Sphere Globe Considered - No More Directional Logic

We contemplated the Nile running north on a sphere globe. I wondered how this could be. What force is pulling it up? I bumped into the same answer, and no real reason why. Just acceptance of common logic.

The answer is always the same:
https://www.quora.com/Are-people-near-the-South-Pole-standing-upside-down-since-Earth-is-spheroidal-in-shape-and-we-stand-vertically

To put it bluntly "There is no up. There are no sides. North, south, east, and west are only conventions. Maybe gravity has something to do with it."

Literally people are accepting the common answer, and not questioning it. When the common answer is "Just because." I tend to have a problem with it, and want to test it.

The eight ball above is a sphere. Also the same shape as the earth. It has a logical top, which anyone could point to. Most of us, if asked to point the top, by a pre-school teacher, would point at  the logical top. We wouldn't point to a side, or the bottom.

The image above is a basketball. It is also a sphere, but slightly bigger than our eight ball. If our pre-school teacher dug it out, and said point to the top, most to of us would point to the logical top. Exactly as we did with the eight ball.

The image above is the earth. It is nothing more than a scaled up billiard ball. Most of us, if asked to point to the top of the earth, would locate the north pole. But now, all of a sudden, our pre-school teacher wants to give us an 'f'. No one cares to question this?

Our friend above is stuck to a wall. Imagine if that was a giant sphere. All the blood would rush to their head. You could build the sphere the size of New York. It wouldn't matter. The same logical occurrence would happen. The amount of energy you would need to walk from below the sphere's equator to the top is astronomical. So much so that it would be impossible. You would be walking sideways, as if up the side of a mountain. Only with suction cups could you do it.

So what is the force that sticks you to the earth's crust? Gravity. Gravity pulls us to the crust. However, logically speaking, Gravity ONLY pulls you towards the center. That's all, that's it. A pulling force to the center. It does not have some magical property that negates the shape, or behaviour of a sphere.

The image above shows little red arrows pointing to areas on the crust where gravity would be pulling towards. The large red arrow shows our logical up, also the flowing direction of the Nile.

Gravity would pull your feet to the equator, on Africa, as we would suspect. Now, what is the magical property of gravity that goes beyond this, and gives us reason to throw out all spherical logic, to go as far as to say we are not on the side of a sphere?

All the alleged spheres in our solar system have no top or bottom?  That's as if to say space has no up or down. I like to assume space has a logical view. I'm not certain, but I assume if there was an upside down astronaut in space for too long, they would die.

You could use ISS footage of astronauts upside down to prove their is no up or down in space. I might then use an image of the tooth fairy to prove Santa.

Consider this earth spin from Galileo.

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/1375

 
That's okay. We don't care if the clouds hardly move for 5 hours, or that Australia is the only continent on earth, or if Antarctica is no longer on the south pole. Most will accept the mind control.

The following image is Australia from near the same angle in Google Earth.

Here is Google Earth overlapping Galileo's image:

 Zoomed View

 We see that all the islands north, and Asia had been dropped completely.

Someone argued that distance mattered.

Yet from alleged earth moon shot there is land.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/moon_and_earth_lroearthrise_frame_0.jpg

Plenty of land visible from ISS. Of course I don't believe this photo is real either, considering the ship in the top right, which I'll call allegedly photoshopped in.

As a closing note. I'm not even a flat earther. Most likely the earth is round, and science is wrong about forces at play, or I'm just wrong about space having no up or down. This is just a fun way to question science, and what they enforce as science, and the forces at play.

I am however, very weary of NASA, and fakery. Considering all the evidence I have seen.

Firmament - Waters From The Waters

Brian Mullin has some pretty interesting thoughts in the video above. It made me wonder, and It clicks with some prior discoveries. I'm not endorsing it all, but the water bit is extremely interesting.

In the video above you will hear the first splash around 4 seconds, the springy thing is reacting to the pass through. Then there is a popping noise. This is nowhere near the end. There are several times I noticed bubbles. Also just after 16 seconds there is a watery shimmer of light. Then amazingly, at 2:16 the springy thing reacts to the pass through again. Back to earth. Soon after we get the loud water, as if we are falling through a fish tank. After this, the wind, as we pass back into the atmosphere.

That  bubble at 12 seconds passes right up the screen.

That 16 second bubble passes down to the right.

The video above is cool. Very professional quality. Just after 2:45 we hear the first faint splash. At close to 4:55 we have a very loud splash on return.

The video above is really cool. After about 40 seconds we pass through a sea of water. Sadly it's official videos from space, so the whole thing is hard to trust. The entry is cut short. GoPro's launch does the same thing. As if some are being very selective with footage. Notice at 1:42 a small piece falls away faster than the bottom of the rocket. It's long gone. Kind of makes BBCs feather footage with NASA suspect.

The video above is the best. I saved it for last. The whole time they call this "splash down." Notice we are above the clouds. In a couple of seconds you will experience the waters being passed through. It's a literal breaking of something, and then a shower. NASA tries to hide the truth. "We are back on earth." They are most certainly still above the clouds.

Now, something very interesting to think about.

Genisis 1:7
7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

Meet Auguste Piccard

Globe Defying Rivers - Revisited

The Nile, a beautiful, and strange river. Okay, it might not be strange, but it's certainly strange to think about, when contemplating the globe of the earth.

It flows north through Tanzania, Lake Victoria, Uganda and South Sudan.
- Wikipedia

It's a north flowing river, which stretches nearly the expanse of the entire continent. Since Africa is so large, it has heavy exposure to Earth's curvature. More than northern Canada to South America.

Think about being a few inches from the bottom of a giant sphere, and walking towards the top. If you did not have gravity at the center point, you would fall off. Suction cups would be needed to continue.

Gravity at center point is also what we actually have in our universe. This is the explanation of why people on the bottom of earth do not fall off. Gravity is at the core of the planet, and down is always the center. This is smart, but when we look at how a globe really is, and how it must function, we see this does not really solve our river problem.

Water level is just that, water level. Raise land up from it, and we have earth. Different amounts of earth above the water creates hills, and height. Sure, center point gravity would hold us, and the water to the earth, but what dictates up and down? Would water still be able to run up the curve with center point gravity? Logically we would have to think, no. Gravity pulls the water to the center of the sphere, but nothing short of a pump is going to pull it up towards the north pole.

Lets look at some images:

This is Africa laid on its side. We are near the base of the Nile, and can see clearly that it MUST run up curvature. Is our center point of gravity the truth, or a bandaid?

Even zoomed in the curvature is there. It cannot be denied. Why? Because that is the nature of a sphere. No curvature, no sphere. Also note the globe is not turned upright here.

We do see, by running the mouse over the land region of the Nile that land lowers to sea level there, with some strange fluctuating numbers. We'll call that a software problem, or strange mouse placement, else water really is running up hill.

What does make sense is if Africa was on a flat plane, and that portion was lower, or bent down a little. Like less putty used on that portion, and it were bent a bit. No curvature, just water running down hill.

Wiki's satellite map is interesting. It's a "composite image", so either drawn, or stitched from satellite data. It does not support a sphere, as is, but it certainly does support a kind of land mass as proposed. The problem is, composite. It could mean anything from stitched satellite data, to drawn by hand with a satellite's perspective in mind.

Here is my best remake from Google Earth. Not quite similar, and very hard to base anything off.

That was fun, now lets get stark raving sober, and contemplate a "logical" explanation based on current scientific modal. If all the land in Africa was high above sea level, and that area slowly tapered down, with gravity at center, would that defy the curvature, with north pole upward?

I'm no flat earther, and certainly not a physicist. I simply look for theories, and ways to break the globe. I don't want anyone deceived by information I bring forth, so feel free to explore and study as I do.

Above is a bit of a bonus video. I don't subscribe to religious claims beyond simple Christianity, so I can't stand behind any pseudo catholic ideas. I also haven't decided if the guy above is genuine, deceived, or committed to shilling of any kind. It has been warned about in flat earth, due to some of the activity in mainstream, but considering all the angles of shillery separating wheat from chaff  is difficult.

Here is another GoPro launch with slightly different results. They claim to reach 120,000km. Interesting.

Here is a mere 10,000km in Google Earth. Google earth makes no claim to its accuracy, but as we can see nearly the entire planet is visible, as apposed to GoPro's single land mass.

I'll explore this more. Thanks for reading.

Nile - Globe Defying Rivers

The Nile river is a massive north running river. It's huge. Wiki tells us that it runs from Tanzania all the way up to Egypt. The problem Eric Dubay (God save his soul) suggests is that this defies a globe. The northern part of Africa is on one side of the curvature, and the southern side is below the other side of the curvature.

This is the logical tilt needed, heeding no scientific explanation to get the Nile, and Africa upside down, to have it all running in that direction. The problem is, this is NOT the way the world is. The south pole, would melt, and trade places with Australia.

The image above accurately depicts the way the world is. There's no way around it. The Nile defies curvature.

It's gotta be the moon. They told us the moon controls tides, right? Nope, sorry. The logical explanation is not the moon. After all, rivers have to run day and night, from source to source. What is the logical explanation? Give up? Location on a globe, due to gravity, does not control where land is tilted. Well, this sounds nice to laymen. However, we just looked at a map and proved the Nile spans the curve.

Want to make things a little more confusing? America has MANY south running rivers, South America south running rivers, and Canada many north running rivers.

Does this disprove a globe? No, of course not, but it does make my head hurt. At best it disproves logic, and proves we don't live in a Godless world, where God himself is void of controlling some things all on his own.

Any logical answers would be greatly appreciated. Not to say God isn't logic, of course.

Thanks for reading.

Flat Earth Revisited: Breaking Revelations

The above video goes over interesting flat earth information. NASA admits several times to only being able to fly in low earth orbit. Red Stick Blog doesn't subscribe to every statement in the video, but some is certainly worth checking out. Earlier posts reported warnings that flat earth could be a psyop to make truthers look bad, but because of the nature of the world, it's difficult to tell what is, and isn't, a spyop. It's equally difficult to tell who, and who isn't, an agent. We find it best to present all information, and all  warnings we can, and let people think for themselves.

Flat Earth: Deeper Into Moon Phases

Image credit goes to Waxing Apocalyptic
(Unsure of content.)
http://www.waxingapocalyptic.com

The image above is a supposed scale rendition of the earth and moon. It's exactly why I'm questioning science. What we're given seems ridiculous compared to every day observation. The image shows the moon and earth. The entire system is like hiding a grain of rice behind a barn. It's hard to compare this to what we observe with our own eyes.

As for the last flat earth post I've been looking deeper into moon phases. I wasn't sure if my theory of improper phases was right. Through conversation it seems crescent moons are not visible all hours of the night, and they certainly shouldn't be. This much I was wrong about, and science supposedly had correct. I've examined one cycle from sunset to sunrise. The following phases are for Toronto, Canada.

Sun Set March 1st  - 6:07PM
Moon Rise March 2nd- 1:46AM
Sun Rise March 2 - 6:52AM
Moon Set March 2nd - 11:44AM
Sun Set March 2 - 6:08PM

The above crescent moon is visible March 2nd. The sun sets on March 1st at about 6:07 PM. The crescent rises March 2nd at about 1:46 AM. This seems quite early. It's about 8 hours from sunset and about 5 hours from sun rise. This means the moon rises a little better than halfway through the night. Awfully early considering this moon must be catching sunlight and we have to be able to see it. Considering it's in space the sunlight part isn't troubling. It's the idea we should be able to see it from Toronto at that time.

It's cutting close to say the least. I think the key to proving or disproving the current model would be through experimentation. Looking at more crescent moons for discrepancies, and possibly creating 3D models, would reveal a lot.

Moon phases, rises, moon sets, including sun rises and sets, can be found at the following site:
http://www.timeanddate.com

Flat Earth: Cracking Moon Phases

In the last blog post I detailed a dilemma with moon phases. After probing the science a bit I've come to more of an understanding of how they work. Take a look at the image below to get an understanding of how positions in lunar orbit affect moon phases.

As you can see the moon is full when opposite of the sun, and getting full sunlight as light bends around the earth's atmosphere. The new moon can't be seen in the heliocentric model because it's directly in front of the sun, getting full light on the back portion. This all works perfect.

It's confusing to try and understand the waxing crescent and waning crescent. These are the only two phases that should not work in the heliocentric model. When the earth spins around into darkness we have to wonder how continents on the other side of the planet see crescent moons.

The image above shows two moon locations: waning crescent and waxing crescent. I could understand seeing these phases where the red x's are located, but not elsewhere. The continents on the right should see the crescent during the day. I just can't get my head around how the back part of the world, where the red line is, could see these crescent moons at night. This should be pretty impossible during earth's rotation.

The red arrow marks the new moon's trip into being a waxing crescent. Since lunar orbit takes about 27 days total, that one portion is about a 3 day journey for the moon. Logically speaking crescent moons should NOT be visible on the other side of the earth. I'm not sure how any crescent moon could be visible most nights. The thought of a crescent moon crossing an entire night's sky should be impossible.

At the time of writing this India and Mexico are both experiencing waxing crescent moons. It seems they are only looking at it at different angels.

Mexico's waxing crescent is something like below.

India's waxing crescent is something like the following image.

When Mexico is dead opposite, facing where the waning gibbous is in the image, I'm not sure how it could see this sun facing crescent at all. One moonless night is easy to explain and understand. Not having several is another.

Oddly, moon phases match up pretty well across the globe. There is little difference between phases, even on polar opposite ends of the world, such as Mexico and India.

Mexico
http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/mexico/mexico-city

India
http://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/india/new-delhi

The following image depicts the moon's tilted orbit. It also shows the moon in one of the crescent phases.

Image credit goes to Science Blogs:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/09/18/how-the-earth-moves-and-how-do-we-know/

If South America were at the back it's hard to picture how they could see the crescent at all.

Flat Earth: Questioning Science

Video credit goes to marksargent:
Posted by Leisureex
(Watch with discernship)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkXE1MAyvawOySf9Jddaang

Remember, everything I post as flat earth is speculation and conspiracy. It's not necessarily a conspiracy that I endorse as a personal belief. I'm also not qualified to verify the facts.

In the above documentary Mark goes over some the conspiracies pertaining to the flat earth. It covers the idea of the dome, and the fact that he feels it exists.

The question continues. Did NASA and the government pull a fast one over us, and hide the secrets of our existence? Christians might ask: Does the firmament exist?

Genesis 1:1
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

Job 37:18
Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?

Scale models of the universe have proved imperfect.

The above image shows a scale sun from the earth's perspective to be much smaller than the actual sun (Based on To Scale's calculation.)

Where is the difference made up? Is it fixed by deciding the sun is bigger and farther away, or smaller and closer? It's hard to say without inside knowledge of absolute truth.

Image credit goes to IBtimes:
http://www.space.com/27338-total-lunar-eclipse-rare-sunrise-selenelion.html

The above image is from an article describing a Selenelion lunar eclipse. This happens when both the sun and moon are in the sky at the same time. Logically this is not supposed to happen because a  lunar eclipse happens when the moon passes directly behind the earth into the umbra shadow. The article writes this off as being due to light refraction causing the moon to look like it's up for a couple of extra minutes. One would think it would take much more than a couple of minutes to explain this.

Lets look at what science tells us about the sun, earth, and moon.

The earth spins at about 1000/mph.

The earth orbits the sun in one year, at a speed of  18/mps.

Here's where my science understanding gets weirded out on the current model.

The moon takes almost an entire month to orbit the earth. That's right a month. If that doesn't confuse you like it does me, carry on through the article.

The sun gets day and night in the heliocentric model through spinning. Pretend we are the sun and the above image is the earth. That ball is whirling around us and every continent facing us is expiriencing day time. When they face away it's night.

In our current model the moon is on the dark half for little more than a week and in the light half for little more than a week. Wouldn't you think there would be more than a week of moonless nights in the run of a month, instead of just one? When the moon is between the earth and sun, pitch black behind the earth should see no moon at all for an extended period of time.

That's what they tell us. 27 days for the moon to orbit the sun. 

Image credit goes to astronomy stack exchange:

http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/8042/moonless-night-and-lunar-phase

They say we get our lunar phases during this near month long orbit of the moon around the earth. See the new moon is completely black, while the moon is between the earth and sun. Really it should take the moon some 10-12 days to travel through the light half of the earth. 

Scientifically speaking, a moonless night, according to the heliocentric model, only happens once a month. If it takes the moon almost a month to orbit earth why is there not a week of moonless nights on both sides?

Are these things making the heliocentric model impossible? Is it true we can be THIS blinded by science and lies?

Image credit goes to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#NASA

Neil DeGrasse is an astrophysicist with a supposed genius understanding of the earth and space, and he has NEVER been to space to back his science. 

Image credit goes to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus#Heliocentrism

Nicolaus Copernicus was a genius on the heliocentric model some 450 years before it could EVER be proved with space flight.

I don't want anyone to take my word for it. I'm science illiterate. Really my assumptions could be foolishness based on lack of understanding. Instead, I would love for someone to explain how this works in the current model, as I can find little understanding to conquer this dilemma.

Is science hiding something?

Genisis 1:16

God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

Flat Earth: Logical Analysis

Image credit goes to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

After probing the science of our last post it seems there is logic in our current scientific knowledge. The barriers are capable of stopping electrons according to scientists, but not all matter. Apparently radio waves can travel through the barriers, as they are electromagnetic radiation. The same kind of radiation that makes up sunlight. This knocks out some credence to the conspiracy theory.

The only concepts that could give the barrier conspiracy any weight is if the flat earth folks are right, and the barrier is more solid than science is telling us. Scientists would be lying about quite a bit, as flat earth suggests the sun and moon would have to be closer than we're told. If the sun and moon were actually inside the fields it would explain travelling to the moon verses crossing solid barriers, but if the barriers can only stop electrons and other particles flat earth, once again, looks pretty shot. Well, that's what this blog is about. Not deceiving people, but studying for the truth. That's the truth as we see it. I'll end this post with another flat earth psyop warning and logical analysis.

Flat Earth Movement Analysis

I've made this comment before, but I'm going to share it with Red Sticker fans. I'm not trying to impede on true flat earthers, but the more I search for a reason to believe the conspiracy the less I find one. Is that a definitive reason not to believe one side or another? Of course not, but we have to be vigilant when searching for the truth. We can't let others say we're stupid for wanting answers amongst the lies.

Dubay wants us to believe the magic compass. He says people can't circumnavigate north and south because of government control, but east and west anyone can do it. He says the earth is flat, everyone circles the continents thinking they're going around the globe.

Image credit goes to A Planet Truth
http://aplanetruth.info/11-how-does-a-ship-circumnavigate-on-a-flat-earth/

 He has to be deliberately misleading people with this belief. Common sense tells you heading due west from America you're going to run into an ice wall instead of Japan. If there was really an ice wall the world would be talking about it all day, because anyone going west would find it. Also the Japanese crossed that sea when they bombed pearl harbour. That's well known history.

Google earth has a lot of science put into the globe. If you press cntl+l it will bring up the equator, lines of latitude, line of longitude, Capricorn, prime meridian, ect. If that system of navigation didn't work people would know. Longitude and latitude were around a long time before Google Earth. Educated people know about it. We learned about it in school. If you want to see if the earth is flat pick longitude and latitude coordinates for a point on your coast and travel there. Pick another point and travel there. If you end up where the destinations should be, or within a mile, you know the earth is a globe. Testing this will make it evident,as the flat earth map is distorted. Better yet, travel to Australia on the globe. Flat earth map has that way up northeast somewhere.

The flat earth map in the UN flag is easily explained with logical sense. It's a pole projection. People have been projecting maps since the 1800's. That's before any of us were in diapers, even the older folks reading this now weren't around in that era. It only makes sense that people making up the science would try a polar projection. Anyone would. It's the most artistic projection we have. I'm not a government advocate by any means, unless it's corruption free, but I find that to be honest about the matter.

Image credit goes to:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/tila-tequila-wears-nazi-uniform-praises-hitler-shocking-rant-article-1.1543467

Image credit goes to:
B.O.B
Atlantic Records

B.O.B and Tila are two of the main proponents in the media supporting flat earth theory. B.O.B is signed to a major label, and so is Tila. Tila is a stripper that acts just like the epitome of the system. She isn't smart in that sense, and claims to be a truther. B.O.B is in a debate with Neil DeGrasse. Tell me why I shouldn't believe the whole thing isn't controlled, even B.O.B? Have you heard Obama's recent talk where he said "We don't have time for a meeting of the flat earther society."? What if that's what this is all about? Making truthers look stupid.

The only contradiction to the above analysis is if the controlled debate was a double whammy. If they knew the earth was flat, and they were trying to hide the truth, while using it to their benefit to make truthers look stupid. Still, it's a long shot.

Check out the following video by Vigilant Christian.

More Vigilant Christian Videos
(Watch with discernment)
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC18S2KrX6YYdQxfNb4uGUCw

The following video from White Rabbit suggests the same ideas:

More White Rabbit Videos
(Watch with discernment)
https://www.youtube.com/user/WhiteRabbit0fficial

And this blog post I made
http://redstickerblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/flat-earth-psyop-warning.html

Can I say for certain what the shape of the earth is? Of course not. I would have to go to space and see it myself, but it's not fair to know this information and not share it.

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/JeremyBenson11

Flat Earth/NASA Secrets: What's The Truth?

Ladies and gentleman, we're going to look at new information unearthed in the truth community. I have to be honest, it's blowing my mind, but I lack the expertise to know what's coming to light here. The truth movement needs a scientist that isn't controlled by a major company. Sadly, they're hard to come by. Many scientists are controlled, and the ones who may be on the fringe may theoretically fear getting fired if they divulged information.

The following video is seriously worth some consideration. It's posted by 6 Million For Truth. The only information I can't seem to verify is whether NASA uses the flat earth map or not. On the other hand it's easy to confirm United Nations uses the polar projection in their flag.

Video credit goes to 6 Million For Truth.
Original video creator is Controversy 7.
(Watch with discernment.)
Poster I wrote from: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZMaVISxGF19Jxaw2lZZSVg
Original: https://youtu.be/0-jdVt1qTWs

The video above makes a point. On a globe map the closest route from South America follows the red line:

The actual trip follows this route on a globe:

I must admit in any case this is a strange flight. Europe is highly developed. They would have their own flights to Africa. South America would not need to go to Europe to pick up Europeans. There's hundreds of flights out of Europe to Africa.

Now. There's a hitch in his theory. Looking up flight route maps on Google maps shows there is at least one flight direct from South Africa to Brazil. I also located one on a flight website. I followed the steps up to the point where it asked for credit card information. It seems like you can most certainly book a flight that flies direct. The following process is from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo.

This casts some serious doubts into his theory, and quality of research, but then we also have this mind boggling bit on information directly from NASA. The entire video brings into question any trip made outside the earth's orbit:

They said themselves, in so many words, they can't go any farther than the short distance already travelled. This is a bit odd since so many flights have supposedly been made to the moon, since rovers were sent to Mars, and probes were sent into space. What happens if we explore the last half of the information talked about in the first video?

Image credit from astronomy.com
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/12/star-trek-like-invisible-shield-found-thousands-of-miles-above-earth

The above article talks about the newly found shield that blocks high energy electrons from entering into the earth's atmosphere. It's comprised of highly charged protons and electrons. This newly found shield makes for an interesting partner with the Van Allen Belts when it comes to space travel.

It says this shield starts roughly: 7,200 miles above the earth.

Of the shield it says the following:

"It's almost like theses electrons are running into a glass wall in space," said Baker. "Somewhat like the shields created by force fields on Star Trek that were used to repel alien weapons, we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these electrons. It's an extremely puzzling phenomenon."

It also says:

"It's not obvious how the slow, gradual processes that should be involved in motion of these particles can conspire to create such a sharp, persistent boundary at this location in space."

Finally:

"It's like looking at the phenomenon with new eyes, with a new set of instrumentation, which gives us the detail to say, 'Yes, there is this hard, fast boundary,'" said colleague John Foster from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Haystack Observatory.

That's right, you see it folks. A hard, fast boundary in space.

Here's another article:
http://www.iflscience.com/space/scientists-discover-star-trek-style-invisible-shield-thousands-miles-above-earth

Similar to the other article, this one reads:

Some 7,200 miles above Earth, an invisible shield cloaking our planet is helping to protect us from damaging, super-fast “killer” electrons, scientists have found. This Star Trek style shield stops these whizzing electrons in their tracks, preventing them from harming astronauts and frying our satellites.

Also:

“It’s almost like these electrons are running into a glass wall in space,” lead author Professor Daniel Baker said in a news-release. “Somewhat like the shields created by force fields on Star Trek that were used to repel alien weapons, we are seeing an invisible shield blocking these electrons. It’s an extremely puzzling phenomenon.”

Here's a photo from NASA. Notice how they subtly hide the eye symbology in the photograph.

Image credit goes to NASA
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space

First off notice the strange title for the article itself.

NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space

Right off the bat they're calling the barrier impenetrable. Then right below it they're unsure. They say.

...the Van Allen radiation belts, have been found to contain a nearly impenetrable barrier that prevents the fastest, most energetic electrons from reaching Earth.

They need to make up their mind as to whether this thing is impenetrable or nearly impenetrable.

Image credit goes to NASA.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space

Basically throughout the article they go on about the Van Allen Belts, and very little about the finer details of this newly discovered barrier.

It does however say a couple of things, one quote follows:

Enter the newly discovered barrier. The Van Allen Probes data show that the inner edge of the outer belt is, in fact, highly pronounced. For the fastest, highest-energy electrons, this edge is a sharp boundary that, under normal circumstances, the electrons simply cannot penetrate.

Image credit goes to Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

Here's some level readings from Wikipedia:

At the magnetic equator, electrons of energies exceeding 500 keV (resp. 5 MeV) have omnidirectional fluxes ranging from 1.2×106 (resp. 3.7×104) up to 9.4×109 (resp. 2×107) particles per square centimeter per second.

The proton belts contain protons with kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 µm of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm of lead).

NASA's only defence found in the wiki page:

The Apollo missions minimised hazards for astronauts by sending spacecraft at high speeds through the thinner areas of the upper belts, bypassing inner belts completely.

Our Questions

What is this about NASA only being able to go so far? What is this Star Track like barrier, that seems to be like glass in some way, that stops electrons? Can a human, or a ship, even pass through the radiation belts and the electron stopping barrier? What happens when people and ships pass through highly charged protons and electrons, and the earth's magnetic field?

Going out on a limb: Is the firmament real?