1

Flat Earth General / Re: if the earth is flat?

« on: October 13, 2017, 04:01:56 AM »

Atmospheric pressure shows a diurnal or semidiurnal (twice-daily) cycle caused by global atmospheric tides.
The largest-amplitude atmospheric tides are mostly generated in the troposphere and stratosphere when the atmosphere is periodically heated, as water vapor and ozone absorb solar radiation during the day.
An increasing or diminishing barometric pressure would effect oceans to cause what is known as tides.

no need for theoretical 17th century magical thinking. 

Really?

Atmospheric tide
Atmospheric tides are global-scale periodic oscillations of the atmosphere. In many ways they are analogous to ocean tides. Atmospheric tides can be excited by:

• The regular day–night cycle in the Sun's heating of the atmosphere (insolation)
• The gravitational field pull of the Moon
• Non-linear interactions between tides and planetary waves.
• Large-scale latent heat release due to deep convection in the tropics.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Solar atmospheric tides
The largest amplitude atmospheric tides are generated by the periodic heating of the atmosphere by the Sun – the atmosphere is heated during the day and not heated at night. This regular diurnal (daily) cycle in heating generates tides that have periods related to the solar day. It might initially be expected that this diurnal heating would give rise to tides with a period of 24 hours, corresponding to the heating's periodicity. However, observations reveal that large amplitude tides are generated with periods of 24 and 12 hours.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Lunar atmospheric tides
Atmospheric tides are also produced through the gravitational effects of the Moon. Lunar (gravitational) tides are much weaker than solar (thermal) tides and are generated by the motion of the Earth's oceans (caused by the Moon) and to a lesser extent the effect of the Moon's gravitational attraction on the atmosphere.

Your guesses do not fit reality.
         With atmospheric tides "Lunar (gravitational) tides are much weaker than solar (thermal) tides"
But ocean tides are predominantly controlled by the position of the moon, not position of the sun.

Certainly, atmospheric pressure changes have an effect on ocean levels, but the size and timing simply does not fit that being the cause of the normal tidal rise and fall of ocean levels.
Maybe you should read: A descriptive explanation of ocean tides, by Donald E. Simanek or Tide.

No, "no need for theoretical 17th-century magical thinking",
in the 18th century, LaPlace developed idealised tidal equations, though for a "smooth ocean covered Globe" and
since then the "theory of tides" has advanced greatly.

But if you really want a "flat earth explanation of tides" go and read Christian Flat Earth Ministry, What Causes Ocean Tides?
You can find some 14th century magic in that!

The 14th century writings Inventio Fortunata by Nicholas de Linna and The Itinerium of Jacobus Cnoyen mention the magnetic mountain being so powerful that it pulled the nails right out of explorer’s boats! The encircling whirlpool and four directional rivers surrounding the mountain were said to change every 6 hours causing the tides, comparing them to the “breath of God” at the “naval of the Earth,” inhaling and exhaling the great seas.

oh dear.
re read your post 

im a nice guy so will give you a chance 

2

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: October 13, 2017, 03:55:35 AM »

how is it there are more photographic images of bigfoot than satellites in orbit ?

How many photographic images of bigfoot do you think there are? Can you back that up with any evidence?

also all of these elusive and mysterious objects are capable of avoiding the thousands of speeding meteorites for many decades.

what are the odds ?

Zero. They haven't all avoided being hit by micrometeorites. What makes you think they have?

Next!

whether you believe or not the close up image of a female creature has being analysed closely and the muscle movement was way beyond technological techniques for suits at the time.
now its your turn.
a close up image of a satellite in space .....please.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: October 13, 2017, 03:47:59 AM »

project echo - "Project Echo was the first passive communications satellite experiment. Each of the two American spacecraft, launched in 1960 and 1964, was a metalized balloon satellite acting as a passive reflector of microwave signals. Communication signals were bounced off them from one point on Earth to another"

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/5277461725_34624f8a73_o.jpg
https://diffusive.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/nasa-echo-project-via-binky-the-doormatel-2002-00476.jpg?w=1400

hmmmmmm.........

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

Are you attempting to say something? It generally helps to actually say it rather than just hope others pick up on whatever line of thought one might be having. It's certainly an interesting project, but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything here?

those huge shiny NASA balloons might look like tiny lights in the sky overhead at night don't you think ?

its possible considering any actual photographical evidence of the traditional winged skip we all know and love are pretty thin on the ground,
in fact real images of winged skips are non existent.

how is it there are more photographic images of bigfoot than satellites in orbit ?

also all of these elusive and mysterious objects are capable of avoiding the thousands of speeding meteorites for many decades.

what are the odds ?

Sorry, do you think they're still up there? Neither object you've linked an image of is still up there. Project Echo was back in the 60's, and both of those balloons have since burned up in atmo. They WERE visible as bright points in the sky while they were up there according to information on them though.

do i think those specific balloons are still up there ? no. but its obviously possible further balloons were launched in the 70s 80s 90s etc.
this is obviously obvious.
interesting that the balloons are described as "bright points in the sky".

Winged skips? I'm confused, not sure what you're talking about here.

satellites.

Source on this claim? Quick search is turning up lots of photos, and plenty of guides like this one http://space.mindofamadman.com/2016/03/18/how-to-spot-satellites/ on how to find and see them yourself. Most of the photos though are of the lights of them in the sky unless it's a larger one like the ISS transit.

your link is missing one vital component......any images of satellites. bit weird.

They don't avoid all of them, whatever gave you that idea?

citations needed.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Expedition: Antarctica

« on: October 12, 2017, 03:11:05 PM »

I am deeply sorry for your mother having not died sooner as to avoid giving birth to you. I do not insult women; I insult imbeciles.

hello penguin    [edit ] ( damn )

get well soon 

5

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: October 12, 2017, 03:00:53 PM »

project echo - "Project Echo was the first passive communications satellite experiment. Each of the two American spacecraft, launched in 1960 and 1964, was a metalized balloon satellite acting as a passive reflector of microwave signals. Communication signals were bounced off them from one point on Earth to another"




hmmmmmm.........

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

Are you attempting to say something? It generally helps to actually say it rather than just hope others pick up on whatever line of thought one might be having. It's certainly an interesting project, but I'm not sure what it has to do with anything here?

those huge shiny NASA balloons might look like tiny lights in the sky overhead at night don't you think ?

its possible considering any actual photographical evidence of the traditional winged skip we all know and love are pretty thin on the ground,
in fact real images of winged skips are non existent.

how is it there are more photographic images of bigfoot than satellites in orbit ?

also all of these elusive and mysterious objects are capable of avoiding the thousands of speeding meteorites for many decades.

what are the odds ?

6

Flat Earth General / Re: if the earth is flat?

« on: October 12, 2017, 02:40:01 PM »

Atmospheric pressure shows a diurnal or semidiurnal (twice-daily) cycle caused by global atmospheric tides.
The largest-amplitude atmospheric tides are mostly generated in the troposphere and stratosphere when the atmosphere is periodically heated, as water vapor and ozone absorb solar radiation during the day.
An increasing or diminishing barometric pressure would effect oceans to cause what is known as tides.

no need for theoretical 17th century magical thinking. 

An interesting idea, but one teensy problem I'm finding after looking into this a bit. The atmospheric tides are diurnal, and happen at about the same time every day. The ocean tides do not. They shift by about 50 min every 'cycle'. How does the regular atmospheric tide account for the shifting timing of the oceanic tides? Shouldn't they line up pretty well? Otherwise how do you know there's any correlation?

good question, as atmospheric tides are driven by the sun we can safely assume the moon plays a part in a cooling process.
and I am sure you have seen the simple experiments that show its warmer in the shade than direct moon light.
the moons cold light opposing the suns warm light could play a part.

I haven't hammered out the minutia but I feel measurable and observable temperature, air pressure and tide times along side lunar and solar movement makes more scientific sense than the water muddying theory of gravity.

the correlation is still there regarding the moon but instead of gravity its atmospheric temperature and pressure.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: October 12, 2017, 04:46:44 AM »

project echo - "Project Echo was the first passive communications satellite experiment. Each of the two American spacecraft, launched in 1960 and 1964, was a metalized balloon satellite acting as a passive reflector of microwave signals. Communication signals were bounced off them from one point on Earth to another"




hmmmmmm.........

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

8

Flat Earth General / Re: if the earth is flat?

« on: October 12, 2017, 04:42:37 AM »

Atmospheric pressure shows a diurnal or semidiurnal (twice-daily) cycle caused by global atmospheric tides.
The largest-amplitude atmospheric tides are mostly generated in the troposphere and stratosphere when the atmosphere is periodically heated, as water vapor and ozone absorb solar radiation during the day.
An increasing or diminishing barometric pressure would effect oceans to cause what is known as tides.

no need for theoretical 17th century magical thinking. 

9

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: October 12, 2017, 04:07:17 AM »

project echo - "Project Echo was the first passive communications satellite experiment. Each of the two American spacecraft, launched in 1960 and 1964, was a metalized balloon satellite acting as a passive reflector of microwave signals. Communication signals were bounced off them from one point on Earth to another"




hmmmmmm.........

10

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: October 12, 2017, 03:21:29 AM »

Yet we successfully receive TV from satellites and use GPS for timing and location.  Currently 'seeing' 17 US and Russian satellites from my phone.

Ground based tech.

Are you really seeing Russian satellites on your phone ?
Really ?

Come on man.

Ever notice how satellite dishes are pointed?  In North America they all face south.  And at an angle that would quickly make ground based tech useless.

"Ever notice how satellite dishes are pointed?"

seems slap dash....

11

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: October 11, 2017, 11:18:33 AM »

Yet we successfully receive TV from satellites and use GPS for timing and location.  Currently 'seeing' 17 US and Russian satellites from my phone.

Ground based tech.

Are you really seeing Russian satellites on your phone ?
Really ?

Come on man.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: October 11, 2017, 11:09:59 AM »

You umm, you DID see the disclaimer on that second image right?

Also there's no 'juggling' between too small to see and see them with the naked eye. If you know where to look you can see their light point in the sky. But without binoculars or a telescope you will not be able to make out details of them. That's it. That's how they can be both too small to see (in detail) and let you see them with the naked eye (point of light) for some of them.

The disclaimer ?
Sure, artists rendition for entertainment purposes only.

Are you claiming to see thousands of satellites in detail through a telescope every night ?

Any images ?
(Not drawings or finger paintings but photos)

Actual evidence might help support your rather wild claims.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: October 11, 2017, 10:59:30 AM »

Hi Fe, how's tricks?

Of course, the whole idea of 'orbits' is Pseudoscientific nonsense from the get go.

This will help you understand why; it's a good read:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/fm6-40-ch3.htm

Hey PL ,
Thanks for the link.

satellites  .

14

Flat Earth General / uh oh. another nail. sorry guys.

« on: October 11, 2017, 06:19:48 AM »

 sattelites 
below are a few artists impressions (of course) of alleged satellites in "orbit".

 


take a good look and mull over the following.....

it is claimed many thousands of satellites are currently in "orbit", it is also claimed many thousands of tons of meteorites fall to earth each year......hmmmmm.

of course some micro meteorites are classed as dust, ok fair enough, even one the size of a pea travelling at high velocity would at least cause damage or bump one a fraction of a degree onto a different trajectory.

so..looking at the above artists impressions, and accounting for natural space debris...isn't this idea of thousands of satellites just chilling, avoiding high velocity debris and each other just complete bollocks ?

has anyone ever imaged the thousands of satellites in "orbit" ?

it appears the satellite squad shift between "you can see them with the naked eye" and "they are to small to see" juggling which ever response meets their needs, bless em, just don't expect any actual evidence.

so imho orbiting satellites don't pass the sniff test.
thanks for your time.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: all aboard the truth train

« on: March 31, 2017, 02:32:39 AM »

 

The red line is on the horizon way off in the distance, not beneath the bridge. Stupid meme.

And he is conveniently ignoring the mountain photo.

not at all.....just sounds and looks like desperate BS.

is that really the "smoking gun" ?   

however my image clearly shows the water being level under the bridge built for "curvature"

You are the only one interpreting "built for curvature" to mean that the profile of the bridge must follow the profile of the earth. That is not what was meant by "built for curvature." Is your position so desperate that you must deliberately misunderstand this in order to present an argument?

Are you saying the ex bridge did not attempt to build around the "curvature" ?

Sure looked that way.
It also looked completely out of place compared to the surrounding flatness

16

Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.

« on: March 31, 2017, 02:29:03 AM »

So OBM discovered "tiny details" of proof (but no debris images) and I am being asked to read a link that proclaims a "probable halo" as more proof .

So are we saying there is no independent debris image just straw clutching probables and comparible topography ?

mkay......and none of this strikes anyone as strange or a bit of a stretch.

From my perspective it has the deathly stench of desperation and delusional wishful thinking

Why no actual image of debris that we can actually see ?
It's only being half a century since "man's greatest achievement"

17

Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.

« on: March 30, 2017, 11:30:34 AM »

I see the wagons are being circled with panicked yelps,
however actual rebuttal appear very thin on the ground.

nice to see some golden oldies being dusted off though,
makes me feel all nostalgic 

Standard hoaxtard response. Demand evidence they think doesn't exist, pretend it hasn't happened when they get given it.

You got nothing.

I simply asked for a non nasa image of Apollo debris.......still waiting.........

18

Flat Earth General / Re: all aboard the truth train

« on: March 30, 2017, 09:54:22 AM »

more "curvature" based chuckles








wait.......



ha ha ha ha ha.....I shouldn't laugh but maybe they should have built the bridge level like everyone else 

19

Flat Earth General / Re: all aboard the truth train

« on: March 30, 2017, 09:40:29 AM »

 

The red line is on the horizon way off in the distance, not beneath the bridge. Stupid meme.

And he is conveniently ignoring the mountain photo.

not at all.....just sounds and looks like desperate BS.

is that really the "smoking gun" ?   

however my image clearly shows the water being level under the bridge built for "curvature"

20

Flat Earth General / Re: all aboard the truth train

« on: March 30, 2017, 09:36:35 AM »

 

The red line is on the horizon way off in the distance, not beneath the bridge. Stupid meme.

lol, is it not the "curvature" "bulge" under the bridge ?
you know, how water "curves" with the "globe" 
after all the bridge was built in accordance with the "curvature" in mind 

come on man.....you are in danger of being black "balled" by the "globe" huggers 

21

Flat Earth General / Re: all aboard the truth train

« on: March 30, 2017, 05:06:43 AM »

 

22

Flat Earth General / Re: all aboard the truth train

« on: March 30, 2017, 05:04:49 AM »

Really "both piers were built to be just above high tide". You'll have to do a lot better than that.

Worthing Pier in July 2010

This photo of Worthing Pier is courtesy of TripAdvisor

Worthing Pier at sunset, low tide

They must have 40 foot tides at Worthing,

Wow we get 39 foot tides at Derby (without any tidal bore), and that is thought exceptional.

Photo of feuk's flat earth, hope you like it! 

Now please tell us the height of the camera above sea-level in that video, or chuck in the junk heap with the rest of your half-truths.

this is priceless comedy gold 

you must realise that in those images ^ the tide is right out 

23

Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.

« on: March 30, 2017, 04:54:39 AM »

I see the wagons are being circled with panicked yelps,
however actual rebuttal appear very thin on the ground.

nice to see some golden oldies being dusted off though,
makes me feel all nostalgic 

24

Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.

« on: March 30, 2017, 04:51:23 AM »

challenge accepted.

can I see independent ( non nasa ) images of the "landing" debris ?

LRO view of Apollo 14 (top) compared with a pre-Apollo view taken with lunar orbiter



Compared with India's view from Chandrayaan:



and Japan's:



LRO view of Apollo 16 (left) compared with India (right)



The surface images taken by Apollo show a wealth of detail that was not visible in the pre-Apollo images. Only later were they confirmed.

The Apollo Panoramic Camera also took images from orbit while missions progressed, and they captured not only mission hardware but the progress of different EVAs. Those photos were publicly available at the time. You can see more about that here:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/pancam/pancam.html

the soviets have retroreflectors on the moon (so we are told), but I don't think the soviets are claiming to have golfed there.

They did. They also took surface images and broadcast them back to Earth. Those images show details that can also be found in Apollo panoramic camera images.

Oh, and one astronaut took one club head, attached it to one of the tools they took and hit a ball with it. Big deal.

that's them two wild statements  =debunked straight away.......next 

Nope.

that's a no then.

where are the non nasa images of debris ?

25

Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.

« on: March 29, 2017, 12:10:23 PM »

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

photos ?

or CGI ? 

seriously the "moon landing" has being debunked to death. its almost a given these days.
what you got ?

can sound travel in a vacuum ? 

That's right, only shills and desperate "I want it to be truhueee" believers keep defending that Kubrick production done under Ricky Nixon's government.

There is nothing to believe.
Apollo sites have been photographed with the LRO and other moon satellites.
Retroreflectors left behind can be used by a powerful enough laser, something like an observatory would have.

challenge accepted.

can I see independent ( non nasa ) images of the "landing" debris ?
the soviets have retroreflectors on the moon (so we are told), but I don't think the soviets are claiming to have golfed there.

that's them two wild statements debunked straight away.......next 

26

Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.

« on: March 29, 2017, 12:03:38 PM »

Feuk has been awfully silent about the photos I posted...

or CGI ? 

seriously the "moon landing" has being debunked to death. its almost a given these days.
what you got

It's never been debunked.......ever. Please stop lying.

one can only deduce you have not read my thread 

might I suggest you try it.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: all aboard the truth train

« on: March 29, 2017, 11:59:51 AM »

 

28

Flat Earth General / Re: all aboard the truth train

« on: March 29, 2017, 11:56:10 AM »

1. I have never witnessed the horizon curve.

Neither have I, because on the Globe there is not any horizontal curve of the horizon from a low level - none!

There is only 66.6 feet of curvature if you are observing from a height of ZERO.  And I know you are aware of that fact.  So your post is blatantly dishonest.

*groan*
both piers are the same height.

You have been asked what is the height above the sea-level at the time of Worthing Pier.

Answer the question.

Your "truth train" left a vital bit behind - half the truth! Almost all claims you post are half-truths.

about ten foot 

but your panic is impeding you logical thought, let me iron this out for you.

both piers were built to be just above high tide,
the "sea level" is......well......level 
the piers are fixed in position,
one pier walkway to the other should see a drop of 66.6  feet,
this is not observed by anyone ever.

sorry dude, the earth is flat.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: all aboard the truth train

« on: March 28, 2017, 12:32:45 PM »

hey Den.......
1. I have never witnessed the horizon curve.

got anything ?

let me just leave this link here...
http://www.flatearthbible.com/flat-earth-worthing-to-brighton-pier-and-its-not-a-mirage-doomweaver2007/

enjoy   :  )

Worthing to Brighton is roughly 15miles. Taking the quoted 8 inches per mile, this would mean a 10 foot dip over that distance. However this video is taken from the top deck of Worthing pier which is considerably higher than 10 foot above sea level.

meanwhile back in the real world a pier to pier view wold be impossible over ten miles, according to the "curvature trigonometry", as it would have sunk 66.6  feet "below" the horizon.

simply put many many people meet up and debunk "curvature" on a regular basis,

sorry dude

There is only 66.6 feet of curvature if you are observing from a height of ZERO.  And I know you are aware of that fact.  So your post is blatantly dishonest.

*groan*
both piers are the same height.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: moon hoax information index.

« on: March 28, 2017, 12:29:39 PM »

I'll be able to demonstrate this better when I'm not firewalled at work, but the base of the hills beyond the LM is about 12km away - much further than it looks.

And why can't we see the LM in the other picture? is it height difference? is there a small hill between the LM and the photographer?

Pretty much, combined with an overall downward dip in the landscape. In this view I've generated a contour line at 10m intervals using the LRO elevation data and maps:



You can see there's about a 20m or so elevation difference between the two locations (the LM is at the yellow marker and Station 9 is towards the bottom left of the image I generated).

      what's that ^ supposed to be OBM ?