I can't find it the video, but I saw one recently where Mike Adams was denouncing NASA's lies (not an FE however), as he was ridiculing the notion that NASA claims to be flying solar-powered helicopters around Mars ... when Mars has next-to-no atmosphere.

People have found "pictures of Mars" published by NASA that are identical ... down to the last rock ... with some landscape scenes from Greenland and Devon island.  There's one picture where there's an obvious "squirrel" on Mars (I forget what it actually is, not a squirrel, but some animal native to Devon Island, an arctic something or other).  NASA's slam-dunk-exposed fakery could fill a book larger than the anti-FE book of Sungenis, and we have Sungenis conceding one single piece of NASA fraud and brushing it off as a "foible".

FE Banjo guy, while I like him, isn't always particularly careful, and sometimes makes some bad argument.  So, the response from the rotating-globe-earth crowd to the rotation of the earth under a plane is that gravity and the closed atmospheric system drag the plane alone with it.

But there's a huge problem with this that the Globers don't address.  If that's the case, then a plane travelling from East to West would have to overcome these tremendous forces.  Remember that this force drags the plane around at 1,000MPH (at the equator), and that's a tremendous amount of force.  So, then flying against, these forces, from East to West, that would be like a fish swimming upstream, and planes would need a tremendous amount of additional fuel going in that direction vs. the other.  And flights going West would take longer than flights going East.  But there's no difference whatsoever in time or fuel consumption.

Here's an example to illustrate the problem.  You know those moving walkways they have (typically at airports), where there's a belt that moves people so that they don't have to walk with their luggage.  Kids especially tend to goof around on those and then walk in the opposite direction.  Or you also see people trying to go up downward-moving escalators.  It requires a tremendous amount of extra energy to go AGAINST the direction that these things are moving, since you have to overcome the forces that are taking you in the other direction.

So the Globers constantly contradict themselves, talking about forces that are present when it's convenient but then disappear when they're not convenient.

We had the RedBull guy take about 2.5-3 hours to ascend to about 120,000 feet, from which he jumped.  During that time the earth would have rotated about 1500 miles (if I recall, given his latitude).  But after he jumped, instead of ending up about 1500 miles to the West, in the Pacific Ocean, he landed about 20-30 miles East of where he took off from.  So even at those altitudes, the capsule was held steady by the iron rod of gravity (and then perhaps the wind pushed him East).  Also, as you get higher, to keep up with the ground below, your movement around the earth actually has to accelerate, since the circuмference of your rotation has to increase.  Of course, that's another thing.  Wind patterns move from West to East, and that means that the atmosphere is moving faster than the earth's rotation, in excess of 1000MPH at the equator, several times faster than the highest wind speeds ever recorded in a tornado.

North to south flights are even a bigger problem.  As you go from North to South, your angular momentum constantly increases, as the speed of the earth beneath increases.  Finally, an engineer was won over by the argument that he laid out that if a plane is travelling, say, West to East, and then had to turn on its final approach to hit a North-South runway, that turn from going with the rotation for the earth to suddenly going North-South would put such force on the plane that it would get torn apart, not to mention that landing on a North-South runway would be nearly impossible to pull off. 

These forces that would drag objects from West to East simply don't exist.

Perhaps you could claim that there's a computer on board that automatically adjusts the angle downwards multiple times per second to keep the plane level ... except that no plane manufacturer, not even military plane manufacturer (in the high-speed planes where it would be extremely noticeable) has ever claimed that they introduced technology to perform this function.

Auto pilot uses a computer to fly the plane and maintain altitude.
Some fighter jets are aerodynamically designed to be unstable for the purpose of enhanced agility. They require constant computer control to fly stably. Computer gyro stabilizers are common in helicopters, mainly for tail rotor control, and in RC model planes to make even the most unstable ones fly quite smoothly in windy conditions far beyond what human control input is capable of. I know this as fact.

As for constantly dipping the nose of the plane down to go over the curving earth surface, the "argument" is incredibly lame, namely, that gravity pulls the nose of the plane down ... as if gravity would only effect the nose of the plane (as a plane is only about 100 feet or so long on average).  There would be no difference in terms of gravity's effect on the nose, vs. the rest of the fuselage.  So, the world's fastest plane, given the rate at which it travels, would have to adjust down at the rate of something like 1,000 feet per second.  At that rate, you would have to fly downward, but since the earth isn't a flat downward slope, there would constantly have to be adjustments made, and at such a high rate that it would be impossible for a pilot to pull off.  In other words, the pilot simply can't angle the plane down by, say, 1 degree, and keep it there, because a curve doesn't follow a linear descent.  So there would have to be an adjustment made multiple times per second for the plane to remain level, and no pilot can pull that off.  Even a pilot with lightning-quick reflexes and concentration would struggle mightily and his altitude above the earth would fluctuate +/- several hundred if not several thousand feet constantly, and his plane would be going up and down, up and down, during the entire flight path, unable to maintain a constant altitude.

I don't argue that gravity constantly pulls just the nose down. I would argue that, based on speed, there is an altitude at which a sort of buoyancy equilibrium is reached where the plane doesn't travel fast enough to fly in the thinner high altitude air, but fast enough to not descend either. So, it would be like it is continually falling around the curve, or like it is a boat floating over the globe earth ocean.

Air travel is highly variable. There is no rule that says an airplane must point precisely in the direction that it flies. Some airfoil designs continue to generate lift at higher speeds such that the airplane must be pointed down to fly straight and level. But, if the same plane were to fly very slowly, it would need to be pointed up a lot to fly straight and level.

I have considered the super fast plane issue, and I don't have the math or experience to form an opinion either way about it, but your argument seems to assume the plane is flying as close to the ground as possible. Many planes change AGL Above Ground Level altitude very rapidly as they pass over mountains and valleys. Airplanes also have a feature called trim, where they can adjust the neutral center of a control axis, so that no continuous input is needed from the pilot to compensate for some sort of imbalance in the plane such as weight or engine torque. Also, such fast planes generally fly very high, which I think decreases the rate of descent around a globe due to the larger radius the plane is flying over. 

This notion of firmament being “space” is both Modernistic and absurd.  Clearly the Church Fathers unanimously believed that it was an actual substance, with some mentions of debates regarding what it was made of.  So I am surprised to see cassini promoting the idea.  He’s such a literalist about how the sun rising means that it moves and can’t be a matter of perspective and yet the firmament is space?  Even Sungenis sees this, coming up with a theory about infinitely-dense matter.  While that’s a stretch, he tacitly admits that the Fathers clearly did not believe that it was empty space.  For them, it was something solid that keeps literal waters from inundating the earth.  There’s absolutely no doubt about that.

Just came across something that was interesting. In his research on Bruno, A. Martinez found one of the heresies Bruno was accused of was , (5) the motion of the Earth and immobility of the firmament.  This suggests to me the Church of 1600 considered the universe, which is the space that contains all the stars that revolves around the Earth as the firmament.

Just came across something that was interesting. In his research on Bruno, A. Martinez found one of the heresies Bruno was accused of was , (5) the motion of the Earth and immobility of the firmament.  This suggests to me the Church of 1600 considered the universe, which is the space that contains all the stars that revolves around the Earth as the firmament.

This is a study in and of itself.  From what I can tell, the Fathers believed the aether carries the sun, moon and stars in their paths through the firmament, although different stars move differently through the aether as do sun and moon, each at their own pace. All celestial bodies are supposedly moved about by angels. While the outer firmament is actually hard, like brass or glass and provides an impassable boundary between heaven and earth, that portion of the hard boundary holds back the waters and doesn't move.  However, everything in the firmament does move and the entire thing at times, outer boundary and celestial soup, can also be referred to as "the firmament" which explains (5) The contents (sun, moon stars and aether) move, the boundary itself does not.          

This is a study in and of itself.  From what I can tell, the Fathers believed the aether carries the sun, moon and stars in their paths through the firmament, although different stars move differently through the aether as do sun and moon, each at their own pace. All celestial bodies are supposedly moved about by angels. While the outer firmament is actually hard, like brass or glass and provides an impassable boundary between heaven and earth, that portion of the hard boundary holds back the waters and doesn't move.  However, everything in the firmament does move and the entire thing at times, outer boundary and celestial soup, can also be referred to as "the firmament" which explains (5) The contents (sun, moon stars and aether) move, the boundary itself does not.         

Interesting Tradman. You write: 'From what I can tell, the Fathers believed the aether carries the sun, moon and stars in their paths through the firmament.' Earlier I showed that Domenico Cassini has proven the sun, moon, planets and stars travel in electromagnetic ovals. When I suggested the ether was electromagnetism I wasn't far off, was I Tradman?

FE Banjo guy, while I like him, isn't always particularly careful, and sometimes makes some bad argument (sounds like you Lad, and probably most of us).  So, the response from the rotating-globe-earth crowd to the rotation of the earth under a plane is that gravity and the closed atmospheric system drag the plane alone with it.

But there's a huge problem with this that the Globers don't address.  If that's the case, then a plane travelling from East to West would have to overcome these tremendous forces.  Remember that this force drags the plane around at 1,000MPH (at the equator), and that's a tremendous amount of force.  So, then flying against, these forces, from East to West, that would be like a fish swimming upstream, and planes would need a tremendous amount of additional fuel going in that direction vs. the other.  And flights going West would take longer than flights going East.  But there's no difference whatsoever in time or fuel consumption.

Here's an example to illustrate the problem.  You know those moving walkways they have (typically at airports), where there's a belt that moves people so that they don't have to walk with their luggage.  Kids especially tend to goof around on those and then walk in the opposite direction.  Or you also see people trying to go up downward-moving escalators.  It requires a tremendous amount of extra energy to go AGAINST the direction that these things are moving, since you have to overcome the forces that are taking you in the other direction.

So the Globers constantly contradict themselves, talking about forces that are present when it's convenient but then disappear when they're not convenient.

We had the RedBull guy take about 2.5-3 hours to ascend to about 120,000 feet, from which he jumped.  During that time the earth would have rotated about 1500 miles (if I recall, given his latitude).  But after he jumped, instead of ending up about 1500 miles to the West, in the Pacific Ocean, he landed about 20-30 miles East of where he took off from.  So even at those altitudes, the capsule was held steady by the iron rod of gravity (and then perhaps the wind pushed him East).  Also, as you get higher, to keep up with the ground below, your movement around the earth actually has to accelerate, since the circuмference of your rotation has to increase.  Of course, that's another thing.  Wind patterns move from West to East, and that means that the atmosphere is moving faster than the earth's rotation, in excess of 1000MPH at the equator, several times faster than the highest wind speeds ever recorded in a tornado.

North to south flights are even a bigger problem.  As you go from North to South, your angular momentum constantly increases, as the speed of the earth beneath increases.  Finally, an engineer was won over by the argument that he laid out that if a plane is travelling, say, West to East, and then had to turn on its final approach to hit a North-South runway, that turn from going with the rotation for the earth to suddenly going North-South would put such force on the plane that it would get torn apart, not to mention that landing on a North-South runway would be nearly impossible to pull off. 

These forces that would drag objects from West to East simply don't exist.

Gravity and the closed atmospheric system DRAG the plane along with it? Against what force does the plane get dragged? When you picture this system in your head and first set it into motion, the plane will initially get dragged along to accelerate it to the speed of the earth's rotation, but after that it is already up to speed. Any direction the plane flies and the thrust required will be based on a relative zero ground speed, only meeting the same amount of wind resistance in any direction (assuming the wind isn't blowing). If the earth and atmosphere was stopped from rotating, then the plane would initially travel at 1000mph before being once again slowed down to a stop by the air.

Using the moving walkway example, when you step onto it, it initially drags you until your speed matches the walkway. Then, no more force is required to maintain your speed (assuming no wind resistance on you or added friction to the belt from your weight). You are in a new closed system from the earth, free to walk either direction with no more difficulty one way or another. The belt isolates you from the earth. Same with the escalator, it takes no more energy to go against the direction than it would to climb or descend stationary stairs. There is no extra force fighting against you. You have simply just been isolated from the earth, and will either travel more efficiently or less over the ground due to the initial input of energy that changes your minimum ground speed and direction.

Now, if the wind was blowing, obviously a speed different from ground speed which is stationary, then the plane would of course have difficulty achieving more ground speed going into the wind rather than with it because it is isolated from the ground by the air, and acts on the air to move.

Assuming the earth's surface speed at the equator is 1000mph as it rotates relative to the rest of the universe, or wherever your stationary perspective is located in your mental picture of a rotating globe earth, a 10,000lb private jet would have about 31.5lbs of force trying to lift it off the planet. Assuming worst case scenario with crappy math and physics, that might also equate to a 31.5lb pull forward on the plane as it flies from north towards the equator. But private jets probably need 500lbs or so of thrust just to maintain airspeed, so a 30lb pull shouldn't make landing that difficult, especially with the drag producing devices they use such as speed brakes and flaps and even the extended landing gear.

I wouldn't attribute the Redbull guy's close proximity with the takeoff point to the "iron rod of gravity", but rather the air, which closely matches the rotation of the earth due to friction and the forces objects can impart on fluids like air, and would have the most affect on his position over the ground. Once he leaves the ground, he does not leave the closed system of the earth and its atmosphere, and encounter some new system that drags him to a stop relative to the spinning earth.

However you wish to explain it, if there's a drag from West to East, then travelling from East to West would require more force/effort/fuel than in the other direction, like swimming upstream.  Evidently this drag is powerful enough to drat a hot-air balloon at 1,000 MPH (at the equator).  That's a mighty strong force that would have to be overcome when travelling to the West.

This. You can't have it both ways.

Either the earth's "gravity" is strong enough to grab a hot air balloon and force it to follow its spin -- like an invisible bar were connecting it to the earth -- AND THEN you'd have to explain why travelling east to west isn't nigh impossible, unless you can go faster than the spin of the earth. Basically like swimming upstream in a river with a VERY strong current.

But if there's "no effect" that high up, if "gravity" *doesn't* grab you like an invisible bar, then why can't you go up in a hot air balloon, stay up for an hour, then come down in a place very, very far away since the earth spun underneath you for an hour?

NO GLOBE EARTHER HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS YET. WHICH IS WHY I MUST REMAIN IN THE "FLAT EARTH" CAMP for this and other reasons.

NASA being 100% fake and gαy doesn't help the Globe cause either. Also, being able to see "too far". And water is always level, it's never curved. 

These are stronger arguments than the much weaker ones against Flat Earth -- most of which could be explained away (e.g., Ham Radio. Heck, the radio waves could bounce off the Firmament as well as they could bounce off the Ionosphere. And the most visible effects like Tropo ducting is done very CLOSE TO EARTH -- along the lines of WEATHER. So that's certainly not an issue.)