector’ Research Program

The Airborne Holographic Projector [Source: Air University]According to a 1999 Washington Post website report, the US Air Force starts a research program this year to develop a “holographic projector” as a psychological warfare weapon. Holograms are three-dimensional images created by laser technology. The US military explored the idea of using holograms during the 1991 Gulf War to deceive the Iraqis, but did not pursue it for technical reasons. One idea was to project a hologram of Allah several hundred feet in size over Baghdad, but this would take a mirror in space more than a mile square, plus huge projectors and power sources. Additionally, there are strict Islamic proscriptions on the depiction of Allah. However, the US military did not abandon the concept. “The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that [the Post] has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS [psychological operations] application. The “Holographic Projector” is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to “project information power from space… for special operations deception missions.” [WASHINGTON POST, 2/1/1999SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 2/5/2000] A 1996 study commissioned by a US Air Force panel called “Air Force 2025” shows how a future “Airborne Holographic Projector” might look like. In this illustration, a virtual aircraft is created to deceive the enemy as to the size and location of attacking forces.
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?us_military_general_topic_areas=us_military_weaponizationOfSpace&timeline=us_military_tmln

Imagine what could be done with these dimensional, tangible holograms. What else is the government doing that we are totally unaware of? They may even have technology that is completely out of the realm of physics. When people say that the International Space Station may just be a hologram, it could very well be.

I found an article online, "Scientists Create Holograms You Can Touch." It claims that scientists have already developed this technology and apparently are perfecting it. Remember what my friend told me, "Our government (United States) is always fifty years ahead of current technologies."

 

CLICK HERE TO GO TO PAGE 1

More Coming All the Time - Stay Tuned and Check Back Often!