Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
unfunny clown.Yawn... http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
the dome is electromagnetic, you can't even see it, but you can go and try for yourself!
wait, you can't, you have no way to go there.
antartica is not free and is inaccessible for a private common citizen, unless you have a whaler.
you could use a rocket and go up to 19000 km and find it for yourself too.
good luck.
I am waiting for communication from the solas and the lunas.Well until that happens the sun and moon are not bioluminescent and the moon is reflecting sunlight.
I'm not sure why you would be waiting. Enough has been done to prove the model I go with already so more redundant tests are not going to show anything new.It's not possible for me to have "bred" the life on the moon or sun, the sun and moon existed long before I did!They I look forward to seeing your published work where you have not only found but extensively studied these organisms and the mountain of tangible evidence that comes with it.
I know it is difficult to imagine life that isn't somehow like the life on earth. Maybe there are life forms that eat hydrogen.
Me too!
It's not possible for me to have "bred" the life on the moon or sun, the sun and moon existed long before I did!They I look forward to seeing your published work where you have not only found but extensively studied these organisms and the mountain of tangible evidence that comes with it.
I know it is difficult to imagine life that isn't somehow like the life on earth. Maybe there are life forms that eat hydrogen.
The lives of the lunas are a mystery.And yet you find it a far fetched that it is just the sun reflecting off of it...
The purpose of chemtrails is not even slightly debatable to an intelligent, well informed mind.It is, which is why I'm confused on your conclusions.
One less click away every time you lot astroturf any truthful information though...
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of miltary comms history should know instantly what chemtrails are for.
It is blindingly obvious.
Anyhoo; get astroturfing, losers.
I believe there is a rule against low content posting...Maybe that's where they make baby lunas.
You are a perv.
I'm not the one taking pictures of their bedroom!
Oh, burn. Lol
Lacking proper agriculture and farming knowledge does not equate to knowing about the world around you. Nice try though.You can not till tree stumps.On a leaving note, quick question. How did they dig up the millions of tree stumps after the deforestation for the millions of acres of farms in the 1800's?I presume a more efficient method, like tilling because they'd have to anyway and to prevent grasses from lighting much, then setting the stumps on fire. They wouldn't have had to tend to the stumps much afterwards, the field is already tilled, and there's free fertilizer in the hole.
Was it done like this?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Goodbye.
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
But feel free to tell me about destruction of the "planet" again. It is very entertaining.
Well to refute your evidence then, sonoluminescence would not be a working solution because:I am not a FE believer, but I do try to keep an open mind, and I was just wondering what the solar system (sun, other planets, etc) would look like in the FE theory. Would all the other planets be flat as well? Or is that just simply not part of FE theory?
The current FE model - that the stars and planets are simply hovering under the Firmament - is physically impossible. This is why I have developed the Celestial Ocean Theory, which is the only theory which can properly explain the existence of the Solar System on the Flat Earth.
Above the Firmament lies the Celestial Ocean - which the Bible refers to as the Celestial Waters - and it is the Sun shining on this ocean which causes the sky to appear blue, not refraction as NASA wants you to think.
The stars, planets, and other celestial objects are not physical objects, but light sources caused by sonoluminescence - light caused by sonic waves moving through a medium, in this case the Celestial Ocean. The sonic waves are caused by tectonic movement under the Earth (Particularly, activity in Sheol, the subterranean void described in the Old Testament). These waves travel up through the Earth and into the Celestial Ocean, creating the stars.
The movements of the celestial objects are caused by currents in the Celestial Ocean. Evidence for this would be comets, which are actually extremely hot sonoluminescent light sources which cause the ocean surrounding it to light up, turning the waters around them blue, and giving them the illusion of a glowing tail.
Don't forget to mention your mental handycaps.What are those? Hats for your hand that you invented? Gloves already work so well though and I feel like they keep you warmer.
Cause we want to know what fantasy you are working with.WE know how a magnet works, you're the one that seems to think it works differently.You people have never heard of a flat magnet?
of course not you fe people never explain nothing.
I am sorry that you feel that we need to explain how a magnet works to you people. Perhaps next time, you could check out a science site or even Wikipedia before you make yourselves look dumb?
Then, why does your people constantly demand for us to explain magnetism to you?
WE know how a magnet works, you're the one that seems to think it works differently.You people have never heard of a flat magnet?
of course not you fe people never explain nothing.
I am sorry that you feel that we need to explain how a magnet works to you people. Perhaps next time, you could check out a science site or even Wikipedia before you make yourselves look dumb?
And as has been explained many times, refraction doesn't work in a way to address the OP's question.
You seem to be the only person here who ever mentions Rowbotham. I guess when you have been beaten by logic and reason, your only recourse is to bring up a 200 year old book and accuse the flat Earthers of treating it like a bible.
And you don't!?
Does this mean that you will not reference this Robarme again, or his work?
I will find that highly unlikely.
And that Zetetic astronomy, Earth Not A Globe, can be placed in the circular file where it belongs.
A search of the site shows that I have posted the word "Robotham" 42 times in all of the years I have been here, several of which were in the lower fora, and many of the 42 posts showed up in the search simply because I quoted someone else who had posted his name or his name was in the thread title. Clicking through the balance of the 42 posts, it seems that I only typed his name in a post when responding to someone else brought him up first.
So, no, I don't, and will likely not be, referencing either the man or his work now, nor in the future, since I have not done so in the past.
Hey, did you even read our posts?
Yes, I did, and you are confusing sinking mirage and perspective. Perspective does come into play, but I was referring to light refraction that makes things appear to disappear behind the horizon.
Asking for your answer, not his. Oh that's right, you don't have one.How does GPS work? Stratellites, look 'em up lol
Why do you thing earth is a flat disc when larger planets are round? This question is biased toward the RE belief that Earth is in the same class of objects as the other planets we see in the sky. (It's not, from the FE point of view). I'm pretty sure that the planets are just other objects that orbit Earth just as the Sun and Moon do, but I also find another theory plausible: basically, there are objects trapped in the ice of the Ice Wall, and when sunlight hits these objects, the images of these objects reflect back up, and then reflect off of the sky, and thus we see these as "planets".
What would NASA have to gain from lying? Pretending to go to space is a lot less expensive than actually doing it. Not that "space", in the classical sense, actually exists.
Why is the end of our eye sight blue like the atmosphere? I don't quite understand this question, could you please rephrase it?
Stratellites don't orbit at several kilometers per second.
We can see tidal effects on other planets just like with the earth and the moon. Most moons are tidally locked, like ours. Therefore, it is logical that our planet is not drastically different from the others.
Most of NASA's budget is awarded to contractors. Are these contractors in on the hoax too? NASA does not have direct control over them, so why would they be entrusted with such sensitive information? How could they keep this up for as long as they have?
The horizon fades due to scattering. You can see from a plane that there is no defined edge. This is also visible from orbit.
The OP was asking for flat Earth answers, not round Earth answers. I don't know why you are so arrogant as to think that the OP does not know the round Earth answers already. He received the same indoctrination education that you and I and everyone else did. You people are really full of yourselves and think that you posses knowledge that nobody else does, am I right?
Then why don't you answer OP? After all you're a flat earther.
Perhaps you did not notice reply number 2?
What part of that is trolling?My sixth graders were able to grasp all these ideas pretty easily. Some basic facts first.
Evaporation is not the same boiling. Evaporation is controlled by both temperature and pressure. Essentially the air has some space for the water molecules and those that gain enough energy leave the water’s surface and enter the air. Some actually collide with the various gas molecules in the air and bounce back into the water, however most will remain in the air.
Condensation is controlled almost entirely by temperature and to a much lesser extent pressure.
Relative humidity is the amount of gaseous water in the air relative to the amount the atmosphere can hold at that temperature and pressure.
Gaseous water is invisible whilst liquid water is visible.
I think that is all we need. Now to explain this all for you. I will hit it point by point then explicate what I think needs it afterwards.
1- Why aren't there majority of the clouds on the oceans?
Yes, a great deal of the gaseous water in the atmosphere does come from evaporation over the oceans. Not all by any means, but a large majority does. I would wager on the average day over time the majority of cloud cover is over the oceans. The world is large, the oceans cover 70% of it. Just because you do not see clouds over your local ocean view does not equate to, “there are no clouds over the oceans.”
As mentioned above gaseous water is invisible. So although you might not directly observe it there may be a great deal of moisture in the air. I used to live at the ocean in NJ. It could be 98% humidity at the beach and not a cloud in the sky. Because it was all still in gaseous form.
Clouds form from pockets of lower pressure or temperature. Small dust particles in the air are seeds for liquid water to condense onto and to ultimately become clouds. We can see clouds because they are made up of liquid water, not gaseous water. How are they able to remain aloft? Buoyancy. They are floating in the air. Eventually parts of the cloud do become too heavy to float and fall to the ground as rain drops.
2- Sometimes a cloudy day it's not raining and sometimes it's raining with a few clouds on a sunny day. These cases show us the clouds aren't the exact cause for occuring the rain.
Clouds are often the main source of rain. Clouds can remain aloft as long as the drops of water in them, and often small ice particles, stay small enough. So not all clouds will produce rain. As temperature drops or pressure, or both, more gaseous water condenses out of the air to become liquid water, the drops grow in size and finally fall. Are clouds necessary for rain? No. Let’s imagine it is 100% humidity outside. And like a NJ summer there is not a cloud in the sky, the water is still all gaseous. If there is a small decrease in temp, pressure, or both the relative humidity will rise to over 100% and the water must condense out. You will get rain without a cloud in the sky. Usually not much but I have experienced this a few times. Conversely the sky can be covered in thick dark clouds but have no rain.
3- We must see the clouds on the oceans on every day in summer because it such as boiling pans. But we don't ! And sunny days the air in the ocean usually open like the lands.
I think you mean on hot days we should see a great deal of clouds over the oceans. See above. Local conditions, relative humidity etc.
4- We must see the clouds usually moving from oceans and seas to lands but this situation does not usually occur. Clous move random.
Clouds do not move completely randomly. There are jet streams, pressure differentials and other factors that steer them.
Temperature determines cloud coverage much more than pressure. I could show you a gif that is over a ten year period and shows cloud coverage and humidity over the northern and southern hemispheres. You would see that in the winter there is much less cloud coverage and humidity, while during summer much more. But I do not know how to just place a gif in my response and I am not making an imugr account to do so.
Please stop trolling, it's not funny and it gets really annoying.
Dr. G. Nosovsky went even further with his research into the falsified chronology of history: using Gauss' Easter formula he was able to show that the FIRST EASTER conditions, stipulated by Exiguus, WERE SATISFIED ONLY IN THE YEAR 1095 AD (Saturday, March 24, Paschal Moon).You are just the worst....
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img408.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img409.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img410.pdf
http://www.chronologia.org/en/es_analysis2/img411.pdf
This means that the biography of Dionysius Exiguus, the central pillar of modern chronology, was falsified at least after 1400 AD (anybody in the period 1095 + 300 = 1395 AD, could have used the Metonian cycle to verify that the conditions were fulfilled in the year 1095 AD), during the Renaissance.
All I saw in this video is that this guy has no idea how to focus a camera.The sun would appear roughly half the size at sunrise/sunset compared to noon, in your model. This is not seen.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I'm sorry, are you trying to prove something that anyone can see is false JUST by looking up into the sky (namely that the sun is the same size throughout the day)?
I sir, do not digress.So then did you go back and watch the videos you could not watch before? I haven't seen you update your posts on the ones you said you couldn't see the video at the time.Cloudless rain.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
This one is better
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Wait, I thought you can't access YouTube.
You intelligent child
When i'm on office, i can't access youtube because RE dictator Erdoghan forbidden it. But when i'm on my own compoter right now, this has a strong VPN and proxy that can access everywhere also youtube.
Don't digress the issue. I'm at home now and can see the videos yet. the rest is not a problem .
You have missed addressing my issue with you and you being a troll and possibly a liar.Nice "proof" mate.When was the definition of proof changed? I must have missed that memo.
You have missed the life.
The issue is you original statements made no mention that you could access YouTube elsewhere and that you could not see it all. You are still lying, just lying by omission.This video which my avatar comes from:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
There are lessons here for Satanists . I wrote it that you understand everything clearly.
the crowd it is usually sufficient to win, but sometimes it is not . (Watch the video and think again)
So not only you access YouTube but you accessed it ever since you came here. I'm not sure what they call it over there in Turkey but here in the US we call that lying. You've blatantly told us several times that you can't access YouTube because you're government don't allow when in fact your avatar came from a video on YouTube.
I answered it on other issue.
Right here:
You intelligent child
When i'm on office, i can't access youtube because RE dictator Erdoghan forbidden it. But when i'm on my own compoter right now, this has a strong VPN and proxy that can access everywhere also youtube.
First off, your definition of a troll is wholly inaccurate. What your describing is a shill.If the mods did start to crack down on trolls you would be the first to go. You were presented with an image that clearly shows your argument is not correct but then claim you cannot load the image and therefore we have not proved anything. BUT, you have said in other threads that you can use your home computer to access what was blocked before so we know you would have the ability to see it eventually if you were not being dishonest about it before. If that isn't the definition of a troll I don't know what is so you are definitely a player.Clouds are not reason. Clouds are result. Usually clouds occur when it's raining, but sometimes they aren't occurs.
Cloudless rain possible with flat earth but it is impossible with the globe earth.
Cloudless rain:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
This one is better cloudless rain:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Are clouds necessary for rain? No. Let’s imagine it is 100% humidity outside. And like a NJ summer there is not a cloud in the sky, the water is still all gaseous. If there is a small decrease in temp, pressure, or both the relative humidity will rise to over 100% and the water must condense out. You will get rain without a cloud in the sky.
.... is blabla
Very intelligent response Īntikam. I guess this is you conceding in the most humble way you know.
I do not get addressed to trolls so much. I'm waiting the forum management solve this problem. There is so much trolls here about %86 is over all of the internet sites. This is not a troll working this is an attack.
So;
I don't need to attrition myself dealing with trolls. This is the language that you understand . I will continue my own work about different issues. Who post an objection abot it or not. I can not waste time for empty . Because you trolls are empty and just working for distraction .
This is not my game, because i'm not a player like you.
You are making perception study to veer the meaning of the troll. Aw all we know that troll is meaning of working on a institution and defend something which his institution support. Here is the institution is NASA and ESA. Here almost all RE's are troll. I'm or nobody of FES can't be troll because the FES management do not give us wages and they know this. but you are messing their minds. all they need to ban you all. Except this, i don't see another solve.
If the mods did start to crack down on trolls you would be the first to go. You were presented with an image that clearly shows your argument is not correct but then claim you cannot load the image and therefore we have not proved anything. BUT, you have said in other threads that you can use your home computer to access what was blocked before so we know you would have the ability to see it eventually if you were not being dishonest about it before. If that isn't the definition of a troll I don't know what is so you are definitely a player.Clouds are not reason. Clouds are result. Usually clouds occur when it's raining, but sometimes they aren't occurs.
Cloudless rain possible with flat earth but it is impossible with the globe earth.
Cloudless rain:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
This one is better cloudless rain:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Are clouds necessary for rain? No. Let’s imagine it is 100% humidity outside. And like a NJ summer there is not a cloud in the sky, the water is still all gaseous. If there is a small decrease in temp, pressure, or both the relative humidity will rise to over 100% and the water must condense out. You will get rain without a cloud in the sky.
.... is blabla
Very intelligent response Īntikam. I guess this is you conceding in the most humble way you know.
I do not get addressed to trolls so much. I'm waiting the forum management solve this problem. There is so much trolls here about %86 is over all of the internet sites. This is not a troll working this is an attack.
So;
I don't need to attrition myself dealing with trolls. This is the language that you understand . I will continue my own work about different issues. Who post an objection abot it or not. I can not waste time for empty . Because you trolls are empty and just working for distraction .
This is not my game, because i'm not a player like you.
So then did you go back and watch the videos you could not watch before? I haven't seen you update your posts on the ones you said you couldn't see the video at the time.Cloudless rain.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
This one is better
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Wait, I thought you can't access YouTube.
You intelligent child
When i'm on office, i can't access youtube because RE dictator Erdoghan forbidden it. But when i'm on my own compoter right now, this has a strong VPN and proxy that can access everywhere also youtube.
Explain these then: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">That is some beautiful footage of this beautiful spheroid. I liked the Northern Lights from above.
and: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Looks really flat from there. Total disk mate...
