The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: phaseshifter on October 13, 2006, 10:03:27 AM

Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 13, 2006, 10:03:27 AM
Hello, I just got here.

I'm still not sure of this site is not a gigantic form of trolling, but I'm willing to give it the benefeit of doubt. Just so you guys know, I beleive the earth to be round, but I'm not going to flame/insult anyone. I respect other people's opinions.

Now on to my question.

about this...

Quote
Q: "How come the travel time by air from South America to New Zealand, via the polar route, is SHORTER than the travel time going North first and then South again?"

A: (Presumed answer: The airline pilots are misled by their GPS, or are deliberately conspiring to make it appear that the flights take different times)


There are two major holes in this.

1. It would be impossible for a pilot to make 10+ hour trips seem like 4-6 hours. There is no way to convince someone that they are spending LESS time somewhere than they actuall are, not at that scale. Besides, all they have to do is look at their watch, and you don't even need a watch to tell how much time passed.

2. And this is the biggest of the 2 problems. The pilots are misled by the GPS, (if they are not part of the conspiracy from the moment they start working for the airline company). I'm sure everyone realises that it would be incredibly difficult to have every single GPS in the world tampered with to show false information, while at the same time not causing the pilots to fly randomly towards a mountain, AND having such temperings be undetectable. But let's assume that it is being done anyway.  No the problem is the GPS itself.

How can any flatworlder speak about a GPS? GPS is global positioning  through satellites. But satellites do not exist (according to flat world theory) because the NASA never went in space and never had the opportunity to put them there in the first place, pictures of satellites orbitting the earth are fake (again according to FET). Except no one can deny that GPS exists and work. GPS requires no less than 24 satellites, and there would be no way for it to work through any other means. Wether the earth is flat or round, that level of real time precision in positionning could not be done by any instruments restricted to remain on the ground.

Of course, it also means that Satellite T.V, does not exist either. and I'd like to see someone explain high definition TV from sources across the......what's the homloguous term for globe here?

Also, it means that the united states launched tactical nukes and missiles pretty much blindly (as they could not use satellite targeting which does not exist), but luckily for the rest of the world, they managed to hit their intended targets somehow.

That is all.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: golphs on October 13, 2006, 10:49:18 AM
My brain has exploded from the truth brought upon this forum.  Bits and pieces are in Samuel L. Jacksons fro.
Title: Re: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Unimportant on October 13, 2006, 11:31:02 AM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
I'm sure everyone realises that it would be incredibly difficult to have every single GPS in the world tampered with to show false information, while at the same time not causing the pilots to fly randomly towards a mountain, AND having such temperings be undetectable.

You're a bit confused. There is no tampering; the GPS devices are designed and built with the FE system in mind.
As for misleading the pilots with it, that wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you make it out to be.

Quote
How can any flatworlder speak about a GPS? GPS is global positioning  through satellites.

On a round earth that's true, the Global Positioning System relies on satellites. On the flat earth it doesn't.

Quote
GPS requires no less than 24 satellites, and there would be no way for it to work through any other means.

Again, on a round earth you are (sorta) right. 24 is an arbitrary number. You could probably do it with 23. I'm pretty sure the absolute minimum would be somewhere around six, but it doesn't really matter. You're still thinking of GPS on a round earth, which the flat earth is, coincidentally, not.

[quot]Wether the earth is flat or round, that level of real time precision in positionning could not be done by any instruments restricted to remain on the ground.[/quote]
This assertion simply doesn't make sense at all.

Quote
Of course, it also means that Satellite T.V, does not exist either.

No, it just means that the term "satellite TV" is a misnomer. Your "satellite TV" dish on your roof is just a fancy looking radio antenna, recieving your high def channels from a broadcasting tower somewhere on the surface of the earth.

Quote
what's the homloguous term for globe here?

Disc.

Quote
Also, it means that the united states launched tactical nukes and missiles pretty much blindly (as they could not use satellite targeting which does not exist), but luckily for the rest of the world, they managed to hit their intended targets somehow.

When, pray tell, was the last time the US launched a tactical nuke?

Quote
That is all.

Cool!
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 13, 2006, 12:16:20 PM
Quote
You're a bit confused. There is no tampering; the GPS devices are designed and built with the FE system in mind.


Ok, so they want to hide the fact that the world is flat, but then they would basically put that information in a GPS device for anyone to see? Would the GPS explode if you would be to try and get that data? Because I could simply take it from the car. And how do you know that by the way?

Quote
As for misleading the pilots with it, that wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you make it out to be


Then please explain it to me.

Quote
On a round earth that's true, the Global Positioning System relies on satellites. On the flat earth it doesn't.


Why? Explain.

Quote
24 is an arbitrary number
how so?

Quote
You could probably do it with 23. I'm pretty sure the absolute minimum would be somewhere around six,
 How do you know?

Quote
This assertion simply doesn't make sense at all

Please explain how it is flawed.

Quote
No, it just means that the term "satellite TV" is a misnomer. Your "satellite TV" dish on your roof is just a fancy looking radio antenna, recieving your high def channels from a broadcasting tower somewhere on the surface of the earth.


For your information, radio signals are not that strong. But don't take my word for it, just trace the signal back to the emitter. (on another note, it's funny how every question about the holes in the FE theory keeps adding more groups to the conspiracy, we're adding satellite TV providers now)
Radio stations also use satellites by the way, so radio doesn't exist either.

Quote
When, pray tell, was the last time the US launched a tactical nuke?

What does that have to do with anything? You think they don't have nukes now? And that they would guide them through radio signals if they launch?
Also note that I said tactical nukes OR missiles (intercontinental balistic missiles if I must be more precise) but it seems you missed it so I'm repeating it here.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Mythix Profit on October 13, 2006, 01:33:02 PM
OK phaseshifter,
   Even the Conspiracy Conspiracy will correct you on these facts; ICBMs are "strategic" not "tactical".  

The only documented international use of Atomic bombs as tactical weaponry was in 1945 and delivered by aircraft (which maintained consistant contact via Radio.)

Various delivery systems have been developed and tested since: both "strategic"( ICBMs, mid-range systems, etc.) and "tactical" (gravity bombs and missiles, artillery shells, land mines, and depth charges and torpedoes), as have atomic weapons payloads of various types and yields.
Most tactical systems ordnance require only short range data tranmission,  if any.

 

Also, I personally checked military aircraft HF Radio in Hawaii by contacting a ground station in the Phillipines approx 10,000mi. West  across the pacific, @ sea- level.   So.... what do you consider "not that strong"about Radio signals?
And AM signals can bounce off the ionosphere thus extending range.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Unimportant on October 13, 2006, 01:51:29 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
And how do you know that by the way?

Because the earth is flat, and my GPS says it is round. Therefor, the GPS must be lying.

Quote
Quote
As for misleading the pilots with it, that wouldn't be nearly as difficult as you make it out to be


Then please explain it to me.

Change some distances, make some curved lines appear straight, that sort of thing.

Quote
Quote
On a round earth that's true, the Global Positioning System relies on satellites. On the flat earth it doesn't.


Why? Explain.

You are a silly person. If the earth is flat, a tall radio tower will have a direct LOS to pretty much anywhere on earth. That's why you don't need satellites.

Quote
Quote
24 is an arbitrary number

You could probably do it with 23. I'm pretty sure the absolute minimum would be somewhere around six,
 How do you know?

Because I'm pretty good at thinking spatially. Also, I passed 8th grade geometry, so I know what a sphere looks like.

Quote
Quote
This assertion simply doesn't make sense at all

Please explain how it is flawed.

You say that positioning equipment on the ground is incapable of achieving the same precision of something in the air. This is wrong. Thus, your assertion doesn't make sense.

Quote
Quote
When, pray tell, was the last time the US launched a tactical nuke?

What does that have to do with anything? You think they don't have nukes now? And that they would guide them through radio signals if they launch?
Also note that I said tactical nukes OR missiles (intercontinental balistic missiles if I must be more precise) but it seems you missed it so I'm repeating it here.

Well now you're just flat out lying.
Quote
lso, it means that the united states launched tactical nukes and missiles pretty much blindly

"And" and "Or" are very different words. You said and, meaning both. As a result, what you said was wrong. Again.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 13, 2006, 02:17:21 PM
Quote
Because the earth is flat, and my GPS says it is round. Therefor, the GPS must be lying


You have now lost all credibility and I will ignore the rest of your reply.

This sentence has absolutely no value, as it could be used to "prove" anything.

Because the earth is round, and my GPS says it is round. Therefore, the GPS must be correct.

Because cats fly, and the general public says they do not. Therefor, the general public must be lying.

Nothing personal, but I never discuss with people who use circular arguments. I will ignore any reply you make in any other topic.

Quote
Most tactical systems ordnance require only short range data tranmission, if any.


Most, not all. And I think we all know that they are no longer designed to be dropped by planes. Or there would be no point in silos.

Quote
Also, I personally checked military aircraft HF Radio in Hawaii by contacting a ground station in the Phillipines approx 10,000mi. West across the pacific, @ sea- level. So.... what do you consider "not that strong"about Radio signals?
And AM signals can bounce off the ionosphere thus extending range.


I don't know much about Am signals, other than that they are generally considered to be unreliable compared to FM. But I very much doubt I could use a radio from The groenland to call someone in africa.

What about the rest?
Would you care to explain satellite imaging?
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: texta on October 13, 2006, 02:44:43 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote
Because the earth is flat, and my GPS says it is round. Therefor, the GPS must be lying


You have now lost all credibility and I will ignore the rest of your reply.

This sentence has absolutely no value, as it could be used to "prove" anything.

Because the earth is round, and my GPS says it is round. Therefore, the GPS must be correct.

Because cats fly, and the general public says they do not. Therefor, the general public must be lying.

Nothing personal, but I never discuss with people who use circular arguments. I will ignore any reply you make in any other topic.

It would be certainly possible to design a "GPS" system that made a flat world seem round. Contact your local Topolgist and ask them how.

Most of us are obviously here because we believe the world is flat and by applying Occam's razor it seems a lot easier to believe that GPS systems are inaccurate rather than that the world is round.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 13, 2006, 03:05:49 PM
It would be certainly possible to design a "GPS" system that made a flat world seem round. Contact your local Topolgist and ask them how.

Most of us are obviously here because we believe the world is flat and by applying Occam's razor it seems a lot easier to believe that GPS systems are inaccurate rather than that the world is round.[/quote]

If I meet a topologist, I'll make sure to ask him about GPS. But as there are no known flat worlds, I'm not sure that anyone would know how to make them look round through global positioning.


What is Occam's razor?

And I'm curious, in what way is it hard to beleive that the world is spherical?
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: holybrain on October 15, 2006, 06:56:09 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
What is Occam's razor?


Essentially, Occam's razor says that the least complicated theory is USUALLY right and is USUALLY the one you should believe in.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 15, 2006, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: "holybrain"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
What is Occam's razor?


Essentially, Occam's razor says that the least complicated theory is USUALLY right and is USUALLY the one you should believe in.


Then Occam's razor is stupid. Since simlicity is relative, that statement has no value. How do you effectively determine between 2 theories which is the simplest ? Different people have different definitions of what simplicity is, whose definition do we go by, and what dictates that choice?

I think plugging a DVD player is simple, but many other people would say it is complicated. Who decides which person's definition of simplicity is the right one?

Occam's razor is obviously an invalid theory since it is based on an arbitrary concept. It's like saying the ugly people shouldn't be trusted.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: beast on October 15, 2006, 09:00:50 PM
I think you should read just a little more about it before making yourself look even sillier.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: GeoGuy on October 15, 2006, 09:02:57 PM
Quote from: "holybrain"
Essentially, Occam's razor says that the least complicated theory is USUALLY right and is USUALLY the one you should believe in.


Actually I think Occam's razor states that any scientific theory should make as few assumptions as possible, and should try to keep the theory free of unnecessary complications. Which implies that the simplest theory has a higher chance of being correct, but I don't think it actually says that you should believe the simpler theory.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 15, 2006, 11:35:57 PM
Still waiting for the answer to satellite imagery............
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: TheEngineer on October 15, 2006, 11:53:14 PM
The imagery can easily be taken from aircraft.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 16, 2006, 01:12:34 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
The imagery can easily be taken from aircraft.


Why havent we seen any?
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: TheEngineer on October 16, 2006, 01:33:10 AM
Seen any what?  Airplanes?  I see them all the time.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 16, 2006, 01:36:25 AM
You can also see satellites.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: TheEngineer on October 16, 2006, 01:39:58 AM
And that has to do with this, how?
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
The imagery can easily be taken from aircraft.


Why havent we seen any?
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 16, 2006, 02:43:56 AM
Because we would notice planes flying around all the time.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Rick_James on October 16, 2006, 03:49:36 AM
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"
Because we would notice planes flying around all the time.


You don't see planes flying around? Do you live in the Amazon?
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 16, 2006, 06:15:45 AM
I think I'd notice if thousands of planes were flying over my house all the time.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: GeoGuy on October 16, 2006, 07:36:42 AM
Thousands of planes wouldn't need to fly over your house.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 16, 2006, 08:32:16 AM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Thousands of planes wouldn't need to fly over your house.


If the imagery is taken from planes, there would have to be a plane flying above every point on earth where it is being used. Which would require several non-commercial planes to fly over most of the earth's surface at all times.

But that doesn't matter. Please explain this.

Satellite imagery is taken in real time. You could litterally look at yourself making complicated patters while driving around in your car.  And strangely, you could still do so whene there are NO planes flying aywhere near you.

Now consider this,. people can have satellite pictures of their houses taken. Why is it possible for you to have a satellite image of your house taken on a day where NO planes fly over your house?

A lot of people do not live close to a city or close to a flight zone. However, satellite imagery can still be used on those areas. Since SI is used on days where the weather is favorable, and the sky is mostly clear, how can those images be filmed by a plane, when you could look at the sky the whole day without ever seing a plane fly above you?

Explain that please.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: GeoGuy on October 16, 2006, 08:44:37 AM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"


Now consider this,. people can have satellite pictures of their houses taken. Why is it possible for you to have a satellite image of your house taken on a day where NO planes fly over your house?



It's not.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: TheEngineer on October 16, 2006, 08:48:30 AM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Satellite imagery is taken in real time. You could litterally look at yourself making complicated patters while driving around in your car.

You think the government would wast valuable strategic assets to provide 24/7 coverage of your driving ability?  I had my home built 2 years ago and the imagery of the area still shows the orchard that was leveled for my subdivision.  GoogleEarth and the others are not real-time.  
Quote

Now consider this,. people can have satellite pictures of their houses taken. Why is it possible for you to have a satellite image of your house taken on a day where NO planes fly over your house?

You sure have a strange concept of the state of modern technology.  How would you ever know if you were overflown by a high altitude recon plane or  even a UAV?  They are meant to not be noticed.
 
Quote
A lot of people do not live close to a city or close to a flight zone. However, satellite imagery can still be used on those areas. Since SI is used on days where the weather is favorable, and the sky is mostly clear, how can those images be filmed by a plane, when you could look at the sky the whole day without ever seing a plane fly above you?

Like I said.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 16, 2006, 09:08:03 AM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"


Now consider this,. people can have satellite pictures of their houses taken. Why is it possible for you to have a satellite image of your house taken on a day where NO planes fly over your house?



It's not.

Disagreeing is not the same as explaining, explain how it is not possible, especially considering it does happen.

A smart person can spot a plane by surveying the sky at the moment they will be filmed/photographed, that smart person could use binoculars, and or a radar, and or thermal imaging and or a telescope to make sure that they do not miss the plane. That smart person could even ask several people to look out for the plane in the event that he/she would somehow miss it despite all his/her effort.

A smart person would also know that moving images are being taken since 2005 by the Australian company Astrovision.

However, if someone is not smart, they would not figure out that if they want to know if a plane is flying above them, they would have to look for it. And they'd probably wonder how they'd ever know that a plane is taking pictures of them on a clear day.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Yardstick2006 on October 16, 2006, 09:11:34 AM
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Satellite imagery is taken in real time. You could litterally look at yourself making complicated patters while driving around in your car.

You think the government would wast valuable strategic assets to provide 24/7 coverage of your driving ability?  I had my home built 2 years ago and the imagery of the area still shows the orchard that was leveled for my subdivision.  GoogleEarth and the others are not real-time.  
Quote

Now consider this,. people can have satellite pictures of their houses taken. Why is it possible for you to have a satellite image of your house taken on a day where NO planes fly over your house?

You sure have a strange concept of the state of modern technology.  How would you ever know if you were overflown by a high altitude recon plane or  even a UAV?  They are meant to not be noticed.
 
Quote
A lot of people do not live close to a city or close to a flight zone. However, satellite imagery can still be used on those areas. Since SI is used on days where the weather is favorable, and the sky is mostly clear, how can those images be filmed by a plane, when you could look at the sky the whole day without ever seing a plane fly above you?

Like I said.



*Punches TheEngineer in the face. Hard.*

That would be true if the earth is flat, and as there is loads of proof to the contrary I think its safe to say that you are wrong.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: GeoGuy on October 16, 2006, 09:11:38 AM
No, I can definitely say that I have never had a real time, satellite image of myself taken when there were no planes in the sky.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 16, 2006, 09:21:59 AM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
No, I can definitely say that I have never had a real time, satellite image of myself taken when there were no planes in the sky.


Please explain how it is not possible for satellite imagery to be used at a time when no planes fly above the area. Like I said, it has been done.

I want you to explain how it's impossible, not whether YOU have been photographed or not.  However,you can ask to have pics of your houses taken by satellite imagery ifyou want, you can ask them at what time the image will be taken, you can put something large/colorful outside at that time to make sure that the picture was actually taken at that time, and you can look directly above your house to see if there is a plane.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: TheEngineer on October 16, 2006, 09:23:23 AM
Quote from: "Yardstick2006"


That would be true if the earth is flat, and as there is loads of proof to the contrary I think its safe to say that you are wrong.

So, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U-2s flying over Cuba were doing what?
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: GeoGuy on October 16, 2006, 09:32:52 AM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Please explain how it is not possible for satellite imagery to be used at a time when no planes fly above the area. Like I said, it has been done.


You said:

Quote
People have had satellite pictures taken of them when there were no planes flying overhead.


I said:

Quote
No, they haven't.


 Since neither of us offered any proof of our statements whatsoever, they are both equally valid.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: TheEngineer on October 16, 2006, 09:34:18 AM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

I want you to explain how it's impossible, not whether YOU have been photographed or not.  However,you can ask to have pics of your houses taken by satellite imagery ifyou want, you can ask them at what time the image will be taken, you can put something large/colorful outside at that time to make sure that the picture was actually taken at that time, and you can look directly above your house to see if there is a plane.

Point me to the place where I can get real time satellite images of myself.  

Your skewed view of technology is quite amazing.  You think a high altitude recon craft must be directly overhead to take a picture of your house?   I guarantee you would never see a UAV or a U-2 loitering over your house at altitude.  They are kind of designed to not be noticed.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 16, 2006, 09:49:19 AM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Please explain how it is not possible for satellite imagery to be used at a time when no planes fly above the area. Like I said, it has been done.


You said:

Quote
People have had satellite pictures taken of them when there were no planes flying overhead.


I said:

Quote
No, they haven't.


 Since neither of us offered any proof of our statements whatsoever, they are both equally valid.


The only thing you did was disagree, you presented no infromation to support your position. It is possible to verify if planes where flying EVERYTIME satellite imagry was used. Also, you only quoted PART of what I Said, while your your arguments were limited to a 4 word sentence that shows nothing else than the fact that you disagree.

A smart person would know that to take a picture at dead angle, you have to be at dead angle. A smart person would also know that it would not be profitable to use some of the most expensive crafts in existence simply to take pictures for every person who wants them in order to sell their house, or have a nice picture. Finally, a smart person would figure out that the stalthiest planes we have must use engines in order to fly, and would therefore still leave a thermal trail, even if they were somehow invisible when looked at directly using visual enhancment tools.

However, someone that is not smart would not figure those things out, as they require logical reasoning.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: GeoGuy on October 16, 2006, 09:52:59 AM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

The only thing you did was disagree, you presented no infromation to support your position. It is possible to verify if planes where flying EVERYTIME satellite imagry. Also, you only quoted PART of what I Said, why your your arguments were limited to a 4 word sentence that shows nothing else than the fact that you disagree.


I disagree because you've shown no evidence to suggest that there have been satellite pictures taken when no planes were flying overhead. You just made a general statement to the world at large with no supporting information to go along with it.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: TheEngineer on October 16, 2006, 10:12:56 AM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

A smart person would know that to take a picture at dead angle, you have to be at dead angle.

A smart person would realize that if this was absolutely true, a satellite would have to pass over every single square yard of the earth.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Mythix Profit on October 16, 2006, 01:28:26 PM
A smart person might note a statistical curve weighted to the FE posts; there appears to be a higher number of logical lines of argument based upon a seemingly greater understanding of the respective database of either cosmologic model offered w/ more decorum and humor, and less invective, than the "honorable"opposition.

The FEers are enjoying thought exercises while, unfortunately, the REers(from frothing biter to calm logician) all exhibit clear signs of irritation at being unwitting and unwilling, mind-jacked shills for the Conspiracy Conspiracy.

Humor really seems to be the only way to break free of the auto-hypnotic RE hoax.

All optical data processing w/in the human brain is based on pattern recognition from available input interfaced w/ current stored "known" data.

If you can grok the following:  
"80% of the Worlds' Strategic Beer reserve is held at facilities on the frozen plateaus of the Southern ring continent."

Then: there is higher probability of your synapsis being regenerable.

Till then, Hail Globalism.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Unimportant on October 16, 2006, 03:52:06 PM
I've noticed phaseshifter doesn't understand much.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 16, 2006, 06:03:47 PM
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

The only thing you did was disagree, you presented no infromation to support your position. It is possible to verify if planes where flying EVERYTIME satellite imagry. Also, you only quoted PART of what I Said, why your your arguments were limited to a 4 word sentence that shows nothing else than the fact that you disagree.


I disagree because you've shown no evidence to suggest that there have been satellite pictures taken when no planes were flying overhead. You just made a general statement to the world at large with no supporting information to go along with it.


I just told you, IT CAN BE VERIFIED. Where's YOUR evidence that satellite imagry is done by planes?

All you have to do is collect a random amount of pictures and hpotage that was done on satellite imagery and compare them all with air traffic. If you 're right, there should be a plane at the EXACT spot the picture was taken everytime it was used for EVERY existing picture.

On the other hand, THIS is your argument quoted from your reply.

Quote
It's not.


And then you accuse ME of not providing information. Gods.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: beast on October 16, 2006, 06:07:20 PM
Quote from: "Mythix Profit"
A smart person might note a statistical curve weighted to the FE posts; there appears to be a higher number of logical lines of argument based upon a seemingly greater understanding of the respective database of either cosmologic model offered w/ more decorum and humor, and less invective, than the "honorable"opposition.

The FEers are enjoying thought exercises while, unfortunately, the REers(from frothing biter to calm logician) all exhibit clear signs of irritation at being unwitting and unwilling, mind-jacked shills for the Conspiracy Conspiracy.

Humor really seems to be the only way to break free of the auto-hypnotic RE hoax.

All optical data processing w/in the human brain is based on pattern recognition from available input interfaced w/ current stored "known" data.

If you can grok the following:  
"80% of the Worlds' Strategic Beer reserve is held at facilities on the frozen plateaus of the Southern ring continent."

Then: there is higher probability of your synapsis being regenerable.

Till then, Hail Globalism.


Quoted For Truth
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: holybrain on October 16, 2006, 06:24:04 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

The only thing you did was disagree, you presented no infromation to support your position. It is possible to verify if planes where flying EVERYTIME satellite imagry. Also, you only quoted PART of what I Said, why your your arguments were limited to a 4 word sentence that shows nothing else than the fact that you disagree.


I disagree because you've shown no evidence to suggest that there have been satellite pictures taken when no planes were flying overhead. You just made a general statement to the world at large with no supporting information to go along with it.


I just told you, IT CAN BE VERIFIED. Where's YOUR evidence that satellite imagry is done by planes?

All you have to do is collect a random amount of pictures and hpotage that was done on satellite imagery and compare them all with air traffic. If you 're right, there should be a plane at the EXACT spot the picture was taken everytime it was used for EVERY existing picture.

On the other hand, THIS is your argument quoted from your reply.

Quote
It's not.


And then you accuse ME of not providing information. Gods.


Fine. Go nuts. Although I don't think that U-2 spy planes that would be taking these pictures in an FE model are in very many pictures.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: GeoGuy on October 16, 2006, 06:35:35 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"


I just told you, IT CAN BE VERIFIED. Where's YOUR evidence that satellite imagry is done by planes?


I just told you, it can't be verified. Where's YOUR evidence that satellite imagery is not done by planes?
Direct me to a site where I can order a real time, satellite image of my house taken, on a day of my choosing, or your assertion is no more valid than mine.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Unimportant on October 16, 2006, 06:56:11 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Where's YOUR evidence that satellite imagry is done by planes?

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1&z=18&ll=48.857734,10.204968&spn=0.001835,0.004989

Unless space bugs are attacking our satellites, in which case we've got bigger problems.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: Mythix Profit on October 16, 2006, 08:53:20 PM
That's no space critter. Based on the resolution in this U2 photo; the insect is clearly at or near ground level, and It sure is one big fuckin' bug. Looks to be larger than 2 buses. What part of the world is this?

Of course, It was bound to happen after they acheived gestalt consciousness back in the 1960's.

This is why I don't trust the damned Insect Unions.

Don't be surprised if they do attack our satellites soon.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: phaseshifter on October 16, 2006, 10:06:18 PM
Quote
I just told you, it can't be verified. Where's YOUR evidence that satellite imagery is not done by planes?
Direct me to a site where I can order a real time, satellite image of my house taken, on a day of my choosing, or your assertion is no more valid than mine.




http://www.terraserver.com/

Despite the fact that you asked for it, I'm pretty sure you'll manage to find something wrong with it.


For the record, It is an accepted fact that satellite pictures are taken by satellites. The convention is prove that the opposite assumption is true, not to disprove that a unanimously accepted fact is not.

What's the point of anyone pretending that pictures taken by planes are actually done by satellites? Taking pictures by plane costs MORE, so it wouldn't exactly be smart to make people pay you less for the same product.
Title: Hi, I just noticed a very big problem.
Post by: TheEngineer on October 16, 2006, 11:26:27 PM
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote
I just told you, it can't be verified. Where's YOUR evidence that satellite imagery is not done by planes?
Direct me to a site where I can order a real time, satellite image of my house taken, on a day of my choosing, or your assertion is no more valid than mine.




http://www.terraserver.com/

Despite the fact that you asked for it, I'm pretty sure you'll manage to find something wrong with it.

He asked for real time imagery, not a site that has a collection of images to peruse.
Quote

For the record, It is an accepted fact that satellite pictures are taken by satellites.

Then explain how the insect in Unimportant's post managed to get into space.
Quote
What's the point of anyone pretending that pictures taken by planes are actually done by satellites?

To make us think there are satellites, obviously.
Quote
All you have to do is collect a random amount of pictures and hpotage that was done on satellite imagery and compare them all with air traffic.

I hate to break it to you, but not all air traffic is monitored.  Good luck trying to get the FAA to track a UAV flying at altitude.