Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - REmyth

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I see no holes in the theory just theory.
« on: September 16, 2008, 05:08:59 AM »
CGI and other related technology would explain the TV portion. Bribes and threats would explain eye witness.

OH and some people are full of shit and would it up.

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I see no holes in the theory just theory.
« on: September 16, 2008, 04:56:16 AM »
Quote
The fact that launches take place is undeniable.

sorry sir you are mistaken. they are fake. never happened.

3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I see no holes in the theory just theory.
« on: September 16, 2008, 04:53:21 AM »
The FAQ is a myth.

No, the basis of the FAQ consists theories of some of the most intelligent people in history.

Its near flawless.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I see no holes in the theory just theory.
« on: September 16, 2008, 04:46:03 AM »
I'm gunna have to give this one to you mad dog, well played, but like i said, i wasn't too sure about this one.

Quote
Also, new satellites are (allegedly) launched every now and then

This is a myth. refer to the FAQ.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I see no holes in the theory just theory.
« on: September 16, 2008, 03:57:43 AM »
To set up 2 or 3 alts and then have them argue with themselves is quite an accomplishment... I reckon it's narc.

I don't understand, alts? narc?

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I see no holes in the theory just theory.
« on: September 16, 2008, 03:56:18 AM »
Quote
The thing i can't get past is how statalite TV works. If there are no satalites in space then why is a dish needed to point into the sky to receive teh TV signal? If that dish isn't pointed in the right dirrection then no signal is received. The further south you live the further you have to point the dish up in order to receive the signal. So if there are no satalites up there then where is the signal coming from?

The dish is not needed. its just another way for the greedy organizations like NASA to make money. for the rest read the FAQ its all in their.


Interesting theory. But how do you explain the fact that pointing the dish at different coordinates in the sky also allows you to recieve different signals, while pointing the dish at nothing in particular gives you only static?

Inbuilt systems maybe? rigged to give certain results. I don't really know everything but thats what would make sense.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I see no holes in the theory just theory.
« on: September 16, 2008, 03:49:58 AM »
As i stated in another thread:

Quote
earthquakes gradually overtime cause very minor fluctuations (although still significant) in the earths acceleration of (1g, 9.8m/s^2). with a significant amount of water being favored to one side of the world the result would be the earth tilting even greater.

basically as the earth tilts the bullet will land at a further distance than from where the shot originated.

Quote
The thing i can't get past is how statalite TV works. If there are no satalites in space then why is a dish needed to point into the sky to receive teh TV signal? If that dish isn't pointed in the right dirrection then no signal is received. The further south you live the further you have to point the dish up in order to receive the signal. So if there are no satalites up there then where is the signal coming from?

The dish is not needed. its just another way for the greedy organizations like NASA to make money. for the rest read the FAQ its all in their.




8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun spots, and craters on the moon.
« on: September 16, 2008, 03:27:22 AM »
Tom Bishop i must commend you on your rather compelling thoughts about the crater impacts on the moon.

Too bad these RET can't keep an open mind on the subject and see the truth.

quite sad really.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I see no holes in the theory just theory.
« on: September 16, 2008, 02:09:13 AM »
Quote
Don't suspect, prove. Source please.

Sigh. How can there be any proof when NASA would simply have anyone presenting the evidence killed?

NASA is already on shaky ground with the fake shuttle launches.

besides proof is not required when all logic points towards the fact that NASA is an organization built on pure LIES.



10
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how many true FE'rs are there?
« on: September 16, 2008, 01:51:26 AM »
nothing pisses me off more than someone asserting i dont really believe in the FE fact.

they're fucking retards who really have no clue.


Can you prove that mathematically?

Sure, 1+1 = 2.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I see no holes in the theory just theory.
« on: September 16, 2008, 01:48:43 AM »
"NASA" the main source of the RE conspiracy.

they are a large organization perfectly capable and willing to fake anything.

also seeing they have billions (a great deal funded through fake "space launches") i would highly suspect they bribed and/or threatened the viewers.

and as for TV that can be explained by CGI or any other technology means they possess

 but as for your other claim, i apologize but that is a long read and i am tired. I will answer it tomorrow.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: moon gravity
« on: September 16, 2008, 01:23:35 AM »
we only have 2 hours a week to share our current knowledge/ideas about FE not RE.

we come to places like these to hear the voice of other opinions

No other reason i assure you.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I see no holes in the theory just theory.
« on: September 16, 2008, 01:06:44 AM »
first of all welcome to the forum, i am rather new myself.

(But where are the shuttles and rockets we launch going?)

They're not. well i have no proof i highly suspect the whole rocket myth is a trick to take our money.

(Also why is it that i can point a telescope in the direction the space station is reported to be in and actually see it?)

You have actually without a doubt seen a space station through a telescope?

(If the tides are from the slight wobble of the earth then why do they correspond with the position of the moon?)

Source please.

(I have to admit this is an interesting theory.)

Undoubtedly true to.

(And like most conspiracy theories you have developed it in such a way that any way of disproving or proving it is impossible based on the fundamental beliefs of the theory.)

it cannot be dis-proven because it is true. no other reason period.

(If nothing else it makes for a fun item to argue about.)

Then argue away, i welcome it, im sure you will learn a great deal well you're here.







14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: moon gravity
« on: September 16, 2008, 12:52:42 AM »
FE believers only sorry.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how many true FE'rs are there?
« on: September 16, 2008, 12:51:42 AM »
its not.....

I'm speaking in general.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: moon gravity
« on: September 16, 2008, 12:41:02 AM »
This was recently discussed at one of our FE meatings.

basically the most compelling theory put forth (in my opinion) were that earthquakes gradually overtime cause very minor fluctuations (although still significant) in the earths acceleration of (1g, 9.8m/s^2). with a significant amount of water being favored to one side of the world the result would be the earth tilting even greater.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: how many true FE'rs are there?
« on: September 15, 2008, 11:11:16 PM »
nothing pisses me off more than someone asserting i dont really believe in the FE fact.

they're fucking retards who really have no clue.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please
« on: September 15, 2008, 08:23:55 PM »
I should stop ruining the thread with my worthless posts.

Fixed.

Yawn. fuck thats old.

Now goodbye.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please
« on: September 15, 2008, 08:20:46 PM »
No you're just making stupid claims. now stop ruining the thread with worthless posts.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please
« on: September 15, 2008, 08:17:00 PM »
Yes

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please
« on: September 15, 2008, 08:06:41 PM »
Nothing you have said thus far has been even slightly intellectual.  You, sir, are a troll and a very bad one at that.

you're an idiot and i am no "troll"

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please
« on: September 15, 2008, 08:00:54 PM »
a partial ironised metal has an altered affect on the metals surface area distribution.
DE leaches onto the negative charges dispelled during the "change over affect" the earths magnets also disrupt some of the signals thus decreasing acceleration.

That makes absolutely no sense.

Um.... Yes it does. you not understanding something doesn't mean it makes no sense.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please
« on: September 15, 2008, 07:57:24 PM »
My friend who has great knowledge in science taught me this however the source of this has since been closed down due to supression by the NASA and the government.

Of course, now it all makes sense.

Don't be a smart ass and actually try to contribute at least some intellect into the debate.

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please
« on: September 15, 2008, 07:53:38 PM »
Due the rate the earth is rising it is impossible for any man made object to generate the power required as the air gets denser.

Air density has nothing to do with it.

Quote
not to mention DE has a pull down affect in ironised metals accelerating away from the earths surface.

DE is supposedly everywhere, so its affect would be in all directions if there was one.


You clearly havn't the slightest clue about DE

different compounds and substances have a multitude of affects on how they are affected by DE.

with Ionised (sorry not ironised) metal it has this pull down affect for reasons i explained in my previous post.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please
« on: September 15, 2008, 07:47:56 PM »
And what does "decreasing air density" have to do with space flight (other than pretty much being a requirement)?

Due the rate the earth is rising it is impossible for any man made object to generate the power required as the air gets denser.

not to mention DE has a pull down affect in ironised metals accelerating away from the earths surface.

face it space flight is impossible!

"ironised metals"?  ???

Do you have any references to this "pull down affect" [sic]?

a partial ironised metal has an altered affect on the metals surface area distribution.

DE leaches onto the negative charges dispelled during the "change over affect" the earths magnets also disrupt some of the signals thus decreasing acceleration.

My friend who has great knowledge in science taught me this however the source of this has since been closed down due to supression by the NASA and the government.

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please
« on: September 15, 2008, 07:23:40 PM »
And what does "decreasing air density" have to do with space flight (other than pretty much being a requirement)?

Due the rate the earth is rising it is impossible for any man made object to generate the power required as the air gets denser.

not to mention DE has a pull down affect in ironised metals accelerating away from the earths surface.

face it space flight is impossible!

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please
« on: September 15, 2008, 07:20:23 PM »
The fact that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s/s

not to mention the underestimated inefficiency of machinary at high altitudes due to the decreasing air density.

Sustained flight is continiously being shown to be no more likely than a kids fairytale.

If the sun and moon can achieve sustained space flight, then why can't a man made satellite?

just another myth that is yet to be layed to rest.

have you actually been aboard these sustained flights?

and as fletch and i have proved in this thread is that its impossible to leave earths atmosphere with the restrictions caused by simple logic!

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: explain this please
« on: September 15, 2008, 07:09:20 PM »
The fact that the earth is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.8m/s/s

not to mention the grossly underestimated inefficiency of machinary at high altitudes due to the decrease in air density.

the government has seriously down played the true calculations.

Sustained flight is continiously being shown to be no more likely than a kids fairytale.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Reasoning
« on: September 15, 2008, 06:54:01 PM »
Congrats, theres hope for you yet.


30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Reasoning
« on: September 15, 2008, 06:27:30 PM »
Dont even compare FE to religion. we actually have undeniable logic in our belief.
Religion is based on biased fictional history, the belief in fictional beings, fuckloads of irony and a dash of ignorance to taste. Where the fuck is the logic?

I agree, sorry i meant "dont even compare religion to FE.

you sound intelligent, please dont tell me you support RE!?!

Pages: [1] 2