1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do people see further in FET?

« on: November 10, 2011, 02:30:07 PM »

My question is:
How is it possible to see further when you are higher up when stood on a flat earth.
for instance; Im at a hight of 100m, I have a great view arround me and nothing is higher than that to block my view but the atmosphere isnt perfectly clear, so I cant see more than 30 miles (thats a guess of the actual distance). But if im at an altitude of 500m I can now see for 100 miles. The weather conditions are the same, infact the only change is the hight, but i can now see 3 times further.

*ignoring the other posts*

The reason is that the atmosphere is thinner as you farther up, due to UA.

But to see the ground you would still have to see through the thicker atmosphere.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Pseudolites

« on: November 10, 2011, 02:28:35 PM »

Evidence about pseudolites widely used is so weak and evidence about satellites is so strong that a so-called conspiration doesn't do the trick.

And satellites are not stealth, they can be easily observable.

Only the ISS is observable.

Not true.
http://www.sattracking.org/wiki/Introduction_to_viewing_satellites_with_the_naked_eye

It's wrong. Communication satellites cannot be seen.

The word "communication" appears in that article just once...

The majority of satellites are in "polar" orbits that appear to be moving north to south or south to north. This is because highly inclined orbits to the Earths equator provide maximum coverage for communication, Earth observation etc.

It also mentions many other kinds of satellites that can be seen.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Homeschooling

« on: November 05, 2011, 12:22:43 PM »

you're wife

Incorrect.

4

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Suggestion: Have Ask Dann Stickied

« on: November 05, 2011, 11:28:36 AM »

I propose that every single thread be stickied.

Proposeterous.

Indeed.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A challenge for all RE'ers

« on: October 27, 2011, 02:32:03 PM »

This thread is very well made.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity

« on: October 25, 2011, 06:49:40 PM »

You're right. ow it's time to use the term of "Dark Energy".

ITT: A REer realizes his theory really doesn't explain things better than FE does.

ITT: Dark Energy and the Big Bang are RET theories.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A Bit Of Logic For You To Ponder.

« on: October 23, 2011, 08:05:53 AM »

It is logical. The only life yet found has been on a flat celestial body. Therefore that would seem a good place to look.

Correlation does not imply causation.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Because Samuel Birley Rowbotham said so" - a valid argument?

« on: October 19, 2011, 02:24:59 PM »

So no one won the bet ... it was null and void.

The bet, not the result.

You might need a rest to recharge your comprehension skills.

You too.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: South Polar Base

« on: October 16, 2011, 10:15:17 AM »

That's wrong.

What's your zetetic evidence for claiming so?

This is the problem with FET; eventually you have to deny well-established facts.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun over the Antarctic

« on: October 14, 2011, 04:39:32 PM »

Thork, let me walk you through this:
There is no midnight sun in the Southern Hemisphere north of the Antarctic Circle.
You correctly identify that in a part of Antarctica north of the Antarctic Circle, there is no midnight sun.
However, your mistake is in assuming that this small part of Antarctica represents the whole; in other words, you are insinuating that all of Antarctica is north of the Antarctic Circle, which is not true.
The midnight sun still exists south of the Antarctic Circle, which (according to you) encompasses 98% of Antarctica.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: It looks that way

« on: October 13, 2011, 02:50:00 PM »

Also, the Bedford Level Experiment DOES NOT prove the Earth is flat.

It does.

It also proves that the Earth is round and concave.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Zetetic Science

« on: October 08, 2011, 08:55:24 PM »

Does this not mean that all of your theories about bendy light, aetheric winds, universal acceleration, NASA conspiracies, theoretical infinite plane Earth model, etc. are all unzetetic?

Yes.

13

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Dont single out specific words as "profanity"

« on: October 06, 2011, 01:13:37 PM »

No, it's because he is unthinkingly defending the status quo. That's intellectually lazy and unhealthy.

1. If you want people to take you seriously when you talk about intellectual laziness, put a tiny bit more effort into your posts.
2. Defending the status quo does not insinuate a lack of thinking.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Australia is distorted!

« on: October 06, 2011, 08:43:39 AM »

Then where did the 2000 Sydney Summer Olympics take place?

15

Flat Earth General / Re: There is no such thing as "flat earth belief"

« on: October 02, 2011, 12:52:40 PM »

You have to use reason to arrive at this conclusion, and reason on its own is inherently flawed.

Oh, the irony...

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 17, 2011, 08:33:18 AM »

It may function, but the conspiracy has fiddled it to hide the true shape of the earth.

Nope. it has not.

Evidence?

The burden of proof is on you. You made the first claim.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Poll

« on: September 17, 2011, 08:29:36 AM »

This is an important poll.  Nobody's ever done it before and the results are sure to be super-accurate.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earthers do not understand the Scientific Method

« on: September 16, 2011, 02:45:20 PM »

There is no scientific method but rather scientific methodology.

What is the difference?

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If satellites don't exist...

« on: September 16, 2011, 02:35:17 PM »

Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17speed.html

Maersk travels slow to save fuel.

Or maybe they say they travel slow to handwave away the reason why they're always late to their customers.

But you have no evidence that they do. Evidence of plausibility is not the same as evidence of existence.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 16, 2011, 04:58:13 AM »

My point is that the thread criticises FErs for not agreeing on fundamental parts of their theory. I have illustrated this is no different to RET using a gravity/UA example, would you not agree?

No, I wouldn't, and I have already explained why.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is Earth the only flat object?

« on: September 15, 2011, 07:58:56 PM »

I would not be so sure that your eyes tell you the Moon is a sphere.  If you observe the Moon carefully, you'll see that the outer edges are just as bright as the inner part.
---
However, if you look at the Moon, you'll see that it is equally lit across its entire surface. Therefore it cannot be a sphere.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 13, 2011, 05:23:37 PM »

The very fact many of you have stopped arguing and fall in line with stupefied acceptance agreed on basic parts of a theory is troubling.

Why?

I fail to see the point of your word games.

People are not limited to using only 10% of their brains.
You're not born with all of the brain cells you'll have for life.
Gold fish memory is not limited to 3 seconds.
Men do not think about sex every seven seconds.
Your tongue is not split in different taste zones.
Swimming after eating does not cause stomach cramps
Shaving does not cause hair to grow back thicker or darker.
Hair and nails do not keep growing after a person dies.
Swallowed chewing gum does not stay in your system for years.
The color red does not anger bulls.
Meteorites are not hot when they hit Earth.
Danish Pastries do not come from Denmark.
Bats aren't blind.
Napoleon wasn't short.
Chameleons do not change colour to match their surroundings.
A duck’s quack can echo.
The phrase is 'just deserts', not 'just desserts'.

Just because a large portion of the population believe something, does not make it so.

That wasn't my point, but it is a nice strawman. My point was that leading RE scientists do not have doubts about basic parts of the theory and they all have a consensus. The same cannot be said for FE zetetics.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Engineers in on conspiracy too?

« on: September 11, 2011, 01:15:31 PM »

gotham says:
"Blablabla. "

How many demagogic bullshit can you generate? There is no truth in FET, none of theories explain anything. Oooh, mysterious UA, accelerating earth. Can you explain why does the stone fall to earth if it's being accelerated by the same force which accelerates the rest of the earth?

Once the stone stops being attached to the earth, it stops being accelerated upward and the earth catches it.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone got money to blow? IF so you can debunk this once and for all

« on: September 11, 2011, 01:09:22 PM »

You should really question the flashlight theory, because it raises more questions than it answers. What are these spots in the sun if looked through the telescope and what do they do there?

They are the spotlight maintenance workers and/or operators. They make sure that the sun works and take general care of it.

Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?

Yes, I do.

Indulge me.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Sorry but you guys are wrong..(your going to have a very hard time arguing this)

« on: September 11, 2011, 11:15:16 AM »

What are you talking about?  Wikipedia is referenced all the time by FEers and REers.

But it's dismissed as a tool of the conspiracy when FE'ers see fit.  Either Wikipedia is a reliable source or it isn't.  FE'ers can't have it both ways.

This. If it's a reliable source for Russian aircraft, it's also a reliable source here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure_of_the_Earth

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Anyone got money to blow? IF so you can debunk this once and for all

« on: September 11, 2011, 11:12:25 AM »

You should really question the flashlight theory, because it raises more questions than it answers. What are these spots in the sun if looked through the telescope and what do they do there?

They are the spotlight maintenance workers and/or operators. They make sure that the sun works and take general care of it.

Do you have any evidence for your outlandish claims?

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't FEr's agree on fundamental parts of their theory?

« on: September 11, 2011, 10:56:30 AM »

The very fact many of you have stopped arguing and fall in line with stupefied acceptance agreed on basic parts of a theory is troubling.

Why?

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Questions for all the FE believers

« on: September 11, 2011, 07:10:08 AM »

leevee said that distance the sun to the earth is only 10-12 km
i think this is more true than 4800 km away

So are airplanes built to be heat-resistant?

29

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Spambot Alert Thread!

« on: September 11, 2011, 07:06:49 AM »

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=45994

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: some questions

« on: September 07, 2011, 02:00:25 PM »

You cited an article on two scientists disagreeing over advanced particle physics, not the shape of the earth. There are no RE'rs who disagree about fundamental concepts of RET, like if the earth rotates or which continents go where. You will see no such consensus in FET.

They are arguing over what causes gravity. A fairly fundemental part of RET I think you will agree.

But they're not arguing over whether it exists, as FE'rs are.