Sunday, April 23, 2017

Sailing around the world in 74-109 days at 24 knots is possible on a flat earth

Flat earth map

In this figure you see the shortest path for sailing around the world on a flat plane:
A = 25E-45W, 60-22,5-50 South
B = 45W-75W, 50-70 South
C = 75W-150E, 70S-30N-60S
D = 150E-115E, 60S
E = 115E-25E, 60S-0S-60S

Average latitude

lat-av-A = (55+22.5)/2=38,75 = 128,75
lat-av-B = 60 = 150
lat-av-C = (155+60)/2 = 107,5
lat-av-D = 60 = 150
lat-av-E = (60+0)/2 = 30 = 120

Average radius (lat+90)

rad-av-A = 2*pi*6371*(128,75/360) = 14.316 km
rad-av-B,D = 2*pi*6371*(150/360) = 16.679 km
rad-av-C = 2*pi*6371*(107,5/360) = 11.953 km
rad-av-E = 2*pi*6371*(120/360) = 13.343 km

Approximate distance

dist-A = 2*pi*14.316*(25+45)/360 = 17.490 km
dist-B = 2*pi*16.679*(75-45)/360 = 8.733 km
dist-C = 2*pi*11.953*(180-150+75)/360 = 21.905 km
dist-D = 2*pi*16.679*(150-115)/360 = 10.188 km
dist-E =  2*pi*13.343*(115-25)/360 = 20.959 km

Total distance = 79.275 km = 42.805 seamiles

As they can sail around the world in 109-74 days they would sail at an average of 24 knots. This is very possible as for-instance the Groupama 3 has an average of 33 knots per hour. Or ABN AMRO TWO at 23 knots per hour.

Fore-going calculation is an approximation as we don't know what the real shape of the earth is and as we don't know what the correct map of the supposed flat earth looks like.

Source on speed:
Original map source:,

Friday, April 21, 2017

Light-source comes up within the clouds, suggesting nearby Sun

They tell us that the Sun is approximately 150 million km away and that from that distance it gives us daylight and warmth. The following photo is take from the site of The Australian Weathercam Network on 22 april 2017 at Wa Perth, Jandakot Airport (kijkend naar Noord-Oosten). The footage on the site is only kept for 7 days, as each new day replaces the old footage of 7 days ago.

Clouds and the position of the Sun

So why is this photo so very interesting. It all has to do with what side of the clouds is very bright and which side is dark. Normally when the Sun is far away and the clouds are relatively very close, only the back side of those clouds are bright. From our point of view the clouds should look dark. But that isn't what we observe. In this photo you see dark clouds and very bright clouds together, on a relative close proximity. The very bright clouds we see from our point of view are lightened from a light-source in front of those clouds and the dark clouds are lightened from behind. This means/ suggests that the light-source must be within the clouds itself.


It is impossible for the Sun at 150 million km to give this effect on the clouds, so the Sun or this light-source is much much closer. Earlier I did calculate that on a flat earth the Sun must be at a distance of approximately 6200 km. But the clouds that we see are most definitely not at that height, so the Sun would be even much closer to us. So if this is the case then the shape of the earth might not be flat also, but more-likely some kind of concave shape. Some time ago I tried to do some maths on this one, but have been unable to come up with a good mathematical solution. So for now for me the shape of things is still under discussion. And for now I cannot explain this photo, as it suggests that the light-source might be only a few km above the surface. If this is the case then one light-source hasn't the capability for giving light for almost halve the earth. Or they use several Sun simulators or we might live in some kind of projection (holographic or maybe projected in our minds). So the question remains, do we live on a flat earth or do we live in some kind of projection. Foregoing photo gives more questions then answers in this respect.

Monday, April 10, 2017

What is wrong with the stretched sun?

This photo is taken by a close friend of me and I personally find it very very interesting. Not of the long straight line at sea-level or the very flat horizon, but it is because of the sun. The sky is clear, you see an aircraft pass-by with a real void air-plain streak and not some chem-trails. So a real clear sky! But the most important thing you see is the sun. Normally when you see the sun, it should be round. But in this photo it doesn't has this shape. When you look at the water-level it shows us that it is no-time-laps-photo and the camera hasn't moved. What is causing this shape of the sun and what might be an explanation for this?

Explaining the stretched sun!

Very important thing you see in the sun, is that it looks stretched. From the left-under side to the upper right-side the distance is bigger, then from the left-above side to the lower right-side. This means there is some kind of distortion or there is some-kind of object interfering or simply entering here. There are two big bright bursts of sun-light at the top and the bottom of the sun, with a small degree in its axis.

Are there two suns?

At the sides you see some light exiting the sun. I like to point out the 1 left high and the 1 right low position. Next to that the 2 left low and the 2 right high position. In the last photo all lines cross at a centre-point. So or this sun is stretched or there might be 2 light-sources. As we have been taught that the sun is round than what we see can only be explained with 2 suns or an object entering our realm. If you connect the dots there seems to be an object in-front our sun which results in light distortion, or there is another sun coming into our system. You judge for yourself!

Additional proof Sky Cam Hong Kong

Skycam shows us what is going on in the sky and from time to time it looks very strange. For instance this video is taken from at Hong Kong of 19 april 2017. In the video it looks like the sun is flickering or moving around. If you put circles around the bright sun-area you can conclude that you cannot complete it with one circle. Two are needed, which means that there is something going on with the sun. It supports the fore-mentioned statement about the stretched sun. 


Additional proof Australia Jandakot Airport

Here is some additional proof of the Sun in Australia at Jandakot Airport looking to the North-East. In this case I have also inverted the colours, so in the black you can see clearly that the Sun has not a normal circular shape. This is of the date 24 april 2017.

Source photo: S. Zijlstra 9 april 2017, Akkrum, Netherlands.

More interesting information on the sun: what is the distance to the sun at the horizon?

Monday, April 3, 2017

Space-shuttle flight with entering outer-space lower then its highest point

Be my guest and analyse this video. It shows speed, altitude and range of the space-shuttle. Interestingly the most important fact of this video isn't that it reaches 356.704 ft aka 108,72 km (at 6:32 min) but that the signs of going into outer-space (yellow coloration (friction fire) (at 9:03)), signal disturbance  (at 8:28) to occur after this point at a lower altitude 337.582 ft aka 102,89 km . At 9:29 they tell us that we have gone into outer-space at 344.227 ft aka 104,92 km. So how come these signs don't appear earlier as the space-shuttle gets to a higher point.

No outer-space

Answer: they don't go into outer-space as there is a ceiling at around 73 miles height aka 117 km. They have to correct their height as they probably get to close to it, but the signs like a signal disturbance and the friction coloration's have not occurred yet. This 6 km difference in height doesn't make sense unless they cannot go into outer-space and so have to fake the whole thing. The signal disturbance is the point after which they edit what you see.

More reading: Fake moon CGI

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Moon-like object in orbit which isn't the moon

These days we hear and see a lot of strange news on the television or through internet. So now I would like you to see this simple observation of mine. I went to and went to the cam of Post Observatory in Trenton Maine in the USA. I did see a time-laps from 20.19 till 21.09 (setting-time of the observed object). So at first I did think it was the moon, but when I compare the normal periods of the moon, then the obviously big object cannot be the moon. First of all the moon is only 12,4% visible aka a waxing crescent. This actually would mean it should almost be gone and that doesn't add up with the visible moon-like object. That object is clearly round and shines round (no crescent). Next to that it is very bright and that doesn't fit with a waxing crescent.

Data on moon

From the site you can find information on rise and set times of the sun and the moon. First of all on 30 march 2017 the moon has a waxing crescent of 12,4% (this is based on Portland Maine). It shows clearly that the set time of the moon should be 22:17, but as stated this object set at approximately 21:09. That is at least an hour difference. The moon should follow this object, as this object sets first. In the photo above the crescent isn't visible, maybe due to the great light-source of the unknown moon-like object. We can see also that the sun set at 19:05 so the bright object isn't the sun. Given the fact that a waxing crescent isn't a bright round light-source as shown in the photo and given the fact that it sets on a wrong time-frame, then we must conclude that the shown object isn't the moon. You judge for yourself, but I think we should look more above our heads trying to find out what they are hiding behind the fake geo-engineered "chemtrail" clouds.

Additional proof regarding additional object

From in Chili Santiago of 19 april 2017 I made this short video showing an object. It gets brighter as well. It looks like there is also a small object orbiting that object. When it goes in-front of it, the large object brightens. In one shot you can see the small object at the east side of it (big object less bright).


More reading Fake moon footage bad cgi

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Fake moon footage, bad CGI

NASA tells us what to believe what lies from 100 km heigh and on. The Universe is expanding, has many exoplanets and that might be a home for extraterrestials. But what is NASA showing us exactly. In the below footage it looks like very bad CGI!

Incredible Lunar Views From The Japanese SELENE Orbiter - Earthrise

We believe what we see. And almost everything we see, we see on the telly or through wireless internet. They tell that there is a lunar orbiting the moon, which results in the following youtube video (it is a loop-video of course). Very interesting you would say. In my opinion it looks like "cra.". I have seen much better CGI's from NASA which also look very very fake. Sorry for my language.

Problem with round craters

As I stated in an earlier blogpost, there is something wrong with the creation of craters on the earth. In big chunks of ice falling from the sky I mentioned that craters on earth might be caused by very big chunks of ice falling from the firmament. This of course is still guessing aka a theory, but there might be something there. The point of that is that on a motionless plane big chunks of ice can only create perfect round holes, as the drop at a ninety degree angle on the earth. If the earth was spinning, that angle would be different for sure. So why the perfect round craters on the moon? The footage looks very fake to me, but especially the round craters are especially unreal.

Why fake it?

Or we live on a globe orbiting the Sun which in itself orbits a galaxy which also spins through endless space, or we live on a flat plane and we are the centre of our universe. So why fake it? What if they want to lie to us about God, the bible and especially the bad counterpart of that. What if the earth is like an orb, split in halve by the earth plane. We live in the "bad" part and the other halve actually would be the "good" part. Just like Jing and Jang. If they are on the bad side also, they would fake it, and tell us that we are not special and a part of some gigantic unimaginable universe.
PS. for everyone who reads this, this is just a theory but can be true also. But what we really are sure about is that this footage of a lunar rotating around the moon is absolute CGI aka fake.

Tuesday, March 7, 2017

Excellent proof of a flat earth (with video)

The following video posted on Youtube by someone called Ekeresco Jack dated 1 March 2017 I think is an excellent example on proving a flat earth. In this he compares six high-points of mountains located 77,4 km up to 120 km away. The tops also vary with height. Of this he made 2 reference models.


The tops of 6 mountains are projected from our line of sight for 120 km away. Doing this one on one results in the flat earth model. For the globe model he needs to deduct the height of the curvature also. When doing some of the lines change position and some actually swap places in reference to the flat earth model. Both models he projected on the photo.

Check on used heights

Using the site of I did check if in this area the heights are corresponding with what is shown in the video. As you can see in the results that the maximum in this area is 2300 m (at about 124 km from Wellington), which corresponds with the 2360 m at 120 km. This also confirms that the used data in the video is reliable.

Some figures corresponding to video

In this table the above part is the distance combined with height on a flat plane, with our line of view projected at 120 km. The second part is the correction for the curvature. As you can see the projected height of light blue and yellow do swap places, as stated in the video. And obviously the total visible height on a flat plane is bigger than on a globe. This is consistent with what is stated in the video, suggesting a valid way of determining it. As the figures of the flat earth line up with the photo and the figures of the globe don't line up, then it must mean that the earth is flat.


So from the top-point he extended the lines so from our line of sight projected 120 km away and compared them with what he actually sees on the photo. For the flat earth model these lines correspond with the photo, but for the globe model they don't match and there would be less to see also. This video is a must see for everyone who still has doubts regarding a globe or a flat earth. Edit 22-3-2017: This video disproves that the earth doesn't have a radius of 6371 km, but shows that it is much more flat. It suggests a flat earth, but there might also be some kind of curvature.