1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: answer this one then! :)

« on: May 21, 2009, 06:09:25 AM »

Some people are too lazy to even make an attempt at getting it right.

I don't like laziness.

ah, i was gonna ask why u seemed more bothered about me not usin caps than some1 makin loads of spellin mistakes..
when blatently the latter shows a higher level of illiteracy..
not that it matters as literacy is hardly a measure for intellect..


on a completely random off topic note.. iv just noticed ur avatar looks like an armless women with an orange monkey pissin into her mouth..
thought i would share >_>

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What would it take for me to prove to you the Earth is round?

« on: May 21, 2009, 05:54:37 AM »

Please give me a list of ways that I could prove to you FE'ers that the Earth is round. Not just the "evidence" response, but proper direct examples of evidence, because you seem to disregard all that we put before you

i dont think there is any
u could take this lot into space and actually show them the earth is round and they would probably just say NASA imprinted the memory from technology they stole off total recall..

its pointless to debate with some1 who makes up dark energy bendin light upwards, shadow objects that theres no way to detect and mirrors bouncin light around the whole antartic for half the year.. u might as well give up

if it makes them happy to believe this.. then why not, they aint hurtin anybody

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Vagueness in the FAQ

« on: May 19, 2009, 11:20:29 AM »

Pink unicorn was a joke.

IMO there is no way to tell if a photo is fake, but you demanded a different answer - so I told you to use google and figure out how people analyze photos.

Does that help?

i know the pink unicorns were a joke.. but im a pedantic bastard if u hadnt noticed
any chance the ice wall was a joke too? (its hard to tell sometimes with FET)

now im hopin u mean that not all faked photo can be proved to be fake.. and not thats its impossible to tell if any photo is fake..
again im probably bein pedantic, u must mean the first.. right?
otherwise no amount of google will save u from that rather silly claim..

and like i said, i googled this before i posted my first post..

it would be quicker if u was to just inform me of ur findins on google, because obviously iv come to a different conclusion to u regardin whether NASA photos could be proved to be faked or not..


oh, and yes that does help.. ull have to spell everythin out to me, im an idiot remember? 

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Vagueness in the FAQ

« on: May 19, 2009, 09:20:53 AM »

With my first reply, I kindly answered SOME of your questions. You then responded with nonsense. So I tried to repeat myself so you would understand. You obviously still do not understand and are an uneducated moron who should now gtfo.

Every post I have made has made a point. Before it was me trying to get you to comprehend what I was saying. Now it's me basically sayin, you're an idiot.

with ur first reply u stated pink unicorns guarded the ice wall.. then u said theres no way to tell a forgery except if u watch them do it, u backed this up by basically sayin google says theres alot of different ways u can tell a forgery.. makes sense? i thought not
then u proceded to remind me that ur not a photo analyst, which i thought was kind of u.. i might have forgot what points i made in my first post
altho somehow u decided that meant i need to use google more.. which i still dont understand the connection
and ur lastest posts consist of u stampin ur feet insistin ur makin a point..


if this is what u class as makin points, then good luck to ya.. but i dont think i could call it that


let me remind u of the point of my first post.. u said somethin about people who arent FET believers not bein able to spot a doctored photo.. i pointed out FET believers obviously dont have a fukin clue about spottin doctored photos either..
and then i decided to point out TFES doesnt actually have any desire to prove a NASA photo is doctored.. and i kinda hinted at why

i didnt ask any questions and in fact, u failed to adress anythin i said in my original post..


and theres no need to resort to ad hominems.. i already know im an idiot 

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Vagueness in the FAQ

« on: May 19, 2009, 07:49:18 AM »

I continue to repeat myself because obviously you aren't listening.

I may have to resort to typing in capital letters soon - maybe then you'll hear me

AND U REMEMBER WHEN I TALKED ABOUT POINTLESS POST WHICH DONT HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID?
UR DOIN IT AGAIN


u mean abit like that? 


its unusual for me to miss the point, but if u insist u made 1 then ill have to take ur word for it..
maybe u could dumb it down for me.. what was this point u needed to repeat?
spell it out for me

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Vagueness in the FAQ

« on: May 19, 2009, 07:32:31 AM »

I'm no photo analyst. That's why I said use google. USE IT or gtfo. Thanks.

i know ur not a photo analyst? i think i already pointed that out in an earlier post..
im not sure what u not bein a photo analyst has to do with me usin google.. but ill take ur word that u made sense on that

but anyway, i used google before i even started postin in this thread.. loads of examples of the many different ways to spot forgery..
im really not sure where ur goin with that

and u remember when i talked about pointless posts which dont have much to do with what i actually said?
ur doin it again

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Vagueness in the FAQ

« on: May 19, 2009, 07:09:41 AM »

Here, to respond to your stupid comments:

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. Photos can be faked in a variety of ways and can be seen as fake for any number of reasons. There's obviously no official way of telling if a photo is faked except seeing a person actually create it. You can do some simple googling and find plenty of people explaining why specific photos are fake. FET believers, believe NASA is a conspiracy so why do we need to waste our time analyzing each and every picture people throw at us.

*facepalm*

"There's obviously no official way of telling if a photo is faked except seeing a person actually create it."
o yea i forgot about that, that must be why theres countless UFO films, and none of it has been proved fake.. o wait, sorry im talkin out my ass again, theres loads of give aways for fake footage

"FET believers, believe NASA is a conspiracy so why do we need to waste our time analyzing each and every picture people throw at us."
i asked for 1.. just 1..
and i would say its a waste of time believin a conspiracy when u cant even be bothered to test if its right..


yep, my stupid comments? 

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Vagueness in the FAQ

« on: May 19, 2009, 06:34:37 AM »

And please, before you make another post, use proper English and grammar.

u would have thought after the amount of times i hear that i would listen.. o well

altho i could revise my post if u got confused.. i wouldnt want to give u another reason to post a pointless comment, completely ignorin what i actually said but somehow thinkin it was worth postin anyway 

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Vagueness in the FAQ

« on: May 19, 2009, 06:13:34 AM »

I think it's safe to say the majority of people in the courtroom aren't FET believers, therefore they wouldn't know the difference.

 

actually i think its safe to say not 1 FET believer is qualified to spot doctored photo or video..
if FET had some1 qualified u wouldnt get all these post sayin "it COULD be faked, look at this sci-fi picture".. u would just get a nice simple post sayin "this is faked because..."

there is 2 possible reasons for this..
1. TFES doesnt have any idea how to spot a doctored photo
or
2. its not in TFES's best interest to post the results when they do try to spot a doctored photo

conciderin the vast amount of photos and film from NASA u would have thought TFES would have been able to prove 1 of them to be doctored.. they dont even have 1 and it doesnt appear any measures r bein takin to get 1 
the phrase "ignorance is bliss" springs to mind..

but they COULD be faked.. right?
sigh.. im gonna stop rantin before i start talkin about pink unicorns, flyin spaghetti monsters and garden fairies..

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: E=mc^2

« on: May 18, 2009, 11:00:40 PM »

I meant for one of the FET's to answer those questions  . I seem to have shot myself in the foot on the e=mc^2 idea but the rest of my points still remain...

ah lol.. its just u quoted me and with the "you" and "your" i got confused 

o and if they have already argued against that 1 point u made, that automatically makes all ur other points void in their mind..
ull probably have to repost

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: are there any LOGICAL arguments for a flat earth?

« on: May 18, 2009, 07:35:24 PM »

Modern science is built on skepticism. Photos are demonstratively unreliable sources of proof, and therefore it is only scientific to remain skeptical of them.

how scientific is it to say all photos r fake just because they could be..
bein skeptical would involve testin them in someway, not simply denyin the possibility that its real

the main problem with this is that its up to the FEers to test them.. if u test a photo and its been doctored u can show why uv come to that conclusion, but if it hasnt been doctored all u can do is say theres nothin dodgy about it and they have to take ur word for it..


to be fair, if just 1 nasa photo of the earth from space was shown to be doctored that would get me thinkin at least and be a huge boost to this conspiracy theory.. it kinda makes u wonder why TFES hasnt done this already
or maybe they did and for some reason decided it would be best to ignore the results..



meh, sorry for any bad grammar and if that didnt make any sense.. its late, iv lost the effort and my grammar is dire at the best of times

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: E=mc^2

« on: May 18, 2009, 05:44:18 PM »

Solar eclipses. Explain the supporting details/mass ect about the "shadow object". If you say it exists then what is it made of, why does it only pass under the sun once every few years? Why does it appear to the human eye that the moon is the object blocking light from the sun?

im pretty sure solar eclipses work fine in FET (well, as fine as somethin can work in FET)
its lunar eclipses that need the help of the magical "shadow object"

What exactly is this "shadow object"? You can't simply make some random BS up to cover a massive hole in your "theory"(which this is not; there is little, if any real evidence to support a flat Earth). What is the object made of? Why can't it be detected? Does it have mass? If it absorbs light, how does it do so?

 
i think uv mistakin me for some1 else

but as im here ill give it a go..
what is the object made of? shadow
why cant it be detected? its a shadow
does it have mass? no its a shadow
if it absorbs light, how does it do so? erm it doesnt its a shadow ()

its not called the "magical" shadow object for nothin u know, the laws of physics r for the losers and old women

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: are there any LOGICAL arguments for a flat earth?

« on: May 18, 2009, 05:22:20 PM »

Just because its not doctored doesn't mean its not a fake.  Would you agree?

agreed.. but it depends what u mean by fake

the trees r real, the rocks r real and the guy in the monkey costume is real..
some1 sayin it is big foot would be a lie..
so if im gonna be pedantic then the picture isnt a fake, the assumption that its bigfoot is

apply this to photos or videos of earth that havent been doctored and the only way they can be "fake" is if its not really the earth at all


what the FES really needs is some1 with a good eye for spottin doctored film.. sayin somethin COULD be fake doesnt mean much untill u can show that it actually is fake...

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: May 18, 2009, 12:47:06 PM »

So in other words, Bendy Light is an invented solution which uses an undiscovered phenomenon to explain away a huge discrepancy?

Much like dark energy and dark matter invented by round Earthers to explain the unexplainable.

well shut my mouth, u almost made a point
but its hardly fair to compare dark matter and dark energy, concepts that arguably the best minds on the planet ponder daily, with an explanation for "bendy light" that was thought up by a handfull of people who choose to believe the world is flat..
its like comparin a blow job from the best prossy in wales to rammin a nuns piss hole with a sledgehammer..

that said, lets just assume for a second magical dark energies cause light to bend upwards..
in FET the sun rotates around in a circle with the north pole as its center, right?.. in the summer when the sun is orbitin the equator, if ur on the equator its all fine, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.. but if ur not on the equator, lets say north europe, then the suns gonna rise in the south east and set in the south west...
next ull be sayin magical dark energies dont just bend light up, but north as well.. 

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: are there any LOGICAL arguments for a flat earth?

« on: May 18, 2009, 11:47:43 AM »

i think they r talkin about things gettin smaller as u get further away?
but obviously that could only apply at ground level.. after u get a fair bit of altitude u would easily be able to see the whole earth..
he said exactly the same thing on another thread, i pointed this out to him then too..
o well..

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: E=mc^2

« on: May 18, 2009, 11:23:50 AM »

Solar eclipses. Explain the supporting details/mass ect about the "shadow object". If you say it exists then what is it made of, why does it only pass under the sun once every few years? Why does it appear to the human eye that the moon is the object blocking light from the sun?

im pretty sure solar eclipses work fine in FET (well, as fine as somethin can work in FET)
its lunar eclipses that need the help of the magical "shadow object"

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: May 18, 2009, 08:23:54 AM »

I still maintain that there is no reason that light would, of its own accord, bend upwards. 

To suggest that light can achieve anything "of it's own accord" is suggesting that light has some sort of intelligence or choice in the matter.

A strange theory of most flat Earthers, is that light does not have the capacity to think.

This is where round and flat theories seem to diverge.

do u ever present an argument which is based on anythin other than grammar and pedantics?

maybe u could try adressin the issues actually raised? a few facts and a bit of evidence here and there would be nice too
im sure iv told u this before..

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: May 18, 2009, 06:52:46 AM »

Your non-use of capital letters and mis-use of punctuation, makes your post very hard to read.

Back to post.......Round earth light bends either direction, depending on local conditions. In my view, light that bends is bendy light. Your view is obviously different.

*faceplam*
no actually "round earth light" only bends 1 way, towards a greater refractive index and its called "refraction"
in FE "bendy light" bends upwards towards a lower refractive index, in order to explain away the horizon and is called complete fail

my bad grammer, ur inability to understand a sentance without a capitol letter and selective ignorance wont change that fact


by the way, did i already say u talk alot for some1 with nothin to say?

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: May 18, 2009, 03:51:59 AM »

Mirages are a well observed, common phenomenon, the most extreme symptoms of bendy light.

we've been over this spanner.. altho im pretty sure a few of my posts on this subject have disapeared :/
seen as how ur hell bent on anally abusin science im gonna have to clear this up.. again

mirages r caused by refraction not "bendy light".. bendy light works the exact opposite to refraction, that is the light "bends" towards atmosphere with a lower refractive index
also the reason u even get a mirage in the first place is heat.. if mirages were an example of bendy light, then a hot, dry place like africa would have a completely different horizon to somewhere cold and damp, like england..

and have u ever even seen a mirage? in what way does it look anythin like the horizon..
for a start, the mirages u need for light to "bend" upwards, usually cause the image to be seen upside down  .. which i supose is fine for a normal horizon, but once ur lookin at somethin big like a mountain "bendy light" has some serious explainin to do

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: May 17, 2009, 10:03:46 PM »

Bendy light is an invented solution to a problem which occurs because Flat Earth is inconsistent with reality.  Again: Bendy light is TOTALLY INVENTED by FET...

i know lol.. i just wanted to hear what they come up with

it amuses me somewhat, im wierd like that

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: May 17, 2009, 09:11:45 PM »

Please retake a physics class. It will help you understand the way the universe works.

thats rich comin from a flat earther.. but yes very bad wordin on my part
"a light ray will refract as it enters and leaves a fluid, assuming there is a change in refractive index. A ray travelling along the normal (perpendicular to the boundary) will change speed, but not direction."
better?


as i need to retake physics im probably missin somethin obvious, so could u please explain to me why, given that a lower atmosphere has a greater refractive index, u think light actually bends upwards and not down, the exact opposite to how it should..

22

The Lounge / Re: Progress Quest

« on: April 24, 2009, 01:09:04 PM »

omg yay

my m8 made me play this years ago
he asked me if i remembered what it was called a few weeks back but i forgot

hes gonna be so happy, well for like 2 mins till he remembers how pointless it was..

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Radar.

« on: April 24, 2009, 12:38:49 PM »

"Under normal atmospheric conditions, when there is a gradual decrease of pressure, temperature, and humidity with height, a radar beam?s curvature is slightly less than the earth?s curvature. This causes it to gradually climb higher with distance"

sry to just quote from a random source but i lost the effort

even if u can find some way to justify how radar goes completely against how refraction in a flat earth atmosphere should work and actually moves up, then uv still gotta explain why the visible true horizon and this radar horizon (w/e u'd call it) r the same distance.. even tho radar is more susceptible to atmospheric interference than light and thus, would only be the same distance under very certain atmospheric conditions

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Motivation......

« on: April 24, 2009, 09:56:13 AM »

sry was a typo i missed.. "young"

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Motivation......

« on: April 24, 2009, 09:38:07 AM »

I originally asked a question I wanted help with, and ended up only getting a lesson in grammar with NO answer to my query.  

THANK YOU for representing your community to me.

I am beginning to understand Flat Earthers now.  Subterfuge and diversion.

u have no idea..
iv actually gained some respect for yound earth creationists.. at least they put the effort in..

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Motivation......

« on: April 24, 2009, 08:09:59 AM »

Try...
It's because he wants to put emphasis on a certain word. I thought it was quite self evident.

no?.. welcome to the internets, full of bad grammar and people who dont give a shit ;O
seriously i do alot worse than not usin caps..


on a completely random side note, im tryin to work out if u ever post a comment which isnt completely pointless..

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, according to an FEer

« on: April 24, 2009, 06:09:11 AM »

henry, nodoby so far has been able to present my documentation, the numbers, the photographs of the visual targets, and the research to actually find those photographs...

Bending light has been used too often by other FE proponents to get out of a difficult situation, I never use such an argument to discuss physics.

ah, so u have an alternate explaination for the horizon?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Motivation......

« on: April 24, 2009, 05:33:08 AM »

Why do you put capital letters in the MIDDle of a sentence?

its because he wants to put emphasis on a certain word.. i thought it was quite self evident

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: April 24, 2009, 04:57:42 AM »

Light does bend, even in round earth theory.

The proof is mirages. Both superior and inferior are caused by bendy light.

i think u missed the point there somewhat..

eitherway mirages r caused by heat bendin light not atmosphere, which obviously he wasnt talkin about cause there would have to be these mirages all over the "flat earth" for there to be an horizon..
btw dont bastardise science by pickin the bits u like and ignorin the actual application, its not cool.. ^^

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: erm horizon?

« on: April 24, 2009, 04:34:29 AM »

sigh im such a failure.. i couldnt resist comin back


anyways.. so the atmosphere is thinner when u get higher..
obviously u know why light "bends" in liquids or prisms ect.. altho judgin by this belief of dense atmosphere causin light to bend like this, im not too sure.. so ill put it simply, if u imagine light as a line with a width, when the bottom enters it slows alittle causin it to turn..

so hypothetically speakin..
when light, for example the moon (low), comes through the atmosphere at an angle it would bend downwards, makin the moon appear higher in the sky than it actually is.. so not only would a low moon be impossible with bendy light (if a moon did go this low in the sky it wouldnt be visible, like the horizon.. and when it did become visible it would look much higher than it is ie. it appears half way up the sky), but also if u can see it as it gets lower it would distort from its usual spherical shape..


o and also there wouldnt be an horizon if ur lookin straight along the same density of atmosphere anways.. as the light wouldnt change speed and "bend"..


ty plz (..physics101 u love it really, 1337speak ftw)