1

Flat Earth General / Re: So No One Has Flown or Sailed Around the World? I Have!

« on: February 18, 2011, 11:11:41 AM »

That makes no sense whatsoever. You don't even know how a compass works!

If I take off from Los Angeles and travel due West, I will return to Los Angeles. By your logic, I would really be flying in a circle, not flying straight. But every navigation device in the plane says otherwise!

I give up. You guys are either serious jokers, and if so, you rule, you totally are the greatest; or you're so delusional for absolutely no reason at all. You don't know why this conspiracy is in place, it doesn't have anything to do with your religion, from what I can tell, and your FAQ actually states that you believe the earth is flat because that's what you see!

(Why am I even wasting time on this site?)

Well, technically, even if you are flying around the world on a "round Earth", you'd still be flying in a circle (since you are traversing across the surface of a sphere).  If you flew in a straight line you'd fly up in to space and away from the Earth..  That's neither here-nor-there though, of course.

And yeah, no one on this forum actually believes in the flat Earth theory.  Everyone who claims they do is just a troll, egging on the other trolls who are pretending the same thing.  It becomes more apparent the longer you stick around.  Why are you wasting your time on this site?  Because it is entertaining reading I suppose.  But don't ever think you'll end up changing anyone's mind.  There's no mind to change.

2

The Lounge / Re: Notice to all American citizens of Middle Eastern descent

« on: October 08, 2010, 02:30:37 PM »

You should all immediately check your cars.  The FBI has provided many of you with free GPS tracking devices that will probably go for a great deal of money on E-Bay. 

Question, if the FBI secretly plants an expensive tracking device on your personal property, do you legally have to give it back if found?  In addition, since there probably is no "government property" notice on the device, would destroying or damaging it be considered "destruction of government property"?

Now how are they going to do that when GPS is a LIE.  GPS is impossible, all satellites are LIES by the ROUNDHEADS to further the BIG LIE.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why does an astrolabe not point to the horizon when observed at high altitudes?

« on: October 08, 2010, 06:31:56 AM »

In my days away from exertion, ancient devices of navigation have fascinated me. I remember back to one of my extensive conversations with one of my intellectual contacts. We discussed with great vigor the operation and the source of the Astrolabe.
For those who are not familiar with this device, it is a metal disk that was held suspended by a little ring. On the disk was a scale and a ruler near by to measure the information. I was skeptical of this device upon hearing its vile name, in time I will show why it is a device of deception and dishonor.

It has been a good deal of time, would you be willing to reveal to us how the device is of "deception and dishonor"... now keep in mind as far as its ability to point to the horizon (at sea level), that is a fairly simple function.  In fact you could use a 3 dollar level bought at wal-mart to acheive the same effect.

What needs to be addressed is not the astrolabe or any instrument, but the horizon itself.  The effect has nothing to do with the astrolabe, and everything to do with the horizon.  I hope that is not too subtle a distinction that it is lost on you.The astrolabe merely allows us to better observe the effect, indeed the higher you get, the greater the effect, and it is not difficult to get to high enough a vantage point that no instrument at all is needed to distinguish the effect.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Why does an astrolabe not point to the horizon when observed at high altitudes?

« on: September 13, 2010, 12:02:41 AM »

At sea level the astrolabe will reveal the horizon to be at zero degrees, but as you increase your altitude the horizon begins to sink below the zero degree mark.  In the FE hypothesis, what causes this to happen?

For an explanation and demonstration of what I'm refering to check out this short video segment:


Not only does he demonstrate the phenomenon, but he also explains how the phenomenon was used to calculate the size of the Earth a millenia ago, down to an accuracy of about two hundred miles.

Of course the Astrolabe (and probablly most any instrument for that matter) is a very troublesome device in the FE hypothesis, here's another refresher course:

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Pictures?

« on: March 08, 2010, 05:00:15 PM »

Clearly the tens of thousands of photos showing the curvature of the Earth are 100% the product of The Conspiracy.

The complete lack of photos showing proof of a Flat Earth are clearly the product of The Anti-Conspiracy (sometimes refered to as The Sub-Conspiracy)

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sextants?

« on: March 08, 2010, 12:08:03 PM »

One of the main reasons I can't figure out this whole "bendy light" this is that no matter where you are on Earth, no matter what time it is, the angular distance between the stars NEVER changes.  Additionally the angular size of the sun and the moon never changes.  How does the Bendy Light hypothesis account for these observations?  Do you people even understand what I'm talking about when I refer to angular distance?

While we are on the subject of the sextant, I'd like to point out a video I uploaded about the Astrolabe, which is basically a fancier version of a sextant that provides a lot more information based on the position of the stars and other celestial bodies.  How's that thing work?!

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sextants?

« on: March 08, 2010, 11:56:57 AM »

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Just because you say it works the same in Fantasy Earth and is does on Real Earth, that doesn't make it so.

On Real Earth, the sun goes below the horizon, and you can use a sextant to measure teh angle of the sun as it drops below the horizon.  On Fantasy Earth the sun magically appears to go below the horizon without ever actually doing so.  Maybe it does this with bendy light or whatever, but however it does so, it does not do so with the same geometry as on Real Earth.

So you agree that both suns look like they are in the same place? You do realize that the sextant only records where the sun appears to be, not where it is.

I'd also like to hear how geometry is different in FE theory and RE theory. Especially the rather simply geometry used by a sextant.

I don't know how the sun appears to a Flathead, they might actually be so delusional that they see the someplace else.  I'm not a Flathead, so I wouldn't know.  The geometry *is* quite simple.  One of the conclusions we can gather from the readings on the sextant: The (apparent) curvature of the earth is nearly perfectly circular.  What specific quality of bendy light would cause that?  I would think as the sun got further away it would recede from view in a curve that exponentially flattened out at the end.  But I'm no expect on bendy light and I'll have to rely on some flathead to explain it to me.

Let me spell it out for you. It doesn't matter where in the entire universe the sun is to a sextant. Ever. The sun could be sitting on top of jupiter giving it a reach around and the sextant could only say "19 degrees above the horizon." So if the earth were flat the sun would be at a specific angle at a specific time of day and this would be how we calibrated sextants in the beginning. All of the assumptions for the size of a "round earth" would be based off this calibration.

Now take your ad hominem attacks out of this forum. You can't even understand basic concepts so you instead call the other person a "flat head" (oh noes) and say they are delusional.

Spelling it out and backing up something with proof are two very different things.  I'm sorry, until you provide some proof of how the sun's light is bending this way or that way, how am I supposed to understand this "basic concept"?

Light going in a straight line, now *that* is a basic concept, that I can understand.  And no matter how you dress up "bendy light", it will never be as basic a concept as light that travels in a straight line.  If bendy light is easy to understand, help me understand it, cause I'll admit, I don't understand it at all.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sextants?

« on: March 08, 2010, 11:22:31 AM »

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Just because you say it works the same in Fantasy Earth and is does on Real Earth, that doesn't make it so.

On Real Earth, the sun goes below the horizon, and you can use a sextant to measure teh angle of the sun as it drops below the horizon.  On Fantasy Earth the sun magically appears to go below the horizon without ever actually doing so.  Maybe it does this with bendy light or whatever, but however it does so, it does not do so with the same geometry as on Real Earth.

So you agree that both suns look like they are in the same place? You do realize that the sextant only records where the sun appears to be, not where it is.

I'd also like to hear how geometry is different in FE theory and RE theory. Especially the rather simply geometry used by a sextant.

I don't know how the sun appears to a Flathead, they might actually be so delusional that they see the someplace else.  I'm not a Flathead, so I wouldn't know.  The geometry *is* quite simple.  One of the conclusions we can gather from the readings on the sextant: The (apparent) curvature of the earth is nearly perfectly circular.  What specific quality of bendy light would cause that?  I would think as the sun got further away it would recede from view in a curve that exponentially flattened out at the end.  But I'm no expect on bendy light and I'll have to rely on some flathead to explain it to me.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sextants?

« on: March 08, 2010, 11:09:55 AM »

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Just because you say it works the same in Fantasy Earth and is does on Real Earth, that doesn't make it so.

On Real Earth, the sun goes below the horizon, and you can use a sextant to measure teh angle of the sun as it drops below the horizon.  On Fantasy Earth the sun magically appears to go below the horizon without ever actually doing so.  Maybe it does this with bendy light or whatever, but however it does so, it does not do so with the same geometry as on Real Earth.

Proof? I've watched the sunset many times and if "bendy light" would make it appear to set exactly as it would on a RE, where's the problem?

The problem is is that Bendy Light is a fiction made up out of whole cloth to plug a huge gaping hole in Fantasy Earth theory.  If you don't have a problem believing in fiction, that's cool, more power to you.  But if you expect anyone else to buy in to that absurdity, you better back it up with some good evidence.  For some reason the path most Flatheads have taken is to not present any evidence at all.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sextants?

« on: March 08, 2010, 11:01:38 AM »

So no FE disproved how the sextant is believed to work?

Considering geometry works the same way in FE theory and RE theory I don't see how that is a problem.

Just because you say it works the same in Fantasy Earth and is does on Real Earth, that doesn't make it so.

On Real Earth, the sun goes below the horizon, and you can use a sextant to measure teh angle of the sun as it drops below the horizon.  On Fantasy Earth the sun magically appears to go below the horizon without ever actually doing so.  Maybe it does this with bendy light or whatever, but however it does so, it does not do so with the same geometry as on Real Earth.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Boosting the ISS

« on: March 05, 2010, 03:41:01 PM »

Not so fast Sir Pierce!  A levitating frog is check and mate, I believe!


Another win for FE!

heheheh okay I get it now... yeah you had me going there for a while...!

is there anyone on this board that actually believes in the Flat Earth?

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Boosting the ISS

« on: March 05, 2010, 12:56:09 PM »

Because there is no way to explain it.

Your words, not mine.  I suggested magnets.  Maybe we weren't watching the same video? 

There is no way to explain it WITHIN THE FLAT EARTH HYPOTHESIS.

Magnets?  Uh okay, show me something even close to that that uses magnets.  Maybe we were watching different videos.  The one I saw showed 2 1/2 minutes of a very large tricked out camera seemingly floating in mid-air AND a person doing the same thing.  I've never seen a trick like that done on earth using magnets.

The only way to explain this is the reasonable explanation given to us, and that is they are in orbit.  When the station begins to accelerate, everything that is not tied down begins to move in the same direction.  That's not even something you could do in an aeroplane flying parabolas (That the footage is so long *and* so stable disproves that explanation anyways).

Come up with whatever explanation you want, but you have to back it up with evidence.  You might as well suggest they used magic faerie dust.

There are many many ways to do this.  There is the vomit comet parabolic flight airplane (because NASA makes the best airplanes) that could easily fit the room he was in.

You're right, gosh why didn't I think of that, I really should have addressed that.  OH WAIT I DID.  Seriously, did you even read what I wrote?

Find me Vomit Comet footage that is:
1. As long as the footage we see from this ISS video.
2. is as stable as the footage we see from this ISS video.
3. accelerates in the middle of the footage without falling out of the parabolic arc.

Sorry, the Vomit Comet simply can't fly in parabolic arcs for even half that long before it has to pull up (at which point the "gravity" goes from 0 G to 2 G and everything that isn't tied down hits the floor hard), nor can the Vomit Comet fly in such a perfect parabolic arc that the footage is so stable, especially when it has to accelerate in the middle of the manouvre to simulate the effect of accelerating in orbit.

Try a little harder next time, you're back to square one and stuck with faerie dust as the only reasonable explanation (other than the real answer: They are in orbit)

Hey at least you aren't dismissing it as CGI and citing a terrible movie like Space Cowboys as the ultimate example of faked zero g footage.

I did read it but I forgot.    And then I remembered this animal experimentation!

 

As to something that comes close to that using magnets:
http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.ACCT88394/it.A/id.951/.f?sc=2&category=47

So basically you got nothin'..

A 20 second video showing just how short a ride on the Vomit Comet, not to mention how unstable the ride is, nothing can keep still for very long.  Thank you so much for providing me the evidence to make my case.  And a magnet that can levitate 4 ounces?  Wow, that's like one step away from levitating a 180 pound man that isn't made out of a material which would react to magnets.

Again, thanks for making my case.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Space research

« on: March 05, 2010, 12:24:46 PM »

"Science is what we do to keep from lying to ourselves."

- Richard Feynman

14

Flat Earth General / Re: Space research

« on: March 05, 2010, 11:40:02 AM »

Yes, I agree. But however, why have a fake space program? Why lie to the whole world? Just because a real space program is more expensive?

If you're going to con someone for money you have to start by lying about something.  This is just the Conspiracy's particular racket.

But why go to the trouble of creating such an elaborate fiction to funnel a measly 15 billion dollars a year when it would be so easy to debunk the fakery since it's based on a complete fiction.

Why not do it the old fashion way and start a war.  Heck that way you don't even have to create a complete fiction.  The government funnels half a trillion dollars in to that racket and you don't have to spend time and money creating something that is completely fake.  Not to mention they have hundreds of years of experience pulling off that racket.  This NASA-is-fake Conspiracy crap just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

There is ZERO evidence that The Conspiracy exists.  There is tonnes of evidence that shows the space program is real in the form of tens of thousands of photographs, hundreds of hours of video, thousands of documents;  none of which has ever been shown to be fake.

The only reason The Conspiracy exists is to explain away all of that evidence to satisfy the need of the Fantasy Earth theory which demands that space travel is impossible.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Boosting the ISS

« on: March 05, 2010, 10:37:10 AM »

But the blue screen effect is somewhat 1990's, no?

Chroma-keying out reflections in a realistic way costs as much as what the nasa gets each year. So this was the nasa's trick this year...What about the rest of the footages? They must be real, otherwise the conspiracy would be losing money.

Oh and I forgot to mention that bluescreens are mostly replaced by greenscreens these days (we're in the year 2010, in case you didn't know). Bluescreen is a term used for computererrors inflicting hardware.

I'm sure NASA is outsourcing all of it's CG work to India by now just like James Cameron did with lots of the footage from Avatar.  The whole of Bollywood is part of The Conspiracy, I'm sure.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Boosting the ISS

« on: March 05, 2010, 10:34:05 AM »

Because there is no way to explain it.

Your words, not mine.  I suggested magnets.  Maybe we weren't watching the same video? 

There is no way to explain it WITHIN THE FLAT EARTH HYPOTHESIS.

Magnets?  Uh okay, show me something even close to that that uses magnets.  Maybe we were watching different videos.  The one I saw showed 2 1/2 minutes of a very large tricked out camera seemingly floating in mid-air AND a person doing the same thing.  I've never seen a trick like that done on earth using magnets.

The only way to explain this is the reasonable explanation given to us, and that is they are in orbit.  When the station begins to accelerate, everything that is not tied down begins to move in the same direction.  That's not even something you could do in an aeroplane flying parabolas (That the footage is so long *and* so stable disproves that explanation anyways).

Come up with whatever explanation you want, but you have to back it up with evidence.  You might as well suggest they used magic faerie dust.

There are many many ways to do this.  There is the vomit comet parabolic flight airplane (because NASA makes the best airplanes) that could easily fit the room he was in.

You're right, gosh why didn't I think of that, I really should have addressed that.  OH WAIT I DID.  Seriously, did you even read what I wrote?

Find me Vomit Comet footage that is:
1. As long as the footage we see from this ISS video.
2. is as stable as the footage we see from this ISS video.
3. accelerates in the middle of the footage without falling out of the parabolic arc.

Sorry, the Vomit Comet simply can't fly in parabolic arcs for even half that long before it has to pull up (at which point the "gravity" goes from 0 G to 2 G and everything that isn't tied down hits the floor hard), nor can the Vomit Comet fly in such a perfect parabolic arc that the footage is so stable, especially when it has to accelerate in the middle of the manouvre to simulate the effect of accelerating in orbit.

Try a little harder next time, you're back to square one and stuck with faerie dust as the only reasonable explanation (other than the real answer: They are in orbit)

Hey at least you aren't dismissing it as CGI and citing a terrible movie like Space Cowboys as the ultimate example of faked zero g footage.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Buzz Aldrin would not like this

« on: March 05, 2010, 10:10:32 AM »

Buzz is well known for being one of the most open of all the men who have been on the moon, he has done hundreds of interviews over the years.  His story never changes.  I've heard occasionally that Neil Armstrong's stoic nature and unwillingness to grant interviews as evidence of fakery, but Armstrong is the exception, not the rule.  Buzz is the opposite and is willing to talk to anyone (even Ali G!)...

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Boosting the ISS

« on: March 05, 2010, 10:05:34 AM »

Because there is no way to explain it.

Your words, not mine.  I suggested magnets.  Maybe we weren't watching the same video? 

There is no way to explain it WITHIN THE FLAT EARTH HYPOTHESIS.

Magnets?  Uh okay, show me something even close to that that uses magnets.  Maybe we were watching different videos.  The one I saw showed 2 1/2 minutes of a very large tricked out camera seemingly floating in mid-air AND a person doing the same thing.  I've never seen a trick like that done on earth using magnets.

The only way to explain this is the reasonable explanation given to us, and that is they are in orbit.  When the station begins to accelerate, everything that is not tied down begins to move in the same direction.  That's not even something you could do in an aeroplane flying parabolas (That the footage is so long *and* so stable disproves that explanation anyways).

Come up with whatever explanation you want, but you have to back it up with evidence.  You might as well suggest they used magic faerie dust.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Why doesn't the Atmosphere spill over the side of the Earth?

« on: March 05, 2010, 05:15:44 AM »

So aparently this 150 foot ice wall that surrounds the whole world keeps the water from spilling over the edge, but what keeps the Atmosphere from doing the same?



It goes pretty high up, higher than 150 feet, I'm pretty sure.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: How NASA FAKED the moon landings!

« on: March 05, 2010, 05:02:07 AM »

i like how they dont mention that they have no scientific need to actually waste billions of dollars into going into space.

they didnt make it first, whats the point in making it second?  Do they have some sort of experiment to do?  Is there the cure for hunger up there?  Alternative fuel source?

Who in their right mind would spend billions of dollars to go to an atmospheric wasteland thats ALREADY been explored/experimented on? They have all that they need already in forms of space trave/orbit, who would go to the moon?

EDIT: the site spends a lot of time mentioning soviets never going on the moon, and the fact that there is no point in doing so is never mentioned.

Given NASA's fairly pawlty budget of 15 to 20 million billion (compared to the half trillion thrown at defense each year, and these Flatheads think NASA is the racket!) I think the money is far better spent on stuff like Cassini and Hubble (how do the Flatheads integrate the THOUSANDS of amazing images from just those two programmes in to their absurd Fantasy Earth? I would love to know!)... There are some good reasons to go back to the moon, the energy potential of Helium-3 might make it worth it.  Additionally if we ever do want to send people to Mars and beyond, the moon is a good place to start with a permanent base, launching to mars from the moon is a lot easier, takes a lot less fuel than launching from the surface of the Earth.

Fixed.  BTW, Obama essentially killed NASA return to the moon program.

Thank you for reminding me why I voted for him!  Thanks for fixing my million/billion error.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: Boosting the ISS

« on: March 05, 2010, 05:00:39 AM »

It's pretty cool what they can do with magnets.  But the blue screen effect is somewhat 1990's, no?   Notice the closed set for filming, and all the fancy tricked out cameras, a total inside joke. 

You probably don't even know what that "fancy tricked out" camera is for.  You know what I noticed?  I noticed that fancy tricked out camera FLOATING IN MIDAIR.  Yeah, strange you didn't actually address that part.  Gee, I wonder why?  Because there is no way to explain it.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sextants?

« on: March 05, 2010, 04:59:05 AM »

You RE folks accept, I guess, Einsteinian physics, despite Newtonian physics being used for day to day things, like artillery and falling out of a window.

So it should come as no surprise that a sextant can be thought of as a round earth with stars and junk, but in reality involves bendy light and a flat earth to keep right angles together and gravity in line.

A closed mind will never find the bendy quark.

Well thanks for reminding me that your Flatheads don't actually understand Einsteinian physics or what a quark is.  You know you don't understand it, that's why you use it to justify your whacked out theories because you are hoping no one else will understand it! 

23

Flat Earth General / Re: How NASA FAKED the moon landings!

« on: March 04, 2010, 08:26:07 PM »

i like how they dont mention that they have no scientific need to actually waste billions of dollars into going into space.

they didnt make it first, whats the point in making it second?  Do they have some sort of experiment to do?  Is there the cure for hunger up there?  Alternative fuel source?

Who in their right mind would spend billions of dollars to go to an atmospheric wasteland thats ALREADY been explored/experimented on? They have all that they need already in forms of space trave/orbit, who would go to the moon?

EDIT: the site spends a lot of time mentioning soviets never going on the moon, and the fact that there is no point in doing so is never mentioned.

Given NASA's fairly pawlty budget of 15 to 20 billion (compared to the half trillion thrown at defense each year, and these Flatheads think NASA is the racket!) I think the money is far better spent on stuff like Cassini and Hubble (how do the Flatheads integrate the THOUSANDS of amazing images from just those two programmes in to their absurd Fantasy Earth? I would love to know!)... There are some good reasons to go back to the moon, the energy potential of Helium-3 might make it worth it.  Additionally if we ever do want to send people to Mars and beyond, the moon is a good place to start with a permanent base, launching to mars from the moon is a lot easier, takes a lot less fuel than launching from the surface of the Earth.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sextants?

« on: March 04, 2010, 10:24:07 AM »

I outline it in this thread a couple of pages back, but here's the link to the main discussion of it:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=35823.40

The thread contains some very good examples of flat guys pretending not to understand the concept because it's absolutely uncounterable.

Uncounterable isn't a word.

Then why did I know what it meant?

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: parallax

« on: March 03, 2010, 08:32:08 PM »

Can a FEer explain this phemomenon to me?

I don't expect to understand this in terms of wobble, since there is such a wide range of observable parallax (from about 1 parsec to about 200 parsec; i.e. 23 orders of magnitude).  Perhaps the stars swing on long cables suspended from something even more mysterious?

Well, I used the search function to see if I could get an answer to this very question.  Sure enough I couldn't find an answer, but I did find the question popping up every once in a while.  So why, not, any Flathead care to take this question on?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can you explain:

« on: March 03, 2010, 02:31:23 PM »

And our observations of stellar parallax??

I think we have to assume Tom has no idea what that is, nor any other Flathead.. Good luck getting an explanation on that one.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Use Yer Eyes...

« on: March 03, 2010, 02:08:38 PM »

Considering you told me it was CG before posting it...hmmm, let me think...and how do you know Mars exists, by the way? I'm guessing through a NASA pic? 

OK, I'm getting a more accurate picture of your world view...is Earth the only flat planet then? How would that lack of uniformity in our solar system be explained?

You can observe Mars for yourself through a telescope...no NASA needed.

I observed the ISS through a telescope by myself, without the aid of NASA... But no Flathead has told me how such a thing is possible...

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sextants?

« on: March 03, 2010, 02:05:45 PM »

We're going to use a value based on the curvature of the Earth to, in the long run, disprove the curvature of the Earth?

How cool would that be? 

BTW why is the bendy light debate still going on when my angular distance of stars post adequately crushes it out of existence? Wilmore didn't even comment on it, which is a sure sign that he can't counter it. He never misses an opportunity to put me down.

Can you post a link to that thread, I would be interested in checking it out.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Why?

« on: March 03, 2010, 06:05:50 AM »

Please. Did you know that so far the ISS has cost about $150 billion? In fact, it's the most expensive object ever built. This is not small change we're talking about here.

So you are admitting that it was built?

Well THAT explains why I was able to see it with my own eye through a telescope!

Thanks for clearing that up!

30

Flat Earth General / Re: Why?

« on: March 03, 2010, 06:03:50 AM »

...it's well known that NASA have gaping holes in their accounts which they have been unable to explain.

Oh, that's an interesting claim, would you care to elaborate?  Tell us about some of these gaping holes, please...