1

Flat Earth Believers / Flat Earth News

« on: October 17, 2006, 09:30:03 PM »

Dionysios - I guess, you're right.  That's pretty cool.

Anyway, I do have all the issues scanned.  If anyone wants them, just email me at [email protected].  I already sent them to Daniel, but haven't heard back as to his plans to post, etc.

They are in .pdf format.  It's all in 1 file that's almost 11 MB.  Let me know.

2

Flat Earth Believers / Flat Earth News

« on: September 23, 2006, 09:02:17 PM »

I was a memmber of the FES under Charles Johnson.  I finally went to my storage area and found the old copies of the Flat Earth News that I saved.  I could only find 10 issues from the 1991-1992 area, numbers 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 87, 88&89 (that's one issue), plus the top of the membership form, plus my membership certificate (signed by the Johnsons), plus a photocopy of an article in the Herald Examiner from 1978 about the Johnsons also signed by him.

I will scan them this week and send them to Daniel who plans to make them available online.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Question about the bottom for FE believers...

« on: September 05, 2006, 07:37:32 PM »

What's under the Earth?  The water of the great deep which extend downwards infinitely.  I still don't understand why some FE'ers here are saying that the Earth accelerates upward.  It doesn't need to in order to explain gravity or the atmospehere.  There is no space in the way the science religion preaches it.  Otherwise the atmosphere would be sucked into space.  Up is up and down is down.  Simple as that.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Why was my refutation banned?

« on: September 04, 2006, 10:09:54 PM »

I tried to send a great FE refutation to the topic "Debunking the Single Piece of Evidence for a Flat Earth" but it said I was banned from that forum.  Seeing I can't find an email of an adminstrator, I am asking the question here.  Is it because they don't really want an answer and can boast that no one was able to refute them?  Who really runs this site?  Or am I missing something?  I'm a long time member, but haven't visited here in a long time.  So I may be unfamiliar with the ins and outs.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Questions without answers

« on: September 04, 2006, 09:58:30 PM »

I forgot to respond to the "Coincidentally, this meeting is an effect of the curvature of the Earth's surface. "

Everyone knows that the train tracks meeting illusion is due to perspective, not curvature.  Where did you get that idea?  Not even RE'ers believe that!

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Questions without answers

« on: September 04, 2006, 09:28:47 PM »

Rowbotham's exact theory isn't used anymore; to quote the page linked to on the faq:
Sure doesn't sound like the model described in the same faq, so let's not bring him into this debate.

     I don't necessarily agree with the other FE'ers on this site.  I tend to agree with Rowbotham.  

And while you've probably never seen a ship's mast disappear, everyone's seen the same phenomenom with buildings; a skyscraper's top can be seen from a much greater distance than its base, even if there are no other tall buildings surrounding it.

     If you can tell me of a skyscraper that has no other buildings around it, no trees, no hills (on a totally flat plain), no houses, no other objects of any kind between it and you when you stand at a distance away from it equal to the horizon, please tell me where it is.  This would truly be an anomaly.  This could be such a great experiment!  However, I bet you can't.  I bet any skyscraper would have those kinds of things in the way, obstructing its base.  I bet you just repeated another worthless bit of propaganda you learned from the spinning ball science religion.  Too bad!

Coincidentally, this meeting is an effect of the curvature of the Earth's surface. [/quote]

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Questions without answers

« on: September 04, 2006, 09:18:45 PM »

This doesn't explain the sun sinking below the horizon.

     It's called perspective.  You should have learned about somewhere in your school, you know the place that you went to on the short bus.



What causes gravity and holds in the atmosphere, then?

     Gravity is just a name given to a fact of nature.  Up is up and down is down.  There is no force holding us down like magnets.  If the Earth were spinning 1000 mph, and the reason we don't get flung off is "gravity," then if it were so strong as to keep us firm on the Earth, we would not be able to even lift our feet to take a step.  Also, if space is a vacuum, then the atmosphere would be sucked into space.  Any science experiment involving a vacuum will prove what happens when the vaccum's seal is broken.  Air gets sucked into it (much in the way that you have been sucked into the spinning ball theory).  
     Not to mention that if the sun's gravitational pull (in the RE model) were strong enough to prevent the Earth from going off in one direction, then it woud pull the Earth toward itself and burn it up.  It wouldn't keep the Earth in orbit, as if it had a on/off switch that would let go of the Earth at times and the turn on the pull at other times.  It's silly when you think about it.


Um, douchebag, many people, INCLUDING MYSELF, have witnessed that very effect. Rowbotham's explanation is utterly fallacious.[/quote]

     First of all, you are a real class act.  Secondly, I doubt you stood on a beach just waiting all day for a ship to happen to travel directly at you over the horizon.  Thirdly, if you did, then surely the swells of the ocean would have obstructed your view of the base of the ship until it came closer to you.  Again, the water vapor in the air and light refraction over that distance with such a small object would prevent a clear picture of reality.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Explain This Know it all FEers

« on: September 04, 2006, 08:46:23 PM »

If you're travelling in a circle around the north pole in the RE, and you're travelling in a circle around the north pole in the FE, then what the heck is the difference?!?!?!

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Questions without answers

« on: September 04, 2006, 08:41:30 PM »

The sun going away from us seems to meet the horizon in the same way that train tracks "seem" to meet.  You don't really believe that tracks meet, do you?  As the sun gets further away, refraction takes place which alters the image of the sun.  This is all the same as in the RE model.

I differ from others I have read from on this site in that I don't believe in an ice wall or that it's accelerating upwards.  I believe the Earth is limitless and imoveable.  The ice surrounding the known world is ice because the sun doesn't shine above it.  The water that surrounds the known dry land therefore is ice as far as you can go.  But as you can imagine, one cannot go too far, as one would freeze to death.

As for the reason the FE is suppressed, it is because the atheists (and satanists) had to come up with an explanation for our existence without God in the picture.  

AND, no one has ever seen a ship's mast appear first on the horizon.  That is a much-repeated cliche, by people who have never experienced it.  Rowbotham disproved that fallacy, anyway.  Besides, refraction and mist would interfere with vision at that great a distance.

Trust your eyes instead of the science religion priests.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Explain This Know it all FEers

« on: September 04, 2006, 08:17:54 PM »

GeoGuy is right.  If you travel from one point on the RE model in a straight line, you will go into space.  Imagine a rule touching a basket ball.  That is a straight line.  In order to go around the RE, you need to go in a circle (i.e. make turns).  

Even pilots us a north polar projection map, which is really the FE map.  Plus, physicists and other scientists use what is called a beta map for calculations.  It is the FE map also.  It is more accurate because it is the true model.