1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon actually not a disc.

« on: January 08, 2011, 08:18:49 PM »

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3,000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth. The stars are at a height of 3,100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston. In the dark energy model, the celestial bodies are spherical and are made of ordinary matter. These spheres are being held above the Earth by DE.

In the McIntyre model, the sun and the moon are metallic discs instead. These discs are being held above the Earth by photoelectric effect. See: Photoelectric Suspension Theory. The celestial bodies are also being suspended above the Earth by photoelectric effect in the Bishop model.

I for one have never heard of a spherical spotlight before. The gif below was created by compiling individual images of the moon over the course of a month. Note how you can't possibly be seeing a 2d "spotlight" as the FAQ wants you to think it is. No matter, a simple telescope and camera proves otherwise.

Source?

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Couple problems with the flat earth theory

« on: January 08, 2011, 08:17:56 PM »

More or less, denukenator123 is intimidated by my personal experience... That's why he could only mock me.

Actually, I'm stunned by your stupidity of not checking the Frequently Asked Questions section of the forms for you answers. Also, ditch the unwarranted self-importance.

That's a blatant lie. One doesn't have to be stupid to overlook the FAQ. You're stunned by it? What, am I the first person ever to post here without looking at the FAQ? Also, if you didn't bother to read my post, the FAQ doesn't address all my questions, and in fact, the FAQ doesn't sufficiently answer any of my questions. It also contradicts itself in many ways. And just what exactly do you mean by self-importance?

keep those childish remarks coming!

The problem is that there are a hundred people with 1-5 posts that post a big block of questions without consulting the FAQ. The fact that you aren't familiar with the FAQ indicated that you haven't lurked the forums and are posting before getting a background on the subject. In fact, the FAQ and various Threads answer all of your questions, I don't have to find the answers for you, we have a search feature for that. As for the self-importance...

denukenator123 is intimidated by my personal experience

...you are not intimidating, you are just misspelling my name.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Couple problems with the flat earth theory

« on: January 08, 2011, 07:50:39 PM »

More or less, denukenator123 is intimidated by my personal experience... That's why he could only mock me.

Actually, I'm stunned by your stupidity of not checking the Frequently Asked Questions section of the forms for you answers. Also, ditch the unwarranted self-importance.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Will Anyone Else Miss FET?

« on: January 08, 2011, 07:46:46 PM »

Please tell us where it goes Tom.

Branson's plane goes into the upper atmosphere and then comes down again, much like those amateur balloons which can reach the edge of the atmosphere. At no point does Branson's plane go into space, which he admits himself.

I'm not claiming that Richard Branson's plane is a conspiracy, a hoax, or a fake. Neither am I claiming that those amateur balloons are fakes.

In FET at such high altitudes the observer is looking down at a circle.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=High+Altitude+Photographs

Please do explain that and back up what you say.

Read the link I provided.

I see no reason why I should write novels of material over and over again when I've already put the material on the Wiki.

The unsupported wiki article doesn't suffice as evidence.

5

The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!

« on: January 08, 2011, 07:39:36 PM »

Whine Whine Whine my name is some or other Blah Blah Blah I didn't read the OP.

Fixed.

6

The Lounge / Re: Jame's Avatar

« on: January 08, 2011, 07:32:41 PM »

A shocking revelation in the Flat Earth forums.

Lurk moar.

Your jealous of my rad detective skills.

7

The Lounge / Re: Jame's Avatar

« on: January 08, 2011, 07:27:57 PM »

James is Tom Bishop.

He is.

A shocking revelation in the Flat Earth forums.

8

The Lounge / Re: Jame's Avatar

« on: January 08, 2011, 05:49:08 PM »

Beat you to it, you pedantic asshole.

The thread title still refers to a mysterious "Jame".

...And?

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Weightless Astronauts

« on: January 08, 2011, 05:47:38 PM »

Vomit comet, special effects...

...Proof?

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Couple problems with the flat earth theory

« on: January 08, 2011, 05:40:45 PM »

Whine Whine Whine My name is Jason Blah Blah Blah I didn't read the FAQ.

Fixed

11

The Lounge / Re: Jame's Avatar

« on: January 08, 2011, 05:38:31 PM »

Who is Jame?

Beat you to it, you pedantic asshole.

12

The Lounge / Re: Am I the only Nudist here?

« on: January 08, 2011, 05:33:36 PM »

He has a nine inch member.

Every male on the internet has a nine inch member, though.

Not me.

12?

Only his e-penis.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Will Anyone Else Miss FET?

« on: January 08, 2011, 05:30:39 PM »

Please tell us where it goes Tom.

Branson's plane goes into the upper atmosphere and then comes down again, much like those amateur balloons which can reach the edge of the atmosphere. At no point does Branson's plane go into space, which he admits himself.

I'm not claiming that Richard Branson's plane is a conspiracy, a hoax, or a fake. Neither am I claiming that those amateur balloons are fakes.

In FET at such high altitudes the observer is looking down at a circle.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=High+Altitude+Photographs

Please do explain that and back up what you say.

14

The Lounge / Jame's Avatar

« on: January 08, 2011, 05:26:39 PM »

If any one is curious where it comes from: http://www.bayviewnb.com/index.cfm?method=pages.showpage&pageid=c943e48c-c103-64e3-dd0e-e5fc3ec19691

Edit: Stupid apostrophe

15

The Lounge / Re: I have a problem

« on: December 30, 2010, 11:40:44 PM »

Are the kids twins?

and conjoined?

and deformed?

16

The Lounge / Re: Just realized this.

« on: December 30, 2010, 11:37:29 PM »

I think that just about everyone on these forums live on the East Coast of America, or near there. We all eat dinner at the same time.

Maine.

17

The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!

« on: December 30, 2010, 11:35:21 PM »

I am a newbie here and just wanna say Hi to everyone. I am Daniel from Pennsylvania, US.

You're doing it wrong.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Horizon

« on: December 30, 2010, 11:30:07 PM »

It can be demonstrated twice a year by anyone willing to wake up early enough.  In fact, I've even proposed this simple experiment to the FES community.  Surprisingly enough, you have never offered to participate.  I wonder why that is.  

Like I said, undemonstrated.

How does RET explain those rocks?

Its hypocritical to tell Markjo that he hasn't demonstrated his point while you are asking for an explanation to the something you haven't demonstrated.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: North or South

« on: December 30, 2010, 08:54:19 AM »

Neither. Water is not checkered.

Shocking. A pedantic FE remark that contributes nothing at all to the thread.

Aren't those against the rules in the upper forums?

So is calling people retarded. 

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 28, 2010, 08:54:50 PM »

As much as the idea of "moon shrimp" falling to the earth makes me smile, I don't think I take Thork's assertion seriously.

He did provide recipes.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal acceleration, a counter-intuitive hypothesis

« on: December 28, 2010, 07:03:29 PM »

I suspect that any experiment which shows a null result would be rejected out of hand anyway. Let's not pretend that you were concerned by the experiments integrity.

Thats coming from the side that evokes the "conspiracy" game-ender to dying arguments. I suspect that if you posted any results with proper documentation at all our jaws would hit the floor. Your dismissing your inadequacy as an excuse for our skepticism.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: North or South

« on: December 28, 2010, 06:55:26 PM »

Berny up to his usual quality posting. The lack of FE'ers indicates that they can't answer this question.

VICTORY FOR THE ROUND EARTH

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 28, 2010, 03:35:06 PM »

evidence?

The Moon emits light.

Why would we not be able to learn their secrets? we have telescopes.

We can see them, we just can't see their inner workings.

We would be able to create (and mass-produce, since they breed) extremely efficient solar panels and solve the world's energy problem.

We can't reach them, space travel is impossible.

You'll be winning a Nobel prize.

I'm just referencing others research. Its a team effort.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: A major flaw in the zetetic model

« on: December 28, 2010, 02:17:56 PM »

I wonder how all of the gases and minerals on other planets in the solar system manage to stay stuck to the planet

Gravity

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Why don't I have cancer?

« on: December 28, 2010, 02:03:35 PM »

You are a danger to yourself and others. Get out of that moonlight immediately!

James, inform the others what proper protective wear will protect us.

26

The Lounge / Re: I have a problem

« on: December 28, 2010, 01:59:29 PM »

Hook up with the dad.

This...also, how old is OP? I peg him at...16?

Or 13 pretending to be 16.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 28, 2010, 01:57:16 PM »

The moon shrimp is shown to be violating the law of conservation of energy.

How did you reach that conclusion?

it emits light with no energy source.

The sunlight of a solar eclipse is enough to power these shrimp. They are remarkably efficient creatures that surpass all life on earth in terms of energy conservation. Alas, we can't travel into space so we will never study these shrimp and learn their secrets.

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Why don't I have cancer?

« on: December 28, 2010, 10:08:59 AM »

It seems only the potentially fatal conditions are being considered?  I have seen other threads where lesser maladies were related to moonlight exposure.  Both physical and mental but of a non-lethal strain. 

Because Tom Bishop said that it's powerful, ergo it must be able to kill you horribly in 7 minutes.

Tom Bishop has never been proven wrong so that must be the truth.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: We Don't Need to Disprove FE.

« on: December 28, 2010, 10:06:19 AM »

I have to say I am disappointed in both sides of the forum.

Science is not about absolutes, so you cannot prove a theory to disprove all others. That is correct in mathematics, not in science.

Even though our current model for the shape and movement of the objects in the Solar System is proved to a precision that nobody would have thought possible just 100 years ago, a better model could appear. But the flat Earth "models" could only enter the arena if they had at least the same prediction capabilities our model has, and they fall so short it is not even funny.

Many threads have shown parts of the current model so I am not inclined to describe them here. We can just limit ourselves to Newtonian gravitation, which predicts everything in the Solar System with a high degree of accuracy (not perfect, but high), even the orbit of Mercury, And Newtonian gravitation is more than enough to destroy any model of flat Earth except the infinite flat Earth. And the model of the atmosphere as an almost perfectly transparent gas is enough to dispell the "bendy light" idiocies since it predicts the apparent location, brightness and size of the celestial objects. "Bendy light" predicts nothing of the kind.

You also cant assume unsupported theories are correct. Newtonian Gravity has proven to be very accurate but the concept of EAT has not. You can't dismiss other ideas except the ridiculous baseless one.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Bio-luminescent moon and conservation of energy

« on: December 28, 2010, 09:53:49 AM »

The moon shrimp is shown to be violating the law of conservation of energy.

How did you reach that conclusion?