1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight times experiment

« on: June 15, 2007, 08:43:59 PM »

why are you bumping his bump

So I could inquiry as to his purpose and objective in bumping.

I believe he's trying to get an anwser? After all, the evasion skill of most FE'ers seems to be insanely high when it comes to a good topic.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of FE

« on: March 26, 2007, 08:18:52 PM »

Why are you just repeating my proof? I already said the world is flat. flat like your mom.

Your poof is about as good as when RE'ers provide a picture of a round earth.  I'm sorry you fail to spearhead real proof of a FE.  Please try again.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: moon light

« on: March 25, 2007, 11:54:47 PM »

Do not be so arrogant as to believe that you can "shoot me down."

Then anwser my original post here AND ramens instead of trying to change the subject.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: moon light

« on: March 25, 2007, 11:33:11 PM »

Stop dodging the point, Francerty.

He's done that to me everytime I shoot him down.  Don't feel bad though after a while you relize as you make the post its just one of those dodge questions and start not caring.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: moon light

« on: March 23, 2007, 10:30:13 PM »

Get outta this board, sociopath.

In your imortal words...  "reported"

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: moon light

« on: March 23, 2007, 06:03:30 PM »

I have never seen any government in other species. If you do, please submit a scientific paper on it and it will be revolutionary.

So then I take it you speak animal? I mean thats the only way to know that they dont have a government...  So when did you learn to speak it?  Can you teach me?  Why wasn't this in the papers?

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: moon light

« on: March 22, 2007, 06:40:34 PM »

1. Don't you cough no bullshit at me. Why does Antarctica exist, according to RE theory?
2. They do send things in orbit, but with the goal of deploying space weapons to use against foreign lands and their own citizens.

Ok kid. Time to shut you down for good. AND I'll use a FE'er thread to do it. 

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=5829.0

Yep. Thats right, his last picture proves theres nothing behind the ice wall. While you're at it read his WHOLE post.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: moon light

« on: March 22, 2007, 06:29:04 PM »

Since Mr. Bishop is the most admirable FEer on this board, I would be honoured to be called his kin.

There there...  We'll get social services on the phone to take you away from that family.  In the mean time  please don't ignore my post. I know you have a level 0 evasion skill.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: moon light

« on: March 22, 2007, 06:24:02 PM »

Franc, isn't your typical fe'er... And according to him they're small suns... How he knows they exist is beyond me.

This true....  With his current statements I'm tempted to dub him Tom Bishop Jr.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: moon light

« on: March 22, 2007, 06:13:33 PM »

Alright  I hate to break into this awesome (not) debate, but Franc I can't you continue to make a fool of yourself....  Even if I get a laugh out of it.  Lemme start by giving you a tip before tearing apart your points and I'll go slow so you understand.

Flat.... Earthers.....Use.....The.......Same......Story.....Unless.......Their.......Tom.........Bishop.

You.....Are......Not........Tom........Bishop.

Now then, with that out of the way. I'd like to bring up your earlier statement that the sun is farther away then the moon.  See the FE FAQ claims their the same distance away, here lemme get a quote.

"Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall.Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions."

Hmmm seems like your fellow FE'ers seem to have figured this out and either not informed you or you've just ignored it like they ignore our intelligent questions. But lets just say for a minute your right. It WOULD require something close to the picture posted earlier AND magentos (who was in the picture) help which I notice you've failed to say he's not involved at all...

And not only are there 7 suns but there made of feta?  Come on man, my cat can think of better stuff and hes an animal. The suns are made of hydrogen and perform a thing called Fusion with it which creates helium. Look it up. And also look up how we're trying to attempt fusion. Still don't believe it? Well, hey heres a thought. Go try it and let us know how it goes, we'll be waiting.

 Now anyways 7 suns, you relize how hot that would make our planet right?  And god knows what they'd do to the ice wall... Not to mention that unless you have 6 of those "dark spots" or what ever was the rage back in febuary to explain the moons cycles, that it's impossible to hide them.  Now if you meant 6 stars and the sun I'd be quick to point out theres far more then 6 stars in the sky AND I can see them from where I am.

By the way, before you try to point out the sun isnt a star I'm going to bring up how super novas and created from stars which perform Fusion, which is what our sun does and they both make like and heat!

Oh and your new thing about emigration...  you do know theres nothing behind the Ice wall except space right? Least according to other Fe'ers.

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Of course we all agree...

« on: March 22, 2007, 05:41:27 PM »

You do know that I discovered America after sailing past "the edge" that you keep claiming is there, right...?

Don't try to imitate me, my mad l33t detective claok knows a lie when it hears one.

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Of course we all agree...

« on: March 22, 2007, 05:35:01 PM »

If you truely are me (which I doubt), then you'll remember that time when I sailed the oceans on earth  even the round parts of the earth. Oh yeah! And the part where I was told I'd sail off the planet  then wait for it...  I proved them wrong! Please move along and don't dirty my name, thanks.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The sun?

« on: March 22, 2007, 04:52:19 PM »

Alright, to all Re'ers here waiting for a logcal anwser, I have to inform you that these FE'ers have an awesomely leveled evasion skill. It was at 10 million+ when I last posted so god only knows what its at. What this means is, if theres any logical intelligent topic that can disprove FE that they will completely avoid it or find a way to change the subject. Option B is what Franc is going with.  Now I may have been gone for a while but the few straight anwsers they gave back in the day were generally, FAQ, Dark energy, illusion, magic, Dark matter.

These might have changed but eh  I'm just preping you on what to expect. Why you may ask?  Simple matter this is one of these intelligent questions that can't be anwsered. I myself would love to see this anwsered but I wouldn't expect it.

By the way Franc don't worry about those death threats. I, Christopher Columbo, awesome explorer and 80's TV show detective am on the case!

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Supernovas in the FE theory

« on: February 20, 2007, 06:58:31 PM »

Of course not, don't be silly. I'm simply asking if Christopher here can actually provide any evidence to support the claims he's making.

How's that attempt at fusion going for ya?

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magma

« on: February 20, 2007, 12:51:35 AM »

Space is cold.  Magma + cold = rock.

Hes asking how magma is formed in flat earth, not how magma turns to rock in FE. Please try again.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Magma

« on: February 20, 2007, 12:28:09 AM »

See the thing is  you wont get a FE response because I dont think they can call Magic or Dark Matter here... Don't feel bad they do this to lots of topics.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Supernovas in the FE theory

« on: February 19, 2007, 08:34:33 PM »

Why must it wipe out the entire solar system?

Why must your reading skills vanish when I ask you to read the links provided on the data of a Supernova?

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Supernovas in the FE theory

« on: February 19, 2007, 08:25:43 PM »

That's what I want evidence for. It's easy to just say the sun and stars are made of hydrogen and helium, but can you prove it?
And if you can, what relevance does it have to the FE theory? As I said, I don't believe the sun and moon to be flat.

1. I've stopped refering to them as flat, pay attention Tom jr.

2. Do a google for it we got it to work for 0.0001 seconds or something like that. Or better yet go try and perform it yourself, let me know how it works out.

3. The relevance that you seem keen on not seeing is that means that it will explode at some point  and when it does how is this 32 mile in diameter ball supposed to wipe out at least this solar system?

/Has hit Geoguy with good comments
Geoguy has 250 levels in Evasion skill.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Supernovas in the FE theory

« on: February 19, 2007, 08:04:12 PM »

I didn't ask for evidence of supernovas now, did I? I seem to remember asking about why you thought they a problem for the FE theory, why you thought the sun was a star, and why you thought the sun should have the same functions and properties as all the other stars.

And it seems I missed a part of the FAQ myself more exactly this: The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles).

That alone creates a problem for Supernovas in the FE theory since they wipe out entire solar systems when they go off. Perhaps you should think a really long and hard time before you post again since this is truely impossible to challenge with a logical anwser or a mere question?

I'm sorry I just pointed out my problem with them in the theory had you actually read my posts instead of breaking down into Tom Bishop mode and started typing without reading. And lets go over this again for you since you must be slow.

Stars = Objects of a solar system (tending to have planets orbiting them) that are made of helium and hydrogen and perform the function known as fusion, which gives off light and heat.

The Sun = an Object that gives off light and heat (yes heat believe it or not) and thats made of those same two elements called helium and hydrogen.

Wow  sounds pretty close to each other eh?  Hey guess what?  THEY ARE. If you wanna prove me wrong read the first two posts of this whole thread before you post again. I asked for LOGICAL ANWSERS not questions.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Supernovas in the FE theory

« on: February 19, 2007, 07:49:30 PM »

I'm not challenging anything. I'm simply asking to see your evidence, as you haven't given any.

And as I said, despite what you've read in the FAQ, I do not believe the sun and moon to be flat.

I'm sorry, do at LEAST hundreds of thousands of people who could see a Supernova with the naked eye not count? Or with telescopes? Since I know that pictures don't count. I would believe this alone is cold hard proof.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Supernovas in the FE theory

« on: February 19, 2007, 07:41:41 PM »

What makes you think the sun in subjected to these extreme pressures?

Well I gave you a working sun theory based on the "spotlight" theory I see pitched out by the FAQ and most of the main FE'ers:

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, circle Earth at a height of 3000 miles at its equator, located midway between the North Pole and the ice wall. Each functions similar to a "spotlight," with the sun radiating "hot light," the moon "cold light." As they are spotlights, they only give light out over a certain are which explains why some parts of the Earth are dark when others are light. Their apparent rising and setting are caused by optical illusions.

In the "accelerating upwards" model, the stars, sun and moon are also accelerating upwards.

The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles)


And it seems I missed a part of the FAQ myself more exactly this: The stars are about as far as San Francisco is from Boston. (3100 miles).

That alone creates a problem for Supernovas in the FE theory since they wipe out entire solar systems when they go off. Perhaps you should think a really long and hard time before you post again since this is truely impossible to challenge with a logical anwser or a mere question?

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Supernovas in the FE theory

« on: February 19, 2007, 07:22:51 PM »

What makes you think the suns functions the same as other stars? Obviously if astronomers were wrong about its shape we shouldn't expect them to be right about the rest of it, should we?

Of course, as I myself see no reason why the sun cannot be round in the FE theory it really doesn't matter.

So your saying that things subjected to extreme pressures don't give off energy which can come in the form of heat and light?

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The sun is 32 miles in diameter.

« on: February 19, 2007, 07:18:44 PM »

I see no reason why it shouldn't.

So your saying now because you said that my shadow will move to my other side as of now?  ....  Been watching it for a minute and I'm still waiting Tom.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Supernovas in the FE theory

« on: February 19, 2007, 07:13:42 PM »

And? What makes you think the sun is a star?

Because its made of the exact same elements of a star and functions the same. I'm sorry  I believe i asked for logical anwsers. Was that part not clear enough for you?

25

Flat Earth General / Re: People Who Need TO KNow.

« on: February 19, 2007, 07:09:21 PM »

According to the Categorical Conspiracy Compendium Camoonamajig, like 13 people need to actually know the Earth is flat.  All those other professional astronomers that would've noticed something?  Nah.

Why would astronomers be the ones to know what Earth's shape is?

Why would cops be the ones to arrest people?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Supernovas in the FE theory

« on: February 19, 2007, 07:06:52 PM »

What makes you think supernovas are problematic in the FE theory?

Because I find it hard to believe that the flat gas "spotlight" of 32 miles in diameter you claim we have can explode into a sphere and destroy at least this solar system?

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Supernovas in the FE theory

« on: February 19, 2007, 06:30:40 PM »

Like my sig says on my old acc, they'll say one of the following:  optical illusions, dark matter, anti-matter, dark energy, the Force, or an Ice Wall.

Once again, this is why I chose this subject. Being visible to the naked eye like it was cuts away a lot of those options.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Supernovas in the FE theory

« on: February 19, 2007, 06:23:35 PM »

Since it's a new day and new days bring new people, lets try this one again. Do i have any takers on this discussion?

29

Flat Earth Q&A / To Tom:

« on: February 18, 2007, 04:39:30 PM »

Guys, the FAQ is not always right. Tom has his own opinions.

I'll agree with you on that. How ever he has still yet to provide proof on these things he "knows" and also begun to disprove the FE theory slowly over time as he states the same thing over and over again.

I'll stand down, because me and physics don't get along very well. I hate physics so I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about with your 5^g^x749fjs whatever. But Tom seemed so sure about his physics talk so I thought give the guy a break.

How is saying the same one thing for the past 8 posts is it, make it seem he knows his physics. That tends to indicate a one trick pony.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / To Tom:

« on: February 18, 2007, 04:28:17 PM »

Guys, the FAQ is not always right. Tom has his own opinions.

I'll agree with you on that. How ever he has still yet to provide proof on these things he "knows" and also begun to disprove the FE theory slowly over time as he states the same thing over and over again.