The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: 2fst4u on March 19, 2010, 09:49:44 PM

Title: More konspirasee?
Post by: 2fst4u on March 19, 2010, 09:49:44 PM
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg)
(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg)
(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg)

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: John Davis on March 19, 2010, 09:54:33 PM
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg)
(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg)
(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg)

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.

The fact that the Earth appears round at large distances or appears flat at short distances says nothing of its shape.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: 2fst4u on March 19, 2010, 09:57:03 PM
So, if I were in space, and I saw this:

(http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/full-20earth2.jpg)

I should still not believe the earth is round? Of course it matters if it looks round. If it goddamn looks round, then it has to be fricken round. Bendy light doesn't cause the earth to 'appear' to wrap around on itself.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 19, 2010, 11:34:05 PM
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg)
(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg)
(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg)

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.

At the edge of space one is looking at the distant edges of the sun's circular spot of light upon the earth.

However, in that particular photo I believe a barrel effect is occurring to show slightly more curvature than what actually appears.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: 2fst4u on March 20, 2010, 01:22:23 AM

At the edge of space one is looking at the distant edges of the sun's circular spot of light upon the earth.

However, in that particular photo I believe a barrel effect is occurring to show slightly more curvature than what actually appears.
Your explanations are feeble. A circle when looked at from above, would not like look as such. You would have to be immensely high for such a radius of curvature to appear. Looking down on a sphere from such a [relatively] low altitude, you are looking at the earth dropping away when viewed through a lens (or by looking at one particular perspective). How do you explain the atmosphere dropping away with the earth as well? Does it suddenly get invisible after a certain point? Is it always thicker over areas on earth where photos are always taken?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: spanner34.5 on March 20, 2010, 02:36:23 AM
Launching such a craft would be highly irresponsible. It would be a danger to passing aircraft.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: 2fst4u on March 20, 2010, 02:45:55 AM
Launching such a craft would be highly irresponsible. It would be a danger to passing aircraft.
No. As a licensed pilot you should well no that weather balloons are usually reported to the authorities so a NOTAM can be placed.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: spanner34.5 on March 20, 2010, 05:12:50 AM
Launching such a craft would be highly irresponsible. It would be a danger to passing aircraft.
No. As a licensed pilot you should well no that weather balloons are usually reported to the authorities so a NOTAM can be placed.
Usually is the important word. Must say though, I cannot recall ever seeing a weather balloon NOTAM. Maybe our paths have never crossed.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Catchpa on March 20, 2010, 06:29:11 AM
FE's have to dismiss this idea, because they can't be bothered doing any experiments themselves.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: markjo on March 20, 2010, 06:55:32 AM
Launching such a craft would be highly irresponsible. It would be a danger to passing aircraft.
No. As a licensed pilot you should well no that weather balloons are usually reported to the authorities so a NOTAM can be placed.
Usually is the important word. Must say though, I cannot recall ever seeing a weather balloon NOTAM. Maybe our paths have never crossed.
Have you ever heard of the "big sky theory"?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Crustinator on March 20, 2010, 10:33:39 AM
The fact that the Earth appears round at large distances or appears flat at short distances says nothing of its shape.

... because?...

At the edge of space one is looking at the distant edges of the sun's circular spot of light upon the earth.

Is this always the case? How do you know this?

However, in that particular photo I believe a barrel effect is occurring to show slightly more curvature than what actually appears.

How do you know this?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lorddave on March 20, 2010, 11:16:34 AM
In a flat Earth, would not the whole planet be visible once you reached a specific angle?

Bendy light theory only suggests that directly vertical light doesn't bend and all light from the Earth bends perpendicular to the plane of the Earth while all light from space bends towards the plane of the Earth. (still waiting on the confirmation that this line of reasoning is an accurate interpretation of my readings.)

So then at what point does light stop bending or start bending the other way?
Where is the cylindrical atmosphere that we should be able to see?
Why can't we see more of the Earth's Surface?  That looks to be no more than 50 miles.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 20, 2010, 02:52:54 PM
Of course it matters if it looks round. If it goddamn looks round, then it has to be fricken round. Bendy light doesn't cause the earth to 'appear' to wrap around on itself.

But the fact that our everyday observation of the Earth shows it to be flat doesn't matter at all?  That old ugly RE double standard rears its head again.

Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Catchpa on March 20, 2010, 03:12:46 PM
Of course it matters if it looks round. If it goddamn looks round, then it has to be fricken round. Bendy light doesn't cause the earth to 'appear' to wrap around on itself.

But the fact that our everyday observation of the Earth shows it to be flat doesn't matter at all?  That old ugly RE double standard rears its head again.



The earth is flat when you stand on it, but round when you see it from up high.

.. Wait what?

I'm curious where you are to actually see a "flat earth", and not be obstructed by either mountains, hills or houses.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lorddave on March 20, 2010, 03:30:41 PM
Of course it matters if it looks round. If it goddamn looks round, then it has to be fricken round. Bendy light doesn't cause the earth to 'appear' to wrap around on itself.

But the fact that our everyday observation of the Earth shows it to be flat doesn't matter at all?  That old ugly RE double standard rears its head again.



I'm confused as well.

Do you mean that the ground looks flat when looking towards the horizon because I gotta say, without anything in the way, it looks curved.
The sky even looks like a dome to me, though that may just be my imagination.

And if you go high into the sky, the Earth looks like a circle.  But it's a circle in which parts of it are not visible. 
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 20, 2010, 04:02:42 PM
Of course it matters if it looks round. If it goddamn looks round, then it has to be fricken round. Bendy light doesn't cause the earth to 'appear' to wrap around on itself.

But the fact that our everyday observation of the Earth shows it to be flat doesn't matter at all?  That old ugly RE double standard rears its head again.



The earth is flat when you stand on it, but round when you see it from up high.

.. Wait what?

I'm curious where you are to actually see a "flat earth", and not be obstructed by either mountains, hills or houses.

Ever been on a boat?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 20, 2010, 04:27:02 PM
It's clear from far more simple observations that light bends. There's nothing in this image that should not be expected (although I agree with Tom that there is some degree of distortion present in the image).
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: 2fst4u on March 20, 2010, 05:35:25 PM
This is stupid. Someone explain to me the physics of a spotlight sun then, please. It's ridiculous and cannot possibly work.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lorddave on March 20, 2010, 05:47:34 PM
I'm still trying to figure out if they believe that light bends one way when going from the sky and another when coming from the Earth.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: markjo on March 20, 2010, 05:50:35 PM
It's clear from far more simple observations that light bends. There's nothing in this image that should not be expected (although I agree with Tom that there is some degree of distortion present in the image).

???  So the earth is flat because bendy light makes it look round?  I though that the earth is flat because it looks flat.  Please make up your mind, will you?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Xibar on March 20, 2010, 06:06:30 PM
Launching such a craft would be highly irresponsible. It would be a danger to passing aircraft.

You are entirely correct, which is why it is stated in 14CFR (Federal Aviation Regulations) 101.37 that prior notice must be given to the nearest ATC facility so that it may be distributed to local Flight Service Stations.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 21, 2010, 09:03:16 AM
I though that the earth is flat because it looks flat.


You did? Well, I don't.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: markjo on March 21, 2010, 09:09:58 AM
I though that the earth is flat because it looks flat.

You did? Well, I don't.

Well, there goes the Bedford Levels Experiment shot to hell.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lorddave on March 21, 2010, 10:51:34 AM
I though that the earth is flat because it looks flat.

You did? Well, I don't.

Well, there goes the Bedford Levels Experiment shot to hell.
I thought that was shot to hell with the invention of Bendy Light?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: JBJosh on March 21, 2010, 11:00:43 AM
I though that the earth is flat because it looks flat.


You did? Well, I don't.
I'm sitting in a multi storey office right now, and I can see the earth is flat. It looks flat. Why should I believe any different?
This seems to go against what you just said. Am I missing something?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lord Xenu on March 21, 2010, 11:14:11 AM
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg)
(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg)
(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg)

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.

The fact that the Earth appears round at large distances or appears flat at short distances says nothing of its shape.

I thought that Zetetics were meant to trust their senses. It looks round to me. (Yes, I know, look out of your window. But all I can see is a few houses and fences, and that tells me nothing about the shape of the earth.)
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 21, 2010, 02:11:51 PM
I though that the earth is flat because it looks flat.


You did? Well, I don't.
I'm sitting in a multi storey office right now, and I can see the earth is flat. It looks flat. Why should I believe any different?
This seems to go against what you just said. Am I missing something?


Yes, the bit where I say that the Earth is flat because it looks flat.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Crustinator on March 21, 2010, 04:26:42 PM
Yes, the bit where I say that the Earth is flat because it looks flat.

You're still not picking a case.

Is the earth flat because it looks flat, or is the earth flat because it looks round?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Misterkami on March 22, 2010, 12:06:54 AM
Yes, the bit where I say that the Earth is flat because it looks flat.

You're still not picking a case.

Is the earth flat because it looks flat, or is the earth flat because it looks round?
They'll say it's flat because it says so in the logo of the site

LOL
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Globularist on March 22, 2010, 06:10:11 AM
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

(http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg)

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.
I wouldn't trust what the Flat Earthers would release after such an experiment. Tom Bishop has shown he has intimate knowledge of Photoshop.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 22, 2010, 07:26:03 AM
Yes, the bit where I say that the Earth is flat because it looks flat.

You're still not picking a case.

Is the earth flat because it looks flat, or is the earth flat because it looks round?


Uh, neither?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: bloojax on March 22, 2010, 01:53:56 PM
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1336/1372065924_dce90a6b39.jpg)

Here's an SEM image of the surface of a sea urchin.

It looks flat, right?

But sea urchins are round.

It's a matter of perspective. We're so small compared to the Earth, than on it it looks flat to us.

Here's one of a cuttlefish:
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1139/802399590_597bb84282.jpg)
(http://www.camerasunderwater.info/gallery/Dave_K/cuttlefish/cuttlefish.jpg)

link to where I got the SEMs from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/73912558@N00/
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Vongeo on March 22, 2010, 02:06:56 PM
I don't beleive I can afford the materials for this experiment.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2010, 02:07:05 PM
If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: bloojax on March 22, 2010, 02:17:04 PM
If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

That's not the point. We're not arguing if we're living on Earth. We're arguing the shape. If you lived on the sea urchin or cuttlefish and you were microscopic so those pictures were your surroundings, you'd say your world was flat. But it's not, it's just your perspective.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: markjo on March 22, 2010, 03:04:04 PM
I don't beleive I can afford the materials for this experiment.

It's not as expensive as you might think: http://cgi.ebay.com/Cambridge-StereoScan-150-Electron-Microscope-SEM_W0QQitemZ370237719090QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item5633e34232
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: onetwothreefour on March 22, 2010, 03:59:32 PM
If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

What about the other one claiming they're living on the back of a sting ray?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 22, 2010, 06:18:47 PM
If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

That's not the point. We're not arguing if we're living on Earth. We're arguing the shape. If you lived on the sea urchin or cuttlefish and you were microscopic so those pictures were your surroundings, you'd say your world was flat. But it's not, it's just your perspective.

Perspective is the assumption until proven otherwise.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: bloojax on March 22, 2010, 06:51:41 PM
If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

That's not the point. We're not arguing if we're living on Earth. We're arguing the shape. If you lived on the sea urchin or cuttlefish and you were microscopic so those pictures were your surroundings, you'd say your world was flat. But it's not, it's just your perspective.

Perspective is the assumption until proven otherwise.

So are you saying that as I watch a plane take off and get smaller and smaller as it gets farther away from me, I can't say that's perspective? I don't understand what you're saying.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: flyingmonkey on March 22, 2010, 07:22:30 PM
If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.


What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.


Will they say they are part of a conspiracy, or will they say they are watermarked? (lololpun)
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lorddave on March 22, 2010, 07:31:22 PM
If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

That's not the point. We're not arguing if we're living on Earth. We're arguing the shape. If you lived on the sea urchin or cuttlefish and you were microscopic so those pictures were your surroundings, you'd say your world was flat. But it's not, it's just your perspective.

Perspective is the assumption until proven otherwise.

That kinda blows away all of Flat Earth doesn't it?  I mean, the entire hypothesis (I refuse to call it a Theory in the scientific terms) requires two things to be facts.
1. NASA and all other space agencies, Communication agencies, and anyone who has launched something into orbit to be part of a conspiracy.
2. All EM radiation must bend to simulate a heliocentric, round earth perspective but is really a geocentric flat earth view.

And since no one can prove a conspiracy exists (if you know about it, how can it be a secret?) and I haven't read anything about bendy light tests being done (except the guy trying to invent one), then I submit that both are assumptions.  
In fact, the concept of bendy light makes it impossible to test without invalidating a Flat Earth.  AND... the one experiment quoted "the old bedlam canal" experiment contradicts bendy light in favor of saying that light travels straight and the Earth is Flat.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lord Xenu on March 23, 2010, 01:58:24 AM
Here's an SEM image of the surface of a sea urchin.

It looks flat, right?

But sea urchins are round.

It's a matter of perspective. We're so small compared to the Earth, than on it it looks flat to us.

Here's one of a cuttlefish:

link to where I got the SEMs from: http://www.flickr.com/photos/73912558@N00/

Sea Urchins look round from a distance as the result of bendy light.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: TheInsaneAssassin on March 23, 2010, 03:45:14 AM
I thought that Zetetics were meant to trust their senses. It looks round to me. (Yes, I know, look out of your window. But all I can see is a few houses and fences, and that tells me nothing about the shape of the earth.)
I don't know what Zetetics were meant to do, but someone who suggests that the Earth is flat after viewing a picture depicting some degree of curvature such as that is probably using his intellect to make conclusions based on the data that his senses give. That someone would still be trusting the data given by his senses. Whether or not that person is using his intellect correctly, I'm sure you will still debate.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: markjo on March 23, 2010, 06:12:11 AM
If two bacteria were having a debate on the back of the cuttlefish the burden of proof would be on the one claiming that they were living on a cuttlefish.

That's not the point. We're not arguing if we're living on Earth. We're arguing the shape. If you lived on the sea urchin or cuttlefish and you were microscopic so those pictures were your surroundings, you'd say your world was flat. But it's not, it's just your perspective.

Perspective is the assumption until proven otherwise.

Yes, perspective is assumed to be correct until proven otherwise.  So far, you haven't.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 23, 2010, 07:41:03 AM
So are you saying that as I watch a plane take off and get smaller and smaller as it gets farther away from me, I can't say that's perspective? I don't understand what you're saying.

Obviously if we know what it looks like up close, we know its size while in the air.

But what about something like the sun, which no one has seen up close? 30 miles in diameter? 300? 3,000? 30,000? Who's to say?

Quote
What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.

Has it been shown that the bacteria is faking its missions in a studio?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is falsifying records and deleting archival data?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is silencing critics and whistle blowers?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is going around giving fake moon rocks to heads of states?

If so, then the bacteria can't really be considered a reliable source.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Canadark on March 23, 2010, 12:13:24 PM
Of course it matters if it looks round. If it goddamn looks round, then it has to be fricken round. Bendy light doesn't cause the earth to 'appear' to wrap around on itself.

But the fact that our everyday observation of the Earth shows it to be flat doesn't matter at all?  That old ugly RE double standard rears its head again.



But the shape of the earth has no bearing on the way the earth appears to the observer standing in the middle of the field. We have all acknowledged that a flat earth and a round earth would appear the same from everyday observation.

However, when you start to move away and see the curvature of the Earth, it suddenly become more probable that it is flat?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Canadark on March 23, 2010, 12:14:51 PM
So are you saying that as I watch a plane take off and get smaller and smaller as it gets farther away from me, I can't say that's perspective? I don't understand what you're saying.

Obviously if we know what it looks like up close, we know its size while in the air.

But what about something like the sun, which no one has seen up close? 30 miles in diameter? 300? 3,000? 30,000? Who's to say?

Quote
What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.

Has it been shown that the bacteria is faking its missions in a studio?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is falsifying records and deleting archival data?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is silencing its critics?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is going around giving fake moon rocks to heads of states?

If so, then the bacteria can't really be considered a reliable source.

What if none of those things are true? Could it then be considered a reliable source?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: flyingmonkey on March 23, 2010, 05:41:28 PM
Quote
What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.


List

Actually, it would depend on how skeptical the other bacterium are of this bacterias mission, nothing else.

They cannot prove that he hasn't done those things, all they can do is be skeptical and point out possible flaws.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Misterkami on March 24, 2010, 01:40:20 AM
Quote
What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.


List

Actually, it would depend on how skeptical the other bacterium are of this bacterias mission, nothing else.

They cannot prove that he hasn't done those things, all they can do is be skeptical and point out possible flaws.

If I was the bacteria, I would multiply and get the majority
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lord Xenu on March 24, 2010, 02:34:41 AM
I'm getting a bit paranoid about cuttlefish flu now. If the viruses are advanced enough to build submarines and use cameras, we won't have any defences that can stop them.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: spanner34.5 on March 24, 2010, 09:11:38 AM
Launching such a craft would be highly irresponsible. It would be a danger to passing aircraft.

You are entirely correct, which is why it is stated in 14CFR (Federal Aviation Regulations) 101.37 that prior notice must be given to the nearest ATC facility so that it may be distributed to local Flight Service Stations.
Endangering an aircraft is a serious offence. have these children been reported?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: brathearon on March 24, 2010, 09:24:59 AM
So are you saying that as I watch a plane take off and get smaller and smaller as it gets farther away from me, I can't say that's perspective? I don't understand what you're saying.

Obviously if we know what it looks like up close, we know its size while in the air.

But what about something like the sun, which no one has seen up close? 30 miles in diameter? 300? 3,000? 30,000? Who's to say?

Quote
What if one bacteria creates a submarine and travels away from the cuttlefish, takes photos for the other bacterium to see, then comes back to show them.

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.

Has it been shown that the bacteria is faking its missions in a studio?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is falsifying records and deleting archival data?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is silencing critics and whistle blowers?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is going around giving fake moon rocks to heads of states?

If so, then the bacteria can't really be considered a reliable source.

most of the answers to those questions are assumed.

Also, the bacteria can look at other bodies and see that they are round too, and have similar materials found on their object of choice, be it a submarine or a cuttlefish.  They dont have reason to believe that the object they are on is different.  

However our situation is quite different from this, and i dont find it a good example.  For example, there are bacteria on other objects.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: jimspade on March 24, 2010, 10:04:48 AM

That would depend how trustworthy the bacteria in the submarine is.

Has it been shown that the bacteria is faking its missions in a studio?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is falsifying records and deleting archival data?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is silencing critics and whistle blowers?

Has it been shown that the bacteria is going around giving fake moon rocks to heads of states?

If so, then the bacteria can't really be considered a reliable source.

Oh how i hate you. I hate you so much it gives me energy! I have to get up early every morning because there isn't enough time in the day in which to hate you.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: brathearon on March 24, 2010, 10:11:41 AM
where did that come from jim?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: SupahLovah on March 24, 2010, 10:18:18 AM
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.

At the edge of space one is looking at the distant edges of the sun's circular spot of light upon the earth.

However, in that particular photo I believe a barrel effect is occurring to show slightly more curvature than what actually appears.
How does a perfectly circular lit section of the earth explain time zones, tom?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lord Xenu on March 24, 2010, 11:17:30 AM
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.

At the edge of space one is looking at the distant edges of the sun's circular spot of light upon the earth.

However, in that particular photo I believe a barrel effect is occurring to show slightly more curvature than what actually appears.
How does a perfectly circular lit section of the earth explain time zones, tom?

The sun's spotlight would have to be deformed into a sort of pie-slice shape, and there's no way bendy light can explain that.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lorddave on March 24, 2010, 12:44:51 PM
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.

At the edge of space one is looking at the distant edges of the sun's circular spot of light upon the earth.

However, in that particular photo I believe a barrel effect is occurring to show slightly more curvature than what actually appears.
How does a perfectly circular lit section of the earth explain time zones, tom?

The sun's spotlight would have to be deformed into a sort of pie-slice shape, and there's no way bendy light can explain that.

That's why Bendy Light was invented.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Misterkami on March 24, 2010, 10:27:24 PM
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2010/03/look_its_jersey_in_space.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jabella/tags/balloonlaunch/

Easy enough to do in your own backyard? Launch a weather ballon and take photos.

http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_1.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_2.jpg
http://blog.makezine.com/upload/2010/03/more_balloons_in_space/islandLabsLaunch_3.jpg

I can see curvature. I'm not posting this in 'proof' of a round earth, but to point you in the right direction to prove/disprove it yourself. If you simply wave this experiment off as fake, your are an ignorant prick. Do it yourself them come back and tell us it's fake.

At the edge of space one is looking at the distant edges of the sun's circular spot of light upon the earth.

However, in that particular photo I believe a barrel effect is occurring to show slightly more curvature than what actually appears.
How does a perfectly circular lit section of the earth explain time zones, tom?

The sun's spotlight would have to be deformed into a sort of pie-slice shape, and there's no way bendy light can explain that.
Maybe if there is bendy light on the sun as well and if it rotates and if... hmmm.. nah I don't know either.. maybe earth is simply round
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: Lord Wilmore on March 25, 2010, 02:53:48 AM
where did that come from jim?


It's a Dylan Moran quote.
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: jimspade on March 25, 2010, 04:34:10 AM
where did that come from jim?


It's a Dylan Moran quote.

Haha another fan  ;D
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: brathearon on March 25, 2010, 08:36:08 AM
where did that come from jim?


It's a Dylan Moran quote.

Haha another fan  ;D

oh, i thought he was serious, lol
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: markjo on March 25, 2010, 08:46:49 AM
where did that come from jim?


It's a Dylan Moran quote.

Haha another fan  ;D

oh, i thought he was serious, lol

What makes you think that he wasn't?
Title: Re: More konspirasee?
Post by: jtelroy on March 25, 2010, 11:00:37 PM
where did that come from jim?


It's a Dylan Moran quote.

Haha another fan  ;D

oh, i thought he was serious, lol

What makes you think that he wasn't?

BECAUSE ITS THE KUHNSPEHREHSEH!!!!!!

I'm tempted to try to spend time coming up with more ridiculous ways to spell that. 

Ways which symbolically represent my opinion of the conspiracy itself.

Illogical, bloated, and too large to work in an practical sense.

I think it would be a good idea for someone to go through and work out a hypothetical cost/income for the conspiracy and see if its actually profitable in any way shape or form.

If someone actually does that and shows the conspiracy to not be profitable, FET will collapse until they find a seconday explanation for the falsification of NASA's info.