The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: EmperorZhark on October 19, 2011, 04:37:11 PM
-
There have been about 4000 launches (some with multiple payloads) and several hundred of the satellites involved are still active. Nine individual countries have launched satellites (USA, Russia, Japan, China, France, India, Israel, Australia, UK) (and the ESA).
That makes a lot of people to convice that their satellites have not been launched into space!
-
They make a lot of effort because they make a lot of moonez! What is it about this that you don't get?
-
There have been about 4000 launches (some with multiple payloads) and several hundred of the satellites involved are still active. Nine individual countries have launched satellites (USA, Russia, Japan, China, France, India, Israel, Australia, UK) (and the ESA).
That makes a lot of people to convice that their satellites have not been launched into space!
It's real simple, I don't understand what about it you don't get. All involved parties have agreed that disclosure would be dangerous and shake up the entire world, therefore it is kept a secret. Yes, they are all involved.
-
USA have been at war with more than one of those countries since THE CONSPIRACY allegedly began.
-
USA have been at war with more than one of those countries since THE CONSPIRACY allegedly began.
Even the war cannot stop this conspiracy, it didn't stop it before and it never will. It will take a FE travelling above the disk high enough to photograph it before truth will be told.
-
there is no conspiracy, even the faqqers will tell you only the "very top" at NASA are involved
point is the earth can be a giant disc without a "conspiracy"
that is just a cop out
cant wait for Davis's book, now theres a guy that actually has theories...
-
so, what happened to those 4000 launches then? Where does Satellite TV come from, if not from orbiting satellites?
-
there is no conspiracy, even the faqqers will tell you only the "very top" at NASA are involved
There is no Conspiracy (NASA, KFC) and only few people are involved in the Conspiracy (NASA, KFC)? Make up your mind. ::)
point is the earth can be a giant disc without a "conspiracy"
that is just a cop out
No, it can't.
-
so, what happened to those 4000 launches then?
Ask NASA. Detonated in the atmolayer? Flown over the ice wall? Who knows.
Where does Satellite TV come from, if not from orbiting satellites?
Pseudolites.
-
so, what happened to those 4000 launches then?
Ask NASA. Detonated in the atmolayer? Flown over the ice wall? Who knows.
Where does Satellite TV come from, if not from orbiting satellites?
Pseudolites.
The questions were directed at iwanttobelieve, who claims there is no conspiracy. If there is no conspiracy, how did blown up satellites become replaced by pseudolites?
-
so, what happened to those 4000 launches then?
Ask NASA. Detonated in the atmolayer? Flown over the ice wall? Who knows.
Where does Satellite TV come from, if not from orbiting satellites?
Pseudolites.
The questions were directed at iwanttobelieve, who claims there is no conspiracy. If there is no conspiracy, how did blown up satellites become replaced by pseudolites?
There is a conspiracty. I'll let iwanttobelieve field that one.
-
USA have been at war with more than one of those countries since THE CONSPIRACY allegedly began.
When have two space powers ever gone to war?
-
When have two space powers ever gone to war?
The Cold War was one of the driving forces behind the space race.
-
When have two space powers ever gone to war?
The Cold War was one of the driving forces behind the space race.
The space race was a technology race, but a race to see who could conjure the best photoshopping, film making and CGI. To be able to control the people of earth by deception is far more powerful than threatening them with a weapon you can only use once before Armageddon (space race was supposedly about ICBM capability). Anyway, pushed on by the corporate side (Microsoft, Universal Studios, Disney, MGM etc) the US was able to put some distance between their technology and that of the Russians. Because of the language, Russia can only sell one type of movie in bulk and those types don't need much CGI. Eventually The USSR had to concede it could not make as good space hoaxes as the US and gave up.
-
I said it so many times if you truly think about it the conspiracy cant work(hence why its not real)
1)Whats the point?
2)Theres really no money to be made when you think about it, you would actually loose massive amounts in the process
3)It cant be done, tooo many people keeping their mouths shut and not 1 EVER talking? Ya people are totally capable of doing that ::)
-
When have two space powers ever gone to war?
The Cold War was one of the driving forces behind the space race.
The space race was a technology race, but a race to see who could conjure the best photoshopping, film making and CGI. To be able to control the people of earth by deception is far more powerful than threatening them with a weapon you can only use once before Armageddon (space race was supposedly about ICBM capability). Anyway, pushed on by the corporate side (Microsoft, Universal Studios, Disney, MGM etc) the US was able to put some distance between their technology and that of the Russians. Because of the language, Russia can only sell one type of movie in bulk and those types don't need much CGI. Eventually The USSR had to concede it could not make as good space hoaxes as the US and gave up.
Epic trolling
-
When have two space powers ever gone to war?
The Cold War was one of the driving forces behind the space race.
The space race was a technology race, but a race to see who could conjure the best photoshopping, film making and CGI. To be able to control the people of earth by deception is far more powerful than threatening them with a weapon you can only use once before Armageddon (space race was supposedly about ICBM capability). Anyway, pushed on by the corporate side (Microsoft, Universal Studios, Disney, MGM etc) the US was able to put some distance between their technology and that of the Russians. Because of the language, Russia can only sell one type of movie in bulk and those types don't need much CGI. Eventually The USSR had to concede it could not make as good space hoaxes as the US and gave up.
Epic trolling
Brother Thork can be creative at times. Felix (R) actually has many posts which effectively tell the story of the space race and how the U.S space program actually aided the Soviets to launch Sputnik in 57'. This allowed the U:S space program to ascertain an incredible amount of resources at its disposal. It went both ways as well, each side helping the other rake in unprecedented budgets. Felix has also went into the story of the german rocket scientists who 'defected' (allegedly) which is how the whole thing started.
-
So Felix (R) has been banned again then huh? ::)
-
So Felix (R) has been banned again then huh? ::)
After some investigating it appears so. Permabanned actually. A few members here feel the permaban was a bit much and we are trying to get him back.
-
USA have been at war with more than one of those countries since THE CONSPIRACY allegedly began.
http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html
Apparently it's perfectly possible to simultaneously be at war and in far-going co-operation.
1)Whats the point?
Money.
2)Theres really no money to be made when you think about it, you would actually loose massive amounts in the process
Really? I guess the prices of aluminium, cardboard and duct tape have gone up recently.
3)It cant be done, tooo many people keeping their mouths shut and not 1 EVER talking? Ya people are totally capable of doing that ::)
I'm talking. Yes, I have worked for NASA and they are a conspiracy. I barely managed to get away alive.
Do you believe me? I hope not, because I'm lying. However, I strongly doubt you'd believe me if I wasn't.
People who are talking (and who are persistent in it) are likely to end up in a psychiatric facility of one kind or another.
-
USA have been at war with more than one of those countries since THE CONSPIRACY allegedly began.
http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html
Apparently it's perfectly possible to simultaneously be at war and in far-going co-operation.
From that article:
Only in the late 1980s, with warming political relations, did momentum for major space cooperation begin to build.
I don't see anything about collaboration regarding the first moon landing or Yuri Gagarin's space flight. Unless they were both inadvertently taking part in the same conspiracy...are there two simultaneous conspiracies?
-
When have two space powers ever gone to war?
The Cold War was one of the driving forces behind the space race.
The space race was a technology race, but a race to see who could conjure the best photoshopping, film making and CGI. To be able to control the people of earth by deception is far more powerful than threatening them with a weapon you can only use once before Armageddon (space race was supposedly about ICBM capability). Anyway, pushed on by the corporate side (Microsoft, Universal Studios, Disney, MGM etc) the US was able to put some distance between their technology and that of the Russians. Because of the language, Russia can only sell one type of movie in bulk and those types don't need much CGI. Eventually The USSR had to concede it could not make as good space hoaxes as the US and gave up.
Epic trolling
I know I'm coming on late on this, but I just had to agree.
-
I don't see anything about collaboration regarding the first moon landing or Yuri Gagarin's space flight.
According to that article, first (allegedly failed) attempts at forming some collaboration started in April 1960. The timing is suspiciously perfect.
-
USA have been at war with more than one of those countries since THE CONSPIRACY allegedly began.
http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/coldWarCoOp.html
Apparently it's perfectly possible to simultaneously be at war and in far-going co-operation.
1)Whats the point?
Money.
2)Theres really no money to be made when you think about it, you would actually loose massive amounts in the process
Really? I guess the prices of aluminium, cardboard and duct tape have gone up recently.
3)It cant be done, tooo many people keeping their mouths shut and not 1 EVER talking? Ya people are totally capable of doing that ::)
I'm talking. Yes, I have worked for NASA and they are a conspiracy. I barely managed to get away alive.
Do you believe me? I hope not, because I'm lying. However, I strongly doubt you'd believe me if I wasn't.
People who are talking (and who are persistent in it) are likely to end up in a psychiatric facility of one kind or another.
ALL you FE's say money, explain to me how they get money.
Like I said it would cost more to keep peoples mouths shut and make hundreds and pics and very convincing vids..not just cardboard and duct tape, like I said they would loose money.
Just step back for a second, its so stupid to make a whole conspiracy up just for money and when you think about it deeper there is now way to get money out of this, no way no how.
And maybe you did not work for NASA but people have spilled the beans in the past, places like area 51 with a few hundred scientists. And yet the conspiracy with millions in on it and no one ::)
-
4,000 lauches, and over a period of more the FIFTY years!
And no hunch about a conspiracy (apart from the delusional Planet Pizzaz).
-
And how many physicists (especially astrophysicists) have directly or undirectly worked on space programs?
And how many have worked on the results given by the satellites?
-
And how many physicists (especially astrophysicists) have directly or undirectly worked on space programs?
And how many have worked on the results given by the satellites?
None. The space programs do not exist.
-
What do they do, then?
What do the people who attend launches do?
Where do thousands of astrophysicists get all their data?
-
And how many physicists (especially astrophysicists) have directly or undirectly worked on space programs?
And how many have worked on the results given by the satellites?
None. The space programs do not exist.
So you confirm that these people are all in on the conspiracy.
-
"You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time. "
Abraham Lincoln
-
What do they do, then?
They don't do anything. They don't exist.
What do the people who attend launches do?
They watch a rocket go really high up into the sky until it disappears from sight.
I used to do the same things with model rockets.
Where do thousands of astrophysicists get all their data?
They don't get data. NASA is very secretive about its data. NASA releases very little to the public.
If you read on a website somewhere that Dr. So and So is renting time on the Hubble Space Telescope, that guy is nothing more than words on a screen, a figment of NASA's imagination.
-
Where do the physicists get their data if there are no satellites?
What about other space agencies?
You seem sooooo well informed.
And, by the way, any evidence?
-
I'm talking. Yes, I have worked for NASA and they are a conspiracy. I barely managed to get away alive.
Do you believe me? I hope not, because I'm lying. However, I strongly doubt you'd believe me if I wasn't.
People who are talking (and who are persistent in it) are likely to end up in a psychiatric facility of one kind or another.
You said that, i believe?
-
I'm talking. Yes, I have worked for NASA and they are a conspiracy. I barely managed to get away alive.
Do you believe me? I hope not, because I'm lying. However, I strongly doubt you'd believe me if I wasn't.
People who are talking (and who are persistent in it) are likely to end up in a psychiatric facility of one kind or another.
You said that, i believe?
You've accidentally posted in the wrong thread. Also, have you tried reading the whole post?
And no hunch about a conspiracy (apart from the delusional Planet Pizzaz).
See, this is why lurking is important. I do not believe in the conspiracy.
-
Where do the physicists get their data if there are no satellites?
The hundreds of satellites which NASA claims are orbiting the earth do not exist.
Weather data comes from pseudolites and stratellites. Data is sold for a profit to other parts of the government/tv stations.
What about other space agencies?
Only very few have launch capability. The Canadian Space Agency doesn't have a launch pad.
All these dozens of space agencies really do is pay NASA/ESA for data that they allegedly collect or pay to put a "Canadian/[insert county] Astronaut" into space so that their country people can feel better about themselves.
And, by the way, any evidence?
There is plenty of evidence which shows that NASA is running a fake space program. Once the Wiki comes back up go to the Conspiracy page.
-
And how many physicists (especially astrophysicists) have directly or undirectly worked on space programs?
And how many have worked on the results given by the satellites?
None. The space programs do not exist.
/facepalm
-
Where do the physicists get their data if there are no satellites?
The hundreds of satellites which NASA claims are orbiting the earth do not exist.
Weather data comes from pseudolites and stratellites. Data is sold for a profit to other parts of the government/tv stations.
What about other space agencies?
Only very few have launch capability. The Canadian Space Agency doesn't have a launch pad.
All these dozens of space agencies really do is pay NASA/ESA for data that they allegedly collect or pay to put a "Canadian/[insert county] Astronaut" into space to their country people can feel better about themselves.
And, by the way, any evidence?
There is plenty of evidence which shows that NASA is running a fake space program. Once the Wiki comes back up go to the Conspiracy page.
Probably the biggest load of bullshit I've ever come across this forum.
And, as usual, one line answers from Tm Bishop and never ever a shred of evidence.
-
Probably the biggest load of bullshit I've ever come across this forum.
And, as usual, one line answers from Tm Bishop and never ever a shred of evidence.
Ya, out of all the BS that comes out of this forum, Tom usually puts out this most.
Like I told him before there are 71 space agencies with about 25 with launch capabilities and 3(or 4) that can send a man up there.
Thats too many people to keep their mouths closed and thats JUST the space programs...
-
God I'd like to know what are pseudolites and stratellites! (since wiki is out of order for the moment)
-
God I'd like to know what are pseudolites and stratellites! (since wiki is out of order for the moment)
those really exist, the flaw with the FE's logic is their limited in quantities and theres not enough to do weather, satellites imaging, cellphone use etc...theres not enough for that the only way we have all those things is satellites
-
God I'd like to know what are pseudolites and stratellites! (since wiki is out of order for the moment)
Don't you know how to use Google?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudolite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite
Also weather is mostly predicted by these guys ...
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/
no satellites needed.
You will also note that their Mercator projection acknowledges the existence of a southerly ice-wall.
-
The Mercator projection is a projection of a Globe, a usefull appoximation, everybody knows that and people know the limit of the projection of a globe on a flat surface.
I'm surprise by such a week argument (and I'll come back on the subject of pseudolites and stratellites).
-
God I'd like to know what are pseudolites and stratellites! (since wiki is out of order for the moment)
Don't you know how to use Google?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudolite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite
Also weather is mostly predicted by these guys ...
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/
no satellites needed.
You will also note that their Mercator projection acknowledges the existence of a southerly ice-wall.
The NOAA map is cool, TFES should use it for one of the flat earth maps in WIKI.
-
The Mercator projection is a projection of a Globe, a usefull appoximation, everybody knows that and people know the limit of the projection of a globe on a flat surface.
I'm surprise by such a week argument (and I'll come back on the subject of pseudolites and stratellites).
No, a Mercator projection is a projection of a flat earth. The earth is flat, it can only be that way. You need to think for yourself.
But maps is something else. I'm not confident you will grasp maps, as it is a bit complicated. Its another thread anyway. Stick to ocean buoys and pseudolites for now. :)
-
Think before you post, please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection
-
Yeah, see I knew you wouldn't be able to grasp this, so let it go for another thread. ::)
-
If you knew what a map was, may be you could provide a DISTANCE_ACCURATE map for FE.
Of course you can't.
-
The Mercator map shown was distance accurate and represents a flat earth, not a round one as they told you. Why do you assume that, that Mercator map is of a ball? Because you are always told earth is a ball? Globularists have narrow minds.
Again, you are derailing this thread. If you want a map thread, go make one.
-
So if the Mercator projection is right, ther are 40,000 km between Alaska and Siberia?
I might have a narrow mind, but I've got logic on my mind.
-
You have a slow mind.
The map has isn't 1:1,000,000 etc all over. Its a PROJECTION!
Why didn't you have trouble grasping that a ball would need to distort the earth in order to be a map, but that a flat earth where the north pole is a point, stretched to the entire length of the top of the map, also has distortion? I don't think you understand maps. Last time. If you don't get it, make a new thread. I won't answer any more of your petulant foot-stamping in his thread.
-
What you are saying makes less ans less sense. And you are loosing your nerves. Have a good night's sleep an stop considering others as imbeciles because they do not agree with you.
-
And please, a FE map on which everybody can agree.
-
What you are saying makes less ans less sense. And you are loosing your nerves. Have a good night's sleep an stop considering others as imbeciles because they do not agree with you.
http://www.youryoure.com/?lose
I won't answer any more of your petulant foot-stamping in his thread.
-
More and more kindergarten, less and less scientific.
-
You have a slow mind.
The map has isn't 1:1,000,000 etc all over. Its a PROJECTION!
Why didn't you have trouble grasping that a ball would need to distort the earth in order to be a map, but that a flat earth where the north pole is a point, stretched to the entire length of the top of the map, also has distortion? I don't think you understand maps. Last time. If you don't get it, make a new thread. I won't answer any more of your petulant foot-stamping in his thread.
What's the point in a map projection if the Earth is flat anyway??
-
Because it is not the layout of earth a mercator projection portrays, is it? The North Pole is a single point in the centre, but it is stretched the length of the top edge of the map in the Mercator. Of course a round earth is demanding the same thing of it before you squeal how ridiculous that is.
Why do they use projections on maps? Well so you can get a better view of the area in question. If you want to navigate the north pole a Mercator map is almost useless. You want a polar azimuthal projection or a Lambert conical. If you want to travel at the equator, a transverse Mercator or Miller cylindrical might be useful.
It then depends what you want the map to be accurate for. Equal distance maps, equal area maps, true bearing maps, scale maps etc.
-
Yo pit, take anymore photos showing a round earth using the Zeeh-ahh-hahaha-lol-rofl-potato-polar bear-zimbeani-zoom-zoom-zoom-tic method?
-
Because it is not the layout of earth a mercator projection portrays, is it? The North Pole is a single point in the centre, but it is stretched the length of the top edge of the map in the Mercator. Of course a round earth is demanding the same thing of it before you squeal how ridiculous that is.
Why do they use projections on maps? Well so you can get a better view of the area in question. If you want to navigate the north pole a Mercator map is almost useless. You want a polar azimuthal projection or a Lambert conical. If you want to travel at the equator, a transverse Mercator or Miller cylindrical might be useful.
It then depends what you want the map to be accurate for. Equal distance maps, equal area maps, true bearing maps, scale maps etc.
Pointless!
Either the Earth is round and map are projections of a sphere on a flat surface, or the Earth is flat, and a map is just a description - a reduction - of reality. But we are still waiting for this map.
-
Pick any published map you like. It is a projection of earth. A flat earth!
-
So show me a map which represents the FE as you see it.
-
So show me a map which represents the FE as you see it.
Pick any published map you like. It is a projection of earth. A flat earth!
-
Show me just one!
-
It then depends what you want the map to be accurate for. Equal distance maps, equal area maps, true bearing maps, scale maps etc.
Your trolling is slipping Thork. On a flat earth map, there is no need to adjust maps for area and distance, because they will already be accurate. If the earth is flat, there is no need of projections.
-
On a flat earth map, there is no need to adjust maps for area and distance, because they will already be accurate.
It is impossible to produce an accurate map to any other scale than 1:1.
-
On a flat earth map, there is no need to adjust maps for area and distance, because they will already be accurate.
It is impossible to produce an accurate map to any other scale than 1:1.
Nice misdirection there pizzaplanet.
You don't need to change the shapes of continents, you certainly don't need to stretch the North Pole out into a ribbon, just to accurately represent the distances and areas of a mapped location.
If you really are arguing that there is some kind of purpose for the mercator projection in flat earth scenario then you probably need to go back and study up exactly what the mercator projection is and why it was introduced.
re: Thork's statement:The map has isn't 1:1,000,000 etc all over. Its a PROJECTION!
The mercator exists purely to allow some areas of a globular planet to be described on a flat surface. You might have all kinds of needs for maps in a FE world, but you WILL NOT need a map with different distance scales on different parts of the map.
-
It is impossible to produce an accurate map to any other scale than 1:1.
Why is that so?
-
You don't need to change the shapes of continents, you certainly don't need to stretch the North Pole out into a ribbon, just to accurately represent the distances and areas of a mapped location.
Then you can safely assume that is not the purpose of that type of map. They stretched it out to best illustrate the distributions of buoys in the oceans. They happen to all be away from the poles so a Mercator is a great choice.
If you really are arguing that there is some kind of purpose for the mercator projection in flat earth scenario then you probably need to go back and study up exactly what the mercator projection is and why it was introduced.
Why can it only be a projection of a ball? Not a flat plate? You still have a zombie like acceptance of all things round. Different projections allow the information in maps to be easily accessible and act as a pictorial overview of a situation. You don't always want a large round map. Square ones are easier to fold for example or you may only be interested in a particular region.
The mercator exists purely to allow some areas of a globular planet to be described on a flat surface. You might have all kinds of needs for maps in a FE world, but you WILL NOT need a map with different distance scales on different parts of the map.
Of course you will, if you stretch a north pole out to the same length as the equator you cannot have the same scales and distances. You don't seem to understand how maps work.
-
Of course you will, if you stretch a north pole out to the same length as the equator you cannot have the same scales and distances. You don't seem to understand how maps work.
Yes, but the only time you would need to stretch out the north pole, is when you are attempting to represent a curved surface as a 2 dimensional map.
re: Bouys, why the need to stretch everything out onto a rectangular piece of paper? The corners of a square sheet of paper with a circular map on it would actually be quite useful for legends and other information. And the beauty of it would be, the whole map would be useful not just that section a few thousand miles above or below the equator.
-
Why can it only be a projection of a ball? Not a flat plate? You still have a zombie like acceptance of all things round.
Let's forget for one moment the bullying, and let's focus on a projection being the projection of a flat plate.
It wouldn't be a projection, but a mere copy, or a homothety of the reality. So we should be able to have a map which really represents a FE. Such is not the case with a Mercator's projection.
-
Why can it only be a projection of a ball? Not a flat plate? You still have a zombie like acceptance of all things round.
Let's forget for one moment the bullying, and let's focus on a projection being the projection of a flat plate.
It wouldn't be a projection, but a mere copy, or a homothety of the reality. So we should be able to have a map which really represents a FE. Such is not the case with a Mercator's projection.
What bullying? Are you trying to bully me? It is unlikely that it will work.
Of course a mercator projection represents a FE. Its a projection of one. The Zenith is above the equator on the Greenwich meridian and the North pole is stretched along the top surface of the map. On a polar azimuthal projection the zenith is moved to the north pole. The north pole remains a finite spot but the map is a circular arrangement. You can get a similar map that is a star. Its the same earth, but you have to appreciate to change from a circle to a star, a certain amount of stretching and manipulation takes place. Same with Mercators. It just depends what you are trying to show.
(http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/8000/8044/8044t.gif) (http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/8000/8042/8042t.gif) (http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/10600/10649/10649t.jpg)
They are all the same earth, but different projections and hence different stretching has been applied. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
-
Maps, maps, maps.
None working with the FE model.
-
Maps, maps, maps.
None working with the FE model.
[insert ClockTower reference here]
-
Maps, maps, maps.
None working with the FE model.
They are all projections of a flat earth. Is your IQ under 80 or something? Why don't you grasp what I have been saying so we can move on to the next part of the conversation. They are all projections of a flat earth. They are ways to show a flat earth in the shape of a heart or a star or a rectangle or however the cartographer best thinks the user would like it. And he manipulates the map to fit that shape. It does not mean the earth is round. It just means he has applied a distortion to it.
-
Nowhere, on any map, the distances are accurate regarding the FE theory.
You can talk as long as you want about maps and projections, but the bottom line is that there is no map relevant with FE theory.
-
Nowhere, on any map, the distances are accurate regarding the FE theory.
Citation needed. Did you map out the distances between every point on earth?
-
Nowhere, on any map, the distances are accurate regarding the FE theory.
You can talk as long as you want about maps and projections, but the bottom line is that there is no map relevant with FE theory.
Nowhere, on any map, the distances are accurate regarding the RE theory.
You can talk as long as you want about maps and projections, but the bottom line is that there is no map relevant with RE theory.
-
Nowhere, on any map, the distances are accurate regarding the FE theory.
Citation needed. Did you map out the distances between every point on earth?
Check anywhere. Atlases, internet. You'll see that there is always something wrong with the southern hemisphere with a FE map.
-
Nowhere, on any map, the distances are accurate regarding the FE theory.
Citation needed. Did you map out the distances between every point on earth?
Check anywhere. Atlases, internet. You'll see that there is always something wrong with the southern hemisphere with a FE map.
So I guess that's a "no" then.
-
There's also the fact that it's, you know, a map proposing the idea that the Earth is flat.
Does it just not occur to you at any point that you are believing that the world is flat and that there is a worldwide conspiracy to hide this fact? Does it just not hit you that that is the point you are legitimately trying to defend?
-
There's also the fact that it's, you know, a map proposing the idea that the Earth is flat.
Does it just not occur to you at any point that you are believing that the world is flat and that there is a worldwide conspiracy to hide this fact? Does it just not hit you that that is the point you are legitimately trying to defend?
There isn't a worldwide conspiracy to hide the flat shape of the world.
The purpose of the conspiracy is to fake the concept of space travel. This is done for military purposes. They need to fake space travel to scare others into thinking that ICBMs can rain down on their heads at any moment.
A country with space capability is the ultimate threat. No longer do wars need to be fought with men and armies, but at the push of a button. America has dominated foreign politics since the 1960's because it has postured itself as the biggest dog. Since Hiroshima and the rise of NASA most countries now have their national reserves in USD, think that waging war with the US is suicide, and wouldn't dare embargo American companies, even giving them special breaks and special treatment. Countries do what America demands. America is the most prosperous nation on earth for the above reasons.
Claiming to have space travel is bringing a gun to a knife fight. Your enemy rolls over and surrenders, even if your gun is a fake. NASA's purpose isn't for furthering science or exploring for all mankind. It's to make others think that America can get nukes into orbit. It's not a scientific organization. It's military propaganda.
-
i like the giant waving american flag in your avatar
-
I love my country but fear my government.
-
Do you just love it platonically, or is it a C/W/B (citizens with benefits) deal going on? Florida looks like it hasn't had a handy in ages.
-
Nowhere, on any map, the distances are accurate regarding the FE theory.
Citation needed. Did you map out the distances between every point on earth?
Check anywhere. Atlases, internet. You'll see that there is always something wrong with the southern hemisphere with a FE map.
So I guess that's a "no" then.
I guess you have a problem with simple understanding.
-
Nowhere, on any map, the distances are accurate regarding the FE theory.
Citation needed. Did you map out the distances between every point on earth?
Check anywhere. Atlases, internet. You'll see that there is always something wrong with the southern hemisphere with a FE map.
So I guess that's a "no" then.
I guess you have a problem with simple understanding.
I have perfect understanding. I asked you if you checked the distances between every point on earth and the question was ignored, instead asking me to look at some NASA maps.
-
Well I checked enough to see that the distances on a FE map between, let's say Santiago de Chile, Capetown and sydney are utterly ridiculous.
-
(http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/8000/8044/8044t.gif) (http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/8000/8042/8042t.gif) (http://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/10600/10649/10649t.jpg)
They are all the same earth, but different projections and hence different stretching has been applied. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
I like the heart one, it's purty....
-
Well I checked enough to see that the distances on a FE map between, let's say Santiago de Chile, Capetown and sydney are utterly ridiculous.
Of course you are absolutely correct. No amount of bleating by the FE trolls can change the fact that they don't have a workable map. Only in RE, do we need a series of projections, neither of which is 100% accurate, to represent the 3D surface two dimensionally. FE, being flat, ought to be easily represented on a two dimensional surface, but no-one has yet been able to derive a 2D model of the Earth that accurately represents the actual distances and shapes of continents.
The reason is that the Earth surface, being 3D, simply cannot be flattened without distortion.
Despite Thork going on about FE having a use for "projections", the fact remains the entire field of map projection only exists as a means of representing the curved surface of the earth in various 2 dimensional formats to suit various needs. IF the earth were not a sphere, map projections would not exist.
-
Well I checked enough to see that the distances on a FE map between, let's say Santiago de Chile, Capetown and sydney are utterly ridiculous.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0
-
It is impossible to produce an accurate map to any other scale than 1:1.
Why is that so?
Lurk, for God's bloody sake.
-
Nowhere, on any map, the distances are accurate regarding the FE theory.
Citation needed. Did you map out the distances between every point on earth?
Check anywhere. Atlases, internet. You'll see that there is always something wrong with the southern hemisphere with a FE map.
So I guess that's a "no" then.
You don't need to check the distances between every point on earth. You only need to check a few distances (preferably in the southern hemiplane) to see if distances are consistant or not with FET.
-
Nowhere, on any map, the distances are accurate regarding the FE theory.
Citation needed. Did you map out the distances between every point on earth?
Check anywhere. Atlases, internet. You'll see that there is always something wrong with the southern hemisphere with a FE map.
So I guess that's a "no" then.
You don't need to check the distances between every point on earth. You only need to check a few distances (preferably in the southern hemiplane) to see if distances are consistant or not with FET.
Why would you check distances in the Southern Hemiplane when there are Flat Earth Maps which can account for those distances?
-
Because they are wrong, if you'd done some research you'd know it.
And anyway there's no FE map precise enough to make some measurements.
-
Why would you check distances in the Southern Hemiplane when there are Flat Earth Maps which can account for those distances?
lol, classic trolling there Tom.
I would say, for the same reason you shouldn't let banks have control over fed reserve appointees. (not that that stops them).
-
Distances between 2 cities:
Sydney - Capetown: 6,843 miles
Sydney - Buenos Aires: 7,330 miles
Buenos Aires - Capetown: 4,269 miles
Far fewer than what we can observe on a FE map.
-
Distances between 2 cities:
Sydney - Capetown: 6,843 miles
Sydney - Buenos Aires: 7,330 miles
Buenos Aires - Capetown: 4,269 miles
Far fewer than what we can observe on a FE map.
Why should the supposed distances between places in an RE model concern us? They are inaccurate.
-
Distances between 2 cities:
Sydney - Capetown: 6,843 miles
Sydney - Buenos Aires: 7,330 miles
Buenos Aires - Capetown: 4,269 miles
Far fewer than what we can observe on a FE map.
That's funny, those distances seem to work just fine on my map (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0).
-
You mean, on the map where Australia is completely ditorted? Where New Zealand is merely a dotted map? Where the Pacific Ocean is enormous? Where the distance from Sydney to Tokyo is wrong?
-
Distances between 2 cities:
Sydney - Capetown: 6,843 miles
Sydney - Buenos Aires: 7,330 miles
Buenos Aires - Capetown: 4,269 miles
Far fewer than what we can observe on a FE map.
That's funny, those distances seem to work just fine on my map (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0).
Whatever map you choose, you correct one area and some other area becomes inaccurate.
-
Distances between 2 cities:
Sydney - Capetown: 6,843 miles
Sydney - Buenos Aires: 7,330 miles
Buenos Aires - Capetown: 4,269 miles
Far fewer than what we can observe on a FE map.
That's funny, those distances seem to work just fine on my map (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0).
Whatever map you choose, you correct one area and some other area becomes inaccurate.
Once again, why should landmasses on a flat earth map have to have the same measurements as those on an RE globe do? The earth is flat, people.
-
If the Earth is flat, find us a FE map.
-
Distances between 2 cities:
Sydney - Capetown: 6,843 miles
Sydney - Buenos Aires: 7,330 miles
Buenos Aires - Capetown: 4,269 miles
Far fewer than what we can observe on a FE map.
That's funny, those distances seem to work just fine on my map (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0).
Of course those distances work fine. Your "map" is based on RE geometry.
-
Distances between 2 cities:
Sydney - Capetown: 6,843 miles
Sydney - Buenos Aires: 7,330 miles
Buenos Aires - Capetown: 4,269 miles
Far fewer than what we can observe on a FE map.
That's funny, those distances seem to work just fine on my map (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0).
Whatever map you choose, you correct one area and some other area becomes inaccurate.
Once again, why should landmasses on a flat earth map have to have the same measurements as those on an RE globe do? The earth is flat, people.
um, it's a thing called map making. It's been done since mankind first set sail upon the ocean or set out from his cave to explore other caves. And it got a crapload more accurate when they invented the sextant. Don't let Thork and Tom browbeat you. Despite their earnest protestations that the distances from one place to another on the planet are either not known or determined by conspiracy provided gps data, this is infact a complete phallacy and they both know it.
Mariners have been measuring distances and plotting the shapes of continents for thousands of years. The Romans built straight roads, proven today with modern survey equipment, and used wheels to accurately measure distances. There are many different ways in which distances can be measured, and the distances used by RE are those same distances that have been verified again and again through many different factors. Flight times and ship times are another means of measuring distance - if the known distances were as inaccurate as they would have to be to explain a flat earth, then it would be as plain as day obvious that something wasn't adding up.
-
Distances between 2 cities:
Sydney - Capetown: 6,843 miles
Sydney - Buenos Aires: 7,330 miles
Buenos Aires - Capetown: 4,269 miles
Far fewer than what we can observe on a FE map.
That's funny, those distances seem to work just fine on my map (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=49558.0).
Of course those distances work fine. Your "map" is based on RE geometry.
Yes, I am still looking for a FE map which makes sense (obviously the 2 famous ones don't).
-
this is infact a complete phallacy
Oo err missus.
Mariners have been measuring distances and plotting the shapes of continents for thousands of years.
But Round-Earth methods for topography are nonsensical. Look at this Wikipedia passage, which claims that the length of a ruler used to measure an object changes the measured length!
At some time in the years immediately preceding 1951, Lewis Fry Richardson in researching the possible effect of border lengths on the probability of war noticed that the Portuguese reported their measured border with Spain to be 987 km, but the Spanish reported it to be 1214 km. This was the beginning of the coastline problem, which is how to arrive at an estimate of a boundary that is infinite.[6]
The prevailing method of estimating a border (or coastline) was to lay off n equal straight-line segments of length ℓ with dividers on a map or aerial photograph. Each end of the segment must be on the boundary. Investigating the discrepancies in border estimation Richardson discovered what is now termed the Richardson Effect: the sum of the segments is inversely proportional to the common length of the segments. In effect, the shorter the ruler, the longer the measured border; thus, the Spanish and Portuguese geographers were using different-length rulers.
The Romans built straight roads, proven today with modern survey equipment
This proves that the earth is flat.
and used wheels to accurately measure distances.
That would be accurate only on a perfectly flat surface.
Flight times
I call conspiracy on this one. Airlines are already known to be satanic.
ship times are another means of measuring distance
Ship times rely heavily on weather conditions and on undetectable ocean currents.
-
Funny, as often!
Thanks Lord Xenu for your wit! (but sorry I can't tke you seriously)
-
You mean, on the map where Australia is completely ditorted? Where New Zealand is merely a dotted map? Where the Pacific Ocean is enormous? Where the distance from Sydney to Tokyo is wrong?
Prove that it's wrong. We know that 1/4th of all international flights are delayed.
How can you show that the Round Earth map is correct for distances between each and every point on the map?
-
You mean, on the map where Australia is completely ditorted? Where New Zealand is merely a dotted map? Where the Pacific Ocean is enormous? Where the distance from Sydney to Tokyo is wrong?
Prove that it's wrong. We know that 1/4th of all international flights are delayed.
How can you show that the Round Earth map is correct for distances between each and every point on the map?
I love your quote about the delayed flights!
As I told you before, there is a gigantic amount of data about distances (atlases, encyclopaedias, dictionnaries, internet, GPS) that we KNOW the distances to be right and coherent with a globe.
As far I've seen, nothing as consistent with the FE model.
-
I love your quote about the delayed flights!
According to the DOT, 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/
"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!"
As I told you before, there is a gigantic amount of data about distances (atlases, encyclopaedias, dictionnaries, internet, GPS) that we KNOW the distances to be right and coherent with a globe.
How do we KNOW this? I can look up lots of factually false stuff on the internet. I can find many incorrect encyclopedia articles. Atlases are flat. GPS is government controlled. How do we KNOW that the earth is round?
-
Even a single on-time flight between California to Sydney disproves your map. They don't all need to be on time for us to know that the distance between the two points is half what your map says it is.
-
Even a single on-time flight between California to Sydney disproves your map. They don't all need to be on time for us to know that the distance between the two points is half what your map says it is.
The vast majority of flights hop from place to place for long destinations, like a mail run. The mail carrier doesn't make a special delivery straight to your house. He has a route and stops from place to place picking up and dropping off mail. It's more efficient this way.
The very few flights which do travel direct routes long distances are likely delayed, in that 25% statistic.
-
Your example still remains ludicrous.
Since I won't be able to convice me and since you won't give me a reason why I am wrong, why don't you give me a FE theory with a map and distances which match.
-
Even a single on-time flight between California to Sydney disproves your map.
Search American Airlines website (http://www.aa.com/gatesTimesSubmit.do) for flight 7365 from yesterday. It arrived on time. Your map is debunked.
-
Even a single on-time flight between California to Sydney disproves your map.
Search American Airlines website (http://www.aa.com/gatesTimesSubmit.do) for flight 7365 from yesterday. It arrived on time. Your map is debunked.
Did the pilot use any jet streams to reach his destination?
-
What about boats?
What about land transport?
What about the ginormous amount of data vs. your disputable examples?
Etc.
-
If only you asked this many questions about how the earth could be round. Zetecism starts from inquiry.
-
What about boats?
Ship times rely heavily on weather conditions and on undetectable ocean currents.
>:(
What about land transport?
Where on Earth are the roads straight and traffic-free enough for the shape of the earth to make any difference?
-
No data to contradict me. Just wrong examples and assertions.
-
No data to contradict me. Just wrong examples and assertions.
Ah, evading my points with a generic RE response. A sign of defeat.
-
Not really. You're talking about means of transportation, which is a way for you to confuse cause and consequences.
-
Not really. You're talking about means of transportation, which is a way for you to confuse cause and consequences.
Since you do not have a specific reply to my points, I will take that as a concession of defeat.
-
Since you don't understantd what I've just said, let's sy it's a defeat of the mind.
-
Since you don't understantd what I've just said, let's sy it's a defeat of the mind.
You haven't really said anything in your last few posts. You have not responded to my points. What kind of a victory is that?
Oh yes. An RE victory. ::)
-
Means of transportation are just an indication of the distance; there are better ways of measuring them. So a plane being delayed or a boat fighting currents doen't mean much.
We have reliable distances between, let's say, major cities, which are consistent with a globe and largely inaccurate with the FE maps.
-
Distances based on what evidence?
-
God knows how many topographers working since centuries?
-
As I pointed out earlier, RE cartography is a damn crazy science.
But Round-Earth methods for topography are nonsensical. Look at this Wikipedia passage, which claims that the length of a ruler used to measure an object changes the measured length!
At some time in the years immediately preceding 1951, Lewis Fry Richardson in researching the possible effect of border lengths on the probability of war noticed that the Portuguese reported their measured border with Spain to be 987 km, but the Spanish reported it to be 1214 km. This was the beginning of the coastline problem, which is how to arrive at an estimate of a boundary that is infinite.[6]
The prevailing method of estimating a border (or coastline) was to lay off n equal straight-line segments of length ℓ with dividers on a map or aerial photograph. Each end of the segment must be on the boundary. Investigating the discrepancies in border estimation Richardson discovered what is now termed the Richardson Effect: the sum of the segments is inversely proportional to the common length of the segments. In effect, the shorter the ruler, the longer the measured border; thus, the Spanish and Portuguese geographers were using different-length rulers.
-
God knows how many topographers working since centuries?
The word you wanted was cartographer. From the Latin carta=map and the Greek graphein=draw.
-
To Lord Xenu: has nothing to do with FE or RE topography. And his has nothing to do with measuring the strait distance between two points.
To Thork: Cartographers and topographers.
-
To Thork: Cartographers and topographers.
What am I supposed to do with this reply? It makes no sense.
-
Both those people have been collecting data for centuries.
Do you assume those heaps of data to be false? Or tweaked?
-
You still don't seem to grasp that a map is a projection of earth, and that means in theory as much a flat earth as a round one. All those maps, represent the earth, the flat earth.
-
You still don't seem to grasp that a map is a projection of earth, and that means in theory as much a flat earth as a round one. All those maps, represent the earth, the flat earth.
A round earth projected onto a flat map undergoes extreme distortion. This can happen in different ways. Some have australia stretched out, some have greenland looking almost as big as africa. Surely such things don't happen on a flat earth. A flat earth would not have this problem. A spherical earth map projected onto a plane would never accurately represent a flat earth.
-
A funny thing happened to me one time while I was setting up a new antenna for a radio system I was working on. It was a VHF antenna yet we were picking up Satellite frequencies on it. Mind you, these transmissions supposedly required a SatCom antenna requiring a compass and declination. Ooops. It's all proprietary algorithms utilizing radio waves with encryption. GPS, SatTV, etc. etc. No satellites only encrypted radio waves.
-
Just asking, how does NASA somehow produce money from having a space program with a stupidly small budget, the bloody Aircon usage in the Iraq war exceeded NASA's recent budgets.
-
What about land transport?
Where on Earth are the roads straight and traffic-free enough for the shape of the earth to make any difference?
Eyre Highway, Yalata to Cocklebiddy, 561km.
Straight enough that thousands of Australians who travel it every year would be struggling to understand how it took them 12 hours or more to travel something that according to the map should take no more than 5-6 hours. This is a road with no twists and turns, one town to pass through on the way and an easy 90-100km cruising speed 90 percent of the journey.
This wouldn't go unnoticed, I assure you.
-
this is infact a complete phallacy
Oo err missus.
haha, oops.
Mariners have been measuring distances and plotting the shapes of continents for thousands of years.
But Round-Earth methods for topography are nonsensical. Look at this Wikipedia passage, which claims that the length of a ruler used to measure an object changes the measured length!
At some time in the years immediately preceding 1951, Lewis Fry Richardson in researching the possible effect of border lengths on the probability of war noticed that the Portuguese reported their measured border with Spain to be 987 km, but the Spanish reported it to be 1214 km. This was the beginning of the coastline problem, which is how to arrive at an estimate of a boundary that is infinite.[6]
The prevailing method of estimating a border (or coastline) was to lay off n equal straight-line segments of length ℓ with dividers on a map or aerial photograph. Each end of the segment must be on the boundary. Investigating the discrepancies in border estimation Richardson discovered what is now termed the Richardson Effect: the sum of the segments is inversely proportional to the common length of the segments. In effect, the shorter the ruler, the longer the measured border; thus, the Spanish and Portuguese geographers were using different-length rulers.
dumb method. Anyone with common sense could see this would lead to variant results.
The Romans built straight roads, proven today with modern survey equipment
This proves that the earth is flat.
No, the road is straight in the two axis of measurement of the surface of the earth. This says nothing about the flatness of the surface itself. It does however allow an accurate gauge of the distance travelled traversing the given surface
and used wheels to accurately measure distances.
That would be accurate only on a perfectly flat surface.
Their roads were flat. Of course if the earth is curved, then the roads followed curvature, therefore the wheel would accurately measure the distance travelled which would include the curvature ie: If there is curvature, measuring the path along the road will not be the shorted possible distance between two points. But it will be the shortest distance possible for the technology of the Romans. Also, the Romans generally cut through obstacles such as hills, bored tunnels through mountains and filled in valleys or built bridges, to keep the roads straight. They rarely went around obstructions but engineered ways through them.
Flight times
I call conspiracy on this one. Airlines are already known to be satanic.
meh.
ship times are another means of measuring distance
Ship times rely heavily on weather conditions and on undetectable ocean currents.
True, they are the least reliable method of calculating distance. Nevertheless many ship journeys would be significantly and noticably longer if distances were compliant with a flat earth.
-
God knows how many topographers working since centuries?
The word you wanted was cartographer. From the Latin carta=map and the Greek graphein=draw.
Facts:
None of the maps we have represent a FE.
Most of the maps we have are a representation (projection) of a RE.
Distances on your so-called FE maps have been shown many times to be wrong.
Nobody has ever given me a shred of evidence that maps representing RE carry wrong data.
-
God knows how many topographers working since centuries?
The word you wanted was cartographer. From the Latin carta=map and the Greek graphein=draw.
Facts: Common misconceptions:
None of the maps we have represent a FE. [All the maps you have represent a FE]
Most of the maps we have are a representation (projection) of a RE. [Incorrect]
Distances on your so-called FE maps have been shown many times to be wrong. [RErs repeatedly say they are wrong. However they are unable to prove them wrong, by virtue of them being right]
Nobody has ever given me a shred of evidence that maps representing RE carry wrong data. [You have ignored all such evidence.]
-
God knows how many topographers working since centuries?
The word you wanted was cartographer. From the Latin carta=map and the Greek graphein=draw.
Facts: Common misconceptions:
None of the maps we have represent a FE. [All the maps you have represent a FE] Wrong as always.
Most of the maps we have are a representation (projection) of a RE. [Incorrect] You're wrong and you can't prove it.
Distances on your so-called FE maps have been shown many times to be wrong. [RErs repeatedly say they are wrong. However they are unable to prove them wrong, by virtue of them being right] Wrong, proven many times.
Nobody has ever given me a shred of evidence that maps representing RE carry wrong data. [You have ignored all such evidence.] You don't have this evidence
-
HAS ANYONE HEARD OF THE TOWN WHERE IT GETS INFECTED WITH ZOMBIES AND THE US NUKED IT AND WIPED IT OFF THE MAP
true story :D
-
Some advice about avoiding bans.
DON'T SHOUT IN CAPS! and don't spam the upper fora with nonsense.
-
Facts: Common misconceptions:
None of the maps we have represent a FE. [All the maps you have represent a FE] Wrong as always.
Most of the maps we have are a representation (projection) of a RE. [Incorrect] You're wrong and you can't prove it.
Distances on your so-called FE maps have been shown many times to be wrong. [RErs repeatedly say they are wrong. However they are unable to prove them wrong, by virtue of them being right] Wrong, proven many times.
Nobody has ever given me a shred of evidence that maps representing RE carry wrong data. [You have ignored all such evidence.] You don't have this evidence
-
Incidentally, if you go to "Flat Earth Debate" and click on the topic "The ultimate challenge for FE'ers", you'll find that trying to place major capitals in the world on a map will conduct to only one solution: your map will we spheric!