The Pale Blue Dot? Chapter Three: The Firmament/Dome

Originally Written By Thomas Perez. October 4, 2018 at 12:54AM. Copyright 2018. Updated 2020.

Genesis 1:6-7, 14-18.

Vs. 6. And God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. Vs. 7. and God made the firmament and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the Firmament: and it was so. Vs. 14. And God said let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. Vs. 15. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the Earth: and it was so. Vs. 16. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: He made the Stars also. Vs. 17. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the Earth. Vs. 18. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

History of the Firmament/Dome

On October 24, 1946, the V2 Rocket #13 became the first man-made object to take a photograph of the Earth from outer space.

Twenty six years later, on December 7th, the Apollo 17 mission took the following picture. This picture became known by the title that was given to it: “The Blue Marble.”

However, in the past the ancients, although knowing it was a circle, and not a globe, depicted the Earth differently. They often pictured it flat, with a firmament (like a tent) covering the Earth. “So, what gives here?” For the purpose of this chapter, I shall refer to the firmament as a “Dome.” I am doing this because the Hebrew word for firmament comes from the word “Raqiya” – which means “an expanse” “a visible arch of the sky.” The root word is “Raqa” – “to overlay” “expand.” Many cultures outside of the Bible spoke of a firmament/dome since the beginning of time. The following pictures are depictions of such:

European Depiction…

The Mayan…

The Egyptians, the Nurse, Hindu, Inca, Navajo, and the Hebrew depiction…

And the Christian concept…

Moreover, the recent discovery of an ancient stone depicting a flat Earth solidifies the widespread belief of a disk shaped Earth surrounded by a dome, as seen in the picture below…

There were many other cultures as well. But exactly what is this Dome made out of, and what is, or was, it’s function? There are some speculations. We know that it isn’t made from water itself, at least not according to various creation stories. Because it’s job is, or was, to separate the waters in the heavens from the waters below, with the Earth settled in between. But what we do know, according to Scripture, is that the Sun, Moon and stars were, or are, in it. Though some depictions above show them, except for the stars, just below it. This discrepancy may be due to a cultures textual documentation and/or tradition of their respective time. But what do we know of it today? Was it real? Does it still exist? Has it ever existed? Is the Earth a flat circular disk, more or less? Or is it simply a metaphor, an allegory to illustrate a story? Before we answer these questions, let us ask another question. A question based upon scientific fact – “Are disk shaped planets even possible?” The answer to that question is a “Yes.” The scientific community states that circular disks are formed during a planets initial beginnings, and if all the properties are in place, only then can it become a larger disk with depths that vary in size.

“For a long time the formation of protostellar disks – a prerequisite to the formation of planetary system around stars – has defied theoretical astrophysicists: In a dense, collapsing cloud of gas and dust, the magnetic field would be dragged to the centre as well resulting in a braking effect. Hardly any rotationally supported disk can form this way, unless the tiny grains are removed from the cloud by growing or coagulating into bigger grains. This is the result from a new study published by researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics and other intuitions. The more realistic simulations now take into account non-ideal magneto-hydrodynamics and ionization chemistry to form a rotationally supported protostellar disk.”

Moreover; “When grains are mostly larger than 0.1 micrometres, the rotationally supported disks can become massive enough to be self-gravitating and evolve into rings,” says Zhao. “Such a structure in 3D could easily fragment into multiple stellar systems, which may also help explain the high multiplicity of stars in our Milky Way.”

“It is surprising to find that the removal of small dust grains can avoid the ‘magnetic braking catastrophe’ in disk formation,” says Paola Caselli, co-author of the paper. “This is a breakthrough in our understanding of how protoplanetary disks form. At the same time, it demonstrates that chemistry and microphysics are crucial to the fundamental processes in the field of star and planet formation.” (Ibid)

Here are two pictures depicting the formation of a disk planet from the same cited source…

Similarly according to NASA; “Asteroids are minor planets, especially those of the inner Solar System. The larger ones have also been called planetoids. These terms have historically been applied to any astronomical object orbiting the Sun that did not show the disc of a planet (emphasis by T. Perez) and was not observed to have the characteristic of a active comet. As minor planets in the outer Solar System were discovered and found to have volatile-based surfaces that resemble those of comets, they were often distinguished from asteroids of the asteroid belt.”

Moreover, according to an article by NASA entitled ‘Planets and Disks;’ “The heat-sensitive infrared eyes of NASA’s Spitzer Space Telescope are perfect for studying distant planet forming disks, and characterizing exoplanets, or planets beyond our Solar System.

When a cosmic cloud condenses, the baby star that forms inside is rotating. The dusty material surrounding the newborn star is also moving, and will eventually flatten into a disk around the new star’s equator. This dusty disk material is the stuff that comets, asteroids, and planets are made of.

Some (emphasis by T. Perez) astronomers think that planets form like snowballs over millions of years, as small dust grains clump together to form larger rocks. Some of these cosmic rocks then smash together to form rocky planets, like Earth, or the cores of gas-giant planets like Jupiter. Large rocks that don’t form planets often become asteroids and comets.”

However, according to Sky & Telescope: Astronomy-News; “…Disks do not always mean planets.” However, we are told that a protoplanetary disk is a rotating circumstellar disk of dense gas and dust surrounding a young newly formed star. If protoplanetary disks can be formed like “snowballs” over time, then the shape and size of such formations can vary. We see this in asteroids, meteors and comets. But can planetary bodies have different shapes? They certainly can. It is now commonly accepted that the shape of the Earth is not a perfect circular globe. 

“As countless photos from space can attest, Earth is round – the “Blue Marble,” as astronauts have affectionately dubbed it. Appearances, however, can be deceiving. Planet Earth is not, in fact, perfectly round.

This is not to say Earth is flat. Well before Columbus sailed the ocean blue, Aristotle and other ancient Greek scholars proposed that Earth was round. This was based on a number of observations, such as the fact that departing ships not only appeared smaller as they sailed away but also seemed to sink into the horizon, as one might expect if sailing across a ball” says geographer Bill Carstensen of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg. (However, the explanation given by Carstensen is given 3 paragraphs down. As sailing ships, when focused, indicate a non-curvature  – T. Perez).

Isaac Newton first proposed that Earth was not perfectly round. Instead, he suggested it was an oblate spheroid—a sphere that is squashed at its poles and swollen at the equator. He was correct and, because of this bulge, the distance from Earth’s center to sea level is roughly 21 kilometers (13 miles) greater at the equator than at the poles.”

Here is a picture depicting an oblate Earth from…

Here is another picture depicting the shape of the Earth without its waters from the same site. However, land mass sizes are left to interpretation, However, NASA can not seem to make their minds as to what color this “Pale Blue Dot” is.

Different sized land masses, and different colors from various nations? Certainly seems that way…

Obviously, the picture that demonstrates an Earth without its waters defies the laws of gravity. Gravity holds the oceans in place – hence keeping it from flying into space. More on the theory of gravity in chapter ten. According to this same cite; “Due to the gravity of the Earth, the Earth is rotating at  a speed of 108,000 km/h; this is why it looks like a perfect circle.” This is an acceptable explanation. But it makes very little difference to a globular Earther or a flat circular Earther. Since our field of view is limited from our position on Earth, or from space (or from the firmament – for flat Earthers), the question, or denial of gravity’s existence is justifiable.

The quotation “the fact that departing ships not only appeared smaller as they sailed away but also seemed to sink into the horizon, as one might expect if sailing across a ball says geographer Bill Carstensen of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg,” can now be challenged with modern day technologies, as mentioned in our introduction. We can now bring ships back into our focus with advanced cameras and/or telescopes. Bringing ships back into focus after they allegedly went over the horizon on a curved Earth is an impossibility, since it is believed that the ship went under the curved Earth. From where the observer is standing, looking through a camera or telescope would be an impossible feat. However, it becomes possible when the same observation is accomplished on a flat Earth plane. 

There is a camera with a zoom so powerful that it can make far-away objects, like the Moon that is supposedly 238,900 miles away, (when closer to the observer – T. Perez) appear close. Many people use the Nikon P900 camera to see far away objects. “The Nikon P900 has an 83x optical zoom, which is the equivalent of a 2000mm zoom range.” “That’s insane for a DSLR that costs $600. “For comparison, most cameras in that price range come with kit lenses with a zoom range of 18mm to 55mm.” “The “normal” focal length as a rule is 50mm. Now your camera zooms in to 2000mm. That’s 2000 ÷ 50 = 40, written as 40X. In other words, at maximum zoom, your camera magnifies objects 40 times.”

“A bird 1 mile (5,280ft) away appears as if it were only 30 feet away.” So a bird, now 2 miles away appears as if it were 60 feet away. A bird 3 miles away appears to be 90 feet away. A bird 4 miles away appears to be 120 feet away. A bird 12 miles away appears to be 360 feet away, and so forth. So if the so-called “curve” of the Earth drops every 8 inches per mile (5,280 feet per drop), as we have learned in chapter one, and from what mainstream science tells us, then that would render the capacity for the P900 to see within its 2000mm capabilities ineffective. Note: A mile is equal to 5,280 feet.


But this is not so. It can bring into view, the Moon at a supposedly 250,000 mile distance to seemingly appear at a distance of only 7,500 feet away. The Earth itself is 24,901 miles in equatorial circumference (131,477,280 feet). And supposedly it is 24,860 miles from pole to pole; 131,260,800 feet. With all that focal power, why couldn’t the P900 keep the boat in view? Does the video below support a globe Earth?

Answer: “Now assuming that your eyes are 6ft above sea level, then the horizon is approximately 6 miles away. How far you can see a boat will depend on how high, above the sea level, is the highest part of the boat. If it is also 6ft above the sea, then the boat will vanish when it is 12 miles away.” When the video started the observer was at the starting point. At the starting point we saw no boat. But according to mainstream, if every mile is an 8 inch drop due to curvature – a total of 96 inches in drop, equaling 12mi, then why did the P900 still bring the boat into view, until the camera finally reached its breaking point, or limit? Yet, the boat was to have sailed under the curve of the horizon.

However, when we carefully watch the video we can draw five observational conclusions from it. 1. The Earth is curved (globally). 2. Point of view, the light, refraction and/or the outer waves contributed to the boats disappearance, which made it appear to go under the horizon. 3. The observer stopped zooming in. 4. The P900 can NOT truly make things appear closer after a certain limit. And finally number 5. Because of points 2-4, the Earth can still be said to be flat.

But someone might be quick to argue and cite, “What about the Moon?” “The P900 can certainly bring that into a close view.” This is true, it can. I said that above. The Moon, at a supposed 250,000 mile distance, appears as close as 7,500 feet away (30 feet × 250 miles = 7,500 feet). Instead, what the P900 is showing us is a focal local small Moon at a distance of roughly 3,000 miles away at a 90 feet image (30 × 3 = 90 feet). Or you can say 30 × 250,000 = 7,500,000 feet, or 30 x 3,000 = 90,000 feet. 7,500,000 feet is a bit stretching its focal power, wouldn’t you say? A 90,000 feet image seems more appropriate.

So the differential of feet focal image between the Moon and the boat is inconsistent. Hence the flatness of the Earth is still a plausible explanation. One can not argue the P900’s ability to bring into focus an object at 250,000 miles away and claim that it couldn’t bring the boat back into view because it went under the curved Earth, as to prove its capabilities, when the Moon itself is proven to be at a distance of roughly 3,000 miles away – seen as an image at 90 feet away in the camera. So out of our 5 observational possibilities, numbers 2 and 4 win the case against apparent curvatures. So in reality, the video doesn’t prove a thing.

But if there is no curve, where is the South Pole (Antarctic)? According to flat Earthers, the South Pole does not exist. Instead, the South Pole is a wall of ice that encircles the enclosed domed flat Earth. According to flat Earthers, the ice was and can be seen. It is the barrier in which the dome extends over the circular, but flat Earth. According to such adherents, this wall was indeed discovered by various expeditions.

There have been a total of 195 Antarctic expeditions throughout history. 16 in Pre 19th Cent history, 22 in the 19th Cent, 112 in the 20th Cent and 45 in the 21st Cent – with one by the name of Admiral Byrd conducting four in the 20th century. That’s an incredible 195 expeditions. For a complete listing of such voyages and flights browse link below on your internet device…

One such expedition was described in the Encyclopedia Americana…The 2.14 second video excerpt taken from the encyclopedia below seems to indicate an enclosed dome…

Here is the exact quotation:

“In December 1955 the task force left New Zealand to set up two base stations in Ross Sea area, Little America V was established at Kainan Bay, about 30 miles east along the Ross Ice Shelf from the Bay of Whales, and an air operation base was constructed at Hut Point on Ross Island in McMurdo Sound. Four United States planes flew from New Zealand to McMurdo Sound on December 30, 1955, and made exploratory flights over unknown parts of the continent (Antarctica) until January 18, 1956, when they returned to New Zealand. These flights proved the inland areas to be featureless in character, with a dome 13,000 feet high at about latitude 80 degrees South, longitude 90 degrees East. New mountain ranges were located at about latitude 85 degrees South, longitude 50 degrees West, re-affirming the observation made by Ronne in 1947 that the Antarctic continent is a single unit.” The Encyclopedia Americana Vol 2, published 1958.

This is the longer version…

Simply put, 13,000 feet = 2.462 in miles. That is about 40+city blocks high. The term “80 latitude degrees” means an 80th parallel – north is a circle of latitude that is 80 degrees north of the Earth’s equatorial plane, in the Arctic. Any point on the Equator’s circle is of latitude 0°, the top north is 90° North, the top south is 90° South. Circles parallels to the Equator are of the same latitude. A Longitude is the West/East value of a point on Earth. Longitudes are lines going from the south pole to the north pole. Here is a picture demonstrating latitudes and longitudes.

Many flat Earthers argue this entry as being one of many proofs of a glass type dome. Others dismiss that claim, citing that the entry is merely speaking of mountain ranges and peaks, and not of some imaginary dome because an “imaginary dome” would be much higher than 13,000 feet (2.462 miles). This is a good counter. But with a little imagination one can easily dismiss this counter claim by noticing the date of the entry. Just two years after Admiral Richard Byrd’s expedition to the Antarctic. Here is a brief interview of Byrd’s expedition.

In the video, Admiral Byrd discuss the importance Antarctica. He tells us that it is rich in minerals, oil and natural resources. So much so that it can service the entire Earth and all of humanity for several years and life times over. According to Byrd, it is the most important place in the world for science. Since the Antarctic is so rich in natural resources, then why keep it as off limits to digging, even at the request of investors? An insane amount of benefits for humanity can be accessed from the Antarctic. But instead, all efforts are continually blocked off by what is called the ‘Antarctic Treaty.’

Byrd uses the words; “Continent,” “North Pole,” “South Pole” and the phrase “bottom of the Earth.” Hardly anything that flat Earthers can sink their teeth into. Instead it seems to defy their view of the Earth. But he also said, toward the end of the video, that “The Antarctic continent is surrounded by a belt of ice, and frozen seas, at least 12,000 miles thick. The south is a plateau that gets to some places at about 14,000 feet up. I’ve also been over areas that were about 13,000 feet.”

Question: Is he talking about the seas being 12,000 miles thick, from top to bottom, as in a vertical line. Or is he talking about 12,000 miles thick, as in a horizontal line. If vertical, then he is referring to the ocean surface and down. Something of which I highly doubt due to obvious reasons. If horizontal, then that would entail an end of all that ice, somewhere after 12,000 miles. And then what? But in his next sentence he makes it clear that the height of the Antarctic is 13,000 to 14,000 feet high.

Now back to the Encyclopedia Americana quote, “with a dome 13,000 feet high.” Shouldn’t the quote be, “with domes (plural) 13,000 to 14,000 feet high, indicating many mountains of ice walls? But we do not read this. Instead, what we do read is “with a dome.”

However, there may be an explanation that even Heliocentrics can not criticize in view of the encyclopedia quote, Byrd’s video quote, and the following.

According to Raymond W. Bernard, Bernard quotes an excerpt from a 1947 journal entry by Admiral Byrd; “We are crossing over the small mountain range and still proceeding northward as best as can be ascertained. Beyond the mountain range is what appears to be a valley with a small river or stream running through the center portion. There should be no green valley below! Something is definitely wrong and abnormal here! We should be over Ice and Snow! To the port-side are great forests growing on the mountain slopes. Our navigation Instruments are still spinning, the gyroscope is oscillating back and forth! The Hollow Earth: The Greatest Geographical Discovery in History Made by Admiral Richard E. Byrd in the Mysterious Land Beyond the Poles, was published in 1964 by Raymond W. Bernard (a pseudonym for a man named Walter Siegmeister).

Many other strange things are said with reference to Admiral Byrd. “The fringe beliefs associated with Admiral Byrd’s exploits spin off in a variety of strange directions, all of which seem to belong more in the realm of science fiction than historic fact. For example, some accounts have claimed the famous explorer, while visiting the polar regions, actually discovered entrances to a vast Hollow Earth, in which lost civilizations with advanced UFO flying craft existed.”

A coincidence? Maybe, maybe not. True flat Earthers tend to ignore this. Instead they focus on science that is conceivable in the natural world. However many, if not all, Heliocentric adherents normally group all flat Earthers into one basket, claiming that they believe in all sorts of nonsense, as indicated above. This is simply not the case. Just like there are divisions within the scientific community about the origins of the universe and it’s future, there are also divisions within the camps of many flat Earthers. Furthermore, not all flat Earthers believe in a dome. But the one thing that they do have in common is that they believe that the Earth is a flat disk. When, or how it was created, remains debatable within their camps. The question of space itself is also denied within their camps. Flat Earthers have various theories concerning this denial. They claim that the universe is small and that this universe is not what we have been thought to believe. According to flat Earthers, the discrepancies of stellar parallax explains this as discussed in Chapter Two. The universe is encased within the dome. However, this theory does not explain “expansion,” as in the observational evidence that the universe is expanding – that the stars all seem to be flying away from one another by the means of expansion and acceleration.

However, one possible and plausible way to explain this anomaly is to conclude that the Earth, along with its dome, may be the thing that is expanding. A radical thought to say the least. If one were to Google “Is the Earth expanding,” they would find many reputable sites verifying such a “radical” thought; sites like the following; with its physics in math to prove it…

Other sites offer the same theory – Harvard University, Popular Mechanics, Earth Science and so forth. Moreover, many physicists today claim that the universe is not expanding, as indicated in this article and others like it…

Oxford University also makes the same claim, as the following 46 minute video from them illustrates…

Which brings us to our next question, “What about what we can see? What about the evidence that we have about space – via the Apollo missions, numerous satellites, the Hubble telescope, the ISS (the International Space Station), and its video feeds?” “Certainly this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Earth is a spinning ball, hence no expanding Earth and no expanding dome.” These particular topics will be discussed later.