The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: onetwothreefour on February 20, 2010, 06:35:39 PM

Title: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: onetwothreefour on February 20, 2010, 06:35:39 PM
Concerning the overwhelming evidence of Antarctica's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of an ice wall, I think FE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is Antarctica separate from the ice wall?
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Taters343 on February 20, 2010, 06:39:44 PM
Concerning the overwhelming evidence of the universe's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of its size, I think RE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is the universe infinitely expanding, or is it infinite?
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: onetwothreefour on February 20, 2010, 06:44:45 PM
Concerning the overwhelming evidence of the universe's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of its size, I think RE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is the universe infinitely expanding, or is it infinite?

Thanks for the strawman, but no thanks. Please don't go offtopic.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Atom Man on February 20, 2010, 11:46:17 PM
Concerning the overwhelming evidence of the universe's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of its size, I think RE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is the universe infinitely expanding, or is it infinite?

Two times infinite is still infinity. Ironically half of infinite is also infinity! So having an infinite universe that is infinitely expanding is possible.

Nice to see that inconsistency is still part of FET. Is the ice wall also Antarctica or some sort of hybrid between the two? Is the Australian Antarctic division also part of the conspiracy?
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Thermal Detonator on February 21, 2010, 08:13:23 AM
Concerning the overwhelming evidence of the universe's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of its size, I think RE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is the universe infinitely expanding, or is it infinite?

Not even a good analogy as people have been to Antarctica and the South Pole and live there and study it. Has anyone ever been to the edge of the universe? Is it easy to observe? Perhaps we should send you there Taters.  :P

The absence of certainty about the size of the universe is largely due to many unknown factors and lack of data that can give definite answers in this area. Whereas the absence of certainty about FET Antarctica is that neither model fits observed evidence, so they're afraid to commit to one or the other.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Blade Runner on February 21, 2010, 08:21:16 AM
Anyone else find this whole forum a bit frustrating?
I've asked several questions here which have been completely ignored and have seen many other people ask questions which are also ignored...

Don't FE'ers want to answer our questions?
If there are so many FE'ers and if their belief is so solid and their evidence so great - shouldn't they be jumping all over any questions?...

[[ And no, this is not off topic - I notice that this very thread hasn't had the answers the OP was expecting ]]
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2010, 09:51:34 AM
Concerning the overwhelming evidence of Antarctica's existence and the overwhelming lack of evidence of an ice wall, I think FE has to take a stance and stick by it.

Is Antarctica separate from the ice wall?

(http://web.archive.org/web/20061224004927/http://geocities.com/levelwater/africabrazil.gif)

Antarctica is separate from the land surrounding the Pacific Ocean; beyond the territory covered by ice, we have land with forests, hills, thermal lakes, animals, as they were discovered by admiral R. Byrd during Operation HighJump.

To see why the land surrounding the Pacific Ocean cannot be reached, please read Hollow Earth by R. Bernard (you can find a copy on www.scribd.com); the North Pole was never discovered by Peary/Cook because they ran into the layer of aether which veils from view that part of the Arctic.

Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2010, 10:03:43 AM
Here is Nibiru/Black Sun, photographs taken in Antarctica by the world renowned photographer, Fred Bruenjes:

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)

The Moon does not cause the solar eclipse; the heavenly body known as the Black Sun (which absorbs all visible light and emits akasha) has the same diameter as that of the visible Sun, and does cause the solar eclipse, as we can see in these extraordinary photographs.

The Sun/ISS/Mercury transit videos show clearly the real dimensions of the Sun: not 1.4 million km in diameter (or for that matter, 50 km/32 mi), but just 1000/PHI ~= 618 meters:








The Moon/ISS transits show the same diameter as that of the Sun:


Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Canadark on February 21, 2010, 02:11:46 PM
Hey Levee, welcome to the open forum threads. Please keep your low content posting in the "members access" rooms only.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: sandokhan on February 22, 2010, 04:46:54 AM
canadaaardvark, are you in any way shape or form able to even dream of debating with me, on any subject?

Here are your messages: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=20714;sa=showPosts

You have a submediocre understanding of science, religion...you need to study much more...I am trying to keep this low level, so as not to destroy your self-confidence...
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: markjo on February 22, 2010, 06:28:33 AM
Levee, no one in their right mind could ever dream of debating with you, on any subject.  Now, as for people out of their minds...
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Thermal Detonator on February 22, 2010, 06:31:15 AM
I don't believe those posts are really by Levee. They're too short. Someone must have hacked his account.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: 2fst4u on February 22, 2010, 12:39:33 PM
The Moon does not cause the solar eclipse; the heavenly body known as the Black Sun (which absorbs all visible light and emits akasha) has the same diameter as that of the visible Sun, and does cause the solar eclipse
Sounds a lot like the moon, being smaller but closer, blocking the sun to be honest. Anyone else?
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: I Am You on February 22, 2010, 03:23:22 PM
While the pictures that Levee posted of the Black Sun help support the ice wall argument, I think that Antarctica is in fact the ice wall itself, which helps explain some of the confusion. Obvious if RET's are stating two options, neither of which is correct than RET's would be confused as to which is correct, as neither would be correct.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: 2fst4u on February 22, 2010, 03:26:54 PM
While the pictures that Levee posted of the Black Sun help support the ice wall argument, I think that Antarctica is in fact the ice wall itself, which helps explain some of the confusion. Obvious if RET's are stating two options, neither of which is correct than RET's would be confused as to which is correct, as neither would be correct.
Wrong. We know it isn't. Various topics have proved this. Plus Wilmore says it isn't so that's that.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: SupahLovah on February 22, 2010, 03:31:48 PM
While the pictures that Levee posted of the Black Sun help support the ice wall argument, I think that Antarctica is in fact the ice wall itself, which helps explain some of the confusion. Obvious if RET's are stating two options, neither of which is correct than RET's would be confused as to which is correct, as neither would be correct.
Wrong. We know it isn't. Various topics have proved this. Plus Wilmore says it isn't so that's that.
And as everyone know, Wilmore is the final judge of FET. ::)
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: 2fst4u on February 22, 2010, 03:32:55 PM
While the pictures that Levee posted of the Black Sun help support the ice wall argument, I think that Antarctica is in fact the ice wall itself, which helps explain some of the confusion. Obvious if RET's are stating two options, neither of which is correct than RET's would be confused as to which is correct, as neither would be correct.
Wrong. We know it isn't. Various topics have proved this. Plus Wilmore says it isn't so that's that.
And as everyone know, Wilmore is the final judge of FET. ::)
Exactly.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: James on February 22, 2010, 03:34:35 PM
Antarctica is the location of the Ice Wall they aren't the same thing (Americans - think about the difference between London and England).

Levee is however correct about Nibiru, which is the ancient name for what modern scientists call the Antimoon.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: 2fst4u on February 22, 2010, 03:37:05 PM
Antarctica is the location of the Ice Wall they aren't the same thing (Americans - think about the difference between London and England).

Levee is however correct about Nibiru, which is the ancient name for what modern scientists call the Antimoon.
No modern scientists use the word "anti-moon" Science is based on fact. Anti-moon is based on myth.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: James on February 22, 2010, 03:37:27 PM
NB: There are Flat Earthers who believe in a seperate, small icy continent which is mistaken for the Ice Wall.

The "Rowbotham School" on the Ice Wall identifies it as a structure IN Antarctica, this is the canonical Flat Earth geography, which is based on the cartography of the 19th Century Zetetics, and it is this belief which I and most other FEers subscribe to.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: James on February 22, 2010, 03:38:13 PM
Antarctica is the location of the Ice Wall they aren't the same thing (Americans - think about the difference between London and England).

Levee is however correct about Nibiru, which is the ancient name for what modern scientists call the Antimoon.
No modern scientists use the word "anti-moon" Science is based on fact. Anti-moon is based on myth.

I am a modern scientist who uses the word Antimoon. My belief in the Antimoon is derived from empirical observation.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: 2fst4u on February 22, 2010, 03:41:33 PM
Antarctica is the location of the Ice Wall they aren't the same thing (Americans - think about the difference between London and England).

Levee is however correct about Nibiru, which is the ancient name for what modern scientists call the Antimoon.
No modern scientists use the word "anti-moon" Science is based on fact. Anti-moon is based on myth.

I am a modern scientist who uses the word Antimoon. My belief in the Antimoon is derived from empirical observation.
My disbelief in the Anti-moon is based on science.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 22, 2010, 03:53:45 PM
Plus Wilmore says it isn't so that's that.


Actually, levee and I are in the minority - as James says, most FE'ers believe that Antarctica is the rim-continent.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: 2fst4u on February 22, 2010, 03:55:59 PM
Plus Wilmore says it isn't so that's that.


Actually, levee and I are in the minority - as James says, most FE'ers believe that Antarctica is the rim-continent.
Yea well that's stupid. And that's also that. It would take months to traverse Antarctica rather that the weeks it really takes. Do people strap jets to their skis when they start the traverse? No. So if anything, Antarctica must be separate.

In fact, if anything the earth must be round but anyway...
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on February 22, 2010, 04:23:57 PM
Well look, to some degree you're preaching to the converted, which is why I don't generally defend that theory. However, I don't think it's as obvious as you make out that Antarctica cannot be the rim continent.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: flyingmonkey on February 22, 2010, 05:16:29 PM
People have crossed multiple paths from coast to coast of Antarctica, you can sail AROUND Antarctica, not INSIDE it.
I'm pretty sure people would have worked out that they were sailing around in a massive lake.

I don't see how people think that because it's a coldass place to be, that it somehow hides a giant mystery.

It's no different to any other continent.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: I Am You on February 22, 2010, 09:20:22 PM
People have crossed multiple paths from coast to coast of Antarctica, you can sail AROUND Antarctica, not INSIDE it.
I'm pretty sure people would have worked out that they were sailing around in a massive lake.

I don't see how people think that because it's a coldass place to be, that it somehow hides a giant mystery.

It's no different to any other continent.

Well Flyingmonkey, I believe the reason that some people think that Antarctica holds a mystery is because it is thoroughly unexplored. The sheer size of the continent, combined with the ice covering most of Antarctica's caverns and caves make Antarctica a likely spot for some hidden discovery, and the terrible weather makes Antarctica difficult to explore safely.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: flyingmonkey on February 23, 2010, 12:46:25 AM
Well Flyingmonkey, I believe the reason that some people think that Antarctica holds a mystery is because it is thoroughly unexplored. The sheer size of the continent, combined with the ice covering most of Antarctica's caverns and caves make Antarctica a likely spot for some hidden discovery, and the terrible weather makes Antarctica difficult to explore safely.


Other than the fact it has been circumnavigated and proven to be a continent, meaning it's no bigger than what it is.


AKA, we have traveled the external coastline - it doesn't surround the ocean, the ocean surrounds it.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Its a Sphere on February 23, 2010, 05:06:24 AM
So the black sun moves across the sky, yet only becomes visible when it passes in front of the non-black sun?
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Thermal Detonator on February 23, 2010, 05:23:36 AM

I am a modern scientist who uses the word Antimoon. My belief in the Antimoon is derived from empirical observation.

What, empirical observations that show it is unobservable and undetectable? Yes, you truly are a scientist...
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: brathearon on February 23, 2010, 09:59:25 AM
i think its better for the FET if antartica was not part of the ice wall, so that its simpler to explain Gauss's law of magnetism on earth :)
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: sandokhan on February 26, 2010, 08:36:31 AM
Here is Nibiru/Black Sun, photographs taken in Antarctica by the world renowned photographer, Fred Bruenjes:

http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/index.html

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4623.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/composite2.jpg)

(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/CRW_4632a.jpg)(http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/3rdcontact_vidcap.jpg)

The Moon does not cause the solar eclipse; the heavenly body known as the Black Sun (which absorbs all visible light and emits akasha) has the same diameter as that of the visible Sun, and does cause the solar eclipse, as we can see in these extraordinary photographs.

The Sun/ISS/Mercury transit videos show clearly the real dimensions of the Sun: not 1.4 million km in diameter (or for that matter, 50 km/32 mi), but just 1000/PHI ~= 618 meters:








The Moon/ISS transits show the same diameter as that of the Sun:




Not only do these photographs taken by F. Bruenjes show very clearly that the Moon does not cause the solar eclipse, but we can go much further with our analysis.

Here is the altitude of the Schirmacher Hills, the place in Antarctica mentioned by the author of the photographs:

http://www.trulyremote.com/antarctica/schirmacher-oasis.html

Just 228 meters.

I will use now a distance of only 800 km (I could use much more, even perhaps more than 1500 km) between F. Bruenjes and the Black Sun. Furthermore, let us ascend all the way to 2 km in altitude.

Even with these numbers, we can see that there is no curvature between the photographer and the Black Sun:

Distance 800 km, elevation of photographer 2 km, then we will have a visual obstacle of:

32 KILOMETERS

Not only the transit videos, but also these photographs are pretty conclusive re: the real size of the diameter of the Sun: given the 32 km visual obstacle which does not apear at all, even with a distance of 800 km and an elevation of 2 km, we can safely say there is no curvature over Antarctica.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Its a Sphere on February 26, 2010, 08:40:29 AM
So the black sun moves across the sky, yet only becomes visible when it passes in front of the non-black sun?
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: markjo on February 26, 2010, 08:57:07 AM
So the black sun moves across the sky, yet only becomes visible when it passes in front of the non-black sun?
You have to forgive Levee.  He doesn't understand the concept of back-lighting.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: sandokhan on February 26, 2010, 09:21:13 AM
I admire your tactics, but they do not apply here; please compare these photographs with the official data re: Sun, and the videos also. I feel sorry for you, if you can resort to back-lighting in order to explain this situation.

Now, since you want to go to the limit, let us now apply the full numbers to our formula:

elevation: 228 meters

distance: 4000 km (look this up on any map, and I am being v. conservative with the 4000 km, I could use about 5000 km)

So, the visual obstacle will be:

1451,33 KILOMETERS, over 1450 kilometers of visual obstacle.

markjo, did you say something about the back-lighting?
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: markjo on February 26, 2010, 09:57:06 AM
markjo, did you say something about the back-lighting?

Yes, I did.  Levee, you do realize that black is not so much a color as it is the absence of light, don't you?  Of course you do.  When an object is illuminated from behind (back lit), the front side does not receive any light and therefore appears black.  This is what happens when the moon (anti-moon or any other object) eclipses the sun.  Size and distance are irrelevant.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: sandokhan on February 26, 2010, 10:13:34 AM
Size and distance are irrelevant...really?

The Sun/ISS/Mercury transit videos show clearly the real dimensions of the Sun: not 1.4 million km in diameter (or for that matter, 50 km/32 mi), but just 1000/PHI ~= 618 meters:








The Moon/ISS transits show the same diameter as that of the Sun:





Please show us markjo, where the 149 million km are in these videos...the distance from the Sun to the Earth...both transits of the Sun and the Moon show exactly the same distance Iss-Sun/Moon, not to mention the Mercury transits, relative to the Sun...

Are you going to tell us here that in the Sun transit videos there are 149 million km between the Sun and Iss? Are you?

Or 384000 km between the Iss and the Moon?

Size does matter...there is only about 1 km between the Sun and Iss...these videos do not lie markjo...not by a long shot...

Where are the 384000 km between the Earth and the Moon here?

(http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0805/antarcticeclipse_bruenjes_big.jpg)

The heavenly body which cannot be detected because it absorbs all visible light (it emits akasha, or the finest aether, which in turn, becomes infrared/light/UV radiations given off the Sun) is located, as you can see, at about 800-1000 km distance from the photographer...and not by any long shot at a 384000 km distance from Antarctica...

You dodged the 1451,33 km visual obstacle argument...can you understand these numbers markjo? There is no curvature between the photographer and the Black Sun...


Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: markjo on February 26, 2010, 10:16:51 AM
Size and distance are irrelevant...really?

The Sun/ISS/Mercury transit videos show clearly the real dimensions of the Sun: not 1.4 million km in diameter (or for that matter, 50 km/32 mi), but just 1000/PHI ~= 618 meters:

Levee, it is well known fact that since the earth is flat, sustained space travel is impossible and therefore the ISS does not exist.  Haven't you been keeping up?
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: sandokhan on February 26, 2010, 10:23:13 AM
I have already mentioned that the Iss is UNMANNED, and uses the Nikola Tesla Cosmic Ray Device...the satellites  use the same device, see here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=543

I was the only one to explain these facts clearly a long time ago; the stratellite argument cannot be used by the FES to argue the inexistence of satellites.

These videos also show that the 32 mile/50 km diameter of the Sun data used by the FES is completely wrong, the 3000 miles altitude for its orbit is also dead wrong.

Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Its a Sphere on February 26, 2010, 10:51:56 AM
So the black sun moves across the sky, yet only becomes visible when it passes in front of the non-black sun?
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: SupahLovah on February 26, 2010, 10:55:43 AM
I have already mentioned that the Iss is UNMANNED, and uses the Nikola Tesla Cosmic Ray Device...the satellites  use the same device, see here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=543

I was the only one to explain these facts clearly a long time ago; the stratellite argument cannot be used by the FES to argue the inexistence of satellites.

These videos also show that the 32 mile/50 km diameter of the Sun data used by the FES is completely wrong, the 3000 miles altitude for its orbit is also dead wrong.


Try this

measure your left thumb. Now hold it up to your left eye, an inch or two away. Now straighten your right arm out so you can see your right hand behind your left thumb.

Move your right hand in and out. Notice how when it's closer, it seems larger compared to the left thumb (that you know the measurement of) and when it's further away it's smaller?
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: sandokhan on February 26, 2010, 11:04:19 AM
So the black sun moves across the sky, yet only becomes visible when it passes in front of the non-black sun?

Your remark is very good...the Black Sun cannot be detected by our conventional astronomical instruments because it absorbs all visible light (emitted by the Sun); the Sun in turn absorbs akasha (sound aether, the highest form of aether, called vril by the nazis) and transforms it into infrared/light/UV; the Red Moon (the heavenly body which causes the moon eclipse) absorbs akasha, and emits x-rays/gamma rays, that is why it is transparent as it passes in front of the Moon. The only time the Black Sun becomes visible is during a solar eclipse, as it passes in front of the Sun.

The global warming is due to the renewed activity of the Black Sun; we are at the end of the fifth age, which will culminate with the so-called 2012 event (but it will happen at a different date, as 2012 was never mentioned actually by the mayas, their end date is different, but not by much, by very little).

Nibiru = Black Sun = Fenrir = Rahu

Tiamat = Red Moon = Ketu
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Its a Sphere on February 26, 2010, 11:16:24 AM
We have instruments that can detect portions of the spectrum other than light and  still fails to explain why I can't see it when it is not directly in front of the sun, nor does it explain why, as you just brought up, it doesn't do the same to the moon, unless you are suggesting that the mood emits only x-rays/gamma rays.  Why does this body eclipse the moon in two colors?

Clatto = Verata = Nicto
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: SupahLovah on February 26, 2010, 11:20:26 AM
We have instruments that can detect portions of the spectrum other than light and  still fails to explain why I can't see it when it is not directly in front of the sun, nor does it explain why, as you just brought up, it doesn't do the same to the moon, unless you are suggesting that the mood emits only x-rays/gamma rays.  Why does this body eclipse the moon in two colors?

klaatu = barada = nikto

Fixed, but why would you want to stop Gort in the first place?
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Its a Sphere on February 26, 2010, 11:41:41 AM
This thread does not need your incorrect corrections.

Nibiru = Fenrir = Rahu made me think of Clatto = Verata = Nicto.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: SupahLovah on February 26, 2010, 11:47:32 AM
I don't care that I know nothing.

Nibiru = Fenrir = Rahu made me think of something I never understood.

Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Its a Sphere on February 26, 2010, 11:53:55 AM
I fail at knowing what you are talking about so I will incorrectly correct you.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: SupahLovah on February 26, 2010, 11:59:35 AM
Only thing I can find on Clatto Verata Nicto is WoWfags.

Sorry I don't waste money and life on a bad game.

Army Of Darkness is also not that great. It's obvious it's a nod to Klaatu Barada Nikto, which is how I've always quoted it from army of darkness, as any AoD/Evil Dead nerd should.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Its a Sphere on February 26, 2010, 12:03:32 PM
Or you should try harder, you not seeing a movie isn't my fault.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106308/quotes

Ash: Clatto Verata Nicto.
Wiseman: Well, repeat them.
Ash: Clatto Verata Nicto.
Wiseman: Again.
Ash: I got it, I got it! I know your damn words, alright?

Obviously, as they felt the need to change it.....

I'll be sure to write Robert Wise's family and tell them of your devotion.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: markjo on February 26, 2010, 12:05:49 PM
Your remark is very good...the Black Sun cannot be detected by our conventional astronomical instruments because it absorbs all visible light (emitted by the Sun);

Ah, Dark Sucker Theory.  Now I understand.
http://www.theatrecrafts.com/humour_darksuckers.html
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: ugaboga313 on February 26, 2010, 09:03:28 PM
Wait why did Levee pull out this 5,000km figure?


Moving on, I posted a nice rebuttal of ice wall in another thread. It has to be taller than the atmosphere, thus making it very easy to see if it was close to the continents. Since we can't see anything, if it exists it must be wayy out there. However, being an ice continent, this would create massive weather anomalies due to the cold temperatures and low pressure. This does not happen, ergo ice wall does not exist.


BTW, needz moar conspiracy. I want to hear how history is only 300 years old.
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no
Post by: markjo on February 26, 2010, 09:24:20 PM
Wait why did Levee pull out this 5,000km figure?

Mainstream FET holds that the sun and moon orbit about 3000 miles (5000 km) above the FE.

lrn2metric system
Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: ugaboga313 on February 27, 2010, 07:06:23 AM
So by saying the earth is flat, he can show that there is a flat earth?


Title: Re: FE has to take a stance. Antarctica is separate from the ice wall: yes or no?
Post by: Its a Sphere on February 27, 2010, 09:51:26 AM
Wouldn't it only be 5000km away directly overhead and not at the horizon?
Wait why did Levee pull out this 5,000km figure?

Mainstream FET holds that the sun and moon orbit about 3000 miles (5000 km) above the FE.

lrn2metric system

Wouldn't it only be 5000km away directly overhead and not at the horizon?