The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Aeromuch on March 15, 2013, 03:39:35 PM
-
I've been on a plane and have seen the curvature of the earth. I have seen this with my own eyes, That indeed the earth is spherical, What explanation can you give me?
-
How high up were you?
-
around 9 Miles.
-
What plane were you in that flew at 9 miles up?
-
Boeing 747.
-
i hate to say it but by my calculations 9 miles is 47,500 feet. and the Maximum altitude of a 747-800 is 43,000 feet.
-
dude i dont know exactly how high it was! Just answer my question please? All i've seen in this forum is everyone avoiding answering questions and shouting fake at every picture posted! guys seriously
+like everyone else in the world, I use the metric system, so these miles and feet don't make sense to me.
-
You haven't seen the curvature of the earth. That's kind of the end of the thread.
You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so.
-
read a bit more on hear. im a round earther through and through but posting inaccurate information like that will have a OP picked apart in 2 posts.
if they dont make sense to you then why did you post in them? ??? why not post using the in, your opinion, superior metric system?
-
[/thread]
Oh and the windows may have caused there to be some curvature if they weren't flat.
-
because i've seen some threads and you guys use imperial. Also you can see the curvature of the earth at sea level! dude just look across the sea or lake michigan, i've been there! why do you only see the tops of the skyscrapers of chicago? because the world is round! Dude face reality this is ridiculous! in the 21st century too. I was hoping for some actual answers and so far there are non, you just avoid and call fake, This is crazy.
-
FYI Thork is the only FEer in this thread so far. And no, you don't perceive curvature at that level.
-
yeah not the best 1st impression.
-
Yes you can... Not directly, but you can only see the tops of the skyscrapers, which means the world has to curve or else you'd see all of the skyscrapers fully + the rocky mountains
-
Yes you can... Not directly, but you can only see the tops of the skyscrapers, which means the world has to curve or else you'd see all of the skyscrapers fully + the rocky mountains
That's a pretty weak argument...
Any pictures?
-
If i posted them you'd just say they where fake. That's what you do, Go over there and see.
-
lol the i think you missed the post which states so far only 1 FEr has posted on the thread, thork, chill out man the rest of us are on your side. we are just pointing out you argument is quite week and been mentioned many times in various forms
-
Indeed, and just so you know I haven't once claimed a picture was fake here, so by all means go ahead and post a picture.
-
If i posted them you'd just say they where fake. That's what you do, Go over there and see.
Post them if you have any. Not only are a lot of us RE'ers, but we definitely do not just say every photo is fake.
Also, I imagine most of the people here aren't necessarily able to just get up and travel to this location to confirm your story. If you want us to see then a photograph or video is a much better way of showing us.
because i've seen some threads and you guys use imperial. Also you can see the curvature of the earth at sea level! dude just look across the sea or lake michigan, i've been there! why do you only see the tops of the skyscrapers of chicago? because the world is round! Dude face reality this is ridiculous! in the 21st century too. I was hoping for some actual answers and so far there are non, you just avoid and call fake, This is crazy.
What is reality?
Why is it ridiculous for someone to believe something that you don't?
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
-
Looks flat to me.
-
Looks flat to me.
I think you are confused but its understandable. FErs seam to not be able to comprehend scale very well. Let me ask you a question in you were stood on a ball roughly 24,000 miles circumference in and looked at the horizon would you see curvature from your perspective? Or would it appear flat?
-
Looks flat to me.
Look again.
-
Looks flat to me.
Look at a picture of the chicago skyline, Then look at a picture of this. There seems to be a distinct lack of a few buildings, And the buildings that are there seem to be smaller.
+I only have pictures and the pictures that i have have my family and friends and i dont really want to share that.
-
I've been in a plane at 48k feet. I have seen the curvature of the earth with my own eyes. I've seen it with an infra red camera as well looking out of a ZnSe window that causes no distortion.
-
I've been in a plane at 48k feet. I have seen the curvature of the earth with my own eyes.
That's interesting. You've seen it from a significantly lower altitude than what is required (according to RE'ers) for the curvature to be seen. How do you explain this development?
Also, in the future, please try reading a thread before posting in it. It really helps.
-
I've been in a plane at 48k feet. I have seen the curvature of the earth with my own eyes.
That's interesting. You've seen it from a significantly lower altitude than what is required (according to RE'ers) for the curvature to be seen. How do you explain this development?
Also, in the future, please try reading a thread before posting in it. It really helps.
LOL at there being an exact altitude in which the curvature of the earth can be seen.
And what part did I not read?
-
I've been in a plane at 48k feet. I have seen the curvature of the earth with my own eyes.
That's interesting. You've seen it from a significantly lower altitude than what is required (according to RE'ers) for the curvature to be seen. How do you explain this development?
Actually, RE'ers claim that curvature can be detected at 35,000 feet. It's FE'ers that keep raising the altitude requirement.
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-47-34-H39 (http://www.opticsinfobase.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-47-34-H39)
-
LOL at there being an exact altitude in which the curvature of the earth can be seen.
I haven't claimed there's an exact altitude at which the curvature of the Earth can be seen. Do not put words in my mouth. All I said is that the altitude you've been at was insufficient, as per RE consensus.
And what part did I not read?
Presumably the OP (an argument essentially identical to yours) and the responses to it - i.e. most of the thread.
Actually, RE'ers claim that curvature can be detected at 35,000 feet.
Actually, no.
[EDIT: This is a terrible solution, but at least it works at all - remove all whitespaces from the links below]
http:// www. stratofox. org/twiki /bin/ view/Stratofox /ViewingCurvatureOfTheEarth
http:// www. thulescientific. com/ Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf
http:// boards. straightdope. com/ sdmb/ showthread.php?t=496111
It's FE'ers that keep raising the altitude requirement.
I've been quite consistent about 60000ft over the past few years (because the RE'er consensus hasn't changed). It's truly saddening that you resort to lying in order to stir an argument up.
-
LOL at there being an exact altitude in which the curvature of the earth can be seen.
I haven't claimed there's an exact altitude at which the curvature of the Earth can be seen. Do not put words in my mouth. All I said is that the altitude you've been at was insufficient, as per RE consensus.
And what part did I not read?
Presumably the OP (an argument essentially identical to yours) and the responses to it - i.e. most of the thread.
Actually, RE'ers claim that curvature can be detected at 35,000 feet.
Actually, no. I'll post some links in a moment - the "Not Acceptable" error is stopping me from just posting them all in one post.
It's FE'ers that keep raising the altitude requirement.
I've been quite consistent about 60000ft over the past few years (because the RE'er consensus hasn't changed). It's truly saddening that you resort to lying in order to stir an argument up.
And he was on a commercial airplane. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read before you post. Notice I said I was looking through an IR camera with a ZnSe window. Do you know what kind of planes have a ZnSe window? I'll give you a hint, they aren't commercial.
-
Do you know what kind of planes have a ZnSe window?
Yes, you're not the first "pilot" we've had around here.
And he was on a commercial airplane. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read before you post. Notice I said I was looking through an IR camera with a ZnSe window.
This in no way affects the validity of people's responses - you were not high up enough to possibly see the curvature of the Earth. What your window was made of, what light you observed it with, and how full your pants were at the time is irrelevant.
-
Do you know what kind of planes have a ZnSe window?
Yes, you're not the first "pilot" we've had around here.
And he was on a commercial airplane. Perhaps you should take your own advice and read before you post. Notice I said I was looking through an IR camera with a ZnSe window.
This in no way affects the validity of people's responses - you were not high up enough to possibly see the curvature of the Earth. What your window was made of, what light you observed it with, and how full your pants were at the time is irrelevant.
LOL @ you trying to assume you even know what purpose a ZnSe window serves on an aircraft. No, I'm not a pilot. Keep guessing and maybe one day you'll get it right.
The curvature of the earth does not have an exact altitude at which it can be seen, its been said that you could see it from the top of mount Everest, significantly lower than the altitude that fits your argument.
I've seen it, you haven't. I feel bad for you.
-
Do you know what kind of planes have a ZnSe window?
Yes, you're not the first "pilot" we've had around here.
I just want to take the time, again, to laugh at this response.
You say you do know what a ZnSe window is for, then proceed to give an incorrect response.
Just saying it doesn't make it true, pal.
-
LOL @ you trying to assume you even know what purpose a ZnSe window serves on an aircraft. No, I'm not a pilot. Keep guessing and maybe one day you'll get it right.
Do you honestly assume using Google is an unimaginably hard ability that only you have acquired? Because it's not (http://www.dmphotonics.com/Zinc-selenide-ZnSe-vacuum-viewport/ZnSe%20window%20mounted%20in%20a%204.5%E2%80%9D%20conflat%20for%20an%20IR%20photography%20application.htm). Anyway, sorry to have called you a "pilot". I will be more careful and refer to you as an "expert" now.
you could see it from the top of mount Everest, significantly lower than the altitude that fits your argument.
Evidence?
I've seen it, you haven't.
Evidence?
-
LOL @ you trying to assume you even know what purpose a ZnSe window serves on an aircraft. No, I'm not a pilot. Keep guessing and maybe one day you'll get it right.
Do you honestly assume using Google is an unimaginably hard ability that only you have acquired? Because it's not (http://www.dmphotonics.com/Zinc-selenide-ZnSe-vacuum-viewport/ZnSe%20window%20mounted%20in%20a%204.5%E2%80%9D%20conflat%20for%20an%20IR%20photography%20application.htm). Anyway, sorry to have called you a "pilot". I will be more careful and refer to you as an "expert" now.
The curvature of the earth does not have an exact altitude at which it can be seen, its been said that you could see it from the top of mount Everest, significantly lower than the altitude that fits your argument.
Evidence?
I've seen it, you haven't.
Evidence?
I never needed google to know what purpose a ZnSe window serves. I find your assumptions amusing.
I don't need evidence, I'm just stating that I've seen it.
Evidence for the altitude at which it can be observe has already been posted.
Once again, take your own smug advice and read.
-
I never needed google to know what purpose a ZnSe window serves.
Whether or not you needed to has nothing to do with it. The relevant point is that I did Google it, and that it wasn't difficult. Your attempts at surrounding a window with mysticism, and your subsequent attempts at avoiding the provision of any evidence of any claim you've made are, to put it in your own words, "amusing".
I don't need evidence, I'm just stating that I've seen it.
"Perhaps the same could be said of all religions?" - Dracula, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
Evidence for the altitude at which it can be observe has already been posted.
Indeed, by me! It points directly to the numbers I've quoted! :D
Once again, take your own smug advice and read.
My, my, my. You sure are an angry cupcake. And to think all I did is asked you to explain your supernatural claims...
-
I never needed google to know what purpose a ZnSe window serves.
Whether or not you needed to has nothing to do with it. The relevant point is that I did Google it, and that it wasn't difficult. Your attempts at surrounding a window with mysticism, and your subsequent attempts at avoiding the provision of any evidence of any claim you've made are, to put it in your own words, "amusing".
I don't need evidence, I'm just stating that I've seen it.
"Perhaps the same could be said of all religions?" - Dracula, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
Evidence for the altitude at which it can be observe has already been posted.
Indeed, by me! It points directly to the numbers I've quoted! :D
Once again, take your own smug advice and read.
My, my, my. You sure are an angry cupcake. And to think all I did is asked you to explain your supernatural claims...
lol again, read, you'll find evidence posted for the number being 35,000 feet.
So now you're bringing religion into this?
There's plenty of evidence out there for you to see. You just choose to ignore it. Once again, I feel sorry for you.
-
Interesting read guys. I know it sounds simple, but surely if the earth was round, why are we not falling off the earth. No-one has ever properly answered this question.
-
lol again, read, you'll find evidence posted for the number being 35,000 feet.
Ah, you must not know markjo. You'll understand in due time, but for now:
What he posted is an abstract of a paper, and even that short abstract points out the many reservations about that figure.
So now you're bringing religion into this?
Of course. You said you don't need evidence. That's the religious mode of thinking. I mean, I could just say "You're lying, but I won't prove it, because I know you're lying and I don't need evidence" - it would be analogous to your current stand on the matter.
There's plenty of evidence out there for you to see.
Indeed, I've provided three sources. You've provided 0. It's difficult to review your evidence when it has yet to be provided.
You just choose to ignore it.
By no means! I will happily have a look at your evidence! If you're shy and don't want to post it publicly, you can PM me. Don't worry, I don't bite!
Once again, I feel sorry for you.
Man, you sure are good at them ad hominems. Such solid rhetoric!
-
Actually, RE'ers claim that curvature can be detected at 35,000 feet.
Actually, no.
[EDIT: This is a terrible solution, but at least it works at all - remove all whitespaces from the links below]
http:// www. stratofox. org/twiki /bin/ view/Stratofox /ViewingCurvatureOfTheEarth
http:// www. thulescientific. com/ Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf
http:// boards. straightdope. com/ sdmb/ showthread.php?t=496111
It's FE'ers that keep raising the altitude requirement.
I've been quite consistent about 60000ft over the past few years (because the RE'er consensus hasn't changed). It's truly saddening that you resort to lying in order to stir an argument up.
If you had bothered to look at the link that I provided, you would have noticed that it was an abstract to the Lynch Curvature PDF that you also provided. And if you recall that document, it clearly concluded that:
Visual daytime observations show that the minimum altitude at which curvature of the horizon can be detected is at or slightly below 35,000 ft, providing that the field of view is wide (60°) and nearly cloud free.
So, who is lying now?
-
If you had bothered to look at the link that I provided, you would have noticed that it was an abstract to the Lynch Curvature PDF that you also provided.
Indeed, and I have done so for a reason. Have you considered reading the paper before making claims about its contents?
EDIT: Who am I kidding, if you wanted to read it, you would have done so already. Quote time!
The author has also talked to many commercial pilots, and they report that from elevations around 35000 ft, they cannot see the curvature.
You may also want to consider his pictures of what the horizon allegedly looks like at 35000ft. To claim that you can discern anything about its curvature "with your own eyes" is lunacy. You see, the important point here isn't whether or not the curvature could be detected with specialist equipment - the claimants in this thread say they have simply seen it to be curved.
-
If you had bothered to look at the link that I provided, you would have noticed that it was an abstract to the Lynch Curvature PDF that you also provided.
Indeed, and I have done so for a reason. Have you considered reading the paper before making claims about its contents?
EDIT: Who am I kidding, if you wanted to read it, you would have done so already. Quote time!
The author has also talked to many commercial pilots, and they report that from elevations around 35000 ft, they cannot see the curvature.
*sigh*
5. Summary and Conclusions
In view of the agreement between the visual obser- vations, measurements of the photographs, and the theoretical curvatures, it seems well established that the curvature of the Earth is reasonably well under- stood and can be measured from photographs. The threshold elevation for detecting curvature would seem to be somewhat less than 35;000ft but not as low as 14; 000 ft. Photographically, curvature may be measurable as low as 20; 000 ft.
-
*sigh*
5. Summary and Conclusions
[...]
You really need to address the rest of my post. Picking half of it and acting like the rest isn't there isn't helpful. It's stuff like this that makes everyone think you shit up threads - and not just in the upper fora.
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
This right here is proof that the Earth is round. Now all of you stupid people with 1000+ posts on this silly website need to realize that nobody with half a brain actually believes the Earth is flat. And that you're all getting trolled.
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
This right here is proof that the Earth is round. Now all of you stupid people with 1000+ posts on this silly website need to realize that nobody with half a brain actually believes the Earth is flat. And that you're all getting trolled.
If you want to use the fact the the water is bulging up to cut off the bases of the buildings as evidence that the earth is a sphere, then why is there not also curvature in water level from the left to right on the image?
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
This right here is proof that the Earth is round. Now all of you stupid people with 1000+ posts on this silly website need to realize that nobody with half a brain actually believes the Earth is flat. And that you're all getting trolled.
This picture looks flat moron.
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
This right here is proof that the Earth is round. Now all of you stupid people with 1000+ posts on this silly website need to realize that nobody with half a brain actually believes the Earth is flat. And that you're all getting trolled.
This picture looks flat moron.
Come on, hoppy, that's a little harsh.
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
This right here is proof that the Earth is round. Now all of you stupid people with 1000+ posts on this silly website need to realize that nobody with half a brain actually believes the Earth is flat. And that you're all getting trolled.
This picture looks flat moron.
I think he is referring to the buildings seemingly poking out of the water.
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
This right here is proof that the Earth is round. Now all of you stupid people with 1000+ posts on this silly website need to realize that nobody with half a brain actually believes the Earth is flat. And that you're all getting trolled.
This picture looks flat moron.
I think he is referring to the buildings seemingly poking out of the water.
What distinguishing characteristics are you able to make out of these "buildings"?
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
This right here is proof that the Earth is round. Now all of you stupid people with 1000+ posts on this silly website need to realize that nobody with half a brain actually believes the Earth is flat. And that you're all getting trolled.
This picture looks flat moron.
I think he is referring to the buildings seemingly poking out of the water.
What distinguishing characteristics are you able to make out of these "buildings"?
>"buildings"
>implying they are not buildings.
they are krakens.
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
This right here is proof that the Earth is round. Now all of you stupid people with 1000+ posts on this silly website need to realize that nobody with half a brain actually believes the Earth is flat. And that you're all getting trolled.
This picture looks flat moron.
I think he is referring to the buildings seemingly poking out of the water.
What distinguishing characteristics are you able to make out of these "buildings"?
>"buildings"
>implying they are not buildings.
they are krakens.
Your sarcasm is refreshing, but seriously, how exactly do you distinguish those smudges as buildings?
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
This right here is proof that the Earth is round. Now all of you stupid people with 1000+ posts on this silly website need to realize that nobody with half a brain actually believes the Earth is flat. And that you're all getting trolled.
This picture looks flat moron.
I think he is referring to the buildings seemingly poking out of the water.
What distinguishing characteristics are you able to make out of these "buildings"?
>"buildings"
>implying they are not buildings.
they are krakens.
Your sarcasm is refreshing, but seriously, how exactly do you distinguish those smudges as buildings?
You can't. Until some information about the picture is presented (where this is, distance info, source of pic), I'd say those dark spots are as good as smudges.
-
It is (supposedly) a picture of the Chicago skyline from across Lake Michigan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ctm_800/3417439088#).
This is the view of the Chicago Skyline as viewed from across Lake Michigan (Distance: 50 Miles) on an unusually clear day. The Buildings in View would be the Sears Tower to the South (left most building), The Trump Tower and the AON Center (formerly the Standard Oil Building), and the John Hancock Tower to the North (right most).
The height of these buildings is 442m (1,451ft), 423m (1,389ft), 346m (1,136ft) and 344m (1,127ft). They are the tallest four buildings in Chicago. The next highest one is the Franklin Center North Tower at 307m (1,007ft).
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
This right here is proof that the Earth is round. Now all of you stupid people with 1000+ posts on this silly website need to realize that nobody with half a brain actually believes the Earth is flat. And that you're all getting trolled.
This picture looks flat moron.
Oh come on, I know you don't actually believe the Earth is flat. If the Earth is flat you would be able to see the base of the buildings and the entire city possible with the naked eye including the rocky mountains. Just the same if you climbed a tall mountain and looked down at a slightly shorter mountain. You wouldn't see land behind the mountain.
-
And then someone mentions earlier how all flat earthers call all pictures fake. Followed by a Fe'r denying that claim. LOL, smudges? Can you not make out the distinct features of buildings?
-
(http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_z.jpg)
This is proof that the Earth is round. As you can see in the picture the buildings are partially hidden by the water because of the curvature of the earth.
If you think this is proof of a flat earth because the picture is not curved from side to side, I am sorry but you are wrong it is all simple geometry.
If you stand in the middle of a sphere which, for those of you who do not know looks like this:
(http://www.kidsmathgamesonline.com/images/pictures/shapes/sphere.jpg)
If you stand on any point of the sphere and look around you 360 degrees, you will not see a curved surface because of the size of the sphere. The buildings are clearly hidden by a change in the elevation of the surface. And as you can see the surface is water, which if you didn't know, cannot have changes in elevation. This picture in obvious proof of curved earth. There are tons of facts all around you that prove the curved earth fact. You can clearly see the curvature of the Earth from a plane because if the Earth was really flat you would see land as far as the eye can see.
Just look at pictures from NASA. Do you really think they are all fake?
The 21st century is calling. Time to get real.
-
I think there is a correlation between font size and cognitive abilities.
-
This is proof that the Earth is flat. As you can see in the picture the buildings are partially hidden by the water because of the curvature of the earth.
I can discern no such thing, and neither can you. I maintain that the "buildings" in the photo can be anything; we are being forced to take it for granted not only that the bases of the buildings are not visible, but indeed that they are even buildings. The resolution is far too poor to consider this evidence of anything (except perhaps that the Earth is flat, since, as Hoppy pointed out, the image shows how flat the Earth looks; I suppose it can also be argued that it shows evidence of the general gullibility of REers, but I'd hate to think a few deluded sheep is representative of your entire population).
Of course it doesn't matter since the effect you describe is easily explained within a FE framework. Indeed, there's a picture of the Toronto skyline across Lake Ontario somewhere on this forum that actually successfully demonstrates what this image fails to, but it's all moot.
-
The Toronto picture has quite a good examination of how it conforms to the predictions of RET and there is no rebuttal.
-
You haven't seen the curvature of the earth. That's kind of the end of the thread.
You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so.
the dont fly enough to what? see the curvature of the earth? you basically just admit there is a curvature of the earth and you're a Curator. you guys are obviously just trying to get a rise out of people. you're busted, sorry.
-
You haven't seen the curvature of the earth. That's kind of the end of the thread.
You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so.
the dont fly enough to what? see the curvature of the earth? you basically just admit there is a curvature of the earth and you're a Curator. you guys are obviously just trying to get a rise out of people. you're busted, sorry.
You haven't seen a unicorn.
Did I just imply that unicorns exist?
-
You haven't seen the curvature of the earth. That's kind of the end of the thread.
You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so.
the dont fly enough to what? see the curvature of the earth? you basically just admit there is a curvature of the earth and you're a Curator. you guys are obviously just trying to get a rise out of people. you're busted, sorry.
You haven't seen a unicorn.
Did I just imply that unicorns exist?
Nice non sequitur answer which is like most threads on this site. Obvious trollers. So no one has a real answer for me?
-
You haven't seen the curvature of the earth. That's kind of the end of the thread.
You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so.
the dont fly enough to what? see the curvature of the earth? you basically just admit there is a curvature of the earth and you're a Curator. you guys are obviously just trying to get a rise out of people. you're busted, sorry.
You haven't seen a unicorn.
Did I just imply that unicorns exist?
Nice non sequitur answer which is like most threads on this site. Obvious trollers. So no one has a real answer for me?
Actually it was an exact analogy to what you just accused Thork of. But as much as we'd love to see it we don't expect REers to understand logic. :(
-
You haven't seen the curvature of the earth. That's kind of the end of the thread.
You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so.
the dont fly enough to what? see the curvature of the earth? you basically just admit there is a curvature of the earth and you're a Curator. you guys are obviously just trying to get a rise out of people. you're busted, sorry.
You haven't seen a unicorn.
Did I just imply that unicorns exist?
Nice non sequitur answer which is like most threads on this site. Obvious trollers. So no one has a real answer for me?
Actually it was an exact analogy to what you just accused Thork of. But as much as we'd love to see it we don't expect REers to understand logic. :(
No it wasn't but I'll try again from the start. He said "You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so." Don't fly high enough to what? And how do you know how high you have to be to see the curvature. you guys make it too easy and obvious that no one really believes this and you guys are just trolling. this isn't even hard to argue and its the first thread I saw. I bet I can randomly read other threads and see where you guys screwed up.
-
No it wasn't but I'll try again from the start. He said "You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so." Don't fly high enough to what? And how do you know how high you have to be to see the curvature.
They don't fly high enough to see curvature, according to experts on the matter who believe the curvature to exist. Thork's saying that in no way implies that he himself believes the curvature to exist. The point is, even people who claim the curvature exists say you can't see it until you're higher than commercial aircraft fly.
I hope that clears up the confusion for you.
-
No it wasn't but I'll try again from the start. He said "You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so." Don't fly high enough to what? And how do you know how high you have to be to see the curvature.
They don't fly high enough to see curvature, according to experts on the matter who believe the curvature to exist. Thork's saying that in no way implies that he himself believes the curvature to exist. The point is, even people who claim the curvature exists say you can't see it until you're higher than commercial aircraft fly.
I hope that clears up the confusion for you.
I think if you're going to go through all the trouble to create a Society of Flat Earth people at least find some folks that can put up a decent argument and make it look realistic. So its very obvious none of you believe the Earth is flat either. For a second I truly thought this Society existed.
-
No it wasn't but I'll try again from the start. He said "You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so." Don't fly high enough to what? And how do you know how high you have to be to see the curvature.
They don't fly high enough to see curvature, according to experts on the matter who believe the curvature to exist. Thork's saying that in no way implies that he himself believes the curvature to exist. The point is, even people who claim the curvature exists say you can't see it until you're higher than commercial aircraft fly.
I hope that clears up the confusion for you.
I don't know what "experts" you're referring to, but isn't it rather un-Zetetic to take their word for it anyway?
I don't see why there should be any rule about high you need to be anyway. If you are actively looking for curvature you should be able to see it lower than 60,000 feet. Visibility is going to make or break this, I would think, rather than just height.
-
isn't it rather un-Zetetic to take their word for it anyway?
Not in the slightest, given the context in which this is done.
-
isn't it rather un-Zetetic to take their word for it anyway?
Not in the slightest, given the context in which this is done.
When the experts say the moon is a few hundred thousand kilometers away though it is unZetetic?
-
You haven't seen the curvature of the earth. That's kind of the end of the thread.
You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so.
the dont fly enough to what? see the curvature of the earth? you basically just admit there is a curvature of the earth and you're a Curator. you guys are obviously just trying to get a rise out of people. you're busted, sorry.
No. He was referring to RET, not his own beliefs. You're trying too hard. Even if he was trolling, which he isn't, after tens of thousands of posts do you really think he'd be that transparent?
Also, George Scott Fallacy.
-
You haven't seen the curvature of the earth. That's kind of the end of the thread.
You haven't seen it, because commercial aircraft don't fly high enough to allow you to do so.
the dont fly enough to what? see the curvature of the earth? you basically just admit there is a curvature of the earth and you're a Curator. you guys are obviously just trying to get a rise out of people. you're busted, sorry.
You haven't seen a unicorn.
Did I just imply that unicorns exist?
Nice non sequitur answer which is like most threads on this site. Obvious trollers. So no one has a real answer for me?
I don't know what would possess you to type those three sentences, as they are far from accurate. Thork basically said you haven't gone high enough to determine if there exists curvature. What's so unsettling about this? Even if he had actually meant "see the curvature", 0 degrees is still a measure of curvature, and it would be the corresponding measurement on a flat earth.
-
[/quote]
Nice non sequitur answer which is like most threads on this site. Obvious trollers. So no one has a real answer for me?
[/quote]
I don't know what would possess you to type those three sentences, as they are far from accurate. Thork basically said you haven't gone high enough to determine if there exists curvature. What's so unsettling about this? Even if he had actually meant "see the curvature", 0 degrees is still a measure of curvature, and it would be the corresponding measurement on a flat earth.
[/quote]
yeah I'm sure that is what he was referring to. a 0 degree curvature. lol. sorry my bad. you guys are stretching it. Anywho what happened to youareatroll's post? i think his comment made most sense that the question isn't whether the earth is flat or not, its whether this society is for real. I don't think anyhow running this site truly believes the earth is flat. this is just a made up site/society to try to push people's buttons.
-
Nice non sequitur answer which is like most threads on this site. Obvious trollers. So no one has a real answer for me?
[/quote]
I don't know what would possess you to type those three sentences, as they are far from accurate. Thork basically said you haven't gone high enough to determine if there exists curvature. What's so unsettling about this? Even if he had actually meant "see the curvature", 0 degrees is still a measure of curvature, and it would be the corresponding measurement on a flat earth.
[/quote]
yeah I'm sure that is what he was referring to. a 0 degree curvature. lol. sorry my bad. you guys are stretching it. Anywho what happened to youareatroll's post? i think his comment made most sense that the question isn't whether the earth is flat or not, its whether this society is for real. I don't think anyhow running this site truly believes the earth is flat. this is just a made up site/society to try to push people's buttons.
[/quote]
Nice quote fail. Also, youareatroll is in the lower fora now.
-
Way to point out formatting errors in lieu of an argument. That must have been so taxing for you that you did not have the energy left to address the substance of his post.
Once again, par for the course for the FES; disinform, derail and evade, evade, evade.
-
Nice non sequitur answer which is like most threads on this site. Obvious trollers. So no one has a real answer for me?
I don't know what would possess you to type those three sentences, as they are far from accurate. Thork basically said you haven't gone high enough to determine if there exists curvature. What's so unsettling about this? Even if he had actually meant "see the curvature", 0 degrees is still a measure of curvature, and it would be the corresponding measurement on a flat earth.
[/quote]
yeah I'm sure that is what he was referring to. a 0 degree curvature. lol. sorry my bad. you guys are stretching it. Anywho what happened to youareatroll's post? i think his comment made most sense that the question isn't whether the earth is flat or not, its whether this society is for real. I don't think anyhow running this site truly believes the earth is flat. this is just a made up site/society to try to push people's buttons.
[/quote]
Nice quote fail. Also, youareatroll is in the lower fora now.
[/quote]
Really? quote fail is your argument? So you guys or guy have switched from non sequitur to avoidance? maybe you can point out some spelling mistakes next? lol
-
Nice non sequitur answer which is like most threads on this site. Obvious trollers. So no one has a real answer for me?
I don't know what would possess you to type those three sentences, as they are far from accurate. Thork basically said you haven't gone high enough to determine if there exists curvature. What's so unsettling about this? Even if he had actually meant "see the curvature", 0 degrees is still a measure of curvature, and it would be the corresponding measurement on a flat earth.
yeah I'm sure that is what he was referring to. a 0 degree curvature. lol. sorry my bad. you guys are stretching it. Anywho what happened to youareatroll's post? i think his comment made most sense that the question isn't whether the earth is flat or not, its whether this society is for real. I don't think anyhow running this site truly believes the earth is flat. this is just a made up site/society to try to push people's buttons.
[/quote]
Nice quote fail. Also, youareatroll is in the lower fora now.
[/quote]
Really? quote fail is your argument? So you guys or guy have switched from non sequitur to avoidance? maybe you can point out some spelling mistakes next? lol
[/quote]Wow. I will keep the quote fail going because I have no real evidence that the Earth is a sphere.
-
Nice non sequitur answer which is like most threads on this site. Obvious trollers. So no one has a real answer for me?
I don't know what would possess you to type those three sentences, as they are far from accurate. Thork basically said you haven't gone high enough to determine if there exists curvature. What's so unsettling about this? Even if he had actually meant "see the curvature", 0 degrees is still a measure of curvature, and it would be the corresponding measurement on a flat earth.
yeah I'm sure that is what he was referring to. a 0 degree curvature. lol. sorry my bad. you guys are stretching it. Anywho what happened to youareatroll's post? i think his comment made most sense that the question isn't whether the earth is flat or not, its whether this society is for real. I don't think anyhow running this site truly believes the earth is flat. this is just a made up site/society to try to push people's buttons.
Nice quote fail. Also, youareatroll is in the lower fora now.
[/quote]
Really? quote fail is your argument? So you guys or guy have switched from non sequitur to avoidance? maybe you can point out some spelling mistakes next? lol
[/quote]Wow. I will keep the quote fail going because I have no real evidence that the Earth is a sphere.
[/quote]
AND back to non sequitur...lol pick on quote fail BECAUSE you have no evidence that the Earth is a sphere. That's about as intelligent as Question: How many jellybeans in the jar? Answer: Volkswagon.
-
Nice non sequitur answer which is like most threads on this site. Obvious trollers. So no one has a real answer for me?
I don't know what would possess you to type those three sentences, as they are far from accurate. Thork basically said you haven't gone high enough to determine if there exists curvature. What's so unsettling about this? Even if he had actually meant "see the curvature", 0 degrees is still a measure of curvature, and it would be the corresponding measurement on a flat earth.
yeah I'm sure that is what he was referring to. a 0 degree curvature. lol. sorry my bad. you guys are stretching it. Anywho what happened to youareatroll's post? i think his comment made most sense that the question isn't whether the earth is flat or not, its whether this society is for real. I don't think anyhow running this site truly believes the earth is flat. this is just a made up site/society to try to push people's buttons.
Nice quote fail. Also, youareatroll is in the lower fora now.
Really? quote fail is your argument? So you guys or guy have switched from non sequitur to avoidance? maybe you can point out some spelling mistakes next? lol
[/quote]Wow. I will keep the quote fail going because I have no real evidence that the Earth is a sphere.
[/quote]
AND back to non sequitur...lol pick on quote fail BECAUSE you have no evidence that the Earth is a sphere. That's about as intelligent as Question: How many jellybeans in the jar? Answer: Volkswagon.
[/quote]Quote fails can be fun. This one, however, is not.
-
lol pick on quote fail BECAUSE you have no evidence that the Earth is a sphere.
Nice assumption there. What led you to your conclusion?
-
Koolkat, you do realize that this argument stemmed from your misinterpretation of a post, don't you? Do you honestly think that Thork meant "see the curvature of a round earth"? He has been on this website for 4 goddamn years explaining the theory to noobs like you. He doesn't have to justify your troll response with an explanation. Why don't you come up with an original thought instead of arguing what another user implied in a post?
-
Koolkat, you do realize that this argument stemmed from your misinterpretation of a post, don't you? Do you honestly think that Thork meant "see the curvature of a round earth"? He has been on this website for 4 goddamn years explaining the theory to noobs like you. He doesn't have to justify your troll response with an explanation. Why don't you come up with an original thought instead of arguing what another user implied in a post?
well I realize it stems from me catching his error. I cannot believe anyone truly believes the earth is flat. What is the reason for all the conspiracy? And i see no theory explained except you simply don't believe all the years of research and pictures...why? just because. so unless someone physically takes you to space and shows you the earth its pointless. any "original" thought I come up with will be replied with the typical playground response of "i dont believe you just cuz"
-
Burden,
Which is harder to believe?
The government that can't balance a budget or agree on who gets civil rights and who doesn't is in cooperation with all the space agencies around the world to dupe everyone in the world about the roundness of the earth for no real reason. We can't feed the people of the world but we can convince everyone that math doesn't exist.
-OR-
You're bat-shit crazy.
Yea dude, you're too smart for all of us, you just looked around at the earth and saw it was flat. I wish I could have your skills of incredible deduction.
-
-OR-
You can't make logical deductions about my views based on a conversation I took part in.
You're quick to assume, and quick to cast judgement. These are some of the worst traits to have.
-
OR,
You're just a troll.
Have fun living in your mother's basement staying up all night posting on this forum.
And don't try that "so what are you doing then" BS. I'm a government agent paid to surf this forum and keep tabs on all you.
Be afraid.
-
Your mother is not a government agent, except on Wednesday's when you play dress-up.
-
OR,
You're just a troll.
Have fun living in your mother's basement staying up all night posting on this forum.
And don't try that "so what are you doing then" BS. I'm a government agent paid to surf this forum and keep tabs on all you.
Be afraid.
I'll ignore your ad hominem and blatant lies long enough for you to show me one example of me trolling ever. At least explain to me how I'm wrong in this debate. You calling me a stupid troll isn't helping anything.
-
You can't make logical deductions about my views based on a conversation I took part in.
You're quick to assume, and quick to cast judgement. These are some of the worst traits to have.
If you take part in a conversation (albeit online) and express views that are so illogical that people cannot make deductions about you based on the comments you've made in said conversation. Then it can be assumed that you are only making those comments to be ironic, or to drive up the response. Trolling.
You then make judgments about me, and state your opinion of how bad you think that is, undoubtedly to get a response from me directly, which has worked well.
At times, I troll as well. But this is not one of those times. You do not need to respond, I have found one instance of you trolling like you have asked. Cheers.
-
If you take part in a conversation (albeit online) and express views that are so illogical that people cannot make deductions about you based on the comments you've made in said conversation. Then it can be assumed that you are only making those comments to be ironic, or to drive up the response. Trolling.
Assumptions are not always correct.