Thank you for sharing this video. I am always excited to watch each new video you post. I believe God has appointed you to make these videos to share with us.
@@jonmason9360 heaven ??? No one goes to heaven...typical indoctrinated deceived weak "christian" has no clue what scripture teaches...No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. John 3:13 ....“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Acts 2:34 ...read Revelation 21 we "disciples" stay here ....may the Holy Spirit grant u discernment...
@@curious1585 because we believe in the word of God and it says the Earth is a plane. The Earth does not move but the sun and the moon and the stars do. Because he commanded the Sun and the Moon to stop moving. Also there is over 200 scriptures in the word of God about the Flat Earth.
You are awesome man. A true and real engineer in every sense of the word, and we need more engineers just like you. I hope they get inspired!!! You make me proud to be an engineer. Sadly there are those so-called 'engineers' that toe the line, those are a shame to society, and then there are those that are being paid to be gatekeepers they know who they are and ask God destroy them, because they are normally Atheists or who have diabolical beliefs like bringing in nwo etc, I hope they get destroyed too. As for you my friend you are a true scholar, scientist and engineer :)
@@iBMcFly I make no assumptions. Some numbers are lucky, do you think the ultra rich and powerful pick numbers that suck? No, they pick significant numbers, but they don't OWN the numbers. Or the symbols, they just incorporate them like any other wisdom.
Mile marker 6 too. Sometimes things are just a fluke. I've been subbed to this channel since his 1st video. He had barely any views. We shared him around, as he was showing plane photage over the Plaine and great lakes. Awesome videos about flat distances,, but he was hard to hear, volume was poor. His videos were worth sharing because of the wealth of information. His videos have improved in quality but his personality/speech has always been the same... Bottom line to my comment, I saw the 33 X's 2 right away, but are these nu# always that or just a fluke!!! Discernment is key....
Fantastic, patient explanations. Wonderful presentation. THANK YOU. I think you're on the right track - you found the approximate apparent height of the stars in THAT area of the Firmament, now take all the readings you can in every direction at every inclination you can! MAP that hard, fast barrier. Maybe you can find evidence that "Heaven" (the name given to the Firmament) IS shaped "like a tent" (rather than a dome). Wouldn't THAT be incredible? Keep going, Jay! 🙂 Your work thus far is ASTOUNDING and I look forward to every video you put out. Just Incredible, my friend.
A few November's ago a few minutes after sunset I had 3 friends witness with me watch Venus turn on like a light bulb. 20 minutes later Jupiter turned on then 20 minutes later Saturn turned on then 20 minutes later Sirius turned on. After sunset the brightest stars turn on like clockwork
@@curious1585 An aerospace engineer has demonstrated that the stars are not light years away. Let's question the official story and ask why things don't add up
Hi Tolan, at the end you say "..... it's not the distance to the stars, it's the distance to the dome..." But Genesis tells us the sun and moon ("he made the stars also") are INSIDE the firmament (dome). So are not the distances one and the same? To both the dome and the sun, moon and stars? BTW Can you do the same experiment on the moon and the sun? Please???!!
you should try to join the daily show of Nathan Oakley. It would be interesting how you would respond to their daily questions of proof for a spherical earth...or the lack thereof. Cheers/ peace
At night, the stars can be seen rotating around a central point. In the northern hemisphere, this point is to the north, in the southern hemisphere it is to the south. If you stand on the equator, if you look to the south, stars cab be seen ascending from and descending below the southern horizon, and to looking to the north stars can be seen ascending from and descending below the northern horizon. This simply cannot happen under a dome where all of the stars would be rotating around a single central point to the north regardless of your location. You are standing on the firmament, which actually has water above and below it. It looks flat because on a standard size desktop globe, a grain of sand placed on the globe would be twice as tall as Mt. Everest and the atmosphere would appear as a thin membrane covering the surface.
I am in the Indian Himalajan mountains. I love your work . I wonder if we could do some test together. I have a p1000 here. The time difference to you is around 12 hours
@@jtolanmedia1 Hi again. Thanks for your response. I am original from Holland but grew up in Germany. I moved here in 97 and been here ever since. I am 61 ,have a US wife. I got in to FE in 2015. In 2010 I was on a flight from Kathmadu to Delhi and could see , looking north, the mountains in the north about 800km away; and Wondered “how can I see so far???
I am someone who knows in my heart through, intuition, common sense & logic, that we live on a domed flat plane. I am so happy that you have the intelligence to know & use the subject, the devil people call, "science". Through it, you are able to use their accepted methods to prove their lies about a spinning ball. Great job JT. Here is some food for thought & something that may help you to understand your future calculations. It is long, but, I know someone like yourself will read it & decide if there is anything that makes sense with your calculations. The problem is.............We work to the limits of what has been presented to us as the limits of this world. What if this flat plane domed creation were 4 times the size we are presented with? What if the sun circumnavigates this whole flat plane in a period of time r 25,920yrs called a GREAT YEAR? What if the sun only lights up & allows life to flourish in only one part of the whole creation spending circa 6,000+yrs broken down into three AGES of 2,160yrs each in each of 4 parts of this flat plane, North, South, East & West? What if the three parts not lit up by the sun ( in a familiar phrase of late ) are in a perpetual & real "DARK WINTER"? What if the three parts in darkness, land & seas, are buried in ice & snow in this circa 18,000yrs DARK WINTER between the suns departure & return? Would 18,000yrs of ice build up then melt be enough to reshape continents, make land sink or make land rise? Would 18,000yrs covered in ice constitute an ICE-AGE? Unproven terms we have never seen but are familiar with! What if the Freemasons are sun worshippers through this knowledge? What if they know the cycles & use them to stay in power, moving with the sun, taking enough slaves to do a clean up & restore services to the already existing infrastructure from the last civilisation to occupy those lands? What if the Freemasons make up their own history for the NEW WORLD, start repopulating to produce another populace that can be ruled over for circa 6,000yrs until the sun moves on again? What if they just rinse & repeat every 6,000yrs? What if that is the reason why "THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN"? What if that is their HIDDEN HAND, their SECRET KNOWLEDGE? What if the Freemasons could put a sun & a moon simulator in the sky? What if they can simulate the whole sky night & day? We would be none the wiser that our real sun & moon have moved on, except, we have magnetic north that only exists because of the sun & is constantly on the move eastward & is currently in Siberia. What if, once the magnetic north moves past the limits we have been given for this world it meant that our sun had moved off? What if the freemasons know when to start hiding our real sun? Would it allow them time to allow the ice to melt in the NEW WORLD? Would it allow them time to voyage there (like Christopher Columbus, discovering the new world) with enough brainwashed slaves to clean up the mud that would be there through the thaw of 18,000yrs of snow & ice & prepare the place for the next tricked, deceived & enslaved population that would build up over the next 6,000yrs? What if the Freemasons have injected the population with their potion in preparation for moving them to new lands as the 100% controlled automatons the potion is designed to turn them into? Automatons don't ask questions, Automatons can have their thoughts manipulated to believe whatever the Freemasons want them to believe. Some food for thought, Antarctica is the start of the ice at the limit of the suns reach in a 360 degree circle around the lands & seas within the suns reach. What if when our sun has left, they could easily, by turning off their sun simulator, create the three days of darkness they keep banging on about? We should not limit our thinking to the limits they have given us for this world. They are liars & deceivers. What if the Freemasons, knowing full well, we live on a flat plane much bigger than the sun can light up, have taken these lands & seas currently or last lit by the sun, turned them into a ball, called it a planet & told the original population that, that's where they live & it floats in a vacuum called space & they believed it & just passed it on generation to generation? That would make it really difficult for anyone now to see how things really work, would it not? & yet, they surely did that & have kept it up, right up to this day! Not to would mean giving away their secrets & the advantage in having that knowledge brings over the masses who simply believe in their spinning ball story.
@@curious1585 You couldn't be more wrong. I am speaking on the back of my research, that, told me early on that, religion is a tool & deception used for division of the masses by the devil people. However, it does not mean there is no truth in the Bible, but, discernment is needed to see the truth within the multitude of lies & misdirection within the Bible. Your unconstructive, assumptive comment shows the difference in the depth of research we both have. If it were me in your place, I would have asked questions on the area where my doubts lay, but, you need to come along like you know something, telling me, I'm confused?.........lol!
@@musicalperformances5790 I'm not telling you you're confused. I'm saying the way you have worded what you 'know' indicates that you conflated it with belief. If you have a religious belief it does not necessarily not to be part of any religion. Religious beliefs are beliefs based purely on faith, they can be beliefs regarding something nothing to do with Religion. You've explicitly stated that you lnoe through 'intuition, common sense and logic'. You've not mentioned research. Now ypu suddenly adhere to some research you have supposedly done and try to undermine my extent of knowledge without having any idea or anything indication what that might be. I responded based on wahr you were saying about where you get your knowledge from. You made conclusions about my knowledge without me stating anything of that sort. You're the one making assumption, not me. Next time hold yourself to your own standards and maybe ask questions instead of assuming about a person.
@@curious1585 You don't read things correctly, if you feel I have turned this into belief, that's your prerogative. I would call it knowledge through research fuelled by a life long desire know the truth. I believe this, but, not through conjecture & hope, but, from research, intuition, common sense & logic. That is obviously something that jibes with you in your quest to justify your incorrect & assumptive comment. They call it jealousy, it is one of the seven deadly sins in your Bible there.
Hello dear Jtolan, this comment contains information that I consider very important, so I will be sharing it until I am sure you have seen it. The measurement to the celestial dome is probably correct (3943 miles) but since you must know the height of that star for an observer 3930 miles down the base of the triangle is not 343 miles but also 3943 miles. That can only be explained with a holographic dome. That is, each coordinate of the earth is assigned a holographic projection of said dome. Here comes the important thing and what you should know (hopefully you already know): The projection also changes according to the height above the earth and this is very important to refute the official cosmological model since looking from the right place you can see things that defy the imagination such as: the moon and the sun passing in front of the visible horizon (facing the sea) without being hidden by it. I have managed to detect this phenomenon by performing photographic and timelapse analyzes of the summit of Haleakala (3055 meters above sea level) in Hawaii. There the moon can be seen more than 1.6° below the horizon without being hidden by it. Yes, I know it sounds crazy but it is so. It would be great if you could verify it by going to the site but in case you cannot you could capture the phenomenon from any location that has a height of more than 250 meters above sea level without obstructions and with a view of the sea preferably looking east. At this time I cannot make the observation because I am in Bolivia (landlocked country) Here are the links where I made the photographic analysis. I used the superimposition of images based on the mountainous profiles and thus it can be verified that the horizon captured on camera in the Timelapse is at the height that is normally observed from that site ruclips.net/video/X0mGYp37WsU/видео.html ruclips.net/video/OpbTDK_9Jig/видео.html The videos are in Spanish but I think you can understand it. Greetings and God bless you
So many people in the world waiting for others to do something for them when in fact there are so many things we can be doing for ourselves. These kinds of things give life meaning. Thumbs up.
'What are the stars?' said O'Brien indifferently. 'They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out.' -- Orwell, 1984
Thanks for making this video. I can see it took a lot of time and effort to set everything up and do the calculations. We can agree to disagree on space time. Well done.
I'm new to this channel so haven't seen all of your videos, but have you worked with those who send up high altitude balloons and compare measurements? In some FE videos they seem to think the dome is much closer. There was one armature rocket that just stopped after hitting something and it stopped much closer than 21 million feet.
Great work? Then why is he presenting his "evidence" only here in the weird corners of RUclips where just about nobody notices? Why doesn't he present it to the 99.9999% who have never seen any of his videos? Why doesn't he call a news conference to stop the globe hoax once and for all? Very strange. This is the biggest news story in decades and centuries! Earth is flat and the entire worldwide scientific community is lying about it! Will swamp headlines worldwide 24/7! But he hides here where just about nobody notices...
@@julesdomes6064 Well, if that "scientific community" is not your fiction and it exists, it will surely have some contact email and there you can forward that hidden video to them so they can give you their opinion.
I saw on one FE channel a review of Russian research attempting this same calculation. I am very curious as to the shape of the dome; how many degrees it has where it meets sea level - because we could conceivably calculate the circumference of the dome at it's base, and so the distance needed to travel by land over Antarctica to reach the edge.... Just like Truman!! *the show
My guess would be a perfect sphere when God separated the waters above from the waters below. A bubble (I always think of an inverted snow globe where the water is actually on the outside). So the upper half, where we are, would be a hemisphere (think rainbows, Sun dogs etc.). It's also the strongest shape if there is water above and below. I do not believe it will be egg shaped for example. That is NOT God's MO.
Amazing. The "radius of earth" was really the known distance to the heavenly arch. I must watch this many times with notes to understand your method completely. And learn about that standard calculation analysis for the number of pixels captured. If that is the distance, could we now target at a higher elevation, with a flying plane and discover the the shape of the wilderness up there?
Thanks JT I was actually talking to my friend who worked for NASA before about this very subject, I sent him the video perfect explanation for the distance to the dome.
With perfect explanation magic refraction that cannot be found indepdently (aka no evidence) and cannot be explained (as to how it's caused) and has no predictive capabilities that mismatches with the globe? Yeah perfect.
@@photofinish8607 you're wellcome to point out an improvements I can make. Bad grammar does not imply ignorance or that the point I'm making is invalid. Not sure why you'd think it does.
@@photofinish8607 how well do you speak a second language? Would you have perfect grammar in a second language? This man isn't "ignorant." He's brilliant enough to make technical calculations like this AND explain the experiment in a second language.
Unless I'm mistaken, the margin of error for your measurements and constants far exceed your results. For example, you cite pixel pitch of 3.92 uM -- that's +/- 0.25%, assuming it's even accurate (and since it's from marketing data and not made to be used as a measuring device, maybe it's not even accurate. You assume the lens is 50.0000000mm of focal length, but that's definitely not true. Sure, it's roughly 50mm, and even if it was exactly 50mm, it's only 50mm at a specific perfect infinite focus distance. If it's defocused even slightly, then the effective focal length changes a little, and you can no longer do measurements. And besides, it almost certainly isn't exactly 50mm even at perfect focus, it's probably 49 or 51, so let's call it plus or minus 2 percent. You need to actually measure your own angular pixel size very accurately when you need high accuracy. Then you calculate your pixel to be 0.0000784 radians which again is still plus or minus 0.1% due to rounding errors. Then you are lining up pixels on screen, which has got to introduce a few more percent of margin of error. Then you find 3.67 missing pixels and you declare the distance to the dome. But the fact is, without that 3.67 missing pixels, you would have read infinite distance to the dome. And 3.67 is only about +/- 0.44% So in other words, your source number margin of errors far exceeds the 0.44% of missing pixels from which you measured dome distance. By chance you could have just as easily measured infinite, or even beyond infinite. Do you see the problem? Why don't you just use the theodolite? Either get another and get a friend to take simultaneous readings of the same star from some baseline distance away, or if you can see the north star (since it doesn't move much) you could shoot the north star from two different locations, possible at the same time on two consecutive nights so it's in about the same place (since it is 0.7 degrees from the celestial north pole.) In fact, you could do it for 3 nights - from location A at exactly 10PM, then the next day from location B at exactly 10PM, and then the next day at location A at exactly 10PM again -- then you can compare first and third shots to make sure they are identical. To set up the angles to your baseline, pound an 8 inch nail flush into the ground with a pink surveyors tape on it, do it this at both observation locations, and get a second tripod with a plumb bob and a small flashlight so from each observation location you can set the tripod EXACTLY over the nail and you can then zero off of the other observation location. Theodolites come with an optical plummet or you can use a plumb bob to make sure the theodolite is exactly above the nail in all cases. When you're trying to extrapolate to infinity you need to be very very accurate on your baseline!
thanks for the comment, but I suggest you spend more time understanding what I did before you comment. Do you understand the confidence interval calculations? did you watch the whole video? Did you hear me mention what the largest errors are? infinity is out of the question. If that wasn't enough, just the fact that the result comes out to the radius of the earth should set your mind in motion pondering the mystery, the lensing effect, why and how its occurring, but instead you seem to be clinging to a failed model of the heavens thinking there must be an error in the math. It's time to grow up, science is advancing but few people are aware of it.
@@jtolanmedia1 Thank you Sir for answering, I had no idea you would actually read my comment! That alone makes me very happy! I did watch the video clear through. I do understand confidence calculations, but let me ask you this: If I had a foot long ruler which was 10% too long, I could take a million measurements with it and get nearly the exact same measurement every time, and my confidence interval calculations would tell me that my measurement was highly accurate, right? I'd be like "Dude, I measured the diameter of this widget 1000000 times. All my measurements fell within 9.999 to 10.001 inches on the ruler." That's some pretty high confidence interval calculations, right? And yet my ruler is 10% too long. So my whole confidence inverval calculation is completely meaningless. Because the ruler was off by 10%, my measurement would be off by 10%, even though it statistically showed a high level of confidence, isn't that right? Now you're the engineer here, so tell me please if you might be so kind, is your focal length of 50.000000000mm a primary constant? What if the focal length was actually 49.78444, how would that have affected your results? By my calculations, with practically infinite stars and a 49.78444mm focal length lens, you would have got the exact same results. Do you see the problem? Your lens is certainly sold as a 50mm lens, and I'm sure it's close to 50mm. But it _is not_ designed, manufactured, tested, or sold as a measuring tool. It is not tested and specified to be within any accuracy, and even a 0.5% error in focal length could literally allow you to measure an infinite distance star as being 4k miles away. Also, why were the stars more spread out on one camera? You see, even the focal distance between the two cameras was not identical. Or there was some non-linearity involved. Either way, the camera is simply not suitable for this measurement. You really must do the same measurement except use genuine angle measuring instruments like your theodolite. If I was in your area I'd be delighted to bring my theodolite and we could measure angle to a start simultaneously. Unfortunately I'm in WA. If you ever make it to WA let me know, I would be delighted to collaborate on simultaneous measurements! I have a matched pair of 5 arcsecond theodolites and a one arcsecond total station. I've been to a few mountains with ma theodolite myself, click my name if you want to see some of my videos. But can you do that for us, re-do the experiment with your theodolite? Just stick a couple cheap flashlights as beacons along the road a couple miles apart. Go to one with the theodolite and measure the angle between the other beacon and Polaris, then the next night at the same time do the same thing from the other beacon location. Cheers!
@@jtolanmedia1 You said to me: > _It's time to grow up_ I am curious, I came to you suggesting that your margins of error far exceeded your results, and you just now responded with "Grow up." Then I checked your community page where you literally admitted to using exact values instead of small angle values and getting a drastically different distance to the dome: > _In the video I used the small angle approximation but now I decided to also compute the exact value, besides the small angle approximation I mentioned in the video. The exact value produces a larger number of 5800 mi for the distance to the stars._ Why would you tell me to "Grow up" when I've raised issues about margin of errors after you literally posted something about margin of errors? For what it's worth, I did your math both with small angle approximations and with TAN/ATAN and the difference was insignificant, so I'm not sure where you got 5800Miles. I encourage you to do it again with just the theodolite. Get some big 8" nails at a hardware store and some flat washers that fit the nails and some pink surveyor's ribbon, and go pound them flush into the ground, one at each observation point. Use those exact positions then measure a star from both positions relative to the angle of the other nail in the ground. Obviously if you can't see Polaris, the stars will be moving, but you could do it from location "A" the first night, then location "B" the second night, then location "A" the third night, at exactly the same time every night. That way you could compensate for sidereal time by averaging the position of the first and third nights. Ideally you would choose a time each night so that the star was in the exact same position based on sidereal time. There are only 23.9344696 hours in a sidereal day. So you could take sightings at 10:08PM one night, then 10:04pm the next night, and 10:00pm the third night, since a sidereal day is about 4 minutes shorter. Cheers
@@jtolanmedia1 Yh few people here are indeed aware of it... they also are not aware at all that your speaking complete nonsense as they don't understand what your doing... But euhm what if they actually understood that your doing nothing more then basic distance imaging processing with one serious flaw and the reason why your whole video is complete nonsense and we dont use it for meassuring the distance to stars.. You don't have a object... your meassuring light... not a object. You cannot use what your using to meassure distance to a star as you don't have a object to meassure. You are meassuring light... That light is not where the object is.... I had people tell me in the comment you where a aerospace engineer.... I don't know what mental dissease you have... And i am sure you wanna act smart and stuff.. But you do know how stupid this makes you look right???? Your bringing all this calculations that don't even make sense for what your doing as your not meassuring a object. Whit what your doing you can't even tell me what star is closer on that picture vs another star. All your doing is this : I think that light is the objcect so i am gonna do digital distance processing and the number i get is the distance to that object.. While you don't have a object making what your saying nothing more then gibber gabber and bad one at that. As even your digital distance processing has way to many variables in it to even get that right. So even if you thought you where meassuring to a object your still off... Take your mental medication,stop acting your smart because let's be honest look at your audience they don't even understand you don't have a object. And they they think the light is the object on a 2d picture while of course it's not. We know this by actually doing real math... So let me ask you show me the star and not the light. Show me the object and not the light as you need the object to do this calculation. You can't... so you meassured light and not the object itself making this whole video debunked in a matter of seconds.. All your work is debunked in a matter of seconds if you can not show me the actual object that is the star. Not the light but the actual star. And if you want real debunking i can actually debunk it with a simple telescope and use a actual objject like let's say jupiter use the real calculations and the same digital measuring process and call you out like that.... You have the possibility right? c'mon do it for a physical object that is close enough to actually get the object and not just the light... And inform your subscribers... But you won't because it would call you out... oops...
@@fromjesse I am pretty sure he knows his calculations are wrong. He actually seems like a pretty intelligent guy, there is no way he believes the earth is flat. Maybe he earns some money from this, or has other reasons.
Great work J! For the off center object accuracy of measurements, try and apply lens correction. All lenses distort the image the further off the center you measure. Adobe Photoshop could do it and it's a monthly subscription fee, not expensive at all. There are other products you can find to do this correction. Good luck and I'll look forward to your next adventure.
Thanks Rebel, along the lines of lens distortion, and thanks for bringing this up, I'm fully aware of it which is why I chose the lenses I did. I do have a set of 30mm lenses, for some wider angle, but I decided against it because they are third party lenses and they don't have the lens distortion correction like the Sony lenses, but obviously can be corrected with some effort as you're aware. Here's a link: www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00018031?msclkid=bcd26819ba0a11ecbd00bdbc655533ac
@@roohif Hi roohif, somebody else asked about that as well and unfortunately I'm on travel but when I get home in a few weeks I'll check email (I only have access on my mac at home) might be good to wait as well, since I bought a set of 200mm lenses and I'm going to increase the pixel difference by 4 times, to around 14.8 pixels, by keeping the same baseline, that should be fun! stay tuned ...
You're measuring the distance to the celestial sphere... it's not an actual tangible dome or "space-time" curvature - it's how the sky is perceived through VISION, which is spherical in nature, relative to the observer.
@Adrian Look no further than the "Antarctic treaty" and impossible limitations to even think to go there ... and if you manage to go there, there is no freedom...escorted or supervised are the choices ...
@@jocimocilo I read that treaty and it didn't seem unreasonable much less impossible. In fact what I found was it's explicitly stated in the treaty that any citizen of participating countries is allowed to go there.
Maybe you should have done an optics check first, to see if your 2 cameras are in sync. Just photograph the stars while the cameras are right besides each other, and check for abnormalities. It is very clear that there are abnormalities that skew your result. And when 3-4 pixels are all that are standing between 4000 miles and infinity, you really can't take chances. You are literally 4 pixels from infinity, and yet you think you are accurate...
If the Celestial Dome is really a perfect dome, then where you point at the dome will affect the resultant distance. In theory, to get radius of the Dome in flat earth model would be measuring from the North Pole pointing straight up to Polaris.
Actually his measurements were to that star which could be farther away than the actual distance to the dome right above you. Some people several years ago shot up their own independent rocket, it stopped with a video cam on it with sound, it hit something at about 74 miles up.
@@71Hasler why don’t you hop over to my channel and watch beyond the borders, an exposé of the circular logic and holes in the Newtonian/cavendish/Einsteinian mathematics. Once you’ve done that, hop over to Tim truth’s odysse channel and join one his of daily live debates and try and refute the exposed mathematics, so we can then point and laugh at you. 😎
@@iBMcFly Flat earth is the biggest joke ever, can we get the big ice wall that protects people from falling off the edge of the earth into SPACE in many hot countries? The answer is flat out no! Antarctic is not in every country where supposedly the army is protecting the ice wall! The manpower to protect the ice wall would run into trillions of dollars or pounds.
@@unarammer2003 it stoped at 70 miles because it did not have the correct angle and speed to get into the ether ..look up the cia docs on this matter how rockets must be at a certain degree and speed to get into it and then it can go further on and float around the circle of earth ..
If you tilt a real compass the needle jams against the glass or face. On a ball earth. If you're standing on the equator with a level real compass in your hand facing north. The compass needle is actually pointing parallel out into space. North Pole should be a few kilometers below you. Why does the needle not jam against the face? Why don't we make a south facing compass and see where it points to?
Wowwww you did it again dear. This is a wonderful work and this is the way schools should teach students to think and to learn maths. Im simply mermerized. You are really the Best Im so fascinated with each video from you. English is my second language but i can understand everything you say because you have the courtesy to speak slow and clear, so latin american people can understand you. Im in love with your mind and as a woman i'm so proud of you. I love you. 💘 P.D. if you want i can translate your videos from english to spanish..so you can put subtitles and increase the amount of people following you from south america. 😀
@@AngelA-sg7jh and you don't have math skills because flat earth math, isn't math. It's idiocy. Flat earthers don't do math. It's hilarious that you think this video is good math.
@@71Hasler schools are not to teach, they are to designed to feed the commercial work force. What are you 20 years old? How gullible of a comment saying schools are to teach. They dont want critical thinkers, they want workers that obey. How in 2022 with info at your fingertips have you not been able to figure this out is scary.
Hi Thomas, looking up is challenging, because we don't have a calibration target in sight, I'm working on laser alignment mounts, that will be calibrated in the lab, then taken to the field and aligned with lasers in the base, thus eliminating the need for a calibration target in the field of view, and this approach will make it possible in the future.
I said that I thought it was flat when I was 7. Over time the repeated lie brainwashed me, then came the day that I saw on RUclips that Rob Skiba (rip) was exploring "flat earth". I'd seen plenty of thumnails with f.e. in the title and dismissed them as goofy, but when I saw that Rob was looking into it, I had to see. After that I devoured as much info on it as I could find and was actually convinced of the fact of f.e. before Rob convinced himself. Knowing what I now know, the Bible makes much more sence to me, verses about the fimament, the foundation and pillars of the earth, "the earth will not be moved", Joshua commanding the sun & moon to stand still, stars & wondering stars, etc. etc. (almost 60 now)
Excellent! I always felt the sky was not outer space. It is a blue solid glass type rock that covers the flat earth. If you watch the sun come up in the morning, the sky lights up above us even before the sun appears. The light comes from the sky through the the dome in my opinion with the help of the sun.
It all happens due to a phenomenon called "scattering." When the Sun is low on the horizon, small particles and water droplets in the atmosphere force sunlight to change direction. you are like 5% right there is a dome, its called atmosphere. the closest stars excluding the sun is Alpha Centauri witch is about 25 trillion miles away. thats why all you flat earth and "dome" people have never flown there to prove how close it is. if it was 4 thousand miles away you could fly there in about 11 hours the same as going from parts of the U.S. to South America
Moon and sun are Local inside firmament. Both same size but give off different light/heat. Plasma. Stars are fixed but rotate around polaris. Sun and moon revolve around us like a clock face, or yin yang. The sun you see setting is just it moving away
@@al2954 That makes more sense than a ball earth in space with a bunch of other ball shaped planets moving around a large sun in the center, while none of them crash or move off the path, as they are held there by something they call gravity, gravity is only a theory, yet people accept it without thinking how ridiculous it all sounds.
@@MsJNix gravity is a lie. We have things like Buoyancy etc. I reccomended channels such as vibes of cosmos and Eric Dubay, maybe divergent, and then go from There. It's funny what you can find out for yourself. Life is one big lie, a joke, a stage, controlled, manipulated. Truth will set you free.
@jtolanmedia1773 Thanks for all the great work. One comment - at about 32:43 you thought the short distance of star from earth had something to do with space-time... I think it has more to do with Perspective - seeing that the star you were viewing was much closer to the horizon than it was to the observation point I submit that if you attempt to minimize the distant horizontal ramping caused by Perspective by instead measuring a star which is closer to the zenith of the observing locations - in other words; if you are looking almost strait up at a star near to directly overhead, you minimize two of the most egregious optical factors: 1) You minimize refraction error because instead of viewing through many thousands of miles of atmosplane of varying temperature and density - by looking strait up you are only going through an atmosplane of around 50 miles through a relatively shorter and ever decreasing density which should nearly eliminate most if not all refraction effects. 2) Also when viewing strait up rather than horizontally - you eliminate much if not all of the ramping effect caused by Perspective. Just an idea. Thanks again for all you do.
Bendiciones, Jtolan media 1, excelente trabajo, gracias por también ver la verdad como uno, muchos ya están despertando. Saludos excelente contenido en tu canal
I'm curious to know the stars distance. I suspect that the star constellations in the northern hemisphere are higher in altitude then the southern star const.
Gosh my favourite clips are always 33mins and 33secs. And to see the distance to the roof is 3943.47mils from the Earth, it warms my Heart even if it is a backbone chillin zero degrees Fahrenheit in the desert at night.
Obviously the star moves with time and will be at different heights angles during the night. Does the distance to yhe dime remain consistent? Or did you just measure once
@@tiffanyyoung9671 3943 miles at the max height over the North Pole straight down to earth or simply 3943 from JTolans vantage point to the nearest point in the Dome, or from JTolan's vantage point to the peak over the North Pole?
@jtolanmedia1773, I watched your video several times. One thing that wasn't clear to me was if all your statistical data involved measurements to stars in different directions, or it was mostly only in the same general direction (say eastward) For example, did you only take images and angular measurement in one direction? or did you do the same experiment in varying directions say, north, south, east and west? I am wondering if you did or would expect the same type of results and conclusions if you aligned your equipment in say the opposite direction? thanks
JTolan, how do you know where this dome is? What is it made of? How did the ISS get above it? It's passage can always be followed. Heck, an astrophotographer just got some amazing footage, which shows two space walkers at work. Shot from the ground.
29:31 - Distance = 3943 miles / 6346 km
and in other terms, 6345,643 km, let's say 6346km
What's the purpose if I don't know how to do the maths? If you can't explain something you don't know it.
Spoiler alert
Thank you for sharing this video. I am always excited to watch each new video you post. I believe God has appointed you to make these videos to share with us.
GREAT JOB THANKS MAN! IM FROM ARGENTINA, I ALWAYS SEE YO, KEEP ON WAKING THE WORLD
Yo tbm
Amazing video as always. Greetings from Chile flat....
post some new videos
People shooting homemade rockets are hitting the dome around 73 miles here in the United States
Hahahahaha
Great work Jay! We are all very thankful for your brilliance and your time.
God bless you my friend 🙏
Thank you, Cyndi, God Bless you!
Amazing Work, Amazing. Time to see run down the rabbit hole.
Thank you my friend in Jesus!
I love your channel & suggest it to all my ignorant pals , generally unbelievers!!
Shalom
Shalom=peace...then u should know our Lord's name is Yahshua properly translated into English is Joshua not Roman Catholic and Protestant jesus
@@bonefrog4520
Properly it is all translated accurately.
Study on. Hope to met you in Heaven!
@@jonmason9360 heaven ??? No one goes to heaven...typical indoctrinated deceived weak "christian" has no clue what scripture teaches...No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
John 3:13 ....“For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand,
Acts 2:34 ...read Revelation 21 we "disciples" stay here ....may the Holy Spirit grant u discernment...
@@jonmason9360 this might help u understand...'ur kingdom come on EARTH as it is in Heaven @ Yahshua 2nd coming here ...not Heaven
@@bonefrog4520 correct... But incomplete. Keep studying deeper further.
Peace
Excellent work my friend. You are one of the greats in the flat earth community. Keep it up and thank you
I AGREE!!! 💯
But is he a flat earther?
He didn’t do anything.
@@toot-toot9128 he bust the curvature chart on many occasions.
@@frankh.3849 One man and his RUclips channel… he knows more than thousands of scientists
All the best! Thank you for your work. Amazing
Man, i love these videos... thanks you, JTolan !!
Thank you for opening my eyes! Bless you.
We love it and it's fascinating finally we can prove things. The word of the creator Hallelujah !!!
really? How was his conclusion proven?
@@curious1585
Why do you care?
@@photofinish8607 because I've not seen any of the conclusion proven here which is a significant difference.
@@curious1585 because we believe in the word of God and it says the Earth is a plane. The Earth does not move but the sun and the moon and the stars do. Because he commanded the Sun and the Moon to stop moving. Also there is over 200 scriptures in the word of God about the Flat Earth.
@@amonamaria2000 that's not proof. It's okay you can stay a zealot if you want, just don't confuse your faith with knowledge ;)
You are awesome man. A true and real engineer in every sense of the word, and we need more engineers just like you. I hope they get inspired!!!
You make me proud to be an engineer.
Sadly there are those so-called 'engineers' that toe the line, those are a shame to society, and then there are those that are being paid to be gatekeepers they know who they are and ask God destroy them, because they are normally Atheists or who have diabolical beliefs like bringing in nwo etc, I hope they get destroyed too.
As for you my friend you are a true scholar, scientist and engineer :)
Thank you Anon, I feel the same way.
Indeed! 🤙🏼
Thank you so much!! Fascinating work! Fascinating results!!
We are in a lake. Thank you for your pursuit of the truth.
Busted by pixel's........you continue to be "Da Man" J. Excellent!
Nice double 33 👏
Think jtolan is lodged up do ya?
EDIT-also very ironic coming from someone with one eye symbolism in their avatar.
@@iBMcFly I make no assumptions. Some numbers are lucky, do you think the ultra rich and powerful pick numbers that suck?
No, they pick significant numbers, but they don't OWN the numbers. Or the symbols, they just incorporate them like any other wisdom.
Mile marker 6 too.
Sometimes things are just a fluke.
I've been subbed to this channel since his 1st video. He had barely any views. We shared him around, as he was showing plane photage over the Plaine and great lakes. Awesome videos about flat distances,, but he was hard to hear, volume was poor. His videos were worth sharing because of the wealth of information. His videos have improved in quality but his personality/speech has always been the same... Bottom line to my comment, I saw the 33 X's 2 right away, but are these nu# always that or just a fluke!!! Discernment is key....
@@daveward7575 just a fluke or an esoteric marker of profound wisdom. Discernment is key 100%, I pray for it continually.
yes, ... this clown is a deceiver !
Fantastic, patient explanations. Wonderful presentation. THANK YOU. I think you're on the right track - you found the approximate apparent height of the stars in THAT area of the Firmament, now take all the readings you can in every direction at every inclination you can! MAP that hard, fast barrier. Maybe you can find evidence that "Heaven" (the name given to the Firmament) IS shaped "like a tent" (rather than a dome). Wouldn't THAT be incredible? Keep going, Jay! 🙂 Your work thus far is ASTOUNDING and I look forward to every video you put out. Just Incredible, my friend.
No. Just .... 👎
Official what, baffoonary? Lol
@@KGB.83 yes official baffoonary grabbity, over billions of dollars daily, that number makes it "official"
@@KGB.83 kgb= 100% blsht, 0 valid arguments, 0 evidence, 0 mathematics. =more mannure for the growing of the flat earth real movement.
A few November's ago a few minutes after sunset I had 3 friends witness with me watch Venus turn on like a light bulb. 20 minutes later Jupiter turned on then 20 minutes later Saturn turned on then 20 minutes later Sirius turned on. After sunset the brightest stars turn on like clockwork
@@clightning300mi clockwork or they just become visible as the surroundings become dark enough. You know like other stars ;)
Fantastic work JTolan!! FINALLY there is a legit reason to start discussing the Firmament. Bye bye NASA
Really? What reason is that?
@@curious1585 Watch this video before trolling it
@@skeptic9368 I watched the video and I'm not trolling!
@@curious1585 An aerospace engineer has demonstrated that the stars are not light years away. Let's question the official story and ask why things don't add up
this clown is a deceiver !
..... but the earth is not a spinning globe.....
Hi Tolan, at the end you say "..... it's not the distance to the stars, it's the distance to the dome..." But Genesis tells us the sun and moon ("he made the stars also") are INSIDE the firmament (dome). So are not the distances one and the same? To both the dome and the sun, moon and stars? BTW Can you do the same experiment on the moon and the sun? Please???!!
Amazing how a top-down sky view of "mountains" makes them look like gigantic fossilized tree leaves/branches... :)
you should try to join the daily show of Nathan Oakley. It would be interesting how you would respond to their daily questions of proof for a spherical earth...or the lack thereof. Cheers/ peace
Definitely
Love the Channel ..
Always on point and the Numbers ALWAYS add up..
Suddenly the trolls are out in force and they are always wrong..
*Spelling edit
At night, the stars can be seen rotating around a central point. In the northern hemisphere, this point is to the north, in the southern hemisphere it is to the south. If you stand on the equator, if you look to the south, stars cab be seen ascending from and descending below the southern horizon, and to looking to the north stars can be seen ascending from and descending below the northern horizon. This simply cannot happen under a dome where all of the stars would be rotating around a single central point to the north regardless of your location. You are standing on the firmament, which actually has water above and below it. It looks flat because on a standard size desktop globe, a grain of sand placed on the globe would be twice as tall as Mt. Everest and the atmosphere would appear as a thin membrane covering the surface.
It works with a tortoidal shaped dome, because it must follow the magnetic lines, snd the stars must move perpendicular to the magnetic lines.
@@Maxx134a It will not work on a flat circular surface, regardless of any other circumstances.
so when those people made that go rocket that hit something at 73 miles up.
what did it hit if not the dome? very curious
I am in the Indian Himalajan mountains. I love your work . I wonder if we could do some test together. I have a p1000 here. The time difference to you is around 12 hours
Hi Titus, good to know, I'm sure we'll think of something.
@@jtolanmedia1 Hi again. Thanks for your response. I am original from Holland but grew up in Germany. I moved here in 97 and been here ever since. I am 61 ,have a US wife. I got in to FE in 2015. In 2010 I was on a flight from Kathmadu to Delhi and could see , looking north, the mountains in the north about 800km away; and Wondered “how can I see so far???
@@jtolanmedia1 Hi again from India. Could we communicate via telegram, signal or one of these?
@@jtolanmedia1 email is also fine
@@jtolanmedia1 in a few weeks I am planning to go to a lake east of her.
Why do people hate the Mile 6 sign? What has the Mile 6 sign ever done to them? 😁
another clueless sheeple ! ....... tsk, tsk, tsk.....
this clown is a shill and has been deceiving and mocking you all this time ! ,,,, LOL!!!!
hey Divergent Droid ⭐️
I am someone who knows in my heart through, intuition, common sense & logic, that we live on a domed flat plane. I am so happy that you have the intelligence to know & use the subject, the devil people call, "science". Through it, you are able to use their accepted methods to prove their lies about a spinning ball. Great job JT.
Here is some food for thought & something that may help you to understand your future calculations. It is long, but, I know someone like yourself will read it & decide if there is anything that makes sense with your calculations.
The problem is.............We work to the limits of what has been presented to us as the limits of this world.
What if this flat plane domed creation were 4 times the size we are presented with?
What if the sun circumnavigates this whole flat plane in a period of time r 25,920yrs called a GREAT YEAR?
What if the sun only lights up & allows life to flourish in only one part of the whole creation spending circa 6,000+yrs broken down into three AGES of 2,160yrs each in each of 4 parts of this flat plane, North, South, East & West?
What if the three parts not lit up by the sun ( in a familiar phrase of late ) are in a perpetual & real "DARK WINTER"?
What if the three parts in darkness, land & seas, are buried in ice & snow in this circa 18,000yrs DARK WINTER between the suns departure & return? Would 18,000yrs of ice build up then melt be enough to reshape continents, make land sink or make land rise? Would 18,000yrs covered in ice constitute an ICE-AGE? Unproven terms we have never seen but are familiar with!
What if the Freemasons are sun worshippers through this knowledge?
What if they know the cycles & use them to stay in power, moving with the sun, taking enough slaves to do a clean up & restore services to the already existing infrastructure from the last civilisation to occupy those lands? What if the Freemasons make up their own history for the NEW WORLD, start repopulating to produce another populace that can be ruled over for circa 6,000yrs until the sun moves on again? What if they just rinse & repeat every 6,000yrs? What if that is the reason why "THERE IS NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN"?
What if that is their HIDDEN HAND, their SECRET KNOWLEDGE?
What if the Freemasons could put a sun & a moon simulator in the sky? What if they can simulate the whole sky night & day? We would be none the wiser that our real sun & moon have moved on, except, we have magnetic north that only exists because of the sun & is constantly on the move eastward & is currently in Siberia. What if, once the magnetic north moves past the limits we have been given for this world it meant that our sun had moved off?
What if the freemasons know when to start hiding our real sun? Would it allow them time to allow the ice to melt in the NEW WORLD? Would it allow them time to voyage there (like Christopher Columbus, discovering the new world) with enough brainwashed slaves to clean up the mud that would be there through the thaw of 18,000yrs of snow & ice & prepare the place for the next tricked, deceived & enslaved population that would build up over the next 6,000yrs?
What if the Freemasons have injected the population with their potion in preparation for moving them to new lands as the 100% controlled automatons the potion is designed to turn them into? Automatons don't ask questions, Automatons can have their thoughts manipulated to believe whatever the Freemasons want them to believe.
Some food for thought, Antarctica is the start of the ice at the limit of the suns reach in a 360 degree circle around the lands & seas within the suns reach.
What if when our sun has left, they could easily, by turning off their sun simulator, create the three days of darkness they keep banging on about? We should not limit our thinking to the limits they have given us for this world. They are liars & deceivers.
What if the Freemasons, knowing full well, we live on a flat plane much bigger than the sun can light up, have taken these lands & seas currently or last lit by the sun, turned them into a ball, called it a planet & told the original population that, that's where they live & it floats in a vacuum called space & they believed it & just passed it on generation to generation? That would make it really difficult for anyone now to see how things really work, would it not? & yet, they surely did that & have kept it up, right up to this day! Not to would mean giving away their secrets & the advantage in having that knowledge brings over the masses who simply believe in their spinning ball story.
you're conflating knowing and religiously believing.
@@curious1585 You couldn't be more wrong. I am speaking on the back of my research, that, told me early on that, religion is a tool & deception used for division of the masses by the devil people.
However, it does not mean there is no truth in the Bible, but, discernment is needed to see the truth within the multitude of lies & misdirection within the Bible.
Your unconstructive, assumptive comment shows the difference in the depth of research we both have. If it were me in your place, I would have asked questions on the area where my doubts lay, but, you need to come along like you know something, telling me, I'm confused?.........lol!
@@musicalperformances5790 I'm not telling you you're confused.
I'm saying the way you have worded what you 'know' indicates that you conflated it with belief. If you have a religious belief it does not necessarily not to be part of any religion. Religious beliefs are beliefs based purely on faith, they can be beliefs regarding something nothing to do with Religion.
You've explicitly stated that you lnoe through 'intuition, common sense and logic'. You've not mentioned research. Now ypu suddenly adhere to some research you have supposedly done and try to undermine my extent of knowledge without having any idea or anything indication what that might be.
I responded based on wahr you were saying about where you get your knowledge from. You made conclusions about my knowledge without me stating anything of that sort. You're the one making assumption, not me.
Next time hold yourself to your own standards and maybe ask questions instead of assuming about a person.
@@curious1585
You've responded to all the top comments. With poor grammar and ignorance. Why should anyone answer you?
@@curious1585 You don't read things correctly, if you feel I have turned this into belief, that's your prerogative. I would call it knowledge through research fuelled by a life long desire know the truth. I believe this, but, not through conjecture & hope, but, from research, intuition, common sense & logic. That is obviously something that jibes with you in your quest to justify your incorrect & assumptive comment. They call it jealousy, it is one of the seven deadly sins in your Bible there.
Hello dear Jtolan, this comment contains information that I consider very important, so I will be sharing it until I am sure you have seen it.
The measurement to the celestial dome is probably correct (3943 miles) but since you must know the height of that star for an observer 3930 miles down the base of the triangle is not 343 miles but also 3943 miles. That can only be explained with a holographic dome. That is, each coordinate of the earth is assigned a holographic projection of said dome.
Here comes the important thing and what you should know (hopefully you already know): The projection also changes according to the height above the earth and this is very important to refute the official cosmological model since looking from the right place you can see things that defy the imagination such as: the moon and the sun passing in front of the visible horizon (facing the sea) without being hidden by it.
I have managed to detect this phenomenon by performing photographic and timelapse analyzes of the summit of Haleakala (3055 meters above sea level) in Hawaii. There the moon can be seen more than 1.6° below the horizon without being hidden by it. Yes, I know it sounds crazy but it is so. It would be great if you could verify it by going to the site but in case you cannot you could capture the phenomenon from any location that has a height of more than 250 meters above sea level without obstructions and with a view of the sea preferably looking east.
At this time I cannot make the observation because I am in Bolivia (landlocked country)
Here are the links where I made the photographic analysis. I used the superimposition of images based on the mountainous profiles and thus it can be verified that the horizon captured on camera in the Timelapse is at the height that is normally observed from that site
ruclips.net/video/X0mGYp37WsU/видео.html ruclips.net/video/OpbTDK_9Jig/видео.html
The videos are in Spanish but I think you can understand it.
Greetings and God bless you
Hey El péndulo de Moisés, your footage is incredible! Great job!
Globe again completely destroyed by real world observation. Very nice job.
very interesting
So many people in the world waiting for others to do something for them when in fact there are so many things we can be doing for ourselves. These kinds of things give life meaning. Thumbs up.
'What are the stars?' said O'Brien indifferently. 'They are bits of fire a few kilometres away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out.' -- Orwell, 1984
So why don't you use the drone to go to them? And why can't you see them with a telescope that is able to see thousands of miles away? 🤡
🤦♂@@Lessgo00
But don’t planes get way higher than 3,000 feet?
35000 for cruise altitude.
The balloon does not resist instruments and one good engineer.... good job !!!
If you were at sea level, what do you think the distance would be?
Great work!
Always happy to see a new video from you buddy! Keep it up!
Thanks for making this video. I can see it took a lot of time and effort to set everything up and do the calculations. We can agree to disagree on space time. Well done.
Hope you are well Ron, grettings from Cilantro.
Get on Discord. I want you to hear my songs
I'm new to this channel so haven't seen all of your videos, but have you worked with those who send up high altitude balloons and compare measurements? In some FE videos they seem to think the dome is much closer. There was one armature rocket that just stopped after hitting something and it stopped much closer than 21 million feet.
the rocket did not hit anything, the effect is called Yo-yo de-spin.
@gnghngnvbnb7479
The stop was very abrupt amd you could hear it splash into water...
@@ChinookBear isn't the water supposed to be above the firmament tho?
@@ChinookBear You have a vivid imagination if you have persuaded yourself that you heard it splash into water.
@@davidfaraday7963 you are obviously of the heliocentric delusion friend.
If you have the exact Date and Time of the photos to the plane, you can look for that in flightradar and confirm speed and position
Great work, thank you for share, dont stop!
Great work?
Then why is he presenting his "evidence" only here in the weird corners of RUclips where just about nobody notices?
Why doesn't he present it to the 99.9999% who have never seen any of his videos?
Why doesn't he call a news conference to stop the globe hoax once and for all?
Very strange.
This is the biggest news story in decades and centuries! Earth is flat and the entire worldwide scientific community is lying about it! Will swamp headlines worldwide 24/7!
But he hides here where just about nobody notices...
@@julesdomes6064 Well, if that "scientific community" is not your fiction and it exists, it will surely have some contact email and there you can forward that hidden video to them so they can give you their opinion.
I saw on one FE channel a review of Russian research attempting this same calculation. I am very curious as to the shape of the dome; how many degrees it has where it meets sea level - because we could conceivably calculate the circumference of the dome at it's base, and so the distance needed to travel by land over Antarctica to reach the edge.... Just like Truman!! *the show
My guess would be a perfect sphere when God separated the waters above from the waters below. A bubble (I always think of an inverted snow globe where the water is actually on the outside). So the upper half, where we are, would be a hemisphere (think rainbows, Sun dogs etc.). It's also the strongest shape if there is water above and below. I do not believe it will be egg shaped for example. That is NOT God's MO.
Well said and makes the most sense. 🙏
I can never imagine my future without the intention of mounting the expedition to the edge.
I want to do it.
Amazing. The "radius of earth" was really the known distance to the heavenly arch. I must watch this many times with notes to understand your method completely. And learn about that standard calculation analysis for the number of pixels captured.
If that is the distance, could we now target at a higher elevation, with a flying plane and discover the the shape of the wilderness up there?
Thanks, J Tolan.
Outstanding!
Well done!
Thanks JT I was actually talking to my friend who worked for NASA before about this very subject, I sent him the video perfect explanation for the distance to the dome.
With perfect explanation magic refraction that cannot be found indepdently (aka no evidence) and cannot be explained (as to how it's caused) and has no predictive capabilities that mismatches with the globe?
Yeah perfect.
@@curious1585
So is your grammar. Thankfully, we won't stress ignorance too much?
@@photofinish8607 you're wellcome to point out an improvements I can make.
Bad grammar does not imply ignorance or that the point I'm making is invalid. Not sure why you'd think it does.
@@curious1585 cos they have NOT got anything better....delusional fools..
Globe is a TOY
@@photofinish8607 how well do you speak a second language? Would you have perfect grammar in a second language? This man isn't "ignorant." He's brilliant enough to make technical calculations like this AND explain the experiment in a second language.
The dome's curve replaces the false curve of Earth in calculations???
Unless I'm mistaken, the margin of error for your measurements and constants far exceed your results.
For example, you cite pixel pitch of 3.92 uM -- that's +/- 0.25%, assuming it's even accurate (and since it's from marketing data and not made to be used as a measuring device, maybe it's not even accurate.
You assume the lens is 50.0000000mm of focal length, but that's definitely not true. Sure, it's roughly 50mm, and even if it was exactly 50mm, it's only 50mm at a specific perfect infinite focus distance. If it's defocused even slightly, then the effective focal length changes a little, and you can no longer do measurements. And besides, it almost certainly isn't exactly 50mm even at perfect focus, it's probably 49 or 51, so let's call it plus or minus 2 percent.
You need to actually measure your own angular pixel size very accurately when you need high accuracy.
Then you calculate your pixel to be 0.0000784 radians which again is still plus or minus 0.1% due to rounding errors.
Then you are lining up pixels on screen, which has got to introduce a few more percent of margin of error.
Then you find 3.67 missing pixels and you declare the distance to the dome.
But the fact is, without that 3.67 missing pixels, you would have read infinite distance to the dome.
And 3.67 is only about +/- 0.44%
So in other words, your source number margin of errors far exceeds the 0.44% of missing pixels from which you measured dome distance.
By chance you could have just as easily measured infinite, or even beyond infinite.
Do you see the problem?
Why don't you just use the theodolite? Either get another and get a friend to take simultaneous readings of the same star from some baseline distance away, or if you can see the north star (since it doesn't move much) you could shoot the north star from two different locations, possible at the same time on two consecutive nights so it's in about the same place (since it is 0.7 degrees from the celestial north pole.)
In fact, you could do it for 3 nights - from location A at exactly 10PM, then the next day from location B at exactly 10PM, and then the next day at location A at exactly 10PM again -- then you can compare first and third shots to make sure they are identical.
To set up the angles to your baseline, pound an 8 inch nail flush into the ground with a pink surveyors tape on it, do it this at both observation locations, and get a second tripod with a plumb bob and a small flashlight so from each observation location you can set the tripod EXACTLY over the nail and you can then zero off of the other observation location.
Theodolites come with an optical plummet or you can use a plumb bob to make sure the theodolite is exactly above the nail in all cases.
When you're trying to extrapolate to infinity you need to be very very accurate on your baseline!
thanks for the comment, but I suggest you spend more time understanding what I did before you comment. Do you understand the confidence interval calculations? did you watch the whole video? Did you hear me mention what the largest errors are? infinity is out of the question. If that wasn't enough, just the fact that the result comes out to the radius of the earth should set your mind in motion pondering the mystery, the lensing effect, why and how its occurring, but instead you seem to be clinging to a failed model of the heavens thinking there must be an error in the math. It's time to grow up, science is advancing but few people are aware of it.
@@jtolanmedia1 Thank you Sir for answering, I had no idea you would actually read my comment! That alone makes me very happy!
I did watch the video clear through.
I do understand confidence calculations, but let me ask you this: If I had a foot long ruler which was 10% too long, I could take a million measurements with it and get nearly the exact same measurement every time, and my confidence interval calculations would tell me that my measurement was highly accurate, right?
I'd be like "Dude, I measured the diameter of this widget 1000000 times. All my measurements fell within 9.999 to 10.001 inches on the ruler." That's some pretty high confidence interval calculations, right? And yet my ruler is 10% too long. So my whole confidence inverval calculation is completely meaningless.
Because the ruler was off by 10%, my measurement would be off by 10%, even though it statistically showed a high level of confidence, isn't that right?
Now you're the engineer here, so tell me please if you might be so kind, is your focal length of 50.000000000mm a primary constant?
What if the focal length was actually 49.78444, how would that have affected your results?
By my calculations, with practically infinite stars and a 49.78444mm focal length lens, you would have got the exact same results.
Do you see the problem? Your lens is certainly sold as a 50mm lens, and I'm sure it's close to 50mm. But it _is not_ designed, manufactured, tested, or sold as a measuring tool. It is not tested and specified to be within any accuracy, and even a 0.5% error in focal length could literally allow you to measure an infinite distance star as being 4k miles away.
Also, why were the stars more spread out on one camera? You see, even the focal distance between the two cameras was not identical. Or there was some non-linearity involved.
Either way, the camera is simply not suitable for this measurement. You really must do the same measurement except use genuine angle measuring instruments like your theodolite.
If I was in your area I'd be delighted to bring my theodolite and we could measure angle to a start simultaneously. Unfortunately I'm in WA. If you ever make it to WA let me know, I would be delighted to collaborate on simultaneous measurements! I have a matched pair of 5 arcsecond theodolites and a one arcsecond total station.
I've been to a few mountains with ma theodolite myself, click my name if you want to see some of my videos.
But can you do that for us, re-do the experiment with your theodolite? Just stick a couple cheap flashlights as beacons along the road a couple miles apart. Go to one with the theodolite and measure the angle between the other beacon and Polaris, then the next night at the same time do the same thing from the other beacon location.
Cheers!
@@jtolanmedia1
You said to me:
> _It's time to grow up_
I am curious, I came to you suggesting that your margins of error far exceeded your results, and you just now responded with "Grow up."
Then I checked your community page where you literally admitted to using exact values instead of small angle values and getting a drastically different distance to the dome:
> _In the video I used the small angle approximation but now I decided to also compute the exact value, besides the small angle approximation I mentioned in the video. The exact value produces a larger number of 5800 mi for the distance to the stars._
Why would you tell me to "Grow up" when I've raised issues about margin of errors after you literally posted something about margin of errors?
For what it's worth, I did your math both with small angle approximations and with TAN/ATAN and the difference was insignificant, so I'm not sure where you got 5800Miles.
I encourage you to do it again with just the theodolite. Get some big 8" nails at a hardware store and some flat washers that fit the nails and some pink surveyor's ribbon, and go pound them flush into the ground, one at each observation point. Use those exact positions then measure a star from both positions relative to the angle of the other nail in the ground.
Obviously if you can't see Polaris, the stars will be moving, but you could do it from location "A" the first night, then location "B" the second night, then location "A" the third night, at exactly the same time every night. That way you could compensate for sidereal time by averaging the position of the first and third nights. Ideally you would choose a time each night so that the star was in the exact same position based on sidereal time. There are only 23.9344696 hours in a sidereal day. So you could take sightings at 10:08PM one night, then 10:04pm the next night, and 10:00pm the third night, since a sidereal day is about 4 minutes shorter.
Cheers
@@jtolanmedia1 Yh few people here are indeed aware of it... they also are not aware at all that your speaking complete nonsense as they don't understand what your doing... But euhm what if they actually understood that your doing nothing more then basic distance imaging processing with one serious flaw and the reason why your whole video is complete nonsense and we dont use it for meassuring the distance to stars..
You don't have a object... your meassuring light... not a object. You cannot use what your using to meassure distance to a star as you don't have a object to meassure. You are meassuring light... That light is not where the object is....
I had people tell me in the comment you where a aerospace engineer.... I don't know what mental dissease you have... And i am sure you wanna act smart and stuff.. But you do know how stupid this makes you look right????
Your bringing all this calculations that don't even make sense for what your doing as your not meassuring a object. Whit what your doing you can't even tell me what star is closer on that picture vs another star.
All your doing is this : I think that light is the objcect so i am gonna do digital distance processing and the number i get is the distance to that object.. While you don't have a object making what your saying nothing more then gibber gabber and bad one at that. As even your digital distance processing has way to many variables in it to even get that right. So even if you thought you where meassuring to a object your still off...
Take your mental medication,stop acting your smart because let's be honest look at your audience they don't even understand you don't have a object. And they they think the light is the object on a 2d picture while of course it's not. We know this by actually doing real math...
So let me ask you show me the star and not the light. Show me the object and not the light as you need the object to do this calculation. You can't... so you meassured light and not the object itself making this whole video debunked in a matter of seconds.. All your work is debunked in a matter of seconds if you can not show me the actual object that is the star. Not the light but the actual star. And if you want real debunking i can actually debunk it with a simple telescope and use a actual objject like let's say jupiter use the real calculations and the same digital measuring process and call you out like that.... You have the possibility right? c'mon do it for a physical object that is close enough to actually get the object and not just the light... And inform your subscribers... But you won't because it would call you out... oops...
@@fromjesse I am pretty sure he knows his calculations are wrong. He actually seems like a pretty intelligent guy, there is no way he believes the earth is flat. Maybe he earns some money from this, or has other reasons.
I love your work. So inspiring. Great job👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Great work J!
For the off center object accuracy of measurements, try and apply lens correction. All lenses distort the image the further off the center you measure.
Adobe Photoshop could do it and it's a monthly subscription fee, not expensive at all. There are other products you can find to do this correction.
Good luck and I'll look forward to your next adventure.
I wonder if the lens distortion will account for the 3 pixel discrepancy he is using to calculate the distance to the dome 🤔
Thanks Rebel, along the lines of lens distortion, and thanks for bringing this up, I'm fully aware of it which is why I chose the lenses I did. I do have a set of 30mm lenses, for some wider angle, but I decided against it because they are third party lenses and they don't have the lens distortion correction like the Sony lenses, but obviously can be corrected with some effort as you're aware. Here's a link: www.sony.com/electronics/support/articles/00018031?msclkid=bcd26819ba0a11ecbd00bdbc655533ac
@@jtolanmedia1 Hi JT, I’ve emailed you a couple of times asking for the images, but no response as yet. My email address has “dubz” in it.
@@roohif Hi roohif, somebody else asked about that as well and unfortunately I'm on travel but when I get home in a few weeks I'll check email (I only have access on my mac at home) might be good to wait as well, since I bought a set of 200mm lenses and I'm going to increase the pixel difference by 4 times, to around 14.8 pixels, by keeping the same baseline, that should be fun! stay tuned ...
Hey jtolan. Russian freemason made this video. Says distance is 3300 miles:)ruclips.net/video/8SMjVkJaq8w/видео.html
You're measuring the distance to the celestial sphere... it's not an actual tangible dome or "space-time" curvature - it's how the sky is perceived through VISION, which is spherical in nature, relative to the observer.
All they did was take the celestial sphere, and told you you live on the outside of it, on top of it. That's why the radius matches.
Any thoughts about doing a study on Antarctica and the alleged edge of Dome? great works appreciate the research that you do and share
Awesome question
@@ShanntahnPininchula we are not allowed to travel more than 60 degrees south...
For our safety,muhahahahhahahaha
@@jocimocilo really? Can you please substantiate that?
@Adrian Look no further than the "Antarctic treaty" and impossible limitations to even think to go there ... and if you manage to go there, there is no freedom...escorted or supervised are the choices ...
@@jocimocilo I read that treaty and it didn't seem unreasonable much less impossible. In fact what I found was it's explicitly stated in the treaty that any citizen of participating countries is allowed to go there.
Maybe you should have done an optics check first, to see if your 2 cameras are in sync.
Just photograph the stars while the cameras are right besides each other, and check for abnormalities.
It is very clear that there are abnormalities that skew your result. And when 3-4 pixels are all that are standing between 4000 miles and infinity, you really can't take chances.
You are literally 4 pixels from infinity, and yet you think you are accurate...
Great goodness! Lets all go deeper than ever before.
That was very cool.. And very technical.. Thanks.. Lol.. The dome
Not a dome theory which comes from the phony fictional book of Enoch but a horizontal ceiling....
If the Celestial Dome is really a perfect dome, then where you point at the dome will affect the resultant distance. In theory, to get radius of the Dome in flat earth model would be measuring from the North Pole pointing straight up to Polaris.
Here's why that will never happen. Because you guys don't even know the radius of the tropic of capricorn. Sincerely; Inverse Earth Camp.
Thank you very much for your dedication and the clear and crisp explanation! Looking forward to the solution to compensate for the curved light rays.
Now we know how high the firmament. Neat calculations.
Actually his measurements were to that star which could be farther away than the actual distance to the dome right above you. Some people several years ago shot up their own independent rocket, it stopped with a video cam on it with sound, it hit something at about 74 miles up.
@@dsmith5199 Do you think a rocket going with full speed will survive a clash with a solid object?
@@dsmith5199 the guy that built his own rocket is not a great engineer. He did not his anything. It just blew up
Another big win for flat earth…
Hahahahahahahahaha
@@71Hasler why don’t you hop over to my channel and watch beyond the borders, an exposé of the circular logic and holes in the Newtonian/cavendish/Einsteinian mathematics. Once you’ve done that, hop over to Tim truth’s odysse channel and join one his of daily live debates and try and refute the exposed mathematics, so we can then point and laugh at you. 😎
@@iBMcFly flat earthers doing math????? This I gotta see.
@@iBMcFly Flat earth is the biggest joke ever, can we get the big ice wall that protects people from falling off the edge of the earth into SPACE in many hot countries? The answer is flat out no! Antarctic is not in every country where supposedly the army is protecting the ice wall! The manpower to protect the ice wall would run into trillions of dollars or pounds.
@@71Hasler Travis= 100% blsht, maths=0.
So what is the real distance between earth and the dome?
70-80 miles
@@brandonhopkins5448 indeed 73 miles
right where the amateur rocket all of a sudden stopped...
29:51 3943 miles
@@unarammer2003 it stoped at 70 miles because it did not have the correct angle and speed to get into the ether ..look up the cia docs on this matter how rockets must be at a certain degree and speed to get into it and then it can go further on and float around the circle of earth ..
If you tilt a real compass the needle jams against the glass or face.
On a ball earth. If you're standing on the equator with a level real compass in your hand facing north. The compass needle is actually pointing parallel out into space. North Pole should be a few kilometers below you. Why does the needle not jam against the face?
Why don't we make a south facing compass and see where it points to?
Fantastic...what a genius work and explanation..WOWWwww.....
Wowwww you did it again dear. This is a wonderful work and this is the way schools should teach students to think and to learn maths. Im simply mermerized.
You are really the Best Im so fascinated with each video from you. English is my second language but i can understand everything you say because you have the courtesy to speak slow and clear, so latin american people can understand you. Im in love with your mind and as a woman i'm so proud of you. I love you. 💘
P.D. if you want i can translate your videos from english to spanish..so you can put subtitles and increase the amount of people following you from south america. 😀
There's a reason why schools don't teach about flat earth....it's cause it isn't flat....
@@71Hasler im taking about "teaching maths". You dont have reading comprehension skills..
@@AngelA-sg7jh and you don't have math skills because flat earth math, isn't math. It's idiocy. Flat earthers don't do math. It's hilarious that you think this video is good math.
@@71Hasler schools are not to teach, they are to designed to feed the commercial work force. What are you 20 years old? How gullible of a comment saying schools are to teach. They dont want critical thinkers, they want workers that obey. How in 2022 with info at your fingertips have you not been able to figure this out is scary.
Keep going forever to where? If the stars are 4000 miles away, what's out there?
Water
Amazing how you work threw calculations! You lose me during those steps. LOL But i love what you do! Thank you!
Why did you not look straight up? Then you would have distance to the dome.
Exactly!
Hi Thomas, looking up is challenging, because we don't have a calibration target in sight, I'm working on laser alignment mounts, that will be calibrated in the lab, then taken to the field and aligned with lasers in the base, thus eliminating the need for a calibration target in the field of view, and this approach will make it possible in the future.
@@jtolanmedia1 then you can map the dome surface. I look forward to your next video!
you have been deceived ! ..... LOL
Always excellent research...
Bravo JT ! Life was so much easier when I knew earth was a sphere.
I said that I thought it was flat when I was 7. Over time the repeated lie brainwashed me, then came the day that I saw on RUclips that Rob Skiba (rip) was exploring "flat earth". I'd seen plenty of thumnails with f.e. in the title and dismissed them as goofy, but when I saw that Rob was looking into it, I had to see. After that I devoured as much info on it as I could find and was actually convinced of the fact of f.e. before Rob convinced himself. Knowing what I now know, the Bible makes much more sence to me, verses about the fimament, the foundation and pillars of the earth, "the earth will not be moved", Joshua commanding the sun & moon to stand still, stars & wondering stars, etc. etc. (almost 60 now)
Ya, but once you see it, you can't unsee it.
I think life gets better after this realization.
Ignorance is bliss…
Awesome J!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God bless brother in Jesus.
13:50 - That star is called "Delta Crateris" if anyone cares ..
How far away is it Roohif..?
@@arranmorfeld1991 186 light years. You're welcome 👍👍
@@roohif daaaaaang… that’s a lot
@@roohif how did u get the number 186..?
@@roohif .. hehe..
Excellent! I always felt the sky was not outer space. It is a blue solid glass type rock that covers the flat earth. If you watch the sun come up in the morning, the sky lights up above us even before the sun appears. The light comes from the sky through the the dome in my opinion with the help of the sun.
It all happens due to a phenomenon called "scattering." When the Sun is low on the horizon, small particles and water droplets in the atmosphere force sunlight to change direction. you are like 5% right there is a dome, its called atmosphere. the closest stars excluding the sun is Alpha Centauri witch is about 25 trillion miles away. thats why all you flat earth and "dome" people have never flown there to prove how close it is. if it was 4 thousand miles away you could fly there in about 11 hours the same as going from parts of the U.S. to South America
Moon and sun are Local inside firmament. Both same size but give off different light/heat. Plasma. Stars are fixed but rotate around polaris. Sun and moon revolve around us like a clock face, or yin yang. The sun you see setting is just it moving away
@@al2954 That makes more sense than a ball earth in space with a bunch of other ball shaped planets moving around a large sun in the center, while none of them crash or move off the path, as they are held there by something they call gravity, gravity is only a theory, yet people accept it without thinking how ridiculous it all sounds.
@@MsJNix gravity is a lie. We have things like Buoyancy etc. I reccomended channels such as vibes of cosmos and Eric Dubay, maybe divergent, and then go from There. It's funny what you can find out for yourself. Life is one big lie, a joke, a stage, controlled, manipulated. Truth will set you free.
THANKS FOR DOING THE WORK that some of us lack of doing….AMAZING!!!
EXCELLENT !!!! MARVELOUS !!! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO !!
What kind of cameras did you use? Did you take into account fisheye and lens distortion?
God's Word says the stars are IN the firmament.
Thank you JT for verifying the TRUTH scientifically.
Mikey Smith horizontally appozed has proof of the firmament with two lasers hitting it. ruclips.net/video/sFvxi8XpuPw/видео.html
He didn't verify anything
This man has brains the size of nebraska.... excellent as always.
@@winstonwolfe340 He cannot record the readings from the theodolite, he can with the cameras.
Just found you through a fb friend. Great videos! Wow
I have been subbed since you hit the scene and I also banged the bell but haven't had a single notification. I wonder why, lol. I think I know!
Have you tried measuring the distance to that thing that they call the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION?
22:52 ".... and we was take off sometimes that way right towards the mountain and BANG". Hilarious.
Great videos!! Don't stop!
@jtolanmedia1773 Thanks for all the great work. One comment - at about 32:43 you thought the short distance of star from earth had something to do with space-time... I think it has more to do with Perspective - seeing that the star you were viewing was much closer to the horizon than it was to the observation point
I submit that if you attempt to minimize the distant horizontal ramping caused by Perspective by instead measuring a star which is closer to the zenith of the observing locations - in other words; if you are looking almost strait up at a star near to directly overhead, you minimize two of the most egregious optical factors:
1) You minimize refraction error because instead of viewing through many thousands of miles of atmosplane of varying temperature and density - by looking strait up you are only going through an atmosplane of around 50 miles through a relatively shorter and ever decreasing density which should nearly eliminate most if not all refraction effects.
2) Also when viewing strait up rather than horizontally - you eliminate much if not all of the ramping effect caused by Perspective.
Just an idea.
Thanks again for all you do.
Bendiciones, Jtolan media 1, excelente trabajo, gracias por también ver la verdad como uno, muchos ya están despertando. Saludos excelente contenido en tu canal
i've waited for over two years to watch a new video from you lol.
I'm curious to know the stars distance. I suspect that the star constellations in the northern hemisphere are higher in altitude then the southern star const.
why?
Agree
What was the elevation above sea level for the measurements
Thankyou so much for your incredible work, truly inspiring
Plz manage the volume cos sometimes its high n then drops down ! Difficult to adjust !
amazing work as usual, mind blown!
Distance to the dome ought to be perpendicular to the surface.
Gosh my favourite clips are always 33mins and 33secs. And to see the distance to the roof is 3943.47mils from the Earth, it warms my Heart even if it is a backbone chillin zero degrees Fahrenheit in the desert at night.
at least, some of us are awake, eh? ....... LOL !!!!!!
.... but the earth is not a spinning globe.....
Obviously the star moves with time and will be at different heights angles during the night. Does the distance to yhe dime remain consistent? Or did you just measure once
You need a lot more pixels (than 851.3 for infinity) to get an accurate assessment.
If you were to use actual math and science. You will notice the earth isn’t flat
Are you saying the Stars are possibly are beyond the Firmament? And as always, excellent work my brother!
the irony is the solution is simple and right in front of us
So 343 miles above is the ceiling. Cool. Finally somebody with a brain figured it out!
Three thousand nine hundred and forty three miles at its highest point
@@tiffanyyoung9671 3943 miles at the max height over the North Pole straight down to earth or simply 3943 from JTolans vantage point to the nearest point in the Dome, or from JTolan's vantage point to the peak over the North Pole?
@jtolanmedia1773, I watched your video several times.
One thing that wasn't clear to me was if all your statistical data involved measurements to stars in different directions, or it was mostly only in the same general direction (say eastward)
For example, did you only take images and angular measurement in one direction? or did you do the same experiment in varying directions say, north, south, east and west?
I am wondering if you did or would expect the same type of results and conclusions if you aligned your equipment in say the opposite direction? thanks
buv ofc sum wasnt clear THE EARTH AIN'T FLAT
How does that compare to height of amateur rocket that hit the dome or something and came to an abrupt halt? How high was that?
Jtolan, congratulations this is material, excelent, a'm your fa... how measured this distante the earth about ISS? sorry this my english
JTolan, how do you know where this dome is? What is it made of? How did the ISS get above it? It's passage can always be followed. Heck, an astrophotographer just got some amazing footage, which shows two space walkers at work. Shot from the ground.