1

Flat Earth Q&A / Amazing

« on: April 21, 2008, 12:33:19 PM »

I come back here after a long long long time, and still see some old members here, for example The Engineer, who has over 12k posts.

I mean, to put so much effort as 12 000 posts to something as debating an FE/RE theory is truly amazing. I bet 99% of the people here come just to have fun/flame the place /stop being bored. Or they just really like to have a nice, healthy argue. Which isn't that bad to have from time to time.

I must say, I envy you because you have so much free time (I wish I did), but you might want to use it in a more useful way   

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The possibility of proof...

« on: April 21, 2008, 12:26:41 PM »

ROTFLMAO

It's a myth.  Honestly.  No bullshit.  Look it up.

Well, seeing this kind of an answer after the question the guy asked you, I can make these 3 assumptions:

1) You have ADD so you couldn't read to the end of his post and just randomly answered it

2) There's something wrong with the way you think so you can't develop any solution based on logic

3) You're just doing this for fun and probably laughing your ass off in the process

I think number 3 is the most likely one  

P.S. You don't even have to go to australia lol, just ask someone that's from there. Altough many people will probs think you're a weirdo, asking them what way their toilet water flushes lol

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 1980's satellite pictures

« on: May 05, 2007, 12:24:24 PM »

So the camera tehnology hasn't changed one bit in the past 30 years?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ice Wall

« on: May 05, 2007, 07:47:31 AM »

Prove that it never ends. How do you know it's not a continent?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ice Wall

« on: May 05, 2007, 03:44:33 AM »

How can you prove that it exists?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 1980's satellite pictures

« on: May 05, 2007, 03:35:19 AM »

- That is not a picture from the 1980's It seems to be an image taken in the 1960's. Humans don't age that fast.

Ok lets say that that is true.

A picture of a car taken in 1980:

http://www.dippy.org/photo/psib/psib004.jpg

A picture of cars from 2007:

http://blogs.cars.com/photos/uncategorized/2007hondas.jpg


The quality of the pictures just isn't the same. It isn't.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 1980's satellite pictures

« on: May 04, 2007, 01:54:58 PM »

Are you retarded?

The digital camera was not invented until the 90's. Obviously the camera on this alleged 80's satellite would have been using analog capture and broadcasting methods. By the 1980's analog capture and broadcasting technologies were very mature.

Image broadcasting technology has been around since the 1920's. Do you think it was impossible to broadcast a quality image in the 1980's or something? 

You said the quality of a picture from the 80's is the same as the quality of a picture from today. Maybe you just want to sound convincing so that people can believe you, but people ain't that stupid.

But if you truly believe what you're saying, check this out:

http://www.jamiethompson.net/jack_carlson.htm

A picture of the same man, one from 1980, the other from 2005. Same quality? I don't think so, Tom.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: what's up

« on: May 04, 2007, 10:39:29 AM »

lol

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: 1980's satellite pictures

« on: May 04, 2007, 10:32:34 AM »

It was the technology.

Technology?

Cameras in the 1980's were just as good as cameras are today. Same resolution, same quality. There should be no difference.

Are you retarded? 

I think Toms IQ just dropped from 0 to -2

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google Earth and cartography

« on: May 02, 2007, 09:12:55 AM »

I am not saying that it is not a real picture, I am saying that the distances between places are accuarte.

If the earth is a globe it would be impossible to accurately represent a sphere onto a flat surface.

But since the earth is flat is becomes extremely possible.

You must be retarded or something. That isn't a FE map, it is a RE map. And a FE map is the one that is impossible to create, thats why noone created it. Actually you made a good poin. If the earth was flat, it shouldn't be so hard to make an accurate FE map

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google Earth and cartography

« on: May 02, 2007, 06:52:03 AM »

Cartography is amazingly accurate to be a hoax. You decline maps as RE maps, but you travel with the help of maps, because they are accurate. What proof( besides that it is a part of the conspiracy) do you have that those maps are false?

What proof do you have that this is not a real picture of Africa?



~D_Draw

I am not saying that it is not a real picture, I am saying that the distances between places are accuarte.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Simple Questions :)

« on: April 30, 2007, 03:35:53 AM »

Great post, sokalur.

As for you Tom, if you don't understand what sokalur just did to you, let me rephrase it:

http://you.justgotowned.com/

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: List of FE illusions

« on: April 29, 2007, 02:25:51 AM »

All of the illusions you mentioned, Tom, have nothing to do with proving the earth flat.

I'm just saying that some things that are explained in RE perfectly normal are said to be illusions in FE

And many of the things you mentioned would appear in FE too

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: List of FE illusions

« on: April 28, 2007, 01:02:32 PM »

How many optical illusions is there in the round earth? None.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Google Earth and cartography

« on: April 28, 2007, 12:23:03 PM »

What does that have to do with my question?

16

Flat Earth Debate / Google Earth and cartography

« on: April 28, 2007, 07:25:49 AM »

Cartography is amazingly accurate to be a hoax. You decline maps as RE maps, but you travel with the help of maps, because they are accurate. What proof( besides that it is a part of the conspiracy) do you have that those maps are false?

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question to Tom Bishop

« on: April 28, 2007, 07:21:33 AM »

Umm, ok then work on sattelites. You could tell if you are building a real sattelite or a helium baloon...

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Question to Tom Bishop

« on: April 28, 2007, 07:15:44 AM »

It's so easy to be in the conspiracy. Work for google, be an astronomer, get a job in cartography etc.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Question to Tom Bishop

« on: April 28, 2007, 04:12:31 AM »

Would you hide the shape of the Earth in exchange for limitless wealth?

I would.

Why don't you join the conspiracy then?

20

Flat Earth Debate / List of FE illusions

« on: April 28, 2007, 04:10:54 AM »

Here is a list of illusions in a flat earth theory. Please add up anything that I miss

1) What about sunrises-sunsets?

It's a illusion. The sun actually gets farther away.

2)Illuminated clouds appear before sunrise over the curvature of the Earth.

From narcberry: The same horizon illusion due to the earths acceleration also explains the cloud effect.

3)From narcberry: You look out at the sea. If the horizon was curved, then the highest point would be directly in front of you. Now rotate your body a little to the right. Now the horizons highest point is to the right of its previous location. If such an anomaly existed, it is clearly an optical illusion.

4)From I'm not Tom Bishop but I can't prove it:People have been brainwashed into "seeing" curvature where there is none.  I bet if you drew a straight line with a ruler on the board, all these people would see curvature.

5)From dogplatter: If you fly in a plane and see curvature which isn't there even by the admission of round Earthers, it just goes to show how sickeningly effective the conspiracy is at making you believe in their lies.

6)From narcberry: Well you are quite right to observe this. This is however countered by the fact that our eyes actually observe things to be upside down, our brains counter this. This is why the horizon appears to be just the opposite of what you would expect.

7)From Dr. Rowbotham: astronomy is a 'juggle and a jumble of fancies and falsehoods; an elaborate theoretical trick '

from Tom Bishop: The sinking ship effect people see is a natural law of perspective

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth-like planet found

« on: April 28, 2007, 03:22:54 AM »

Well why didn't they do that before then?

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Polaris

« on: April 28, 2007, 03:17:37 AM »

They can't explain because the earth is actually round

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth-like planet found

« on: April 28, 2007, 03:15:57 AM »

Its not a planet. Astronomers are still assuming a Round Earth in their parallax equations.

Lol but what kind of benefit could the conspiracy possibly get by telling everyone that kind of planet exists?

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Unanswered FE questions

« on: April 27, 2007, 02:36:17 PM »

The same horizon illusion due to the earths acceleration also explains the cloud effect.

I notice that there are a lot of illusions in FE. There are none in RE. And there is no conspiracy in RE. I wonder which theory is more logical...

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth-like planet found

« on: April 27, 2007, 02:32:49 PM »

And what benefit do they actually get by announcing that there is an earth-like planet?

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why did you come to this site? and other questions...

« on: April 27, 2007, 02:31:44 PM »

3. Truth is ever changing.  With more reliable formulas and computers, previous truths are discarded and replaced by new truths.

Well, thats kinda obvius isn't it? It's called evolution. Some theories are false, and they were replaced with true ones. So previous truths aren't truths, but they aren't lies either, they were just false.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Earth-like planet found

« on: April 27, 2007, 02:21:53 PM »

Earth isn't that special after all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gliese_581_c

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: This date in 1970

« on: April 25, 2007, 02:33:24 AM »

A chinaman getting into a "spacecraft!!!"

Wow, if we accept this as proof, it also means the world has been attacked by aliens and OJ is innocent.

Do you ever run out of stupid?  Or is it infinite?

hahaha, nice one

A chinaman getting into a "spacecraft!!!"

Wow, if we accept this as proof, it also means the world has been attacked by aliens and OJ is innocent.

Wow, you are right, I've never seen Paris but on pictures, so it doesn't actually exist!!! I guess thats because France faked all of the pictures of Paris in photoshop!!! Imagine the money they get from tourists who think they go in Paris!!! Proove to me that Paris exists!!!

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Search Tool

« on: April 25, 2007, 02:25:34 AM »

Yes, it is there for you. Yes your dumb question is answered. No, pretending you are right because we wont hold you hand will not work here.

Yes, we dumb round earth believers are so blessed to have a uber genius like you around to enlighten us and show us the truth about the earths shape.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: From "Unanswered" in the FAQ

« on: April 25, 2007, 02:18:43 AM »

If the sun is a shere...then how does it not have light shining from it in all directions?

It does. You can still see its light after sunset for a while.

that is insanely inconsistent

I say its still consistent. The intensity of light from the sun is a vast order of magnitude higher than the light of any star. Its intensity of the Sun can breach much of the atmospheric fog like a foglight. Dipping into the horizon, stars will disappear faster than the Sun. In fact, depending on magnitude, stars will disappear BEFORE they hit the false horizon.

I need to get going. But feel free to argue amongst yourselves.

I really don't know why you are still trying, Tom. You must have no life whatsoever