Time and Distance Calculator Results
Departure Location
Name: Arturo Merino Benitez Intl
IATA: SCL
ICAO: SCEL
Santiago, Chile
Latitude: 33°23' 40" S
Longitude: 70°47' 38" W
Elevation: 1555 (Feet) Arrival Location
Name: Sydney Intl
IATA: SYD
ICAO: YSSY
Sydney, Australia
Latitude: 33°56' 46" S
Longitude: 151°10' 38" E
Elevation: 21 (Feet)
Distance: 6,135.01 (NM) / 7,061.55 (MI) / 11,362.04 (KM)
Trip Time: 13:35 (includes 15 minute bias and air speed at 460Kts)
To my fellow flat earthers, we might have a problemNo shit Sherlock.
Or people who like ganging up on minorities.
The RE map is also wrong,Point out one error, and we can debate.
Acenci, the problem is that we don't know what the real map looks like.
Acenci, the problem is that we don't know what the real map looks like. Consequently, we can't estimate any distances within the FE model. This doesn't mean that the Earth is not flat though.Actually it kind of does. If the earth was flat then drawing a map on a flat piece of paper would be trivial. The fact is it is impossible to draw a map on a flat piece of paper. It simply can not be done. The only answer is to think for your self and free yourself from the tyranny of FE and place the paper over a sphere.
The RE map is also wrong, and it is blatantly clear in its most common flat version which is based on a projection. On a globe allegedly everything matches with reality, but who exactly uses globes for navigation.Well, anyone with a GPS in their phone these days. All navigation uses a globe, at least at the computational level. Sure, there is not an actually physical globe inside your phone, but all the coordinates are based on a sphere (i.e. WGS84 Latitude, Longitude and Height). Google WGS84 and you will see that navigation very much uses a sphere -- or spheriod to be more precise. WGS84 defines a reference ellipsoid
What I am saying is that it is all relative, and it is true that the FE'ers don't have a very solid argument as to how exactly it all works and there are many holes in the theory. However, because we don't know how exactly it works and what it looks like doesn't mean the Earth is a sphere or spins. Of course, that is debatable, and if you haven't been to space you can't personally be 100% sure, I guess.It is not a debate, the matter has been completely solved and proved at the level of proving that the shortest distance between two points is a line.
Tom Bishop says :If the earth is a radically different shape, then none of the planes would be on time would they? Anyway, many carriers hit >90% punctuality - how the hell does the fact they are meant to be traveling 3 times as far as they actually do only affect less than one in ten planes?
According to the Department of Transportation, the average on-time arrival rate is 75% among the 16 largest carriers.
1 in 4 world-wide flights were delayed. Weather conditions, or a slight misunderstanding of the earth's shape?
the obvious answer is that the maps we're spoon fed are wrong. are there jet streams (an obvious fantasy), or is it to compensate for the fact two places are closer than the round earth map says?Were you not breast feed enough as a child? You sure have a hangup about being spoon feed. What is so obviously wrong? The RET maps are accurate to the cm level. Seems pretty good to me, especially considering FET can't even draw a map to begin with. So now pilots are in on the conspiracy, who isn't in on it at this point? And if you are feed up with airline delays, why don't you start an FE airline, always on time because FE pilots 'think for themselves'. Oh, wait, there is not a single FE pilot in the world.
don't trust the obviously wrong maps you're given. not even flat earth maps, we have yet to have a chance to measure out an accurate one, the image is only an example and possibility. the governments hide the true one from us.
in addition, pilots will want money too. we aren't told the full capabilities of their planes, and they adapt the speed they fly at accordingly. if they're so reliable, why would there be any delays or early arrivals? simply, they make human error in how much they accelerate.
I don't think you were ever an flat earther. You tried to get some chops as an FEer, and are now slowly loosing all your own arguments. It is a pretty obvious RE attempt to subvert from the inside. Nice try, but I don't approve, it muddies the water.the obvious answer is that the maps we're spoon fed are wrong. are there jet streams (an obvious fantasy), or is it to compensate for the fact two places are closer than the round earth map says?
don't trust the obviously wrong maps you're given. not even flat earth maps, we have yet to have a chance to measure out an accurate one, the image is only an example and possibility. the governments hide the true one from us.
in addition, pilots will want money too. we aren't told the full capabilities of their planes, and they adapt the speed they fly at accordingly. if they're so reliable, why would there be any delays or early arrivals? simply, they make human error in how much they accelerate.
OK, I agree. Then let us propose an alternative map. And then another question is why is the NASA whistleblower saying that the South Pole is the edge, too? Wouldn't he know? Or are you saying the map is wrong, but the South Pole is still the edge?
But then if the South Pole is the edge, how is this flight possible?
What if the plumb bob is not a valid argument because buildings are too small to worry about the curvature?
What if my only valid argument is the curvature formula not matching the videos of the horizon?
It is still good enough. I am still a flat earther.
Tom Bishop says :Man, you people will believe anything you read if it sounds remotely like a straw to grasp.
According to the Department of Transportation, the average on-time arrival rate is 75% among the 16 largest carriers.
http://www.gadling.com/2011/06/08/airline-industry-best-and-worst-of-april-2011/ (http://www.gadling.com/2011/06/08/airline-industry-best-and-worst-of-april-2011/)
"Overall, the airline industry posted an average on-time arrival rate of 75.5 percent. This means that a quarter of the time, they miss the mark. It's almost as easy as being a weather man!"
1 in 4 world-wide flights were delayed. Weather conditions, or a slight misunderstanding of the earth's shape?
Think outside of the box and you will figure it out! Just take that map you have and hold in one hand and make a fist with the other. Now put the paper on your fist and let it droop over and you will start to get the picture. Be bold, think for yourself, don't listen to the tricksters!Tom Bishop says :Man, you people will believe anything you read if it sounds remotely like a straw to grasp.
According to the Department of Transportation, the average on-time arrival rate is 75% among the 16 largest carriers.
http://www.gadling.com/2011/06/08/airline-industry-best-and-worst-of-april-2011/ (http://www.gadling.com/2011/06/08/airline-industry-best-and-worst-of-april-2011/)
"Overall, the airline industry posted an average on-time arrival rate of 75.5 percent. This means that a quarter of the time, they miss the mark. It's almost as easy as being a weather man!"
1 in 4 world-wide flights were delayed. Weather conditions, or a slight misunderstanding of the earth's shape?
About 25% of all flights did not arrive at their destination on time. About 40% of these (10% of all flights) were due to the flight leaving late because the aircraft itself hadn't arrived in time for an on-time departure. Another 30% (7.5% of all flights) are because of air-carrier problems like maintenance issues, late-arriving crews, fueling delays, and the like. 5% (~1% of all flights) are due to severe weather that cause gate or ground holds, diversions, or cancellations. Now we're up to about 74% of the 25% of not-on-time arrivals due to delayed takeoffs, diversions, or outright cancellations, instead of the flight mysteriously taking longer than scheduled.
This leaves only about 6.5% of all flights not arriving on time due to other causes. Of those, the lion's share are National Aviation System delays (another 24% of the 25%; 6% of all flights). Many, but certainly not all, of these result in delayed takeoffs while a problem like traffic congestion elsewhere, often due to weather, is cleared; sometimes the aircraft is required to stay in a holding pattern, keeping it aloft longer than scheduled. If we take a WAG that fully half of the NAS delays extend time in flight, now we're down to a mere 3% of all flights "in the air much longer than expected". Of those, how many just "mysteriously take too long"? Some do, I'm sure, due to routing issues or unexpected headwinds, but some, at least, fall into the "folks, I'm sorry, but we're going to have to circle Chicago for a little while because of a problem on the ground" and, sure enough, there's Chicago, Lake Michigan, the northern midwest, etc. a few miles below you while you're fretting about making your connections.
http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/help/aviation/html/understanding.html#q4 (http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/help/aviation/html/understanding.html#q4)
I've flown enough to recognize that nearly all late arrivals are due to late takeoffs. The above rings true.
Tom Bishop apparently just tossed out the fact that "only" 75% of all flights arrive on time (which is true) and let you guys gleefully assume that 25% of all flights are in the air much longer than scheduled. You ate it up and uncritically repeated it here. The next time any of you FE proponents think of accusing the rest of us of "just parroting what you're told", please look in the mirror (or, even better, check your "facts" and what they mean, first). The world (whatever its shape) will be better for it.
Sometimes I think they are not government agents, but I can't understand then why they spend so much time here.
I would tend to agree with his points.
This flight seems to exist. Until we find a way to prove that all passengers are lying about the fact that it's not taking over 3 times as much time, or we prove there are no passengers, and that all these youtube videos and the few tripadvisor pages I found... either we prove that they are all fake, and find some mistakes like we do for the rest of the hoaxes, or we cannot just discard this flight as a lie. We need to find some evidence of tampering and fakery. If we don't, then we need to revise our map.
So, OK, yet another witness (albeit not as neutral as those posting videos on youtube), so now I'd like the flat earthers to come forward and tell me what we are going to do about this ridiculous map or how they are going to debunk these rare flights, which although rare when compared to the frequency of the other flights, do seem to exist.
Flat earthers, we can't waste years arguing with these agents/sheeple and then not address their best arguments. Before wasting any further time arguing with them, I ask you to address the evidence of these flights, and if you can't debunk it, to get to work on drawing a new flat earth map.
How can you not have solved this problem yet? How can you not have either debunked these flights or worked on a new map? I've only been a flat-earther for 2 weeks and this problem seems evident.
And, by the way, where are all the flat earthers? I have only met 5 flat earthers so far.
OK, I am going to tell you once and for all. All these people work at the service of Lucifer, who lived for thousands of years and is planning everything that you see happening. That is why you see freemasons worship Lucifer. NASA actors are all freemasons, and freemasons worship Lucifer. Demons do exist. Lucifer does exist.
Do your research. I can even prove to you the existence of demons in case you're skeptical (look up "magician demons" series on youtube). You lazy pseudo-scientist.
Freemasons worship Lucifer and do human sacrifices (cf. John Todd).
"bearing on the subject of a flat earth?": absolutely, Copernicus was either inspired by Lucifer or used by Lucifer. All you need to do is publicize a theory that fits your plans. It doesn't matter if the author is in good faith or not.
I have a lot of objections and questions to God myself. It seems as if he is not acting very much in this world. But demons are definitely afraid of "Jesus". That's how exorcisms are done, in his name.
I've never spoken to Jesus or God. I was agnostic until recently. But then I found out that demons exist (cf. "demon magicians" on Youtube) and that they are afraid of Jesus. So I will try to be a good Christian, just in case he exists. I think he probably exists, but the active ones are the demons, at least in this world.
He is omnipotent, but for some reason I cannot explain and I am not enthusiastic about, he lets evil happen.
By "this world" I mean this coin we live in. It's not a sphere, but a coin. That's the shape of the earth, including the dome over it. It may not correspond to the mainstream flat earth map, but it is still flat (cf. curvature formula vs horizon evidence in my other threads).
----
I am still waiting for answers from the flat-earthers. Either disprove these flights or give me a new flat earth map.
Acenci, watch this:
New York - Helsinki : 4112 miles
Montevideo - Capetown : 4139 miles
Now, carefully analyze these two pages :
CAPETOWN - MONTEVIDEO : http://www.prokerala.com/travel/flight-time/from-cape-town/to-montevideo/ (http://www.prokerala.com/travel/flight-time/from-cape-town/to-montevideo/)
NEW YORK - HELSINKI : http://www.finnair.com/fi/gb/flights-helsinki-new-york (http://www.finnair.com/fi/gb/flights-helsinki-new-york)
Let me know what is your conclusion after careful analysis of two above pages?
Acenci, watch this:
New York - Helsinki : 4112 miles
Montevideo - Capetown : 4139 miles
Now, carefully analyze these two pages :
CAPETOWN - MONTEVIDEO : http://www.prokerala.com/travel/flight-time/from-cape-town/to-montevideo/ (http://www.prokerala.com/travel/flight-time/from-cape-town/to-montevideo/)
NEW YORK - HELSINKI : http://www.finnair.com/fi/gb/flights-helsinki-new-york (http://www.finnair.com/fi/gb/flights-helsinki-new-york)
Let me know what is your conclusion after careful analysis of two above pages?
After careful analysis you actually see the folowing:
Capetown to Montevideo via Paris:
Capetown to Paris - 8,931km - 11 hours
Stopover - 18 hours
Paris to Montevideo - 10,954km - 16 hours
Total distance 19,885 km over 27 hours
Approx 736 km/h
New York to Helsinki - 6,626km - 9 hours
Approx 736 km/h
The only issue is that clearly Montevideo is not a busy destination and that Paris is possibly one of the few airports that will actually fly direct. Hence requiring a hefty diversion from Cape Town. This is purely economics.
Fits round earth perfectly.
Well, you don't have to convince me that the earth is flat -- I agree with you on it -- and I know that it is odd that there are such few direct flights (as your links confirm), but some flights do seem to exist (or please debunk them), so I am now looking for a new flat earth map, because the one we have does not provide for the southern hemisphere intercontinental flights that I found and no one has disproved yet.
if you think round earther maps are accurate then you're being incoherent. a sphere cannot be spread onto a rectangle, so they're not accurate even by your own reckoning. no one pretends maps are accurate.the obvious answer is that the maps we're spoon fed are wrong. are there jet streams (an obvious fantasy), or is it to compensate for the fact two places are closer than the round earth map says?Were you not breast feed enough as a child? You sure have a hangup about being spoon feed. What is so obviously wrong? The RET maps are accurate to the cm level. Seems pretty good to me, especially considering FET can't even draw a map to begin with. So now pilots are in on the conspiracy, who isn't in on it at this point? And if you are feed up with airline delays, why don't you start an FE airline, always on time because FE pilots 'think for themselves'. Oh, wait, there is not a single FE pilot in the world.
don't trust the obviously wrong maps you're given. not even flat earth maps, we have yet to have a chance to measure out an accurate one, the image is only an example and possibility. the governments hide the true one from us.
in addition, pilots will want money too. we aren't told the full capabilities of their planes, and they adapt the speed they fly at accordingly. if they're so reliable, why would there be any delays or early arrivals? simply, they make human error in how much they accelerate.
the obvious answer is that the maps we're spoon fed are wrong. are there jet streams (an obvious fantasy), or is it to compensate for the fact two places are closer than the round earth map says?
don't trust the obviously wrong maps you're given. not even flat earth maps, we have yet to have a chance to measure out an accurate one, the image is only an example and possibility. the governments hide the true one from us.
in addition, pilots will want money too. we aren't told the full capabilities of their planes, and they adapt the speed they fly at accordingly. if they're so reliable, why would there be any delays or early arrivals? simply, they make human error in how much they accelerate.
OK, I agree. Then let us propose an alternative map. And then another question is why is the NASA whistleblower saying that the South Pole is the edge, too? Wouldn't he know? Or are you saying the map is wrong, but the South Pole is still the edge?
But then if the South Pole is the edge, how is this flight possible?
What if the plumb bob is not a valid argument because buildings are too small to worry about the curvature?
What if my only valid argument is the curvature formula not matching the videos of the horizon?
It is still good enough. I am still a flat earther.
That's an 18-hour layover in Paris. We're concerned with flight times (11h + 16h = 27h), not sightseeing or sitting around the airport time (18h).Acenci, watch this:
New York - Helsinki : 4112 miles
Montevideo - Capetown : 4139 miles
Now, carefully analyze these two pages :
CAPETOWN - MONTEVIDEO : http://www.prokerala.com/travel/flight-time/from-cape-town/to-montevideo/ (http://www.prokerala.com/travel/flight-time/from-cape-town/to-montevideo/)
NEW YORK - HELSINKI : http://www.finnair.com/fi/gb/flights-helsinki-new-york (http://www.finnair.com/fi/gb/flights-helsinki-new-york)
Let me know what is your conclusion after careful analysis of two above pages?
After careful analysis you actually see the folowing:
Capetown to Montevideo via Paris:
Capetown to Paris - 8,931km - 11 hours
Stopover - 18 hours
Paris to Montevideo - 10,954km - 16 hours
Total distance 19,885 km over 27 hours
Approx 736 km/h
New York to Helsinki - 6,626km - 9 hours
Approx 736 km/h
The only issue is that clearly Montevideo is not a busy destination and that Paris is possibly one of the few airports that will actually fly direct. Hence requiring a hefty diversion from Cape Town. This is purely economics.
Fits round earth perfectly.
11 hours 20 minutes + 18 hours = 29 hours, NOT 46 hours!!!
Well, you don't have to convince me that the earth is flat -- I agree with you on it -- and I know that it is odd that there are such few direct flights (as your links confirm), but some flights do seem to exist (or please debunk them), so I am now looking for a new flat earth map, because the one we have does not provide for the southern hemisphere intercontinental flights that I found and no one has disproved yet.
Acenci, think about this:
Sydney Australia - Santiago Chile : 7055 miles
Montevideo - Capetown: 4139 miles
Difference : 3000 miles
Sydney - Santiago flight time : 14 h 38 min (not 12 h 30 min) : http://www.travelmath.com/flying-time/from/Santiago,+Chile/to/Sydney,+Australia (http://www.travelmath.com/flying-time/from/Santiago,+Chile/to/Sydney,+Australia)
This assumes an average flight speed for a commercial airliner of 500 mph, which is equivalent to 805 km/h or 434 knots. It also adds an extra 30 minutes for take-off and landing. Your exact time may vary depending on wind speeds.It's an estimate. Get over it.
Now, 3000 miles = 4800 km / 800 (flight speed) = 6 hoursI think you mean nonstop, not direct, but whatever. Which flight is it that you say lasts three hours longer than 8h 38m? The one you say doesn't exist? Umm... OK. ???
Does this mean that the direct flight between Montevideo and Capetown should last 8 hours and 38 minutes? BUT IT DOESN'T LAST THAT LONG!!!! According to them it lasts THREE HOURS MORE THAN THAT!!! Although, it seems that there is no such flight anywhere, anyway???
Now if we presume that flight time between Sydney and Santiago is 12 hours and 30 minutes, then direct flight between Montevideo and Capetown should last just 6 hours and 30 minutes, which is absolute nonsense!!!That's kind of a strange way to arrive at that number. Maybe there's the problem.
Regarding your "new flat earth map", i have never seen such a bullshit in my whole life.Apparently you don't see what you write. That would explain a lot.
Aren't you able to discern utter bullshit from something normal and sane?::)
Think!!!You might consider this yourself. Seriously, how could you miss a 17h20m connection in Paris in an itinerary between South Africa and Uruguay and mistake it for a nonstop flight? You really don't read what you post, do you?
11 hours 20 minutes + 18 hours = 29 hours, NOT 46 hours!!!There is an 18 hour stopover, you retard.
Acenci, watch this:
New York - Helsinki : 4112 miles
Montevideo - Capetown : 4139 miles
...
Regarding your "new flat earth map", i have never seen such a bullshit in my whole life. Aren't you able to discern utter bullshit from something normal and sane?
Haven't you watch this video : False FLAT EARTH MAP deception : (http://)
Haven't you watch this video : Mark Sargents video ANTARCTICA No 7 : (http://)
Think!!!
Seriously, Cikjamas, this attitude of yours only discredits the FE idea. How can you not understand that it is totally counterproductive to write super long posts with meaningless redundant information and on top of that insult your fellow FE'ers? How many arguments are you going to make? Why not simply focus on one and explain it well instead of simply changing the subject and trying to convince using a totally different argument. It is a miracle people are still responding. Acenci simply said he wants to make such a map, because the current one is obviously wrong. Where is the bullshit in this? Are you claiming now the FE map is absolutely correct?
(http://i.imgur.com/pEqd6p0.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/mZ1gpeL.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/6Lz1J5w.jpg)
many of these people who live above the equator travel towards places which are placed below equator (for many reasons).
...
As I said, I know that it is odd that there are so few direct flights (as your links confirm), but some flights do seem to exist.
And?
99 % of all air traffic in the world goes through these airports. All these airports are placed above the equator:
WTH happened to that last map cik posted looks like Salvador Dali got ahold of it.
And?
There is still 12 % of all people in the world (about 800 millions) who live below equator, but most of the flights between places which are situated below equator are still directed through these airports which are above the equator. How come?
And?
There is still 12 % of all people in the world (about 800 millions) who live below equator, but most of the flights between places which are situated below equator are still directed through these airports which are above the equator. How come?
That is just not true.
Sydney-Johannesburg - nonstop flights - 6 times per week - 14 hours - Qantas 63
Johannesburg - Sao Paolo - nonstop flights - at least one flight per day - 10 hours
South African 222 or South African 224
Auckland, NZ to Sao Paolo, Brazil through Santiago, Chile - 17 hours - LAN
So what are you saying again?
It seems to me you just can't search for the best connections. You do realize that what you found are not nonstop flights? You can find similar super long connections through any major airport, but you can also find nonstop flights. It is not a conspiracy, it is totally normal. If someone wants to fly to Paris and then to Sao Paolo, they can do that. If they want to fly directly to Sao Paolo they can do that too. Absolutely meaningless debate.
And?
There is still 12 % of all people in the world (about 800 millions) who live below equator, but most of the flights between places which are situated below equator are still directed through these airports which are above the equator. How come?
That is just not true.
Sydney-Johannesburg - nonstop flights - 6 times per week - 14 hours - Qantas 63
Johannesburg - Sao Paolo - nonstop flights - at least one flight per day - 10 hours
South African 222 or South African 224
Auckland, NZ to Sao Paolo, Brazil through Santiago, Chile - 17 hours - LAN
So what are you saying again?
It seems to me you just can't search for the best connections. You do realize that what you found are not nonstop flights? You can find similar super long connections through any major airport, but you can also find nonstop flights. It is not a conspiracy, it is totally normal. If someone wants to fly to Paris and then to Sao Paolo, they can do that. If they want to fly directly to Sao Paolo they can do that too. Absolutely meaningless debate.
It seems that this guy also can't search for the best connections : (http://)
Three questions for you:
1. What do you think of what has been said in this video?
2. If these flights exist and if these flight times are correct what would you conclude out of this?
3. Do you still believe that Zibn Rahman's flat earth map is worthy of wasting your precious time?
Here is also another "impossible" flight. Auckland, NZ to Santiago, Chile - NONSTOP for 13h10m
Please before believing in complete nonsense next time do your homework and check for yourself.
(http://i.imgur.com/WHZHV8G.jpg)
99 % of all air traffic in the world goes through these airports. All these airports are placed above the equator:
(http://i.imgur.com/pKPloiv.jpg)
Scrotto Gaggins, dumbass,
You take food on your ass-hole, and your mouth is full of shit! It should be other way around, don't you think so?
Saros,
How come that you have skipped this question:
2. If these flights exist and if these flight times are correct what would you conclude out of this?
Allow me to ask you one more question:
Are you still unable to understand my ZIGZAG argument?
Scrotto Gaggins, dumbass,
You take food on your ass-hole, and your mouth is full of shit! It should be other way around, don't you think so?
Acenci, the earth is flat. Whenever a slightest doubt begins to bother you, just start to read my GLOBAL CONSPIRACY thread, in this thread you will find many cures for your doubts.
As for these flights, don't you know what is at stake here?
Apollo missions
Space Shuttle program
International Space Station
Whole bunch of satellites which don't exist but they are still orbiting the earth
Russian alleged Soyouz space missions
Gagarin, the first man who had been in earth's orbit
Chinese space program
Etc...
How difficult task would be for these professional liars to cover up true data regarding these flights below equator also?
How come that NASA shills are available 24 hours a day for answering to all possible questions that someone could come up with?
How come that NASA's main site is named Flat Earth Society?
Ok, so I keep my belief in flat earth and I add to this belief these two:
1) the map is correct and the flight is faked
2) I need to investigate on how exactly they are faking these few southern hemisphere flights and if there are real passengers or not
Acenci, the earth is flat. Whenever a slightest doubt begins to bother you, just start to read my GLOBAL CONSPIRACY thread, in this thread you will find many cures for your doubts.
As for these flights, don't you know what is at stake here?
Apollo missions
Space Shuttle program
International Space Station
Whole bunch of satellites which don't exist but they are still orbiting the earth
Russian alleged Soyouz space missions
Gagarin, the first man who had been in earth's orbit
Chinese space program
Etc...
How difficult task would be for these professional liars to cover up true data regarding these flights below equator also?
How come that NASA shills are available 24 hours a day for answering to all possible questions that someone could come up with?
How come that NASA's main site is named Flat Earth Society?
Ok, so I keep my belief in flat earth and I add to this belief these two:
1) the map is correct and the flight is faked
2) I need to investigate on how exactly they are faking these few southern hemisphere flights and if there are real passengers or not
Saros,
So, you are still unable to understand my ZIGZAG argument?
Well, this is really sad!
Go ahead, fight for them (RET), and you can spit to your "Elbrus" argument, also, although it is nice FET argument, and always will be...
Saros,
So, you are still unable to understand my ZIGZAG argument?
Well, this is really sad!
Go ahead, fight for them (RET), and you can spit to your "Elbrus" argument, also, although it is nice FET argument, and always will be...
Flat earth map is meaningless, but Zib Rahman's idiotic flat earth map is not meaningless?
It seems that you have lost your mind my dear friend!
Saros,
So, you are still unable to understand my ZIGZAG argument?
Well, this is really sad!
Go ahead, fight for them (RET), and you can spit to your "Elbrus" argument, also, although it is nice FET argument, and always will be...
Flat earth map is meaningless, but Zib Rahman's idiotic flat earth map is not meaningless?
It seems that you have lost your mind my dear friend!
HURRAY!!! Zig zag argument returns. I am so proud of you cik. Stick to your guns my man.
Please help me out, because I can't find an explanation for this, although I am still convinced of the earth being flat. The curvature formula vs. the photos and videos proves to me that the earth is flat, but this flight (the only one in contrast with our theory) poses a problem that we need to solve.
No no, I am just a beginner. I am still exploring things. I coherently stand by my curvature formula and horizon videos / pics that prove to me the earth is flat.
But do some plane searches between Chile, Argentina, New Zealand, South Africa, and Oz, you will be astounded at what you will find! All with stop overs, and if you find a direct flight (very rare) the duration in the air doesn't add up!
Maybe just lack of demand.
Fellas, I think I've got it figured out.Troll Meter:10.
It's game over for the round earthers. Cikljamas, don't worry about it -- you were right about the fakery. The flight does not actually take place. Now we just need to find evidence to nail them.
I am sorry I cannot provide the evidence I just got. The reason is that if I do, they will add more fakery.
Let's get started working on the videos and the trip advisor comments, because now we need to find the fakery. Because they are fake, although I still have not found the fakery in those. I found the fakery elsewhere. It is blatant. I cannot tell you what it is, as I said. Otherwise you'll tell your colleagues to fake that, too.
Acenci,
Although i don't know what you have found, i am very delighted with that information. So, how are we going to celebrate it?
By opening and drinking off a few glasses of a good french champagne?
Hilarious parody about the guy whose theories Saros blindly follows. It seems that Saros is the greatest fan of him. (http://) Must see!
Alpha2Omega, maybe you should get your head around this question: how long would that specific flight last if they flew across Antarctica?
See picture above!
Ok, fellas, this is all or nothing:Do you know why it is not on flightradar24 ?
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28 (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA28)
I am following one of these phantom flights live. Let's all investigate further on this one, QFA28.
Show me it is really happening. I don't ask for anything better.
According to flightaware it is in the middle of the ocean. But I bet you anything the other two flight trackers will show me nothing in that spot.
Ah ah, I knew it! Bingo!
It is 5 hours into the trip, from Santiago to Sydney, according to flightaware but it is nowhere to be seen according to flightradar24.com.
Yeah, I'd like to know why one of the three flight trackers shows it, but the other two do not.Find out how flightradar24 works...
As I said, the other two show nothing, and yet they show all the other flights, including those in the middle of Oceans (Atlantic AND Pacific, but only northern). So, you're not going to bullshit your way out of this one.How does flightradar24 work? Please explain.
Yeah, typical answer from you civil servants. Keeping us busy, with more questions ("please explain it again, for the tenth time", "please elaborate"... and so on). I am satisfied, the other flat earther is satisfied, and we're out of here. Go work on some other forum, such as on "The perpetrator was Lee Harvey Oswald" threads.Find out about ADS-B. Explains why aircraft do not show.
Now there is a flight from Auckland (new zealand) to Santiago, which for our purposes of checking things, is even better.16:15 less 12:00 is 4:15, dear. Oops... :-[
It is called QF321:Quote16:15
Auckland
Duration: 11h 20m
11:35
Santiago
Stops: 0 This flight is operated by LAN Airlines
QF321
It happens every day at 16:15 local time. There's also a flight back, called QF322, departing at local time 23:05:
http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/plan_timetable.portal?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=FITimeTablePortlet&FITimeTablePortlet_actionOverride=%2Fstruts%2Ftimetable%2FScheduleResponse (http://www.qantas.com.au/travel/plan_timetable.portal?_nfpb=true&_windowLabel=FITimeTablePortlet&FITimeTablePortlet_actionOverride=%2Fstruts%2Ftimetable%2FScheduleResponse)
They both fly every day, and they both take 11 hours. Let's convert these two times in Central European Time:
http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc (http://www.timezoneconverter.com/cgi-bin/tzc.tzc)
Auckland 16:15 in CET it is 8:15, because we have 12 hours less.
It will fly for 11 hours and 20 minutes, fromYour errors (8:154:15 until19:3515:35, but now wait...; they say arrival "11:35 local time", which is our 15:35,so it is taking 4 hours less -- bingo, first discrepancyexactly as expected.
Santiago 23:05 in CET it is 3:05, because we have 4 hours more.
It will also fly for 11 hours, from 3:05 to 14:15, but now wait... they say arrival "4:15", which is our"8:15"16:15,so now it is taking 6 hours lesswhich is about 2 hours longer. This plane (in theory) crosses the Pacific in5 hours13 hours 10 minutes instead of 11 hours.Bingo!Which is exactly what the timetable for QF 322 shows. That 11 hours I used for the return flight was wrong... never mind. :-[They are making them up as they go, without worrying about the discrepancies.I made some dumb errors and saw something I liked without checking for errors. Sorry for the confusion.
At any rate, all I have to do next is to stay up until 3 AM and visualize the flight from Santiago on the flight trackers or get up at 8 and track the one from Auckland.Enjoy!
Starting at 3 AM my time until 3:35 PM my time (CET) I will enjoy tracking these planes. I will take snapshots, too.
OK, we're set. End of the story.
Wow, genius.Land based receivers for flightradar24 with limited range, many in people's homes.
So sorry. Yes, you are right. I am glad there are so many people looking for mistakes in what I write.
Good job. Their schedules are correct, and I converted the times incorrectly.
OK. So, I apologize for the horrible mistakes.
Still, no one has explained why the flight does not show on two of the three flight trackers. Not only that, but no flight in the oceans of the southern hemisphere is ever seen.
Great job Acenci! Thanks for your efforts!Explained above, limited range.
Alpha2Omega is always on guard, so, he will nothing miss, don't worry about that.
However, i have also noticed (independently) mistake that you have done, but Alpha2Omega always has been much faster gunman than me, no doubts about that.
Only Alpha2Omega is on the wrong side from the beginning, and all mistakes that we do from time to time (and we are just humans, aren't we?) won't help him, because, at the end of the day we shall win (as always).
So, what is your answer (NASA shills) to this? Why two of three flight-trackers don't show this particular flight???
Yeah, and above, in the rest of the oceans, it's all different. Odd, right?Here's the Inmarsat-3 Satellite coverage map. Note the satellite footprints - the part of the Earth within line of sight of each satellite (the variously-colored ovals) and the beam coverage - where their system works (the darker-shaded areas).
Not conclusive evidence though. Definitely suspicious, but not enough evidence to be satisfied and close the case. Far less evidence than we have for the faked moon landings, and the fake ISS missions. I'd like to have a lot more.
Acenci says: But I think our flat earth map is still slightly wrong, otherwise the trip should have taken almost 4 times as long as on a spherical earth.
I am glad there are so many people looking for mistakes in what I write.
Their schedules are correct, and I converted the times incorrectly.
Why do commercial airplanes not fly over Antarctica, even though it would often be quicker than flying around it?
Great circle route...(http://i.stack.imgur.com/hIg1i.gif)
It's not "quicker" to fly "around" Antarctica—it's slower to fly over it.
According to your map, that same flight going to Perth should be flying over pretty much the south pole. Does this happen in real life?
How about between Perth to anywhere in the southern tip of SA?According to your map, that same flight going to Perth should be flying over pretty much the south pole. Does this happen in real life?
No. There are no flights from Perth to Ezeiza International Airport in South America. One has to fly from Perth to Sydney.
Airplanes fly above the weather. Try again.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route)
Already been covered.
Acenci says: But I think our flat earth map is still slightly wrong, otherwise the trip should have taken almost 4 times as long as on a spherical earth.
Look, I am not denying that the earth is flat, but if you look at my previous post, you at least have to agree that the Flat Earth Society's map is wrong. That is, if you are claiming that the UN map is different from it (and not just drawn approximately).
We have to stop discussing this flight and start discussing maps.
Before dropping the subject, you should clarify your objections:
1) whether you think the flight does not take place.
2) whether you think the plane goes faster, to deceive us on the distance.
3) what the real distance is and how long it takes the plane to cover it.
Personally, I believe the flight takes place and in the normal time, but maybe the plane goes faster and at the same time our map is wrong. Or maybe it does not go faster, and then our map is completely wrong.
why should a plane go faster to deceive us? Or slower?Look, I am not denying that the earth is flat, but if you look at my previous post, you at least have to agree that the Flat Earth Society's map is wrong. That is, if you are claiming that the UN map is different from it (and not just drawn approximately).
We have to stop discussing this flight and start discussing maps.
Before dropping the subject, you should clarify your objections:
1) whether you think the flight does not take place.
2) whether you think the plane goes faster, to deceive us on the distance.
3) what the real distance is and how long it takes the plane to cover it.
Personally, I believe the flight takes place and in the normal time, but maybe the plane goes faster and at the same time our map is wrong. Or maybe it does not go faster, and then our map is completely wrong.
1) The flight does take place
2) The plane goes faster to deceive us
3) This has yet to be determined, but it won't be easy...
The plane goes faster and at the same time our map is wrong.
Now, we can start discussing our maps if you like... :)
I must go now, but i'll be back in a few hours...
P.S. I am not upset, don't worry... :)
Bingo!
Then we agree on everything.
Acenci, are you sure that this flight is a NON-STOP flight?
It seems to me that i have spotted at least two take off (this video has 3 parts, am i right?)...
I am watching right now, at 3 different flight radars, and i don't see any flight whatsoever between SA - Africa - Australia...
You have to see these tables:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stop_flight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stop_flight)
In these tables you won't find even one single flight between SA - Africa - Australia...
Now, try to figure out next few facts and then combine them in one entirety:
1. No flights across Antarctica
2. Passengers on alleged NON-STOP flights between Australia and South America are not able to see Antarctica...
3. Flight Radars show no flights between SA - Africa - Australia
4. There isn't one single NON-STOP flight in tables above between SA - Africa - Australia
This video is very interesting, i suggest you to watch this video carefully (even if you have already watched it before) : (http://)
What is your conclusion?
I watched this video once more, there is one correction:
They flew from Iquique - Chile to Santiago - Chile 1,5 hours, this 1,5 hours has to be substracted from 19 hours (full flight-time on relation: Iquique - Santiago - Auckland), so they still flew 17 hours and 30 minutes between Santiago - Chile and Auckland - New Zealand!
So, let's say that their flight-speed was 900 km/h, what would be the distance between Santiago and Auckland? 15,700 km (NOT 9670 km)...
But what if their speed was 1100 km/h? Then the distance between Santiago and Auckland is 19,250 km!!!
P.S. Jimmy, who is talking about the flight-time between Sydney and LA? Are you still on heavy drugs?
I watched this video once more, there is one correction:
They flew from Iquique - Chile to Santiago - Chile 1,5 hours, this 1,5 hours has to be substracted from 19 hours (full flight-time on relation: Iquique - Santiago - Auckland), so they still flew 17 hours and 30 minutes between Santiago - Chile and Auckland - New Zealand!
So, let's say that their flight-speed was 900 km/h, what would be the distance between Santiago and Auckland? 15,700 km (NOT 9670 km)...
But what if their speed was 1100 km/h? Then the distance between Santiago and Auckland is 19,250 km!!!
P.S. Jimmy, who is talking about the flight-time between Sydney and LA? Are you still on heavy drugs?
I am back with you guys 100%.
For the past week I was just clinging to my curvature formula as proof for a flat earth, but now that I've watched both the Polish video (cf. video below) and read your post breaking down that video by the Chilean Youtuber's video, I am fully back in the community.
With a pinch of cheating in the speed, with frequent delays (as posted in previous posts, from tripadvisor), with the fact that all these flights are never tracked, with the fact that their courses do not make sense (cf. following video)... put all these things together and even the flight routes alone demonstrate a flat earth.
For all the sheeple listening, just watch the following video starting at minute 5 and not only will you be convinced of flat earth, but you won't believe in the force of gravity anymore:
FALSE FLAT EARTH MAP DECEPTION. Polaris is stationary. North is north and south is south! (http://#)
I watched this video once more, there is one correction:
They flew from Iquique - Chile to Santiago - Chile 1,5 hours, this 1,5 hours has to be substracted from 19 hours (full flight-time on relation: Iquique - Santiago - Auckland), so they still flew 17 hours and 30 minutes between Santiago - Chile and Auckland - New Zealand!
So, let's say that their flight-speed was 900 km/h, what would be the distance between Santiago and Auckland? 15,700 km (NOT 9670 km)...
But what if their speed was 1100 km/h? Then the distance between Santiago and Auckland is 19,250 km!!!
P.S. Jimmy, who is talking about the flight-time between Sydney and LA? Are you still on heavy drugs?
I am back with you guys 100%.
For the past week I was just clinging to my curvature formula as proof for a flat earth, but now that I've watched both the Polish video (cf. video below) and read your post breaking down that video by the Chilean Youtuber's video, I am fully back in the community.
With a pinch of cheating in the speed, with frequent delays (as posted in previous posts, from tripadvisor), with the fact that all these flights are never tracked, with the fact that their courses do not make sense (cf. following video)... put all these things together and even the flight routes alone demonstrate a flat earth.
For all the sheeple listening, just watch the following video starting at minute 5 and not only will you be convinced of flat earth, but you won't believe in the force of gravity anymore:
FALSE FLAT EARTH MAP DECEPTION. Polaris is stationary. North is north and south is south! (http://#)
I disagree with ridiculing anyone. Don't forget what it feels like to be ridiculed. He has a theory that you don't agree with. But I think many of his other theories are correct. I think Zhib Rhan is an excellent and admirable person. He is fighting for what he thinks is the truth, and he is not being paid to lie. What more can we ask for?
Too many questions. My answer to you is that there can only be one of us in the end, it's like the movie Highlander. Right now cikljamas and I belong to that 0.001% who know the truth, but in the end we will reach further truths and we will not agree on everything as we do right now, so that in the end only one person will possess the truth.
Regarding your skepticism on my Math, I know enough math to thoroughly understand that curvature formula.
If you are in good faith, you will also understand the other truths that I have reached. It's useless to try to force the truth into you. If instead you just wanted to ridicule me, go ahead. I am used to it.
But if you didn't, then be patient, keep exploring and you will reach our level of truth.
I disagree with ridiculing anyone. Don't forget what it feels like to be ridiculed. He has a theory that you don't agree with. But I think many of his other theories are correct. I think Zhib Rhan is an excellent and admirable person. He is fighting for what he thinks is the truth, and he is not being paid to lie. What more can we ask for?
A little bit seriousness and sanity!
Is this too much to expect from any adult person?
Saros is unable to understand such a simple concept as ZIGZAG argument is....If he is unable to understand such a simple concept AFTER SO MUCH TIME AND ENERGY THAT I INVESTED IN EXPLAINING THIS ARGUMENT then he should at lest be humble and keep his mouth shut (regarding that particular issue which he doesn't understand) instead of attempting to ridicule ME and my important argument which he doesn't understand in the first place.
Regarding Zib Rahman, come on man, don't make me laugh, even kids who are still in elementary school ridicule his videos....This guy needs help...
If he continue to do what he does, Saros is going to make much more damage to our attempts of keeping our discussion constructive, than all round-earthers together.
Now, one question for you: If you understand spanish so well, how come that i (instead of you) had to reveal all these HUGE inconsistencies and discrepancies within this video?
I will defend all who speak in good faith. And if I disagree, I will just say that I disagree. No one in good faith deserves to be ridiculed. On the other hand, if they're getting paid to lie, then go ahead and ridicule them. But I don't think it's the case with Zhib Rhan.
I think there was a misunderstanding. I didn't accuse you of being a government agent. I said, feel free to ridicule the government agents. Regarding Zhib Rhan, he is not an agent, so I will respect him and I hope you will, too.
Why didn't I find the discrepancies... I hope you are not accusing me of being a government agent. I did not notice them because they weren't that noticeable, and because I had done plenty of work on this, and I was tired. A large part of what convinced me was the Polish video you posted. So, your extra help was useful but not enough to fully convince me: the Polish video was very important. Thank you for your help.
Yes, good points.
I believe that only good things can come from the truth, so just as I sincerely stated my doubts, within my general belief in a flat earth, and this produced a good outcome (it would have been good, too, if it had convinced us of spherical earth)...
...in the same way you should not be bothered by what Zhib says, because:
1) if you think he's crazy, you should respect him, because that would not be his fault
2) if you think he's lying (but you don't) you should denounce it
3) if you think he's wrong but not crazy, you should try to convince him, and if his theory is so bad, there is no reason to be bothered by it, because the smart ones will discard it
I don't see any reason to deride him. Furthermore, his other videos are all good, and he shows what a good person he is.
Mickey, i don't believe you a single word, but if you are so sure that you are right, then i suppose you can easily explain away all the problems that you will find in this post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1665796#msg1665796 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1665796#msg1665796)
Acenci, I have lost one friend (Saros) because of this clown, i don't want to lose another friend because of him, i am done with this guy, for good. If you like this guy, that's fine with me, but as i said, i am done with this guy, FOR GOOD.
Thanks for your understanding!
Mickey, i don't believe you a single word, but if you are so sure that you are right, then i suppose you can easily explain away all the problems that you will find in this post : http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1665796#msg1665796 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62950.msg1665796#msg1665796)For the 100th time, I don't think what Zhib Rhan says is necessary true. But it is youtube and you can express your views even if they sound totally insane. You're the one who decided he is my guru based on your own vivid imagination. That is totally insane and discredits your character. I just think he makes interesting videos, because he expresses his own beliefs. But why am I explaining this to you when you clearly are very self-obsessed and don't care if what you say offends someone. However, acenci is right that only a stuck-up and malevolent person would completely ignore someone's opinion so aggressively. Opinion is an opinion and it is a person's right. You don't have the right to call someone an idiot for having a different opinion. But you don't understand that, right? Someone is a friend as long as they agree with you 100%. Ask acenci, if he believes in your zigzag argument.
Acenci, I have lost one friend (Saros) because of this clown, i don't want to lose another friend because of him, i am done with this guy, for good. If you like this guy, that's fine with me, but as i said, i am done with this guy, FOR GOOD.
Thanks for your understanding!
Yeah, Saros, good points. Nobody's perfect.
Cikljamas, don't get offended. I am like you as well, so let's try to moderate and tone down each other when we are getting too cocky and arrogant.
I, too, have the tendency to say that whoever doesn't agree with me is a sheeple or a shill.
Let us try to moderate this problem. I feel close to Zhib, because of his sincerity and anti-conformism, so I defended him on this occasion. But probably I attack in the same way others who don't agree with me and who don't remind me of myself.
So let us acknowledge this limit we have.
On the other hand, let us not forget that we would not be able to stand by the truth, despite being up against 99.99% of people if we weren't so self-centered, egocentric, individualistic, and wrapped up in ourselves.
If we were your average person, right now, we would not be discussing our theories but we would be watching soccer on TV like the rest of the idiots. Or we would be arguing, like others on this forum, about why the majority is right. But, thanks to our free thinking, self-reliance, independence, and individualism, we say "screw the majority". The side-effect is that we often say "screw everyone except those who agree with me".
But I have been improving myself lately and now I say "screw the majority" but I also support minorities, even if they don't agree with me.
Nope. I happen to think the earth is flat, and, as Samuel Jackson would put it, "your ass ain't talkin' your way out of this shit".
Pulp Fiction Scene - "Hamburgers" (http://#ws)
I believe in the flat earth, and I don't care if I am with the 0.001%. The earth is flat and sooner or later you will find out, too. But probably you will find out only when you feel comforted by another 51% of the population being on your side.
So, talk to you in 10 years, when this fact will become mainstream knowledge. Provided we're not all chipped by then, and in that case I don't know who they'll kill first.
I don't know if they'll first kill the opposers or the sheeple. I think they have a plan to kill a few billion sheeple.
One question for moderators : When it becomes obvious that somebody is mentally ill person, shouldn't you restrict access (to such a person) to this forum?Are you really that mean? Now I am mentally ill, because I told you to be a bit more skeptical of your own theories? You should be the first to get thrown out since you have insulted so many people here for no reason at all. Who is not an idiot and insane in your opinion? Focus on the topic and provide better explanations instead of being impolite. That is why I argue with you about this stuff. You're just rude and disrespectful. Be a little bit humble please! Apparently, it is too much to ask.
Did you just happen to overlook the shit that he has took, or are you well aware of it but decide to have a pop at free thinkers, yet pretending you're one yourself.One question for moderators : When it becomes obvious that somebody is mentally ill person, shouldn't you restrict access (to such a person) to this forum?Are you really that mean? Now I am mentally ill, because I told you to be a bit more skeptical of your own theories? You should be the first to get thrown out since you have insulted so many people here for no reason at all. Who is not an idiot and insane in your opinion? Focus on the topic and provide better explanations instead of being impolite. That is why I argue with you about this stuff. You're just rude and disrespectful. Be a little bit humble please! Apparently, it is too much to ask.
Did you just happen to overlook the shit that he has took, or are you well aware of it but decide to have a pop at free thinkers, yet pretending you're one yourself.One question for moderators : When it becomes obvious that somebody is mentally ill person, shouldn't you restrict access (to such a person) to this forum?Are you really that mean? Now I am mentally ill, because I told you to be a bit more skeptical of your own theories? You should be the first to get thrown out since you have insulted so many people here for no reason at all. Who is not an idiot and insane in your opinion? Focus on the topic and provide better explanations instead of being impolite. That is why I argue with you about this stuff. You're just rude and disrespectful. Be a little bit humble please! Apparently, it is too much to ask.
Someone mentioned that you were a shill on another site. I'm tending to believe it now after watching how you're going about your business.
A classic shill. Argue for something away from a globe then BANG, hit the flat Earth theorists right in the guts. It won't work. Anyone who plays the game will be found out sooner or later. Then from that point on, all you're doing is playing the game, only this time you're playing it out in the open for us all to see.
If you can't back up free thinkers then don't slag them down either. There's enough globalites on here that do all of that. From this point on you're a full on shill unless you prove otherwise.
There's not much else to explain. I've just told you how it is. Now let's see if you can grasp this.Did you just happen to overlook the shit that he has took, or are you well aware of it but decide to have a pop at free thinkers, yet pretending you're one yourself.One question for moderators : When it becomes obvious that somebody is mentally ill person, shouldn't you restrict access (to such a person) to this forum?Are you really that mean? Now I am mentally ill, because I told you to be a bit more skeptical of your own theories? You should be the first to get thrown out since you have insulted so many people here for no reason at all. Who is not an idiot and insane in your opinion? Focus on the topic and provide better explanations instead of being impolite. That is why I argue with you about this stuff. You're just rude and disrespectful. Be a little bit humble please! Apparently, it is too much to ask.
Someone mentioned that you were a shill on another site. I'm tending to believe it now after watching how you're going about your business.
A classic shill. Argue for something away from a globe then BANG, hit the flat Earth theorists right in the guts. It won't work. Anyone who plays the game will be found out sooner or later. Then from that point on, all you're doing is playing the game, only this time you're playing it out in the open for us all to see.
If you can't back up free thinkers then don't slag them down either. There's enough globalites on here that do all of that. From this point on you're a full on shill unless you prove otherwise.
Can you please explain? Are you writing to me? I am confused. How am I shill if I demand people to not insult each other and to not slander each other? Free thinkers shouldn't insult people. That is not free thinking. It is just rude. Also, I am sure cikljamas took a lot of shit because of his approach, not because of his ideas.
Acenci,
Although i don't know what you have found, i am very delighted with that information. So, how are we going to celebrate it?
By opening and drinking off a few glasses of a good french champagne?
Hilarious parody about the guy whose theories Saros blindly follows. It seems that Saros is the greatest fan of him. (http://) Must see!
Just for the record, I never ever said I follow this guy, are you insane? You are either crazy or just lack any ability to understand what people share with you. That is just too much! You are seriously disturbed if you claim others do stuff which they don't. When did I say I believe this guy? Do you even have dignity or you simply like to claim bullshit about others for fun?
You're not wasting time with me. In fact, that is why you post threads in the first place. You want people to respond, right? Do you expect people to agree or disagree when you post a thread? I think you want them to disagree. It would be pretty boring if everyone agreed, right? How would you feel if everyone here believed in your claims 100%? I am sure you would leave the forum.Nope. I happen to think the earth is flat, and, as Samuel Jackson would put it, "your ass ain't talkin' your way out of this shit".
Pulp Fiction Scene - "Hamburgers" (http://#ws)
I believe in the flat earth, and I don't care if I am with the 0.001%. The earth is flat and sooner or later you will find out, too. But probably you will find out only when you feel comforted by another 51% of the population being on your side.
So, talk to you in 10 years, when this fact will become mainstream knowledge. Provided we're not all chipped by then, and in that case I don't know who they'll kill first.
I don't know if they'll first kill the opposers or the sheeple. I think they have a plan to kill a few billion sheeple.
OK, that is the problem. You and cikljamas assume everyone else thinks the Earth is a sphere and only you suspect it's flat. You think you need to convince everyone else. Guess what. You're wrong. Other people believe the Earth is flat too, but don't act like dicks.
The Earth might be flat, but your arguments are weak. That is why people argue with you. I don't believe it is a sphere either, but I don't come here shouting that everything I say is correct, just because I said so.
You can't make weak arguments and then expect others to believe you.
I think that you guys don't believe in flat Earth, because if you did, you wouldn't be making arguments which can easily be refuted and would be more careful how you present yourself.
It is almost as if you want to discredit the idea that the Earth is flat by pretending you're a flat Earther and making stupid arguments supposedly to prove it. You're not convincing people this way. The opposite, if someone believes in flat Earth after reading the crap Cikjamas writes they might re-consider.
So, think about it. Look at my perspective's videos, he is very modest and takes time to explain stuff. Doesn't insult people and tell them they are idiots. Despite all that, it is not guaranteed he is correct. About these things you can never be 100% sure, and if someone is 100% sure that means he is a brainwashed mushroom. As if the point is not to think but to blindly believe in it. That is almost cultish..
"Weak arguments"? Ah ah, you lazy ass!
I spent 20 posts explaining the curvature formula and its conflict with all photographic and cinematic evidence (I provided plenty of examples), and yet you pretend I didn't, because that takes too much effort to disprove, and in fact it is impossible to disprove. That is my watertight argument and the reason I am so confident.
That's why I don't plan to waste any more time with you, despite the fact that everything you say is pretty wise. But you are not wise about me.
There's not much else to explain. I've just told you how it is. Now let's see if you can grasp this.Did you just happen to overlook the shit that he has took, or are you well aware of it but decide to have a pop at free thinkers, yet pretending you're one yourself.One question for moderators : When it becomes obvious that somebody is mentally ill person, shouldn't you restrict access (to such a person) to this forum?Are you really that mean? Now I am mentally ill, because I told you to be a bit more skeptical of your own theories? You should be the first to get thrown out since you have insulted so many people here for no reason at all. Who is not an idiot and insane in your opinion? Focus on the topic and provide better explanations instead of being impolite. That is why I argue with you about this stuff. You're just rude and disrespectful. Be a little bit humble please! Apparently, it is too much to ask.
Someone mentioned that you were a shill on another site. I'm tending to believe it now after watching how you're going about your business.
A classic shill. Argue for something away from a globe then BANG, hit the flat Earth theorists right in the guts. It won't work. Anyone who plays the game will be found out sooner or later. Then from that point on, all you're doing is playing the game, only this time you're playing it out in the open for us all to see.
If you can't back up free thinkers then don't slag them down either. There's enough globalites on here that do all of that. From this point on you're a full on shill unless you prove otherwise.
Can you please explain? Are you writing to me? I am confused. How am I shill if I demand people to not insult each other and to not slander each other? Free thinkers shouldn't insult people. That is not free thinking. It is just rude. Also, I am sure cikljamas took a lot of shit because of his approach, not because of his ideas.
If cikljamas puts effort in like he does and is on the end of a mass of posters (globalites) who try every which way to ridicule him, then I expect he will retaliate and give a little bit back.
You're almost making out that these globalists are all nice in responding. They're not. Most are bell end's. Only some have any sense and some are simply spotty, snotty nosed kids.
Now let's get back to you. If you are not a globalist then your input is not needed in aid of them, no matter what. If you don't like what cikljamas is saying or any other free thinker, then just take a back seat and let them get on with what they're putting out.
It seems rather odd that cikljamas is putting excellent info into this forum. So good infact that it's guaranteed to make many people think. Those who have a thinking brain that is.
It seems that because he's hitting a raw nerve, there seems to be a full on approach to battering him from putting it out by many, including yourself, except you are using the ruse of playing a devil's advocate with a little mix of good cop, bad cop in. It's like you're acting all innocent whilst telling him he's wrong but not outright dismissing it for all to see as blatant.
What do you know?...what makes you know the truth and him, not?
What gives you the right to tell him to tone his stuff down and yet you don't appear to tell the globalists to tone down their constant crap towards him.
You're not real mate. You're playing a game but you're not alone. Far from it.
From now on, you're a shill and I'll let it be known on a regular basis.
Yeah, wise words.
Maybe we should just keep our three names in mind, and ignore everyone else. Out of the hundreds of users on this forum so far the two names that really seem to be genuine flat earthers are cikljamas and sceptimatic.
I suspect everyone else of being a shill or a sheeple.
On other forums it is much better. But I do admit that being in the 0.001% makes us all so paranoid that we tend to be aggressive to others who don't agree with us. But that is a natural consequence of being in the 0.001%.
It is a tough situation. That is why I feel so much solidarity with Zhib, because he certainly is in that 0.001%, too. Even if his ideas do not completely match mine.
This is my last thread here, and I am not participating in any other threads. As soon as this will be dead, I will be gone for good.
There's not much else to explain. I've just told you how it is. Now let's see if you can grasp this.Did you just happen to overlook the shit that he has took, or are you well aware of it but decide to have a pop at free thinkers, yet pretending you're one yourself.One question for moderators : When it becomes obvious that somebody is mentally ill person, shouldn't you restrict access (to such a person) to this forum?Are you really that mean? Now I am mentally ill, because I told you to be a bit more skeptical of your own theories? You should be the first to get thrown out since you have insulted so many people here for no reason at all. Who is not an idiot and insane in your opinion? Focus on the topic and provide better explanations instead of being impolite. That is why I argue with you about this stuff. You're just rude and disrespectful. Be a little bit humble please! Apparently, it is too much to ask.
Someone mentioned that you were a shill on another site. I'm tending to believe it now after watching how you're going about your business.
A classic shill. Argue for something away from a globe then BANG, hit the flat Earth theorists right in the guts. It won't work. Anyone who plays the game will be found out sooner or later. Then from that point on, all you're doing is playing the game, only this time you're playing it out in the open for us all to see.
If you can't back up free thinkers then don't slag them down either. There's enough globalites on here that do all of that. From this point on you're a full on shill unless you prove otherwise.
Can you please explain? Are you writing to me? I am confused. How am I shill if I demand people to not insult each other and to not slander each other? Free thinkers shouldn't insult people. That is not free thinking. It is just rude. Also, I am sure cikljamas took a lot of shit because of his approach, not because of his ideas.
If cikljamas puts effort in like he does and is on the end of a mass of posters (globalites) who try every which way to ridicule him, then I expect he will retaliate and give a little bit back.
You're almost making out that these globalists are all nice in responding. They're not. Most are bell end's. Only some have any sense and some are simply spotty, snotty nosed kids.
Now let's get back to you. If you are not a globalist then your input is not needed in aid of them, no matter what. If you don't like what cikljamas is saying or any other free thinker, then just take a back seat and let them get on with what they're putting out.
It seems rather odd that cikljamas is putting excellent info into this forum. So good infact that it's guaranteed to make many people think. Those who have a thinking brain that is.
It seems that because he's hitting a raw nerve, there seems to be a full on approach to battering him from putting it out by many, including yourself, except you are using the ruse of playing a devil's advocate with a little mix of good cop, bad cop in. It's like you're acting all innocent whilst telling him he's wrong but not outright dismissing it for all to see as blatant.
What do you know?...what makes you know the truth and him, not?
What gives you the right to tell him to tone his stuff down and yet you don't appear to tell the globalists to tone down their constant crap towards him.
You're not real mate. You're playing a game but you're not alone. Far from it.
From now on, you're a shill and I'll let it be known on a regular basis.
Yeah, wise words.
Maybe we should just keep our three names in mind, and ignore everyone else. Out of the hundreds of users on this forum so far the two names that really seem to be genuine flat earthers are cikljamas and sceptimatic.
I suspect everyone else of being a shill or a sheeple.
On other forums it is much better. But I do admit that being in the 0.001% makes us all so paranoid that we tend to be aggressive to others who don't agree with us. But that is a natural consequence of being in the 0.001%.
It is a tough situation. That is why I feel so much solidarity with Zhib, because he certainly is in that 0.001%, too. Even if his ideas do not completely match mine.
Haha, your friend Cikljamas got mad at me for saying the same thing! I told him that I find Zhib's videos interesting after I sent him few links. He said the guy is an idiot and basically accused me of being a shill. Double standards much? Now you're saying the same thing, but at the same time Cikljamas is your "friend". Omg, what hypocrisy! He is definitely not your friend! Just tell him you think Zhib might be right and see his reaction. By the way, Sceptimatic doesn't believe in flat Earth, he doesn't know if the Earth is flat or not. Ask him? OK, I will ask him. Scepti, can you please respond with YES or NO if you are 100% the Earth is flat? If you're not sure then why you're accusing the others of being shills for doubting?
You might not be a shill, in which case do us all a favor, and, in the same way that I do, make sure you clearly state in every post that you believe the earth is flat and what is your strongest evidence.
Follow my example. To clarify that I am not a shill, when I post my doubts about this flight (in this thread) or the satellite videos, and other things that seem to disprove our theory, I always make sure to add that I still believe in the flat earth because of my curvature formula vs the cinematic evidence that the horizon doesn't curve according to it.
Forget about the 100% question to us, because that could be interpreted as a shill question. Why don't you rephrase it as: "do you think it is more likely that the earth is flat or spherical?".
A 100% question doesn't even satisfy facts such as who my parents are and what is my name. So please make an effort to not be mistaken as a shill. Play the devil's advocate but with moderation. If you overdo it, obviously we're going to suspect you of being a shill. Show us with sincerity that you believe in flat earth.
One question for moderators : When it becomes obvious that somebody is mentally ill person, shouldn't you restrict access (to such a person) to this forum?Has one of your carers just typed this message?
Nope. I have left the forum in case you didn't notice.This thread has got hilarious.
There's not much else to explain. I've just told you how it is. Now let's see if you can grasp this.Did you just happen to overlook the shit that he has took, or are you well aware of it but decide to have a pop at free thinkers, yet pretending you're one yourself.One question for moderators : When it becomes obvious that somebody is mentally ill person, shouldn't you restrict access (to such a person) to this forum?Are you really that mean? Now I am mentally ill, because I told you to be a bit more skeptical of your own theories? You should be the first to get thrown out since you have insulted so many people here for no reason at all. Who is not an idiot and insane in your opinion? Focus on the topic and provide better explanations instead of being impolite. That is why I argue with you about this stuff. You're just rude and disrespectful. Be a little bit humble please! Apparently, it is too much to ask.
Someone mentioned that you were a shill on another site. I'm tending to believe it now after watching how you're going about your business.
A classic shill. Argue for something away from a globe then BANG, hit the flat Earth theorists right in the guts. It won't work. Anyone who plays the game will be found out sooner or later. Then from that point on, all you're doing is playing the game, only this time you're playing it out in the open for us all to see.
If you can't back up free thinkers then don't slag them down either. There's enough globalites on here that do all of that. From this point on you're a full on shill unless you prove otherwise.
Can you please explain? Are you writing to me? I am confused. How am I shill if I demand people to not insult each other and to not slander each other? Free thinkers shouldn't insult people. That is not free thinking. It is just rude. Also, I am sure cikljamas took a lot of shit because of his approach, not because of his ideas.
If cikljamas puts effort in like he does and is on the end of a mass of posters (globalites) who try every which way to ridicule him, then I expect he will retaliate and give a little bit back.
You're almost making out that these globalists are all nice in responding. They're not. Most are bell end's. Only some have any sense and some are simply spotty, snotty nosed kids.
Now let's get back to you. If you are not a globalist then your input is not needed in aid of them, no matter what. If you don't like what cikljamas is saying or any other free thinker, then just take a back seat and let them get on with what they're putting out.
It seems rather odd that cikljamas is putting excellent info into this forum. So good infact that it's guaranteed to make many people think. Those who have a thinking brain that is.
It seems that because he's hitting a raw nerve, there seems to be a full on approach to battering him from putting it out by many, including yourself, except you are using the ruse of playing a devil's advocate with a little mix of good cop, bad cop in. It's like you're acting all innocent whilst telling him he's wrong but not outright dismissing it for all to see as blatant.
What do you know?...what makes you know the truth and him, not?
What gives you the right to tell him to tone his stuff down and yet you don't appear to tell the globalists to tone down their constant crap towards him.
You're not real mate. You're playing a game but you're not alone. Far from it.
From now on, you're a shill and I'll let it be known on a regular basis.
Yeah, wise words.
Maybe we should just keep our three names in mind, and ignore everyone else. Out of the hundreds of users on this forum so far the two names that really seem to be genuine flat earthers are cikljamas and sceptimatic.
I suspect everyone else of being a shill or a sheeple.
On other forums it is much better. But I do admit that being in the 0.001% makes us all so paranoid that we tend to be aggressive to others who don't agree with us. But that is a natural consequence of being in the 0.001%.
It is a tough situation. That is why I feel so much solidarity with Zhib, because he certainly is in that 0.001%, too. Even if his ideas do not completely match mine.
Haha, your friend Cikljamas got mad at me for saying the same thing! I told him that I find Zhib's videos interesting after I sent him few links. He said the guy is an idiot and basically accused me of being a shill. Double standards much? Now you're saying the same thing, but at the same time Cikljamas is your "friend". Omg, what hypocrisy! He is definitely not your friend! Just tell him you think Zhib might be right and see his reaction. By the way, Sceptimatic doesn't believe in flat Earth, he doesn't know if the Earth is flat or not. Ask him? OK, I will ask him. Scepti, can you please respond with YES or NO if you are 100% the Earth is flat? If you're not sure then why you're accusing the others of being shills for doubting?
You might not be a shill, in which case do us all a favor, and, in the same way that I do, make sure you clearly state in every post that you believe the earth is flat and what is your strongest evidence.
Follow my example. To clarify that I am not a shill, when I post my doubts about this flight (in this thread) or the satellite videos, and other things that seem to disprove our theory, I always make sure to add that I still believe in the flat earth because of my curvature formula vs the cinematic evidence that the horizon doesn't curve according to it.
Forget about the 100% question to us, because that could be interpreted as a shill question. Why don't you rephrase it as: "do you think it is more likely that the earth is flat or spherical?".
A 100% question doesn't even satisfy facts such as who my parents are and what is my name. So please make an effort to not be mistaken as a shill. Play the devil's advocate but with moderation. If you overdo it, obviously we're going to suspect you of being a shill. Show us with sincerity that you believe in flat earth.
Believing in something doesn't mean it is a reality. There is still a possibility it isn't. I just wanted to know how strong your belief is. In my humble opinion, you can't believe in something like that unconditionally. The same way you shouldn't believe the Earth is round either implicitly. We can't be sure. I have shown many times that I defend the FE idea, but I don't agree with all the claims made by FE'ers. Is this wrong? Please check the history of my comments. I have never written in this forum that the Earth is a round sphere. I tend to think it is flat, but regardless of the amount of evidence, there is no way to be completely sure. Do you see what I am saying? While some fanatics here are ready to fight that it is flat or round. Anyway, please respond to the poll I posted.
No, sorry, I don't see what you are saying, because that is precisely the way the shills talk about 911: "there is no way to be completely sure". For example shill Joe Rogan. They say that it seems that it is a controlled demolition, but he is not an expert so he could be wrong. That is precisely shill talk, minute 3:29, bingo! 100% shill talk.
Joe Rogan and Eddie Bravo - confirmation bias and 9/11 (http://#ws)
Joe Rogan's Moon Hoax Mystery (http://#)
We need sincerity, passion and conviction. You are not showing much of it. Instead you're spending your time arguing against the few flat earthers left on this forum. It's time to stop doing it, or we certainly will classify you in the same folder as Joe Rogan, Alex Jones and Mark Dice.
I'm really getting the impression that Saros, acenci and ckljamas are the same person having some kind of insane argument with themselves.
I also stopped discussing politics with my parents, because they're trapped in the left-right paradigm, whereas I know that it is a global scam, ruled by a secret government. My father doesn't understand that we're like ants. He thinks he matters something in the world (he's a politician). Not only am I unable to discuss 911 with him, nor the fake beheadings but if he finds out that I believe in flat earth (I told my mother) he will think I need to be placed in a mental hospital.If you want to scuttle your dad's career, just make public what you think. Be sure to include the part about believing the Earth is flat. That'll show him!
We're not sure yet. We're consulting with one another right now. Don't forget that I am also sceptimatic, according to some conspiracy theorists...
It's not easy being a flat-earther. I've lost about six friends thanks to telling people I believe in flat earth. They weren't worth much, but we had been friends for a long time.
Actually I didn't lose them, but they didn't reply to my emails. Since I won't write them again, we might not be in touch because of this. I am disappointed by them, so I won't write them again.
I am very tired. I have moved to another forum. This forum was created to wear us out and get the best of us, and to minimize its effect on the world. This is like an internet extermination camp for flat-earthers.
I also stopped discussing politics with my parents, because they're trapped in the left-right paradigm, whereas I know that it is a global scam, ruled by a secret government. My father doesn't understand that we're like ants. He thinks he matters something in the world (he's a politician). Not only am I unable to discuss 911 with him, nor the fake beheadings but if he finds out that I believe in flat earth (I told my mother) he will think I need to be placed in a mental hospital.
I am sad and tired.
Whenever I try to make someone understand, the non-shills I mean (you wouldn't understand), they go into denial and start re-interpreting formulas (the curvature formula) and images (I showed them the bubbles rising in space / swimming pool) to fit their spherical earth delusion.
I am so tired...
I'm really getting the impression that Saros, acenci and ckljamas are the same person having some kind of insane argument with themselves.
I think I might stay after all. At least on this thread.
Yeah, actually, I have a better one. You're sceptimatic, how about that? Prove you're not.I'm really getting the impression that Saros, acenci and ckljamas are the same person having some kind of insane argument with themselves.
I'm beginning to think the same thing, simply because one of the apparent ALTs, acenci, has promised to leave the forums half a dozen times now, but has failed to do so.
It's notable that all three ALTs repeatedly use the same claim that the round earthers are all "shills", which as I recall was initiated by sceptimatic way back when.
Maybe all four are each an ALT? Which of course "they" will all deny LOL.
If we know the proximate distance between any two places, in the south, on or about the same latitude, and have the difference of solar time at these two places, we can calculate, accordingly, the length of a degree of longitude at that latitude. Such elements we have from the map, recently published, of New Zealand, in the "Australian Handbook, Almanack, and Shippers' and Importers' Directory, for the Year 1872." 1 It is there stated that the distance (mail route) between Sydney and Nelson is 1400 miles (sea measure), equal to 1633 statute miles. From this distance it is proper to deduct fully 50 miles for the distance in rounding Cape Farewell and sailing up Tasman Bay, at the head of which Nelson is situated. But if we allow 83 miles, which is more than sufficient, we have the straight-line distance, from the meridian of Sydney to the meridian of Nelson, as 1550 statute miles. The two places are nearly on the same latitude, and the difference in longitude is 22° 2´ 14″. 2 The whole matter now becomes a mere arithmetical question: if 22° 2´ 14″ give 1550 statute miles, what will 360° give? The answer is 25,182 miles. Hence, a 360th part of this distance is one degree; and the length of such degree is nearly 70 miles. But upon a globe, such as modern astronomers affirm the earth to be, the length of a degree at the latitude of Sydney would be 49.74 nautical miles, or 58 statute miles. Hence we find that the actual length of a degree of longitude at the latitude of Sydney is nearly 12 miles longer than it could possibly be if the earth is a globe of 25,000 miles' equatorial or maximum circumference; and the distance round the earth, at that latitude, is 25,182 statute miles, instead of 20,920, the difference between theory and fact being 4262 miles.(http://i.imgur.com/EY2e8yu.jpg)
If, now, we take, from the same map, the distance between Melbourne and Bluff Harbour, South New Zealand--1400 nautical, or 1633 statute miles--and take the difference of longitude between the two places, allowing 50 statute miles for the angular or diagonal direction of the route to Bluff Harbour, we find the degrees of longitude fully 70 statute miles; whereas, at the average latitude of the two places, viz., 42° S., the degrees, if the earth is a globe, would be less than 54 statute miles; thus showing that in the south, where the length of a degree of longitude should be 54 miles, it is really 70 miles, or 16 miles longer than would be possible according to the theory of the earth's rotundity.
From the above two cases we also find that the degrees of longitude at the latitude of Bluff Harbour, on the southern point of New Zealand, are somewhat longer than the degrees between Sydney and Nelson, where they ought to be--if the earth is globular--several miles less; and also that, according to the same doctrine, there is an excess of 7466 statute miles in the whole circumference. Read more : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za42.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za42.htm)
I was exactly hoping for this kind of support, so thank you.
At any rate, despite the tremendous efforts I put into this forum, and my tragic family situation (a shill for a father, a sheeple for a mother, a physicist pseudo-scientist and gatekeeper for a cousin, all flat-earth deniers), I consider my mission accomplished. I have extensively proven flat earth based on the curvature formula, and I am exhausted but very satisfied.
This would not have been possible without you guys, you (two or three) flat-earthers, but also without the shills, for their punctual criticism and objections. So thanks to all and bye bye. For the flat-earthers, see you on the other forum (off limits to shills).
Give my regards to all your colleagues in the department of shills.
Ah ah!!!!
Bingo!!!
Corsica seen from Genoa, 227 km away from its highest peak (Monte Cinto, which is 2706 meters) and a spherical earth drop of 4043 meters!!!
<more pictures 'n' stuff>
Enjoy, geographical revisionsts.
I was exactly hoping for this kind of support, so thank you.
At any rate, despite the tremendous efforts I put into this forum, and my tragic family situation (a shill for a father, a sheeple for a mother, a physicist pseudo-scientist and gatekeeper for a cousin, all flat-earth deniers), I consider my mission accomplished. I have extensively proven flat earth based on the curvature formula, and I am exhausted but very satisfied.
This would not have been possible without you guys, you (two or three) flat-earthers, but also without the shills, for their punctual criticism and objections. So thanks to all and bye bye. For the flat-earthers, see you on the other forum (off limits to shills).
Great job Acenci!Sure. [Ignoring the apparently meaningless "New York to Los Angeles" reference.] The obvious explanation is that Rowbotham was overstating the distances by about 16%.
Let's give them some more food for thought:QuoteIf we know the proximate distance between any two places, in the south, on or about the same latitude, and have the difference of solar time at these two places, we can calculate, accordingly, the length of a degree of longitude at that latitude. Such elements we have from the map, recently published, of New Zealand, in the "Australian Handbook, Almanack, and Shippers' and Importers' Directory, for the Year 1872." 1 It is there stated that the distance (mail route) between Sydney and Nelson is 1400 miles (sea measure), equal to 1633 statute miles. From this distance it is proper to deduct fully 50 miles for the distance in rounding Cape Farewell and sailing up Tasman Bay, at the head of which Nelson is situated. But if we allow 83 miles, which is more than sufficient, we have the straight-line distance, from the meridian of Sydney to the meridian of Nelson, as 1550 statute miles. The two places are nearly on the same latitude, and the difference in longitude is 22° 2´ 14″. 2 The whole matter now becomes a mere arithmetical question: if 22° 2´ 14″ give 1550 statute miles, what will 360° give? The answer is 25,182 miles. Hence, a 360th part of this distance is one degree; and the length of such degree is nearly 70 miles. But upon a globe, such as modern astronomers affirm the earth to be, the length of a degree at the latitude of Sydney would be 49.74 nautical miles, or 58 statute miles. Hence we find that the actual length of a degree of longitude at the latitude of Sydney is nearly 12 miles longer than it could possibly be if the earth is a globe of 25,000 miles' equatorial or maximum circumference; and the distance round the earth, at that latitude, is 25,182 statute miles, instead of 20,920, the difference between theory and fact being 4262 miles.http://i.imgur.com/EY2e8yu.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/EY2e8yu.jpg)
If, now, we take, from the same map, the distance between Melbourne and Bluff Harbour, South New Zealand--1400 nautical, or 1633 statute miles--and take the difference of longitude between the two places, allowing 50 statute miles for the angular or diagonal direction of the route to Bluff Harbour, we find the degrees of longitude fully 70 statute miles; whereas, at the average latitude of the two places, viz., 42° S., the degrees, if the earth is a globe, would be less than 54 statute miles; thus showing that in the south, where the length of a degree of longitude should be 54 miles, it is really 70 miles, or 16 miles longer than would be possible according to the theory of the earth's rotundity.
From the above two cases we also find that the degrees of longitude at the latitude of Bluff Harbour, on the southern point of New Zealand, are somewhat longer than the degrees between Sydney and Nelson, where they ought to be--if the earth is globular--several miles less; and also that, according to the same doctrine, there is an excess of 7466 statute miles in the whole circumference. Read more : http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za42.htm (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za42.htm)
http://i.imgur.com/DsQ60B8.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/DsQ60B8.jpg)
Can someone explain these differences:
According to map published in the "Australian Handbook, Almanack, and Shippers' and Importers' Directory, for the Year 1872", and after proper (and even more than sufficient) deduction of certain number of miles, we get these results:Rowbotham's figures for the distances are simply wrong. The 1872 distances may be the routes taken by sailing ships instead of great circle distances, or they could simply be in error. Measurement of distance traveled at sea was not as accurate in 1872 as now. Believe it or not, we can do some things more accurately 140 years later. Another, very real, possibility is that Rowbotham used incorrect numbers, intentionally or otherwise. His track record for accurate information is not good. Does anyone have access to the cited volume to check this? It may be in the reference or rare-book section of an Australian big-city or university library?
Sydney - Nelson : 1550 miles (2480 km)
Melbourne - Bluff Harbour : 1583 miles (2532 km)
According to Google maps above distances are incorrect, let's see for how much:
Sydney - Nelson : 1310 miles (2107 km)
Melbourne - Bluff Harbour : 1335 miles (2149 km)
The differences between these two estimations:
Sydney - Nelson : 240 miles (373 km) 16,5 %
Melbourne - Bluff Harbour : 250 miles (383 km) 16,5 %
I was really going to leave, but I can't leave these personal attacks unanswered.
First of all, don't try any character assassination, because the fact that I am living at home with my parents does not in any way reduce the validity of my arguments, nor my dignity.
Second, I don't even want to investigate your sick life, because certainly someone who is fighting on a daily basis to preserve and defend lies cannot have a life that is more decent than mine.
Third, your attempts to debunk all my proofs don't work, because I have addressed all your objections before. The problem with you shills is that if there are three points in someone's argument, after he's done explaining the third point, you ask for his first point again.
Then someone else comes along and he asks the truther to explain his second point again. Then another shill comes along and he says the truther forgot to explain his third point.
This is my last post, unless I am really bored, in which case I will come back to get frustrated again with you shills. Never underestimate the power of boredom. If you ban me, you might do me a favor.
I was really going to leave, but I can't leave these personal attacks unanswered.
First of all, don't try any character assassination, because the fact that I am living at home with my parents does not in any way reduce the validity of my arguments, nor my dignity.
Rowbotham's figures for the distances are simply wrong. The 1872 distances may be the routes taken by sailing ships instead of great circle distances, or they could simply be in error. Measurement of distance traveled at sea was not as accurate in 1872 as now. Believe it or not, we can do some things more accurately 140 years later. Another, very real, possibility is that Rowbotham used incorrect numbers, intentionally or otherwise. His track record for accurate information is not good. Does anyone have access to the cited volume to check this? It may be in the reference or rare-book section of an Australian big-city or university library?
I was really going to leave, but I can't leave these personal attacks unanswered.
Year 1888, that is 7 years after Rowbotham's last edition of his "Earth not a globe"...Quite enough time for covering up operation...But they cannot cover up everything...Either that, or someone was just wrong. Most likely seems Rowbotham. His track record isn't good, as any reasonably well educated and thinking person reading his works will immediately see.
During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, some days as much as 29 miles. Lieutenant Charles Wilkes commanded a United States Navy exploration expedition to the Antarctic from August 18th, 1838 to June 10th, 1842, almost four years spent “exploring and surveying the Southern ocean.” In his journals Lieutenant Wilkes also mentioned being consistently east of his reckoning, sometimes over 20 miles in less than 18 hours.Currents in an unexplored or little explored-ocean being different by about one mile per hour than expected is evidence of what, exactly?
“February 11th, 1822, at noon, in latitude 65.53. S. our chronometers gave 44 miles more westing than the log in three days. On 22nd of April (1822), in latitude 54.16. S. our longitude by chronometers was 46.49, and by D.R. (dead reckoning) 47° 11´: On 2nd May (1822), at noon, in latitude 53.46. S., our longitude by chronometers was 59° 27´, and by D.R. 61° 6´. October 14th, in latitude 58.6, longitude by chronometers 62° 46´, by account 65° 24´. In latitude 59.7. S., longitude by chronometers was 63° 28´, by account 66° 42´. In latitude 61.49. S., longitude by chronometers was 61° 53´, by account 66° 38´.” -Captain James Weddell, “Voyages Towards the South Pole”OK. And?
“In the southern hemisphere, navigators to India have often fancied themselves east of the Cape when still west, and have been driven ashore on the African coast, which, according to their reckoning, lay behind them. This misfortune happened to a fine frigate, the Challenger, in 1845. How came Her Majesty’s Ship ‘Conqueror,’ to be lost? How have so many other noble vessels, perfectly sound, perfectly manned, perfectly navigated, been wrecked in calm weather, not only in dark night, or in a fog, but in broad daylight and sunshine - in the former case upon the coasts, in the latter, upon sunken rocks - from being ‘out of reckoning,’ under circumstances which until now, have baffled every satisfactory explanation.” -Rev. Thomas Milner, “Tour Through Creation”Would you characterize losing a ship on rocks that were charted as "perfectly navigated"? I have no doubt that they were doing the best they were able using the tools available, but the result suggests the navigation wasn't "perfect". This is like saying "the operation was a success but the patient died."
The equatorial circumference of the supposed ball-Earth is said to be 24,900 statute or 21,600 nautical miles. A nautical mile is the distance, following the supposed curvature of the Earth, from one minute of latitude to the next [Note: 21600 nmi circumference of the equator is exactly one nmi per minute of longitude at the equator; that's the definition I've known. One minute of latitude, at your current latitude, is one "Sea Mile", approximately one nmi, but varies slightly with latitude]. A statue mile is the straight line distance between the two, not taking into account Earth’s alleged curvature.Citation needed! I have never heard of this definition of the statute mile. One reason for this is it's wrong. Wherever did you hear this? Did you ever think to check anything you repeat before simply puking it up here?
From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 9,000 miles.Citation needed.
These two places are 143 degrees of longitude from each other. Therefore the whole extent of the Earth’s circumference is a mere arithmetical question. If 143 degrees make 9,000 miles, what will be the distance made by the whole 360 degrees into which the surface is divided? The answer is, 22,657 miles; or, 8357 miles more than the theory of rotundity would permit. It must be borne in mind, however, that the above distances are nautical measure, which, reduced to statute miles, gives the actual distance round the Southern region at a given latitude as 26,433 statute miles; or nearly 1,500 miles more than the largest circumference ever assigned to the Earth at the equator.Care to divulge where you heard that "9000 nmi?" It's clearly balderdash.
(http://i.imgur.com/R1UFNv9.jpg)Nope. He's either lying, mistaken, or quoting incorrect information. It's as simple as that. Nothing has changed.
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE ALL THE REASONS TO BELIEVE ROWBOTHAM'S WORDS, NOT THE WORDS OF NASA SHILLS...SO WE CAN REPEAT:
<repeated stuff from earlier post that's still wrong>
Again: Do not use Rowbotham's Zetetic Astronomy as a reference! It is not reliable.
I really don't understand why acenci and cikljamas got so offended. After all, the truth is born in an argument. The more we argue, the better for both sides. My only problem with any new claims is when someone expects everyone else to agree without providing good explanation. This is an explanation which you cannot deny. I mean, it should be clear when something can be denied or not. On top of that, accusing me of being a shill for not believing all their claims is a bit too much when many times I have personally tried to provide evidence in favor of flat Earth. It is just sad to see someone is paranoid. Let's have a discussion without being paranoid that everyone else is here with an agenda to destroy us. Let's not expect that people would agree because we're geniuses. If they don't understand try harder.Please repeat FE evidence based on recent proof.
I really don't understand why acenci and cikljamas got so offended. After all, the truth is born in an argument. The more we argue, the better for both sides. My only problem with any new claims is when someone expects everyone else to agree without providing good explanation. This is an explanation which you cannot deny. I mean, it should be clear when something can be denied or not. On top of that, accusing me of being a shill for not believing all their claims is a bit too much when many times I have personally tried to provide evidence in favor of flat Earth. It is just sad to see someone is paranoid. Let's have a discussion without being paranoid that everyone else is here with an agenda to destroy us. Let's not expect that people would agree because we're geniuses. If they don't understand try harder.My thoughts exa.... well not exactly, sentiment is very close though. The problem seems to be that people cannot understand that "because I made this other assumption thus proving my argument" is not proof of the argument, then they get upset when asked for clarification. The immediate departure from the discussion into name calling is rather childish. Its kind of like arguing with a 3 year old.
I'd be more than happy if NASA, or the ESA or the ASRI were paying me a dollar for every comment I posted on these forums. ;D
2) Some weird stuff occurs in the middle of the southern pacific ocean; where time, space and distances are warped. (Let's consider anything).
Logically, I think option 2 is most likely as the simplest and most elegant solution. Let's throw some ideas out there:
- Perhaps TIME slows down in the middle of the southern pacific ocean? This would work as planes would fly relatively faster and ships would sail relatively faster. I wonder how this fits with Einstein's theories. But this would not solve the large amount of fuel needed to fly NZ - Chile.
- Or perhaps there is a large, high altitude, circular jet stream above the ocean. This would allow the aircraft to hitch a lift both directions.
Any constructive feedback?
Then we are down to two options:
1) The maps of the world are wrong. Which is feasible given that this information is controlled by particular groups such as the USGS;
2) The earth is a sphere.
One question for moderators : When it becomes obvious that somebody is mentally ill person, shouldn't you restrict access (to such a person) to this forum?Who is going to judge anyone's mental state on the internet. By the way, I just wanted to jump in and say good work to ckl on debunking the southern flight. Interesting. I have found that taking what you like and leaving the rest is a good way to go on here. You may judge someone now as shill or idiot, and find out later that they may have been speaking some truth. Everyone has different levels of expertise,different interests.
Can you please direct me to the debunking? I cant seem to find it.One question for moderators : When it becomes obvious that somebody is mentally ill person, shouldn't you restrict access (to such a person) to this forum?Who is going to judge anyone's mental state on the internet. By the way, I just wanted to jump in and say good work to ckl on debunking the southern flight. Interesting. I have found that taking what you like and leaving the rest is a good way to go on here. You may judge someone now as shill or idiot, and find out later that they may have been speaking some truth. Everyone has different levels of expertise,different interests.
I am new here, I am open to new ideas and flat earth does make sense, however I do know at least 2 persons that Flew Chile-Australia via LAN, the flight takes 13 hours. Anybody can explain this please?Likewise, I don't see a problem! The distance on the globe is a bit over 11,000 km. Sounds about right for an East to West flight of 13 hours.
Didn't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been asked or answered already:
Why would being able to fly from Sydney to Santiago in 13 hours necessarily be any different, regardless of whether the earth is spherical or flat?
Sounds to me like the standard FE maps, which were typically produced without the aid of technology/before technology existed, and/or by amateurs, is just not accurate- just as the RE map on my wall as i type this is not accurate, showing Greenland to be as large as the continent of Africa!
So, you can fly from Sydney to Santiago in 13 hours.....that neither disproves a flat earth nor proves a round earth- it merely proves the distance between those two places. I'm new at this, but I never bought into the "airline route" argument as a proof of FE- as I felt that it fit more into the category of circumsrtantial evidence. Oftentimes, circumstantial evidence is proffered as a red herring- i.e. get people to base their belief on a circumstantial argument, and then destroy that argument, and you thus destroy the person's faith in that belief.
Just my $.02 -I'm not even a confirmed bonafide FEer yet, but in my book, this particular subject is irrelevant.
Didn't read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been asked or answered already:
Why would being able to fly from Sydney to Santiago in 13 hours necessarily be any different, regardless of whether the earth is spherical or flat?
Sounds to me like the standard FE maps, which were typically produced without the aid of technology/before technology existed, and/or by amateurs, is just not accurate- just as the RE map on my wall as i type this is not accurate, showing Greenland to be as large as the continent of Africa!
So, you can fly from Sydney to Santiago in 13 hours.....that neither disproves a flat earth nor proves a round earth- it merely proves the distance between those two places. I'm new at this, but I never bought into the "airline route" argument as a proof of FE- as I felt that it fit more into the category of circumsrtantial evidence. Oftentimes, circumstantial evidence is proffered as a red herring- i.e. get people to base their belief on a circumstantial argument, and then destroy that argument, and you thus destroy the person's faith in that belief.
Just my $.02 -I'm not even a confirmed bonafide FEer yet, but in my book, this particular subject is irrelevant.
It is relevant for the same reason I can not make a flat map of a sphere without using projections. If I tried things would be distorted and the map of not much use in most situations. A common projection used is the Mercator and has been used since around 1569. The reason this was used is trying to make flat maps without using projections of a round surface lead to errors and make the maps unreliable for navigation. People noticed the errors and found a solution.
You pointed out the distortion yourself. You have a projection of the Earth on a flat surface that distorts the sizes of continents. You can also get a map using a different projection that represent the sizes of the continents. The problem with that map projection is I can not draw straight lines on it and use those lines to navigate. A Mercator projection, while giving distortions, allows me to draw straight lines to plot courses and get accurate distances.
If the Earth is flat then RE maps are wrong and would have huge errors in distance in some areas. One of these is between Sydney and Santiago. Just eyeballing it the distance on FE would be at least 2x as long.
With the shortest route being flying over North and South America. On a RE the shortest route is flying a great circle route flying over the South Pacific relatively close to the Antarctic.
Flying near the Antarctic also poses a problem for FE theory.
this might help..
(http://)
Can someone correct me on this. You FE'ers are upset about the Chile to Australia flight, but there are thousands of flights which contradict your map (i.e. CPA888 from Hong Kong to Vancouver should fly directly North over China according to your map, but instead it flies directly out over the Pacific and follows a predictably curved route. I'm not sure why any airline would deliberately go out of their way (by such and incredibly large margin) just to pretend the earth was round.
If the earth is round then the Bible and Quran are wrong! Well, since the Bible and Quran are right regarding the immobility of the Earth (so far the score is 1 : 0 in favor of the Bible in relation to the garbage of the HC theory), then it is very likely that the Bible is right regarding the shape of the earth, too. Only (as i said in another thread) the shape of the earth presents to us very difficult problem because there are very strong proofs which go in favor of FE theory, but in the same time there are very strong proofs which go in favor of RE theory - which makes this whole situation very schizoprenic.Where are recently verified FE proofs?
I don't care whether the earth is flat or round (all i want to know is WHAT IS THE right answer to this question?), and the Bible vs RE theory is not the only issue here. There are very strong philosophical (not only scientific) reasons why we can hardly believe that God would have ever chosen to shape the Earth round. That is one another (intuitive) reason why we are rooting for the FE theory. But of course : the REAL (not FALSE) science is one which has to provide for us THE FINAL WORD on this issue!
It would be very easy to prove which theory is right and which is wrong, but while you wait for THE FINAL WORD on this issue ask yourself one simple question :
Why NASA can't show us one single AUTHENTIC picture of the earth from space (after all these years)?
If the earth is round then the Bible and Quran are wrong! Well, since the Bible and Quran are right regarding the immobility of the Earth (so far the score is 1 : 0 in favor of the Bible in relation to the garbage of the HC theory), then it is very likely that the Bible is right regarding the shape of the earth, too. Only (as i said in another thread) the shape of the earth presents to us very difficult problem because there are very strong proofs which go in favor of FE theory, but in the same time there are very strong proofs which go in favor of RE theory - which makes this whole situation very schizoprenic.Where are recently verified FE proofs?
I don't care whether the earth is flat or round (all i want to know is WHAT IS THE right answer to this question?), and the Bible vs RE theory is not the only issue here. There are very strong philosophical (not only scientific) reasons why we can hardly believe that God would have ever chosen to shape the Earth round. That is one another (intuitive) reason why we are rooting for the FE theory. But of course : the REAL (not FALSE) science is one which has to provide for us THE FINAL WORD on this issue!
It would be very easy to prove which theory is right and which is wrong, but while you wait for THE FINAL WORD on this issue ask yourself one simple question :
Why NASA can't show us one single AUTHENTIC picture of the earth from space (after all these years)?
But I've been on that flight and its roughly 6300 miles and takes about 11 1/2 hrs at 550 miles per hour, which is consistent both with my experience and what is published.
Where's the conspiracy with that?
You got him. The flights are all empty. ::)
I made no such claim. You made the claim he never took the flight. Has anyone took any of the flights from Sydney to Santiago?
I made no such claim. You made the claim he never took the flight. Has anyone took any of the flights from Sydney to Santiago?
He made the claim. I simply expressed my doubt. Why do you people feel the need to lie all the time?
We destroyed you many times months ago. Why did you come back?
I made no such claim. You made the claim he never took the flight. Has anyone took any of the flights from Sydney to Santiago?
He made the claim. I simply expressed my doubt. Why do you people feel the need to lie all the time?
Lie?
lol
Why do you think he never took the flight?
Videos made by uneducated people.We destroyed you many times months ago. Why did you come back?
...lol...lol...lol...Destroy this, funny boy : (http://)
You made the claim he never took the flight.
Doesn't have any real argument. Picture are not an accurate way of telling if there is a curve or not, and it forgets how large the radius of the earth is compared to the distance to the horizon. If you consider a small enough section of s sphere it appears flat.We destroyed you many times months ago. Why did you come back?
...lol...lol...lol...Destroy this, funny boy : (http://)
You made the claim he never took the flight.
lol, when did I claim that? Please, quote me.
"I simply expressed my doubt"I made no such claim. You made the claim he never took the flight. Has anyone took any of the flights from Sydney to Santiago?
He made the claim. I simply expressed my doubt. Why do you people feel the need to lie all the time?
If the earth is round then the Bible and Quran are wrong! Well, since the Bible and Quran are right regarding the immobility of the Earth (so far the score is 1 : 0 in favor of the Bible in relation to the garbage of the HC theory), then it is very likely that the Bible is right regarding the shape of the earth, too. Only (as i said in another thread) the shape of the earth presents to us very difficult problem because there are very strong proofs which go in favor of FE theory, but in the same time there are very strong proofs which go in favor of RE theory - which makes this whole situation very schizoprenic.
I don't care whether the earth is flat or round (all i want to know is WHAT IS THE right answer to this question?), and the Bible vs RE theory is not the only issue here. There are very strong philosophical (not only scientific) reasons why we can hardly believe that God would have ever chosen to shape the Earth round. That is one another (intuitive) reason why we are rooting for the FE theory. But of course : the REAL (not FALSE) science is one which has to provide for us THE FINAL WORD on this issue!
It would be very easy to prove which theory is right and which is wrong, but while you wait for THE FINAL WORD on this issue ask yourself one simple question :
Why NASA can't show us one single AUTHENTIC picture of the earth from space (after all these years)?
Videos made by uneducated people.We destroyed you many times months ago. Why did you come back?
...lol...lol...lol...Destroy this, funny boy : (http://)
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
If the earth is round then the Bible and Quran are wrong!
Well, since the Bible and Quran are right regarding the immobility of the Earth (so far the score is 1 : 0 in favor of the Bible in relation to the garbage of the HC theory)
then it is very likely that the Bible is right regarding the shape of the earth, too.That does not logically follow.
Only (as i said in another thread) the shape of the earth presents to us very difficult problem because there are very strongThere are no proofs either way. Period. As you note, there is strong unambiguous evidence in favor of the spherical Earth in favor of a flat earth. Can you cite something that can be substantiated that even suggests that the Earth is flat?proofsdata which go in favor of FE theory, but in the same time there are very strong proofs which go in favor of RE theory - which makes this whole situation very schizoprenic.
I don't care whether the earth is flat or round (all i want to know is WHAT IS THE right answer to this question?)
and the Bible vs RE theory is not the only issue here. There are very strong philosophical (not only scientific) reasons why we can hardly believe that God would have ever chosen to shape the Earth round. That is one another (intuitive) reason why we are rooting for the FE theory.
But of course : the REAL (not FALSE) science is one which has to provide for us THE FINAL WORD on this issue!
It would be very easy to prove which theory is right and which is wrong, but while you wait for THE FINAL WORD on this issue ask yourself one simple question :
Why NASA can't show us one single AUTHENTIC picture of the earth from space (after all these years)?
If the earth is round then the Bible and Quran are wrong! Well, since the Bible and Quran are right regarding the immobility of the Earth (so far the score is 1 : 0 in favor of the Bible in relation to the garbage of the HC theory), then it is very likely that the Bible is right regarding the shape of the earth, too. Only (as i said in another thread) the shape of the earth presents to us very difficult problem because there are very strong proofs which go in favor of FE theory, but in the same time there are very strong proofs which go in favor of RE theory - which makes this whole situation very schizoprenic.
I don't care whether the earth is flat or round (all i want to know is WHAT IS THE right answer to this question?), and the Bible vs RE theory is not the only issue here. There are very strong philosophical (not only scientific) reasons why we can hardly believe that God would have ever chosen to shape the Earth round. That is one another (intuitive) reason why we are rooting for the FE theory. But of course : the REAL (not FALSE) science is one which has to provide for us THE FINAL WORD on this issue!
It would be very easy to prove which theory is right and which is wrong, but while you wait for THE FINAL WORD on this issue ask yourself one simple question :
Why NASA can't show us one single AUTHENTIC picture of the earth from space (after all these years)?
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
Wait, do is the flat earth a disc or a square?
What shape do you think it is and why?Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
Wait, do is the flat earth a disc or a square?
Who said it has to be either a circle or a square? Could you please quote the person? Or, are you just making stuff up again? ???
What shape do you think it is and why?Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
Wait, do is the flat earth a disc or a square?
Who said it has to be either a circle or a square? Could you please quote the person? Or, are you just making stuff up again? ???
Wty is everything a lie?What shape do you think it is and why?Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
Wait, do is the flat earth a disc or a square?
Who said it has to be either a circle or a square? Could you please quote the person? Or, are you just making stuff up again? ???
So, you lied by claiming that we make a definite statement about the shape of the perimetre?
But I've been on that flight and its roughly 6300 miles and takes about 11 1/2 hrs at 550 miles per hour, which is consistent both with my experience and what is published.
Where's the conspiracy with that?
I am sure you have. ::)
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
Wait, do is the flat earth a disc or a square?
Who said it has to be either a circle or a square? Could you please quote the person? Or, are you just making stuff up again? ???
But I've been on that flight and its roughly 6300 miles and takes about 11 1/2 hrs at 550 miles per hour, which is consistent both with my experience and what is published.
Where's the conspiracy with that?
I am sure you have. ::)
This image is literally in the first post in thread and says "by The Flat Earth Society":
But I've been on that flight and its roughly 6300 miles and takes about 11 1/2 hrs at 550 miles per hour, which is consistent both with my experience and what is published.
Where's the conspiracy with that?
I am sure you have. ::)
This image is literally in the first post in thread and says "by The Flat Earth Society":
Who said that was a exact replication of the shape of the Earth? ???
Who said the disc is perfect? I know you people get desperate and try to claim that people said things that they did not, but, now, you just seem to be desperate and grasping at straws. It is OK to admit that you were wrong and lost.
This image is literally in the first post in thread and says "by The Flat Earth Society":
Who said that was a exact replication of the shape of the Earth? ???
Actually, let me get you a better quote:Who said the disc is perfect? I know you people get desperate and try to claim that people said things that they did not, but, now, you just seem to be desperate and grasping at straws. It is OK to admit that you were wrong and lost.
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
This image is literally in the first post in thread and says "by The Flat Earth Society":
Who said that was a exact replication of the shape of the Earth? ???
Actually, let me get you a better quote:Who said the disc is perfect? I know you people get desperate and try to claim that people said things that they did not, but, now, you just seem to be desperate and grasping at straws. It is OK to admit that you were wrong and lost.
Wow, can you please tell us how that is relevant to the discussion? I am intrigued. ::)
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
First off you guys depict the earth as a disc so where are the four corners on that? Second the four corners are the four directions of the compass. North, south, east, and west.
This image is literally in the first post in thread and says "by The Flat Earth Society":
Who said that was a exact replication of the shape of the Earth? ???
Actually, let me get you a better quote:Who said the disc is perfect? I know you people get desperate and try to claim that people said things that they did not, but, now, you just seem to be desperate and grasping at straws. It is OK to admit that you were wrong and lost.
Wow, can you please tell us how that is relevant to the discussion? I am intrigued. ::)
It is a quote where you imply that the Earth is a disc.
Anyways, the question still stands: what shape is the Earth?
So, once again, sokarul has nothing to add to the discussion. What a surprise. ::)You asked for the quote where you made a claim. I provided it.
So, once again, sokarul has nothing to add to the discussion. What a surprise. ::)You asked for the quote where you made a claim. I provided it.
This image is literally in the first post in thread and says "by The Flat Earth Society":
Who said that was a exact replication of the shape of the Earth? ???
Actually, let me get you a better quote:Who said the disc is perfect? I know you people get desperate and try to claim that people said things that they did not, but, now, you just seem to be desperate and grasping at straws. It is OK to admit that you were wrong and lost.
Wow, can you please tell us how that is relevant to the discussion? I am intrigued. ::)
It is a quote where you imply that the Earth is a disc.
Anyways, the question still stands: what shape is the Earth?
Are you willing to admit that you made things up and then claimed that I or one of the other FE'ers said it? Please, this is a serious scientific forum. Do not lie and just make things up willy-nilly. Thanks.
Where is the earth absolutely flat? ???Nearly 1800 posts and you're still confused by the informal use of "flat" and "round" on this forum? Good fucking job.[...]I have a few questionsHi. Just to point it out, we have an FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ) and a Wiki (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page) that may be able to answer some (if not most) of your questions!1. Why do people say the earth is round? It obviously isn't so what benefit is there in teaching our kids that it is?It is likely the result of fake space travel. People thought the Earth was round, so they produced pictures of the round Earth as seen "from space", which has then been circle-referenced to finally "prove" the Earth round.2. What shape is the earth? Like its obviously flat but is it a pizza shape? Or something like a square or triangle?There is a lot of disagreement about this among FE'ers. Generally, the most widely-accepted shape of the known Earth is very similar to the UN logo:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/images/4/43/Map.png)
Other models exist. Here's an example:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)
Most of us openly admit that we don't know what exactly lies beyond the known Earth, so I doubt you'll get a definitive answer from anyone as to what the shape of the whole thing is. Some believe that the Earth is an infinite plane, but I think the general consensus is that it's a disc slightly larger than the known/mapped Earth.
That is still a claim.So, once again, sokarul has nothing to add to the discussion. What a surprise. ::)You asked for the quote where you made a claim. I provided it.
That was not a claim. It was an expression of disbelief. Are you really this retarded, or are you just more drunk than normal?
This image is literally in the first post in thread and says "by The Flat Earth Society":
Who said that was a exact replication of the shape of the Earth? ???
Actually, let me get you a better quote:Who said the disc is perfect? I know you people get desperate and try to claim that people said things that they did not, but, now, you just seem to be desperate and grasping at straws. It is OK to admit that you were wrong and lost.
Wow, can you please tell us how that is relevant to the discussion? I am intrigued. ::)
It is a quote where you imply that the Earth is a disc.
Anyways, the question still stands: what shape is the Earth?
Are you willing to admit that you made things up and then claimedOther models exist. Here's an example: that I or one of the other FE'ers said it? Please, this is a serious scientific forum. Do not lie and just make things up willy-nilly. Thanks.
No, I am not going to "admit" anything. The post you made implies the Earth is a disc. But fine, if you won't take it, here's another quote by a "Flat Earth Editor":Where is the earth absolutely flat? ???Nearly 1800 posts and you're still confused by the informal use of "flat" and "round" on this forum? Good fucking job.[...]I have a few questionsHi. Just to point it out, we have an FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ) and a Wiki (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page) that may be able to answer some (if not most) of your questions!1. Why do people say the earth is round? It obviously isn't so what benefit is there in teaching our kids that it is?It is likely the result of fake space travel. People thought the Earth was round, so they produced pictures of the round Earth as seen "from space", which has then been circle-referenced to finally "prove" the Earth round.2. What shape is the earth? Like its obviously flat but is it a pizza shape? Or something like a square or triangle?There is a lot of disagreement about this among FE'ers. Generally, the most widely-accepted shape of the known Earth is very similar to the UN logo:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/images/4/43/Map.png)
Other models exist. Here's an example:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)
Most of us openly admit that we don't know what exactly lies beyond the known Earth, so I doubt you'll get a definitive answer from anyone as to what the shape of the whole thing is. Some believe that the Earth is an infinite plane, but I think the general consensus is that it's a disc slightly larger than the known/mapped Earth.
If the earth is round then the Bible and Quran are wrong! Well, since the Bible and Quran are right regarding the immobility of the Earth (so far the score is 1 : 0 in favor of the Bible in relation to the garbage of the HC theory), then it is very likely that the Bible is right regarding the shape of the earth, too. Only (as i said in another thread) the shape of the earth presents to us very difficult problem because there are very strong proofs which go in favor of FE theory, but in the same time there are very strong proofs which go in favor of RE theory - which makes this whole situation very schizoprenic.
I don't care whether the earth is flat or round (all i want to know is WHAT IS THE right answer to this question?), and the Bible vs RE theory is not the only issue here. There are very strong philosophical (not only scientific) reasons why we can hardly believe that God would have ever chosen to shape the Earth round. That is one another (intuitive) reason why we are rooting for the FE theory. But of course : the REAL (not FALSE) science is one which has to provide for us THE FINAL WORD on this issue!
It would be very easy to prove which theory is right and which is wrong, but while you wait for THE FINAL WORD on this issue ask yourself one simple question :
Why NASA can't show us one single AUTHENTIC picture of the earth from space (after all these years)?
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
The concept is NOT that the earth is Flat per se....BUT that it is laid out in a horizontal plane & NOT in a sphere. ( Heliocentric ) Of course the earth has elevation etc ( mountains ) ....but WHEN ANY demonstrations of proving a natural curvature of the earth ( by lining up points of reference - and in doing so - IF the earth was a sphere, ANY absolute straight line - would by using common sense, show natural drop off curvature - ( Earth radius of 3,959 mi) - == Natural Drop off to accomodate the earths curvature would be approx over a distance of 10 miles = 66 feet - rising exponentially 1000ft over a distance of 40 miles - This has NEVER been proved to happen in any test ( building railway lines - Canals etc - ALL have been built NEVER having to take the Earths curvature into consideration - as it doesnt exist. We live on a flat plane - not on a spinning ball.
But any way I don"t ignore the physics, Science, or the geometry. I don't ignore God either.
Isaiah 44:24 ..... I AM THE LORD who made all things,who alone stretched out the heavens,who "spread abroad" the earth by Myself.
Definition of spread abroad = Flatten
Genesis 1: 16 .... God made "two" lights the sun, and the moon and
Joshua 10:12 .... God stopped those two lights, and thousands reported it Not just in the Bible either..all the ancient cultures recorded the event.
The Reason it takes 3 years and over 50,000 miles to Circumnavigate Antarctica? Job 26:10....He hath COMPASSED the Waters with BOUNDS, until the Day and Night come to an END.......... there are over 50 verses referring to the sun's Circuit. (Still, Stable, Immovable)
1st Chronicles 16:30 ..... The world also shall be stable, That it Not Be Moved.
Psalm 96:10 ...... The world also shall be established that it shall not be moved.
Psalm 93:1 .... The world also is established that IT CANNOT BE MOVED. Not spinning, not orbiting, not on an imaginary axes just because 500 million men say so. God says it Shall Not EVER Move.
But as Jesus said , wisdom of this world is foolishness. (http://)
Believe what ever you want.. But . He is watching, Ezekiel 1: 25, 26 .. look up and wave.
FROM THE BOOK OF ENOCH :
18:2 I saw the cornerstone of the earth; I saw the four winds which bear the earth as well as the firmament of heaven.
18:3 I saw how the winds ride the heights of heaven and stand between heaven and earth: These are the very pillars of heaven.
18:4 I saw the winds which turn the heaven and cause the star to set -the sun as well as all the stars.
18:12 And on top of that pit I saw a place without the heavenly firmament above it or earthly foundation under it or water. There was nothing on it -not even birds -but it was a desolate and terrible place.
18:14 Then the malak said to me, “This place is the ultimate end of heaven and earth.
The FACE of the Earth!!! Think of it!!! Find out what is the meaning of this word : A FACE!!! Meditate on this word! Wake up you little deluded child!
Psalm 104:24, 30
How many are your works, O Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.... When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth.
THE FACE :
1. The surface of THE FRONT of the head from the top of the forehead to the base of the chin and from ear to ear.
2. The surface presented to view; THE FRONT.
3. A façade - The face or front of a building
4. A marked side: the face of a clock; the face of a playing card.
5. The right side, as of fabric.
6. A planar surface of a geometric solid.
7. The appearance and geologic surface features of an area of land; topography.
TO FACE :
1. To occupy a position with the face toward: stood and faced the audience.
2. To front on: a window that faces the south.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over THE FACE of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over THE FACE of the waters. - Genesis 1 : 1
Then God said, I give you every seed-bearing plant on THE FACE OF THE WHOLE EARTH and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. - gENESIS 1 : 29
THE END(S) OF THE EARTH (Can you explain to me what would be the meaning of THE ENDS of the sphere?) :
Jeremiah 16:19
O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)
The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to THE END OF THE WHOLE EARTH. - Daniel 4:10-11
But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to THE END OF THE EARTH.” - Acts 1 : 8
For he looks to THE ENDS OF THE EARTH and sees everything under the heavens. - Job 28 : 24
A firstborn bull—he has majesty, and his horns are the horns of a wild ox; with them he shall gore the peoples, all of them, TO THE ENDS OF THE EARTH; they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.” - Deuteronomy 33 : 17
“And the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, FROM ONE END OF THE EARTH TO THE OTHER, and there you shall serve other gods of wood and stone, which neither you nor your fathers have known. - Deuteronomy 28 : 64
He makes wars cease to THE END OF THE EARTH; he breaks the bow and shatters the spear; he burns the chariots with fire. - Psalm 46 : 9
And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from THE ENDS OF THE EARTH to THE ENDS OF HEAVEN. - Mark 13 : 27
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, FROM ONE END OF HEAVEN TO THE OTHER. - Matthew 24 : 29 - 31
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to THE ENDS OF THE WORLD. -
Psalm 19:1-6
FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH (Can you explain to me what would be the meaning of THE CORNERS of the sphere?):
Isaiah 11:12
And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)
And will come out to deceive the nations that are AT THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, Gog and Magog, to gather them for battle; their number is like the sand of the sea. - Revelation 20 : 8
After this I saw four angels standing AT THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree. - Revelation 7 : 1
Under the whole heaven he lets it go, and his lightning to THE CORNERS OF THE EARTH. - Job 37 : 3
THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH AND IMMOBILITY OF THE EARTH (Can you explain to me what would be the meaning of THE FOUNDATIONS of the sphere which RUSHES THROUGH SPACE AT THE SPEED OF A BULLET?) :
He who flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit, and he who climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE EARTH tremble. - Isaiah 24 : 18
He set the earth on IT'S FOUNDATIONS, so that it should NEVER BE MOVED. - Psalm 104 : 5
The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed; he has put on strength as his belt. Yes, the world IS ESTABLISHED; it shall NEVER BE MOVED. - Psalm 93 : 1
Who shakes the earth out of ITS PLACE, and ITS PILLARS tremble - Job 9 : 6
He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For THE PILLARS OF THE EARTH are the Lord's, and ON THEM HE SET THE WORLD. - 1 Samuel 2 : 8
Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before THE FOUNDATION of the world. - John 17 : 24
THE FIRMAMENT - A DOME (Does Job refer here to the Van Allen belt? - ...LOL...
Can you, like him, spread out the skies, HARD AS A CAST METAL MIRROR ? - Job 37 : 18
LUTHER AND CALVIN ABOUT THE HELIOCENTRISM : http://i.imgur.com/HCH4g4N.jpg (http://i.imgur.com/HCH4g4N.jpg)
*************************************************************
QURAN :
Allah is He Who raised the heavens without any pillars that you can see. Then, He Istawa (Jesus) (rose above) the Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty). He has subjected the sun and the moon (to continue going round)! Each running (its course) for a term appointed. He regulates all affairs, explaining the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail, that you may believe with certainty in the meeting with your Lord.
QORAN talk about FIRMAMENT :
O assembly of jinns and men! If you have power to pass beyond the zones of the heavens and the earth, then pass (them)! But YOU WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PASS THEM, EXCEPT WITH AUTHORITY (from Allah)! (AL-Qoran,Surah Ar-Rahman, chapter 55,verse 33)
AND WE HAVE MADE THE HEAVEN A ROOF, SAFE AND WELL GUARDED. Yet they turn away from its signs (i.e. sun, moon, winds, clouds, etc.).
And He it is Who has created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, each in an orbit floating. (AL-Qoran,Surah Al Anbiya, chapter 21,verse 32-33)
But Allah raised him ['Iesa (JESUS)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he IS IN THE HEAVENS). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise. (AL-Qoran,Surah An-Nisa, chapter 4,verse 158)
And We have spread out the earth, how Excellent Spreader (thereof) are We! (AL-Qoran,Surah Adh-Dhariyat, chapter51,verse 48)
And the earth! We have spread it out, and set thereon mountains standing firm, and have produced therein every kind of lovely growth (plants). (AL-Qoran,Surah Qaf, chapter 50,verse 7)
And Allah has made for you the earth wide spread (an expanse). (AL-Qoran,Surah Noah, chapter 71,verse 19) (6) Have We not made the earth as a bed, (AL-Qoran,Surah An-Naba’, chapter 71,verse 6)
It is not for the sun to overtake the moon, nor does the night outstrip the day. They all float, each in an orbit (AL-Qoran,SurahYaasiin, chapter 36 ,verse 40)
And the earth We spread out, and placed therein firm mountains, and caused to grow therein all kinds of things in due proportion. (AL-Qoran,Surah AL Hijr, chapter 15,verse 19)
That is still a claim.So, once again, sokarul has nothing to add to the discussion. What a surprise. ::)You asked for the quote where you made a claim. I provided it.
That was not a claim. It was an expression of disbelief. Are you really this retarded, or are you just more drunk than normal?
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
First off you guys depict the earth as a disc so where are the four corners on that? Second the four corners are the four directions of the compass. North, south, east, and west.
First off, who claimed that it is exactly circular? Secondly, why would the four directions have pillars and angles? It is funny to see you squirm and make shit up to defend your religion together with your round Earth beliefs. Please, make some more stuff up, because it is very entertaining.
This image is literally in the first post in thread and says "by The Flat Earth Society":
Who said that was a exact replication of the shape of the Earth? ???
Actually, let me get you a better quote:Who said the disc is perfect? I know you people get desperate and try to claim that people said things that they did not, but, now, you just seem to be desperate and grasping at straws. It is OK to admit that you were wrong and lost.
Wow, can you please tell us how that is relevant to the discussion? I am intrigued. ::)
It is a quote where you imply that the Earth is a disc.
Anyways, the question still stands: what shape is the Earth?
Are you willing to admit that you made things up and then claimedOther models exist. Here's an example: that I or one of the other FE'ers said it? Please, this is a serious scientific forum. Do not lie and just make things up willy-nilly. Thanks.
No, I am not going to "admit" anything. The post you made implies the Earth is a disc. But fine, if you won't take it, here's another quote by a "Flat Earth Editor":Where is the earth absolutely flat? ???Nearly 1800 posts and you're still confused by the informal use of "flat" and "round" on this forum? Good fucking job.[...]I have a few questionsHi. Just to point it out, we have an FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=FAQ) and a Wiki (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page) that may be able to answer some (if not most) of your questions!1. Why do people say the earth is round? It obviously isn't so what benefit is there in teaching our kids that it is?It is likely the result of fake space travel. People thought the Earth was round, so they produced pictures of the round Earth as seen "from space", which has then been circle-referenced to finally "prove" the Earth round.2. What shape is the earth? Like its obviously flat but is it a pizza shape? Or something like a square or triangle?There is a lot of disagreement about this among FE'ers. Generally, the most widely-accepted shape of the known Earth is very similar to the UN logo:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/images/4/43/Map.png)
Other models exist. Here's an example:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/images/c/c2/Altmap.png)
Most of us openly admit that we don't know what exactly lies beyond the known Earth, so I doubt you'll get a definitive answer from anyone as to what the shape of the whole thing is. Some believe that the Earth is an infinite plane, but I think the general consensus is that it's a disc slightly larger than the known/mapped Earth.
lol, none of that says that the Earth is an exact circle. Did you miss the part where he says, "Other models exist. Here's an example:?" You roundies seem to be running out of ammo. You only make yourselves look more like fools with every post you make.
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
First off you guys depict the earth as a disc so where are the four corners on that? Second the four corners are the four directions of the compass. North, south, east, and west.
First off, who claimed that it is exactly circular? Secondly, why would the four directions have pillars and angles? It is funny to see you squirm and make shit up to defend your religion together with your round Earth beliefs. Please, make some more stuff up, because it is very entertaining.
"Exactly circular" is not the same as "circular period". Second, where in the KJV does it says the earth has angles? And third as far as pillars those can be where the continents are thicker than the sea. Don't claim victory too quickly next time.
I never specified that you claimed that the earth was an exact circle. I was speaking of a circular shape in general.
Also, did you miss the part were he says, "I think the general consensus is that it's a disc slightly larger than the known/mapped Earth."
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
First off you guys depict the earth as a disc so where are the four corners on that? Second the four corners are the four directions of the compass. North, south, east, and west.
First off, who claimed that it is exactly circular? Secondly, why would the four directions have pillars and angles? It is funny to see you squirm and make shit up to defend your religion together with your round Earth beliefs. Please, make some more stuff up, because it is very entertaining.
"Exactly circular" is not the same as "circular period". Second, where in the KJV does it says the earth has angles? And third as far as pillars those can be where the continents are thicker than the sea. Don't claim victory too quickly next time.
So, you religious people just change the meaning of words any time that you get backed into a corner? It could mean this, or it could mean that, even though it says this. lol
Incorrect. You didn't ask for evidence. You simply claimed he is wrong.That is still a claim.So, once again, sokarul has nothing to add to the discussion. What a surprise. ::)You asked for the quote where you made a claim. I provided it.
That was not a claim. It was an expression of disbelief. Are you really this retarded, or are you just more drunk than normal?
No, it is not. It is an expression of disbelief. If you said that Superman is real, and I expressed disbelief, it would be a challenge for you to prove he is real, not a claim on my part that he is not real. Don't give up, you are doing much better at the English language than you were when I first joined this forum.
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
First off you guys depict the earth as a disc so where are the four corners on that? Second the four corners are the four directions of the compass. North, south, east, and west.
First off, who claimed that it is exactly circular? Secondly, why would the four directions have pillars and angles? It is funny to see you squirm and make shit up to defend your religion together with your round Earth beliefs. Please, make some more stuff up, because it is very entertaining.
"Exactly circular" is not the same as "circular period". Second, where in the KJV does it says the earth has angles? And third as far as pillars those can be where the continents are thicker than the sea. Don't claim victory too quickly next time.
So, you religious people just change the meaning of words any time that you get backed into a corner? It could mean this, or it could mean that, even though it says this. lol
I didnt changed anything. You have to read it in context.
I'm pretty sure someone who was involved enough in the Flat Earth Society to have achieved the rank of "Flat Earth Editor" would have a general idea of what their community's theories are.
I'll ask one more time: if the earth is not round and is not a shape with a semblance to a circle, then what is it?
EDIT: forgot a word
Incorrect. You didn't ask for evidence. You simply claimed he is wrong.That is still a claim.So, once again, sokarul has nothing to add to the discussion. What a surprise. ::)You asked for the quote where you made a claim. I provided it.
That was not a claim. It was an expression of disbelief. Are you really this retarded, or are you just more drunk than normal?
No, it is not. It is an expression of disbelief. If you said that Superman is real, and I expressed disbelief, it would be a challenge for you to prove he is real, not a claim on my part that he is not real. Don't give up, you are doing much better at the English language than you were when I first joined this forum.
You "expressed disbelief" by saying he didn't.
You "expressed disbelief" by saying he didn't.
Not believing in something is not the same as claiming that it is not true. ::)
I'm pretty sure someone who was involved enough in the Flat Earth Society to have achieved the rank of "Flat Earth Editor" would have a general idea of what their community's theories are.
I'll ask one more time: if the earth is not round and is not a shape with a semblance to a circle, then what is it?
EDIT: forgot a word
That guy was also banned for a year and three months for allegedly orchestrating an attack on this site. Perhaps you have more credible references?
You "expressed disbelief" by saying he didn't.
Not believing in something is not the same as claiming that it is not true. ::)
You said he didn't take the flight. That is not the same thing as saying "I don't believe you". You made the claim he didn't take the flight.
#1
"Superman is real"
"Superman is not real."
#2
"Superman is real"
"Prove it"
See the difference?
I'm pretty sure someone who was involved enough in the Flat Earth Society to have achieved the rank of "Flat Earth Editor" would have a general idea of what their community's theories are.
I'll ask one more time: if the earth is not round and is not a shape with a semblance to a circle, then what is it?
EDIT: forgot a word
That guy was also banned for a year and three months for allegedly orchestrating an attack on this site. Perhaps you have more credible references?
What I gather from his posts is that he is now a maintainer/builder of tfes.org, which seems to be a sizable FE community. I'd say he's credible.
And for an even more reliable source, this bord's FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0)) says the Earth is a disk shape.
I'm pretty sure someone who was involved enough in the Flat Earth Society to have achieved the rank of "Flat Earth Editor" would have a general idea of what their community's theories are.
I'll ask one more time: if the earth is not round and is not a shape with a semblance to a circle, then what is it?
EDIT: forgot a word
That guy was also banned for a year and three months for allegedly orchestrating an attack on this site. Perhaps you have more credible references?
What I gather from his posts is that he is now a maintainer/builder of tfes.org, which seems to be a sizable FE community. I'd say he's credible.
Really? They have about a dozen posts per day. That does not seem to be much of a credible site. Perhaps you could just quote someone who has not been banned for hacking the site, nor has a tiny little website that was stolen from this one?
And for an even more reliable source, this bord's FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0)) says the Earth is a disk shape.
lol, it says that the known part of the Earth is disc like, not that the whole Earth is a disc. Have you always had a reading comprehension problem, or did this come up later in life?
I'm pretty sure someone who was involved enough in the Flat Earth Society to have achieved the rank of "Flat Earth Editor" would have a general idea of what their community's theories are.
I'll ask one more time: if the earth is not round and is not a shape with a semblance to a circle, then what is it?
EDIT: forgot a word
That guy was also banned for a year and three months for allegedly orchestrating an attack on this site. Perhaps you have more credible references?
What I gather from his posts is that he is now a maintainer/builder of tfes.org, which seems to be a sizable FE community. I'd say he's credible.
Really? They have about a dozen posts per day. That does not seem to be much of a credible site. Perhaps you could just quote someone who has not been banned for hacking the site, nor has a tiny little website that was stolen from this one?
https://www.similarweb.com/website/tfes.org#overview (https://www.similarweb.com/website/tfes.org#overview)
According to this analytics website, it had 100K visitors in January. I wouldn't call that puny.
As to the credible source, look at the board's FAQ (I seem unable to quote it). At the end, Pongo states that
"As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society."
And for an even more reliable source, this bord's FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0)) says the Earth is a disk shape.
lol, it says that the known part of the Earth is disc like, not that the whole Earth is a disc. Have you always had a reading comprehension problem, or did this come up later in life?
He also says this is the proposed model of the Earth:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flat_earth.png/220px-Flat_earth.png)
And for an even more reliable source, this bord's FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0)) says the Earth is a disk shape.
lol, it says that the known part of the Earth is disc like, not that the whole Earth is a disc. Have you always had a reading comprehension problem, or did this come up later in life?
He also says this is the proposed model of the Earth:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flat_earth.png/220px-Flat_earth.png)
That picture is meant to be a representation of the layout of the Earth, not a navigational aid. ::)
And for an even more reliable source, this bord's FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0)) says the Earth is a disk shape.
lol, it says that the known part of the Earth is disc like, not that the whole Earth is a disc. Have you always had a reading comprehension problem, or did this come up later in life?
He also says this is the proposed model of the Earth:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Flat_earth.png/220px-Flat_earth.png)
That picture is meant to be a representation of the layout of the Earth, not a navigational aid. ::)
When did I say it was a navigational aid? And aren't we arguing as to the shape of the Earth?
You "expressed disbelief" by saying he didn't.
Not believing in something is not the same as claiming that it is not true. ::)
You said he didn't take the flight. That is not the same thing as saying "I don't believe you". You made the claim he didn't take the flight.
#1
"Superman is real"
"Superman is not real."
#2
"Superman is real"
"Prove it"
See the difference?
Where did I claim that he did not take the flight? I seem to remember expressing disbelief about his supposed flight, not claiming that he did not take the flight. Please, don't be such a retard, sokarul.
He claimed to have taken the flight path. You chimed in "I am sure you have. rolls eyes." The rolls eyes is of course there so we don't think you agree with him. Since you are not agreeing with him you are disagreeing. Nowhere did you say " I don't believe you" or "prove it". You already made up your mind that he never took the flight. This would be a claim. ""I am sure you have. rolls eyes." is closer to "no you didn't" versus "prove it"But I've been on that flight and its roughly 6300 miles and takes about 11 1/2 hrs at 550 miles per hour, which is consistent both with my experience and what is published.
Where's the conspiracy with that?
I am sure you have. ::)
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
First off you guys depict the earth as a disc so where are the four corners on that? Second the four corners are the four directions of the compass. North, south, east, and west.
First off, who claimed that it is exactly circular? Secondly, why would the four directions have pillars and angles? It is funny to see you squirm and make shit up to defend your religion together with your round Earth beliefs. Please, make some more stuff up, because it is very entertaining.
"Exactly circular" is not the same as "circular period". Second, where in the KJV does it says the earth has angles? And third as far as pillars those can be where the continents are thicker than the sea. Don't claim victory too quickly next time.
So, you religious people just change the meaning of words any time that you get backed into a corner? It could mean this, or it could mean that, even though it says this. lol
I didnt changed anything. You have to read it in context.
Reading and interpreting something in context is a subjective thing, is it not?
If you told me that you got a speeding ticket tonight on your way home, and I said that I did not believe you did, it does not mean that I am claiming that you did not get the ticket; it simply means that I am not yet convinced that you got the ticket. Are you starting to learn English a little better yet?To use your own example what you said is more like "I said you did not", instead of "I said that I did not believe you did".
You really are low with this sort of comment coming up so oftenAnd for an even more reliable source, this bord's FAQ (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13876.0)) says the Earth is a disk shape.lol, it says that the known part of the Earth is disc like, not that the whole Earth is a disc. Have you always had a reading comprehension problem, or did this come up later in life?
What does the earth look like?
As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole.
Flat Earth Model
The Flat Earth model is the primary model in Flat Earth theory, in which the Earth is a flat disk. Most arguments or statements having to do with the Flat Earth model should be referring to this model
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
First off you guys depict the earth as a disc so where are the four corners on that? Second the four corners are the four directions of the compass. North, south, east, and west.
First off, who claimed that it is exactly circular? Secondly, why would the four directions have pillars and angles? It is funny to see you squirm and make shit up to defend your religion together with your round Earth beliefs. Please, make some more stuff up, because it is very entertaining.
"Exactly circular" is not the same as "circular period". Second, where in the KJV does it says the earth has angles? And third as far as pillars those can be where the continents are thicker than the sea. Don't claim victory too quickly next time.
So, you religious people just change the meaning of words any time that you get backed into a corner? It could mean this, or it could mean that, even though it says this. lol
I didnt changed anything. You have to read it in context.
Reading and interpreting something in context is a subjective thing, is it not?
Not really. In fact you can get pretty sound doctrine by reading it in context. Hope you have time to watch the videos I've posted, especially the second one. It oughta answer your "proofs" of the Bible teaching that the earth is flat.
Jroa should be a lawyer with his wordplay.If you told me that you got a speeding ticket tonight on your way home, and I said that I did not believe you did, it does not mean that I am claiming that you did not get the ticket; it simply means that I am not yet convinced that you got the ticket. Are you starting to learn English a little better yet?To use your own example what you said is more like "I said you did not", instead of "I said that I did not believe you did".
Please show a verse in the Bible that says the earth is flat. Also I take the quran with a grain of salt since they say you should kill the infidel.
How about when it talks about the four corners of the Earth? In which way can you spin it to make a sphere have four corners? This will be good.
First off you guys depict the earth as a disc so where are the four corners on that? Second the four corners are the four directions of the compass. North, south, east, and west.
First off, who claimed that it is exactly circular? Secondly, why would the four directions have pillars and angles? It is funny to see you squirm and make shit up to defend your religion together with your round Earth beliefs. Please, make some more stuff up, because it is very entertaining.
"Exactly circular" is not the same as "circular period". Second, where in the KJV does it says the earth has angles? And third as far as pillars those can be where the continents are thicker than the sea. Don't claim victory too quickly next time.
So, you religious people just change the meaning of words any time that you get backed into a corner? It could mean this, or it could mean that, even though it says this. lol
I didnt changed anything. You have to read it in context.
Reading and interpreting something in context is a subjective thing, is it not?
Not really. In fact you can get pretty sound doctrine by reading it in context. Hope you have time to watch the videos I've posted, especially the second one. It oughta answer your "proofs" of the Bible teaching that the earth is flat.
Different people interpret the passages of the Bible in different ways. Everyone thinks that their interpretation is right, but they can't all be right. That means that interpretation is a subjective thing.
True but some things are just obvious on its face.
True but some things are just obvious on its face.
Like the Earth being round amirite? ;D
Wait, can a FE'er please explain if a flight from Santiago to Sydney is possible in 12 hours? Reviewing the FE model you would be flying virtually over North America and the arctic to get there. Seems pretty obvious that a FE model does not function.
We destroyed you many times months ago. Why did you come back?
...lol...lol...lol...Destroy this, funny boy : (http://)
There is more evidence to around earth in this video then that of a flat Earth. The sun coming up over the Horizon.
“Modern Mechanics describes how on a Flat Earth the sun can be computed to 3,000 miles via triangulation, whereas on a globe earth those same angles can calculate the sun to nearly 93 million miles away -- “ from https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun)
12:03 where is all that light coming from sun is to far a way to see, they call this twilight on a flat Earth it's not possible.
How is it even possible for the Sun 3000 Miles up appear to be behind the OAHU that is not even a mile high on the flat earth, this is impossible.
17:19 Does the sun look to be 3000 miles above OAHU , see the light under the clouds all so.
17:51 sun getting higher in the sky not just closer as it would be doing on a flat earth.
18:42 sun below the Horizon, not just further away it supposed to be 3000 miles high at OAHU just under a mile high, what is wrong with this picture, on a rounders it is understandable, on a flat Earth it's impossible!
20:14 Once again the sun 3000 miles up behind OAHU 0.8068182 miles up, give me a brake, really.
Once again it is people seeing something they can't understand even when it is in plain sight.
edited (for some reason no text showed up when I posted this)Other than some mirage distortion, the sun looked the same size and appeared to be setting below the horizon. It would have to be 30,000 miles away just to get within 6 degrees of the horizon. If it's 32 miles across, it would very small at that distance.We destroyed you many times months ago. Why did you come back?
...lol...lol...lol...Destroy this, funny boy : (http://)
There is more evidence to around earth in this video then that of a flat Earth. The sun coming up over the Horizon.
“Modern Mechanics describes how on a Flat Earth the sun can be computed to 3,000 miles via triangulation, whereas on a globe earth those same angles can calculate the sun to nearly 93 million miles away -- “ from https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun)
12:03 where is all that light coming from sun is to far a way to see, they call this twilight on a flat Earth it's not possible.
How is it even possible for the Sun 3000 Miles up appear to be behind the OAHU that is not even a mile high on the flat earth, this is impossible.
17:19 Does the sun look to be 3000 miles above OAHU , see the light under the clouds all so.
17:51 sun getting higher in the sky not just closer as it would be doing on a flat earth.
18:42 sun below the Horizon, not just further away it supposed to be 3000 miles high at OAHU just under a mile high, what is wrong with this picture, on a rounders it is understandable, on a flat Earth it's impossible!
20:14 Once again the sun 3000 miles up behind OAHU 0.8068182 miles up, give me a brake, really.
Once again it is people seeing something they can't understand even when it is in plain sight.
FLAT EARTH - Into the Distance : (http://)
This is just one among many similar comments below this video :
Larry Washom3 months ago
This is the most wonderful video that shows proof the sun is NOT setting. This is the BE-ALL and END-ALL. We need more videos EXACTLY like this. Thank you. I will be also posting this video to my Facebook page if that is ok. Fair Use.
Other than some mirage distortion, the sun looked the same size and appeared to be setting below the horizon. It would have to be 30,000 miles away just to get within 6 degrees of the horizon. If it's 32 miles across, it would very small at that distance.We destroyed you many times months ago. Why did you come back?
...lol...lol...lol...Destroy this, funny boy : (http://)
There is more evidence to around earth in this video then that of a flat Earth. The sun coming up over the Horizon.
“Modern Mechanics describes how on a Flat Earth the sun can be computed to 3,000 miles via triangulation, whereas on a globe earth those same angles can calculate the sun to nearly 93 million miles away -- “ from https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun)
12:03 where is all that light coming from sun is to far a way to see, they call this twilight on a flat Earth it's not possible.
How is it even possible for the Sun 3000 Miles up appear to be behind the OAHU that is not even a mile high on the flat earth, this is impossible.
17:19 Does the sun look to be 3000 miles above OAHU , see the light under the clouds all so.
17:51 sun getting higher in the sky not just closer as it would be doing on a flat earth.
18:42 sun below the Horizon, not just further away it supposed to be 3000 miles high at OAHU just under a mile high, what is wrong with this picture, on a rounders it is understandable, on a flat Earth it's impossible!
20:14 Once again the sun 3000 miles up behind OAHU 0.8068182 miles up, give me a brake, really.
Once again it is people seeing something they can't understand even when it is in plain sight.
FLAT EARTH - Into the Distance : (http://)
This is just one among many similar comments below this video :
Larry Washom3 months ago
This is the most wonderful video that shows proof the sun is NOT setting. This is the BE-ALL and END-ALL. We need more videos EXACTLY like this. Thank you. I will be also posting this video to my Facebook page if that is ok. Fair Use.
^oh yeah? Well watch this.
(http://)
they show the pic showing sun visibility when the Moon visibility from the same site shows that the Moon was still visible in Nevada on the ground at that time. the Sun and the Moon set later at higher altitudes so it would definitely still be visible for the rocket at altitude. This has been mentioned on a couple other threads where this was brought up as well as in the comments for the original video of the launch.^oh yeah? Well watch this.
(http://)
Debunk this if you can : 100% Proof We live on a FLAT EARTH! : (http://)
(http://i.imgur.com/aNMU8HX.jpg)How do we know that is a 720 mile stretch of horizon? What was the magnification of the camera?
(http://i.imgur.com/aNMU8HX.jpg)Watch the accompanying video : (http://)
How do we know that is a 720 mile stretch of horizon? What was the magnification of the camera?
Ok, so I keep my belief in flat earth and I add to this belief these two:
1) the map is correct and the flight is faked
2) I need to investigate on how exactly they are faking these few southern hemisphere flights and if there are real passengers or not
Ok, so I keep my belief in flat earth and I add to this belief these two:
1) the map is correct and the flight is faked
2) I need to investigate on how exactly they are faking these few southern hemisphere flights and if there are real passengers or not
If it helps add data to your thinking, I used to be a mechanic for Qantas and personally serviced aircraft that flew the Sydney-Santiago route. That included dialling in the fuel load, monitoring the fuelling, and taking the fuel quantity and per-tank load sheet up to the pilots after fuelling was done (which meant entering the plane once fuelling was finished and - on a 747 - walking back through part of the cabin, then up to the upper deck and through the pax cabin up there into the cockpit). There were definitely hundreds of people on those planes. Because I saw them each time.
Similarly, I watched hundreds of passengers disembarking from SCL arrivals.
If they were all actors to fool me into believing that the flight was real so that I thought the planet was round then it's a pretty expensive way of doing things. And goodness knows where those actors go after a long day at their "pretend to fly between Australia and Chile" job.
I don't know if you went into hibernation again, but I'll answer anyway.
Watch the accompanying video : (http://)
Wouldn't we need flights connecting each adjacent pair of the three southern hemispherical continents to cite flight times as proof of RE? All that has been proven is the the distance between Australia and Chile is consistent with the RE model. Has anyone adequately debunked flight time discrepancies between South Africa and Australia, or South Africa and South America?
I think that Johannesburg (JNB) to/from Sao Paulo (GRU) is the best you can do.Wouldn't we need flights connecting each adjacent pair of the three southern hemispherical continents to cite flight times as proof of RE? All that has been proven is the the distance between Australia and Chile is consistent with the RE model. Has anyone adequately debunked flight time discrepancies between South Africa and Australia, or South Africa and South America?
Welcome to the Flat Earth Society forums, Terra!
You can use a flight finder like travelocity (http://www.travelocity.com) or any of many others to find nonstop flights (not direct flights) between large cities. That will show what's available and give a nominal flight time. Plug the airline and flight number into a site like flightaware (http://flightaware.com), and it will give the planned distance for the flight. Note that the planned distance probably will not be exactly the same as great-circle distance, but is usually pretty close on long flights unless there is a reason to avoid a large region or take a longer route to catch more favorable winds aloft; it should never be shorter. The planned distances may change somewhat from day to day due to changing conditions. An alternative may be to find the flight on the airline's timetable and look for the distance they provide; that may be the actual great-circle distance from origin to destination.
Qantas Airlines, Sydney, Australia (SYD)/Johannesburg, South Africa (JNB)
QF63 SYD - JNB 14h 20m - Distance Planned:10,735 km
QF64 JNB - SYD 11h 50m - Distance Planned:11,033 km
South African Airways, Johannesburg, South Africa (JNB)/Sao Paulo, Brazil (GRU)
SA222 - JNB - GRU - 10h 20m - Distance Planned: 7,445 km
SA223 - GRU - JNB - 08h 25m - Distance Planned: 7,445 km
It looks like the eastbound flights are significantly faster than the westbound flights. This is probably due to strong westerly winds at the altitudes flown in those latitudes.
I couldn't find a nonstop between Africa and Santiago, Chile (SCL), which is an endpoint for most of the Australia to South America nonstops. Sao Paulo (GRU) was the best I could do in a quick search. Perhaps you can do better.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/6abkksdflo3eiks/FlightRadar24%20-%20Flight%20SA224%20Sao%20Paulo%20to%20Johannesburg.jpg?dl=1) FlightRadar24 - Flight SA223 Sao Paulo to Johannesburg |