1

Flat Earth General / Re: Google Earth

« on: January 05, 2010, 09:00:48 PM »

I believe this has been discussed in great length on a topic, get this, called, "Google Earth"

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Summary of a Flat Earth.

« on: January 02, 2010, 08:03:11 AM »

All you've done is misrepresent our views in capital letters. Congratulations.

Heh, heh, heh...

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Global Wingers influence on our educational system

« on: December 30, 2009, 05:21:23 PM »

I dont have a problem with them being exposed to RE theory as long as they are also taught such concepts as the anti-moon, UA and bendy light.

So you think it's fine for them to be taught theories there is not a single shred of evidence for?
By that token I suppose you'd be happy for your children to be taught Scientology. 

I believe this is what most people refer to as "sarcasm". I believe he was using Scientology as an example of something ridiculous that could be taught in school (i.e. you teach Flat Earth Theory why not teach Scientology as well as it is just as ridiculous).

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Anti-Moon...

« on: December 30, 2009, 05:42:50 AM »

Many quite recent astronomers have acknowledged the Antimoon, it's mostly globular fundamentalists who keep quiet about it, but there have been globularists even who admit it exists, because well, how can you NOT?

This is one of the most outrageous claims you have made yet.  You can't name a single astronomer, recent or otherwise, who has acknowledged the Antimoon, nor name any globularist who admits it exists.  You are clearly lying!

"Invisible moons exist in the firmament." - Sir John Herschel

Quite recent, James. You said, "Quite recent" and you also implied there was more than one.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA update: more ridiculousness

« on: December 29, 2009, 04:32:22 PM »

So, why spend the money? Why didn't they (NASA, Government), at the beginning, just say that it's impossible to go into space? Why did we make a wild vow to land someone on the Moon?

6

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA update: more ridiculousness

« on: December 27, 2009, 03:45:52 PM »

Also, one of these balloons has never failed and fallen to Earth?

7

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

« on: December 26, 2009, 07:05:58 AM »

Creating an accurate birth narrative of the FE may be impossible, but surely there must be some way of gaining some insight as to the some of the conditions that must be required in order for a flat earth to form.

What makes you think it was formed?

Because it exists.

And?

Some how or another the Earth, flat or round, had a beginning. Whether you believe it was created by an intelligence, or formed out of swirling cosmic dust or was the product of two flat planes slamming into each other, the Earth formed. My question was how do you think this happened. I'm sorry if the word "formed" made you cringe. Perhaps I should have said, how do you think the Earth began? Began is LIKE formed, only it sounds differently.

If your argument is it never formed or never began and was just always around, why do you think this is? How does this work, because it sounds interesting?  

8

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

« on: December 25, 2009, 07:15:16 PM »

Creating an accurate birth narrative of the FE may be impossible, but surely there must be some way of gaining some insight as to the some of the conditions that must be required in order for a flat earth to form.

What makes you think it was formed?

Because it exists.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Best Test

« on: December 24, 2009, 09:37:54 PM »

I believe the best test is for us to charter a flight over Antarctica and see what happens. I'll be willing to ante up some money for this, as long as at least a few girls come along... And we can all place bets on the results.

No one will agree to this. The Ice Wall guards will shoot down the plane before we even get close to Antarctica.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / The Planets and the Stars...

« on: December 24, 2009, 09:36:11 PM »

The stars are above us at 3100 miles away (according to the FAQ). The FAQ doesn't address how far away the planets are. I will assume the the planets are just as far away in FET as they are in RET, or at least farther away than the stars that are 3100 miles above us.

Now, given this, why is it if you take a telescope and observe a planet, let's just say Mars, it will appear closer than the stars in the sky which are supposed to be closer than the planets?

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Anti-Moon...

« on: December 24, 2009, 09:26:55 PM »

Now, you're going to disagree with this; say it's all a "conspiracy", but:

I think that we have been in space because of lots of evidence towards it. Whole books have been written about men in space, it has appeared on television, we have photographs, people who have told us that they have been in space, etc, etc. And if all these astronauts have been lying, and they've never gone anywhere, then please tell me why all of them have agreed to keep it a secret. Because I doubt that all of them would do it for money.

Even I would do it for the money.

Yet, nobody that's been a part of keeping the shape of the world a secret has said anything on their deathbed...not one. Most conspiracies "work" one way or another by some witness or member of the conspiracy coming forward and revealing what they know to the world. 

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Anti-Moon...

« on: December 23, 2009, 09:21:34 PM »

Okay, so...

You're inviting me to look for the Anti-Moon, which I can't see anyway, and even if I did want to look at it, its cold light would harm me, so I shouldn't look for it. James, you claim to have "seen" the Anti-Moon on many occasions, yet you just haven't gotten around to taking a picture, day-by-day, to show us where the stars were not and where the stars suddenly are. So, basically, we have to believe in something that is invisible that will hurt us if we try to find it? Is this right? And all of this is to explain eclipses.

And plus, you wouldn't study it anyway because what's the point? It's invisible and boring and stupid. Ho-hum.

Dumb.

Right?

 

13

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA update: more ridiculousness

« on: December 23, 2009, 09:06:11 PM »

Man I really dont know what NASA does except for:

writing texts;
faking pictures;
makes launches of metal junk to the nearest waters;
and tells to few people that they soon become heroes by becoming superstars in the form astronauts;

I dont know about anything else. Like their experiments on the orbit(what they do there except repairing ISS?), like all those fuel, like all those super-challenging stuff. I never heard about it in details nor i dont see any benefits for human race since first Sputnik was launched. Do you see any? (miss the point about GPS pls)

Oh, okay...conspiracy NASA is wasting our money, sure.

Not conspiracy NASA works on new technologies from aeronautics (for practical and vital use in our everyday life (even in conspiracy reality where planes have to be in the air 24 hours a day to feed "satellite signals" across the world)) to robotics, the continual effort to document as much of space and our celestial neighbors as possible, maintain very sophisticated equipment both on Earth and in orbit, as well as developing better technology to further our understanding of Earth and space. In a Round Earth universe this is an endeavor to better understand the world around us.

In a Flat Earth viewpoint...

Why bother? Who cares? The world is the world, so there. Let's not worry with it.

So, regarding FE viewpoint, yes, they're wasting a whole bunch of money.   

14

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA update: more ridiculousness

« on: December 23, 2009, 05:35:32 AM »

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/news/wise20091214.html


NASA at it again, boys. Apparently they launched a rocket into space as they claimed. I understand space flight is possibly but that satellites and stuff are probably crap. But this right here is another pathetic attempt to put the conspiracy forward. Disagree and your called insane. Maybe Round Earthers can answer this question: how do you feel about NASA using your tax dollars to do this?! Well not all of it goes to do this. I am sure some of it is sticky money if you get my drift. Looks like Nasa employees will be getting a nice Christmas bonus!

Yeah you go ahead and believe it's a conspiracy, when you're too stupid to have noticed that the motions of the night sky do not fit your flat earth model. Lucky it's NASA researching space and not you, right? You don't appear to be able to even look up at night.

Ah more insults. And how do you know NASA is serious. Here is a question for you: look at all the technological advancements in the past 150 years. Impressive, right? Yet if we are advancing that far then why not space? 1969 we supposedly landed on the moon! Why no moonbases or space ship that are a significant advancement! The space station they claim they have can't even hold that many people!

NASA is rather underfunded. And I think we've made leaps and bounds in technological advancement. Why no moon-bases? No real point. "Wow...sure is rocky up here..."

The amount of people a space-station can hold in no way reflects its capability or how technologically advanced it is. It holds just enough people to run it.  

Oh, man.
Underfunded?
They have billions. The labour force costs much more lower. If somebody artificially rising prices for all that pseudo-stuff, it doesnt mean than in reality(if earth was really round) it would cost that much.
I mean, if we are race of wise human, why would factories and so on just rise the prices that high, that even NASA with their billions feels herself as udnerfunded.

Space travels and space technologies for sure must be sponsored by factories and scientists centers, but no, no low prices for the pride of humnity. In fact vise versa, somebody even thinks that NASA is underfunded.

But what is problem to build 100 or 1000 rockets of same technology that are fly? Why it would cost that much that NASA is underfuned. If they have drawing, plans, exact amount of materials used - why would it cost that much? And don't tell me about liberalismus and markets, because if it really worked, they would have popularized this many many years ago.

Are you under the impression that all NASA does is build a flimsy rocket every six months?

15

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

« on: December 22, 2009, 05:43:52 AM »

The earth is a physical, contingent object. And so the notion that it has always been is a joke.

It's an infinite regress hypothesis. How many past events have there been on earth? I'd argue that the past events are obviously finite, and so the earth began at some point.

So that would bring me back to my original question.

How did a Flat Earth form?

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Airlines

« on: December 21, 2009, 06:41:00 PM »

You can actually find flight testimonials quite easily. Pretty much a Google search away.

If you can provide some testimonials that back up your theories, Tom, then you might have a limb to hold onto.

 

17

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evidence Time moves slower in the South

« on: December 21, 2009, 06:39:07 PM »

And here is some evidence for time passing slower in the south: economic development. Why are countries nearer the north so much more economically advanced than those in the South? Why did they experience the Industrial Revolution first? Perhaps it is because time simply passes quicker there, so they are able to get a lot more done. Human generations pass faster, knowledge is acquired faster, more chance for inventions, faster trade, etc.

That's a really horrible way to justify intense poverty.

They don't develop as fast because developed countries keep them from developing as fast and they're poor.

Or its a time distortion. Whatever.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Anti-Moon...

« on: December 21, 2009, 03:02:10 PM »

Read the FAQ and I was wondering...

The shadow of the Anti-Moon obscures the Sun during an eclipse, right? Why are we not able to observe the Anti-Moon NOT during an eclipse?

I would recommend that you simply step outside one night and look for the roughly moon-sized area of missing stars (I have seen it a few times). However, I won't recommend you do this as the celestial bodies emit harmful radiation and other effects which can seriously mess you up. The Sun emits hot light, the Moon emits cold light, and the Antimoon emits light beyond the visible spectrum. All of them are transmission vectors for dangerous malaises, and though the Moon is the most immediately dangerous, I wouldn't risk staring too long at the Antimoon either.

You could try wearing dark sunglasses and then looking at the sky, this is how I normally view the Moon, and how I would prepare if I were doing an intensive visual search for the Antimoon. However, I don't tend to look for the Antimoon very often, because frankly what is there to see? It is literally just an absence of stars. Bo-ring.

What would prolonged exposure to the Moon's cold light do?

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Anti-Moon...

« on: December 21, 2009, 02:53:28 PM »

Boring? The stars disappearing sounds interesting to me.

But I suppose not to a person who believes in a Flat Earth. I suppose the Anti-Moon is as common as the Moon is.

Who cares, right? Why study it? It's boring.

Pretty much. Anything else?

Nope. Makes perfect sense.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Television Signals...

« on: December 21, 2009, 02:52:48 PM »

I have a satellite television. Whenever there is a storm or inclement weather I lose my signal and have annoying blank screen that tells me as such. Is there a man at the fake satellite television companies watching out for inclement weather intentionally messing up my signal so I miss a majority of a football game?

And if so, can we devise a plan to go and punch this guy in the face? 

No, but the fleet of high-altitude aircraft which broadcast the lion's share of "satellite" signals may have to ground themselves during exceptionally stormy conditions.

How in the hell are we going to punch all of those pilots?

Confound it!

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Anti-Moon...

« on: December 21, 2009, 02:26:40 PM »

Read the FAQ and I was wondering...

The shadow of the Anti-Moon obscures the Sun during an eclipse, right? Why are we not able to observe the Anti-Moon NOT during an eclipse?

I would recommend that you simply step outside one night and look for the roughly moon-sized area of missing stars (I have seen it a few times). However, I won't recommend you do this as the celestial bodies emit harmful radiation and other effects which can seriously mess you up. The Sun emits hot light, the Moon emits cold light, and the Antimoon emits light beyond the visible spectrum. All of them are transmission vectors for dangerous malaises, and though the Moon is the most immediately dangerous, I wouldn't risk staring too long at the Antimoon either.

You could try wearing dark sunglasses and then looking at the sky, this is how I normally view the Moon, and how I would prepare if I were doing an intensive visual search for the Antimoon. However, I don't tend to look for the Antimoon very often, because frankly what is there to see? It is literally just an absence of stars. Bo-ring.

Boring? The stars disappearing sounds interesting to me.

But I suppose not to a person who believes in a Flat Earth. I suppose the Anti-Moon is as common as the Moon is.

Who cares, right? Why study it? It's boring.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: Migration...

« on: December 21, 2009, 01:27:25 PM »

Well, to be fair to them, you can already see that a lot of the same questions get asked every few days on the site, so it would understandably get old answering the same questions over and over.

Yeah, that's true.

So, was their explanation genetic engineering?

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Undecided if shape of the earth can be proven

« on: December 21, 2009, 01:25:47 PM »

ok two bold answers to address

Firstly the earth is really big .

So what you are saying is everything really big is round, so the earth must be round.'
But have you seen the Eiffel Tower?
Its big but its not round

Secondly I used a flat piece of wood. True i did but wood is flat for a reason. It comes from nature. Mother nature makes wood flat because flatness is her design motiff.
Let nature be your guide, its full of flat stuff. Theres a flathead fish for example.

And also, LOLZ, you're hilarious.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: Undecided if shape of the earth can be proven

« on: December 21, 2009, 01:24:11 PM »

ok two bold answers to address

Firstly the earth is really big .

So what you are saying is everything really big is round, so the earth must be round.'
But have you seen the Eiffel Tower?
Its big but its not round

Secondly I used a flat piece of wood. True i did but wood is flat for a reason. It comes from nature. Mother nature makes wood flat because flatness is her design motiff.
Let nature be your guide, its full of flat stuff. Theres a flathead fish for example.

Uh...what?

I was implying you have no sense of scale. Your tiny backyard is nothing but a pinprick on the surface of the tremendously humongeous sphere, a sphere that, by the way, is not PERFECTLY smooth. There's all kinds of hills and mountains and valleys and stuff. Topography and whatnot.

Secondly...what?

Unless you have a tree in your backyard, you chopped it down and then placed the level on it, I don't see what the hell you are talking about. You're implying, right now, that everything that is wood is flat. That's as dumb as you implying that I'm saying everything big is a sphere. Not all wood is flat. I assume this piece of timber you used to put across your backyard was a processed piece of lumber that was made to be flat for construction. If not, kudos of finding a flat piece of wood...that for some reason can't exist on a Round Earth...cause...ow, you're hurting my head parts. 

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Migration...

« on: December 21, 2009, 01:08:31 PM »

You guys haven't seen the posts about how penguins were genetically engineered by the conspiracy as a source of food for the ice wall guards?

There is NO evidence of penguins before this century! SPOOKY!!!

Does this kind of thing happen often on this website? Will this thread be deemed, "Dead" by the Flat Earthers just not answering the question?

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Undecided if shape of the earth can be proven

« on: December 21, 2009, 12:27:25 PM »

Thermal Detonator likes to use words like "science" and "maths" in much the same way priests used the word "god" as some kind of argument settler in ye olden days.
But what actual science has he done?
Book reading probably.

I thought i'd solve this mystery once and for all with some practical experimentation.
Im a tradesman, not a scientist.I work in practicalities, realities.

I got the largest spirit level in my work van and laid it on the ground on my back verandah. Flat. Perfectly flat.
Then i got a long piece of timber and ran it right down to the back fence and put the spirit level on top of that. Just to be sure.
Flat- level. Not the slightest curve.

Now look at a circle and show me using your fancy book reading where this flat section is. Show me where my flat back yard fits into this circular world, if you can sir

And also, I believe your verandah would appear to be flat because it is flat.

Same thing with your piece of wood there. 

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Undecided if shape of the earth can be proven

« on: December 21, 2009, 12:17:17 PM »

Thermal Detonator likes to use words like "science" and "maths" in much the same way priests used the word "god" as some kind of argument settler in ye olden days.
But what actual science has he done?
Book reading probably.

I thought i'd solve this mystery once and for all with some practical experimentation.
Im a tradesman, not a scientist.I work in practicalities, realities.

I got the largest spirit level in my work van and laid it on the ground on my back verandah. Flat. Perfectly flat.
Then i got a long piece of timber and ran it right down to the back fence and put the spirit level on top of that. Just to be sure.
Flat- level. Not the slightest curve.

Now look at a circle and show me using your fancy book reading where this flat section is. Show me where my flat back yard fits into this circular world, if you can sir

The Earth is really big.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Anti-Moon...

« on: December 21, 2009, 12:14:49 PM »

I think I've seen it posted somewhere that these magical celestial bodies hide under the earth until they're needed, then quickly pop up.

(Note:  It was originally written as a serious answer.  My post, clearly, is not)

Oh, interesting. Are there any other celestial bodies that come up to "save the day" other than the Anti-Moon?

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Television Signals...

« on: December 21, 2009, 11:34:05 AM »

I have a satellite television. Whenever there is a storm or inclement weather I lose my signal and have annoying blank screen that tells me as such. Is there a man at the fake satellite television companies watching out for inclement weather intentionally messing up my signal so I miss a majority of a football game?

And if so, can we devise a plan to go and punch this guy in the face? 

30

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: What does the bible really teach about the shape of the earth?

« on: December 21, 2009, 07:11:07 AM »

I've done some reading and apparently there is a case to be made from the bible that the earth is flat.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

As well as a strong case that the earth is round:

http://www.geocentricity.com/astronomy_of_bible/flatearth/doesbibleteach.html#A5

I am the leader of a small 2nd True Christian Church so I don't take this matter lightly. We have recently broken away from the 1st True Christian Church over a matter of biblical interpretation regarding natural animal sexual behavior, which lead me to believe they were not heading down the true path. To make a long story short I am now in the position of leading vs merely following and thus my responsibilities of biblical interpretation have increased. A true believer accepts that the bible is the word of God and believes God does not deceive, therefore only a literal interpretation of the bible is correct. However, it is true that there are many passages in the bible which SEEM to contradict one another, making literal interpretation a sometimes easy, sometimes difficult, job. The reason God says things which SEEM to contradict is because God wants us to work hard at seeing the truth every day of our lives. If the bible were "easy to get", then the truth would be much less like a woman and more like a man, and humans would not have to struggle so hard to dig deeply into matters of great importance.

I am pretty convinced that this website is a joke and my main purpose here is to scorn not to listen, but I do have a question for those who really, really, really claim to believe in a FE: do any of your theories tie in clearly with biblical teaching about the earth? 

How about this, stop caring what people over 2000 years ago thought about the shape of the Earth. That literally has nothing to do with christianity, and its people like you that are everything that is wrong with religion. Instead of caring about the insignificant portions of the bible perhaps you should be paying attention to the important parts.

It has nothing to do with caring about what people over 2000 years ago thought, only a question of what the bible says. But I will grant this point: the bible does not seem to say anything about the shape of what the earth might be 2000 years later. God intervenes in the universe on a daily basis. The laws of physics might apply at sometimes and not at others. Or the laws of physics might change over time. Many theoretical physicists are starting to question whether universal constants may have changed over time. All physics can do is attempt to explain --as best it can -- the state of the universe as it exists today. But they are clearly wrong on many facts such as the crazy idea that the earth orbits the sun and not the other way around. Unless God has changed that recently. Perhaps there is a good reason for God changing the nature of the universe over time. As human society has advanced there now be good reason why there are so many more celestial objects. But I don't believe God would make any changes in the universe such as to render the Holy Gospal obsolete.

So when he wouldn't change anything in the bible to make is obsolete? This means that anything mentioned in the bible that has changed would be of small importance. Perhaps this could apply even further to say that anything that could change is irrelevant to the bible. We could take this a step further by saying that anything in the material world can change and therefore is irrelevant to the bible. Perhaps the bible is purely meant to be a spiritual guide and have no impact on our view of the physical world.

I agree. And I agree that the purpose of the bible is to be a spiritual guide. But lets look at the world today, shall we? Gays are getting married. Women are treated as equals. These are fundamental values that should not have changed over time. But these values have changed in the liberal Christian community because now nearly everything in the bible is treated as mere metaphor or as a representation of cultural values that shouldn't exist today. If this were true the bible would be irrelevant -- and that is indeed how many people now see it. The REASON it is important to take the bible at least fairly literally, is because otherwise everything starts to run off the page. 

Perhaps our view of the physical world is relevant to religion and perhaps it is not. I do not know the answer to this. As has been said, I do not know the mind of God -- but I am trying my best to understand it as well as a mortal can. Maybe God has a very good reason for the earth to be the center of the universe. Maybe it is important for understanding that humans are God's most cherished creatures. If we start believing there might be aliens out there, then we might start to question if humans really are God's most cherished creatures. It is very, very hard for us to determine which parts of the bible are necessarily more important than the others, due to the fact we don't know what God had in mind. The best approach, therefore, is to take all of it literally, just to be safe.

You have to also take into account the way the Bible may have been twisted and misinterpreted throughout history. For instance, you broke away from your Christian sect due to the greed displayed by its leaders. It is only safe to assume that whatever "truth" presented by the Bible has been lost and perverted by these kinds of people for a few thousand years.

I prescribe to the Buddhist mindset, "You cannot know the unknowable."