Kent Hovind and the Flat Earth, part 3

Kent Hovind Critises Flat Earth Believers

Continuing and concluding Kent Hovind’s remarks on the flat earth.

Click here to see the video.

Kent starts off by saying that he thinks that the resurgence of the flat earth theory is to criticize what Christians think or to justify what the Catholic church did years 500 years ago. This, of course, is wrong conclusion on his part. The flat earth has emerged because people are waking up and realising that what we have been told is not logical, it’s not what we see in reality, and it’s not biblical.

With the internet, people are exposed to more, they can do better research even than if they lived in the Library of Congress; and communication is much faster and wide spread. The same thing applies to other subjects that are not related at all to the flat earth, such as people waking up to the conspiracies and lies the government has been doing. So, Kent, the flat earth information is the not the result of a certain group of people who want to discredit Christians but true Christians finding out the truth of God’s Creation.

Kent says he appreciates the zeal of the flat earthers and he says, “They think they are defending the Bible but they aren’t.” Well, Kent, it is you and your friend who made this video who are not defending the Bible – when it comes to the flat earth; when it comes to your talk on Creation and Evolution, yes, but not here!

Many times Hovind said that the earth is a globe and that’s it. But it’s OK for Edrique to say (about 1:25 into part 3 video) to say, “If you are going to write and say, ‘The earth is flat, get over it,’ I will not respond.” So, it shows a double standard that these two people have!

4:00 Edrique goes into the example of traveling in a semi-truck going at 70mph and throwing a ball to the back of the truck. Now, we know, as flat earth believers that the speed of the ball is different relative to those who are on the ground watching the truck go by. WE have no problem with that, but the globe earth believers think we do and they think that this example explains the fact that we don’t feel anything on a spinning AND shooting forward earth. But this is not a correct analogy with us supposedly being on earth spinning at 1,000mph AND going around the sun at 67,000mph. All of this was explained in a previous Post here; it’s too long to going into it again.

6:10 “The atmosphere is traveling with it (earth),” so Hovind said. How can the atmosphere travel with any solid thing no matter what the speed? It can’t! If the earth were moving under our feet at 1,000mph, it would cause a tremendous amount of wind. Since humans are not attached to the earth but can move, walk, jump around, it would be impossible to be in one place. We would immediately be knocked to our feet, fall and ram into the next object still standing – IF there was anything standing. All of this is crazy talk when you stop and think of the physics of the whole thing. Yet, these two people talk as if everything was normal and their eyes are blind to the whole thing. It’s not just Kent and Edrique, as they represent the average person who believes in the heliocentric model of the universe.

With the above in mind, it shows that with propaganda given from all sources and hearing this from birth to the grave, it shows that humans can be fooled into believing the most outlandish thing. Remember when we believed in the globe earth, too? But I think that for us, when we think of the mechanics of the whole thing, we were able to wake up and realise our foolish belief; with others, they just can’t escape the impossibility of a spinning and traveling earth.

6:30 – 6:54 Kent was explaining about shooting a missile out of the atmosphere and you would miss your target by 200 miles. With this statement, what he is saying is, that there is something at this altitude that is not dragging the atmosphere along. Well, what is it Kent? After all, “we went to the moon,” and the Apollo space capsule did not go through anything. Of course, there is a Dome, or the Firmament, as the Bible calls it. But it’s purpose is something else: to keep the atmosphere contained in a stationary earth. For even a stationary earth will lose its atmosphere and gases if there is other space beyond it.

Again, how can gravity connect to some area outside the atmosphere and make even gases ‘stick’ to the earth and keep it in sync? It can’t. If you want to keep an object on the surface in the same place, it would have to be physically attached to it. Once this object, human or animal leaves contact with the spinning earth, it will fly away.

Note: This is not part of the video but it is a part of what Kent said in the past and what he is saying now. In the past, in one of his videos on evolution, he talked about the Law of Conservation of Angular Motion. He used this to demonstrable what the evolutionist believe in is wrong. Evolutionists believe – whom ALL are believers in the the heliocentric universe – that there are some galaxies along with planets that rotate in the opposite direction then the majority of planets and galaxies. Kent said that if the Big Bang is real, when the explosion occurred everything would have the same spin but it doesn’t. He said it violates the Law of Conservation of Angular Motion – which is true.

If you were to go to a school playground, and go on one of those small merry-go-rounds, where kids sit on it. If it was going in a clockwise direction, for example, and it was going faster and faster until the children couldn’t hold on any longer, they would fly off. They will also be spinning in the same direction as the merry-go-round – until the energy imputed stopped or until they hit a tree! So, why don’t all the people fly off the earth? They would as this law is an observable and repeatable one, but Kent forgot all about what he said years ago. Anyhow, he would say that ‘gravity’ keeps us all in place. But how can it be gravity, IF it exists, keep enormous amount of pressure on everything – which it would have to – but yet, a person can walk, play and jump around and not feel this pressure at all. How can a delicate butterfly fly in any direction and not get crushed? All of this is strange thinking. As for me, when I believed in the globe earth, as soon as a flat earther pointed out to me, I saw how illogical my long held false belief was. So, I dropped in for the flat earth model.

Kent said that gravity keeps us on a spinning ball. If that is so, why doesn’t it keep the children on a merry-go-round going 1,000mph? After all, if a lager mass attracts smaller ones, why doesn’t the earth keep the small merry-go-round and children from falling off? After all, the mass of a merry-go-round is much less compared to a smaller planet.

7:10 Kent talks about sun spots and shows a picture in an earth book put out by Bob Jones University, he said, “a Christian university,” to emphasize the point. In all do respect, just because it comes from a Christian source doesn’t mean that it contains the truth. We have all seen these clowns on TV, known as televangelists, preaching un-Godly things and calling themselves Christians.

Earlier, Kent said that sometimes a planet like Mercury that gets between the earth and the sun, and this can only be in a revolving solar system (can’t think of the exact words, but that was his meaning). When heliocentric believers use this, it’s nothing but a lie. People who would like you to believe in the Big Bang, evolution and the rest of it would think nothing about lying about sun spots and where they come from. Kent knows about the deliberate lying by evolutions so, why does he take as gospel what they say about the universe now?

What could these sun spots be? Whatever it is, it’s NOT planets flying through space; it’s something on the surface of the sun, as it (sun) goes along its circuit above the flat earth.

11:50 Here they are talking about a comet that was going to Jupiter and how it broke up. Kent interjected and said, “It’s more complicated than that. You have greater exertion on the front of the comet than you have on the back half. What was happening was causing internal stresses in the comet which made it break apart.” (Not his exact words but pretty close to it.) IF this was true, Kent, then why hasn’t the earth broken apart? (Because of the greater gravity on the sun side verse the far side of earth.) Why hasn’t it happened to the moon? Look how close that is the the earth, and it has not broken up. What about Mercury (the closest planet to the sun)? What about the mass of a NASA space capsule as it approaches the moon? What about a satellite as it flies by these huge planets? After all, a satellite would be the size of many comets and flying past Jupiter or Saturn would break it apart. We know the answer: that there are neither satellites in space nor gravity anywhere in space or on earth.

Heliocentric believes don’t realise the contradictions they carry in their mind!

kent-sun-rays

13:50 Edrique was showing the sun light going through spaces in the clouds and shinning down on the sea; known as the ‘crepuscular rays’. He said that the reason why these rays (as he pointed to them) are on an angle and the reason why this ray is pointing straight down, is because it’s noon over there (where the sun rays were going straight down).

Ha, ha, ha. What a joke! I can’t believe what a stupid statement he made! The fact that Kent Hovind didn’t call him out on it, means he must believe it, too. Let’s examine this more closely.

Here, we are present with a photo of, what looks like late afternoon sun. we have all seen similar rays of the sun going out on different angles. Perhaps you have seen this on the seashore. Now, I don’t know where this photo was taken (and, probably Edrique doesn’t either) but it doesn’t really matter. First and foremost, you can’t see across a couple of time zones – period! When you look out at sea, the horizon is about 12 miles out. If you are up higher you can see further out. The only time you can see across a time zone is if you are near the dividing line – that’s it. You can’t see across a whole time zone as they are a couple of hundreds miles apart to nearly 1,000 miles away – depending on latitude.

With the photo that Edrique used, it looks like where the observer is it’s 4pm. In any case, noon would be several times zones away – a distance too far to see. What a ludicrous statements he made!

If the photo was taken on the shores of Georgia, for example, and you are in the late afternoon, further eastward can’t be12 noon – as noon time already passed! You are looking towards Europe, which is later in the day. If it was the morning hours, you still can’t see the length of one time zone.

If you happened to be right near another time zone, the time will be an hour difference BUT the sun in the sky would be the same. Example, if you are five miles away from crossing a time zone, the sun and the angle would be identical. The sun would be no different than if you drove to a town 5 miles away and there was no time zone crossing.

When I was in Cyprus I lived within view of the sea. It was common during certain times of the year to see the rays come through different areas of the sky – just like this. Where the sun was over the Mediterranean Sea, it was in the late afternoon and the view was south-west. I saw rays coming down on an angle and ones coming down straight. No way was this looking across several time zones! No way was it even looking across one time zone. Noon had come and gone, so that was not it. Finally, looking south from Cyprus, you are not even looking across time zones even if you could see that far. Too ‘see across’ time zones you would basically be looking East or West; you have to look across latitude lines not longitude lines. Looking towards the South or the North, you would not be looking across time zones, as they don’t run in that direction.

Another thing that the two guys didn’t think of and that is, IF the sun is 93 million miles away, the sun would be too far away to to show at different angles; there would not be one section of the earth where the sun is directly over head and another one, say, 10% off, and other angle seen at another angle still. The sun would appear at the same degree in the sky for all people. But, with the angle of the rays being different and so close proves that the earth is flat and that the sun is near the surface.

Kent and Edrique science is really lacking; their common-sense is lacking, too. In a way I’m glad that they made such a stupid remark, as people can wake up and see through this as nothing but a LIE.

Just think back of the times and location that you had seen such sunrise or sunset. Where was it? What direction were you facing and where were you in relation to the time zones?

No, Kent and Edrique, the rays are not like that because of a sun 93 million miles away, but because it’s close – perhaps 3,000 miles at the most. The sun’s rays are on an angle because it’s close. His picture proves that it’s close, as something 93 million miles way cannot cast angles like that, and it cannot create a hotspot, either (as seen in some high altitude pictures).

15:30 Kent said, “If the earth is flat, I should be able to see Tokyo.” Another stupid statement. Edrique said that we are told that if we had a military grade telescope we should see Tokyo. Then Kent said, that if you are 6 feet tall, you times that by 1.3 and that number in miles should be how far you can see at sea.

OK, let’s analysis this. First, did they ever get a good telescope to look out at sea? Probably not. If they did, I will assure them that when a boat ‘disappears over the horizon,’ it did not go over the curve, as their telescope will bring it back in view. If they had a ‘military grade’ telescope it would not be strong enough to see Tokyo in the first place. A military grade telescope is not as strong as an observatory telescope. So, why didn’t they use that as an example? I don’t know.

As for seeing Tokyo, what these two guys didn’t take into consideration is: air density, pollution, fog and mist along the way. Each one of these cuts down the view. The strange things is, or maybe not so strange is, why hasn’t Edrique brought up these objections? He brought up other statements from the flat earthers but not these. I guess there would be no way to get around this and they would have to agree that flat earthers are right. Also, it might be clear on shore, but 500 miles out it could be foggy, which would block their view.

I notice the technique that globe believers do in order to justify their belief. They take some huge distance from one location on earth to another, and ask, “Why can’t see it?” I heard another man, a good Christian, but just wrong on this issue say, “Why can’t you go to the Florida beach and see South America?” again, a great distance. You don’t have to use distance like this to PROVE that the earth is flat. All you need to do is, watch a ship disappear from your eyes – which could be 10 miles away. It would be ‘over the curve’ we are told. Then take a telescope out and look at the ship again. This will prove a flat earth, and you can do it all without getting an expensive telescope. If you prove you CAN see beyond the so-called curvature at 10 miles, you proved your point. You don’t need to do it for 100 or 1,000 miles. Again, the problem with seeing something on earth at sea level at 1,000 miles is the air density, fog, mist, and pollution – all of which blocks vision. Telescopes will always work better and see further pointing up – not parallel at ground level!

kent-video-3b

16:45 Edrique shows a picture of what was on Chicago TV of a view of Chicago skyline taken across Lake Michigan – distance I think of 60 miles. He said, take a look at the water, you can’t see the waves, it was taken high up. And the higher up you are the further you can see. Well, this part is true – the higher you are the further you can see – flat earthers will tell you that, you don’t have to go to globe earth believers. Anyhow, this is part of the reason why he says you can see Chicago.

Again, they ignore the facts. The guy who took this was on the ground not high up. Even if the distance was only 6 miles, in order to see the skyline ACCORDING to globe earth believers, he would have to be 24 feet up. Do the math to figure how far up in the air the photographer would have to be to see 60 miles away. That formula is: 8 inches times 60 squared, divide by 12 to get the feet. If you find that the distance is greater, then use that figure.

kent-video-3-skyline2

No, the photographer was on the ground, maybe not exactly at sea level but he was not even on a high hill. He would have to be in an airplane at see that much further. Another thing that should make Edrique blush and that is, the Chicago weatherman, himself a heliocentric believer, said the photo was taken on the shores of Lake Michigan. But if Edrique said that, he would not be able to use the story that it was taken very high up.

Photo Skyline

Edrique goes on to say that if you were at sea level, you would not see the 2, 3, or 4 floor. Taking what he said, IF it was true, how can you see the rest of the building? These buildings are skyscrapers of various heights. By what heliocentric believers tell us, we should not be able to see anything. Yet, what this heliocentric believer tells us – by implication – we should see floors above the 4th. The fact is, if you do the math on 25,000 circumference, the top of the skyscrapers would still be behind the curve. But since we CAN see them, it’s PROOF that the earth is flat. At this distance, the skyline would be 2,000 feet below the curve, and that it taking 400 feet off the 2,400 figure you’d come up with on 8 inches square the distance.

Side note: You can see how people who would be watching this video and bobbing their collective heads along, say, “Yea, yea, yea,” that they would agree with the globe earth model. But analysing this, we see that what they say is not true.

19:00 It’s easy for someone to see a video, agree with everything they say and go on with their life. It’s only when you take the time to analysis it – which might require you seeing it again – that you see the many lies and distortions. Most people don’t take the time, so if their belief is one way, and they watch something that supports their belief and they’ll continue their life as normal.

Continuing, Edrique shows another photo, which was taken a shore level (compared to the other which was about 20 feet up). Here, he witnessed AGAINST himself, in that you still see the skyline of Chicago. The reason why you can’t see the very bottom is simple, and that is because of the small waves. Don’t forget, small waves up close will BLOCK big objects and even whole buildings in the background. A child can tell them that!

20:09 Kent said, “With their model, why would it (sun) go behind the horizon ever?” He was holding up a paperback book (using that as the earth) and with his finger, started over the book and went over the edge of it. This tells us that he thinks the sun is going under the flat earth. No flat earthers believe the earth travels under the earth. All they have to do is watch a flat earth video and they wouldn’t bring up this argument.

20:30 Edrique was pointing to a video on the screen about a very long hallway that went smaller and smaller (because of perspective). He said, “Imagine each of these lights (in the hallway) is like the sun, each one is getting smaller and smaller (implying why the sun doesn’t get smaller and smaller). Kent then said, “That hall can go on for ever and ever – to infinity.” Edirque said yes and he added, “Even if the hallway is 5 miles away or 10 miles away, you should still the the light.” (Meaning that last light in this long hallway is on.) He continued, “Even though it would be very small, you should still see the light.” This, of course, is implying that we should see the sun but it would be very small.

Again, these guys just don’t know science, they are not using their real life experience. They admit that things get smaller and smaller (referring to the sun). Well, when things get smaller and smaller, what happens? They get smaller and smaller UNTIL you can’t see it at all! So, what makes them think that you can see forever? We can’t see other objects forever; with light it is a longer distance but it’s not forever. I guess they believe this because we see stars “trillions of miles away.”

When the foundation is wrong, everything built on it is wrong.

They admit the point gets smaller and smaller, so that tells us that light does not go on forever.

One reason why the sun doesn’t do what the “lights in an infinity hallway does” is that the sun gets further and further away TO A POINT, but goes on a circuit above the earth and loops back.

22:00 Kent ask do they know what makes the sun go around, and Edrique said no. Kent answered that he knows (on heliocentric model). Now, just because someone doesn’t know ALL the answers, does not make the flat earth model false.

Edrique said that the flat earth people don’t believe in gravity and Kent asked, what do they believe in? His response was something like electromagnetism. What Edrique should know if he studied what we believe is, that it’s density that keeps things on the earth. Kent should know about the characteristics of density being a science teacher and offer that in place of the lack of knowledge that Edrique had.

Kent said, “Don’t include me in your flat earth model.” He repeated this a couple of times. No one included him, so why did he make this up? Why would any flat earth believer include a person who does not believe as they do? Why would they include someone who is a strong advocate against the flat earth? Sorry, Kent but you have to be invited and you turned down the invitation (accepting the flat earth) so you are then not invited.

So ends video 3.

Summary

As you can see, these two – Kent Hovind and Edrique Visser – did a hatchet job on discussing the flat earth. What I would like to see is Kent Hovind taking debate a flat earther – just like he has done with evolutionists. But will he do it? Since he says that he doesn’t want to see any more Posts or comments about the flat earth, I don’t think we would want to debate geocentric believers. How would he like it if he was turned down by universities and professors who don’t want to accept his offer to debate. He wouldn’t but he can’t see his hypocrisy – that he is reacting just like his opponents the evolution believers.

Advertisements

About revealed4you

First and foremost I'm a Christian and believe that the Bible is the inspired word of Yahweh God. Introducing people to the Bible through the flat earth facts.
This entry was posted in flat earth discussion and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Kent Hovind and the Flat Earth, part 3

  1. Steve says:

    There is reason to believe that Hovind might be a Freemason; hence why he denies the Flat Earth truth to his followers.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s