1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 14, 2009, 10:37:25 PM »

And once again, how is such a thing possible if south is a different angle depending on your position on the outer rim?

It's my contention that the tips of South America, Africa, and Australia are all pointing in the same general direction, arranged in a manner something like this: http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=544.0

Other members of the FES may have different thoughts, however.

But that doesn't make sense. it doesn't matter what way your country is pointing, it's about your actual position on the surface of the flat earth. The only way your assertion could be true is if all us southern hemisphere (outer rim) countries were stretched along the same line of longitude. See if you can rearrange your map THAT way.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: CALLING ALL ROUND EARTHERS

« on: June 14, 2009, 01:50:00 AM »

Well, there aren't any ACTUAL flat-earthers, in the sense that they actually believe it. The whole point of this sort of thing is to act as a sort of "thought-experiment", examining how a flat-earth model might work, and to illustrate the way we (all humans) accept things without even thinking about it.

So yes, no one actually believes the words is flat....but it's fun to argue from that point of view. It's a good way of learning.

How I wish this were true. Unfortunatly there are actually people on here who believe in the FET.

Urgh....do you really think so? I hope not, because that would just be....weird. I know that that the founders of the movement probably believed it, but...meh. There's no excuse nowadays

Plus, I can give two irrefutable points that - even though they don't prove a round earth - certainly disprove the flat earth model. I've brought both of these points up on these forums, and no one's addressed them. They're also not on the FAQ. I figured if people really believed this nonsense, they would have found a way to respond to my points, instead of just ignoring them.

Yeah, get used to being ignored when you bring up a valid point to which the FEers have no answer. Btw, what were these two points?

R
Well that's what I figured. If you were genuinely certain of your theory, you'd respond to any flaws in it, wouldn't you?

Anyway, the two points I had were:

1. The Southern Cross. As a person who lives in the Southern Hemisphere, and has spent time in Australia, New Zealand, AND Brazil, I'm well aware that you can see the Southern Cross above the South Pole at all times. On the standard flat earth model, this is impossible, because that would mean the same set of stars is in every direction at once (since there is no south pole)

2. Antarctica "days". I've also been lucky enough to spend time in Antarctica, as part of a documentary film crew....and for anyone who's been there (thousands, all in on the conspiracy - lol), its a pretty well known fact that you get continuous sunshine for months at a time, followed by a swing toward months of continuous darkness (because for one half of the year the south ole is tilted toward the sun, the other half tilted away). I'd be interested to see how a six month day fits into the flat earth model. No one's addressed it (that I've seen yet)

Great points rjinswand!

Why thank ye.

You KNOW you've made good points when the FE'ers don't actually address them. I thought, if they had such an airtight theory, there would be an answer to those to gaping flaws.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 14, 2009, 01:42:45 AM »

Who's Southward?

Whoever is seeing it.

And once again, how is such a thing possible if south is a different angle depending on your position on the outer rim?

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 11, 2009, 10:50:31 PM »

So where's the Southern Cross, Tom?

Southward, obviously.

Who's Southward?

For example, On the FE map, Southward for New Zealand is not the same as Southward for Australia. Yet both our countries see that set of stars toward the south (we even have it on both our maps, because it's such a familiar symbol)

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: CALLING ALL ROUND EARTHERS

« on: June 11, 2009, 10:33:09 PM »

Really, the only reason I come here is for debate, I love debating and it can get pretty fun here.

I only like debating with someone if they genuinely believe what they're saying.

Which is possibly the case, if what you said earlier is true. Damn. REAL flat earthers. This changes things.

I wasn't really that surprised when I found this site. When you think about it you realize that there are beliefs which are just as insane, but are more commonplace, they don't seem that bad because we hear about them every day. Like young earth creationism.

Oh, well I find YEC just as insane, but that's because it's not a commonly held belief in my country (New Zealand). However, from what I hear it's actually pretty common in the States, so that makes sense.

You have a point though....a theory is more retarded to the rest of us, if there's less people subscribing to it.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Constellations?

« on: June 11, 2009, 10:28:00 PM »

The stars are moving Northward and Southward over the course of the year, just like the sun.

So where's the Southern Cross, Tom?

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: CALLING ALL ROUND EARTHERS

« on: June 11, 2009, 10:26:40 PM »

Really, the only reason I come here is for debate, I love debating and it can get pretty fun here.

I only like debating with someone if they genuinely believe what they're saying.

Which is possibly the case, if what you said earlier is true. Damn. REAL flat earthers. This changes things.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Conspiracies

« on: June 11, 2009, 10:25:31 PM »

They seem to have this claim that the number of people "in on the conspiracy" is actually very small. They even worked it out. But unfortunately, I disagree.

Because they leave out:

-All people who have supposedly been to Antarctica (numbers in the thousands)
-International airline pilots (no one could fly different routes around the world for very long without realising there's something seriously unusual about the distances in the Sthn hemisphere as opposed to the Nthn hemisphere)
-All astronomers

That's just for starters.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: CALLING ALL ROUND EARTHERS

« on: June 11, 2009, 09:36:24 PM »

I am just going to clarify this for all the noobs. There are some people who seriously believe in FE, while some people argue it to see it's viability, or just for fun. However, all RE'ers are trolls.

ALL of us?

Even if we're only posting valid points that attack a bogus theory?

I'd like to know which of my posts could be considered "trolling"

There is such thing as intellectual trolling.

I didn't say there was. I said that my posts weren't "trolling" fullstop.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: CALLING ALL ROUND EARTHERS

« on: June 11, 2009, 09:26:11 PM »

I am just going to clarify this for all the noobs. There are some people who seriously believe in FE, while some people argue it to see it's viability, or just for fun. However, all RE'ers are trolls.

ALL of us?

Even if we're only posting valid points that attack a bogus theory?

I'd like to know which of my posts could be considered "trolling"

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: CALLING ALL ROUND EARTHERS

« on: June 11, 2009, 09:13:48 PM »

2. Antarctica "days". I've also been lucky enough to spend time in Antarctica, as part of a documentary film crew....and for anyone who's been there (thousands, all in on the conspiracy - lol), its a pretty well known fact that you get continuous sunshine for months at a time, followed by a swing toward months of continuous darkness (because for one half of the year the south ole is tilted toward the sun, the other half tilted away). I'd be interested to see how a six month day fits into the flat earth model. No one's addressed it (that I've seen yet)

Their are 2 large concave mirrors that have been attached to the sun which can be remotely controlled to point the rays wherever they are needed.

LMAO

Most creative reponse ever I love it.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: CALLING ALL ROUND EARTHERS

« on: June 11, 2009, 09:03:14 PM »

Well, there aren't any ACTUAL flat-earthers, in the sense that they actually believe it. The whole point of this sort of thing is to act as a sort of "thought-experiment", examining how a flat-earth model might work, and to illustrate the way we (all humans) accept things without even thinking about it.

So yes, no one actually believes the words is flat....but it's fun to argue from that point of view. It's a good way of learning.

How I wish this were true. Unfortunatly there are actually people on here who believe in the FET.

Urgh....do you really think so? I hope not, because that would just be....weird. I know that that the founders of the movement probably believed it, but...meh. There's no excuse nowadays

Plus, I can give two irrefutable points that - even though they don't prove a round earth - certainly disprove the flat earth model. I've brought both of these points up on these forums, and no one's addressed them. They're also not on the FAQ. I figured if people really believed this nonsense, they would have found a way to respond to my points, instead of just ignoring them.

Yeah, get used to being ignored when you bring up a valid point to which the FEers have no answer. Btw, what were these two points?

Well that's what I figured. If you were genuinely certain of your theory, you'd respond to any flaws in it, wouldn't you?

Anyway, the two points I had were:

1. The Southern Cross. As a person who lives in the Southern Hemisphere, and has spent time in Australia, New Zealand, AND Brazil, I'm well aware that you can see the Southern Cross above the South Pole at all times. On the standard flat earth model, this is impossible, because that would mean the same set of stars is in every direction at once (since there is no south pole)

2. Antarctica "days". I've also been lucky enough to spend time in Antarctica, as part of a documentary film crew....and for anyone who's been there (thousands, all in on the conspiracy - lol), its a pretty well known fact that you get continuous sunshine for months at a time, followed by a swing toward months of continuous darkness (because for one half of the year the south ole is tilted toward the sun, the other half tilted away). I'd be interested to see how a six month day fits into the flat earth model. No one's addressed it (that I've seen yet)

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: CALLING ALL ROUND EARTHERS

« on: June 11, 2009, 08:49:06 PM »

Well, there aren't any ACTUAL flat-earthers, in the sense that they actually believe it. The whole point of this sort of thing is to act as a sort of "thought-experiment", examining how a flat-earth model might work, and to illustrate the way we (all humans) accept things without even thinking about it.

So yes, no one actually believes the words is flat....but it's fun to argue from that point of view. It's a good way of learning.

How I wish this were true. Unfortunatly there are actually people on here who believe in the FET.

Urgh....do you really think so? I hope not, because that would just be....weird. I know that that the founders of the movement probably believed it, but...meh. There's no excuse nowadays

Plus, I can give two irrefutable points that - even though they don't prove a round earth - certainly disprove the flat earth model. I've brought both of these points up on these forums, and no one's addressed them. They're also not on the FAQ. I figured if people really believed this nonsense, they would have found a way to respond to my points, instead of just ignoring them.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: CALLING ALL ROUND EARTHERS

« on: June 11, 2009, 08:41:12 PM »

Well, there aren't any ACTUAL flat-earthers, in the sense that they actually believe it. The whole point of this sort of thing is to act as a sort of "thought-experiment", examining how a flat-earth model might work, and to illustrate the way we (all humans) accept things without even thinking about it.

So yes, no one actually believes the words is flat....but it's fun to argue from that point of view. It's a good way of learning.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: To Fellow Round Earthers

« on: June 07, 2009, 11:30:52 PM »

While I believe that many FE'ers on this site are particpating just for a laugh....a "thought experiment" as it were....I'm still pretty certain there are genuine believers.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Good general question

« on: June 07, 2009, 11:28:19 PM »

Can't be done. I've given two indisputable proofs which, even if they don't indicate a spherical earth, at least DISPROVE the flat earth model. Neither of them are addressed in the FAQ (I've looked).

1. The position of the southern cross. I invite any GENUINE Flat Earthers to come to the Southern hemisphere (they all live in the Northern Hemisphere, funnily enough), and explain how the southern cross hangs over the south pole no matter where you are - this is impossible in a FE model.

2. I've been to Antarctica. Thousands of people have. And if it were just an "ice wall" we were visiting, I dare a FE'er to explain how we experienced continuous daylight (or continuous nighttime, depending on when you go). Also impossible in a FE model.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Are FE'rs open to the possibility that the Earth may be round?

« on: January 27, 2009, 07:15:30 PM »

So are we now looking at a monster tidal wave or an amazing warm air lense illusion? The Earth may indeed be round, and these photos present a virtually indisputable argument to support it.

Nope. The sinking ship is a known perspective effect. It has been found that a good telescope with sufficient zoom will change the observer's perspective and bring the ship's hull back in full view. This is not possible if the ship were really behind a "hill of water." Hence, the effect which is usually thought to prove the earth as a globe really proves it to be a plane.

It's one of the first and primary proofs for a Flat Earth. The fact that a telescope can restore a half-sunken ship demonstrates that the ship is not traveling behind a convex earth.

From Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship we read the following accounts of half-sunken ships which have been restored with a telescope:

http://www.earthnotaglobe.com/ships/index.html

There have also been experiments on Lake Michigan where the hulls of half-sunken ships have been restored by looking at them through a telescope:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/cc/cc21.htm

The above accounts of restored hulls prove that the hulls are not really behind "hills of water" and act as evidence that the disappearance of the hull is not due to any curvature to the earth, but due to the angular limits of perspective.

Hi Tom,

Just want to say I'm surprised that you put stock in the "hull restoration" story - anyone with half a brain knows that couldn't possibly be true. Regardless of how powerfull, a telescope can not "change perspective" - it simply enlarges it. So any trick of perspective that would give the illusion of a ship sinking below the horizon would simply be magnified when looked at through a telescope. If the ship appears "intact" through said telescope, it must appear "intact" to the naked eye, even if very very small. Basic optics.

So this story neither supports or debunks any theory. because it's wrong.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A couple of questions

« on: January 27, 2009, 06:17:18 PM »

If you don't mind, I'd also like to add one that I have not seen answered anywhere on this site:

The Southern Cross
I live in the Southern Hemisphere...to the south, at night, I always see the collection of stars known as the southern cross. And by south, I mean the direction that is opposite to North. I have visited Australia, and Chile during my time on this lovely flat earth and I see the Southern Cross sitting toward the south, albeit at somewhat different angles.
Funnily enough, in the standard flat earth model, this isn't possible. It would mean that the cross is in every single direction all at the same time.

I brought this argument up once, and the ONLY answer that was given was: "Warping of space"

That is what constitutes an "answer" on this site. So don't expect too much substance in any responses you get, friend.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why bother

« on: August 19, 2008, 07:35:13 PM »

Oh, they can't sail to the end of it, because they think there is a huge ice wall blocking them!!!
And it is heavily guarded!

I don't think they believe in boats anyways...

Actually, if you try to sail a boat too close to the edge of the planet, Ed Harris starts throwing storms and other nasty weather at you from his control room until you give up and agree to go back to dry land.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UNDENIABLE proof the Earth is FLAT.

« on: August 19, 2008, 07:33:28 PM »

Please inform these folks who actually live there.
http://www.southpolestation.com/

Do you mean the government employees who live at the government funded and controlled base there?

Wait, how can it be government controlled?  I thought that our governments were being fooled along with us by the conspirators. 

I'm beginning to suspect that everyone in the government, ALL the governments, are actually part of a big collective....they're basically just drones, all sharing the same collective consciouness and being controlled by a weirdly attractive alien chick who dresses up in high-tech looking skin tight body suits, and repeatedly tells us how futile any resistance on our part is.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UNDENIABLE proof the Earth is FLAT.

« on: August 19, 2008, 05:50:52 PM »

Please inform these folks who actually live there.
http://www.southpolestation.com/

Do you mean the government employees who live at the government funded and controlled base there?

So all governments are conspiring together? Because we are not the only country there or that has been there my friend.

Yeah, just once I'd like Tim Belhop to expand on "Government".

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why bother

« on: August 19, 2008, 02:36:52 PM »

If you "know" the earth is round, can't you prove that?

You should lurk more. This has been responded to many times.
Yes, we know you're all very clever with your philosophy: "Why do people believe things that they can't prove?"

Well, as I've said a dozen times on these forums already, theories are for all intents and purposes, un-provable. But they are testable, to quite a hefty extent. This deranged little thought experiment you lot have going on here doesn't make humans out to be the mindless sheep you were hoping for, and therefore fails.

Acutally, theories do more than that - they predict things that you didn't already know.

Well yeah But I include that under the blanket term of "testability"

The way I like to put it is: "There's no such thing as 100 percent proof in science. But 99 percent is still a big number"

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Conspiracy

« on: August 19, 2008, 02:32:49 PM »

Not thousands of people.  We have a conspiracy compendium link from the FAQ.

Which I have already dismantled in another thread. Please lurk more.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why bother

« on: August 19, 2008, 02:28:15 PM »

If you "know" the earth is round, can't you prove that?

You should lurk more. This has been responded to many times.
Yes, we know you're all very clever with your philosophy: "Why do people believe things that they can't prove?"

Well, as I've said a dozen times on these forums already, theories are for all intents and purposes, un-provable. But they are testable, to quite a hefty extent. This deranged little thought experiment you lot have going on here doesn't make humans out to be the mindless sheep you were hoping for, and therefore fails.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: My theories about earth flatness

« on: August 19, 2008, 02:22:54 PM »

I think my head just exploded a little bit.

Oh, and Saddam, that was very constructive and insightful - good job, ass-magnet.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: UNDENIABLE proof the Earth is FLAT.

« on: August 19, 2008, 02:18:04 PM »

You're not funny.

I'm a little frightened.

Shall I poke him and see if he's real?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity = magic... well so does...

« on: August 19, 2008, 05:30:15 AM »

First of all, we don't need to prove gravity. We don't believe in it. We believe in gravitation. It sounds like semantics, but they are two entirely different theories, and saying they're the same is like saying evolution and creationism are the same. Gravity, like creationism is powered by magic and started by God (as Newton believed) while gravitation and evolution are brilliant theories by brilliant scientists that are still misinterpreted and ignored by silly people. Secondly, we can prove the earth is accelerating. Jump off a chair, and the Earth will accelerate up to meet you, then you will feel a force as your velocity changes to match that of the Earth at the particular moment. You will always still feel a force, because the Earth is always accelerating. If you fall far enough, the Earth will merely splatter you across its surface like a fly on a particularly large windscreen.

It doesn't sound like semantics, it IS semantics.
Whatever crazy mumbo jumbo you want to use, your theory on why people stick to the ground is no less retarded than ours. Gravity is magic. Planetary acceleration is magic. Now be quiet, drink your beer, and we'll have no more talk of gravity-ation on this forum

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The only thing...

« on: August 18, 2008, 09:55:00 PM »

*yawn*

Okay...I concede defeat *waves white flag*

You are clearly the more interesting and exciting person. I wasn't sure there for a second, but you totally got me with the whole yawn thing....talk about an ACE UP THE FECKING SLEEVE! 

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The only thing...

« on: August 18, 2008, 09:50:34 PM »

Evidence that you are boring:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=14823;sa=showPosts

Now get out.

Sorry....I believe your data is flawed 

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The only thing...

« on: August 18, 2008, 09:43:35 PM »

Why do so many people care if someone else makes an ass out of themselves? I mean, like, I'm totally flattered my reputation means so much to a complete stranger, but it's still not on point.

The point is, you're boring. Either become interesting or make like a tree and leaf.

I agree, that is a point, and an excellent one at that But it's still not the point. I mean, if you're going to interrupt an exchange between two other people to tell one of them they're boring, then you really need some evidence to support your theory.

Other than that, it's best to to read or respond to people who's posts you find boring.