1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth to be Proven Round Soon

« on: July 02, 2008, 10:48:48 AM »

Is there a reason you're unwilling to cite a source to back up your assertion about the height of the base? 

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites and the ISS

« on: July 02, 2008, 09:37:44 AM »

and all the other planets in the solar system as well. . . they're HUGE!

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth to be Proven Round Soon

« on: July 02, 2008, 09:33:15 AM »

Here's what I got using a much more reliable method. We know the mast top is 347 feet from the ground.

Lie, bullshit, that's all you know how to do huh?  From your own link it says that the mast is 347 feet ABOVE THE PAD BASE, not the ground.  The pad base is another 42 feet above the ground.  See that big beige thing that the fixed service structure with the mast sits on?  That's the pad base, and it's 42 feet tall:

Your attempt at re-analysis is therefore flawed from the start, not to mention you didn't perform it on the original full resolution files, which you could have asked for first.

Can you cite some source material to back up your claim vis a vis the pad base's dimensions?

Also, could you please make your responses more civil?  Everyone here has been very polite to you considering your tendency towards personal attacks and rudeness.  I think its safe to say that if you continue to act like a febrile child, people will begin to treat you like one.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What is your side? NFE, FFE, FES, FRE, NRE.

« on: July 02, 2008, 06:29:51 AM »

I'm perfectly happy sitting on the fence.  I've made no decision one way or another, although I take a dim view of people who make poorly reasoned, poorly argued points or who resort to personal attacks.  

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth to be Proven Round Soon

« on: July 02, 2008, 06:27:51 AM »

I'm happy to note that none of the FEers have stooped to MessierHunter's level and immediately declared victory not hearing from him for a few hours.  It almost makes me wonder if the hostility coming from people of his ilk indicate insecurity as to his position?

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth to be Proven Round Soon

« on: July 01, 2008, 03:40:16 PM »

We're talking about a 12 mile distance on flat terrain and you're claiming terrain differences completely account for the dip I measured?  I guess it's time to haul out a topographic map and see who's right here.  Declaring a win without even providing a shred of proof.  Yeah, that's real smart.  I'm trying to get the maps for Kennedy but some of them seem to be corrupted on the USGS site.  I'll try to retreive them again tomorrow.

Noooo, I pointed out the flaws in your measurement system, especially in the context of your RE-beliefs.  If your system of measurement is flawed, then your measurements themselves are flawed.  I didn't realize it was that hard to wrap your head around.  I'll break it down for you again and use small words:

1) If the earth is round, then there is no static value for sea-level.  If there is no static value for sea level, your "measurements" are flawed in which case you lose.

2) If the earth is flat, then there is an argument in favor of a static value for sea level, but your argument is then invalid and again you lose.  

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth to be Proven Round Soon

« on: July 01, 2008, 03:30:29 PM »

Ehhh. No.

1.) Uglykidjoe's argument against RE assumes an RE environment (highly variable sea level). Thus it disqualifies itself.

2.) The sea level may be generally variable due to tides, but the current sea level at any point on Earth at any given time is only variable due to waves - which do not explain the visible bulge at great distances.

Another epic fail for FE.

Apparently your reading comprehension needs a little work.  Firstly, I'm not the one arguing in favor of using sea level as a valid form of measurement.  That's MessierHunter.  I simply pointed out the invalidity of his claim, especially in the context of his RE beliefs.  Also, I've never identified myself as an FEer.  You're simply assuming that I am when I point out the logical flaws in the arguments of people you apparently agree with. 

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites and the ISS

« on: July 01, 2008, 02:46:11 PM »

Which was my point exactly.  I thought it would be more obvious, but I guess people were distracted with my own animation. 

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth to be Proven Round Soon

« on: July 01, 2008, 02:45:03 PM »

And that it doesn't really need a rebuttal, you just typed words, there weren't any points. So fucking what, you drew two lines and we're all supposed to go "Oh, the Earth must be round then". That would only happen if they were magic.

Actually I gave you a proof, which oddly enough, contains words AND numbers (what a concept!).  If you understood the meaning of my words and the significance of the figures presented you'd realize I had just provided proof that the earth is curved.  Would you like to see the original image files at full resolution with intact EXIF data so you can verify my numbers?

All you might have managed to demonstrate (that's even questionable due the poor quality of your explanation and the picture in question) is that the land in question is somewhat bumpy and inconsistent.  This doesn't pass a proof that the earth is universally round, just that you managed to find a bump. 

Oh yeah, because a bump explains why a launch pad at sea level appears much too LOW to a camera positioned 12 miles away at sea level.  And by the way, if you want to criticise the quality of my explanation then why don't you point out specific problems you have with it rather than speak in vague generalities?  As for the quality of my pictures, I have the full 10 megapixel images available, so quality is only limited by how big an image you're willing to put up with.

One major problem with your "proof" is that you're trying to use sea-level as a valid, static unit of measurement.  It's not.  In fact, its far more variable in a round earth model than in a flat earth model.  Perhaps you should do some more research on things like "True Altitude" aka. MSL or Mean Sea Level and sea surface topography.  Unless you want to go ahead and keep referring sea level as a static, valid unit of measurement, in which case I'm sure the FEers would happily declare a win. 

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites and the ISS

« on: July 01, 2008, 12:30:14 PM »

Can you see them orbit the Sun? Is that what we see? No. So no.

Actually... it IS what we see - transit of Venus from 2004:

Hey, check me out, I can post unattributed, animated gif images too!



Unsourced, animated gif images are useless to this discussion. 

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth to be Proven Round Soon

« on: July 01, 2008, 12:26:28 PM »

And that it doesn't really need a rebuttal, you just typed words, there weren't any points. So fucking what, you drew two lines and we're all supposed to go "Oh, the Earth must be round then". That would only happen if they were magic.

Actually I gave you a proof, which oddly enough, contains words AND numbers (what a concept!).  If you understood the meaning of my words and the significance of the figures presented you'd realize I had just provided proof that the earth is curved.  Would you like to see the original image files at full resolution with intact EXIF data so you can verify my numbers?

All you might have managed to demonstrate (that's even questionable due the poor quality of your explanation and the picture in question) is that the land in question is somewhat bumpy and inconsistent.  This doesn't pass a proof that the earth is universally round, just that you managed to find a bump. 

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth to be Proven Round Soon

« on: July 01, 2008, 09:02:55 AM »

I think they're all too stunned with your complete inability to paragraph quote and your apparent inability to grasp sarcasm. Of course you posted at 3:15am and then expected someone to retort between then and 9am.  Maybe you haven't figured it out yet, but most people (FEers included) have regular jobs and lives that consume most of their time.  I wouldn't necessarily assume that their silence is vindication of your position, just that they have a more active life than you apparently do. 

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle crashs

« on: June 30, 2008, 03:02:58 PM »

I'm hating the fact that "blown" and "teeth" were included in the same thought. 

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle crashs

« on: June 30, 2008, 02:54:59 PM »

Then you missed or ignored the EMAS bullshit he spewed before he even started in on the ISS.  Frankly I'm far more pissed about the former than anything else because the latter actually plays into, and validates, my original argument when I first came here.  You still don't seem to get that, but there's not much I can do about wilful ignorance.

Again, its "willful".  Is it really that difficult to post with proper grammar and spelling?  Firefox features a built-in spelling checker now so you don't even have to do much hard work.  

The issue isn't so much about you being an abusive, incoherent, douchebag with a poor sense of humor, its that you seem incapable of making a point without belittling and berating people who have an opposing viewpoint.  What you appear to be missing, manners aside, is that making barely coherent, insult-ridden posts actually detracts from the point you're trying to make and causes people to immediately dismiss your points out of hand.  If something that someone types online gets you so infuriated that your first instinct is to respond with bile-filled ravings, incoherency and personal insults, then perhaps you're doing it wrong.  Go outside, take a walk.  Be with your family, stroke your pets.  It'll all be ok.  

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle crashs

« on: June 30, 2008, 02:08:52 PM »

Bathos in all its glory.

Oh dear, the comedy . . . too much, much too much. I laughed, I cried. 

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 20 problems and fallacies in the FAQ

« on: June 30, 2008, 02:01:56 PM »

The OP is one of the best posts by an REer on this forum ever.  Of course I just skimmed it because it was way too long to read, but I really admire Zotoaster's tenacity on this very important subject.

Indeed, soup and sauce for the OP!  I wish more people on this board would learn from his example. 

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How did the universe begin in FE model?

« on: June 30, 2008, 02:00:57 PM »

In order to begin scientific conjecture about the beginning of the universe, you must first have a working scientific model of the current state of the universe, so that you can attempt to trace the history of the universe back to where it began. FE theory is based on the following premise: "Dude, what you see is just an illusion! And the government is lying to you man!"

Based on these fundamental and undeniable truths, I would assume that the universe was created in the 1800's by an early predecessor of the North Americal Space Administration.

MadDogX, didn't you say last week that you're leaving this board and denouncing all of the board's members?  Did you have a change of heart?

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle crashs

« on: June 30, 2008, 01:59:03 PM »

Ski lost the privaledge of being treated with civility the moment he dropped any attempt to maintain intellectual honesty and started resorting to lies.  Refusing to acknowledge the validity of one's argument because of foul language is a terrible excuse to maintain and support ignorance.  Ethical debating went out the window here long before I started becoming hostile, and frankly, since that seems to be the only way you can attack my argument I'd say it reflects quite poorly on your own critical thinking skills.

First off, its "privilege".  I know that the Internet is hard to use and it doesn't provide you with all kinds of online dictionaries, but if you could make the effort, it'd really be appreciated by those of us who have to sort through your inanity. 

The only "lie" I saw was him conjuring up a faked image of the ISS and lying about the source in an attempt to demonstrate how easy it is to do.  A ruse, by the way, that you bought into wholeheartedly and immediately started passing off as genuine.  You became abusive primarily after he revealed his ruse and demonstrated you to have been fooled.  The fact that you fell for his ruse demonstrated his point if he can be convincing with 5 minutes' effort, that a larger organization such as NASA, with an axe to grind and a large budget, could easily be much more convincing.  In that, he made his point excellently and everyone had a good chuckle at your expense.  The fact that you continue to throw a hissy fit about it just shows that you're incapable of intelligent, mature discourse. 

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Of Astronauts

« on: June 27, 2008, 03:22:06 PM »

If we join this thread, do we have to take it seriously?  That puts a lot of pressure on me. 

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle crashs

« on: June 27, 2008, 02:09:58 PM »

He is, most definitely, an angry young man.  I think we can all agree on that. 

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shuttle crashs

« on: June 27, 2008, 12:48:22 PM »

Ski, you're a patholigically lying bitch.  EMAS didn't exist.  Win for RE.

Why is it necessary to resort to personal attacks?  If you can't prove your point, don't reduce yourself in this way.  It's poor form and makes you sound pathetic. 

Why is it necessary for you to be offended by my personal attacks?  If the shoe fits, wear it.  I already pointed out how EMAS didn't exist back then, I proved my damn point, ski continues to lie.  If you can't take the heat, get off the internet.  This is a stupid nutjob forum, not a hall of academia.

So you're including yourself in in the "stupid nutjob" category I trust?  But honestly, if you can't make your point clearly, coherently, and with a minimum of insults, personal attacks and other idiocy, why should anyone take any of what you say seriously?  Whether you agree or disagree with someone else's point of view, you should still be able to be civil. 

Otherwise, the natural tendency would be for us to lump you into "useless troll" as well as "stupid nutjob". 

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space Travel

« on: June 27, 2008, 09:40:37 AM »

On another thought, what about satellite images for the weather services?  There has to be satellites for us to get those images of the weather systems moving around the GLOBE, right, or do we just have the tin foil hat army in their black helicopters travel to the moon since its only 3000miles away and take those pictures and then edit out the ice wall at the edges and stretch the picture into a roundish shape.  I guess thats a logical explanation.

Not at all, it doesn't need to be anything so insidious as black helicopters.  Besides, with gas prices these days, I would imagine that black helicopters would be terribly inefficient.  Most weather tracking is done with a large network of terrestrial doppler radar sites.  In fact, in the midwestern US, access to one or more dedicated doppler radar sites is what local news channels use as the big selling point for their broadcast.  Apparently in tornado country, weather is serious business.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Sun

« on: June 27, 2008, 09:31:57 AM »

While I admit that I am not a mathematician, the thing in your post that immediately stands out is that trigonometry is a study of right triangles.  If the earth were curved, as you seem to say, wouldn't the ability to form a right triangle be impossible?  Even adjusting for a slight curvature of the earth would seem to call the entire enterprise into question.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space Travel

« on: June 27, 2008, 08:58:21 AM »

I guess I should have read this forum more thouroughly before I registered to begin discussing. Judging by the arguments made by FE'ers, the flat Earth theory seems to be absolutely baseless - possibly even a weak attempt at baiting others into heated discussions. I see no more reason to participate here.

I'm certainly not advocating this behavior, nor implying that its actually happening, but if it were, it would seem that the "baiting" of others into "heated discussions" is far from weak given the frequency and vociferousness of the REers' personal attacks and descents into meaningless hyperbole when trying to make a point.  It's too bad you're leaving though, every time you post, I get a craving for a nice, frosty tallboy.  Malt liquor is a man's drink!

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: So where is this 'Ice Wall'

« on: June 27, 2008, 08:53:08 AM »

If it were so easy to prove conclusively, it would seem that someone here would have done it and the reason for debate would be gone.  The fact that this forum exists would seem to lend credence to the idea that proving a round earth is harder to do than you're indicating here.  

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: So where is this 'Ice Wall'

« on: June 27, 2008, 08:24:03 AM »

Also, kindly stop referring to FE mechanisms as magic, or I shall be forced to call you "Wizard" from this point forward.

This thread isn't going to degenerate into that tired old meme about putting on a wizard's robe and hat is it? 

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Sun

« on: June 27, 2008, 08:22:24 AM »

Personally I've never seen the planet as flat; I've always lived in fairly hilly locations. Evidence seems to suggest that most FEers live in the middle of a huge plain, however.

While not claiming to be an FEer, I've managed to travel over large portions of the earth, some flat, some bumpy, some downright steep and mountainous.  In fact, for awhile I lived in Colorado and managed to hike a couple of 14,000 foot peaks.  During that time I never saw anything that would, alone lead me to believe the earth was round.  Again, I'm not choosing sides, I'm simply pointing out that earthbound altitude never caused me to question or confirm my beliefs regarding the state of the planet's shape. 

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space Travel

« on: June 27, 2008, 08:14:00 AM »

Actually, evidence of space travel already exists in abundance - only the FE'ers claim this evidence to be fake. So it is not the job of the RE'ers to prove that space travel has occurred, it is up to the FE'ers to prove that all the evidence for it is fake. I'd really love to see a FE'er "debunk" every single NASA picture and video in existance.

Actually, I think ski did a reasonable job of making the case for reasonable doubt in another thread with a picture he, himself, faked, which was then taken as convincing fact by a self-proclaimed astronomer.  Considering he did the job in 5 minutes, his point that NASA with a much larger budget, and an axe to grind, could be far more convincing.  Whether or not I agree with FET, his point was well made. 

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Space Travel

« on: June 27, 2008, 08:05:55 AM »

Space travel is impossible in FET. So, if we can show that space travel is possible (and has happenned) then we disprove FET.

Thanks for enlightening me, it makes sense.  Considering that this would apparently be damning evidence against the FET, and would seem like a relatively simple thing to prove or disprove, I wonder why this isn't the single focus of the RET crowd.  Why spend time arguing about the location of the poles or the ice wall when this would seem to shatter the whole theory relatively quickly and conclusively?  Is it really that hard to prove?

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Sun

« on: June 27, 2008, 07:01:51 AM »

My kitchen floor is flat, therefore the Earth is flat.

Please don't stoop to using quantificational fallacies to make an argument.  You're better than that.   For those unaware, this is a "Proof by Example" fallacy.  You can look it up if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example