-
I've noticed there is no standard of which direction the Earth tilts in diagrams I've seen. They always show the sun in the middle but sometimes the Earth tilts to the right and sometimes to the left. This undoubtedly would effect how the sun is seen throughout the seasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt)
-
It wouldn't make any sense to say it tilts in a specific direction. It changes for everyone depending on the time of day and the time of year.
-
Always pointing at the north star and yet the southern pole goes on a year long wibble wobble around the sun. ::)
-
I've noticed there is no standard of which direction the Earth tilts in diagrams I've seen. They always show the sun in the middle but sometimes the Earth tilts to the right and sometimes to the left. This undoubtedly would effect how the sun is seen throughout the seasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt)
Where's the fun in always looking at things from the same angle? Here's a quote from the Wikipedia page you linked: "The axis of a planet remains oriented in the same direction with reference to the background stars regardless of where it is in its orbit.", which is why Polaris appears to stay in the one place all year round for those in the Northern Hemisphere, as does Sigma Octantis in the Southern hemisphere. Different diagrams show tilt in different directions (but always the same amount) because they can. It's just like looking at a car from different angles: left side; right side; front; rear; quartering views.
Always pointing at the north star and yet the southern pole goes on a year long wibble wobble around the sun. ::)
See above re Sigma Octantis. Once again scepti, you have no idea what you're talking about.
-
I've noticed there is no standard of which direction the Earth tilts in diagrams I've seen. They always show the sun in the middle but sometimes the Earth tilts to the right and sometimes to the left. This undoubtedly would effect how the sun is seen throughout the seasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt)
Yes, the direction of the earth's tilt, relative to the sun, pretty much defines the seasons. Good to see that you're finally starting to understand.
-
Really, what is wrong with it?
It is showing the north tilt facing the sun in June and tilting away in December.
It is like looking at a car so the front is to the left, then walking around and looking at the same car so the front is now on the right.
Not sure why you are having a hard time with this.
-
Always pointing at the north star and yet the southern pole goes on a year long wibble wobble around the sun. ::)
Please stop with your nonsense. No one has said the north pole points directly at the north star. In fact it cannot. Why?
Because Polaris is not a single star. "It is a multiple star, consisting of the main star α UMi Aa, two smaller companions, α UMi B and α UMi Ab, and two distant components α UMi C and α UMi D".
The north pole appears to always point to Polaris because it lies in a nearly direct line with Earth's north pole and is about 434 light years away.
-
I don't think you guys understand. I mean THE POLE TILT
Please look:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/n7z.gif/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/n7z.gif/)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/22/f0yp.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/22/f0yp.jpg/)
I was also referring to the pole tilt. Picture the earth's orbit as a compass rose, with the December solstice at the Northern point, and the September equinox at the Eastern point. Got that picture in your mind? Okay, assuming you have, the North pole always tilts to the North, all year 'round. This gives us the seasons, longer and shorter days depending on the time of year, the change in location of sunrise and sunset over the year, etc (note, these differences are less pronounced the closer you get to the equator, for reasons that may not be obvious to yourself; get yourself a good globe and a desk lamp, and study the effects of changing the direction in which the globe tilts relative to the lamp). In your first image, the diagram represents the view as it would be from the Western side of the earth's orbit, and in your second image, the view is from the Eastern side (with respect to my arbitrary naming of the points in the earth's orbit).
Hope that helped!
-
Sorry, that didn't help at all.
If it helps this is how it's suppose to look but I'm pretty sure this is wrong.
(http://)
-
And I still don't think anyone understands my question. :(
You're questioning why it's tilted one in some diagrams, and the opposite way in others, correct?
-
Excellent video, thanks. But you're right, it's not the real Earth. And I still don't think anyone understands my question. :(
Well they say it wobbles to achieve the effect of the Sun moving on one hand yet they say it remains stable in relation to the background stars. So it's basically a Paradigm of Relativity where anything can mean anything and nothing is able to be tested in a verifiable way.
Or in the Oxford Standard Dictionary it means Science (Falsely So Called) is:
The absence of standards of absolute and universal application.
-
Please see my response about the car.
Say you are looking at a car and the front is pointing to the left.
You then walk around to the other side of the car and look at it.
OMG!!!! The car is now pointing to the right.
Take an orange and a basketball.
Stick a toothpick in the orange and set it so the toothpick is tilting towards the basketball so that the basketball is to the left of the orange. The toothpick is tilted left correct?
The basketball represents the sun and the orange represents the earth.
Walk around the setup to the other side so that the basketball is now on the right.
OMG!!!!! The orange is tilted to the right now!!!!!
NOt sure how you can't understand that which way the tilt is is dependant on which way you are looking at the system.
This is because left and right are dependant on the viewer and not the system. Left and right change based on how YOU are looking at it.
-
And I still don't think anyone understands my question. :(
You're questioning why it's tilted one in some diagrams, and the opposite way in others, correct?
Yes.
Ok that's easy.
If you view the US flag with the stars to the right, and the stripes to the left, is it backwards, or are you simply viewing it from the other side?
Or, plant a stick in the ground at an angle and pointed at something stationary. View it so it's angled to the right. Now walk around and view it from the other side. Now it's angled to your left.
Just depends on where the point of view is coming from.
-
The Flag is Two-Faced meaning it will always have the stars closest to the Pole.
-
I understand the perspective thing.
I would hope so, what with your comments about whether or not others have taken geometry.
But if you look at the continent of America on those links I posted, isn't it obvious that the U.S. tilts upward when the pole is to the left and it tilts downward when the pole is to the right? This would change how the sun is seen. The left tilt jives with the Winter sun being in a Southern Arc but the right tilt would mean we'd see a Northern Arc in the Summer but we NEVER do. The sun is always due East at sunrise and due West at sunset in the summer.
So I guess my new question is, do the continents tilt upward or downward?
It would change whether it's day or night, and what season, is being depicted for each position.
Also, when you upload images to imageshack, click on the 'direct link', copy, click on the picture tag icon above the smilies, paste the direct link between the image brackets, and this will all be much easier.
-
I don't think you guys understand. I mean THE POLE TILT
Please look:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/n7z.gif/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/713/n7z.gif/)
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/22/f0yp.jpg/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/22/f0yp.jpg/)
The first one is not supposed to represent looking down on the earth circling the sun below us but across so the top and bottom earths are front and back but then the earth itself is pictured from the view of looking flat on so that if it were a real photo the front earth would be obscuring the sun which would be obscuring the rear earth.
-
Earth is a Spaceship look at this and see if it answers your question.
http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/ (http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/)
-
Oh yes, I am quite familiar with that site. Lots of good info. It would do the REs (SEs ((Spherical Earthers)) as I call them) some good to read all the topics there.
I understand now why it doesn't matter which direction the Earth's tilt faces. But I just think it's nonsense that a sphere can be spinning around and moving through the vacuum of space and yet have a gas atmosphere that stays in tact with Earth. Have we EVER seen that in a lab? Not that I'm aware of. On top of that most gasses are invisible. I really do think the Earth and planets like Jupiter have transparent crystal or ice outer shells. It's the only logical explanation.
-
But I just think it's nonsense that a sphere can be spinning around and moving through the vacuum of space and yet have a gas atmosphere that stays in tact with Earth. Have we EVER seen that in a lab? Not t
Nobody has ever built a solar system in a lab, no. We sort of don't need to - we live in one.
-
Oh yes, I am quite familiar with that site. Lots of good info. It would do the REs (SEs ((Spherical Earthers)) as I call them) some good to read all the topics there.
I understand now why it doesn't matter which direction the Earth's tilt faces. But I just think it's nonsense that a sphere can be spinning around and moving through the vacuum of space and yet have a gas atmosphere that stays in tact with Earth. Have we EVER seen that in a lab? Not that I'm aware of. On top of that most gasses are invisible. I really do think the Earth and planets like Jupiter have transparent crystal or ice outer shells. It's the only logical explanation.
The Earth only makes logical sense if you figure that we are actually inside the Earth and that the Earth is not spinning but the Inner space (Called Outer Space due to misunderstanding by Scientist) is moving around in a circular orbit. There are 4 Pieces to the Earth which is our Universe and those four pieces are, 1. The Outer Earth, That is the Earth on the Other Side of Our Feet called the Garden of Eden, the Northern Inner Earth, that is the Earth we in the Northern Part of Earth and the Northern Inner Earth is bigger then the Southern Inner Earth because Earth is shaped like an egg with the top bigger then the bottom we are on the inside of this egg and we are held in place by the rotation of the Heavens pushing air down upon us so that we don't float off into space. Gravity doesn't exist as Earth doesn't turn or rotate because Earth is Concave it actually appears to be Flat and it could actually said to be flat but flat is actually slanted up at a 45 degree angle and there is 8 parts to complete the circuit. Understanding what flat means means that a Flat Earth is actually in harmony with Inner-Concave Earth theory as we live inside the Earth. If Earth were truly convex and spinning it would only have a very dense liquid gas atmosphere like The Sun, Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus or it would have almost no Atmosphere like Mars or the Moon. Fourth Part of Earth is called the Inner-Space or Outer Space which is also called the Heavens in this way Earth completes itself.
-
As the ball would not have sufficient mass to attract the gas, this would not be a sufficient experiment.
However, the multitude of pictures taken from space show that, in fact, the atmosphere does travel with the earth.
-
Oh yes, I am quite familiar with that site. Lots of good info. It would do the REs (SEs ((Spherical Earthers)) as I call them) some good to read all the topics there.
I understand now why it doesn't matter which direction the Earth's tilt faces. But I just think it's nonsense that a sphere can be spinning around and moving through the vacuum of space and yet have a gas atmosphere that stays in tact with Earth. Have we EVER seen that in a lab? Not that I'm aware of. On top of that most gasses are invisible. I really do think the Earth and planets like Jupiter have transparent crystal or ice outer shells. It's the only logical explanation.
what is there OUTSIDE the atmosphere to STOP it spinning?
Laws of motion.
Jimmy,
You are missing the point. A ball spinning with a colored gas, inside a vacuum will do just fine.
In a lab (outside the ISS anyway) the ball would be within a gravity field that woudl override any weak gravity it could produce and even out in space a small ball wouldn't have the gravitational pull to hold gas in any great quantity.
-
Ok... I've seen enough interesting ideas on this thread... So, a question to the FEers: how do seasons work in a flat Earth?
-
Oh yes, I am quite familiar with that site. Lots of good info. It would do the REs (SEs ((Spherical Earthers)) as I call them) some good to read all the topics there.
That particular site contains a wealth of scientific misinformation, errors of fact, misrepresentation, distortions, falsifications, and just straight out lies. I spent some time reading through it, and couldn't stop chuckling most of the time.
But I just think it's nonsense that a sphere can be spinning around and moving through the vacuum of space and yet have a gas atmosphere that stays intact with Earth.
This disbelief is because you don't fully understand the theory of gravity, and why our atmosphere "sticks" to the planet, rather than "sliding" over it (and producing massive wind fronts).
Have we EVER seen that in a lab? Not that I'm aware of.
Not in a laboratory, no. But we have seen it in a little kid's bedroom where he's playing with a spinning top, and which is leaning slightly one way or the other. And yes; there is a layer of air molecules travelling at the same speed as the skin of the top, (although due more to its surface coefficient of friction rather than the top's gravity field).
-
A ball spinning with a colored gas, inside a vacuum will do just fine.
Good, we live on one.
We don't have the capability to create all sorts of things in labs, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Nobody has ever created Australia in a lab - that's no reason to doubt it's existence.
-
We don't have the capability to create all sorts of things in labs, that doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'm repeatedly amused that most flat earthers demand that us round earthers duplicate our theories of space and geophysics, and time and motion in a laboratory setting, but never offer as proof of their own theories any sort of similar scenario.
Nobody has ever created Australia in a lab - that's no reason to doubt it's existence.
Excellent. That's from where I'm typing this LOL.
-
Once again Jimmy, you are missing the point. You can't use the Earth as an example when that is the very thing in question. You people need to face it, you have no proof other than your make believe videos and photos of the Earth from the ISS and moon.
Oh dear. It's "you people" now?
Anyway... can you provide us with some irrefutable evidence that the photographic images taken from space, and showing a spherical planet, are in actuality faked, or bogus? Or is this opinion just part of your personal "conspiracy theory" mindset, and with no actual evidence for your claims of "make believe" videos and photos?
I await your evidence of fraud.
-
A ball spinning with a colored gas, inside a vacuum will do just fine.
Good, we live on one.
We don't have the capability to create all sorts of things in labs, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Nobody has ever created Australia in a lab - that's no reason to doubt it's existence.
Once again Jimmy, you are missing the point. You can't use the Earth as an example when that is the very thing in question. You people need to face it, you have no proof other than your make believe videos and photos of the Earth from the ISS and moon.
how about every other planet in the solar system then?
-
Oh yes, I am quite familiar with that site. Lots of good info. It would do the REs (SEs ((Spherical Earthers)) as I call them) some good to read all the topics there.
Yes, it certainly does some good. You know that laughing is good for your health, don'tcha? :)
-
Oh yes, I am quite familiar with that site. Lots of good info. It would do the REs (SEs ((Spherical Earthers)) as I call them) some good to read all the topics there.
A is some misunderstanding. B and C is downright ridiculous for anybody with some grasp of elementary school physics. C, actually, has the additional and amusing fact that it refers to Baumgartner while this jump comes with a plethora of pictures showing the spherical Earth. Either you accept the jump to be real, not fake, then accept it entirely. Or dismiss everything in space and with photos but then dismiss it completely and don't use it in your argumentation. D and E show a blatant ignorance of the topic it speaks about, especially E where it interprets experiments that actually prove the rotation of the Earth as if they were doing the opposite.
-
You can't use the Earth as an example when that is the very thing in question.
Of course I can. If the 2 of us were sat on an elephant and you claimed elephants didn't exist, are you saying I couldn't use the one we were sat on as an example?
Anyway, every other planet we have seen is spherical. Can you show me a single flat planet in the solar system?
You people need to face it, you have no proof other than your make believe videos and photos of the Earth from the ISS and moon.
Yeah, apart from an entire model that works:
- Motion of the stars
- Sunrise and sunset
- The seasons
- The horizon
- Sinking ship effect
- World maps that work exactly for international travel
- 3000 satellites orbiting the planet
- A model of the solar system that works
- Around 500 people, from 38 different countries, who have been into space - not a single one reporting a flat earth
- 10 nations who have launch capability - none of which who have reported their surprise at the flatness of the planet
- And yeah, since you mention it - thousands of hours of video and millions of images captured from space, showing a spherical earth. None of which you have falsified
This is just off the top of my head - there is lots, lots more.
You have:
- A shonky, 200 year old experiment carried out by a snake oil salesman
-
Inverted Hollow Earth theory can explain all of those things above with amazing accuracy actually much better accuracy then a Round Solid Earth model does. For example a Inverted Hollow Earth can explain Horizons with no complex explanations and an Inverted Hollow Earth can also explain the flow of the Planets with no extra explanations as the Torus (Torahs) is Real.
(http://)
-
Inverted Hollow Earth theory can explain all of those things above with amazing accuracy actually much better accuracy then a Round Solid Earth model does.
Firstly, you use a common flat earth misnomer. There is no round earth "model". In the context of your use of the word, a model is a scaled solid, or computer-generated representation of something that as yet does not exist in real time, and is a proposition for its expected appearance and/or mechanism of operation.
Therefore we don't need a "model" of our planet, as it already exists, and we know what it looks like, its physical dimensions, and its mechanism of actions.
However, as yet we have no working model of a proposed flat earth. Which prompts me to ask why it is that—on this site alone—there is no agreement as to what form this flat earth model would take? How can it be that I've seen numerous, different propositions for a flat earth model? Why is there no consensus amongst flat earth proponents?
And lastly; why is it that billions of people worldwide agree totally with the current description of our spherical planet, and yet only a few hundred people propose some sort of flat earth?
Is it easier to fool 6,000,000,000 people, or 600 people?
-
Geoff, now that is a fine question. Even the average 3rd Grader (@ least that's when I started learning it) understands the basics of things: There are 9 (8 now) planets in the Solar System, of which Earth is 3rd. All are round, circling a round Sun. Earth is the only one supporting life. Ours is 1 of many systems in a galaxy, which is 1 of many in a universe. 3rd Graders everywhere know this. On the flip side, FET can't yet agree on the map it uses of the Earth, let alone anything else.
-
On the flip side, FET can't yet agree on the map it uses of the Earth, let alone anything else.
The lack of a consensus map of the proposed flat earth is what destroys the legitimacy of the flat earth argument in one fell swoop, as far as I'm concerned.
The flat earthers refute the round earth "model" whilst at the same time having no flat earth model to dispute it with. They're saying basically that a round earth does not exist, but we can't show you what does exist. It's a ludicrous (non) argument.
-
Geoff, & both the unipolar & bipolar maps present problems for navigation by ship or plane. On the bipolar map, you can't circumnavigate @ the Equator in a plane, when you can in reality. On the unipolar map, travel South of the Equator gets all messed up in terms of time & distance.
-
So, when a child or an adult asks me what shape the Earth is, my answer is, I do not know.
If that's what you're truly telling your children, then you're doing them a major disservice by hindering their educational growth. Why are you not telling them that the earth is flat? Do you lack the courage of your own convictions?
-
So, when a child or an adult asks me what shape the Earth is, my answer is, I do not know. It is much, much bigger than we are as humans. What I do know is what I experience here on Earth and in an airplane in our atmosphere. And that is, the Earth is flat. THAT, I know is true.
Yes, much bigger. Normal commercial flights don't show the curvature for sure. It was already visible from a Concorde (and, although it was expensive while lasted, it wasn't NASA only, so quite a few ordinary, although not actually poor people had the chance to see it with their own eyes). It becomes absolutely apparent and something you can't deny or dismiss at even higher altitudes.
-
If that's what you're truly telling your children, then you're doing them a major disservice by hindering their educational growth. Why are you not telling them that the earth is flat? Do you lack the courage of your own convictions?
No one should be telling them anything they do not know for a fact. You say satellite photos prove the Earth is a sphere. A photo of a ghost isn't proof that ghosts exist.
-
If that's what you're truly telling your children, then you're doing them a major disservice by hindering their educational growth. Why are you not telling them that the earth is flat? Do you lack the courage of your own convictions?
No one should be telling them anything they do not know for a fact. You say satellite photos prove the Earth is a sphere. A photo of a ghost isn't proof that ghosts exist.
So pictures from space, the horizon and satellite tv, what are they?
-
Jimmy,
You are missing the point. A ball spinning with a colored gas, inside a vacuum will do just fine.
A ball in a vacuum small enough to fit in a lab would not have enough mass to generate enough gravity to attract the gas. But I'm sure that you already know this.
-
Thank you Markjo for clarifying that. Now, can everyone understand why some people have trouble believing that's possible?
No, I cannot. There is an overwhelming body of evidence that we sit on a rotating globe. There is almost none to the contrary.
It cannot be recreated in a lab.
Is this your definition of what is possible? My wife has never been recreated in a lab, yet she definitely exists.
-
Thank you Markjo for clarifying that. Now, can everyone understand why some people have trouble believing that's possible? It cannot be recreated in a lab.
Are you suggesting that if a phenomenon can't be recreated in a lab, then it can't happen in nature?
-
Pretty much. Isn't that what scientists claim?
-
You say satellite photos prove the Earth is a sphere. A photo of a ghost isn't proof that ghosts exist.
I'm not sure whether or not you're being deliberately disingenuous here or not?
As of this date, nobody on the planet is in possession of any accredited photographic images of ghosts. Why? Obviously because ghosts don't exist. Or do you believe they do?
Anyway... could you please post some photographic images that show the earth to be a flat plane? They don't necessarily have to be genuine, (as you claim all RE images showing a curved horizon are bogus, or satellite images of the earth from space are simply CGIs). I'd simply be interested in seeing some alternative imagery that helps support the FE model.
-
Pretty much. Isn't that what scientists claim?
Of course it isn't - what a ridiculous thing to suggest. Have as anyone ever recreated you in a lab? No? Do you not exist then?
Most things have never been created in a lab - we are not gods.
-
FLAT. Oh and tell me that sun doesn't look pretty darn close!
(http://)
-
Pretty much. Isn't that what scientists claim?
Of course it isn't - what a ridiculous thing to suggest. Have as anyone ever recreated you in a lab? No? Do you not exist then?
Most things have never been created in a lab - we are not gods.
Humans HAVE been created in labs. And humans most certainly DO act like gods! We have the power to create unimaginable (actually if you can imagine it, you can create it...so imaginable) things and the power to destroy.
-
FLAT. Oh and tell me that sun doesn't look pretty darn close!
(http://)
Based on what?
Given that there's absolutely no frame of reference it's impossible to tell how far away or big the sun is.
-
FLAT. Oh and tell me that sun doesn't look pretty darn close!
It doesn't look any closer than 149,600,000 km to me. :)
-
The Horizon simply would not exist on a round nor flat Earth unless Earth was concaved at 45 degrees. Since we know we can fly around the entire Earth it makes sense that we are inside basically an egg. (Not even a ball as the Northern part of Earth is measurably more wide then the Southern part)
-
The Horizon simply would not exist on a round nor flat Earth unless Earth was concaved at 45 degrees. Since we know we can fly around the entire Earth it makes sense that we are inside basically an egg. (Not even a ball as the Northern part of Earth is measurably more wide then the Southern part)
Concaved at 45 degrees. Please explain. Diagrams have already been posted how the horizon exists.
-
The Horizon simply would not exist on a round nor flat Earth unless Earth was concaved at 45 degrees. Since we know we can fly around the entire Earth it makes sense that we are inside basically an egg. (Not even a ball as the Northern part of Earth is measurably more wide then the Southern part)
Concaved at 45 degrees. Please explain. Diagrams have already been posted how the horizon exists.
As it sounds, light crosses at 45 degrees amplifying distance with which even telescopes cannot resolve as telescopes will not change the properties of light however telescopes can still partially resolve things that have not transitioned completely beyond the optical light band in relation to you.
I'm not sure how conventional science explains horizon always being level with eyesight even at 20,000 Miles of Altitude. If Earth was only 8,000 Miles across then surely at 20,000 miles there is no possible way on a convex Earth that we would still see a horizon is there not? (And Even at 100,000 Miles we still see the Horizon like this video demonstrates)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc)
-
Humans HAVE been created in labs.
*sigh* In vitro fertilization is not "creating a human". It's just bringing egg and sperm together in lab so that nature can do its thing.
-
The Horizon simply would not exist on a round nor flat Earth unless Earth was concaved at 45 degrees. Since we know we can fly around the entire Earth it makes sense that we are inside basically an egg. (Not even a ball as the Northern part of Earth is measurably more wide then the Southern part)
Concaved at 45 degrees. Please explain. Diagrams have already been posted how the horizon exists.
As it sounds, light crosses at 45 degrees amplifying distance with which even telescopes cannot resolve as telescopes will not change the properties of light however telescopes can still partially resolve things that have not transitioned completely beyond the optical light band in relation to you.
I'm not sure how conventional science explains horizon always being level with eyesight even at 20,000 Miles of Altitude. If Earth was only 8,000 Miles across then surely at 20,000 miles there is no possible way on a convex Earth that we would still see a horizon is there not? (And Even at 100,000 Miles we still see the Horizon like this video demonstrates)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc)
Light crosses what at 45 degrees?
Amplifying distance?
'transitioned completely beyond the optical light band in relation to you' Please explain.
Nobody says the horizon is level with eyesight, if you mean at 90 degrees to the vertical axis of the observer.
So why do we not see the earth curve upwards?
-
The Horizon simply would not exist on a round nor flat Earth unless Earth was concaved at 45 degrees. Since we know we can fly around the entire Earth it makes sense that we are inside basically an egg. (Not even a ball as the Northern part of Earth is measurably more wide then the Southern part)
Concaved at 45 degrees. Please explain. Diagrams have already been posted how the horizon exists.
As it sounds, light crosses at 45 degrees amplifying distance with which even telescopes cannot resolve as telescopes will not change the properties of light however telescopes can still partially resolve things that have not transitioned completely beyond the optical light band in relation to you.
I'm not sure how conventional science explains horizon always being level with eyesight even at 20,000 Miles of Altitude. If Earth was only 8,000 Miles across then surely at 20,000 miles there is no possible way on a convex Earth that we would still see a horizon is there not? (And Even at 100,000 Miles we still see the Horizon like this video demonstrates)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc)
Light crosses what at 45 degrees?
Amplifying distance?
'transitioned completely beyond the optical light band in relation to you' Please explain.
Nobody says the horizon is level with eyesight, if you mean at 90 degrees to the vertical axis of the observer.
45 Degrees in relation to where a Flat Plane should be. 0 Degrees in relation to the Horizontal Axis. 90 Degrees in relation to the Vertical Axis.
Amplifying distance is the distance light can travel before it decelerates and loops and the fringes split apart from your perspective. Transition is the time and distance it takes to travel before it loops together. Basically the transition is 45 degrees from your field of vision, if you can't see 45 degrees in your field of vision you can use fancy telescopes to see up to 45 degrees in field of Vision. Earth is 360 degrees so it's calculated about 25,000 miles around based on circumference experiments. However Force is not linear this chart should show you how Perspective Morphs in relation to the whole.
360 Degrees - 100%
180 Degrees - 25%
90 Degrees - 6.25%
45 Degrees - 1.5625%
So if you take 25,000 miles x .0015625 you get about 39 Miles of Visible distance to the naked eye that can be increased up to about 440 Miles with very powerful telescopes. No further then that is allowable with powerful telescopes at Sea Level. If you go higher up your radius increases though but even at 62,000 Miles high your still only increasing your base telescopic ability .001% while distancing yourself much farther then what you want to be distanced from.
Ask yourself if they can really see Millions of light years away why is it impossible for them to get clear photos of their Moon landing for example when that's only 2 light seconds away?
If The Earth is really only 800 miles thick then it would be possible to see about 55% of it from the surface but beyond the 55% visible the 45% would be shrouded from our vision unless we could physically go to the other side of the Earth's outer shell.
-
I'm not sure how conventional science explains horizon always being level with eyesight even at 20,000 Miles of Altitude.
Where did you read that?
If Earth was only 8,000 Miles across then surely at 20,000 miles there is no possible way on a convex Earth that we would still see a horizon is there not?
Sure you'd see a horizon at 20,000 miles. All the way around the sphere.
(And Even at 100,000 Miles we still see the Horizon like this video demonstrates)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc)
That's nowhere near 100,000 miles. Where did you get that figure?
-
I'm not sure how conventional science explains horizon always being level with eyesight even at 20,000 Miles of Altitude.
Where did you read that?
If Earth was only 8,000 Miles across then surely at 20,000 miles there is no possible way on a convex Earth that we would still see a horizon is there not?
Sure you'd see a horizon at 20,000 miles. All the way around the sphere.
(And Even at 100,000 Miles we still see the Horizon like this video demonstrates)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Khk1HgLHBmc)
That's nowhere near 100,000 miles. Where did you get that figure?
I've never seen Earth appear visually as a sphere from Space in videos unless it was virtual simulations. The miles number is uncertain as it's hard to say but I seen some of the Apollo footage where they claimed to be out 100,000 miles in space and you could still see blue Atmosphere still on the Horizon.
I personally believe that they were correct however I do also think that their window shenanigans fakery was also real. So even though they were 100,000 miles high they faked a view of the Earth but they still landed on the Moon a few days later.
(http://)
-
I've never seen Earth appear visually as a sphere from Space in videos unless it was virtual simulations. The miles number is uncertain as it's hard to say but I seen some of the Apollo footage where they claimed to be out 100,000 miles in space and you could still see blue Atmosphere still on the Horizon.
The value you remember probably was 100,000 ft. Yes, at that altitude the curvature is completely obvious.
-
Why would they fake a video? What did they actually see?
-
I've never seen Earth appear visually as a sphere from Space in videos unless it was virtual simulations. The miles number is uncertain as it's hard to say but I seen some of the Apollo footage where they claimed to be out 100,000 miles in space and you could still see blue Atmosphere still on the Horizon.
The value you remember probably was 100,000 ft. Yes, at that altitude the curvature is completely obvious.
(http://)
Throwing out the conspiracy garbage out of this video there are some good facts presented that they were 100,000-200,000 miles high during this video and that it was not a cardboard cutout like this lady mistakenly assumes and the Van Allen Radiation belt is only active at certain years as the Universe itself goes through weather phases during 1969-1976 it was probably in Universal Winter basically.
Basically what is happening is the black outline is the window of the space-craft and the blue is the Earth. there is no black space around the Earth because the Universe is the Earth, it's actually pretty simple really.
-
I've never seen Earth appear visually as a sphere from Space in videos unless it was virtual simulations. The miles number is uncertain as it's hard to say but I seen some of the Apollo footage where they claimed to be out 100,000 miles in space and you could still see blue Atmosphere still on the Horizon.
The value you remember probably was 100,000 ft. Yes, at that altitude the curvature is completely obvious.
(http://)
Throwing out the conspiracy garbage out of this video there are some good facts presented that they were 100,000-200,000 miles high during this video and that it was not a cardboard cutout like this lady mistakenly assumes and the Van Allen Radiation belt is only active at certain years as the Universe itself goes through weather phases during 1969-1976 it was probably in Universal Winter basically.
Basically what is happening is the black outline is the window of the space-craft and the blue is the Earth. there is no black space around the Earth because the Universe is the Earth, it's actually pretty simple really.
you are just flat out making stuff up again aren't you? A Not So Funny Thing Happened To The Earth (http://#) fully debunking the window theory in less than 60 seconds :)
-
Basically what is happening is the black outline is the window of the space-craft and the blue is the Earth. there is no black space around the Earth because the Universe is the Earth, it's actually pretty simple really.
You don't half spout some drivel. I'm increasingly convinced you are just trolling.
-
I've never seen Earth appear visually as a sphere from Space in videos unless it was virtual simulations. The miles number is uncertain as it's hard to say but I seen some of the Apollo footage where they claimed to be out 100,000 miles in space and you could still see blue Atmosphere still on the Horizon.
I personally believe that they were correct however I do also think that their window shenanigans fakery was also real. So even though they were 100,000 miles high they faked a view of the Earth but they still landed on the Moon a few days later.
here you go. You're welcome. A Not So Funny Thing Happened To The Earth (http://#)
-
its been days now, was it something i said? :)
-
And lastly; why is it that billions of people worldwide agree totally with the current description of our spherical planet, and yet only a few hundred people propose some sort of flat earth?
Is it easier to fool 6,000,000,000 people, or 600 people?
Apparently 6,000,000,000. Or, it could be that most people don't give it a second thought because it's not important in their daily lives. It certainly doesn't help when they're taught things about the Earth at an age when they are too young to fully understand and ask questions. Same thing goes with religion. It's unfair to influence a child about Jesus, God, etc., based on your beliefs. Telling them what you think is fine but expecting them to believe the same is wrong. They need to find the answer on their own. It's their life. I didn't know WHAT I believed as far as religion until I was many years past elementary school. And just so happens, something interested me in questioning HOW I knew what the shape of the Earth was. Funny how, most of it was based on what other's told me. Much like religion, superstition and fairy tales, I discovered that adults had been not so honest with me. Either that, or they were somewhat delusional. LOL So I started with a clean slate and began to re-learn what I thought I already knew.
So, when a child or an adult asks me what shape the Earth is, my answer is, I do not know. It is much, much bigger than we are as humans. What I do know is what I experience here on Earth and in an airplane in our atmosphere. And that is, the Earth is flat. THAT, I know is true.
Self contradiction does not help your case.
-
He said his experience is that the earth is flat, and that he does not know what shape the earth actually is. I do not see a contradiction.
-
The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reaquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.
For now, REers spend their indoor time re-upping their RET instead of observing the outdoors and getting properly educated with FET studies.
Once they do get outdoors, out of the lab they should also experience for themselves the same truth FEers have experienced.
-
The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reaquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.
For now, REers spend their indoor time re-upping their RET instead of observing the outdoors and getting properly educated with FET studies.
Once they do get outdoors, out of the lab they should also experience for themselves the same truth FEers have experienced.
Religion is losing followers, I don't see another fake concept gaining millions of followers. Humanity tends to advance.
-
you are just flat out making stuff up again aren't you? A Not So Funny Thing Happened To The Earth (http://#) fully debunking the window theory in less than 60 seconds :)
Thanks for that, I was scratching my head about that because I seen the clouds on Earth flowing and I knew it couldn't have been a cardboard cutout. Actually I compared the Earth from NASA's first Earth shot and compared it to my squashed Inverted Earth map and it aligns perfectly. I think we are seeing the clouds double over because we are seeing water vapors from below land and above land separate into two helix sphere halves. Of course sometimes I just make stuff up because I'm suffering from Psychosis and Strong Delusions but I have tested 190 on an IQ test with some minor cheating (aka memorizing the questions) however you can't cheat your way to 190 because a lot of it is timed Arithmetic and the order is usually randomized. To be fair I took the test 3 times scoring 140 the first time, 160 the second time and 190 the third time. However I'm pretty sure I couldn't cheat to a 190 unless I was pretty damn smart in the first place. Anyways the Image aligns perfectly with Inverted Earth theory with the Cosmos spinning inside Earth but it pretty easily debunks Globe Earth theory as well as Flat Disk theory
(https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1907361_577300355687347_1574741813_n.jpg)
-
FET studies.
What are these exactly? "Look out of the window"?
Gonna be a short lesson. Especially if the school is on the coast and they can see ships sinking over the horizon.
I suppose the next few months will be teaching how a vast asinine conspiracy manufacturers all the evidence that the earth is a globe. They can learn about how GPS uses vast arrays of invisible bouys and masts and how satellite dishes really point at invisible transceivers (even when pointing directly over the ocean). Or how the ISS is really a military plane with a magical fuel supply and the ability to look like a, err, space station...Or how NASA empoyes thousands of CGI artists to fake all the video and photographic images....yeah, I suppose they could squeeze something out of that...
-
So, when a child or an adult asks me what shape the Earth is, my answer is, I do not know. It is much, much bigger than we are as humans. What I do know is what I experience here on Earth and in an airplane in our atmosphere. And that is, the Earth is flat. THAT, I know is true.
Self contradiction does not help your case.
No contradiction. You just aren't comprehending. What I experience the Earth to be from my tiny perspective is not necessarily the same as what the Earth is in it's entirety.
-
The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reaquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.
Why would educators teach FET in schools when there is no mathematically consistent FE model to teach? ???
-
However I'm pretty sure I couldn't cheat to a 190 unless I was pretty damn smart in the first place. Anyways the Image aligns perfectly with Inverted Earth theory with the Cosmos spinning inside Earth but it pretty easily debunks Globe Earth theory as well as Flat Disk theory
https://scontent-a-sea.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1907361_577300355687347_1574741813_n.jpg
If you were that smart, then how did you get an orbital video of an 8,000 mile sphere from a couple hundred miles high confused with what a view of an 8,000 mile sphere from 100,000 miles would look?
Also regarding your images, you've taken images of Earth, the moon, a layout of the continents distorted and rotated, and a low res video shot of Earth, and overlayed them. That doesn't really debunk anything.
-
The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reacquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.
This will never happen. If the flat earthers only number a few hundred now—after the theory was first propounded in the bible 2,000 years ago—it ain't ever gonna happen. You're confused or ill-educated about geophysics if you accept the flat earth theory as "normal", and also considering it a "reality" which should be taught in schools.
For now, REers spend their indoor time re-upping their RET instead of observing the outdoors and getting properly educated with FET studies.
I have no idea why researching science "outdoors" should be inherently better than researching science "indoors". Can you please clarify this?
Once they do get outdoors, out of the lab they should also experience for themselves the same truth FEers have experienced.
The vast majority of scientific advancements have begun their lives in research laboratories, and not on park benches or at the beach. True science requires complex apparatus, meticulous analysis, and systematic recording and evaluation under controlled, replicable conditions.
I've actually not seen under what controlled conditions flat earthers carry out their research, or what specialised equipment they utilise to do so. Nor have I seen any replicable data from different flat earth researchers.
—Why not?
-
The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reaquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.
Why would educators teach FET in schools when there is no mathematically consistent FE model to teach? ???
The number of FEers will advance into millions and billions in numbers once FET is taught in schools and people are reacquainted with Earth shape normalcy. Educators should take note of this reality.
This will never happen. If the flat earthers only number a few hundred now—after the theory was first propounded in the bible 2,000 years ago—it ain't ever gonna happen. You're confused or ill-educated about geophysics if you accept the flat earth theory as "normal", and also considering it a "reality" which should be taught in schools.
For now, REers spend their indoor time re-upping their RET instead of observing the outdoors and getting properly educated with FET studies.
I have no idea why researching science "outdoors" should be inherently better than researching science "indoors". Can you please clarify this?
Once they do get outdoors, out of the lab they should also experience for themselves the same truth FEers have experienced.
The vast majority of scientific advancements have begun their lives in research laboratories, and not on park benches or at the beach. True science requires complex apparatus, meticulous analysis, and systematic recording and evaluation under controlled, replicable conditions.
I've actually not seen under what controlled conditions flat earthers carry out their research, or what specialised equipment they utilise to do so. Nor have I seen any replicable data from different flat earth researchers.
—Why not?
The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world."
Memorizing and being tested on both of them to achieve needed grades serves the societal purpose of advancing forward in a manner demanded by school systems. Don't let that serve as the final say to reality. You will fail if that is your belief.
-
The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world."
Realizing which discipline would best describe the "real world" would depend greatly on what you plan on doing in the "real world", don't you think?
-
The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world."
Realizing which discipline would best describe the "real world" would depend greatly on what you plan on doing in the "real world", don't you think?
A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.
If the goal of the plan is to provide theoretical solutions instead of facts, then your plan is in place.
-
A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.
??? Are you saying that math and science can not be applied to non-theoretical data, such as surveying?
-
The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world."
Realizing which discipline would best describe the "real world" would depend greatly on what you plan on doing in the "real world", don't you think?
A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.
If the goal of the plan is to provide theoretical solutions instead of facts, then your plan is in place.
Sounds like you are afraid of knowing the truth.
-
A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.
??? Are you saying that math and science can not be applied to non-theoretical data, such as surveying?
Or building bridges, motorcars, skyscrapers, computers, the internet, vaccines, life support machines and widescreen tvs.....and so on and so on.
As usual, it's not clear what gotham is getting at...
-
The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world."
Realizing which discipline would best describe the "real world" would depend greatly on what you plan on doing in the "real world", don't you think?
Well I'd say if ever you have a number of items then maths is gonna be a pretty good bet.
-
The day will come when educators realize math and science are not disciplines that best describe the "real world."
Memorizing and being tested on both of them to achieve needed grades serves the societal purpose of advancing forward in a manner demanded by school systems. Don't let that serve as the final say to reality. You will fail if that is your belief.
I'd be guessing that if educators haven't yet discounted applied maths and physical science as describing the "real" world in 2,000 years, then it ain't never gonna happen.
"Memorising" and "testing" students on maths and science has nothing to do at all with the already-qualified scientists working in the field. We—all of us—need to remember at least the basic principles and practices of maths and science if we're to study the world in real time and in real space. The science kids learn at high school is only one of the very first stepping stones to becoming a researcher, so I disagree that it's only to satisfy the school systems.
An research scientists certainly don't give a damn about the social implications of their work—other than that it's supportive of, or advantageous to, our society.
We look at a mountain, and trigonometry tells us how high it is without climbing it; we cross a river, and hydraulics tells us its flow rate without using a bucket; we cook a pizza, and thermodynamics tells us at what temperature without burning our hand.
Science and maths are inextricably tied in with the real world. Using your "real world" assessment for each of my examples could yield answers along the lines of "pretty high", "fast flowing", and "really hot". Which are more accurate? My answers or yours?
-
A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.
I have to disagree. If I want to measure the height of a camellia bush in my garden, it's pointless to say something like "it's 27 carrots high".
On the other hand, if I tell you it's 2.5m high, you know precisely how high it is—without ever being in my garden or having to interpret my answer. That's maths describing the "real" world.
-
A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.
I have to disagree. If I want to measure the height of a camellia bush in my garden, it's pointless to say something like "it's 27 carrots high".
On the other hand, if I tell you it's 2.5m high, you know precisely how high it is—without ever being in my garden or having to interpret my answer. That's maths describing the "real" world.
If Mr Einstein had measured his camellia bush in carrots, you would be measuring your bush in carrots. If Dr Rowbotham had measured his camellia bush in meters, you would still be measuring your bush in carrots.
-
A description of what is real is best served by a discipline capable of originating evidence based on non-theoretical data. The real world has tangible properties math and science can only replicate in a theoretical form.
I have to disagree. If I want to measure the height of a camellia bush in my garden, it's pointless to say something like "it's 27 carrots high".
On the other hand, if I tell you it's 2.5m high, you know precisely how high it is—without ever being in my garden or having to interpret my answer. That's maths describing the "real" world.
If Mr Einstein had measured his camellia bush in carrots, you would be measuring your bush in carrots. If Dr Rowbotham had measured his camellia bush in meters, you would still be measuring your bush in carrots.
Then it's a good thing that Dr. Einstein was smart enough to measure his camellia bush in meters instead of carrots.
-
Oh yes, I am quite familiar with that site. Lots of good info. It would do the REs (SEs ((Spherical Earthers)) as I call them) some good to read all the topics there.
I understand now why it doesn't matter which direction the Earth's tilt faces. But I just think it's nonsense that a sphere can be spinning around and moving through the vacuum of space and yet have a gas atmosphere that stays in tact with Earth. Have we EVER seen that in a lab? Not that I'm aware of. On top of that most gasses are invisible. I really do think the Earth and planets like Jupiter have transparent crystal or ice outer shells. It's the only logical explanation.
No no.. the earth has cling wrap surrounding it.. it's the only logical explanation.. plus it keeps the freshness locked in!
-
A ball spinning with a colored gas, inside a vacuum will do just fine.
Good, we live on one.
We don't have the capability to create all sorts of things in labs, that doesn't mean they don't exist. Nobody has ever created Australia in a lab - that's no reason to doubt it's existence.
Once again Jimmy, you are missing the point. You can't use the Earth as an example when that is the very thing in question. You people need to face it, you have no proof other than your make believe videos and photos of the Earth from the ISS and moon.
I can certainly prove it's not flat:
http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/waves_and_interior.html (http://eqseis.geosc.psu.edu/~cammon/HTML/Classes/IntroQuakes/Notes/waves_and_interior.html)
-
Pretty much. Isn't that what scientists claim?
No they don't...
But keep going, your ignorance seems to know no bounds at all. You're keeping me very entertained. Mrs Alfa156melb and I are having a good chuckle at your expense.
-
If Mr Einstein had measured his camellia bush in carrots, you would be measuring your bush in carrots. If Dr Rowbotham had measured his camellia bush in meters, you would still be measuring your bush in carrots.
It's a pretty nebulous piece of "evidence" for any claims to be supported by whatever Mr Rowbotham did or didn't do or say. He was only a snake-oil salesman after all, and in no way imaginable could he be described as a scientist (or even a Dr).
It's possibly time that the FEs refrained from including this quack's name in every second thread on this forum. Any belief in his idiotic ideas is self-defeating to the flat earth cause, as modern science has more than soundly debunked each and every one of his ideas.
The only reason any of his theories enjoyed any currency was due to the fact that 150 years ago, contemporary science was in its infancy, and the general population had virtually zero knowledge of the physical sciences—such as physics, astronomy, geophysics, optical theory etc.
And just like used-car salesmen today, Rowbotham was smart enough to cash in on that ignorance way back when.
-
And Einstein used the metric system of weights & measures rather than carrots why? Because their was an official standard by which to measure the units of measure, @ the time made of solid steel bars kept in Paris. Today the official measurement is still kept in Paris, but it is digital. On the other hand, there was not then, nor is there now, an official length of a carrot. On a sidenote, Rowbotham was NOT a scientist, or even a particularly good debater. He simply had a bigger mouth than the opposition. Anyone formally trained in logic, as I was, & doubtless some of you were, could have buried him. Scientists usually give philosophy pretty short shrift. They have to, so they can graduate in 4 yrs. That was another reason they lost the verbal wars w/ Rowbotham.
-
Let's please get off of the carrot vs. meters. This thread has been totally derailed.
-
I agree, JROA, that carrots & meters aren't relevant to our topic. But let's face it. Rowbotham was a schmuck. He wrote & argued @ a time when no one had seen the earth. They had only maths to prove its sphericity. However, we've since been off-planet. Oh, I know. I'm going to hear about the Conspiracy. In a word: bullshit. Don't tell me that 5 space agencies (the US, Russia, Europe, China, Japan), & now Iran (which just sent a monkey up) could keep a secret that massive for 64 yrs! The US can't even tap people's phones & not get caught! Lets face it, Dudes! The world is round! Anything else might be cool as a video game, but its f---ing stupid as science. I'm the ruler of Medieval Japan too, on my NDS! But what would you all say, & better yet, what would the Japanese Govt say, if I announced that I was taking charge over there? I suspect there are hospitals & meds for that kind of thing, no?
-
When was the last time you went to space?
Also, Iran sent a monkey into space and the wrong one came back down. :o
The US got caught because of one person. How many secrets do they have that one person did not devoulge?
-
When was the last time you went to space?
Also, Iran sent a monkey into space and the wrong one came back down. :o
The US got caught because of one person. How many secrets do they have that one person did not devoulge?
And how do you know that the wrong monkey came back - what 'evidence' are you going to site?
-
Alpha, that was my next question. & Jroa, that's my point. Surely this Conspiracy, as vast as it is, in 64 years would have had @ least ONE (1) tattle-tale, in one of the many countries involved. Just think. One dude could make the govts of 4 major nations, the EU, & now Iran all look like fucktards. Look what Snowden got away with. You're going to tell me that some dude couldn't pull a Snowden here & get away w/ it? I've got a piece of the f---ing Brooklyn Bridge I'll sell you.
-
When was the last time you went to space?
Also, Iran sent a monkey into space and the wrong one came back down. :o
The US got caught because of one person. How many secrets do they have that one person did not devoulge?
And how do you know that the wrong monkey came back - what 'evidence' are you going to site?
Because the footage of the monkey before it went into space looks completely different from the one that came back. Iran's response was that it was a technical error. What it your response?
-
Chances are, it was a technical error. And a monkey that's just been floating around in 0 grav is probably going to look a lot different when it gets back than when it left.
-
When was the last time you went to space?
Also, Iran sent a monkey into space and the wrong one came back down. :o
The US got caught because of one person. How many secrets do they have that one person did not devoulge?
And how do you know that the wrong monkey came back - what 'evidence' are you going to site?
Because the footage of the monkey before it went into space looks completely different from the one that came back. Iran's response was that it was a technical error. What it your response?
two options. 1- it was a technical error. 2- they replaced the monkey to save face after it died. Neither option dismisses decades of space exploration. Not in the slightest. Basing your opinion on space travel on the iran programme is like basing your view of earth on sceptimatics hand drawn maps.
-
You don't understand. The markings are different on the two monkeys. Iran says that they accidentally showed film of a different monkey, yet it was passed off as the first Iranian Monkey in Space.
-
Ok. So Iran made themselves look stupid. That doesn't change the rest of the world's experience. Again I ask: how do you keep a f---ing conspiracy involving 4 powerful nations & the EU a secret for 64 yrs w/o @ least 1 Snowden pissing in your cheerios? The answer is simple: you don't.
-
Do you honestly believe that you know everything about all of the conspiracies that have ever been? I am guessing you would say no.
-
Jroa, the question is irrelevant. This is a 'Conspiracy' spanning 4 nations & a pan-national entity that itself has about 23 nations! You're that naive that you honestly f---ing believe that that shit wouldn't have been blown from Hell to breakfast long before now? Let's see. The US & the USSR-Russia would love to make each other look stupid. China & Japan the same, ditto for China & the US. But nobody's going to whisper a word! If you believe that, you need that hospital & the meds I spoke of when I mentioned ruling Japan!
-
Yes, because there can never be more than three people keeping a secret. ::)
-
Jroa, whether meant seriously or not, that is essentially correct.
-
Thanks for the clarification. I will be sure to keep that in mind.
-
Come on, Jroa, you're better than this. Don't be a yutz. We're not talking 3 people. Or 10, or even 500. We're talking how many thousands? You've got everyone employed in the 5 space agencies from scientists & astronauts to janitors. You've got their families, & the friends & acquaintances of those people. Then you've got govt officials in app. 27 nations, their families, & their friends & acqauaintances. This circle of people just keeps getting larger exponentially. Now I'm no math genius, but even I can see, that's a lot of f---ing people! All it would take is ONE (1) to blow the whole f---ing thing from Hell to breakfast if it was a lie. Just 1. As for motive, well hell. A govt could offer money, women, you name it! Make Russia look stupid, we'll pay you well.
-
Or even better, somebody does it on their own to make everybody look like a fucking schmuck.
-
Why would the janitors need to be in on the conspiracy? I only mention this because there are probably 99% of people who work for NASA who have nothing to do with the space launches.
-
We're talking how many thousands?
One estimate was put at 40,000 technical personnel, excluding ancillary staff.
-
Yes, because there can never be more than three people keeping a secret. ::)
So, by that reasoning we should believe every conspiracy out there because, hey "people can keep secrets"?
Anyway, to typify the combined space programs of 25 countries, 10 of which with launch capability, spanning 60 years as "three people keeping a secret" is patently silly. We are talking millions of people over hundreds of different governments (at least in democratic countries) and vast numbers of private contractors (just the NASA GGI artists must number in their thousands). Yet not a single one has thought to mention the greatest trick played on humanity in the history of civilisation?
Aside from that, over 500 people from 40 different countries has actually been into space: not a single one has gone whistleblower, despite extensive contact with the media.
Also we are not talking about a little secret, like running over your neighbor's cat. We are talking about a reality shattering paradigm shift: something that will fundamentally change our view of the universe and our place within it.
Yet not a single person, even on their deathbed, has said "I just can't keep this secret anymore..."
Frankly, if you believe that, you'll believe any old shite.
-
it wouldnt even take alot to tempt someone to snitch. There are parts of india where people would be more than happy to blow the lid on the whole space programme for the promise of maybe, just maybe one day being allowed to look at a photo of a pot of jam
-
We're talking how many thousands?
One estimate was put at 40,000 technical personnel, excluding ancillary staff.
D.Day landings. How many millions of soldiers, personnel, intelligence and a whole host of other parties involved, yet they apparently managed to fool the Germans, so we are led to believe. So tell me. How did all those people keep a secret? Not one person managed to infiltrate it all or one person let slip what was going down.
All this bull crap of thousands having to be in on something, is the weakest argument you round earth people make, in desperation to keep up this charade , for whatever reasons you have.
You can clearly see how much of history is riddled with contraditions and less than impressive video/pictures/explanations and the rest of it, so why don't you look into that, instead of going into a full of attampt at debunking every mortal thing that's shown to you or said to you.
-
it wouldnt even take alot to tempt someone to snitch. There are parts of india where people would be more than happy to blow the lid on the whole space programme for the promise of maybe, just maybe one day being allowed to look at a photo of a pot of jam
Maybe many have tried and been silenced before it gets anywhere. I would assume that anyone directly invlolved in this type of stuff, would be monitored and their every move accounted for.
All those people have are media sources to get the message out. Who owns the media?
The people that run this stuff, know for a fact that anyone claiming stuff like this is faked and such, will be labelled a nut case or a disgruntled employee. You're not that naive as to not understnd how this is very plausible.
Just take a look at the suicides of the 5 J.PMorgan bankers. Pressure of work? Or did they know something?
-
We're talking how many thousands?
One estimate was put at 40,000 technical personnel, excluding ancillary staff.
D.Day landings. How many millions of soldiers, personnel, intelligence and a whole host of other parties involved, yet they apparently managed to fool the Germans, so we are led to believe. So tell me. How did all those people keep a secret? Not one person managed to infiltrate it all or one person let slip what was going down.
All this bull crap of thousands having to be in on something, is the weakest argument you round earth people make, in desperation to keep up this charade , for whatever reasons you have.
You can clearly see how much of history is riddled with contraditions and less than impressive video/pictures/explanations and the rest of it, so why don't you look into that, instead of going into a full of attampt at debunking every mortal thing that's shown to you or said to you.
how about you present some photos or videos that you propose are fake and we can discuss those. Out of interest do you think the apollo moon landings were fake? Lets get down to specific items of evidence.
-
We're talking how many thousands?
One estimate was put at 40,000 technical personnel, excluding ancillary staff.
D.Day landings. How many millions of soldiers, personnel, intelligence and a whole host of other parties involved, yet they apparently managed to fool the Germans, so we are led to believe. So tell me. How did all those people keep a secret? Not one person managed to infiltrate it all or one person let slip what was going down.
All this bull crap of thousands having to be in on something, is the weakest argument you round earth people make, in desperation to keep up this charade , for whatever reasons you have.
You can clearly see how much of history is riddled with contraditions and less than impressive video/pictures/explanations and the rest of it, so why don't you look into that, instead of going into a full of attampt at debunking every mortal thing that's shown to you or said to you.
how about you present some photos or videos that you propose are fake and we can discuss those. Out of interest do you think the apollo moon landings were fake? Lets get down to specific items of evidence.
There's a topic for the moon landings. If you want to bring that topic back up and carry on discussing it, then fine.
There's been hundreds and hundreds of pictures and video that's been presented that stinks of being fake. The fact that people like you, desperately try to pass them off as being perfecly legitimate looking, tells me that your intentions are based on nothing other than to protect the lies.
If I'm wrong, then show me ANYTHING at all that you've questioned about what you stick like glue to.
-
We're talking how many thousands?
One estimate was put at 40,000 technical personnel, excluding ancillary staff.
D.Day landings. How many millions of soldiers, personnel, intelligence and a whole host of other parties involved, yet they apparently managed to fool the Germans, so we are led to believe. So tell me. How did all those people keep a secret? Not one person managed to infiltrate it all or one person let slip what was going down.
All this bull crap of thousands having to be in on something, is the weakest argument you round earth people make, in desperation to keep up this charade , for whatever reasons you have.
You can clearly see how much of history is riddled with contraditions and less than impressive video/pictures/explanations and the rest of it, so why don't you look into that, instead of going into a full of attampt at debunking every mortal thing that's shown to you or said to you.
how about you present some photos or videos that you propose are fake and we can discuss those. Out of interest do you think the apollo moon landings were fake? Lets get down to specific items of evidence.
There's a topic for the moon landings. If you want to bring that topic back up and carry on discussing it, then fine.
There's been hundreds and hundreds of pictures and video that's been presented that stinks of being fake. The fact that people like you, desperately try to pass them off as being perfecly legitimate looking, tells me that your intentions are based on nothing other than to protect the lies.
If I'm wrong, then show me ANYTHING at all that you've questioned about what you stick like glue to.
maybe it would suprise you to know that when i was younger i believed the 911 hoax and apollo hoax due to only having a partial interest at the time and thus being ideal fodder to soak up the conspiracy videos and articles. However as time went on the overwhelming inconsistencies in the theories prompted me to look at all angles and all availiable evidence and am now of an opposite viewpoint. I can look back on that period of naievity with some shame, something we all hold hope may also happen to you if you care to better yourself. With the wealth of information available now at your fingertips, there is no excuse for ignorance.
-
One estimate was put at 40,000 technical personnel, excluding ancillary staff.
D.Day landings.
They aren't a secret - we know about them.
How many millions of soldiers, personnel, intelligence and a whole host of other parties involved, yet they apparently managed to fool the Germans, so we are led to believe. So tell me. How did all those people keep a secret? Not one person managed to infiltrate it all or one person let slip what was going down.
The whole German nation new an invasion of Northern Europe was coming, the trick was hiding the time and the place. Or rather fooling the high command (specifically Hitler) into believing the attack would take place anywhere but Normandy. You should read up on Operation Bodyguard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard). The German command had intelligence that an attack on Normandy was imminent, but they also had intelligence that attacks on lots of different places was likely. This led them to spread the defenses very thinly, and stopped reinforcements reaching the landing zones quickly.
I suspect you know nothing of the counter-intelligence operations, the whole "D-day was a secret" is brought up by in conspiracy forums, and you just parrot it with little understanding.
Aside from anything, the space program now spans 25 different (often competing) countries over 60 years. 500 individuals from 40 different countries have been into space. Comparing it to the D-Day landings is facile at best.
-
maybe it would suprise you to know that when i was younger i believed the 911 hoax and apollo hoax due to only having a partial interest at the time and thus being ideal fodder to soak up the conspiracy videos and articles. However as time went on the overwhelming inconsistencies in the theories prompted me to look at all angles and all availiable evidence and an now of an opposite viewpoint. I can look back on that period of naievity with some shame, something we all hold hope may also happen to you if you care to better yourself. With the wealth of information available now at your fingertips, there is no excuse for ignorance.
Look back on that period with some shame? Are you winding me up?
Stop telling blatant lies. You haven't looked at anything and thought it a conspiracy. You're just using that ruse to attempt to make you sound more plausible in arguing your indoctrinated stance.
You don't fool me with that explanation.
-
One estimate was put at 40,000 technical personnel, excluding ancillary staff.
D.Day landings.
They aren't a secret - we know about them.
How many millions of soldiers, personnel, intelligence and a whole host of other parties involved, yet they apparently managed to fool the Germans, so we are led to believe. So tell me. How did all those people keep a secret? Not one person managed to infiltrate it all or one person let slip what was going down.
The whole German nation new an invasion of Northern Europe was coming, the trick was hiding the time and the place. Or rather fooling the high command (specifically Hitler) into believing the attack would take place anywhere but Normandy. You should read up on Operation Bodyguard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bodyguard). The German command had intelligence that an attack on Normandy was imminent, but they also had intelligence that attacks on lots of different places was likely. This led them to spread the defenses very thinly, and stopped reinforcements reaching the landing zones quickly.
I suspect you know nothing of the counter-intelligence operations, the whole "D-day was a secret" is brought up by in conspiracy forums, and you just parrot it with little understanding.
Aside from anything, the space program now spans 25 different (often competing) countries over 60 years. 500 individuals from 40 different countries have been into space. Comparing it to the D-Day landings is facile at best.
Who are you trying to convince, here? You've got no chance with me. You people are as transparent as the clearest glass. Your objectives are there for all to see. To hang onto the hollywood clap trap that's passed off as scientific amazement.
-
maybe it would suprise you to know that when i was younger i believed the 911 hoax and apollo hoax due to only having a partial interest at the time and thus being ideal fodder to soak up the conspiracy videos and articles. However as time went on the overwhelming inconsistencies in the theories prompted me to look at all angles and all availiable evidence and an now of an opposite viewpoint. I can look back on that period of naievity with some shame, something we all hold hope may also happen to you if you care to better yourself. With the wealth of information available now at your fingertips, there is no excuse for ignorance.
Look back on that period with some shame? Are you winding me up?
Stop telling blatant lies. You haven't looked at anything and thought it a conspiracy. You're just using that ruse to attempt to make you sound more plausible in arguing your indoctrinated stance.
You don't fool me with that explanation.
so even my past belief of some conspiracies are also part of a big lie? Sticking your fingers in your ears refusing to listen to anyone that doesnt agree with you does not make you more intelligent than the "indoctrinated" masses. And the sad thing is i think you know that deep down :)
-
Who are you trying to convince, here? You've got no chance with me. You people are as transparent as the clearest glass. Your objectives are there for all to see. To hang onto the hollywood clap trap that's passed off as scientific amazement.
Please list everything you believe is passed off.
-
maybe it would suprise you to know that when i was younger i believed the 911 hoax and apollo hoax due to only having a partial interest at the time and thus being ideal fodder to soak up the conspiracy videos and articles. However as time went on the overwhelming inconsistencies in the theories prompted me to look at all angles and all availiable evidence and an now of an opposite viewpoint. I can look back on that period of naievity with some shame, something we all hold hope may also happen to you if you care to better yourself. With the wealth of information available now at your fingertips, there is no excuse for ignorance.
Look back on that period with some shame? Are you winding me up?
Stop telling blatant lies. You haven't looked at anything and thought it a conspiracy. You're just using that ruse to attempt to make you sound more plausible in arguing your indoctrinated stance.
You don't fool me with that explanation.
so even my past belief of some conspiracies are also part of a big lie? Sticking your fingers in your ears refusing to listen to anyone that doesnt agree with you does not make you more intelligent than the "indoctrinated" masses. And the sad thing is i think you know that deep down :)
For a kid to believe something and then later find that it was naive, I can accept that. I don;t know what happened with you, or if you were just a kid and going along with it all, then finding out later that you were naive, I don't know - but if so, then I think it's more naive of you to have discarded it, based on what you actually see, now.
I was the opposite to you in that, I believed anything when I was a kid and now I find that a lot of it requires serious questioning.
-
Who are you trying to convince, here? You've got no chance with me. You people are as transparent as the clearest glass. Your objectives are there for all to see. To hang onto the hollywood clap trap that's passed off as scientific amazement.
Please list everything you believe is passed off.
Satellites.
Moon landings.
Moon rovers.
Mars rovers.
ISS.
Space rockets.
I could go on forever to be fair. I think you get my drift.
-
maybe it would suprise you to know that when i was younger i believed the 911 hoax and apollo hoax due to only having a partial interest at the time and thus being ideal fodder to soak up the conspiracy videos and articles. However as time went on the overwhelming inconsistencies in the theories prompted me to look at all angles and all availiable evidence and an now of an opposite viewpoint. I can look back on that period of naievity with some shame, something we all hold hope may also happen to you if you care to better yourself. With the wealth of information available now at your fingertips, there is no excuse for ignorance.
Look back on that period with some shame? Are you winding me up?
Stop telling blatant lies. You haven't looked at anything and thought it a conspiracy. You're just using that ruse to attempt to make you sound more plausible in arguing your indoctrinated stance.
You don't fool me with that explanation.
so even my past belief of some conspiracies are also part of a big lie? Sticking your fingers in your ears refusing to listen to anyone that doesnt agree with you does not make you more intelligent than the "indoctrinated" masses. And the sad thing is i think you know that deep down :)
For a kid to believe something and then later find that it was naive, I can accept that. I don;t know what happened with you, or if you were just a kid and going along with it all, then finding out later that you were naive, I don't know - but if so, then I think it's more naive of you to have discarded it, based on what you actually see, now.
I was the opposite to you in that, I believed anything when I was a kid and now I find that a lot of it requires serious questioning.
thats what i just said..i believed the conspiracy when i was younger and then realised it needed serious questioning..like most people do when they grow up and seek out information. And before you say i have been indoctrinated with misinformation, what is your alternative? The mish mash of contradicting fantasy theories that make up this website and change on a whim to suit any argument? :D
-
D.Day landings. How many millions of soldiers, personnel, intelligence and a whole host of other parties involved, yet they apparently managed to fool the Germans, so we are led to believe.
You obviously know virtually nothing about "Operation Overlord" or D-Day as you call it. The only people who knew the precise timing and location at Normandy were the seven members of the London Controlling Section (LCS) whose existence wasn't publicly revealed until 1969. Even the troops weren't in the know, and a massive amount of disinformation was produced during "Operation Fortitude".
To suggest that "millions" of personnel were involved in the cover up is ludicrous.
Not one person managed to infiltrate it all or one person let slip what was going down.
Exactly right. And which is why it was so successful. Duh...
-
There's been hundreds and hundreds of pictures and video that's been presented that stinks of being fake. The fact that people like you, desperately try to pass them off as being perfectly legitimate looking, tells me that your intentions are based on nothing other than to protect the lies.
Could you give us a few examples of why you, personally, believe a lot of the photographs and videos of the moon landings and satellites are bogus? Can you also post a few images and note specifically what makes them clearly bogus?
It's really pointless to claim there are thousands of fake images presented as authentic unless you post some of those images for us to assess. That's only fair, as we REs have posted dozens of images to support our case.
Can you also clarify exactly what vested interests you think people like me (or other REs) would have in supporting an allegedly massive, fraudulent space program coverup? As an individual, what'd be in it for me?
-
D.Day landings. How many millions of soldiers, personnel, intelligence and a whole host of other parties involved, yet they apparently managed to fool the Germans, so we are led to believe.
You obviously know virtually nothing about "Operation Overlord" or D-Day as you call it. The only people who knew the precise timing and location at Normandy were the seven members of the London Controlling Section (LCS) whose existence wasn't publicly revealed until 1969. Even the troops weren't in the know, and a massive amount of disinformation was produced during "Operation Fortitude".
To suggest that "millions" of personnel were involved in the cover up is ludicrous.
Not one person managed to infiltrate it all or one person let slip what was going down.
Exactly right. And which is why it was so successful. Duh...
I don't think you grasp what I'm getting at.
Most of the arguments by you people, especially inrelation to space, is that you say, 'how can it be fake, there were hundreds of thousands of people INVOLVED, how can they keep it a secret?"
Well there were millions INVOLVED in the D.Day carry on, we are led to believe, so what's the difference?
-
There's been hundreds and hundreds of pictures and video that's been presented that stinks of being fake. The fact that people like you, desperately try to pass them off as being perfectly legitimate looking, tells me that your intentions are based on nothing other than to protect the lies.
Could you give us a few examples of why you, personally, believe a lot of the photographs and videos of the moon landings and satellites are bogus? Can you also post a few images and note specifically what makes them clearly bogus?
It's really pointless to claim there are thousands of fake images presented as authentic unless you post some of those images for us to assess. That's only fair, as we REs have posted dozens of images to support our case.
Can you also clarify exactly what vested interests you think people like me (or other REs) would have in supporting an allegedly massive, fraudulent space program coverup? As an individual, what'd be in it for me?
I could put up many photo's, as has been done but you immediately go into frenzy mode and immediately deny there's nothing amiss.
As for what's in it for you. I don't know. Maybe you're just a staunch believer in all media or everything official and will argue the point based entirely on that.
I don't know what your motives are and I don't really care to be honest. It just puzzles me how people like you go into 100% denial mode against EVERYTHING that's said against ANY official line.
-
There's been hundreds and hundreds of pictures and video that's been presented that stinks of being fake. The fact that people like you, desperately try to pass them off as being perfectly legitimate looking, tells me that your intentions are based on nothing other than to protect the lies.
Could you give us a few examples of why you, personally, believe a lot of the photographs and videos of the moon landings and satellites are bogus? Can you also post a few images and note specifically what makes them clearly bogus?
It's really pointless to claim there are thousands of fake images presented as authentic unless you post some of those images for us to assess. That's only fair, as we REs have posted dozens of images to support our case.
Can you also clarify exactly what vested interests you think people like me (or other REs) would have in supporting an allegedly massive, fraudulent space program coverup? As an individual, what'd be in it for me?
I could put up many photo's, as has been done but you immediately go into frenzy mode and immediately deny there's nothing amiss.
As for what's in it for you. I don't know. Maybe you're just a staunch believer in all media or everything official and will argue the point based entirely on that.
I don't know what your motives are and I don't really care to be honest. It just puzzles me how people like you go into 100% denial mode against EVERYTHING that's said against ANY official line.
typical flat earth response when backed into a corner. How about we flip it around and instead of posting just one photo or video you believe is fake, how about you post just one photo or video you think proves the earth to be flat? :)
-
There's been hundreds and hundreds of pictures and video that's been presented that stinks of being fake. The fact that people like you, desperately try to pass them off as being perfectly legitimate looking, tells me that your intentions are based on nothing other than to protect the lies.
Could you give us a few examples of why you, personally, believe a lot of the photographs and videos of the moon landings and satellites are bogus? Can you also post a few images and note specifically what makes them clearly bogus?
It's really pointless to claim there are thousands of fake images presented as authentic unless you post some of those images for us to assess. That's only fair, as we REs have posted dozens of images to support our case.
Can you also clarify exactly what vested interests you think people like me (or other REs) would have in supporting an allegedly massive, fraudulent space program coverup? As an individual, what'd be in it for me?
I could put up many photo's, as has been done but you immediately go into frenzy mode and immediately deny there's nothing amiss.
As for what's in it for you. I don't know. Maybe you're just a staunch believer in all media or everything official and will argue the point based entirely on that.
I don't know what your motives are and I don't really care to be honest. It just puzzles me how people like you go into 100% denial mode against EVERYTHING that's said against ANY official line.
typical flat earth response when backed into a corner. How about we flip it around and instead of posting just one photo or video you believe is fake, how about you post just one photo or video you think proves the earth to be flat? :)
How about you post just one photo or video that shows the earth to be a ball. YOUR video or photo, not a random pile of garbage spewed out by N.A.S.A or affiliates.
-
This video shows to what extent a country new to the space charade goes through to prove they are a technologically strong country.
China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 1) (http://#)
-
Well there were millions INVOLVED in the D.Day carry on, we are led to believe, so what's the difference?
I totally disagree with this particular claim of yours.
Can you please post a link confirming that there were millions of people involved with D-Day?
-
I could put up many photo's, as has been done but you immediately go into frenzy mode and immediately deny there's nothing amiss. As for what's in it for you. I don't know. Maybe you're just a staunch believer in all media or everything official and will argue the point based entirely on that.
I only want you to post two or three of your photos to prove your point that they're bogus. And I can assure you that I won't go into "a frenzy" LOL. I just want the chance to see the type of photographic fraud you're talking about. Surely it's not beyond your capabilities to post a few images? Or do you really expect me to just take your word for it—sight unseen?
I don't know what your motives are and I don't really care to be honest. It just puzzles me how people like you go into 100% denial mode against EVERYTHING that's said against ANY official line.
I don't have any "motives" in accepting the legitimacy of the photographic images—that's the whole point. I'm asking you to tell me what you think those motives might be.
So... can you tell me what motivates you to write off the entire space program as one massive fraud? Something must be motivating your extreme resistance to accepting that even some of the images are genuine. What is it? Do you think people are out to "get you"? Or the US government and NASA are all criminals with ulterior motives? You're starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy theorist with every comment.
And I must say it's actually quite funny that you're accusing the REs of going into 100% "denial mode" in defence of the official line—when it's actually you that's doing that repeatedly whenever you're asked to provide even the tiniest modicum of evidence for your FE theory.
-
When you calm down, Geoff, we can get back to normality. Until you stop the frenzy, I can't be bothered to show you anything.
-
Who are you trying to convince, here? You've got no chance with me.
I know. You appear to be here to play silly games and make things up, as it makes you feel better about you place in the world, for reasons I can't intuitively grasp. I'm happy to play along for the moment, when I'm not, I'll leave.
You people are as transparent as the clearest glass. Your objectives are there for all to see. To hang onto the hollywood clap trap that's passed off as scientific amazement.
OK, that's great. Have you anything of substance to add to the debate?
Reading through your posts you seem to just like blowing smoke, constantly making out you are better than everyone else as you are the only one to see through the Big Lie. Why don't you try bringing some evidence to the table for once? Or at least some intelligent debate
-
When you calm down, Geoff, we can get back to normality. Until you stop the frenzy, I can't be bothered to show you anything.
asking you to back up what you state as fact with evidence is not a frenzy, it is what we re'rs do time and again, and something you have yet to even attempt.
-
Who are you trying to convince, here? You've got no chance with me.
I know. You appear to be here to play silly games and make things up, as it makes you feel better about you place in the world, for reasons I can't intuitively grasp. I'm happy to play along for the moment, when I'm not, I'll leave.
You people are as transparent as the clearest glass. Your objectives are there for all to see. To hang onto the hollywood clap trap that's passed off as scientific amazement.
OK, that's great. Have you anything of substance to add to the debate?
Reading through your posts you seem to just like blowing smoke, constantly making out you are better than everyone else as you are the only one to see through the Big Lie. Why don't you try bringing some evidence to the table for once? Or at least some intelligent debate
I'll stick to what I'm doing, thanks.
-
Have you anything of substance to add to the debate?
...
Or at least some intelligent debate?
I'll stick to what I'm doing, thanks.
Ha! Classic.
At least you were honest.
-
When you calm down, Geoff, we can get back to normality. Until you stop the frenzy, I can't be bothered to show you anything.
asking you to back up what you state as fact with evidence is not a frenzy, it is what we re'rs do time and again, and something you have yet to even attempt.
If you keep telling yourself this, you will eventually believe it. That's what your handlers done to you at the schools and colleges you attended. It can be like an unshakeable virus, one which you have to live with because you get to the stage where it's gripped you so hard, it's thought of as the norm and accepted. Only a large dose of reality pills will aid you in ridding yourself of it. They're cheap and in abundance and I'm just one supplier.
-
If you keep telling yourself this, you will eventually believe it.
That's your trick, not his.
That's what your handlers done to you at the schools and colleges you attended. It can be like an unshakeable virus, one which you have to live with because you get to the stage where it's gripped you so hard, it's thought of as the norm and accepted. Only a large dose of reality pills will aid you in ridding yourself of it. They're cheap and in abundance and I'm just one supplier.
More blah, blah. Bring some evidence. Go on, I dare ya.
-
If you keep telling yourself this, you will eventually believe it.
That's your trick, not his.
That's what your handlers done to you at the schools and colleges you attended. It can be like an unshakeable virus, one which you have to live with because you get to the stage where it's gripped you so hard, it's thought of as the norm and accepted. Only a large dose of reality pills will aid you in ridding yourself of it. They're cheap and in abundance and I'm just one supplier.
More blah, blah. Bring some evidence. Go on, I dare ya.
Certainly. What would you like? Be specific in what you would like me to show you that will make you come out of that shell of yours and stop nipping.
-
If you keep telling yourself this, you will eventually believe it.
That's your trick, not his.
That's what your handlers done to you at the schools and colleges you attended. It can be like an unshakeable virus, one which you have to live with because you get to the stage where it's gripped you so hard, it's thought of as the norm and accepted. Only a large dose of reality pills will aid you in ridding yourself of it. They're cheap and in abundance and I'm just one supplier.
More blah, blah. Bring some evidence. Go on, I dare ya.
Certainly. What would you like? Be specific in what you would like me to show you that will make you come out of that shell of yours and stop nipping.
A map of the flat earth, explanation of south facing tv satellite dishes on the south coast.
-
If you keep telling yourself this, you will eventually believe it.
That's your trick, not his.
That's what your handlers done to you at the schools and colleges you attended. It can be like an unshakeable virus, one which you have to live with because you get to the stage where it's gripped you so hard, it's thought of as the norm and accepted. Only a large dose of reality pills will aid you in ridding yourself of it. They're cheap and in abundance and I'm just one supplier.
More blah, blah. Bring some evidence. Go on, I dare ya.
Certainly. What would you like? Be specific in what you would like me to show you that will make you come out of that shell of yours and stop nipping.
as has already been requested repeatedly - i belive geoff wanted evidence to back your claim that millions were involved with d-day and i have requested just one photo or video you believe proves a flat earth OR just one video or photo you claim proves the space programme is fake...
-
If you keep telling yourself this, you will eventually believe it.
That's your trick, not his.
That's what your handlers done to you at the schools and colleges you attended. It can be like an unshakeable virus, one which you have to live with because you get to the stage where it's gripped you so hard, it's thought of as the norm and accepted. Only a large dose of reality pills will aid you in ridding yourself of it. They're cheap and in abundance and I'm just one supplier.
More blah, blah. Bring some evidence. Go on, I dare ya.
Certainly. What would you like? Be specific in what you would like me to show you that will make you come out of that shell of yours and stop nipping.
A map of the flat earth, explanation of south facing tv satellite dishes on the south coast.
Ok, I'm going to need some help from you. In order for me to get you this map, I need the finance to map the entire earth, for real. How do you suggest we do this?
As for your south facing satellite dishes. Stop getting yourself into a tizzy over it. You don't even know what you're talking about; you're simply just mentioning it because nobody will answer you and for good reason.
-
If you keep telling yourself this, you will eventually believe it.
That's your trick, not his.
That's what your handlers done to you at the schools and colleges you attended. It can be like an unshakeable virus, one which you have to live with because you get to the stage where it's gripped you so hard, it's thought of as the norm and accepted. Only a large dose of reality pills will aid you in ridding yourself of it. They're cheap and in abundance and I'm just one supplier.
More blah, blah. Bring some evidence. Go on, I dare ya.
Certainly. What would you like? Be specific in what you would like me to show you that will make you come out of that shell of yours and stop nipping.
as has already been requested repeatedly - i belive geoff wanted evidence to back your claim that millions were involved with d-day and i have requested just one photo or video you believe proves a flat earth OR just one video or photo you claim proves the space programme is fake...
I can't back up any claim about D-day, except to assume there were millions involved as we are told, which is why I said, 'so we are told.'
Apparently there were a lot of soldiers involved in it all. My point though, still stands.
-
Certainly. What would you like? Be specific in what you would like me to show you
OK, I'd like one single shred of physical evidence that an ice dome exists above the earth.
-
If you keep telling yourself this, you will eventually believe it.
That's your trick, not his.
That's what your handlers done to you at the schools and colleges you attended. It can be like an unshakeable virus, one which you have to live with because you get to the stage where it's gripped you so hard, it's thought of as the norm and accepted. Only a large dose of reality pills will aid you in ridding yourself of it. They're cheap and in abundance and I'm just one supplier.
More blah, blah. Bring some evidence. Go on, I dare ya.
Certainly. What would you like? Be specific in what you would like me to show you that will make you come out of that shell of yours and stop nipping.
as has already been requested repeatedly - i belive geoff wanted evidence to back your claim that millions were involved with d-day and i have requested just one photo or video you believe proves a flat earth OR just one video or photo you claim proves the space programme is fake...
I can't back up any claim about D-day, except to assume there were millions involved as we are told, which is why I said, 'so we are told.'
Apparently there were a lot of soldiers involved in it all. My point though, still stands.
keep trying you are nearly there! You know the bit where you said "there were millions involved as we are told" - if you can reference a source of some kind that is what we would call backing up your claim with evidence. And how about the photos and videos?
-
Why can you not explain the south facing satellite tv dishes I see?
-
OK, I'd like one single shred of physical evidence that an ice dome exists above the earth.
JimmyTheCrab, please do not try to deliberately derail threads. Thanks.
-
Why can you not explain the south facing satellite tv dishes I see?
Probably because the transmitters are to the south of the dishes? ::)
-
Certainly. What would you like? Be specific in what you would like me to show you
OK, I'd like one single shred of physical evidence that an ice dome exists above the earth.
If you can think of one possible way for me to directly prove this then tell me, because I can't figure out a way to do it without dying on attempt.
-
OK, I'd like one single shred of physical evidence that an ice dome exists above the earth.
JimmyTheCrab, please do not try to deliberately derail threads. Thanks.
It wasn't deliberate. The OP was about axial tilt, as far as I can see this didn't get discussed past page 1. The other 7 pages are about all sorts of stuff, so how am I derailing it?
-
Certainly. What would you like? Be specific in what you would like me to show you
OK, I'd like one single shred of physical evidence that an ice dome exists above the earth.
If you can think of one possible way for me to directly prove this then tell me, because I can't figure out a way to do it without dying on attempt.
Oh, sorry, it's just you seem convinced that such a dome exists - I didn't realise that it was a faith based position.
Anyway, how about looking at it through a large telescope? Maybe bounce a signal off it? Do you own thinking, I'm not here to spoon feed you.
-
It wasn't deliberate. The OP was about axial tilt, as far as I can see this didn't get discussed past page 1. The other 7 pages are about all sorts of stuff, so how am I derailing it?
JimmyTheCrab, please do not further derail a thread by arguing about moderation in the same thread that the warning was given. This is also against the rules. You can argue/complain about warnings all you want in the Suggestions and Concerns section.
-
When you calm down, Geoff, we can get back to normality. Until you stop the frenzy, I can't be bothered to show you anything.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "calm down", or we can get back to "normality". I wasn't actually aware I was in a "frenzy" either. If you saw any parts of my response as any of those things, I can only apologise.
Now, can you address some of the questions I asked you, and also post a few of the images you claim are bogus?
-
JimmyTheCrab, please do not further derail a thread by arguing about moderation in the same thread that the warning was given. This is also against the rules. You can argue/complain about warnings all you want in the Suggestions and Concerns section.
I am honestly not trying to do this on purpose: I've no idea what derailment in this context means.
What subject should I post on that won't constitute derailment?
If you don't moderate with some guidance, then I don't know how to change my behavior appropriately.
-
As has already been requested repeatedly - i believe Geoff wanted evidence to back your claim that millions were involved with d-day and i have requested just one photo or video you believe proves a flat earth OR just one video or photo you claim proves the space programme is fake...
Yep. That was all I originally asked sceptimatic for. One single piece of evidence supporting his claim that millions of people were involved with D-Day. I don't understand why he hasn't addressed that—basically simple—question?
And if he were to post even one genuine photographic image or some video footage showing a flat earth in real time, then he'd embarrass a lot of REs on this forum in one fell swoop.
So... why no images of any type at all from sceptimatic?
-
When you calm down, Geoff, we can get back to normality. Until you stop the frenzy, I can't be bothered to show you anything.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "calm down", or we can get back to "normality". I wasn't actually aware I was in a "frenzy" either. If you saw any parts of my response as any of those things, I can only apologise.
Now, can you address some of the questions I asked you, and also post a few of the images you claim are bogus?
Make a topic about what you specifically require and I'll see what I can do for you. Do not put up the topic if your sole intention is to go into frenzy mode and immediately dismiss the evidence presented. If you put up the topic, I expect you to look at it all as a neutral and not as an indoctrinated full on debunker of anything that goes against that grain.
If I've made myself clear, then you may carry on.
-
When you calm down, Geoff, we can get back to normality. Until you stop the frenzy, I can't be bothered to show you anything.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "calm down", or we can get back to "normality". I wasn't actually aware I was in a "frenzy" either. If you saw any parts of my response as any of those things, I can only apologise.
Now, can you address some of the questions I asked you, and also post a few of the images you claim are bogus?
Make a topic about what you specifically require and I'll see what I can do for you. Do not put up the topic if your sole intention is to go into frenzy mode and immediately dismiss the evidence presented. If you put up the topic, I expect you to look at it all as a neutral and not as an indoctrinated full on debunker of anything that goes against that grain.
If I've made myself clear, then you may carry on.
done http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61007.0 (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61007.0)
-
This video shows to what extent a country new to the space charade goes through to prove they are a technologically strong country.
China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 1) (http://#)
HA! That's gold :)
Communism.. it never ceases to amaze me.
-
This video shows to what extent a country new to the space charade goes through to prove they are a technologically strong country.
China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 1) (http://#)
HA! That's gold :)
Communism.. it never ceases to amaze me.
Putting together a bunch of video clips together doesn't necessarily prove something fake... I mean I could go on all day about how NASA faked the moon landings, except they didn't also air bubbles can often seen escaping from space suits in space so I'm not really sure what your problem with that is?
-
So, next question. Who guarded the Ice Wall before NASA started doing it about 64 yrs ago?
-
Nobody guards the ice wall. Why would they need to? It's really, really cold there.
-
Of course, that's assuming there IS one. So far, FEers can't even agree on a map of the Earth. I've seen 2 discoid maps, 1 w/ a S. Pole & 1 w/o one. Both maps present difficulties. The unipolar map messes up travel time & distance the further South you go. The bipolar map messes up circumnavigation of the Earth @ the Equator. But in truth, neither map is accurate. So what's left? Not much. But there never was. The emperor never had clothes. Let's face it, folks. Flat Earth 'Theory' is no more a theory than pink unicorns on Mars. It just won't hold up to even casual cross-examination. If this were a legal issue, it would be laughed out of any courtroom in the land.
-
Nice commentary, but do you want to talk about the ice wall guards some more, or are you ready to move on?
-
Let's see...
The Ice Wall exists..
Heaven Exists...
How are these two statements linked?
They're 100% faith based, they have zero evidence to support them - and only true believers speak of them as if they are real.
Only one statement though can be 100% debunked.. both statements are delusional but at least the ones that believe in Heaven cannot prove or disprove the notion.. the others are just mental.
-
I'd rather talk about a simple inability of FE 'theorists' to even give me a decent map of the Earth. The guards are irrelevant if no ice wall exists (on the bipolar map).
-
I hear ya.. how long have these nutters been around in their current form? you'd think by now they'd have agreed on at least one pretend map and call it their own...
and that was your 666'th post! :o eek!
-
People go to the "ice wall" all the time and live to tell the tale. Does the same thing happen with Heaven?
-
Ah, that was completely random. Tell me: are there or are there not 2 poles on the flat Earth? Trying to compare which map if either is accurate for an FEer v. Heaven is like comparing apples & baseballs. I won't even use the usual 'oranges' because that's still a fruit. What the f--- does heaven have to do w/ a map of Earth? Heaven, if it exists, is a philosophical construct rather than a physical place. Earth exists. & yes. People go to a very icy place & come back. Its called Antarctica. It's very f---ing cold, @ the bottom of a spherical Earth.
-
Yaakov, you must have missed this post.
Let's see...
The Ice Wall exists..
Heaven Exists...
How are these two statements linked?
They're 100% faith based, they have zero evidence to support them - and only true believers speak of them as if they are real.
Only one statement though can be 100% debunked.. both statements are delusional but at least the ones that believe in Heaven cannot prove or disprove the notion.. the others are just mental.
-
I did miss it. But alpha's point is correct. There is no ice wall.
-
People go to the "ice wall" all the time and live to tell the tale. Does the same thing happen with Heaven?
Why have you said so many times that no one goes there?
Some consistency please.. too much to ask?
-
Ah, that was completely random. Tell me: are there or are there not 2 poles on the flat Earth? Trying to compare which map if either is accurate for an FEer v. Heaven is like comparing apples & baseballs. I won't even use the usual 'oranges' because that's still a fruit. What the f--- does heaven have to do w/ a map of Earth? Heaven, if it exists, is a philosophical construct rather than a physical place. Earth exists. & yes. People go to a very icy place & come back. Its called Antarctica. It's very f---ing cold, @ the bottom of a spherical Earth.
You're right, heaven is a philosophical place.. earth is not, but the idea of a FLAT Earth is.
Both are constructs of faith.
-
People go to the "ice wall" all the time and live to tell the tale. Does the same thing happen with Heaven?
Why have you said so many times that no one goes there?
Some consistency please.. too much to ask?
You are confusing Antarctica with the edge of the Earth. People have been to the "ice wall", they just have not been able to go far enough past the shore to reach the edge, if one exists.
-
I did miss it. But alpha's point is correct. There is no ice wall.
Just a small thing..
My nick is Alfa 156 Melb... Alfa as in Alfa Romeo... not Alpha..
No biggy.. :)
-
So which FETheorist do I believe? You, or the many who say Antarctica IS the Ice Wall? You see, this isn't theories of God, where you're allowed your own because no one can rationally or irrationally disagree w/ you. This is science. People have mapped the world, & know what it looks like. & it doesn't look flat. Scientists have gone beyond math, & have seen & surveyed the planet. Guess what? Its f---ing round! That is proven. Its like saying 'the Pope is Catholic.' No shit.
-
So which FETheorist do I believe? You, or the many who say Antarctica IS the Ice Wall? You see, this isn't theories of God, where you're allowed your own because no one can rationally or irrationally disagree w/ you. This is science. People have mapped the world, & know what it looks like. & it doesn't look flat. Scientists have gone beyond math, & have seen & surveyed the planet. Guess what? Its f---ing round! That is proven. Its like saying 'the Pope is Catholic.' No shit.
Earth is for sure round, but it's also for sure concave and for sure there is also a celestial dome rotating above all of our heads and yes there is an outer side of Earth but no we are not on it, we are on the inside of Earth!
-
Sculelos, you're an awfully nice guy & all. But I think you should seriously inquire as to the state of your rationality, @ least on this topic. I don't even have the proper words to reply to something so outside the realm of logical.
-
So which FETheorist do I believe? You, or the many who say Antarctica IS the Ice Wall?
I keep saying that Antarctica is the "ice wall".
-
So, Antarctica is the Ice Wall. Which means you must use the unipolar map. & there are no guards there. Except the FEers who say there are. & excepting the FEers who use a bipolar map, in which case there is no Ice Wall, or there is, but it's not Antarctica. & the Earth is either a disc w/ finite size & edges, or an infinite plane. & FEers can't agree on any of this! Not even on a map. All the navigational maps & charts are made by REers. Probably because all the navigators, helmsmen, pilots, & captains both of sea & air vessels are all REers. & thank the Lords of Kobol for that! Can you imagine a FE sea captain w/ 800 passengers & a unipolar map trying to get from the Falklands to Sydney? He'd probably crash headlong into Wellington, NZ on the way!
-
So which FETheorist do I believe? You, or the many who say Antarctica IS the Ice Wall?
I keep saying that Antarctica is the "ice wall".
So what stops the sea from falling off "the edge"? It clearly isn't Antarctica, as it's surrounded by sea.
-
Or, the sea is surrounded by Antarctica.
-
Still no answer to the map issue?
-
To what map issue are you referring?
-
Read my message that includes a reference to sailing from the Falklands to Sydney.
-
Oh, those were serious questions? I thought the whole post was just a barely understandable rant.
Give me a minute to try to decipher the post.
-
Let's be frank. There is not a single travel or freight transport system in the world that takes FET maps seriously. Why? Because they are all inaccurate from Hell to breakfast. You can't get there from here, ultimately.
-
Ok, I have read the post in question several times, and this is the only question I can find.
Can you imagine a FE sea captain w/ 800 passengers & a unipolar map trying to get from the Falklands to Sydney?
So, to answer your question, yes, I can.
-
Exactly how? The distance between the 2 locations is severely exaggerated on a unipolar map. & there are other questions there. For example, why can't FEers agree on a proper map? Why can't they agree on the shape & extent of the Earth (discoid & finite or infinite plane)? You can't even tell me how far apart Sydney & the Falklands are (the answer is very different depending on which map, unipolar or bipolar, one uses) from each other.
-
Why do you assume that any of our maps present any distances? I have not seen a scale on the uni-polar or bi-polar map, yet, somehow, you RE'ers can ascertain not only the distance between points, but also whether or not the distance is accurate, as if you have some kind of supernatural ability to measure distance with your eyes.
-
Why do you assume that any of our maps present any distances? I have not seen a scale on the uni-polar or bi-polar map, yet, somehow, you RE'ers can ascertain not only the distance between points, but also whether or not the distance is accurate, as if you have some kind of supernatural ability to measure distance with your eyes.
Why do you FE'ers always assume that things are done in the most illogical ways? There are many ways to work out the scale of a diagram with no scale listed.
-
What if it is a non-linear scale? Have you ever considered that before?
-
So, what you're telling me is that, whichever map you choose to work w/ (& remember that FEers can't decide which is correct), neither 1 can be used for navigation. So even FEers use RE navigational charts (which are the only ones made). Why? Because they have nothing to use themselves. You can't get there from here on a FE map. But, its harder than that. FEers have no math or logic to back them. Both their maps are navigationally worthless (we have seen the problem in the South w/ the unipolar map; the bipolar map makes it impossible to circumnavigate @ the equator). So, what answers do they have? A 150 yr old book of marginal value & conflicting theories on which none of them can agree. Any response would be welcome.
-
That's funny. I don't remember ever seeing a globe in the cockpit of an airplane, yet somehow, the pilots still manage to get from point A to point B.
-
That's a simply stupid response. They use Mercator-type maps, which assume the sphericity of the Earth. Further, they rely on Air Traffic Control & computers, all of which operate on RE science.
-
That's funny. I don't remember ever seeing a globe in the cockpit of an airplane, yet somehow, the pilots still manage to get from point A to point B.
right outside the windows.
-
That's a simply stupid response. They use Mercator-type maps, which assume the sphericity of the Earth. Further, they rely on Air Traffic Control & computers, all of which operate on RE science.
So, back in the days before Air Traffic Control and Computers, flat maps were perfectly acceptable for navigation. I see.
-
Why do you assume that any of our maps present any distances? I have not seen a scale on the uni-polar or bi-polar map, yet, somehow, you RE'ers can ascertain not only the distance between points, but also whether or not the distance is accurate, as if you have some kind of supernatural ability to measure distance with your eyes.
Clearly distances are known for travel by sea and air, tested many times. Please answer the question about why you cannot provide a map for a flat earth.
-
But we have presented maps. ??? Just because you do not like them, that does not mean that we do not provide them.
-
Again, Mercator maps have as their basic premise the fact that the Earth is round. You either never took 9th Grade Geography, or failed miserably when you did. A Mercator map bears no similarity to a FE map. A Mercator map seeks to render a 3D concept (a ball) into a 2D format. But no one looking @ the format pretends to think that it is the accurate shape of what we're observing. FE maps actually claim to be accurate representations of Earth.
-
One again, you assume the scale of our FE maps is linear.
-
But we have presented maps. ??? Just because you do not like them, that does not mean that we do not provide them.
Link to recognised site please. Do all distances agree with actual measured ones?
-
FEers can't present a map that all agree on is the point.
-
One again, you assume the scale of our FE maps is linear.
Why would they be anything else if they are representing a flat surface.
-
Link to recognised site please.
Here you go.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/4/43/Map.png/400px-Map.png)
Do all distances agree with actual measured ones?
I don't understand what you mean by that. Of course, it would not be a map if it did not represent the actual Earth.
-
Jroa, the point of a map is to get from here to there. That involves linear measurement. How many kilometers is it from the Falklands to Sydney? If your map can't indicate that, then it serves no purpose. And if it was not even intended for that purpose, then for what purpose was it intended?
-
Who uses a map of the entire Earth to get from one place to another? Probably not very many people, whether they are RE or FE. Yet, you people, for some reason, insist that you should be able to make a short trip using only a FE map, and if you can't, then it must be false.
Sometimes you people surprise me, but not when it comes to maps. RE'ers are like a broken record, saying the same things over and over.
-
Who uses a map of the entire Earth to get from one place to another? Probably not very many people, whether they are RE or FE. Yet, you people, for some reason, insist that you should be able to make a short trip using only a FE map, and if you can't, then it must be false.
Sometimes you people surprise me, but not when it comes to maps. RE'ers are like a broken record, saying the same things over and over.
how about planning a trip say from west to east australia for example. Going by that portion of your map australia is about 6 times wider west to east than it is north to south.
-
I might not use a map of the whole Earth to go from Omaha to Las Vegas, but if I'm going from Omaha to Moscow I probably will, @ least to figure out basic distance & time. The same goes for the Falklands to Sydney. If I'm going that far, I'm probably going to consult a world map for basic distance & time, certainly if I'm going by sea. After those calculations, I'll consult navigational charts of the waters through which I must go (& which are made assuming sphericity & the measurements attendant on that, btw). IOW, the whole trip will be made assuming the earth is round, & those are the scientific presuppositions that will be made.
-
So the shortest distance from the Falklands to Australia is via the North Pole...
-
Who uses a map of the entire Earth to get from one place to another? Probably not very many people, whether they are RE or FE. Yet, you people, for some reason, insist that you should be able to make a short trip using only a FE map, and if you can't, then it must be false.
Sometimes you people surprise me, but not when it comes to maps. RE'ers are like a broken record, saying the same things over and over.
how about planning a trip say from west to east australia for example. Going by that portion of your map australia is about 6 times wider west to east than it is north to south.
How about it? Please plan a trip and tell us if your trip was accurate. Thanks.
-
I might not use a map of the whole Earth to go from Omaha to Las Vegas, but if I'm going from Omaha to Moscow I probably will, @ least to figure out basic distance & time. The same goes for the Falklands to Sydney. If I'm going that far, I'm probably going to consult a world map for basic distance & time, certainly if I'm going by sea. After those calculations, I'll consult navigational charts of the waters through which I must go (& which are made assuming sphericity & the measurements attendant on that, btw). IOW, the whole trip will be made assuming the earth is round, & those are the scientific presuppositions that will be made.
Is the most accurate map of the entire Earth not a globe? Why would you not just pick up a globe and set sail using it, seeing as you say that our maps are so useless.
-
On an FE map? Possibly.
-
Who uses a map of the entire Earth to get from one place to another? Probably not very many people, whether they are RE or FE. Yet, you people, for some reason, insist that you should be able to make a short trip using only a FE map, and if you can't, then it must be false.
Sometimes you people surprise me, but not when it comes to maps. RE'ers are like a broken record, saying the same things over and over.
how about planning a trip say from west to east australia for example. Going by that portion of your map australia is about 6 times wider west to east than it is north to south.
How about it? Please plan a trip and tell us if your trip was accurate. Thanks.
Because it wouldnt be possible, your map bares no resemblance to the world we live on. It almost makes you wonder why no one uses it. Its so inaccurate its quite comical. ;D
-
Again, you display your ignorance of high school geography. A Mercator map is not a FE map. Nor are navigational charts FE maps. They are very detailed 2D presentations of a 3D concept.
-
Again, you display your ignorance of high school geography. A Mercator map is not a FE map. Nor are navigational charts FE maps. They are very detailed 2D presentations of a 3D concept.
You're right. Here is a Mercator map.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Mercator_projection_SW.jpg/300px-Mercator_projection_SW.jpg)
-
I'm on my phone, & can't see the display, but I do know what a mercator map looks like. So, your point?
-
My point is that a Mercator projection displays the continents with the North pole at the top and the south pole at the bottom. I don't remember any FE'er presenting this map before, other than the bi-polar map which can loosely be associated with a Mercator projection.
-
My point is that a Mercator projection displays the continents with the North pole at the top and the south pole at the bottom. I don't remember any FE'er presenting this map before, other than the bi-polar map which can loosely be associated with a Mercator projection.
A flat earth map has no need of projection, strange there is not one.
-
Strange that you claim the map is distorted and then claim that it is not.
-
Ok. But your point is a non-point. The difference between a FE map & a Mercator projection is that you assume the FE map is what the Earth actually looks like. Whe know that that the Mercator map is an approximation in 2D of what a 3D ball looks like. Well, I must be off shopping. See you all later.
-
Well, then, why did you bring up a Mercator projection is you are going to just dismiss it?
-
Well, then, why did you bring up a Mercator projection is you are going to just dismiss it?
The Mercator projection is perfect for what it does, it keeps lines of latitude and longitude exactly proportional and equal to each other through the entire map therefore it's the most perfect map possible for navigation which is why most gps systems use the mercator map as a base for the system.
However the Mercator projection is not proof of a convex Earth, concave Earth nor a flat Earth as it has very specific goals to fulfill and fulfills them perfectly however it is not proof of shape, nor is it proof of distance between points which is the two main points of grief the map gets. To be honest though this is the most perfect map of Earth in regards to shape but not distance as distance is variable.
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/t1/1901132_580956001988449_680899667_n.jpg)
-
I don't remember ever seeing a globe in the cockpit of an airplane...
We've been here before, many times.
I just pulled out a WAC* that I had lying about and checked to see what area it covered. It covers an area ~570km by ~440km. Now, go get a globe, mark out an area 570km by 440km, and tell me how much it deviates from 'flat'. Not much you say? That's why flat maps are okay for navigation on a spherical earth.
* World Aeronautical Chart, specifically number 3357. These charts are used by pilots flying VFR (visual flight rules) to plan trips and to navigate. They work. They work exceptionally well. They are slightly distorted at the edges though, due to the fact that they are a flat representation of a round surface, but because they only cover a small area (by design), the distortions are not severe enough to cause problems.
-
'Distance is variable' Please explain.
-
But we have presented maps. ??? Just because you do not like them, that does not mean that we do not provide them.
You've presented child like drawings which you claim to me 'maps'.. they don't have distance, scale, coordinates.. so they are no more useful than a pair of tits on a bull..
And frankly, if you want to call it a map, then it needs to be an accurate representation of the earth, or it is just a work of pre school art.
-
One again, you assume the scale of our FE maps is linear.
Yes and why wouldn't we? It's a MAP.. it should be linear.. that's like ridiculing us because we assumed the wheel to be.. you know.. round!
It aint much use to anyone if the scale is not linear! lol So what is this non linear scale? are we to guess it or something?
You surely must know how much of a joke you are?
-
Link to recognised site please.
Here you go.
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/4/43/Map.png/400px-Map.png)
Do all distances agree with actual measured ones?
OK, where's the scale on it?
Where are the lat and long coordinates?
I don't understand what you mean by that. Of course, it would not be a map if it did not represent the actual Earth.
-
& I mentioned a mercator map only because you brought up the remarkably foolish idea of using a globe in a cockpit. Flat maps are better for navigational purposes. But none of us pretend that they represent the shape of the planet. They take the surface & lay it out flat. It would be like peeling an orange in a one piece rind, & then laying that rind (or peel) flat on the table. That shows you the peel laid flat. It does NOT show you the shape of the orange. The mercator map shows the surface of the earth laid flat. It does NOT show the shape of the Earth.
-
Who uses a map of the entire Earth to get from one place to another? Probably not very many people, whether they are RE or FE. Yet, you people, for some reason, insist that you should be able to make a short trip using only a FE map, and if you can't, then it must be false.
Sometimes you people surprise me, but not when it comes to maps. RE'ers are like a broken record, saying the same things over and over.
Not many use the entire earth for NAV, but maybe for planning a long trip - regardless, its missing the critical things that make it a map.. or would, if they were there.. So in the end, its a picture.. artwork..
-
I can't back up any claim about D-day, except to assume there were millions involved as we are told, which is why I said, 'so we are told.'
Apparently there were a lot of soldiers involved in it all. My point though, still stands.
RIGHT! I see this as an opportunity to break all of this to-ing and fro-ing down to the very basics in an attempt to at least show you why you get absolutely no buy-in from 'unbelievers' on this site:
1. You are using a claim - millions involved in D-Day - to 'prove' your point regarding the cover up that is on-going with regards the earth being flat.
2. You 'can't back up any claim about D-Day' and instead 'assume', or rather it's what 'we' (not sure who that is, not me anyway) were told (so it's not an assumption is it).
3. That said, your, and you've just admitted this, unverified, received 'wisdom' forms the basis for your belief that all space travel is bogus, as are the products of that travel, and you think we should believe you.
and, finally,
4. Not only that, but this 'assumption' (it's not an assumption, remember) holds more weight than every photo, every astronaut's story, every bit of empirical data that exists to the contrary - and this 'assumption' (which it isn't..) is something that 'was told to you' and which you claim to be true, a propos of any sort of confirmation or double-checking ... WHICH IS THE ONE THING YOU CONSTANTLY CRITICISE PEOPLE FOR ACCEPTING AS SUFFICIENT TO FORM THE BASIS OF 'FACT' OR 'TRUTH'.
If you can't understand this (and I like many others think you're just playing with us) then:
a. You don't understand English properly
or..
actually that's it..
Sounds like the corporations have got to you and infected you with their lies about how many people were involved in D-Day.. Come to www.D-day7.com (http://www.D-day7.com) and we'll set you straight..
-
I could think of a few other reasons why they don't get it.. unless they are taking the piss - which is plausible. Mrs Afla156Melb is convinced they are just a bunch of bored geeks who like a good argument.
They do understand English, I think it's more a form of http://www.helpguide.org/mental/schizophrenia_symptom.htm (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/schizophrenia_symptom.htm)
-
I could think of a few other reasons why they don't get it.. unless they are taking the piss - which is plausible. Mrs Afla156Melb is convinced they are just a bunch of bored geeks who like a good argument.
They do understand English, I think it's more a form of http://www.helpguide.org/mental/schizophrenia_symptom.htm (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/schizophrenia_symptom.htm)
I assume it's a heady mix of military-grade, and if so HIGHLY COMMENDABLE), trolling and the arrogance of the solipsist.
Unfortunately we'll never know I guess, but the only explanation I won't accept is that they actually believe the Earth is flat
-
I actually think a couple of them do. And a weird ass concave earth..
I'd be hugely disapointed of they are taking it up us - that would take all the fun away!
-
'Distance is variable' Please explain.
Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.
So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.
-
'Distance is variable' Please explain.
Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.
So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.
Your size does not affect the distance that things are from you - try it sometime, get a friend who is a different size and walk with them somewhere, you'll probably get there at the same time!
-
'Distance is variable' Please explain.
Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.
So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.
You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?
I commend your creativity!
-
'Distance is variable' Please explain.
Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.
So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.
You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?
I commend your creativity!
It's usually my own unless I am specifically giving credit to other people. As for the distance I described I only described how to read the map I posted, I'm not speaking about changing size distance in real life in relation to the Earth even though I think it might be a possibility but I'm still faced with the fact that it does map to a "perfect" inner spheroid without any sort of apparent curve variation only being optical aside from slight land elevation shifts.
-
Sometimes you people surprise me, but not when it comes to maps. RE'ers are like a broken record, saying the same things over and over.
I really think it's about time you gave up using the disparaging term "you people". Don't you understand that you people accounts for 99.9999999999% of the human population?
It's usually more common for the majority to call the naysayers "you people".
And the reason the REs say the same things over and over is possibly because their theories are correct, and they have to continually and repeatedly counter the FE's incorrect theories (such as they are).
-
'Distance is variable' Please explain.
Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.
So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.
You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?
I commend your creativity!
It's usually my own unless I am specifically giving credit to other people. As for the distance I described I only described how to read the map I posted, I'm not speaking about changing size distance in real life in relation to the Earth even though I think it might be a possibility but I'm still faced with the fact that it does map to a "perfect" inner spheroid without any sort of apparent curve variation only being optical aside from slight land elevation shifts.
Well, ok then! ::)
-
'Distance is variable' Please explain.
Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.
So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.
You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?
I commend your creativity!
It's usually my own unless I am specifically giving credit to other people. As for the distance I described I only described how to read the map I posted, I'm not speaking about changing size distance in real life in relation to the Earth even though I think it might be a possibility but I'm still faced with the fact that it does map to a "perfect" inner spheroid without any sort of apparent curve variation only being optical aside from slight land elevation shifts.
Great although what you did was speak about changing size, and it was sort of implied that it was in real life, so maybe have a look at that - I can't stress this enough, words have meanings which are commonly accepted and so facilitate the transmission of thought, using them to mean other, secret, things is an exercise in futility. Also, in broader terms, no-one knows what you're on about
-
'Distance is variable' Please explain.
Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.
So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.
You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?
I commend your creativity!
It's usually my own unless I am specifically giving credit to other people. As for the distance I described I only described how to read the map I posted, I'm not speaking about changing size distance in real life in relation to the Earth even though I think it might be a possibility but I'm still faced with the fact that it does map to a "perfect" inner spheroid without any sort of apparent curve variation only being optical aside from slight land elevation shifts.
Great although what you did was speak about changing size, and it was sort of implied that it was in real life, so maybe have a look at that - I can't stress this enough, words have meanings which are commonly accepted and so facilitate the transmission of thought, using them to mean other, secret, things is an exercise in futility. Also, in broader terms, no-one knows what you're on about
Changing size mechanics are not very well studied by me as of yet. Especially on Earth in fact I'm still studying the effects it's having on the Moon and Mars and it's very, very confusing. So trust me in the fact that I don't know what to make of it. I think the global Earth model is fairly accurate (the google Earth model) but I don't think they show a spheroid they show a perfect sphere and map Earth to that, if Earth is a perfect sphere that means we are inside of it and the land tilts the opposite way of what people commonly think as the Earth is concave, not convex.
-
What, Jroa, no response to my points re: a mercator map?
-
What, Jroa, no response to my points re: a mercator map?
What? I responded to everyone of your posts. If I did not give you a satisfactory answer, then I apologize. Please ask your question again and I will try to answer it for you. But, please don't pretend like I was ignoring you.
-
How do you respond to the point that a Mercator map is not a FEmap, but is comparable to an orange peel laid out flat, which shows you the peel, but not the shape of the orange?
-
I think that the Earth can be projected onto any of many surfaces. I don't see what your point is, however.
-
The point is that your FE maps actually claim to be representative of the Earth's actual shape, when in fact, they are not. REers to use flat maps, but none of us pretend that that represents the true shape of the Earth. And why do we use flat maps? Well, primarily because you can write on them, and because you can fold them up and put them in a pocket. Using a globe that is large enough to write upon for navigational purposes would require quite a large one. Such large ones are made, but they are still impractical for writing on, just for the simple reason that writing accurately on any three dimensional surface is difficult. So it is far easier to transfer the surface of the globe to a flat, two dimensional surface.
However, the fact that we recognise that that the world is a sphere is clear by the fact that on world maps in the Mercator projection, Asia is often split in halves. You can find half of it to the West of California, and the other half to the East of Europe. This is done for two reasons. One is simply cultural vanity. Europeans and European Americans like to put themselves in the middle of the map. The Chinese still call their country Zhonguo, the Middle Kingdom, with a similar level of vanity, and they, incidentally, believed the world was flat up to the XVIII Century.
The second reason is, however, more practical. That is the fact that if you take a paper map that is designed in the above way and bend it around into a circle, you get Asia touching itself, which is what it actually does. So, on a Mercator map projection, recognising the world is round, you can circumnavigate the Earth at the Equator. This cannot be done on the bipolar map. The unipolar map presents yet other problems, previously spoken of, particularly when travelling South of the Equator.
Again, I suggest, that Flat Earth folks have a serious problem on their hands. One, they cannot present a map that all FEers agree with. Two, even when you get a map that some agree with, it is so invariably flawed that it cannot be taken seriously. That is the fundamental problem. If you don't even have a valid map of the Earth, what have you got?
-
Again, I suggest, that Flat Earth folks have a serious problem on their hands. One, they cannot present a map that all FEers agree with. Two, even when you get a map that some agree with, it is so invariably flawed that it cannot be taken seriously. That is the fundamental problem. If you don't even have a valid map of the Earth, what have you got?
Why is it that ALL round earthers agree absolutely on the global model—billions of them—whilst a few hundred flat earthers can't agree on even any one of a dozen flat earth models?
Surely the flat earthers would have a far, far better chance of successfully presenting their case for a flat earth if they could present the world with an agreed-upon model?
Why is there so much obvious division within the flat earth camp?
-
Again, I suggest, that Flat Earth folks have a serious problem on their hands. One, they cannot present a map that all FEers agree with. Two, even when you get a map that some agree with, it is so invariably flawed that it cannot be taken seriously. That is the fundamental problem. If you don't even have a valid map of the Earth, what have you got?
Why is it that ALL round earthers agree absolutely on the global model—billions of them—whilst a few hundred flat earthers can't agree on even any one of a dozen flat earth models?
Surely the flat earthers would have a far, far better chance of successfully presenting their case for a flat earth if they could present the world with an agreed-upon model?
Why is there so much obvious division within the flat earth camp?
forget maps they cant even agree which forum to post on. Is it this one or the other one? If the society itself is split down the middle how can anyone take anything they say seriously.
-
'Distance is variable' Please explain.
Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.
So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.
You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?
I commend your creativity!
It's usually my own unless I am specifically giving credit to other people. As for the distance I described I only described how to read the map I posted, I'm not speaking about changing size distance in real life in relation to the Earth even though I think it might be a possibility but I'm still faced with the fact that it does map to a "perfect" inner spheroid without any sort of apparent curve variation only being optical aside from slight land elevation shifts.
Great although what you did was speak about changing size, and it was sort of implied that it was in real life, so maybe have a look at that - I can't stress this enough, words have meanings which are commonly accepted and so facilitate the transmission of thought, using them to mean other, secret, things is an exercise in futility. Also, in broader terms, no-one knows what you're on about
Changing size mechanics are not very well studied by me as of yet. Especially on Earth in fact I'm still studying the effects it's having on the Moon and Mars and it's very, very confusing. So trust me in the fact that I don't know what to make of it. I think the global Earth model is fairly accurate (the google Earth model) but I don't think they show a spheroid they show a perfect sphere and map Earth to that, if Earth is a perfect sphere that means we are inside of it and the land tilts the opposite way of what people commonly think as the Earth is concave, not convex.
So you are saying that your size changes now?
You're studying the effect of what exactly on the Moon and Mars?
Are you aware that none of what you've written there makes sense? It LITERALLY doesn't make sense - the most compelling arguments MAKE SENSE. Even if what you were saying was in any way accurate, which it isn't, then how do you expect to convey your message if you can't write in a way that makes sense? Every other accepted scientific discovery is couched in language which is a) meaningful and b) accurate - why can't you manage that?
A spheroid is not a thing, it's an adjective. You don't think that maps show a spherical Earth? Why? They are clearly based on that exact premise. What you think doesn't matter, it's what is that's important.
You think the global Earth map is accurate but you don't think the Earth is round, even though the accurate map is predicated on the fact that the Earth is round?
IF Earth is a perfect sphere THAT MEANS we are inside of it? Why does the one thing MEAN the other? IF the Earth is a perfect sphere (not sure why being 'perfect' is relevant, obviously it won't be - you've seen Mountains right?) that MEANS it's a perfect sphere - logically that's all that COULD mean. 'Mean' means that it a logical conclusion of the characteristics of the subject of the sentence to which it is applied. It doesn't MEAN anything other than that.
The Earth is not Convex, it is roughly spherical. If it was concave it would all be sloping upward and rising above us - IT ISN'T DOING THAT IS IT? I'm looking out my window now and the Earth is not all above me, it's below me - my house is resting on it, I stand on it regularly.
-
'Distance is variable' Please explain.
Basically means according to the map me and Jroa posted that the closer you get to the center (The North) the bigger you get in physical size relative to the ground you are standing upon (The South), the farthest reaches of Earth is at Antarctica where the south pole is. If you look at my map above 10 degrees is 5% of 200 degrees.
So for example if I was at 200 degrees I would be 200% bigger then at 100 degrees so the World would appear to be 12,500 miles around instead of 25,000 miles, except that it wouldn't be because if I traveled to the south pole the 200% (maximum) would become 10% (minimum) and the average would be 100% between both of them. So mathematically size all works out if you know that each degree you travel from the North pole your relative size will decrease in relation to your longitude or latitude. Antarctica is the farthest point you can get south in the world but you can never get smaller then 10% without going to the other side. Antarctica is about 10% the size of the Earth in width which say's this is correct. North America would be 172 longitude by 154 degrees latitude which means you would add 74 degrees at an average of 163 degrees which would equal a 163% size boost so 74 degrees would be about 4,625 miles wide which would be pretty correct if you were measuring diagonally. Width should be 154% or about 94.5% of 2/3rds the diagonal which would be about 2884 miles. going from Coast to coast in diagonal direction this is also correct. Finally height should be about 28 degrees or about 1945 miles straight x 186% or about 3617 total miles. However I'm not sure if I'm completely accurate but I'm pretty close. Mapping this to a perfect sphere works very well which is why I think we are in a perfect sphere that is inside of a cube.
You're arguments get more wacko by the day.. do you pay someone to come u with them or is this your own work?
I commend your creativity!
It's usually my own unless I am specifically giving credit to other people. As for the distance I described I only described how to read the map I posted, I'm not speaking about changing size distance in real life in relation to the Earth even though I think it might be a possibility but I'm still faced with the fact that it does map to a "perfect" inner spheroid without any sort of apparent curve variation only being optical aside from slight land elevation shifts.
Great although what you did was speak about changing size, and it was sort of implied that it was in real life, so maybe have a look at that - I can't stress this enough, words have meanings which are commonly accepted and so facilitate the transmission of thought, using them to mean other, secret, things is an exercise in futility. Also, in broader terms, no-one knows what you're on about
Changing size mechanics are not very well studied by me as of yet. Especially on Earth in fact I'm still studying the effects it's having on the Moon and Mars and it's very, very confusing. So trust me in the fact that I don't know what to make of it. I think the global Earth model is fairly accurate (the google Earth model) but I don't think they show a spheroid they show a perfect sphere and map Earth to that, if Earth is a perfect sphere that means we are inside of it and the land tilts the opposite way of what people commonly think as the Earth is concave, not convex.
So you are saying that your size changes now?
You're studying the effect of what exactly on the Moon and Mars?
Are you aware that none of what you've written there makes sense? It LITERALLY doesn't make sense - the most compelling arguments MAKE SENSE. Even if what you were saying was in any way accurate, which it isn't, then how do you expect to convey your message if you can't write in a way that makes sense? Every other accepted scientific discovery is couched in language which is a) meaningful and b) accurate - why can't you manage that?
A spheroid is not a thing, it's an adjective. You don't think that maps show a spherical Earth? Why? They are clearly based on that exact premise. What you think doesn't matter, it's what is that's important.
You think the global Earth map is accurate but you don't think the Earth is round, even though the accurate map is predicated on the fact that the Earth is round?
IF Earth is a perfect sphere THAT MEANS we are inside of it? Why does the one thing MEAN the other? IF the Earth is a perfect sphere (not sure why being 'perfect' is relevant, obviously it won't be - you've seen Mountains right?) that MEANS it's a perfect sphere - logically that's all that COULD mean. 'Mean' means that it a logical conclusion of the characteristics of the subject of the sentence to which it is applied. It doesn't MEAN anything other than that.
The Earth is not Convex, it is roughly spherical. If it was concave it would all be sloping upward and rising above us - IT ISN'T DOING THAT IS IT? I'm looking out my window now and the Earth is not all above me, it's below me - my house is resting on it, I stand on it regularly.
That, my Pommy friend.. Was a good rant! ;D
Keep 'em coming..
-
Actually, I believe that Sculelos does in fact believe that the Earth is round, just not in the same way you do.
-
Actually, I believe that Sculelos does in fact believe that the Earth is round, just not in the same way you do.
It's true, he believes the earth is round.. and if there were any concept that i thought even more crackpot that you flat earthers, is someone who believes in Sculelos's weird ideas.
I notice the word 'believes' is widely used in this forum.. Wouldnt it be nice if people here, namely FEers, required actual evidence to support their coocky ideas.. then they'd know and would have to 'believe'.
-
Actually, I believe that Sculelos does in fact believe that the Earth is round, just not in the same way you do.
Actually, it's pretty apparent what he 'believes' because he says quite explicitly that we're living inside a 'concave' Earth (again, meaningless, if it's a sphere it's not 'concave' is it, it's spherical'). If you can't even find certainty on this matter, inspite of the words on this page that clearly set out the position, then what hope do you have in terms of grasping anything else?
alfa156melb - Thanks man, feels goooooooddddd...
-
So, in your weird view of physics, the inside of a sphere is not concave? You are making yourself out to be a nut, jtlondon83.
-
So, in your weird view of physics, the inside of a sphere is not concave? You are making yourself out to be a nut, jtlondon83.
Again, nothing to do with physics, to do with words - Concave is not generally applied to the internal plane of a sphere as it is implied in the word SPHERE. It is normally a non-enclosed planar depression that is called 'concave'.
-
"Internal plane of a sphere" is a new one on me. I am unaware of this New Math that you speak of. Perhaps you can elaborate for us?
-
"Internal plane of a sphere" is a new one on me. I am unaware of this New Math that you speak of. Perhaps you can elaborate for us?
A plane is a contiguous surface.
Sculelos thinks we live within a spherical Earth, so it must be hollow and hence have an internal plane.
What is this New Math that you have spoken of?
-
What is this New Math that you have spoken of?
Well, since you are content on redefining geometric terms, I assumed that you had some radical new math that we have never heard of. Do me a favor and look up the definition of a plane.
-
"Internal plane of a sphere" is a new one on me. I am unaware of this New Math that you speak of. Perhaps you can elaborate for us?
Oh.........dear..........
This site really, badly needs a face slap emoticon...
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26761740/download%20%283%29.jpg)
-
What is this New Math that you have spoken of?
Well, since you are content on redefining geometric terms, I assumed that you had some radical new math that we have never heard of. Do me a favor and look up the definition of a plane.
Quite right, it should be 'surface' not 'plane'. The point stands. It's funny when you get pedantic about scientific terms even though you don't believe in the science that has codified these terms..
As ever, I notice that you haven't answered any of the main questions re the non-existence of a Flat Earth map that is in anyway accurate. Just to reiterate, we'll all happily agree with you if you provide us with worthwhile proofs - We're just up for accuracy, no agenda here..
-
Oh.........dear..........
This site really, badly needs a face slap emoticon...
Please keep the low content posts to a minimum. Thanks.
-
Oh.........dear..........
This site really, badly needs a face slap emoticon...
Please keep the low content posts to a minimum. Thanks.
Please keep the low content posts to a minimum. Thanks.
-
What is this New Math that you have spoken of?
Well, since you are content on redefining geometric terms, I assumed that you had some radical new math that we have never heard of. Do me a favor and look up the definition of a plane.
Quite right, it should be 'surface' not 'plane'. The point stands. It's funny when you get pedantic about scientific terms even though you don't believe in the science that has codified these terms..
As ever, I notice that you haven't answered any of the main questions re the non-existence of a Flat Earth map that is in anyway accurate. Just to reiterate, we'll all happily agree with you if you provide us with worthwhile proofs - We're just up for accuracy, no agenda here..
No agenda here... And that's the crux of the matter.. no one here or anywhere else could give two shits what the earth is..
We aregue that its a sphere because, well we live on it, we can measure it and all the science we haave thats based on it being round, that we RELY on, works.
Of you have nothing at all to say otherwise...
But if you could prove otherwise.. great! Still makes no difference to us, except that we'd happily argue that its flat or whatever..
Like religious nuts, its just a faith to you.. You have a book written by your Massiah Rowbotham, you all worship him and get very offended when we take the piss about it.. You believeeeeeeeee... without a shred of evidence and some of you actually quite the bible to support your position. It seems to me to be nothing more than a weird ass cult dressed up a theory.
Its all very amusing I must say...
Edit: Wow - that was a cavalcade of spelling errors! :o Sorry!
-
What is this New Math that you have spoken of?
Well, since you are content on redefining geometric terms, I assumed that you had some radical new math that we have never heard of. Do me a favor and look up the definition of a plane.
Quite right, it should be 'surface' not 'plane'. The point stands. It's funny when you get pedantic about scientific terms even though you don't believe in the science that has codified these terms..
As ever, I notice that you haven't answered any of the main questions re the non-existence of a Flat Earth map that is in anyway accurate. Just to reiterate, we'll all happily agree with you if you provide us with worthwhile proofs - We're just up for accuracy, no agenda here..
No agenda here... And that's the crux of the matter.. no one here or anywhere else could give two shits what the earth is..
We aregue that its a sphere because, well we live on it, we can measure it and all the science we haave thats based on it being round, that we RELY on, works.
Of you have nothing at all to say otherwise...
But if you could prove otherwise.. great! Still makes no difference to us, except that we'd happily argue that its flat or whatever..
Like religious nuts, its just a faith to you.. You have a book written by your Massiah Rowbotham, you all worship him and get very offended when we take the piss about it.. You believeeeeeeeee... without a shred of evidence and some of you actually quite the bible to support your position. It seems to me to be nothing more than a weird ass cult dressed up a theory.
Its all very amusing I must say...
This is why it must just be a joke - the conspiracy theory with no motive is a step to far for me, no-one really believes the Earth is flat
-
This video shows to what extent a country new to the space charade goes through to prove they are a technologically strong country.
China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 1) (http://#)
HA! That's gold :)
Communism.. it never ceases to amaze me.
Putting together a bunch of video clips together doesn't necessarily prove something fake... I mean I could go on all day about how NASA faked the moon landings, except they didn't also air bubbles can often seen escaping from space suits in space so I'm not really sure what your problem with that is?
China fakes all of their space missions. Now go look at their nuclear bomb tests. Go watch those videos. They are also BS. Now here's the part where everyone has to use their brain. How is it that the world powers are letting China get away with all of this nonsense? Now go look at the U.S. first H-bomb test. It is fake as fuck. Now welcome to the real world. You need to use your brain and start looking at evidence.
The fact, the absolute fact in this world, is that the Jesuit order controls everything, and we are being lied to every single day of our lives. And you need to care, because they now want to destroy the United States, which they completely control, and they will do. We will be disarmed. You can continue to not care about anything and watch tv if you want, it really doesn't matter. At least accept the fact that we are ignorant as fuck, and we are being manipulated like there is no tomorrow.
-
Now go look at the U.S. first H-bomb test. It is fake as fuck.
Can you please cite references to support this? What alleged empirical evidence led you to this viewpoint? Or is it nothing more than your personal opinion?
-
Now go look at the U.S. first H-bomb test. It is fake as fuck.
Can you please cite references to support this? What alleged empirical evidence led you to this viewpoint? Or is it nothing more than your personal opinion?
Take a look at all the footage. No ordinary person who views it all will come to any other conclusion as to it full on, in your face, fakery.
-
Now go look at the U.S. first H-bomb test. It is fake as fuck.
Can you please cite references to support this? What alleged empirical evidence led you to this viewpoint? Or is it nothing more than your personal opinion?
Take a look at all the footage. No ordinary person who views it all will come to any other conclusion as to it full on, in your face, fakery.
Then what should a real H-bomb test look like? Obviously you must know what a real one looks like if you can spot a fake so easily.
-
Take a look at all the footage. No ordinary person who views it all will come to any other conclusion as to it full on, in your face, fakery.
I have, and it looks perfectly legitimate to me. I asked you for empirical evidence, and not personal opinion.
You need to do much better than this sceptimatic before making the hollow claim that no "ordinary" person will conclude it's "fakery".
It's more than obvious you have NO empirical evidence. Sorry. You lose. Again.
-
Unless one is a nuclear physicist, or some other such individual, (which I'm not), I fail to see how one could declare whether a photo or video of a nuclear bomb going off (whether in a test or, God forbid, for military purposes) is real OR fake. Whether the photo/video originates in the US, Russia, the PRC, the DPRK, or any of the other 6 or so nations thats possess nuclear weapons is irrelevant. I say 6 or so because if memory serves, there are 9 declared members of the Nuclear Club. Then there is Israel, which neither admits nor denies having them, but if one thinks they don't, one is a fool. Not that it matters. They could never use them. Any country they hit, the fallout & radiation would get to them eventually. Israeli nukes exist as a deterrant by means of mutual self-destruction by both sides. But, back on my point, how is the avg teacher, ditchdigger, policeman, banker, or psychiatrist supposed to be able to tell the difference between a photo/video of a nuclear test that is real v. one that is fake?
-
Someone with expertise in fakery itself would be a reasonable candidate. Explosives and meteorology might be valuable expertises to have as well. But even so, you probably couldn't say definitively that footage of a nuclear explosion was faked.
Other than unquestioning scepticism, I wonder what it is that convinces scepti that it's fake.
-
Certainly expertise in fakery would help. Therefore, a forensics expert might, the key word being 'might', be able to detect, say, a doctored photograph or video. Also, a photographer or videographer might have those skills, again, the stress on the word 'might'. The difficulty is that people in those fields are not usually doubly trained in military activity beyond the common soldier level. & the people responsable for nuclear bombs aren't common soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen. They are highly trained scientists, officers, all possessing top secret or higher security clearances, who are authorised to do & know shit that no one else in a country is even aware exists. Thus, someone like you or me being able to detect fakery in what they are doing is like finding a needle in a haystack.
-
Absolutely. The fact that nobody with those skills nor anyone involved in actual nuclear tests has ever expressed skepticism over the legitimacy of the Chinese tests is more than enough to convince me.
That and -personally- knowledge of VFX in the mid 40s. There is literally no way to have faked even the public footage of the tests let alone all the espionage, intelligence, seismic and radiological evidence that bitterly opposed factions used to study the tests to their own satisfaction.
-
The history of nuclear weapon development is not an expertise of mine. What is or was VFX? That aside, some of you may remember a few years ago when then Presidents Bill Clinton of the USA & Jiang Zemin of the PRC had a mutual crowing & back-slapping session re: the fact that each nation had 'de-targeted' its missiles. In laymen's terms, this meant that, instead of having a missile targeted on, say, Beijing, all our missiles designated for China were now in neutral, as were theirs. This remains the case. Of course, during this Presidential love-fest, no one bothered to state the obvious: targeting a missile takes only 15 minutes. If diplomatic relations went south w/ China, you can bet that is what both countries would do. & the Chinese aren't stupid; they know we spy on them. Why risk lying to us & looking like total schmucks?
-
Visual eFfect... X - Visual Effects.
It's a bit of a stretch, but hey :P
-
FX is an onomatopoeic acronym for effects.
Anyway... *coughs*
-
Ah. Visual effects. If you are a specialist in that field, I see your point.
-
As an Aussie old enough to remember these nuclear tests off the coast of Australia, I can assure you that live film footage of the event was not—and could not have been in the early fifties—doctored so as to escape detection with modern imaging forensics.
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/10/07/1226734/294254-02181d6a-2f1d-11e3-b380-dae9c0e09a35.jpg)
An image from the HWT book "Moments in Time" showing observation
of a nuclear bomb blast test on Monte Bello Island in October 1952.
The Western Australian archipelago of Monte Bello Islands—west of Karratha—as well as Maralinga and Emu Field in South Australia, were the sites of British nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s and 1960s.
This is Monte Bello Island today:
(http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/10/07/1226734/294198-065e039e-2f1d-11e3-b380-dae9c0e09a35.jpg)
In my opinion, it's ludicrous for people (other than conspiracy theorists of course) to accept/claim/believe that nuclear weapons testing has never taken place.
Only last year, a veteran's wife won a ten-year battle for the war widow's pension after she successfully argued her husband committed suicide because of his involvement in earlier atomic bomb testing in Australia. His 2001 suicide at age 67 was deemed to have been brought on by the chronic pain of his dermatitis.
The persistent skin condition, his widow argued, had been brought on when her husband flew his RAAF Neptune aircraft through a nuclear mushroom cloud off the Western Australian coast on May 16, 1956.
From the report: "Relying on 57-year-old log books of Operation Mosaic—the code name given to the atomic weapons testing at the Monte Bello islands—as well as a witness account of the explosion and design points of the aircraft, the tribunal found the pilot would have suffered contamination.
It heard navigation in the 1950s was not precise, meaning avoidance of the atomic cloud could be difficult, and the the Neptune aircraft was not sealed, nor fitted with filters and the crew did not wear protective clothing.
A retired captain, who had experienced the explosion from a ship anchored off the islands and later worked with the pilot, also recounted a conversation with his old colleague in which he told him he had flown through the mushroom cloud. The tribunal heard the pilot suffered from a very rare skin condition that could have been caused by ionising radiation."
And a report from "The Canberra Times" 12 June 1956 says:
All Ready For Next A-Bomb But Weather
ONSLOW, (WA), Monday—It is only a matter of weather now. That is the feeling at Onslow.
When the surface winds and upper winds are offshore in the Onslow area and conditions are right in Perth, someone will press a button and Britain's second Monte Bello atom bomb of the current series will be fired.
The final parts of the bomb have arrived. The safety committee has arrived. The Neptune security patrols have begun.
Everyone and every thing is in place, waiting.
-
And in case someone here should claim I'm "derailing" this thread, I should point out that the topic of nuclear testing and fake footage was first brought up by two flat earthers:
johnreynaga said: "China fakes all of their space missions. Now go look at their nuclear bomb tests. Go watch those videos. They are also BS. Now here's the part where everyone has to use their brain. How is it that the world powers are letting China get away with all of this nonsense? Now go look at the U.S. first H-bomb test. It is fake as fuck".
sceptimatic then said: "Take a look at all the footage. No ordinary person who views it all will come to any other conclusion as to it full on, in your face, fakery".
-
Good post Geoff. Nuclear tests in Nevada were big tourist attractions in Vegas for a while, too, iirc. Bars would advertise a good view from their roof and organise events to watch the explosion in the distance.
-
A most excellent post indeed, & quite informative. I was unaware that nuke testing had been done in Australia, although that does seem like a logical place to do it, as I think about it now. My only question is the following, & it is 2-fold. A, who the hell would order someone to fly through a mushroom cloud, & B, who the hell would would follow an order like that? Mind you, I do not mean that Australia deserved to be a test site. Only that from a govt's point of view, it would be a logical choice (like Nevada in the USA).
-
A most excellent post indeed, & quite informative. I was unaware that nuke testing had been done in Australia, although that does seem like a logical place to do it, as I think about it now. My only question is the following, & it is 2-fold. A, who the hell would order someone to fly through a mushroom cloud, & B, who the hell would would follow an order like that? Mind you, I do not mean that Australia deserved to be a test site. Only that from a govt's point of view, it would be a logical choice (like Nevada in the USA).
From the post it sounds like the pilot either didn't realize at the time he was passing through it, or couldn't avoid passing through it. That being said, knowledge about radiation being what is was at the time, I wouldn't be surprised if a pilot was ordered to do it and he complied. It's not like it would be the craziest thing ever to have happened in the military.
-
Yeah, every military organisation was desperate to know everything possible about the effects of nuclear weapons. After all, in 1946 it wouldn't have mattered who you asked, it was almost a dead certainty that at some point people would be deployed in a nuclear environment, whether that be during or after a detonation, friendly or hostile.
So that need for information drove organisations to be pretty cavalier with having personnel get exposed to radiation, flash, fallout and whatnot during tests. But additionally, we have to remember that prior to gaining that information throughout the course of the nuclear age, watching a nuclear explosion from a safe distance or flying through some dust safe inside your plane would have only sounded a little risky. There wasn't the pervasive, unconditional dread of all things nuclear that exists today.
-
Granted, you both make excellent points. People of the time, especially govts & militaries, were just in love w/ the things. Individual lives lost in learning about them could have been rationalised away.
-
Not to mention that back in the old days, high doses of radiation could give you superpowers.
-
Granted, you both make excellent points. People of the time, especially govts & militaries, were just in love w/ the things. Individual lives lost in learning about them could have been rationalised away.
This image exemplifies how little was known about the effects of radiation from large scale nuclear devices in the early 1950s...
(http://hyphytek.net/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/nuclear-weapons-testing/478px-operation_teapot_-_met_military_effects_test.jpg)
On 10 May 1980, A federal judge in
Salt Lake City, Utah, found the US government
negligent for its above-ground testing of nuclear
weapons in Nevada from 1951 to 1962.
-
This undoubtedly would effect how the sun is seen throughout the seasons.
And it does.
You really are not that serious about this whole "look out your window" business, are you?
-
This undoubtedly would effect how the sun is seen throughout the seasons.
And it does.
You really are not that serious about this whole "look out your window" business, are you?
Spacey is an ice dome believer.
I'm sure she (?) is just as serious about the "look out your window" business as the rest of us.
That isn't meant to necessarily be taken as literal evidence - "You can't observe the Earth being round from the viewpoint of the Earth.", is what is meant.
Seeing as only 543 people have ever been above 100 km (in "space"), I'm assuming you should be subject to the "look out your window" rule.
-
Seeing as only 543 people have ever been above 100 km (in "space"), I'm assuming you should be subject to the "look out your window" rule.
No, we round earthers shouldn't be subject to the flat earthers' "look out your window" rule. We accept that the earth is round, and regard that nonsensical "rule" as totally unwarranted, and riddled with fallacies of logic. Those 543 people have seen the sphericity of the planet with their own eyes, whereas NO flat earther has ever seen earth from those peoples' perspective in space.
And until at least 500 flat earthers have travelled into space, and seen the planet with their own eyes, they're arguing from a very weak "factual" base comprised only of untested hypotheses, guesses, personal opinion and an almost(?) total lack of empirical scientific evidence.
-
#t=49 (http://#t=49)
NUCLEAR WEAPONS DON'T EXIST.. ;D
-
Seeing as only 543 people have ever been above 100 km (in "space"), I'm assuming you should be subject to the "look out your window" rule.
No, we round earthers shouldn't be subject to the flat earthers' "look out your window" rule. We accept that the earth is round, and regard that nonsensical "rule" as totally unwarranted, and riddled with fallacies of logic. Those 543 people have seen the sphericity of the planet with their own eyes, whereas NO flat earther has ever seen earth from those peoples' perspective in space.
And until at least 500 flat earthers have travelled into space, and seen the planet with their own eyes, they're arguing from a very weak "factual" base comprised only of untested hypotheses, guesses, personal opinion and an almost(?) total lack of empirical scientific evidence.
Geoff, I find your posts to be worded very nicely.
I also find that you often have very poor points in counter to others.
Those people have only allegedly been in "space".
Right now you're arguing that my point is moot because 500 flat Earth enthusiasts have not been in space.
-
Can't wait until you understand what AusGeoff actually said.
-
Can't wait until you understand what AusGeoff actually said.
Can't wait until you understand that people can't go to "space".
-
There is no space outside, the dome... ;)
-
There is no space outside, the dome... ;)
What dome?
-
And until at least 500 flat earthers have travelled into space, and seen the planet with their own eyes, they're arguing from a very weak "factual" base comprised only of untested hypotheses, guesses, personal opinion and an almost(?) total lack of empirical scientific evidence.
A certain amount of intelligence is required to become an astronaut. The chances are better for Nasa to build a giant space mirror visible from the ground before a flat earther will go to space.
-
Can't wait until you understand what AusGeoff actually said.
Can't wait until you understand that people can't go to "space".
Can't wait until you understand the difference between "going to space" and "staying in space".
-
Can't wait until you understand what AusGeoff actually said.
Can't wait until you understand that people can't go to "space".
Can't wait until you understand the difference between "going to space" and "staying in space".
I do. Your point?
-
Can't wait until you understand what AusGeoff actually said.
Can't wait until you understand that people can't go to "space".
Can't wait until you understand the difference between "going to space" and "staying in space".
I do. Your point?
Then perhaps you don't understand that most FE'ers concede that there is nothing stopping people from briefly "going to space". They do, however, contend that people can't "stay in space" for any significant length of time.
-
The space wing commander only asked which way the earths axis points, why all this dribble. It is an easy question.
-
Geoff, I find your posts to be worded very nicely.
Thank you. I try to do my best.
I also find that you often have very poor points in counter to others.
That's your prerogative.
Those people have only allegedly been in "space".
Nope. According to their own personal evidence and eye-witness accounts, they actually have been into space—as it's defined by contemporary astrophysicists. Or are you suggesting that these 500+ people are all lying? Or that they're all part of some bizarre conspiracy? At any rate, nobody has "alleged" they've been into space; the irrefutable evidence proves the actuality.
Right now you're arguing that my point is moot because 500 flat Earth enthusiasts have not been in space.
Correct. And until such time as at least one flat earther travels into space, and captures at least one photographic image of the purported flat earth, it stands.
-
Can't wait until you understand what AusGeoff actually said.
Can't wait until you understand that people can't go to "space".
Can't wait until you understand the difference between "going to space" and "staying in space".
I do. Your point?
Then perhaps you don't understand that most FE'ers concede that there is nothing stopping people from briefly "going to space". They do, however, contend that people can't "stay in space" for any significant length of time.
Ahhh. Semantics. Fun.
-
Ahhh. Semantics. Fun.
As you're so keen on semantics thermometer, and as you've claimed to understand the alleged difference between "going to space" and "staying in space", could you please explain what the differences are (in your opinion)?
As I understand it, going to space entails a lot more than simply reaching orbital altitude for a couple of hours, and then dropping back to earth. It means staying in space (or thermosphere)—in low earth orbit—for weeks and/or months at a time, as per the ISS.
I also note that you often use the "semantics" call to either support your arguments or refute those of other people. You seem to use the term reciprocally as the occasion suits you.
-
As you're so keen on semantics thermometer, and as you've claimed to understand the alleged difference between "going to space" and "staying in space", could you please explain what the differences are (in your opinion)?
As I understand it, going to space entails a lot more than simply reaching orbital altitude for a couple of hours, and then dropping back to earth. It means staying in space (or thermosphere)—in low earth orbit—for weeks and/or months at a time, as per the ISS.
Well, Geoff, I think what he means by these terms is, as follows:
1. going to space - reaching a high enough altitude, regardless of it being above a round or flat Earth. An arbitrary level. It should be possible in both cases. Simply to show we have the technology to reach a stable orbit should the Earth be round. You know, the propulsion systems, life support etc.
2. staying in space - staying there for any long period of time. In RE model it involves reaching a stable orbit by increasing your horizontal velocity until you move fast enough to "miss" the Earth on the way down. It would be absolutely impossible in FE model, as there is nothing to orbit. So the vessel would have to maintain an upwards thrust to overcome the gravity/FE acceleration. It is basically hovering while the fuel lasts. The same could be done on RE and FE alike, but we have no technology to build such an engine - the fuel would be wasted very quickly. And please, FEs, don't tell me such a device exists but is top-top-top-...-secret.
-
Ahhh. Semantics. Fun.
As you're so keen on semantics thermometer, and as you've claimed to understand the alleged difference between "going to space" and "staying in space", could you please explain what the differences are (in your opinion)?
As I understand it, going to space entails a lot more than simply reaching orbital altitude for a couple of hours, and then dropping back to earth. It means staying in space (or thermosphere)—in low earth orbit—for weeks and/or months at a time, as per the ISS.
I also note that you often use the "semantics" call to either support your arguments or refute those of other people. You seem to use the term reciprocally as the occasion suits you.
So you think that going and staying are the same thing?
"Space" is generally recognized to be an altitude of 100 km+.
I'm sure it's possible that someone has gone to space, but it's not a place you can go to stay.
You'd probably see the flat Earth for a few minutes, and then drop right back down. (Rather, the Earth would catch you.)
I called semantics, because that's what it was. I was using "going to space" in the round Earth sense. As in, when you go to space, generally you don't come back down for awhile on a round Earth.
-
You'd probably see the flat Earth for a few minutes, and then drop right back down.
Fair enough. So why haven't any of your purported "flat earth astronauts" managed to snap a few images of your flat earth during those few minutes?
You're also implying that it'd take a "few minutes" for the upwards accelerating flat earth to meet the stationary space capsule. How could this be when the capsule is only 100km from the surface of the flat earth at its highest point? Wouldn't the time be measured in nanoseconds? How could the earth take measurable minutes to travel only 100km through space?
-
ausGeoff, it is not 100km movement through space to be covered by Earth, it is a 100km difference in positions of Earth and the spaceship, just like in RE model. The FErs seem to agree that the net "downwards" acceleration relative to the surface is about 10/s^2, whether it comes from gravity or from Earth accelerating upwards. The spaceship speeds up during launch, then slows down to match the Earth's speed through space at the highest point above the surface.
In RE it then starts to fall down, accelerating. In FE, the Earth keeps accelerating, catching up to an ALREADY MOVING spaceship, while there is nothing to accelerate the spaceship. Therefore the apparent effect is similar, the time it takes the spaceship to hit Earth would be almost exactly similar in both cases.
-
I still don't understand how planes work with UA.
-
I still don't understand how planes work with UA.
Bendy LightTM and PerspectiveTM::)
They really aren't in the air, perspective and bendy light cause them to appear as though they were in the air. We have just always been lied to by the ConspiracyTM
-
ausGeoff, it is not 100km movement through space to be covered by Earth, it is a 100km difference in positions of Earth and the spaceship, just like in RE model. The FErs seem to agree that the net "downwards" acceleration relative to the surface is about 10/s^2, whether it comes from gravity or from Earth accelerating upwards. The spaceship speeds up during launch, then slows down to match the Earth's speed through space at the highest point above the surface.
In RE it then starts to fall down, accelerating. In FE, the Earth keeps accelerating, catching up to an ALREADY MOVING spaceship, while there is nothing to accelerate the spaceship. Therefore the apparent effect is similar, the time it takes the spaceship to hit Earth would be almost exactly similar in both cases.
Uh... no. A man-made satellite is designed to orbit the earth at a specific altitude in a pre-determined trajectory. The satellite doesn't necessarily "match" the earth's speed of rotation unless it's placed in a geostationary orbit. Earth isn't "accelerating upwards".
I think you might be conflating flat earth hypotheses with round earth astrophysics? Or fanciful thinking with empirical evidence?
-
I still don't understand how planes work with UA.
Aetheric stuff or something.
I hope that has cleared that up.
-
ausGeoff, it is not 100km movement through space to be covered by Earth, it is a 100km difference in positions of Earth and the spaceship, just like in RE model. The FErs seem to agree that the net "downwards" acceleration relative to the surface is about 10/s^2, whether it comes from gravity or from Earth accelerating upwards. The spaceship speeds up during launch, then slows down to match the Earth's speed through space at the highest point above the surface.
In RE it then starts to fall down, accelerating. In FE, the Earth keeps accelerating, catching up to an ALREADY MOVING spaceship, while there is nothing to accelerate the spaceship. Therefore the apparent effect is similar, the time it takes the spaceship to hit Earth would be almost exactly similar in both cases.
Uh... no. A man-made satellite is designed to orbit the earth at a specific altitude in a pre-determined trajectory. The satellite doesn't necessarily "match" the earth's speed of rotation unless it's placed in a geostationary orbit. Earth isn't "accelerating upwards".
I think you might be conflating flat earth hypotheses with round earth astrophysics? Or fanciful thinking with empirical evidence?
I perfectly understand basic orbital mechanics involved at this level, don't worry about that. I was not talking about any types of satellites, my post was about sub-orbital flight, with no relevant horizontal movement. The "matching" of speeds referred to vertical movement.
I was talking about thermometer's post saying that ""Space" is generally recognized to be an altitude of 100 km+. I'm sure it's possible that someone has gone to space, but it's not a place you can go to stay. ", as his definition of going to space seems to revolve around reaching a specific altitude by going straight up away from the surface, and your reply about FE smashing into a stationary right after it stopped mid-air(or mid-space, depending how you word it), from 06:02:33 AM.
As on a FE spaceships do not need any tangent velocity component(unlike on a RE where it is the most important detail of achieving a stable orbit), I think thermometer pictures "getting to space" as launching a rocket vertically, without changing its course. As xkcd described it here (https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/), "Getting to space is easy. The problem is staying there". You seem to mix the terms. If you launched a rocket straight up, or even fired it out of some massive cannon, it would behave exactly the same regardless of the shape of the world. There would be no "Earth smashing into the "stationary space capsule" nanoseconds later", as you have pictured it a while ago. No type of mechanics, orbital or not, works such way.
-
The two diagrams right above and below each other on that Wikipedia page do NOT show where the Sun is at all relative to the diagram of the Earth. If both of those diagrams showed the Sun as being on the left, there would be an inconsistency. But since the Sun is not depicted, the diagrams are drawn from two different perspectives in space.
Also, even IF there was something wrong with a diagram depicting some kind of science, that has no bearing WHATSOEVER on whether or not the thing being depicted is true or not. There's a higher chance that someone didn't know the actual science of what they were drawing, rather than the entire science being some kind of made up fiction.
-
If you launched a rocket straight up, or even fired it out of some massive cannon, it would behave exactly the same regardless of the shape of the world.
Nope. The launching rocket's trajectory has to factor in the Coriolis effect on the spherical earth in order to attain the intended orbital path of the satellite it carries. And its effect is more or less pronounced depending on what latitude the launch occurs.
(http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/crls1.gif)
And, more importantly, the Coriolis effect doesn't apply to any flat earth model.
-
You are completely missing the point here, aren't you? Care to explain what you mean by "You're also implying that it'd take a "few minutes" for the upwards accelerating flat earth to meet the stationary space capsule. How could this be when the capsule is only 100km from the surface of the flat earth at its highest point? Wouldn't the time be measured in nanoseconds? How could the earth take measurable minutes to travel only 100km through space?"?
In some cases some of you seem to be as stubborn in willful ignorance and misunderstanding as the FErs.
-
You are completely missing the point here, aren't you?
Nope. The flat earthers have yet to explain what repellent forces are causing the sun, the moon, man-made satellites, weather balloons, and even clouds to remain at a constant altitude above the continuously "upwards" motion of their flat earth's surface.
Care to explain what you mean by "You're also implying that it'd take a "few minutes" for the upwards accelerating flat earth to meet the stationary space capsule.
That wasn't my initial claim.
It was th3rm0m3t3r0 who said "You'd probably see the flat Earth for a few minutes, and then drop right back down. Rather, the Earth would catch you.
-
It was th3rm0m3t3r0 who said "You'd probably see the flat Earth for a few minutes, and then drop right back down. Rather, the Earth would catch you.
Yes, I know it was him who said that. And, aside from the "flat" part and what would drop to/catch what, I pretty much agree with him. Why do you say it wouldn't be a few minutes, but a much, much shorter time, until the ship and ground collide again?
-
Yes, I know it was him who said that. And, aside from the "flat" part and what would drop to/catch what, I pretty much agree with him. Why do you say it wouldn't be a few minutes, but a much, much shorter time, until the ship and ground collide again?
It's not so much a question of the time involved until the earth and the satellite collide. It's more a question of why they'd ever collide (and in fact don't, obviously), and what repellant force keeps an orbiting man-made satellite from colliding with the earth.
Presumably, if you agree with any part of thermometer's bizarre pseudo-science, then you're not a round earther?
-
I am. How could I not be if some of my main fields of interest(after industrial chemistry, if that is the correct English term for it) are orbital mechanics and astronomy?
I agree with his statement that if you sent a ship straight up, it would reach some altitude determined by launch speed(if it was shot out of some kind of a cannon), engines thrust(if it was a rocket) etc, and then, unless powered, drop down to Earth, almost exactly vertically, accelerating downwards at about 9,81m/s^2. Even on our round Earth this holds true - if a vessel doesn't reach enough horizontal velocity relative to the ground, it will drop down to Earth. Even if it went as high as, for example, the Moon's orbital altitude. Maybe it would miss Earth by a tiny bit due to Earth's orbit around the Sun placing it in a place slightly different from where it was during the ascent. But on a few hours flight it would be irrelevant.
We are not talking about reaching a stable orbit here, nothing about satellites, just about getting high enough to be able to clearly see whether Earth is flat or round. A few thousand km above the ground is enough to see the roundness pretty clearly, and at around 57k km you can see 45% of the globe at once - almost as much as it can get. Meaning you can pick up your camera, point it down and take a photo of "the Big Blue Marble". You seem to claim such trip would be impossible on a flat Earth(other than the obvious thing that on a flat Earth such a photo would be not possible to look like it did on RE). I disagree and try to explain to you why it is perfectly possible. What is the problem here?
-
The flat earthers have yet to explain what repellent forces are causing ...
Actually, they have (sorta).
the sun, the moon...
Universal acceleration/Aether winds.
man-made satellites...
Fakes.
weather balloons, and even clouds to remain at a constant altitude above the continuously "upwards" motion of their flat earth's surface.
As the earth accelerates upwards, it pushes the atmoplane up with it and normal buoyant forces act as expected.
-
What is the problem here?
You're conflating the ungoverned trajectories of ballistic missiles with the controlled trajectory of rocket-powered spacecraft. Two totally different principles.
-
What is the problem here?
You're conflating the ungoverned trajectories of ballistic missiles with the controlled trajectory of rocket-powered spacecraft. Two totally different principles.
Yet it is you who seemingly insist that what I have posted as a possible way to take a high altitude photo of Earth is for some reason NOT possible. Why is that? If the mission's goal is to take a picture from far away, at which point would my plan fail? Other than it might be fuel inefficient.
-
There are no directions in space. It tilts relative to it's own orbit.
-
Found something, it will fake cause it comes from nasty NASA.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/04feb_wobble/ (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/04feb_wobble/)
-
The satanists at NASA come up with all kinds of ploys to divert your attention. You people just lap it up, like a kitten with a saucer of cream. I feel sorry for you.
-
The satanists at NASA come up with all kinds of ploys to divert your attention. You people just lap it up, like a kitten with a saucer of cream. I feel sorry for you.
Rather than wasting your time "feeling sorry" for round earthers jroa, you should spend a bit more time researching our geophysical and astrophysical models—and comparing how they comply with every observable and replicable phenomena on earth with those suggested by the flat earth model.
The flat earth hypothesis is sorely lacking in any empirical data that explains myriad naturally occurring phenomena on our planet or in the skies. It's also lacking in any support whatsoever from the scientific fraternity. And again, no flat earther on this forum has been able to name even a half dozen accredited scientists who accept that the earth is (allegedly) flat. Why not?
From my standpoint, I consider it's the round earthers who should be feeling sorry for the flat earthers—judging by the obvious lack of scientific knowledge repeatedly displayed on these forums. One of the reasons I post stuff here is in an attempt to at least get some flat earthers to consider—even for a nanosecond—that their flat earth model could be wrong, or that a lot of the round earth theory does make sense.
Intellectual inflexibility and dogmatic opinion inevitably blind one to the ultimate truth. Consider Galileo's heliocentric model and the Roman Inquisition as a classic example of this. (Although I know that flat earthers still consider that the sun orbits the earth, rather than the other way around.)
-
The satanists mods at NASA the FES forums come up with all kinds of ploys to divert your attention. You people just lap it up, like a kitten with a saucer of cream. I feel sorry for you.
-
The satanists at NASA come up with all kinds of ploys to divert your attention. You people just lap it up, like a kitten with a saucer of cream. I feel sorry for you.
Rather than wasting your time "feeling sorry" for round earthers jroa, you should spend a bit more time researching our geophysical and astrophysical models—and comparing how they comply with every observable and replicable phenomena on earth with those suggested by the flat earth model.
The flat earth hypothesis is sorely lacking in any empirical data that explains myriad naturally occurring phenomena on our planet or in the skies. It's also lacking in any support whatsoever from the scientific fraternity. And again, no flat earther on this forum has been able to name even a half dozen accredited scientists who accept that the earth is (allegedly) flat. Why not?
From my standpoint, I consider it's the round earthers who should be feeling sorry for the flat earthers—judging by the obvious lack of scientific knowledge repeatedly displayed on these forums. One of the reasons I post stuff here is in an attempt to at least get some flat earthers to consider—even for a nanosecond—that their flat earth model could be wrong, or that a lot of the round earth theory does make sense.
Intellectual inflexibility and dogmatic opinion inevitably blind one to the ultimate truth. Consider Galileo's heliocentric model and the Roman Inquisition as a classic example of this. (Although I know that flat earthers still consider that the sun orbits the earth, rather than the other way around.)
Perhaps, next time, you can have a defensible position when injecting yourself into a debate. As it stands, you simply try your hardest to make a witty ad hominem attack that ends up making you look silly. Put a little effort into it for a change. Your little ramblings are getting a little old and really seem to dumb down many of the debates you try to enter.
-
Perhaps, next time, you can have a defensible position when injecting yourself into a debate. As it stands, you simply try your hardest to make a witty ad hominem attack that ends up making you look silly. Put a little effort into it for a change. Your little ramblings are getting a little old and really seem to dumb down many of the debates you try to enter.
And yet another of jroa's embarrassingly obvious attempts to derail the thread simply because he's unable to address my claim that: "The flat earth hypothesis is sorely lacking in any empirical data that explains myriad naturally occurring phenomena on our planet or in the skies. It's also lacking in any support whatsoever from the scientific fraternity. And again, no flat earther on this forum has been able to name even a half dozen accredited scientists who accept that the earth is (allegedly) flat. Why not?"
—Rather than attacking my "little ramblings" jroa, maybe you'd look a little more scientifically literate if you answered these questions of mine. Or don't you have any answers maybe?