1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FES doesn't want to know the shape of the Earth

« on: March 04, 2010, 06:50:13 AM »

Can't get a digital photo and throw it on your PC that way?

Actually yeah, I'll try and do this tonight. The only thing is that the images in the book are on 'shiny' paper, so it might be difficult to get a decent photo at night. In any event, I'll take a snap and post it this evening.

There's this thing called a light.  Turn it on before you take your picture.  If you own a computer and a scanner, I'm pretty sure you can afford lights.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Let's try explaining tides again!

« on: March 04, 2010, 06:23:23 AM »

When we say RE we mean REAL. Silly willy.

NICE!

Looks like another win for Real Earth.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: space flight for the public.

« on: March 03, 2010, 07:16:13 AM »

You could drag all their asses to the moon, point to the Earth and say "See, it's round." and they'd still come up with some bullshit excuse.  They expect a mountain of evidence for a round earth, dismiss that entire mountain by coming up with crazy explanations, and take their crazy explanations as fact without any evidence whatsoever.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Digital camera/Weather balloon experiment

« on: March 03, 2010, 07:07:16 AM »

At the edge of the atmosphere the balloon is looking down at the distant curved edges of the sun's spot of light upon the earth.

Take another look at that picture.  Doesn't it seem kinda strange that the sun's spot of light is brightest around the edges?  That doesn't fit with real world experience, does it?  Last time I checked, it doesn't get brighter around sunset.

If you look at the previous page, you'd see that I already addressed this.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Digital camera/Weather balloon experiment

« on: March 02, 2010, 08:25:33 PM »

OK, now that we have the picture of Earth with the tangent line, I believe anyone looking at it can draw their own conclusions.  Debating whether or not you see a curve is pointless.

However, it does seem strange that the FEers who don't see a curve aren't posting this picture (including the tangent line) all over the place saying "ZOMG WE FINALLY HAVE SOME EVIDENCE!!!!"

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Digital camera/Weather balloon experiment

« on: March 02, 2010, 12:43:22 PM »

Start at the intersection of the line and Earth's surface

The boundary between the Earth and space is not clear, and nor is the supposed curvature of the Earth.

Also notice that everyone sees the curvature but you.

Looks pretty flat to me.

Notice how he cleverly put the posts out of chronological order.  Looks like someone's getting desperate.

At any rate, I don't really need to convince you that the horizon isn't straight.  Anyone else who sees this can judge for themselves.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Digital camera/Weather balloon experiment

« on: March 02, 2010, 12:17:38 PM »

All I can see is a line seemingly intersecting some cloud or atmolayeric gasses. The boundary between the Earth and space is not clear, and nor is the supposed curvature of the Earth.

Take a look at the one that's not zoomed in, bro.

And?

Start at the intersection of the line and Earth's surface (near the middle).  As you move up the line, the surface of Earth separates increasingly from the line.  Same thing happens in the other direction.  Since this happens so smoothly, clouds aren't really a valid excuse.

Also notice that everyone sees the curvature but you.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Let's try explaining tides again!

« on: March 02, 2010, 12:06:00 PM »

Please, there are loads of RE models. Don't be so hypocritcal.

ORLY? Not as far as I'm aware. Show me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_earth#Early_history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_earth#Concave_hollow_Earths

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_Earth_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysical_global_cooling

Earth is a spherical planet, orbiting the sun while spinning on a slightly tilted axis with a moon orbiting Earth.  That's 1 theory that manages to explain everything related, without contradicting itself, and without needing any bullshit conspiracy theories.

Now where's my Nobel Prize?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Digital camera/Weather balloon experiment

« on: March 02, 2010, 07:22:53 AM »

All I can see is a line seemingly intersecting some cloud or atmolayeric gasses. The boundary between the Earth and space is not clear, and nor is the supposed curvature of the Earth.

Take a look at the one that's not zoomed in, bro.

At the edge of the atmosphere balloon is looking down at the distant curved edges of the sun's spot of light upon the earth.

Seems strange that the edge of the sun's spot of light is also the brightest part.  That's not really consistent with our real-world experience, is it?  Note for the slow: it gets darker around sunset.

Your pseudoscience has just been ruined by Microsoft Paint.  Get over it.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Let's try explaining tides again!

« on: March 02, 2010, 07:11:52 AM »

Well I'm a HE'er (Hollow Earth Theory Believer) rather than a FE'er, but assuming their model of a flat earth is as simple as it seems, the tides could easily be explained by a gentle rocking back and forth motion, a gentle swirl even, of the platelet.

With the hollow earth theory, the moon (and to a lesser degree, the sun) create a drag on the water, pulling it back so to speak, while the general rotation of the hollow earth keeps the water pressed down upon the inner surface upon which we are held against by the same centrifugal, or as some suggest, centripital, force.

Note that when the moon is full, the tides are at their highest and lowest, and that the higher tides are always at night, which just happens to coincide with the full moon being on that same side of the planet right at night (note the moon only 'rises' more or less at sunset when it is full).

A "gentle swirl" wouldn't be a valid explanation because that wouldn't make the correct tidal pattern.  It would also make tides much higher and lower in the Southern hemisphere, which isn't the case.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Space research

« on: March 01, 2010, 08:20:25 PM »

So the NASA build rockets that can fly 3 km, leave them somewhere in the air for a while and then bring them back after a year or so with some fake pictures of the earth while they are having a secret agreement with a whole lot of people to shut up about the earth being flat? That doesn't sound cheap to me. Exploring space and discovering the earth is round is actually a lot cheaper.

Why would they build rockets that can fly off, just for the purpose of scamming the world? Why couldn't they come up with a story about a big universe above the FLAT earth? Please, tell me why. These fake photos of the round earth would cost the conspiricy more money, right? Why would they spend money on covering lies that weren't even necessairy in the first place? People would have believed it with the FLAT earth story, I repeat:
- It would be cheaper.
- They would be pulling off a smaller lie.

With that post, you just destroyed what little credibility their conspiracy theory had.  Commends.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Space research

« on: March 01, 2010, 08:14:35 PM »

So rockets and spaceshuttles are built to look at, astronauts landing on the earth after half a year in space fake being pushed to the ground due to gravity, videos of people in space being weightless are recorded in a 'special' room and so on and so on?

Yes.  The Conspiracy is very greedy, and "space exploration" has proven to be a cash cow for them.

Only not as much of a cash cow as you'd think because they have to bribe Sirius/XM employees, everyone who maintains the GPS system, meteorologists, Satellite TV companies, and satellite phone companies to pretend to use "satellites".  They also have to bribe every airline pilot to organize the length of their flights in a way that makes Earth look round.  They have to do all of this in a way such that not one of the many people involved betrays them and tells the truth, which would certainly earn him fame, fortune, and prestige.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Digital camera/Weather balloon experiment

« on: March 01, 2010, 07:56:00 PM »

The picture was supposedly taken at 93,000 feet, and yet I still don't see any curvature.

Here's the same picture only I added a tangent line.  There's definitely a little bit of curvature, you can't really deny that without looking stupid.  You can compare this picture to the original and add your own tangent line to confirm that the tangent line's straight and that I didn't edit the original.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Digital camera/Weather balloon experiment

« on: March 01, 2010, 04:01:22 PM »

Moved to Q&A. We've seen this kind of thing before, and in all honesty I don't see what it proves about either theory.

If Earth is a flat circle, the pictures coming back should show flat stuff until it gets high enough to see the ice wall.

If Earth is a sphere, it should gradually show more and more curvature as the weather balloon rises into the upper atmosphere.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Coriolis Effect?

« on: March 01, 2010, 03:49:48 PM »

OK, can we please move past toilets?

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Let's try explaining tides again!

« on: March 01, 2010, 03:42:18 PM »

The tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon and submoon.

WRONG!  Your FAQ clearly states that the moon is a spotlight, 32 miles in diameter.  A spotlight of that size couldn't possibly have enough mass to make a gravitational field strong enough to affect the tides.

Even if it could, it wouldn't make the tidal pattern that exists on Earth (high tide on opposite sides with low tide in between).

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Let's try explaining tides again!

« on: March 01, 2010, 02:08:49 PM »

2 low tides and 2 high tides have passed since this was posted, and the FEers are still stumped.

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Coriolis Effect?

« on: March 01, 2010, 12:13:19 PM »

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18646.msg849489#msg849489

Tom's explanation is flawed.  In Tom's model, the Coriolis effect would be most prominent at the North pole and halfway down the Southern hemisphere.  In reality, the Coriolis effect becomes more prominent as you get closer to either pole.

You'll need to imagine a better explanation.

I'd certainly be very interested in your observations of the effect and I'd be surprised if I were the only one interested.  If you're so inclined, please provide as much data as you have.  I've never been south of the equator and my only observations are mostly just of the prevailing westerlies at about the 35th parallel N.

I'm gonna go to Australia the first chance I get (mostly for surfing, but I'll squeeze in a Coriolis experiment just for you).  Until then, a peer-reviewed University article will have to do, even though I'm almost positive you're gonna call it a conspiracy of every single professor that saw it.  http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/%28Gh%29/guides/mtr/fw/crls.rxml

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Coriolis Effect?

« on: March 01, 2010, 11:47:50 AM »

Let's not forget that the wind gears still don't explain the fact that liquids draining from a tank are affected by the Coriolis effect.  If you read the wiki article at the top of the page, you can confirm that this experiment has been done.  If you still don't believe it, the wiki article has a link to the peer-reviewed experiment. 

If a scientist were to conduct this experiment and find that the Coriolis effect does not affect liquids, he wouldn't want to cover it up.  Such a discovery would be Nobel Prize material.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Coriolis Effect?

« on: March 01, 2010, 11:32:42 AM »

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18646.msg849489#msg849489

Tom's explanation is flawed.  In Tom's model, the Coriolis effect would be most prominent at the North pole and halfway down the Southern hemisphere.  In reality, the Coriolis effect becomes more prominent as you get closer to either pole.

You'll need to imagine a better explanation.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Let's try explaining tides again!

« on: March 01, 2010, 11:16:27 AM »

I'm gonna say its probably gonna fall under the anti sun and moon that are on the under side of the world. Or is the anti moon above us?

The antimoon's above us.  It's between the sun & moon according to the FAQ, but the FEers on this post: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=35618.0 say it's just below the moon. 

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Coriolis Effect?

« on: March 01, 2010, 10:53:53 AM »

Still, nobody has explained how this rotating firmament, gears, or churning rocks under the Earth affects the direction air above the earth rotates.

Not to mention the lack of evidence of any of the 3

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Coriolis Effect?

« on: March 01, 2010, 05:03:19 AM »

You're wrong.  The Coriolis Force has no effect on our toilets.

Ofcourse not toilets

Obviously, the water in that sink has been bribed by NASA.  

Thanks for the vindication.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Illumination of the Earth

« on: February 28, 2010, 09:27:37 PM »

Florida, USA, 5:30 GMT, it's dark.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Let's try explaining tides again!

« on: February 28, 2010, 09:09:23 PM »

Also remember that when it's high tide on one side of the Earth, it's low tide on the opposite side.

Here's a link clarifying what I meant by "tide at a given location," look at the tide chart halfway down the page.  http://www.surfline.com/surfline/forecasts4/forecast_blog.cfm?month=8&year=2008

No it isn't. It's high tide on both sides and low in between. Learn your own theory please.

My mistake.  Deleted.

Now that we've established the right tidal pattern, the FE explanation of tides must explain why, when it's high tide on opposite sides of the Earth, it's low tide in between.

Here's the link to that tide chart again (about halfway down): http://www.surfline.com/surfline/forecasts4/forecast_blog.cfm?month=8&year=2008

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Why?

« on: February 28, 2010, 09:05:56 PM »

Space agencies get money from tax dollars.

If I were in on the conspiracy, I'd sell out and live off of my Nobel prize money.

It seems like a lot of people would have to be in on this conspiracy, considering they have to fake XM, Sirius, TV and GPS satellites.  Are you saying that not one of those people thought to do this?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Coriolis Effect?

« on: February 28, 2010, 08:57:33 PM »

Roundy is right. Toilets are not influence by the Coriolis Effect. As for Tornados, it has something to do with gears under the Earth I think.

Gears under the Earth?  How could that appreciably change the direction air moves? Are these gears man-made, or naturally-occurring?  I've never seen a gear form naturally, and for it to be man-made, it must have been built without anybody seeing it.  To build a machine on that magnitude, secretly, would be so expensive that it defies any conspiracy theory (the tax dollars going to NASA couldn't possibly pay for that).

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Let's try explaining tides again!

« on: February 28, 2010, 08:08:51 PM »

Round Earth Theory: tides are caused by the gravity of the moon.

Flat Earth Theory: The moon is a spotlight, 32 miles in diameter.

How does FET explain tides?  Keep in mind that tides are synchronized perfectly with the moon's orbit, and the "height" of high tide changes with time in a given location.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about the Coriolis Effect?

« on: February 28, 2010, 07:51:04 PM »

You're wrong.  The Coriolis Force has no effect on our toilets.

That doesn't change the fact that it affects hurricanes, tornadoes and wind currents.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / What about the Coriolis Effect?

« on: February 28, 2010, 07:42:14 PM »

The Coriolis Effect causes tornadoes, hurricanes, flushing toilets etc. to rotate counterclockwise in the Northern hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern hemisphere. 

More on the Coriolis force: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effect 
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/coriolis_effect.html

With a flat earth, if the flat disk is spinning, the Coriolis effect would cause all these things to spin in the same direction.  The only way to make hurricanes in the Southern hemisphere spin clockwise with a flat earth is if the Southern hemisphere were rotating the opposite direction of the Northern hemisphere.  If this were the case, there would be obvious evidence (there isn't).

This brings us to 2 possible conclusions:
1.  Every single hurricane, tornado, toilet and wind current since the dawn of time is part of the Conspiracy.
2.  Earth is round.

If you choose the former, be prepared to explain how inanimate objects were convinced to join the conspiracy.