The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Snaaaaake on June 21, 2008, 06:44:04 PM
-
Ok so in FET it's impossible to go to space blah blah blah. But while I was looking throught the "Shuttle crashes" post I noticed something. What about the people who have died in shuttle crashes? What happened to them? What about their grieving families? Are they acting? And what about the fact that the dead people haven't been seen since? No one would want to live hidden the rest of their lives just to help out a conspiracy. Now what does FES say for this?
-
What makes you think their deaths are faked to begin with? What motive would NASA have for something like that?
-
Ask Tom Bishop. He told me the most ridiculous story about what happened to them.
-
Oh ya and I don't think their deaths are faked, I know they died.
-
Tom Bishop has a tendency to talk out of his ass sometimes. Could you give me a link to what he said?
-
They obviously were told of the consiracy and after threatening to tell the public were killed in a faked shuttle crash.
-
Stop trolling, please.
-
I was serious.
-
Tom Bishop has a tendency to talk out of his ass sometimes. Could you give me a link to what he said?
It starts about here, and goes on for a few pages: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19559.msg424413#msg424413
-
They obviously were told of the consiracy and after threatening to tell the public were killed in a faked shuttle crash.
So you admit that they are dead?
-
I never said they weren't...
-
But they are dead. And no one would just let someone shoot them (or whatever) just to help out on a conspiracy.
-
But they are dead. And no one would just let someone shoot them (or whatever) just to help out on a conspiracy.
Well, someone likely did.
-
Well then who died if they have dissapeared?
-
What are you talking about? The astronauts were killed by the conspiracy after threatening to expose it.
-
It was cold-blooded murder.
-
No no no no no no no. Wrong wrong wrong. Well first of all there is no conspiracy but they died in the shuttle crash.
-
No no no no no no no. Wrong wrong wrong. Well first of all there is no conspiracy but they died in the shuttle crash.
If they didn't exist, how did they die?
-
No no no no no no no. Wrong wrong wrong. Well first of all there is no conspiracy but they died in the shuttle crash.
The shuttles were rigged to fail. They did it just right to make it look like an accident.
-
Please provide proof to back up your claim.
-
Ok so in FET it's impossible to go to space blah blah blah. But while I was looking throught the "Shuttle crashes" post I noticed something. What about the people who have died in shuttle crashes? What happened to them? What about their grieving families? Are they acting? And what about the fact that the dead people haven't been seen since? No one would want to live hidden the rest of their lives just to help out a conspiracy. Now what does FES say for this?
As I said in the Shuttle Crashes thread, the shuttle goes upward out of people's view, stays their for a few days, then crashes. The people onboard knew they were going to die, but they couldn't tell their families.
-
Ok so in FET it's impossible to go to space blah blah blah. But while I was looking throught the "Shuttle crashes" post I noticed something. What about the people who have died in shuttle crashes? What happened to them? What about their grieving families? Are they acting? And what about the fact that the dead people haven't been seen since? No one would want to live hidden the rest of their lives just to help out a conspiracy. Now what does FES say for this?
As I said in the Shuttle Crashes thread, the shuttle goes upward out of people's view, stays their for a few days, then crashes. The people onboard knew they were going to die, but they couldn't tell their families.
The shuttle, while crashing, was visible to those watching on television, thus making your point that they mysteriously brought it out of sight irrelevant.
see 1:25
Secondly, I find it hugely unlikely that they knew they were going to die. Why accept to do the mission then? And they looked so happy while going up to the shuttle (I've seen the clip but can't find it, sorry) and while facing your own death, it would be pretty hard to smile like that. Dunno, its not conclusive, but its something.
-
They had to build a ship that could maintain elevation long enough to make it seem like a crash.
-
Ok so in FET it's impossible to go to space blah blah blah. But while I was looking throught the "Shuttle crashes" post I noticed something. What about the people who have died in shuttle crashes? What happened to them? What about their grieving families? Are they acting? And what about the fact that the dead people haven't been seen since? No one would want to live hidden the rest of their lives just to help out a conspiracy. Now what does FES say for this?
As I said in the Shuttle Crashes thread, the shuttle goes upward out of people's view, stays their for a few days, then crashes. The people onboard knew they were going to die, but they couldn't tell their families.
The shuttle, while crashing, was visible to those watching on television, thus making your point that they mysteriously brought it out of sight irrelevant.
see 1:25
Secondly, I find it hugely unlikely that they knew they were going to die. Why accept to do the mission then? And they looked so happy while going up to the shuttle (I've seen the clip but can't find it, sorry) and while facing your own death, it would be pretty hard to smile like that. Dunno, its not conclusive, but its something.
While it's supposed to be in space, it becomes invisible. And the astronauts do it because, if they don't do it, the government will kill them and their family.
-
While it's supposed to be in space, it becomes invisible.
It was not yet in space when it exploded. I fail to understand this entire point.
And the astronauts do it because, if they don't do it, the government will kill them and their family.
That's reasonable, but highly unlikely and lacks any form of supporting evidence.
Also, why would they find it nessisary to crash it in the first place?
-
Please provide proof to back up your claim.
Pleave provide claims to backup your proof.
-
They had to build a ship that could maintain elevation long enough to make it seem like a crash.
Now your just making up excuses to explain why your not wrong.
-
So we are in agreement that I am not wrong?
-
Please provide proof to back up your claim.
The earth is flat and sustained spaceflight is impossible.
-
Give it up, Round000. If you don't get it by now you never will.
Also, all the arguments in this thread (both sides) are stupid. Except the following:
Please provide proof to back up your claim.
The earth is flat and sustained spaceflight is impossible.
-
Please provide proof to back up your claim.
The earth is flat and sustained spaceflight is impossible.
The Earth is infact round. Spaceflight is possible and has been done. Your post just makes the Earth rounder than it already is.
-
0000000000
So we are in agreement that I am not wrong?
No but everytime RE people hit u good u mask the wound to look like it never happened. Eventually ur going to run out of masking tape and i hope im there when it happens.
-
The Earth is infact round. Spaceflight is possible and has been done. Your post just makes the Earth rounder than it already is.
You're wrong.
-
no ur wrong
-
The Earth is infact round. Spaceflight is possible and has been done. Your post just makes the Earth rounder than it already is.
You're wrong.
Tom, "You're wrong." does not constitute a proper rebuttal. Please explain just how he is wrong.
-
Tom, "You're wrong." does not constitute a proper rebuttal. Please explain just how he is wrong.
He's wrong because the earth is flat and sustained spaceflight is impossible.
-
care to elaborate on that
-
care to elaborate on that
Look out your window and read Earth Not a Globe.
-
care to elaborate on that
Look out your window and read Earth Not a Globe.
Get some new research, peer reviewed if possible.
-
Get some new research, peer reviewed if possible.
Earth Not a Globe underwent constant peer review by the the Universal Zetetic Society in a publication called "Earth Not a Globe Review", which had over 1000 subscribers.
Source: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm
-
Get some new research, peer reviewed if possible.
Earth Not a Globe was peer reviewed by a publication authored by Lady Blount called "Earth Not a Globe Review", which had over 1000 subscribers.
Do you really think that counts? How about an independent peer review outside it's tiny tiny field, you know by the other side
-
Do you really think that counts? How about an independent peer review outside it's tiny tiny field, you know by the other side
There are no "sides", there are only independent researchers who have all come to the conclusion that the earth is a plane. You can find more corroborating works in my signature link.
But if you would like to make a single reference to any piece of literature which proves through experimentation that the earth is a globe, be my guest.
-
Do you really think that counts? How about an independent peer review outside it's tiny tiny field, you know by the other side
There are no "sides", there are only independent researchers who have all come to the conclusion that the earth is a plane. You can find more corroborating works in my signature link.
But if you would like to make a single reference to any piece of literature which proves through experimentation that the earth is a globe, be my guest.
If there was no side, then what are 1000 subscribers doing reading a magazine that loudly promotes flat earth?
There are two sides in the arguments, and I'd like to know if it was peer reviewed by people without a bias
I could have written any "new" theories of flat earth and even if I just make it all up, and it would have passed peer review by that publication
-
There are two sides in the arguments, and I'd like to know if it was peer reviewed by people without a bias
There is no bias. That's preposterous. Why would so many independent researchers conspire to fake experiments and write entire books in an effort to support the idea that the earth is a plane?
The whole of civilized society at the time grew up under the notion that the earth was a globe. If anything there should be a bias for the globular hypothesis.
I could have written any "new" theories of flat earth and even if I just make it all up, and it would have passed peer review by that publication
The publication put all theories under rigorous experimentation and presented the results fairly and accurately. A women named Lady Bount, a writer for Earth Not a Globe Review, was among the first to provide photographic evidence for a Flat Earth (http://www.zetetic.co.uk/zetetic.html):
"The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic method hired a photographer, Mr Cifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should bemore than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."
Her photographs and research is available in the Flat Earth collection at the University of Liverpool's special archives repository.
-
There are two sides in the arguments, and I'd like to know if it was peer reviewed by people without a bias
There is no bias. That's preposterous. Why would so many independent researchers conspire to fake experiments and write entire books in an effort to support the idea that the earth is a plane?
For the money?
-
A women named Lady Bount, a writer for Earth Not a Globe Review, was among the first to provide photographic evidence for a Flat Earth:
"The Old Bedford Level..."
Her photographs and research is available in the Flat Earth collection at the University of Liverpool's special archives repository.
But the Bedford level is not a body of water lying level with the planet's surface. It's a river, constantly flowing down to the point where it's level with the Earth's surface, but never managing to be level with it.
-
A women named Lady Bount, a writer for Earth Not a Globe Review, was among the first to provide photographic evidence for a Flat Earth:
"The Old Bedford Level..."
Her photographs and research is available in the Flat Earth collection at the University of Liverpool's special archives repository.
But the Bedford level is not a body of water lying level with the planet's surface. It's a river, constantly flowing down to the point where it's level with the Earth's surface, but never managing to be level with it.
Good point, *thumbs up*.
-
A women named Lady Bount, a writer for Earth Not a Globe Review, was among the first to provide photographic evidence for a Flat Earth:
"The Old Bedford Level..."
Her photographs and research is available in the Flat Earth collection at the University of Liverpool's special archives repository.
But the Bedford level is not a body of water lying level with the planet's surface. It's a river, constantly flowing down to the point where it's level with the Earth's surface, but never managing to be level with it.
The Bedford Level (I think it's the Old Bedford Level) is not a constantly flowing river. It is an old drainage cut and is drained by tidal action.
-
Its a slow-flowing drainage canal.
-
The Bedford Level (I think it's the Old Bedford Level) is not a constantly flowing river. It is an old drainage cut and is drained by tidal action.
As far as I can tell, it's constantly flowing. It has weirs along it's length to maintain the flow, and the fact that it has plant life growing along it suggests that the water is fresh, not salt.
-
The Bedford Level (I think it's the Old Bedford Level) is not a constantly flowing river. It is an old drainage cut and is drained by tidal action.
As far as I can tell, it's constantly flowing. It has weirs along it's length to maintain the flow, and the fact that it has plant life growing along it suggests that the water is fresh, not salt.
*points up at her post*
-
While it's supposed to be in space, it becomes invisible.
It was not yet in space when it exploded. I fail to understand this entire point.
And the astronauts do it because, if they don't do it, the government will kill them and their family.
That's reasonable, but highly unlikely and lacks any form of supporting evidence.
Also, why would they find it nessisary to crash it in the first place?
It was supposed to crash. However, something happened before it did, causing the shuttle to explode. They need it to crash because it makes the belief that shuttles go into space more believable.
-
They do go into space.
-
But the Bedford level is not a body of water lying level with the planet's surface. It's a river, constantly flowing down to the point where it's level with the Earth's surface, but never managing to be level with it.
No. The Bedford Canal was not flowing at the time of the experiment. It's specifically described in the literature as a long stretch of standing water. That's precisely why it was chosen for the location of the experiment.
-
But the Bedford level is not a body of water lying level with the planet's surface. It's a river, constantly flowing down to the point where it's level with the Earth's surface, but never managing to be level with it.
No. The Bedford Canal is not flowing. It's specifically described in the literature as a long stretch of standing water. That's precisely why it was chosen for the location of the experiment.
*points again at her post*
-
They do go into space.
How do you know?
-
They do go into space.
How do you know?
Because they say they do, silly. And they make all those pretty pictures.
-
Get some new research, peer reviewed if possible.
Earth Not a Globe underwent constant peer review by the the Universal Zetetic Society in a publication called "Earth Not a Globe Review", which had over 1000 subscribers.
Source: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm
Any chance there were some REAL scientists doing this "peer review"?
NM, i already know .....
-
"There is no bias. That's preposterous. Why would so many independent researchers conspire to fake experiments and write entire books in an effort to support the idea that the earth is a plane?"
Why, to support the conspiracy, don't you know? Man i thought you'd played this game for awhile now .... And the conspiracy isn't for money, it's just to see how many idiots they can get to subscribe to their point of view. and all you FErs have been suckered by their "science". Why, they even wrote a book about. that means it MUST be the truth....
right?
-
They do go into space.
How do you know?
Because they say they do, silly. And they make all those pretty pictures.
Yup, all those real, 100% true pictures.
-
They do go into space.
How do you know?
Because they say they do, silly. And they make all those pretty pictures.
Yup, all those real, 100% true pictures.
How do you know the pictures are real? Did you see an astronaut take the pictures?
-
Any chance there were some REAL scientists doing this "peer review"?
Yep. They were all real scientists. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, for example, was an English inventor and chemist. Read "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea" for a source.
-
Get some new research, peer reviewed if possible.
Earth Not a Globe underwent constant peer review by the the Universal Zetetic Society in a publication called "Earth Not a Globe Review", which had over 1000 subscribers.
Source: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm
The Earth Is round
Just so there is no doubt I had my grandma, my mom, and a few cousins look over that statement and they say it is true also, so it has been proven.
-
Any chance there were some REAL scientists doing this "peer review"?
Yep. They were all real scientists. Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, for example, was an English inventor and chemist. Read "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea" for a source.
i said REAL scientists, not quacks. They would get laughed out of ANY reputable scientific conference they walked into.
-
i said REAL scientists, not quacks. They would get laughed out of ANY reputable scientific conference they walked into.
Samuel Birley Rowbotham got great reviews from his lectures across Britain on Flat Earth Theory:
"'PARALLAX' AT THE LECTURE HALL.--This talented lecturer is again in Greenwich, rivetting the attention of his audiences, and compelling them to submit to the facts which he brings before them--we say submit, for this they do; it seems impossible for any one to battle with him, so powerful are the weapons he uses. Mathematicians argue with him at the conclusion of his lectures, but it would seem as though they held their weapons by the blade and fought with the handle, for sure enough they put the handle straight into the lecturer's hand, to their own utter discomfiture and chagrin. It remains yet to be seen whether any of our Royal Astronomers will have courage enough to meet him in discussion, or whether they will quietly allow him to give the death-blow to the Newtonian theory, and make converts of our townspeople to his own Zetetic philosophy. If 'Parallax' be wrong, for Heaven's sake let some of our Greenwich stars twinkle at the Hall, and dazzle, confound, or eclipse altogether this wandering one, who is turning men, all over England, out of the Newtonian path. 'Parallax' is making his hearers disgusted with the Newtonian and every other theory, and turning them to a consideration of facts and first principles, from which they know not how to escape. Again we beg and trust that some of our Royal Observatory gentlemen will try to save us, and prevent anything like a Zetetic epidemic prevailing amongst us."--Greenwich Free Press, May 19th, 1862.
---
"'PARALLAX' AT BRADFORD.--So long have astronomers averred the earth's rotundity and its motion round the sun, that when 'Parallax' was announced to lecture we went to see the man who had ventured to controvert facts so long settled by the most recherché students in celestial science. To our surprise every position taken seemed fortified with keen logical reasoning, and an easy explanation was given of many of the tests previously considered absolute proofs of the earth's rotundity. By many illustrations he disproved this rotundity, and astonished his audiences by showing how little there is to be relied on in what has been hitherto received as demonstration itself. 'Parallax' is unquestionably a very acute reasoner, a paragon of courtesy, good temper, and masterly skill in debate; and, by his frank and ingenuous manner, won largely on the convictions of his audience. Seldom have we seen an assembly so much absorbed in their subject; and the interest was maintained to the close. We feel it due to say that, if the data given are correct, there is no resisting the conclusions arrived at."--Bradford Advertiser, July 6th and 13th, 1867.
---
"The lecturer invited discussion, and a warm controversy took place, but 'Parallax' stood his ground admirably. His delivery is free and unaffected, and the masterly style in which he handled his subject showed that he was a geometrician and mathematician of no ordinary merit."--Dewsbury Chronicle, August 5th, 1867.
-
The Greenwich Free Press article in particular is clearly hostile to the idea while admitting impotence. It'd be hard to argue they had a FE bias after reading that. Very impressive Thomas.