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

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.

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."

More Proof of NASA's Trickery

Take a look at these videos which were released by NASA.

Sick NASA Blunders You Won't Believe

1965 NASA BUSTED - Stop Motion Animation Revealed

 

CLICK HERE TO GO TO PAGE 1

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