ALL Bluefin Tuna Caught in California Are Radioactive

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

Editor’s Note: This shouldn’t really surprise anyone. The ocean isn’t a Mr. Clean Magic Eraser.


Via A Sheep No More:

Three years ago they told us they were surprised to find the fish contaminated after limited exposure to radioactive water. As this article points out, all of the bluefin tuna being caught now have spent their entire lives exposed to radioactive water. If you didn’t hear the warning  years ago, please hear it now.

Every bluefin tuna tested in the waters off California has shown to be contaminated with radiation that originated in Fukushima. Every single one.

In May of 2012, the Wall Street Journal reported on a Stanford University study. Daniel Madigan, a marine ecologist who led the study, was quoted as saying, “The tuna packaged it up (the radiation) and brought it across the world’s largest ocean. We were definitely surprised to see it at all and even more surprised to see it in every one we measured.”Another member of the study group, Marine biologist Nicholas Fisher at Stony Brook University in New York State reported, “We found that absolutely every one of them had comparable concentrations of cesium 134 and cesium 137.”

That was over two year ago. The fish that were tested had relatively little exposure to the radioactive waste being dumped into the ocean following the nuclear melt-through that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in March of 2011. Since that time, the flow of radioactive contaminants dumping into the ocean has continued unabated. Fish arriving at this juncture have been swimming in contaminants for all of their lives.

(Read more at A Sheep No More)

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by of A Sheep No More.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • doucyet

    So…….once again the governments silence on the matter is a collective “go f u c k yourself” to the people. Love what transparency means to some………

    • Kula Farmer

      Be sure and send in your taxes and returns though because they are doing soooo much to take care of all of us…..

    • This is why I believe they have another place to live with clean water and soil, they are trashing this place indiscriminately so it doesn’t make sense for them not to have a place like that. I doubt they would shit in their own backyard they have to live in after they kill off the useless eaters.

      • sunshine

        That makes sense but it could also be that they have the technology to clean it up when we are dead, and the technology to keep it from affecting them. But who really knows, it’s not like they’re going to tell us.

      • eddysach

        Maybe nefarious ET/ED lizard’s are terra forming the Earth for their buddies to come & live more comfortably…after we’re gone….pure speculation of course…but plausible

        • Well mine has much more verifiable facts backing it up, troll

          • eddysachs

            *according to you…turn the telescope around & try & expand your pin hole reality

          • Math is your friend, eddysachs, remember that.. use it, and one day it will do you well 😉

          • eddysachs

            the same math used by Georges Lematrie?…ya’know…the JESUIT priest that came up with the BIG BANG scam?

          • Certainly not. The big bang is big bullshit! Explosions destroy things, not create them!

      • How Not To Play The Game

        They’ve got an antidote for radioactive destruction. In my opinion. It is an opinion.

        • Okay, that’s great.

          • eddysachs

            & I’ll be blowing Bubbles…not ‘discs’ or triangles or parallelograms hahahahaha!…gottaluv the FE psy-op & the luners attracted to just another scam …just like the BIG LIE Al Gore is selling his snake oil to everyone

          • Yeah AL Gore is friggin’ shill and global warming climate change being caused by how we live is disproven bullshit but the flat earth is right in your face and easily provable but only if you aren’t still asleep at the wheel, you can even use the statue of liberty for proof as you can see it much farther out than you could on your ball using the numbers NASA currently gives us for its dimensions…. the numbers, they just don’t add up and I believe numbers from logically sound equations, not humans and their beliefs that ride on nothing but faith.

            That math thing again, eddysachs. Unless math itself is the psyop it clearly proves your ball doesn’t exist, want me to show you? So far everyone I’ve showed just shuts up or their replies devolve into ad hominems which doesn’t bother me as I can handle myself in either case 🙂

          • eddysachs

            not worth my time …but thx for the consideration…to each his own…cheers

          • I sure wish the paid shill following around about it would say the same! cheers!

          • Gary

            Translation: “not worth my time …” means “I failed maths in high school, and don’t intend to learn now”.

          • Yep, and that’s exactly how they keep this ball rolling 🙂

          • Gary

            Post me the numbers, Я0llyJ0g3r. I haven’t seen the ones for the statue of Liberty.

          • Sure, Gary, here you go:
            (check out what happened to this guy’s reddit reputation on the site once he started posting about the flat earth, it’s at the bottom)

            “The distance at which lights can be seen at sea entirely disposes of the idea that we are living on a huge ball.”
            -Thomas Winship

            NASA and modern astronomers claim we are living on an oblate spheroid 25,000 statute miles in equatorial circumference with a curvature of 7.395 inches to the mile, varying inversely as the square of the distance, meaning in 3 miles there is a declination of nearly 6 feet, in 30 miles 600 feet, in 300 miles 60,000 feet and so on. Therefore, if we wish to prove or disprove the validity of their convexity claim, it is a fairly simple, straight forward matter of measurements and calculations.

            Please try this at home and see for yourself. Here are some figures to help you out.

            Prove how at 60 miles away the drop is 2,072 feet. Show your results.

            Using 3963 miles as the radius of the Earth (R), we’ll use the 3rd equation from the figures and skip the derivation. For our “x” value we use 60 miles that Lady Liberty is visible from.

            δ = sqrt( R2 + x2 ) – R = sqrt( (3963 mi)2 + (60 mi)2 ) – 3963 mi = 0.45417533746692364446424758347828 mi

            0.45417533746692364446424758347828 mi = 2398.0458 ft

            The tip of Lady Liberty’s torch is approximately 326 feet above sea level.

            2398.0458 ft – 326 ft = 2072.0458 ft

            The Statue of Liberty should be occluded by 2,072 feet of the curvature of the Earth when viewed from a distance of 60 miles; instead it is visible and identifiable, as if the Earth were just a flat extended plane. This is indisputable and irrefutable proof, and can be repeated for every lighthouse.

            EDIT: Once again, another flat Earth thread at 0 points, anyone trying to discuss flat Earth heavily downvoted, and yet over 150 comments!

            EDIT: I’ve been shadowbanned because once I was linked to by /r/subredditdrama and /r/topmindsofreddit all of my posts were downvoted to oblivion. Flat Earth is the mother of all conspiracies and real discussion of it is censored on reddit, look into it yourself.

            [ source: ]

          • Al Mather

            It’s because everyone is tired of FE dumbness …you’re losing the stupidity pageant … even the conspirotards are downvoting it..

          • Lol, nice projection but it’s the wrong image 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Well sure looks that way around Daily Sheeple!! Lol!

          • lol, no….. it surely doesn’t. I see more people posting about how fake NASA is than ever before and I do pay attention to that litmus test but you keep denying it because that makes it true 😉

          • Al Mather

            Those folks are conspirotards hanging on to the fake moon landing…none deny the existence of space,planets,the sun…. or buy into the Fellate earth stupidity,Roger… it’s just you,your boy toy and the puppets.

          • LOL, puppets? FE researchers don’t use puppets, you and everyone you work with/for uses puppets though because you’re a bunch of lying shills.

            …and no, I see more people specifically posting about the flat earth, you must have missed them?

            This article is a year old so compare the flat earth comments here to a recent one involving NASA and there is indeed an uptick in flat earth comments and that’s because the people are waking up!

          • Al Mather

            Dream on Rog,….it’s what keeps you coming back for more.

          • Okay vaccine/globe earth puppet man, run with that meme, it’s totes believable 100%!

          • Al Mather

            Total BS…Liberty CAN NOT be seen from more than 5-10 miles in any direction just because of it’s location… complete fabrication.
            Just look at a map.

          • Eric Dubay is a much higher quality and trustworthy researcher than you’ll every be and what he’s reporting has been verified from the decks of ships multiple times.

          • Al Mather

            Eric Dubay out on the high seas interviewing sailors!!! Verifying facts!!
            You crack me up. Lol….

          • More like a guy with a book of 200 proofs earth is not a spinning ball you can’t refute.


          • Al Mather

            The ones that aren’t idiotic have already been refuted … old news …sinking ship.

          • No they haven’t, just like Samuel Birley Rowbotham was never refuted, just like William Carpenter was never refuted and they both existed over a century ago… FAIL!

          • Al Mather

            Really? Do tell… Show us what line of sight Eric claims was taken on the Lady of the harbor

          • It’s mentioned in passing so I don’t know where he got it from but I’m going to look.

          • Al Mather


            See what they do folks…. Flat earth idiots….always some simple lie behind their “proof”,,,,

          • Yeah, let’s draw a line so they can see clearly see the line of sight you’re trying to shill that isn’t there:

          • The opposing shoreline is approximately 18 miles away and I already have a picture of that statue from 8 miles away with data from the early 20th century when it was used as a lighthouse that could be regularly seen from 24 miles away and then Eric’s book that depicts it can be seen from 60 miles away on a clear day just like Chicago.

          • Gary

            Thanks Я0llyJ0g3r. Pretty incredible and irrefutable proofs available, for those who aren’t too lazy to even look.

            Where I live, there don’t seem to be too many tall landmarks that aren’t obscured by hills and such (without going out on the ocean), so I love learning about landmarks like this that can be seen from 60 miles.

            I’m presuming the 60 mile distance was taken at man’s height (6′) above sea level? Any photographic evidence? Such would be damning of the globe-Earth theory, which would require the Earth’s curvature hide the statue if viewed from further than 25 miles.

          • All reports from 60miles out have been from the decks of ships which are generally 40ft above the water but this has been accounted for in the mathematics and it still puts the statue far below the horizon line @ 1820.8745598717396ft so if you subtract roughly 320ft(height of the statue) you’re still getting 1500ft obscured by the “curve”.

            I’ve been looking for photos and am having a very tough time locating any… like nobody has ever taken a picture of this thing from far away…. very strange but persistence has always paid off for me and I am very interested in acquiring these pics so I’ll keep searching.

          • Gary

            Thanks Я0llyJ0g3r. So if the ships are 40′ above sea level, that’s still 30 miles beyond the point that Miss Liberty would have dipped under the curve of the horizon, were the Earth a large ball. Pretty damning for the globalists.

            They better keep denying and insisting its all a mirage, or at least stop teaching trignometry, if they want their illusion to last much longer. Shame, eh? 😉

          • Al Mather

            Explain your idiotic comments in light of the above map …

          • Indeed. I’ve been learning more about perspective and how it affects what we see and why the sun looks like it moves in a rainbow pattern in the sky every day even though it is in fact moving in a flat, circular motion. Our field of view is 6000miles each way so that’s 12,000 miles of viewable area from horizon to horizon and how sunlight rays emanate from the sun on one horizon but those same rays actually converge on the other horizon, crepuscular and anti-crepuscular rays which gives us the similar effect in the night sky with the northern rotation and the southern anti-rotation of the stars which means that the star field in the sky can actually be flat and it would produce the same effect as it would in a giant dome/sphere. I love thinking about this stuff, too bad the ones who actually know are dickheads playing power games, knowledge should be for everyone, not just a bunch of satanic parasites.

          • Al Mather

            Why is it the sun never changes in size as it travels across our view…if it came from thousands of miles away and passed over us it would grow and shrink as demonstrated.


          • It’s over your head, Al, both figuratively and literally 🙂

            Your graphic there is made by a very confused person or by somebody intentionally trying to confuse others. I’ve found that is where you people get away with this shit, it’s because of perspective and it enables you to mindfuck those without the knowledge of how it makes the sky/land behave visually to the eye, it’s why contrails(sometimes chemtrails too these days) appear to go upwards on an angle over very large distances but those planes aren’t traveling at an angle at all, they are flying parallel to the ground but your PERSPECTIVE makes it look like they’re flying upwards which is the same reason the sun looks like it’s going upwards/downwards but it’s not.

            The poor confused soul that created that graphic does not understand that the sun should indeed set because it travels outside of your visible range which is 6000 miles to each horizon which gives you as a human a total of a 12000 mile unobstructed view of the sky at any one time which is only a tiny sample of it because it is so large, hence all of the perspective issues and the exact reason you cannot see the sun travel it’s full, 24hour path, you could chase it though as it traveled away from you but I don’t know the speed of it… yet so I’m not sure if that would be physically feasible although I know it is logically possible.

            If our earth revolved around a gigantic sun 93 million miles away then half of earth would be lit up at all times, always 50% light, 50% dark but do you know what we actually get?


            An uneven spiral/spotlight effect from the sun moving parallel in tandem with the moon overhead. Only with a sun so close by can we have such great temperature variances over such short distances here on earth, I mean, just look at the national weather every morning and you’ll see a variety of temps, not one solid temp of warm for the lit side and one solid cold temp for the unlit half, use your head, man, it’s common sense!

            Do you even realize that in your heliocentric model the days and nights reverse every six months? I don’t ever remember it being sunny at 1-2am and I’ve been around for a bit 🙂

            Also, you have that cute little solar system model with all of your colorful masonic balls rotating in almost perfect circles around the sun as if it’s completely still and all planets dance around it because of its “gravity” but hold on, that sun isn’t still according to your high priests, oh no, that sun is moving along with the rest of the galaxy @ 100’s of thousands of miles an hour so doesn’t that make your solar system look less like rings and more like a giant spiral of planetary orbits getting dragged but the awesome gravitational forces of the sun?

            What did a magician or something make this stuff up? Oh wait… one actually DID, and to this day they’re still falling for his tricks but I’ll admit he had a little help over the years 😉

          • Al Mather

            Hey…you just spewed a bunch of nonsense…uttered the word “perspective” again… but NEVER explained why the sun is the exact same size it’s entire transit across our sky…instead of going from small to large as it approaches ..then larger to smaller as it moves away from us…Funny …it’s the only thing you were asked …and you made a lot of flimflammy BS bamboozle noise…. but never answered the very obvious question that disproves your idiotic theory….Hmmm.

          • Cool graphic, bro, lol, the sun is over 3000 miles high and moves in a circular pattern overhead but the circle is so large you see it as sunrises and sunsets and no traveling in a circle overhead would not make the sun look larger as it gets closer just like a plane that is traveling over very large distances that seems like it’s going upwards doesn’t get larger as it gets closer either because it’s not actually getting any closer in height, it’s moving parallel to the ground the whole time.

          • Al Mather

            You …
            “I’ve been learning more about perspective and how it affects what we see and why the sun looks like it moves in a rainbow pattern in the sky every day even though it is in fact moving in a flat, circular motion. Our field of view is 6000miles each way so that’s 12,000 miles of viewable area from horizon to horizon ”

            So now you’re telling us that the sun …which you idiots believe is a mere 32 miles wide… comes at the viewer from 6000 miles away… passes overhead… continues 6000 miles away from the viewer and somehow magically never changes in diameter?????

          • No, it doesn’t pass overhead, that’s why it looks like a rainbow pattern it moves along that’s really a circle. You can only see 6000 miles away in each direction, that is your field of view which is much smaller than the actual sky so the sun enters your field of view from far away > 6k miles, “rises” aka. approaches your field of view and then when it recedes, which is really it moving parallel to the ground but away from the observer in it’s circular pattern, it looks like it’s falling in the sky during sunset.

            This is why there are great temperature variances over short distances on earth, it’s because the sun is very close and shines down on earth in a spotlight fashion, hence the yin-yang symbol. This is also why your globe doesn’t work with times and an AE map is more accurate.

          • Al Mather

            So…. again….. why doesn’t it look smaller… in your idiot theory…. when this 32 mile wide sun is 6000 miles away then when it is directly overhead????

          • Your view is limited because of perspective, if you play a modern video game and your player is running around an infinite world how is that depicted? Perspective and a horizon line, just like in real life. Certain games have areas that are depicted as very flat with no obstructions yet you cannot see forever in the game because your view fades into the horizon, just as it does in real life, which is why the games look very realistic these days. The sky never actually touches the ground in the distance in the game or in real life, that is your perspective causing them to seemingly touch in the far distance.

            Why can’t you see the Rockies from the Appalachians? The atmosphere is not going to permit you to see over long distances even with an optical aid but on very clear days one can see that our world is much different than we are told, you can see it too but pretend you can’t.

            My “idiot” theory is proven correct yet again with the 24 hour, never-setting sun in the arctic but nothing of the sort for the antarctic other than BS shill videos trying dupe sheep and guess what? The sun doesn’t change size in the 24hour arctic sun videos the entire time,
            it stays exactly the same size as it “bobs” seemingly up & down(how’s that explained in your globe earth model? ) but is moving in a circular pattern parallel to Earth. I’m assuming you have no idea what I am talking about considering your response and misunderstanding of the sun, its distance from us, and the course of it’s movement throughout the year which causes our seasons, the long dusk and dawn periods in the north + the very short dawn & dusk periods in the south and the reason why the sun is so much more powerful during an Australian summer than it is during an American summer. The sun is much closer to Australians during their summer than it is for Americans during their summer and moves much faster in Australia than it does in the USA, it’s path is like a cone-shaped spiral of sorts with it moving the fastest and lowest Dec 21st to 24th Every year and highest and slowest on June 23rd.

          • Al Mather

            STILL….dodging and avoiding the ONE question that is repeatedly asked….WHY…if the sun is only 32 miles wide AS YOU CLAIM…… and we view it coming at us from 6000 miles away… does it NOT get larger as it approaches and smaller as it distances itself 6000 miles from the viewer…
            WHY does it rise over our horizon… THE EXACT DIMENSION it remains it’s entire transit till it sinks below the horizon…EXACTLY AS IT WOULD in the spherical model…

            PLEASE …before you dance off into a bunch of nonsense ANSWER THAT ON QUESTION in a logical fashion.

          • Because, shill, it DEPENDS on where you are viewing the sun from, the flat earth is a very large place after all.

            Oh, and here’s the sun actually doing what you shill it doesn’t do with your mick west disninfo gifs:

            Sun moving closer and getting larger at day break:

            Sun moving farther away and getting smaller at sun set:


            As I have previously proven and pointed out for anyone who reads this stuff, you’re a shill and a waste of time, you’re using disinfo from Mick West which is where that graphic came from above. For anyone reading this, this guy is a paid shill trying to deceive you about the flat earth and he is using references from another known paid government shill as evidence to back up his claims. Here is a video of a whistle blower outing that shill operation:

            watch for 30 seconds as she exposes Mick West as a government disinfo shill and as a government disinfo website operation.

          • Al Mather

            Dude…The sun … although it appears LARGEST at sunrise and sunset is actually the nearly the exact same diameter always… the entire day… all any needs to do is look up Lolo!

            ” it depends on where you are viewing it from”…

            How thick can you get… no matter where you are it’s coming from 6000 MILES away according to your idiotic theory… a 32 miles wide object coming 6000 miles closers to the viewer would grow exponentially…and if the earth is 25000 miles wide ( the flat earth model) a sun 3000 miles high would never set…

          • But It does change size, I just posted videos of it doing just that! It’s only noticeable near the horizon EVERY dusk & daw when the sun is most distant but still visible and remember, it’s not that big to begin with!

            The videos, I posted them for a reason; to discredit your Mick West government shill disnfo graphic you’re, of course, clinging for dear life to, lol.

            You & Mick West, two shills on the dole spreading disinfo, shillon!

          • Al Mather

            I know the sun only “appears” larger near the horizon… but if it was a 32 miles wide object coming from 6000 miles away.. THEN… passing over and moving 6000 miles away..during its transit …it WOULD start out very tiny… get much larger…then get very tiny again… a fact that you seem to be dodging …but we all see it.
            Just read the whole conversation when Kristen the BS whistle-blower tried to peddle her BS over at Metabunk and her story fell apart…gee…wonder why she’s cranky about Metabunk… Mick West was very polite to her the whole time too.

          • Well here it is doing just that, receding and getting smaller and the video is superimposed over contrails so you can see that the sun follows them perfectly as it sets/recedes/gets smaller because it is moving away from the observer:

            As I’ve repeated myself ad-infinitum, it’s all about perspective!

          • Al Mather

            Do you REALLY want me to produce a thousand videos of the sun rising and setting to prove what I am saying… what everyone who is NOT a delusional idiot sees EVERY sunny day ??

            DON’T MAKE ME! Lol… cuz I will!

            Or let me guess… are ALL the videos of the sun rising or in transit or setting …that exist on the internet…except for a few fellate earth clips …are they all evil Jewish NASA “cartoons” ????

            No one is talking about the sun’s path except you… There must be a lot of FE BS about the sun’s path.

            You keep trying to pivot away from, or deny, the fact that the sun remains the exact same size throughout it’s entire transit across our sky. IF it was 32 miles wide coming at us from 6000 miles away it would …like every other object in reality…. appear to get bigger and bigger and bigger till midday … then get smaller and smaller and smaller till sunset . AT Rise and set it would be WAY smaller then midday… But it does not. it remains constant.

          • But it DOES NOT do ANY of that…. it remains the same size ALL DAY LONG.”Except for those videos I just posted, eh? Shillon!

          • Al Mather

            No… not even in those videos you just posted fool… Sunday goes through a cloud and gets filtered in your videos…

            Dance on conspirotard!

          • No it won’t, you’re just going into full denial mode because you just lost yet another debate with me but do not have the integrity to admit it, lol

            “The sun doesn’t do what the video shows it does” – hahaha, dance coincitard, DANCE! You’ll need some extra moves this time because you can’t BS your way out of this corner! The earth is flat, I’ve proven it many times but this time is pretty hard for you to recover from so the heavy denials come out… nice!

          • Al Mather

            Law Of Visual Angle…the apparent size of an object is in direct proportion to its distance..double the distance.. half the apparent size. If the sun came from 6000 miles away…as you claim… to 3000 miles overhead…as you claim…it’s apparent size would double… but it does not.. As has been observed since man first saw the sun rise… it remains the same size the entire transit across our sky..

            It doesn’t appear as a dot on our horizon and grow it WOULD in the ridiculous flat earth model… Instead it rises over the horizon the EXACT same size it is all me ANYWHERE besides a flat earth stupidity source that notes the sun growing larger as it rises…if it was observed in reality.. there would be a million references to that fact.

          • *sigh* You can’t see it for it’s whole path, AL Mather, your puny, human 6k limited range of vision only captures a small fraction of its path and as one can see in the videos it DOES change size and that is because it is approaching, not actually rising. It’s not that close either, if the sun is 3k miles from earth at it’s closest point that makes it much farther away from us from our vantage point but that distance also varies throughout the year.

            lol, I’ve never been shown to be lying but I’ve caught you in quite a few
            but sure you can just “Alinsky” me but that shit is weak, dude, really,
            it works on others nonetheless and it’s working quite well at tearing
            our societies apart at the moment but it doesn’t work on me, I think you know that by now though 😉

            Anyway, we are getting near the end of the year, the winter season, approaching the winter solstice. Every single day the sun gets lower to the horizon(“dies”) at it’s peak position in our sky and that is because it is much farther away from us but also closer to the Earth and moving faster, it’s a larger circular path but it still completes it in the same approx. 24hrs that it does in June this it must move faster to make it in 24hrs just like in June, that’s why dusk and dawn for Gary is only minutes while dusk and dawn for us can be up to an hour, this is also why Gary will get burnt easily by the sun this time of year because it is closer to him in his summer than it is to us in our summer and is thus much more powerful. (In your heliocentric model the Earth is the closest this time of year when it’s also the coldest temps for us and somehow the darkest for us too, lol)

            On the 21st of December every year the sun reaches it lowest point(it “dies,” as I’ve said above) and stays at that position in the sky for 3 days circling the same path, then it begins to rise from that day forward(“the birth of the new sun”) until it reaches its zenith position on June 23rd, the summer solstice, when where I live I have trouble sleeping because it’s not even dark for a 8 full hours and the sun is moving the slowest and it’s at its highest point, widening out that hot spotlight over the Earth but in tighter circular patterns which keeps it covering my area with light for almost 18hours a day for weeks + high temps, it sucks for me big time because I need sleep to think clearly and I can’t sleep when the sun is close. It’s a year long, repetitive up and down spiral pattern that it travels that gets faster as it’s path gets wider and lower, this is why astrolabes are fantastic and very accurate scientific instruments that can tell you what day it is and what time it is. They found a really old on in the sea in Greece and the guy had it x-rayed and then rebuilt a prototype from the x-ray and it was an exquisitely precise instrument that was quite advanced using gears with many small teeth and it wasn’t believed they had tech like that at that time beforehand, very impressive. The Vatican itself is actually a giant unisolar clock that is accurate to the tenth of a second, all those dupes chilling in St. Peter’s Square, which is round because it’s a clock, do not ever pay attention to the shadows the sun creates (because it was built by sun worshipers) but if they did and they knew what they were looking at they’d see a precise date-time instrument and is precisely accurate. There are actually many of them there, the angles of the sun are used all throughout the masonry.

            If you’re a high degree freemason you already know all of this crap though. The establishment really doesn’t like this topic(FE), lol, it’s fun watching them react when you know about it and can see it, though.

          • Al Mather

            Man…the folks who make these videos REALLY rely on the audience being a bunch of drooling idiots…

            WHY is the camera placed BELOW the level of the table??? (to get a BS result)
            If you actually wanted to model the “flat earth model” …you would place the camera ON the very long table or even better a warehouse floor… hold that button a few feet over the camera and start moving it away…AND GUESS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?? The sun/button would get smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller….. for thousands of feet till it was barely visible to the naked eye. VERY UNLIKE the real world sun …which rises FULL DIAMETER…travels across our sky FULL DIAMETER…and sets same exact FULL DIAMETER…and allll the stupid Youtube clips in the world are not going to alter that reality ….moron.

            But I LOVE watching you squirm and seeing what kind of stupidity you will spew next trying to deny reality!

          • By the time the sun is close enough to us to see you’re not going to get a noticeable size difference, you can only see any size difference near the horizon and only at certain vantage points which I have been clearly demonstrated with video proof as I’ve posted.

            You have no integrity and are a despicable shill that counters with nothing but bullshit and lies, as is evidenced by this response. You are as phony as the mental gymnastics employed to hold together your dying globe theory, which, by the way, has the sun at its closest point to us right now while our weather in the USA is the coldest, but is not standing up to the very intelligent and creative minds that are finding out the truth about our flat earth and flooding youtube with that knowledge. I will watch that whole thing out of curiosity though and since I know the truth I think it’s going to be interesting.

          • Al Mather

            So explain why…in your cult of stupidity Flat Earth video….the camera was BELOW the level of the table… instead of providing the same perspective that would occur on the Flat Earth model??? Hmmm..???

            All one ever has to do with Flat Earth Bullshite… or any claim by the lying conspirotards who push it …(who don’t really even believe it themselves) DIG A LITTLE DEEPER… the lie is always right there …the more you look & listen..the more lies you see and hear.

            No one is buying it Roger… and crying “SHILL…SHILL…!!!!!” like a little pussy, doesn’t convince anyone at this point, ..or make the stupidity you and Gary spew any less laughable.

          • Al Mather

            You and Gary …2 fellate earth idiots trying and failing to spread stupidity to conspirotards… getting spanked and laughed at by all who bother to read it…. Crying ” SHILL ! ” ….when the spankings sting too much.

          • lol, I call you a shill almost every single post and that’s not by accident and has nothing to do with the disinfo that Gary and I constantly disprove, it’s because you are a so-obvious shill and the reader should be notified of that fact.

          • Al Mather

            If it was so obvious why would the reader need notification??… I call you guys fellate earth conspirotard morons because I enjoy it… but the reader is already well aware.

          • Maybe a reader hasn’t read the years of establishment shilling from you and is only reading it for the first time they may not realize your subversiveness so that’s why I do it.

          • Al Mather

            LOOK AT A MAP MORON…
            Yet another idiotic lie…. the Statue of Liberty is surrounded by land and buildings of much higher elevation …. there is NO vantage point for a ship at sea 60 miles out…. could it be you 2 idiots don’t really even know where the Statue of Liberty is located???

          • If it’s on water it can bee seen from far away just like almost every single lighthouse in the world.

          • Al Mather

            You think it’s a lighthouse?….

            I guess those sailors Eric Dubay talked to could see OVER miles of thousand ft buildings …..

            Keep looking for that picture Roger….

          • Al Mather

            Hey idiot boy…i live here… just below your arrow…about 12 miles from the statue… is the coast of Middletown NJ…the Allantic Highlands…. Just more FE BS…dig just a little deeper and find the lies.


          • You’re not very good and estimating distances and observing straight lines, are ya? 🙂

          • Al Mather

            There IS NO 8 miles “out” … it’s in the Hudson River surrounded by NJ,Manhattan,Brooklyn, Staten Island…. so there might be 8 miles away …up river or in the bay… but that’s it.

          • “8 miles out” = 8 miles away from the targeted object, how in the F can you possibly confuse that?

          • Al Mather

            Out… in the nautical sense…out at sea… what you are claiming about your magical spotting of Liberty from the decks of ships 60 miles out at sea… that is how.

          • I’m trying to find more info on it but so far I can’t. I know that when it served as a lighthouse in the beginning of the 20th century they regularly reported it from 24 miles out. I, too, want to know this vantage point but I know they’re out there like the video the guy did of Philadelphia and New York being seen from the same spot, still have to run those numbers though…

          • Al Mather

            You said you had an 8 mile pic …let’s see it.

          • Al Mather

            Just south of the Verrazano … Staten Island on immediate the right…NJ off in the distance behind Liberty.

          • Gary

            Thanks Я0llyJ0g3r. This map much better refutes Zioman’s misleading and short-sighted misrepresentation.

          • Al Mather

            Explain how my complete map showing the landmass of NJ that Roger’s arrow points to… is a misrepresentation??? You 2 do realize how transparently full of shit you are …right

          • I didn’t try to lie, shill, that’s your department. See any puppet accounts ever up-voting me for fake approval? NOPE!

            I zoomed in on Ellis island and drew a straight line to the Atlantic ocean that you were trying to shill wasn’t visible from there and if I posted a zoomed out map like you just did I would have been accused of plotting the wrong points or something so I made sure it was clear that the line started at ellis island but of course you try to twist that like I am trying to deceive people like I’m hoping they won’t ever check a map or something, lol, whatever…

          • Al Mather

            Sure buddy… G’ head and link us to that map ….Lol… a fellate earther would never lie….Lol!!!!

          • The map proving it can be seen from the Atlantic ocean? I just posted that like 5 times, a few of them directly to you.

          • Gary

            This map’s better, Al. Its a shame we had to point out your obvious original deception in order to get you to post it.

          • Al Mather

            Tsk tsk Gary… You know there was no deception… And you are unable to tell me what deception that would be.
            This map only CONFIRMS what I was telling you…. Rogers map …with its added notes lead one to believe there could be a 60 line of sight. The lie.

          • Gary

            The deception, dear Albert, is that your map was cut short, not showing that there was a clear, straight-line path for a considerable distance out to sea, along which the statue of Liberty might be spotted.

          • Al Mather

            If you took a second to actually LOOK at that second map you would see …again…that it supports EXACTLY what I claimed as I posted the first… that Liberty is located in a sheltered harbor. That “considerable distance out to sea” is only a few miles across the harbor and sttill considered NY bay … and there is NO (just as I had explained) sight line out of it to sea… so …as much as you struggle and squirm to make any kind of attack stick…. I was truthful and consistent and correct… while you 2 idiots and Eric DuBay were incorrect and deceptive with your idiotic claims…AND Roger’s edited map.

          • Gary

            Actually, it doesn’t, Al. Your first map only focused on the Upper New York Harbor. Don’t try to deny your dishonesty. We can see right through your shillery. 🙂

            As for Eric DuBay, not sure what he says, but he wasn’t in this discussion.

          • Al Mather

            Yes he was … Roger discussed his assertion was based on the research done by E.D…. fail after fail after fail…lie after lie after lie…
            It’s always so with fellate earthers.

          • Gary

            I’m not sure why you’re denying, Al. Anyone can scroll up and see the map you posted…

          • Al Mather

            And the honest accurate words that accompanied it….
            Lie some more Gary…you display my point.

          • Gary

            I’m sorry Al. I’ve been back through the conversation several times, but can’t find any comment in this discussion from Eric DuBay, as per my previous statement. Can you perhaps help me to locate where it is? Or could this be another one of your mirages?

            Dishonesty again, Al. Tsk, tsk, tsk. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Yes, Gary….YOUR dishonesty again… fail after fail after fail…lie after lie after lie…. top it off with some delusion …always the same with you.

            Я0llyJ0g3r Al Mather 19 hours ago
            The statement in Eric Dubay’s book says it can be seen from 60 miles away on a clear day ”

            Я0llyJ0g3r Al Mather 7 days ago
            Nice try, shill, but that work is from Eric Dubay and only repeated on reddit and he backs it up with the fact that you can do the same thing with lighthouses

            Я0llyJ0g3r Al Mather 4 days ago
            Eric Dubay is a much higher quality and trustworthy researcher than you’ll every be and what he’s reporting has been verified from the decks of ships multiple times.

          • Gary

            And I said “As for Eric DuBay, not sure what he says, but he wasn’t in this discussion.” Eric DuBay was not involved in the discussion, Al. So to answer your question, YOU have been dishonest… Once again… And caught out… Once again… Tsk, tsk, tsk.

            Eric DuBay may have been mentioned, but he was not involved… Unless you are he? But I think not. Were you an author, you wouldn’t be here shilling for the shekels.

          • Al Mather

            NOT ONCE have I been dishonest Gary…

            If I have ….SHOW US the statement that I made that was dishonest…

            YOU CAN NOT… because all you can do is project your lying onto others …Fail after fail after fail…lie after lie after lie… as it always is with you …..GARY


            I NEVER claimed the flat earth moron Eric DuBay joined IN this conversation… I DID refer to his idiotic claims… He WAS discussed …By Roger,myself and you….

            Roger used him as his source…..which we all now know to be MORE LIES

          • Gary

            If I had meant “a topic in this discussion” Al, I would have said “a topic in this discussion”. It is quite obvious that Eric DuBay was mentioned in the discussion, as you seem to mention him every second post you make. It is also quite obvious, by reading back through our thread/s, that Eric DuBay was *not* in the discussion.

            We have caught you out practicing dishonesty, once again, and you don’t seem to like it. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            All you did was ask a stupid question…NEVER did I say Eric Du Bay …the flat earth moron…(who I read recently physically abuses women …a real scumbag..) was in the discussion… you absolutely reek of desperation as you squirm around twisting trying to come up with SOMETHING…ANYTHING to point to …to distract from your ridiculous delusional lies…. Oh,Gary…tsk..tsk

          • Gary

            Lol. So, you’re caught out in dishonesty, attempt to deflect it onto me, then move away from the argument in question and instead accuse someone not even involved in the debate (merely mentioned) of abuse? Genetic fallacy much, Al?

            We all have our faults. One of yours is clearly dishonesty. Faults do not mean everything one says should be discarded.

          • Al Mather

            If you accuse me of dishonesty Gary… unless of course you are lying…. decency requires that you at least show me the statement I have made that is dishonest… a sentence that I typed that contains a lie….short of that , what you are doing hiding your own lies behind accusations.

            SO AGAIN…show us WHERE DID I LIE?

            Character is everything. Show us if you have ANY left ….

          • Gary

            Okay, dear Al. To allow you to further stew within your own ignorance…

            3 days ago, I stated “As for Eric DuBay, not sure what he says, but he wasn’t in this discussion.”

            Then you replied “Yes he was … Roger discussed his assertion was based on the research
            done by E.D…. fail after fail after fail…lie after lie after lie…”, accusing me of lying for saying Eric DuBay was not in our discussion.

            For all your accusations about “lying flat earth woman beating paranoid violently insecure morons”, you don’t seem quite stable yourself. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            “Yes he was … Roger discussed his assertion was based on the research
            done by E.D.”

            So.. obviously I NEVER DID claim Eric DuBay…the flat earth moron… posted comments in the discussion… which IS the lie you lamely and falsely accuse me of.

            Tsk…Tsk…Tskk, Gary.

            Clearly and honestly I said ,what I said… That Roger based his claims on research done by Eric DuBay …the flat earth moron. As read above.

            AND….Eric DuBay…the flat earth moron … was quite obviously IN the his “research ” was discussed..

            What you SHOULD have asked is… if Eric DuBay…the flat earth moron… PARTICIPATED in the discussion.

            Try to use more precise language next time Gary… it will keep you from embarrassing yourself…not that you have any intolerance to that….you’re a flat earth moron.

          • Gary

            The language was precise, dear Al. It was you that presumed it to mean something it did not. Try not to jump to conclusions, Al, and you may be wrong a little less. And you were the one claiming my statement was a lie, so by claiming this, you were clearly implying Eric Dubay was involved in the conversation. Tsk, tsk, tsk! 😉

            I liked the return to ad hominem toward the end of your rant. Logical fallacies have always been one of your strengths. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            How could I have been implying that Eric DuBay was involved in the conversation when all my posts and comments state otherwise…that he and his research were referenced in the discussion???

            AGAIN I will demand…If you are accusing me of that (now we are down to )”implication”…. SHOW US where I stated anything of the sort. Where?

            Every comment I posted claimed he was discussed …not once that he participated… you never asked if he participated. Though that may be what you meant…. if only your communication skills matched your passion to find some kind of crime to pin on me …Poor Gary.

          • Gary

            Lol. Why did you claim I was lying when I said Eric DuBay was not in the conversation? 🙂

          • Al Mather

            AGAIN… show us where I claimed you were lying for saying Eric Dubay was not in the conversation…. Where???

            You really do struggle with this stuff …don’t you?

            I have been consistent Gary….My comments have been consistent…my claims have been consistent.

            It’s the way it works with honesty…. You should try it!

          • Gary

            Tsk, tsk, tsk, Al.

            Just re-read the thread. There was the post where you were demonstrably dishonest. Then there was my post outlining to you your post where you were demonstrably dishonest (as you implied you had missed it). Now there is this post, stating the same thing – we could carry on ad infinitum, only I’m not paid for shilling ball-Earth.

            Deny-Al you like, Al. The posts are there for all to see – they’re not a mirage, nor a figment of anyone’s imagination, nor a conspiracy theory, no matter how much you may pretend they are. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Once again…as it always is with you Gary… you make claims,accusations but FAIL in the evidence … IF ANY of the things you just said were true it would be SO much simpler just to provide us with the comment where I lied, or “implied” or was dishonest…

            JUST SHOW US …. Where are these comments you claim I made?????

            But for reasons obvious to the reader and I you can/do not.

            Pathetic Gary.You act so small.

            What we have seen is YOU trying oh so hard to split hairs over semantics … to use confused interpretations of comments to DESPERATELY attempt some parsing “aha!.gotcha” moment for yourself to cling to …and just failing miserably.

            For ONE SIMPLE REASON… My statements are clear,unambiguous, truthful, and consistent… all part of the whole honesty thing.

          • The only reason that shot stopped where it did is because of my monitor resolution which is high(1920×1080) which gives that very wide (but not very tall) view you see there. I did not intentionally leave out any land mass, I couldn’t fit anymore area in that shot and my focal point was ellis island which is why it is positioned near the center of the screen grab.

            I used google earth and plotted the distance and it is approx 18 miles to the shoreline that arrow points to but that doesn’t necessarily mean that this line is the angle Eric Dubay is reporting about in his book, I was just merely proving to zioman that there was a direct line of view to the statue from the Atlantic ocean which is why he is now pivoting to the distances of the shorelines 🙂

          • Al Mather

            No pivot from me flat head… I’ve been saying the same thing all along ….Statue of Liberty is in sheltered harbor surrounded by tall buildings and there is no line of sight from 60 miles anywhere to be had… and that it was barely possible to get a pic from outside the harbor… where I have spent a fair amount of time on the water…but being it is perhaps the top 2-3 iconic images of our country… I am sure there are plenty of images from as far as possible…. so search on liar boy… like I said …Eric told you lies about seamen ..and you swallowed it.

          • The statement in Eric Dubay’s book says it can be seen from 60 miles away on a clear day just like Chicago can be seen from across lake Michigan on a clear day that there are plenty of non-mirage photo’s of, including the ones you are calling mirages but I’ll use a different one taken by somebody else:


            That right there is Chicago during the sunny daytime so no shill mirage excuses for this one, it’s faint because of moisture in the air but it’s clearly there and too far away to see on some NASA ball.

          • Al Mather

            From the Photographer …
            “June 17th view looking northwest from Indiana Dunes State Park, except that the faintly visible Chicago skyline stands proxy for the western shore of Lake Michigan.

            The skyline in this photo, though small, still looks larger and closer than it did in reality, thanks to the telephoto lens I used.”


            Indiana Dunes National Park…. about 25-26 miles south east of Chicago… elevation on trails 175-190+ ft… Hidden by curvature…about 61 ft… with standard refraction 38.9 ft….

            So it’s a tiny little faint skyline visible from 25-6 miles on a sunny day…with 38-60 ft obscured.

            No mystery there Roger.


          • Gary

            See the blue toward the South and North ends of the map, Al? I think that represents water. Your map doesn’t have a scale, but I doubt it covers the 60 mile distance it would need to, were you trying to disprove Я0llyJ0g3r’s statement with it.

            Also, as you may or may not be aware, for tall objects such as the statue of Liberty, unless blocked by taller objects, these will become less obscured by the smaller objects the further out one travels, due to trignometry. Are you trying to claim the statue of Liberty is obscured on all sides by objects taller than it?

          • Al Mather

            “tall objects such as the statue of Liberty, unless blocked by taller objects, these will become less obscured by the smaller objects the further out one travels, due to trignometry. ”

            Funny …according to Roger they start disappearing from the bottom up…. special flat earth magical “perspective”…

          • Gary

            Simple trignometry, Al. The statements are not in conflict.

            The angle between the observer and the peak of the statue must be greater than the angle between the observer and the peak of a closer, but smaller building or obstruction, in order for the statue to be seen.

            As the distance increases, the angle between the observer and the peak of a smaller but closer obstruction will decrease at a faster rate than the angle between the observer and the peak of the statue.

          • Al Mather

            Doesn’t help you see over taller buildings Gary… wouldn’t hide 10000 ft of a mountain… you’re grasping ..

            But hey! All would be moot if there was any evidence of it’s visibility from 60 miles at sea somewhere… there would HAVE TO BE a picture…Right????

          • Well a picture from Chicago from 60 miles away isn’t good enough for you so why would a picture of the statue of liberty from that distance be any different?

          • Al Mather

            Because everyone including the photographer who created it will tell you your pic is a mirage…an anomaly… it’s reported in the news it’s so frigging uncommon…THAT is why it is the ONLY one you conspirotards cling to…when there should be millions everywhere we look..

          • Gary

            How about a photograph of the issue in dispute, Al, if you want to show anything? As I said, a zoom lense or a telescope will show you more of that mountain, disproving your little “hidden by the Earth’s curvature” claim.

          • Al Mather

            Hard making sense out of your comment….I can’t prove a negative Gary…. If you guys claim that zoom lens magically bring back the obscured bases of mountains…. Then by all means post such evidence…. If you have a photo of Liberty sighted from out at sea OVER Manhattan or Brooklyn…. Then by all means post away.

          • Gary

            You were actually the one claiming that the lenses and zoom wouldn’t bring back some of the mountain that had “disappeared behind the Earth’s curve”. So prove it. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Not that it matters with delusional conspirotards like you Gary….you claimed there were NO pics of satellites ever …after showing you dozens and dozens from many diverse sources….you just deny with no reason or explanation… because flat earthers lack ALL dignity and intellectual honesty…
            But just for giggles here you go…

          • Gary

            Beautiful. See how the ship was brought back from “around the curvature of the Earth” by the zoom? Explain again how that works in ball-Earth theory, Al? 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Okay…you’re really putting our delusion on display today..nothing was brought back… the ship remained exactly as submersed and obscured through the entire zooming in of the camera. You can look at the writing on the back and see that the exact amount of hull obscured remains obscured.

            Proved again here…

          • Gary


            This is probably a more helpful map. Assuming the little patch of land to the south-west of Brooklyn is lower than the height of the statue, there would be direct line of sight out to sea.

          • Al Mather

            Your map is just a zoomed out version …the Statue is STILL SURROUNDED on all sides by cities … New Jersey below under the Verrazano narrows is barely 10 miles away…explain how this map does anything but verify what I have been trying to tell you clueless fools.

          • Right you are, Gary! I posted one with an arrow and a digitally straight line drawn on it, should shut him up… but won’t of course 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Except you try childishly to lie , by cutting that map off just above the land your arrow was about to hit.

          • Al Mather

            OOOOPS…Funny just below your arrow…LAND. Only 12 miles from the Statue……

            Any other fellate earth lies you want to share???Hmmmmm?


          • Al Mather

            OOOOPS…Funny just below your arrow…LAND. Only 12 miles from the Statue……

            Any other fellate earth lies you want to share???Hmmmmm?


          • Al Mather

            Total absolute BS… there is NO 60 mile vantage point (unless it’s from a satellite) that you can see the Statue of Liberty. NONE.

            More FE lies. Hoping someone will be stupid enough and ignorant enough to listen.

          • lol, just like you can’t see Chicago from across Lake Michigan, right shill?

          • Al Mather

            Still with that mirage stupidity ….yawn,,,


            There’s no mirage pics to help you here Roger, ,,, Statue Of Liberty is in a pretty sheltered harbor surrounded by pretty tall buildings.. you can barely spot it 5 miles away’re grasping at straws pulling idiotic claims off of Reddit… Reeks of desperation.

          • Nice try, shill, but that work is from Eric Dubay and only repeated on reddit and he backs it up with the fact that you can do the same thing with lighthouses all over the world so how are you going to spin that? Do lighthouses not exist, are they all coincidences, or are they all mirages?

            Please shillsplain the lighthouses that anyone can see from much farther out than is possible on your ball.

            Oh, and posting actual images and calling them mirages: , even if the media shills go along with it because they have to, clearly shows your position to anyone who looks. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Well it’s The Statue of Friggin’ Liberty Rog….

            Where’s the 10 billion pictures of it from far away…if you COULD see it far away…Hmmmm????

            (WE ALL SEE you trying to pivot out of your BS claim ,to lighthouses now….tsk …tsk…)

            Don’t let the fact that it’s physically impossible stop you idiots from at least photoshopping some cheesy fake for should at least show some effort…LOL!

            This is the bar that fellate earthers use for “proof” … Some guy said it on Reddit..

          • Well, Al, funny you say that because indeed… I’ve looked but very strangely I can’t find ANY pictures of the statue of liberty from far way… so nobody has ever taken a friggin’ pictures of this thing from far away before? According to google images…. YES!

            (**psssst*** WE ALL SEE you trying to pivot out of your BS claim ,to lighthouses now….tsk …tsk…)

            No, I am backing up my claim with hundreds of examples of objects like the Statue of liberty that are found near water and can be seen much farther than any NASA ball curve claims.

            Don’t let the fact that it’s physically impossible stop you idiots from at least photoshopping some cheesy fake for should at least show some effort…LOL! Obviously Eric DuBay is full of shit … and not too bright to try to sell that surprise there

            But aren’t you the guy who lies and calls wide angle lenses fish eye lenses because you don’t like irrefutable evidence? Wait… you ARE that guy, aren’t you? 🙂

            Ever see me who has the skills to do it ever doctor a photograph and called it proof? NOPE! Don’t need to because real pictures ARE proof, it’s only NASA and shills who defend it that need to do crap like that like when they used a fish eye lens for the redbull jump and most asleep people thought the curve they saw from the fish eye lens was the curve of the Earth… NASA and friends would never do that in order to trick people, would they?

            Again…why is that Chicago mirage pic seemingly the ONLY “proof” if the entire earth is flat???

            *SIGH* Because when you can clearly see Chicago, on time-lapse video over the course of many hours, from very far way (over 50 miles), it shatters the NASA numbers for the fake ball and watching news reporters cuck away at explanations is hilarious.

            I’ve posted a pic in bright sunlight, in the middle of the day, the buildings can all be seen but are very small and you, of course, denied it, lol, no explanation = denial from AL Mather(or accusation of a fish eye lens, any lie available that can fool the reader)

            You are going to have a very hard time convincing people that anywhere on Earth where there’s a lighthouse or an object in the distance over water(or land) that is visible much farther out than every could be possible on NASA’s(and yours) ball but is staring the researcher right in the face, is a mirage, lol.

          • Al Mather

            So basically now because there ARE NO pics of the Statue of Liberty from really far away…(a fact that would not in any way surprise you if you had ever been anywhere near it)…. THAT .. in your conspirotard mind…is some kind of “proof” ???
            It’s just more BS Flat Earth idiot bait from Eric Du Bay… looks like the trap is sprung though.

            Here’s the story directly from the photographer responsible for your video “proof” Roger… you can put your fingers in your ears and stomp your feet all you want buddy…your Chicago image is a temperature inversion mirage… but I DO love when you so deny..deny…deny !


            The View of Chicago from Warren Dunes State ParkShortly after moving to St. Joseph, Michigan, people began telling me that on occasion you can see the lights of Chicago across the lake. It seemed almost impossible given the distance and the curvature of the earth, but I started looking. For months, I would look out over the lake, at different times of day, searching for the buildings. It was possible to see a glow above the lake where Chicago should be, but nothing other than that.

            In October on 2012, I was camping at Warren Dunes State Park and decided to take a night time hike. Upon cresting one of the dunes, I looked out and there it was glowing against the dark sky. It was no where near as large as I had expected, but it was there and it was quite visible.”

            Here’s Joshua’s timelapse of stills that show the mirage appearing and disappearing …

          • If Chicago is visible from over 50miles away then so is the statue of liberty! Earth isn’t flat in Indiana but curved in New York, lol

            Multiple angles, distances, and different times of day all clearly show Chicago from much farther out than any NASA globe allows, these aren’t mirages and you are a paid shill! 🙂

            It’s over, globetard! Many people already know and more are finding out daily so all of this shilling is in vain but I guess it doesn’t matter since the shekels spend either way.

          • Al Mather

            Haha! RETREAT!!!
            Okay Roger…cling to your youtube memes… here’s one to explain

            Mt Ranier…HUUUUUGE mountain…very wide… just the tip – top of it can be seen from tall buildings in Vancouver …like 177 miles away …whatya think is obscuring the MASSIVE lower 3/4 of that mountain???

          • That’s very easy to explain. It’s our perspective over large, flat areas; it’s the same reason the car’s wheels “disappear” first when the car speeds off into the distance or why the hull of a ship disappears first before the mast or a person’s feet disappear before their body and head. Grab any type of visual aid and you will see what is hidden by perspective!

            This picture brings up a great question, though: Why isn’t the peak of that mountain pointed away from the observer since you think that mountain is on a 4000 mile wide ball 177 miles away? Surely from 177 miles away the angle of the mountain on your ball would be pointing away from us at that distance, no? That’s clearly a mountain on the same flat plane as the photographer and not a very good case for your globe earth, buddy.

          • Al Mather

            Again you display a retarded Mosquito’s grasp of scale …. 177 miles arc out of a 24000 mile circle … A 2.15 degree angle difference … No … Nimrod….it would NOT be pointing away.

          • If I wanted to draw that picture do you know how I would have to do it? Of course not because you have no conept of perspective!

            1st I would have to draw a FLAT horizon LINE across the page, then I would have to place two dots on that line and because of the angle of that shot they would have to be near the edges of the page on each side.

            Next I would take a ruler and for every building I drew would I would make sure every receding line going towards the horizon line came off of one of these two points but do you know why? It’s because if I didn’t do it that way my picture would look like a kid drew it and it would just be a collection of 2d boxes inside/underneath mountains but in order to make it look realistic you must create vanishing points of reference for the sake of PERSPECTIVE, a foreign concept to you and all other globe heads apparently but now I understand why they use it, it’s a perfect illusion that you can lie about and get away with because nobody understands it, I even knew about it but didn’t fully understand it until recently and now all is crystal clear to me except for the shape of the sky, that I still do not know/understand but I bet the freemasons do.

            The flat horizon line picture you are showing me indicates no curve, what it indicates is the foreground meeting the visible, land, eye-level horizon line limit before the base of the object in the background can be seen and the farther away that mountain is the greater the effect until the mountain itself couldn’t be seen anymore.

            When staring at train tracks running off into the distance on a flat surface the sky never actually touches the train tracks at the horizon like it looks, ya know, that’s perspective too!

          • Al Mather

            We all took art class Roger…. I understand how the effect of 3 dimensioanal depth is created in a 2 dimensional representation ….
            But when in the real 3d world…the object approaches the horizon …it gets smaller and smaller …. PERSPECTIVE!!!. If it is a small object ( dog running away ) it becomes Indescernable and using optic aids can bring it back… UNTIL it dips below the curvature and then it is gone from view…

            If it is a very large object ( a mountain ) as the distance increases relative size of the object decreases as you gain PERSPECTIVE on more of the horizon..optic aids will bring back your close up view ….once you have gone a certain distance the curvature of the earth begins to obscure the base of that mountain … NOTHING brings that back..if you employed an optic aid you would merely get a closer look at the horizon line of the earths curve obscuring the same amount of that mountain..

            10,000 ft of Mt Rainier ,the city of Seattle which sits in front of it ARE NOT suddenly going to magically appear if you grab some binoculars.

          • Yes they will but it depends on elevation, if they are truly on the same terrestrial plane then you would be able to bring Seattle back into view with an optical aid but if the land in the foreground is higher than the land in the background you are obviously not going to be able to see it no matter what because there is a difference in elevation preventing you from doing so and a differnce in elevation doesn’t mean curve of the earth!

          • Gary

            Al, did you just disprove your own globe-Earth theory?

            Mt Ranier, 14410′ high. You mentioned it can be seen from “tall buildings in Vancouver” (not “the tallest building”), so presumably, it can be seen from the top of the 2nd tallest building in Vancouver, Hotel Georgia at 515′. If the mountain can still be seen 177 miles away, why does ball-Earth theory predict it would be invisible beyond 175 miles (due to the theoretical curvature of the Earth)?

            Have I done the maths wrong? 🙂 Can’t wait to hear – I know it’ll be a good one.

          • Al Mather

            Thank you Gary…. A re checking of distance confirms I was mistaken on the distance…. Vancouver to Mt .Rainier park 128 miles…( easily confirmed by all)…. So give or take a distance to the peak. And What’ya know … The maths check out.. Thanks for re affirming the realities of ball earth Gar…. You the man .

          • Gary

            Fair point – I am used to buildings being at or close to sea level.

            But you must understand that it is the exception that disproves the rule. If the building does indeed sit on a hill 140m above sea level, you haven’t refuted that the Earth is flat, you have simply shown an example that doesn’t disprove it being a ball.

            If we demonstrate to you one single example of an object being visible from further away than could be seen over a curved horizon, were the Earth a giant ball (and Я0llyJ0g3r has provided numerous examples of lighthouses and city skylines doing exactly this), ball-Earth theory is disproved, unless one invokes ridiculous excuses, such as all such proofs being mirages, or simiar.

          • Al Mather

            There are 120+ miles of water between Photographer and Mountain… then there’s the City of Seattle…behind Seattle the earth rises to the top of Mt Rainier….SOMETHING (curvature) is obscuring most of that and the bottom 10000 ft of the mountain…

            You guys seek out well known mirages , easily explicable light refraction…etec..etc in your handfull of “proofs”…
            If your Cult of Stupidity were real … these examples would be EVERYWHERE WE LOOK…but they are not…that fact alone … the absence of “proofs” in every direction tells informs the rational mind …that’s why no one is buying this garbage except the most delusional conspirotards.

          • Gary

            A telescope would bring some of the bottom of that mountain back into view, Al. Explain that, if its invisible to the eye due to it being “behind the Earth’s curvature”. Lol.

            I posted a better map showing how the statue of Liberty could be seen from the sea.

            And I don’t subscribe to Eric Dubay, although he certainly knows a lot when it comes to NASA and the shape of the Earth.

          • Al Mather

            Not one bit of that mountain would reappear Gary..Anyone with a zoom lens camera can dispel that piece of stupidity…

          • Al Mather

            From Meta bunk….great site for dispelling stupidity……

            “There seems to be some strange fascination that Flat Earthers have with Lighthouses. I have seen many memes which make claims yet offer no visual evidence to support it.

            Nearly every meme or post I have seen about lighthouses, and the distance in which they are visible, claim that the curvature of the Earth should not allow the lighthouse to be seen. Yet not one, literally, not one post has backed up the claim with any evidence at all.

            Flat Earther Eric Dubay’s page is filled with the inconsistency issues.


            If you visit the page, you will see outlandish claims. The problem is that he is not quoting actual maritime lighthouse references. Instead he is quoting from the Zetetic Cosmogony book from 1899. Not one Flat Earther has gone out to verify these claims in over 100 years as Chew pointed out. But here is the bigger issue. Flat Earthers are taking this Zetetic reference information at face value without even checking the facts. And when they post about these measurements they fall FLAT on their faces.

            Case in point “The Isle of Wight” or “St. Catherine’s” lighthouse Chew mentions above.

            Both on Eric Dubay’s page and in his book he states: “The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.”
            Is he saying that the lighthouse can be seen?
            Or is he saying the light from the lighthouse can be seen?
            HUGE DIFFERENCE!
            If he is saying the lighthouse can be seen from that distance, then he is flat our WRONG!

            The claims appear to come from the book “Zetetic Cosmogony” and you can see what it says and download it for FREE from Google Books. It clearly says the LIGHT is visible from 42 miles and that is it 7,000,000 candle power. So sure I believe the light can be seen and here is why.

            Info below Credit:

            The luminous intensity of a light, or its candlepower, is expressed in international units called candelas. Intensities of lighthouse beams can vary from thousands to millions of candelas. The range at which a light can be seen depends upon atmospheric conditions and elevation. Since the geographic horizon is limited by the curvature of the Earth, it can be readily calculated for any elevation by standard geometric methods. In lighthouse work the observer is always assumed to be at a height of 15 feet, although on large ships he may be 40 feet above the sea. Assuming a light at a height of 100 feet, the range to an observer at 15 feet above the horizon will be about 16 nautical miles. This is known as the geographic range of the light. (One nautical mile, the distance on the Earth’s surface traversed by one minute of arc longitude or latitude, is equivalent to 1.15 statute miles or 1.85 kilometres.)

            The luminous range of a light is the limiting range at which the light is visible under prevailing atmospheric conditions and disregarding limitations caused by its height and the Earth’s curvature. A very powerful light, low in position, can thus have a clear-weather luminous range greater than that when first seen by the mariner on the horizon. Powerful lights can usually be seen over the horizon because the light is scattered upward by particles of water vapour in the atmosphere; this phenomenon is known as the loom of the light.”

          • Do I need to post zoom lens video for you to get it through your head that long range lenses have crushed your ball for good?

            All one needs to counter mr. genius’ arguments there are daytime pics of lighthouses like I posted of Chicago from over 50 miles away during the middle of the day and no you would not be able to see them as far but you would indeed be able to see them much farther than you would if you actually lived on NASA’s ball which means argument = crushed but for (((some reason))) that won’t stop you from touting your establishment’s ball, why you do dat, man? $$$$$$$, that’s why 🙂

          • Gary

            Exactly. Another damning rebuttal posted (keep up the great work), but this shill knows no shame. He sold his dignity long ago with whatever else he once owned for either a few shekels, or 30 pieces of silver.

          • Al Mather

            Lol….Just fukkin with the conspirotards Gary…. If I really could get paid for it …that would be awesome.

            You guys on the other hand obviously have no dignity to sell…. starting to think that you guys got into this whole FE game cuz you get off on being publicly spanked! I know Roger doesn’t really believe it…just can’t admit defeat…. you … you might actually …but nah.

          • Al Mather

            PLEASE DO …post those thing Roger!

            Like I said before… with you and your “evidence” …no sweat…all one has to do is dig a bit and the LIE reveals itself.

          • Yep, that’s all they need to do with your bullshit, just look into it.

          • Gary

            Tsk, tsk, tsk, Al. Relying on the genetic logical fallacy to get out of arguing this one. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Once a shill, forever a shill…

          • Al Mather

            Hardly a genetic logical fallacy, Gary. Only the photographer himself can provide the full context of his creation. If the skyline appears suddenly,( as this photographer has shown in video) then morphed and changed, disappeared… it is a mirage.
            Only he knows the context of his photo.
            For someone to take the image and claim it is something else …to give it a different ,and as always with you fellate earthers…a dishonest context… is just more lies.
            Once a flat earther , forever a lying sack of shit.

          • Gary

            Yeah, I remember the globe/map challenge. Sadly, its always going to be my word against yours, with neither of us able to demonstrate conclusively to the other (and his readers) that one map is the more accurate, so I never progressed it further. Sorry to disappoint on that front.

            That said, I worked with a surveyor a little while ago, and he suggested that rather than use the national geodetic for his work, we use the local grid with a scale factor of 1 (i.e. no curvature), as its more accurate. When quizzed, he couldn’t exactly explain why the flat assumption would give a more accurate result on a small scale, but I can. The irony is the flat assumption also gives more accurate results on a larger scale.

            I don’t believe you ever did demonstrate that circumnavigating the globe is less distance and time as you go South, but feel free to post again.

            Your genetic fallacy arose from rejecting Я0llyJ0g3r’s proof because it was sourced from Reddit.

          • Al Mather

            Pointing out that some guy making an unsubstantiated claim on Reddit is a low bar of criteria to be considered evidence …. Is in no way the same as saying something is incorrect solely because it is found on Reddit…
            So… Not a genetic logical fallacy

            There is nothing…can be no evidence , of Liberty visible from 60 miles…and of course none is provided. It’s just more FE idiot bait .
            Your anecdote about the surveyor is amusing.

          • Total absolute BS… there is NO 60 mile vantage point (unless it’s
            from a satellite) that you can see the Statue of Liberty. NONE.


          • Al Mather


            Telling the same lie over and over doesn’t make it any truer assmunch…. 12 -13 miles from the statue is land…just below your little arrow…where you cut it off to try to BS ….lame .

          • Al Mather

            Ya know….for once… Just as a goof… I would love to hear one of you conspirotard morons fully explain your idiot theory…
            Millions of people go to work everyday all over the world, designing ,manufacturing, employing satellites. Somehow ALL these things we use satellites for magically happens, weather,broadband,military, scientific,television, communication…etc..etc
            Explain to us all… How do they do it… Is EVERYBODY in on it? AND… The perpetrators have to PAY everyone to perform these useless duties…Because if they are not all in on it ,realize, there’s ANOTHER whole group of folks that are having to build and install massive infrastructure to perform all those functions…and mind boggling fake infrastructure to convince all those millions that their industry exists…. It’s almost beyond conception that all that could happen…UNDETECTED…. And NO ONE ever spills the beans!!!!!!

            You are enlightened to all this stuff Rog,….PLEASE…. Share with us all…if you don’t have the entire Inside scoop you must have thought all this out …Right?

          • Same here, how can anyone who chases me around about the flat earth not know it’s actually flat by now?

            Millions of people go to work everyday all over the world, designing
            ,manufacturing, employing satellites. Somehow ALL these things we use
            satellites for magically happens, weather,broadband,military,
            scientific,television, communication…etc..etc

            Yet they never took ONE SINGLE PHOTO of one. ever. EVER! Floating around up there, why all of the cartoons? Surely the people of these great industries have pride int their work? Maybe even enough pride to snap of photo of their great invention doing it’s thing, perhaps?

            It always boggles my mind how someone can clearly view this so obvious satellite deception with the lack of any real pictures right along side the claim that there’s literally thousands of these things floating around up there and couple that with the fact that airplanes don’t even have GPS capabilities over large bodies of water in the southern hemiplane, which is precisely when it is needed most, with your supposed GPS satellites floating around right overhead. It becomes increasingly obvious to the astute observer that GPS comes from ground based antennae, just like cell phone signals do.

            Want to know how they are getting away with it? I already told you in another reply, it’s perspective and they use our ignorance of it to craft their delusions in our minds. It’s our lack of understanding that our small, limited bubble of view of the world causes perspective issues and once one understands what those issue are then it all becomes clear.

          • Al Mather

            Perfect example of conspirotard thinking …. you can be provided with hundreds and hundreds of photos of ISS… from sources as diverse as NASA… to amateur backyard astronomers, to photo bugs.. from all over the world…yet you denying them all…
            You can’t find ONE pic of the Statue of Liberty at any distance outside NY harbor… which proves it must be visible…

            We all notice that you are unable to answer any of the above questions or address any of the gaping g voids in logic about satellites and HOW your magic hoax is perpetrated… but you sure can spew the BS

  • Mike

    The oceans are dying because of the global elite and nuclear power. shut down all nuclear power plants now.

    • Al Mather

      And massive industrial over fishing, and temperature pressure from climate change ,pressure on specific food sources,pollution….

  • rsdallas

    So….How contaminated are they???

    • StevetheHun

      Exactly. What’s the dose rate for a “portion” of tuna.

      • Rick E.

        It’s tantamount to the debt situation in our government, as they keep raising the level of debt limits, so they also raise the so-called “safe” levels of radiation whenever it is expedient for them to do so.
        One of my cousins is a nuclear physicist, and he says there is no real safe level of radiation exposure.

        • StevetheHun

          Define safe.

          Ask your cousin about background radiation, cosmic rays, and other “natural” sources of radiation.

          • Rick E.

            I am unable to define safe, nor can anyone with any kind of scientific certainty. But I WILL have a discussion with David at length on this subject in a couple of weeks.

        • bozotoo

          It’s a moot point, all you need to do is smile! Just don’t worry about it! Listen to this “expert.”

          “If you smile, the radiation will not affect you. If you are not smiling you will have radiation effect.”
          Shunichi Yamashita-Radiation Health Risk Management Advisor

  • StevetheHun

    Work in a concrete building? Have a concrete basement? yeah, radiation. Not enough to harm you.

    Standing outside? yeah, radiation. Not enough to harm you, and you get more the higher in altitude that you live.

    The devil is in how much.

    • Codrus

      If you get a particle of radioactive material lodged in your tissues or bone marrow, it sits there killing everything around it and blasting apart the DNA strands, 24/7.

  • Chir

    Woo Hoo! This is Rad!!

  • Mr Gadget

    Well no worries, they’ll have technology to stop the radiation from leaking by 2050 or so….was it really caused by an earthquake…… level zero!

  • Gearmoe

    How much have I already eaten? Great. :/

  • AZBlackDog

    Per the Obama Administration — if we don’t think about it, it’s really not happening. Like revoking visas because the individual is a possible terror risk, then LETTING THEM WALK AWAY and not keeping track of them — if we don’t think about it, it didn’t happen. So when they asked the Administration WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE, their spokeswoman honestly answered, “I don’t know.” which means in doublespeak…if I can’t remember it, it didn’t happen.

    And for the record, THIS HAPPENED ON OBAMA’S WATCH. Let’s all make sure it’s a part of his Presidential Legacy!

  • eddysach

    Mother Nature… vs…..’Greed’… as the consequence of the imaginary construct of $$$… by a relative few….that created this miasma in the first place…Let’s build ‘dirty’ nuclear reactors on an earthquake prone Japanese Island right beside the Pacific Ocean…underwritten by the Queen & the Rothschild’s of course…what could possibly go wrong???

  • bozotoo

    …let alone the mercury levels in tuna, best just not to eat it anymore.