1

Flat Earth General / JROA's new signature is awesome

« on: January 26, 2014, 11:16:37 PM »

It perfectly summarizes how FE thinks. Like 2nd graders. Thank GOD 2nd graders aren't in charge of designing computers!! They can decide what shape the earth is.

2

Flat Earth General / Possible explanation for Round Earth photographs from space?

« on: April 10, 2013, 02:55:02 AM »

This is a HUGE stretch, but I might as well mention it.



Link to description: http://gizmodo.com/5872456/this-mindblowing-photo-of-a-world-map-in-a-water-drop-is-real


I don't think this is how they have done it, but some might.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Regarding Bendy light....sorry, I know.

« on: April 01, 2013, 10:53:24 PM »

In this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54821.0.html#.UVpuZhwp91k

Parsifal, as well as others, admit that the Earth does in fact appear curved. When someone says that the statement "The Earth looks flat, then it must be" must be invalid, they say "incorrect" or "no".

This is stupid.

If I am looking at a huge picture of a dog with my eyes pressed right at it so I can only see one pixel of the image (we will say one pixel is 10 by 10 feet), I can say, "This picture looks brown, therefore this picture is brown."

Someone who is standing one mile away will say, no, it is a picture of dog. It is brown, orange, green, yellow, and red combined to look like a dog. I then say, ah you must be correct, since you have a better vantage point. However, the picture is still brown because it appears to be brown from MY vantage point. There must be some electromagnetic acceleration that warps the light waves to give you the illusion of seeing a dog. The picture is in fact brown.

This was stated multiple times in that thread (in different terms), and it embarrasses me. You simply cannot say "It looks, therefore it is" and then discount that very statement later by inserting some random light bendy thing. The picture looks like a dog, therefore it IS a picture of a dog. It's not our fault that the idiot is standing right next to the wall. He needs to back the hell up to see the whole thing. The Earth looks curved from high up, therefore it IS curved, according to your own belief that if it appears to be so, than it is!

We are simply too close to the Earth to see curvature. Why do you guys make up a theorem to explain away the big picture when we finally have the technology to see the Earth from very high? You are going against your own Zetetic beliefs, which basically tell you to observe for yourselves.

4

Flat Earth Debate / More "correct" viewpoints.

« on: April 01, 2013, 04:21:52 PM »

So, lets start with a blank slate for our mind. According to the FAQ, one of the best evidences for the Earth's shape is how it appears to our senses. Our eyes tell us the Earth is flat, therefore it must be.

Meet Bob. Bob lives in the mountains. Based on his senses, the surrounding Earth looks very mountainous. He says, "The whole Earth must be mountainous, because it sure looks like it to me. Everywhere I look, there are mountains. Therefore, the whole Earth is covered with mountains." He continues to live in the mountains, and he doesn't think about this subject anymore. He is a busy man.

Tom visits the mountains where Bob lives. Tom says, "Wow! What a fantastic place this is! I have never seen so many mountains in my life!"
"What do you mean?" Bob replied. "The whole Earth is filled with mountains. How can you have not seen this before?"
Tom replies, "I come from the coast. Look one way and there are rolling hills with beautiful forests, look the other way, flat ocean as far as you can see. I used to think that the whole Earth was rolling hills or flat ocean, but now I see there are mountains as well."

So, Bob and Tom both change their views, thinking that some of the Earth was mountainous, while some was ocean, and some was rolling hills.

John came along and showed them his heavy lift rocket. They both climbed inside and took off over the Earth. They watched as the Earth appeared to curve down and around them.

They than agreed that the Earth must gradually curve down and around.

Now, why would we completely hijack our observations and say light bends without evidence for it? Our direct observations say that the Earth must be curved, because as we take on more viewpoints, we can get more information about our surroundings. Why do we discard the appearance of a curved Earth and say light bends?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Regarding ENaG Chapter on Perspective

« on: March 29, 2013, 01:19:57 AM »

Link the the article here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za32.htm

So, I finally took the time to read this thoroughly, and it seemed to make sense. There were no holes in logic or process that I could find.

However, I was somewhat skeptical regarding the image of the receding lamp posts. (Fig. 77)
Does it really look like that in real life? Do the pedestals of the lamp posts really disappear like that with distance? Also, the diagram of the train. I find it hard to believe that the wheels of the train just disappear with distance.

The whole basis of this chapter hangs on the first few pages, saying that parts of things will disappear before the whole object disappears. I don't disagree with this, as I can clearly see a friend far away, but yet unable to see the details of his nose.

Do we have any pictures of this effect happening that will make something appear to "sink" or touch down closer than it should to the horizon, much like the diagram of the lamp posts? Obviously, this would exclude ships going over the horizon, since RE people use this as evidence for a round Earth.

6

Flat Earth General / Shout out to FErs in the southern hemisphere.

« on: March 13, 2013, 08:15:11 PM »

Preferably Australia or South America. I have some questions to ask the lot of you! So, please, if there are any FE believers/members living in the southern hemisphere, can you please let me know?

7

Flat Earth Q&A / A very cool time lapse: Explanation?

« on: March 12, 2013, 11:41:39 PM »

First off, I am terribly sorry if someone else posted this before. I haven't seen it on this website so far.

This first video is from Chile. At an observatory. It is aiming south, towards the south celestial pole. Results:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Time Lapse South Celestial Pole

*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************

This next video is from Australia. It is also aiming south, at the south celestial pole. Results:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">South Celestial Pole Time Lapse

*********************************************************************
*********************************************************************



So, in this image, the viewers are in Chile, S. America, and Australia, (the top two arrows pointing left and right, respectively).

How are they looking at the same stars? They are looking in nearly opposite directions. The south celestial pole is visible every night rather clearly from these two locations at least part of the year, and it is always south. Thoughts?

8

Flat Earth General / John Davis' book?

« on: March 12, 2013, 01:18:13 PM »

When will that be made available? Obviously, not soon at all, since I heard he is still working on it, but I also read that he will make a few chapters available for reading. Any news on that?

Cheers.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Southern Cross

« on: March 09, 2013, 03:12:50 PM »

If you live in australia, and you look the opposite direction of North, at night, you can see the southern cross. This cross surrounds the area that doesn't rotate in the night sky, much like Polaris in the North Pole.

This same constellation is visible from Argentina as well. Also, it is visible from South Africa. Or any country south of the equator.

So, that means that people looking these directions...



are all looking at the same star.

I understand that according to FE, looking north in the northern hemisphere will always show you Polaris because of this...



But how come in the southern hemisphere, looking in totally different directions shows the same stars?

10

Flat Earth General / A perfect example...

« on: February 27, 2013, 11:11:30 PM »

...of why FErs do not trust photographs.



This is fake, btw. As an RE guy, at least this part of their beliefs makes sense. 

Sidenote: How do you make this a thumbnail?

11

The Lounge / If there's one thing we can agree on...

« on: February 26, 2013, 01:24:08 PM »

It is that space is absolutely incredible! 






......get it?

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Electromagnetic Acceleration.

« on: February 22, 2013, 03:08:35 PM »

Has there been any experiment done to prove this theory? I read lots about it, but besides just observing the sun, I hadn't heard of anyone reproducing this phenomenon independently. Has there been anything new to add to the table, besides the barebones theory and the equation someone made to demonstrate?

Quick note: Refraction is not electromagnetic acceleration, as it cannot bend more than .5 degrees in the medium of air. Electromagnetic acceleration requires about 10 or more degrees of bending.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / A new kind of Thread. Maybe make this a sticky.

« on: February 11, 2013, 05:51:47 PM »

~!~THIS IS NOT A DEBATE THREAD~!~

I read the "notice to newcomers" sticky, and saw that you guys recommend the search function.
I thought, why not make a thread with only one long post (or a series of long posts) dedicated to answering any questions new comers have about Flat Earth theories? This way, anyone can basically look in this post for a concise answer to any question they have, and not bother anyone with another post about that video on youtube called "Top 10 reasons we know the earth is round."

Any amount of topics may be listed and will be represented in the following fashion.

Sunsets/Sunrise: The prevalent FE theory explaining sunrises and sunsets is "Electromagnetic Acceleration". The page regarding this can be found here.  http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator  (Someone insert the URL into the text for "here".)

And like so. I will post topics, and you can either PM me the information regarding one or two, and I will edit the original post to include the info. Anybody can make a post, and I will edit the original one and delete the new post that someone makes in order to keep the thread SUPER clean. Or you can have one of the moderators do it. I just wanted to get this started.


Topics:

Sunsets/Sunrise: The prevalent FE theory explaining sunrises and sunsets is "Electromagnetic Acceleration". The page regarding this can be found here.  http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_Accelerator  (Someone insert the URL into the text for "here".)
Also, according to this model of sunlight, the sun acts as a spot light rather than a sphere of light shining in all directions.
For those who don't understand the equation, the farther away the sun is horizontally from you, the more it will bend "up" toward you. If you are directly underneath the sun, no bending happens. Research regarding this equation has yet to be done. It is not tested, besides the assumption that the earth is flat and sunsets/sunrises do occur.

Ships sinking under the horizon:

Solar eclipses:

Lunar Eclipses:

Tides:

Poles (Geographic and Magnetic):

Planets:

Space photos:

Distances: Regarding the distances towards the south pole on the commonly used Flat Earth map with Antarctica spread around the disk.

Satellites:

Why the sun doesn't get smaller in the sky:
A common explanation from FEers is that the atmosphere acts like a magnifying glass, distorting and enlarging the view of the sun whenever the sun is close to the horizon.

Why stars don't get larger in the sky:

GPS:

Expeditions to Antarctica:

~!~You guys can suggest more topics to cover, and remember, feel free to post an answer to one, or a link to a previously made thread.~!~

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Why not?

« on: February 05, 2013, 12:57:44 AM »

If you believe in round earth, you have to have a different explanation for almost everything that happens, whether it's a sunrise, a time lapse of the stars at the north and south pole, ships dropping off horizon, constant daytime in antarctica and the north pole at certain times of the year, distance problems around the edge of the "disk" that is Earth, and many more.

I am asking, why not use a single model of earth that explains all these phenomenon, does not make up rules for light (magnetic acceleration?), can accurately predict events like sightings of planets, meteor showers, and comets? (By the way, a huge (read:awesome) comet is due to arrive around earth at the end of 2013. Look it up for awesomeness)
It also doesn't make nonsense about direction and perspective. I read so many comments by FEers saying "Oh did you really feel you were driving/sailing/flying straight? You were actually turning." OH! okay, thanks. Your theory completely does away with regular observation, because everything is mysteriously affected by "aetheric wind", or something else, depending on the argument.

Also, planets. Models have been made with the premise of gravity (heliocentric system), and it perfectly simulates where those particularly bright--previously thought to be--stars that would show up sometimes.

One more: time lapses. Look at these:

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">South Celestial Pole Time Lapse

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">How to find the North Pole Star; Polaris

Both of these phenomenon are explained perfectly by the Round earth model, because at the geographic south pole or north pole, that certain star in the sky does not move at all because the earth is always pointing at it, even when its rotating. Sort of like a basketball player twirling a ball on his fingers. I have not yet heard of an explanation for this one.

I understand some of the conspiracy surrounding NASA a little, and maybe some strange "moon landing" pictures. But why would NASA fake the earth being round? Wouldn't they amaze everyone even more if they could say, "Hey look over here, World. You all thought the earth was round, but it's flat, and we have pictures to prove it." Aboard the ISS, the curvature of the earth is consistently visible. Why would they fake that?

I honestly believe you guys are going through too much trouble for you own good. You are figuratively sawing off the branch you are hanging on. Any time you give an explanation for one thing (And it usually involves interesting things, like magnetic acceleration/aether), you have to counter explain something else, because you just chopped off what you previously said.

NOTE: I don't actually expect an answer to most of these questions, just this main one. Why go through all the trouble? Honest question.

Cheers.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / A few questions from a new guest

« on: January 22, 2013, 09:45:21 PM »

Hello, everyone. I just heard of this website, and I gotta say, at first I was very surprised this kind of website could exist. But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs, and I am not here to bash on that. I looked through most of the websites evidences that the Earth is flat, and I didn't know what to think. Some good points, some not so good. But every theory has good and bad points. I just have a few question regarding the map of earth you guys have somewhere on the site.

So, the earth is a disk, like this right?


And the seasonal changes in the suns position are explained by this image?


So, from anywhere on earth, how do you explain the sun going below the horizon? Even if you take the perspective into account, something will never disappear beneath a flat surface the farther away it goes. It will always get lower, but sort of like dividing by 2 continually, you will never reach a negative number.


And one more question: Distances. If you look at the image of Earth above, you can see the relative sizes of N. and S. America. If you sort of measure the distance from California to the Island of Newfoundland, you can clearly see that it is shorter than the distance from the Andes Mountains to the edge of Brazil. However, these distances are actually opposite. The distance from Lima Peru is actually 2869.2 Miles. The Distance from Los Angeles to St. John's (Located in Newfoundland, Canada) is 3453 miles.

You can see the distance from Lima, Peru to Recife, Brazil here. http://www.happyzebra.com/distance-calculator/Lima-to-Recife.php

You can see the distance from L.A. to Newfoundland here: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/distances.html?n=175

Any thoughts? Sorry these are a lot of questions. Feel free to answer only one. :/