Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I'm just here for the snacks.
We have snacks?
We'd better, else I'm out.
I could make brownies, anyone allergic to nuts?
I'm not but I don't like them. I stick to a organic, soy, and canola oil free kosher diet. You'd be surprised at the choices you still have by sticking to a diet like that.
I'm just here for the snacks.
We have snacks?
We'd better, else I'm out.
I will evidently PROVE that the money is there by paying i
I will leave this here for a little while in case it turns into a real thread.
Some are likely paid shills and detractors.
The Sun does rise and set.
Most of the "facts" presented in the section devoted to the data relating to the Sun are plain wrong.
That is why a big change is needed: the FAQ must be written by those who do actually know flat earth theory very well, and have been able to defend it for all these years successfully.
Only if earth was the size of a billiard ball, but that doesn't mean it is as round as a billiard ball. To tell people the it a shape other than round and only post pictures of earth being round is very misleading.Smoothness doesn't care about scale you know, right? If the earth is as smooth as a billiard ball it doesn't matter how large it is. If you get the same perspective of a billiard ball as of earth (They both appear equally large) they will seem just equally round. If you scaled a billiard ball up to the size of the earth, then it would appear to be just as round from space, but the surface would be very mountainous.
The video of the earth from the window of the Apollo 11 mission doesn't look as round as the above picture I showed. I do realize that there is a shadow on the right side. The below video shows that. Also, I made note at 1:30 to 11:43min. of the video and I did not see the cloud formations change at all during that time. That is around 150 miles the earth rotated during that length of time, clouds don't stay in one place that long. It doesn't look real to me, it looks like a picture. Does it look real to you?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
For the video, I don't know how you can see wether it is a difference or not. It's the same shapes, but it has also only been 10 minutes. Earth rotated about 4° (which is roughly 1.1° of a full rotation - on that video you are not gonna notice anything). I have seen plenty of clouds staying the same shape for 10 minutes. I don't know why it seems so much like an alien concept to you.
You have seen clouds stay in the same spot and shape for 10 minutes? I never have. Watch that video again and see if you can see any clouds move at all over the entire earth, I can't and I believe that would be impossible because you know the wind has to be blowing somewhere and the clouds would be moving. I don't understand why the concept of clouds moving is so alien to you.
H was always far removed from reality, a senile, delusional man sitting in his moms basement and living vicariously through hits on his crappy webpage, but now he is really starting to lose it.
And what is it with that Gitmo obsession.
Greetings. Out of interest I have visited this website and forum every now and then over the years and have personally always found it quite a good "mind expanding activity" to try and consider FE theory from the point of view that it might actually be correct (and there's aspects of it that do really get me thinking), but alas I am still not convinced.
I will openly admit I do not have enough knowledge and understanding of the physics, mathematics, astronomy, etc. to try and tackle any of those areas in a serious debate with otherwise knowledgeable participants but to me the whole matter seems to boil down to how "obscure" FE theory is, from the public but, even more so, from the scientific community in general.
I know the scientific community can be a bunch of arrogant and stubborn knobs a lot of the time, but I have to wonder why FET is so "disregarded" around the world in general?
I have read about a "conspiracy" to keep it all a secret but to me this, in itself, is a very poor argument.
Is the FE theory growing in popularity (I mean on a noticeable scale)?
Because a conspiracy doesn't seem to adequately explain why millions of intelligent men and women around the world aren't being compelled by its "undeniable" truth, especially if all the evidence is apparently obvious and available to anyone with an open mind and a decent knowledge of physics (it seems a lot of the debates come down to this).
Not every "thinker" in this day and age adheres to the preconceptions of modern science, and fear of ridicule (even exile and death) has never stopped the bravest from stating what they believe is the truth. In my mind, the sheer number of independent thinkers around today and the power of the internet should have cracked this conspiracy wide open (or verified FE theory for everyone) a long time ago. At the very least, there should be more fuss being made about it.
Could someone please elaborate on how so many have been fooled for so long? There are other aspects of FET that I would like to discuss but this is the first "hurdle" for me.
PS- This may belong in the debate section but really just looking to get a better understanding.
The map of the flat earth does not include Antarctica.Despite all the tourists, the ability to go there yourself and all the stations located there, they call it an ice wall that's impossible to cross. It's the "ring" of ice around the edge of the azimuthal projection of the globe.
Unfortunately the huge number of people involved with operating the ISS are not waisting their time trying to prove it's real to the Tinfoil Hat Nutters.
Sorry guys, that's just the way it is.
"are not waisting their time"? You can't even form an coherent sentence!
Idiot.
*sigh* back at ya
The train and car analogies don't compare because you are being propelled forwards at the same speed therefore when you jump or throw the suspended person or ball is still moving at the same speed. The Helicopter is stationary so you still need to prove the air mass moves with the earth. The atmospheric weather patterns seem independent to the solid ground to me.
Forgive me if you've actually already answered my question but at the moment I have no idea what anyone is saying.
Let me be more clear as to my original question:
A single piece of evidence suggesting the earth is flat.
This evidence has to be easily observable so anyone can verify it.
It can't be based on any third-party evidence as the conspiracy everyone keeps talking about could have affected it to some degree.
You must explain how you know this information.
Notice the word "suggest". I'm giving some leeway on the evidence now to make things a bit easier to understand for me.
Please don't start arguing again though
China space agency launched the tiangong into space and had a manned mission to visit it.
European space agency has the Ariane which has visited space.
Iranian space agency have the data recording and research satellite called hope.
Russian,italienItalian, korean space agencies have also had manned missions and rockets sent to space.
All of these agencies have photos of earth and the moon and sun.AllocAlso these agenciesgavehave thousands of staff. It is impossible to fake photosaccrossacross 12 countries which have allgo egone to space. Conspiracy is believable to an extent but everyonecantcan't be lying in each country.
I've sorted out your numerous spelling errors (above) and kindly pointed out the fallacy you're relying on (below). Your position is illogical:QuoteArgument from incredulity
Arguments from incredulity take the form:
1. P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.
These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.
Re nuclear bombs I also consider them impossible nonsense based on facts described at my web site at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . But it is against US laws to suggest it and you will be shot un the USA, if you do, so I keep it at that. Imagine being arrested just talking about a-bombs in the USA.
Citation needed. I live in America and I have never even had so much as an indication that such a law exists. It is in direct violation of the first amendment, and a law like that could not legally exist.LOL - high purity uranium - shoot a bunch of neutrons at it? Doesn't work. Free neutrons are available in the atmosphere all the time and would set off any a-bomb at once.
It's not about getting neutrons, the neutrons need to hit the Uranium at very high speed and they need to be neutrons that are not surrounded by protons and electrons.Therefore a-bombs are just propaganda to make you soil your pants. You really confirm you have no idea of basic physics and astrophysics and just believe the lies being taught at US schools.
Most of what I know about these topic were things I learned outside of school. The average person in a US school knows about as much about orbital mechanics as you do, as in they cannot tell me what shape orbits are. Are you claiming that you are an expert in such things?You sound like any old communist just repeating orders from Moscow. How much are you paid?
Hopefully €1,000,000 if I won your challenge.
Heiwa - to put this deceleration into context, you will routinely experience 2g whilst driving. If you ever have had to do an emergency brake (a requirement whilst learning) you will experince 3-4g. Your brain is still fine. Your seat is still fine.
Are you sure about that?
Well, I had to do multiple emergency stops whilst learning to drive and my brain is still in good working order.....
Heiwa - to put this deceleration into context, you will routinely experience 2g whilst driving. If you ever have had to do an emergency brake (a requirement whilst learning) you will experince 3-4g. Your brain is still fine. Your seat is still fine.
Yep. I'm guessing the new one is BeanstockBBQ. Just a guess though. I could be wrong.
What is this, the worst moderated forum on the internet?
Gonna say, I didn't expect anything better. Jimmy, for example, doesn't seem to understand the relationship between cause and effect: the round Earth model doesn't predict phases of the moon, there was no hermit hanging around in a cave who decided a rock must be going around the Earth and then wrote down its phases, the moon and its phases were observed, and a theory designed to explain that after the event. Pathetic.
Craters are texture, what's your point? Gaps of illumination. They illuminate in a rhythm, clearly: some are made to be slower. Irregularity such as this is observed in the animal kingdom, to throw of predators.
Why then are Lunar Eclipses predictable? Here is a chart of eclipses until 2099;
http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html?starty=2090
Are you saying these are not predictions?
Feeling like you can't really think at all. Why wouldn't they be predictable?
Um, because you said the RE model doesn't predict phases of the Moon.
Of all the stupid arguments I've heard, that's got to be the worst. Did you even bother to read the next sentence before you added your drivel to this page? Prediction requires making a statement before observation. So, unless you're saying round Earth theory was invented by moles (which would explain a fair bit admittedly), it did not predict the phases of the moon, it was developed in part as an explanation after the fact.
Or are you honestly so stupid you don't understand what 'predict' means?
Gonna say, I didn't expect anything better. Jimmy, for example, doesn't seem to understand the relationship between cause and effect: the round Earth model doesn't predict phases of the moon, there was no hermit hanging around in a cave who decided a rock must be going around the Earth and then wrote down its phases, the moon and its phases were observed, and a theory designed to explain that after the event. Pathetic.
Craters are texture, what's your point? Gaps of illumination. They illuminate in a rhythm, clearly: some are made to be slower. Irregularity such as this is observed in the animal kingdom, to throw of predators.
Why then are Lunar Eclipses predictable? Here is a chart of eclipses until 2099;
http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html?starty=2090
Are you saying these are not predictions?
Feeling like you can't really think at all. Why wouldn't they be predictable?
Gonna say, I didn't expect anything better. Jimmy, for example, doesn't seem to understand the relationship between cause and effect: the round Earth model doesn't predict phases of the moon, there was no hermit hanging around in a cave who decided a rock must be going around the Earth and then wrote down its phases, the moon and its phases were observed, and a theory designed to explain that after the event. Pathetic.
Craters are texture, what's your point? Gaps of illumination. They illuminate in a rhythm, clearly: some are made to be slower. Irregularity such as this is observed in the animal kingdom, to throw of predators.
4. The person tries to use links to argue for his/her crazy beliefs. I have never noticed a known troll using a link to pretend to argue for a crazy belief so while the link may not actually support the person's position the use of the link is an indication that the person really believes what he/she says he/she believes.
Quick question, if earth is flat then why do star constellations appear flipped horizontally in the southern hemisphere compared to northern and vice versa?
Now I must be careful, if you try to cite the bible you will not be taken seriously. This is not a debate so do not attack the question. If you do not understand it, I suggest you STFU and go debate someone else. Keep it short and simple, Thank you!
Take a portrait picture of someone and tape it to your ceiling. From one side of the room, it will appear that the top of the person's head is at the top of your field of view. From the opposite side of the room, it will appear that the top of their head is at the bottom. I don't see what the problem is with constellations doing the same thing.
I found this forum a while ago and have been amused by reading some of the debates. But there is one thing I find puzzling.People argue with Papa Legba because they know that what he's saying is true and realise that many free thinking, logical people will see what he's saying is true.
Why would anyone with any intelligence continue to argue with Papa Legba? He clearly has no scientific understanding at all and is a complete arsehole.
This is the reason why people like you keep changing names and putting up topics about him in order to attempt to make him appear nuts. The problem you have is, we can see through your utter shit and you reek of desperation. Now piss off and get another name because you ruined this one in one post.
What a clown.
You've got them on the ropes Papa. They are scraping the barrel now.
What I've found on here is when I'm in a debate with say one or two people I can hold my ground. It seems likes as soon as I score some points I'm immediately bombarded with a half a dozen globe people jumping in and smothering me with dumb questions. I honestly believe when the going gets tough for them they PM each other to gang up on me. It happens a lot. That is when I need people like you and Papa coming in to rescue me. They try real hard, but they are no match for you two.
QuoteThese people will have an answer for everything.Translation from RE speak:
"Retreat! Run away! We got called out on our lack of knowledge of the basic principles of, well, just about everything!"
Huh, from what I've seen the best evidence for Flat Earth is, "Looks flat to ME." That and "Everything I don't understand MUST be impossible." Oh, and the ever popular, "It's a Government conspiracy I say!"
Never act like you understand FE theory then. You're blind to the flaws in what you believe, that's all.
What flaws?
Play with your dogs, you're clearly not cut out for science.
Never said I was cut out for science. But I stand by my statement. Your reply only serves to prove my point.
Shy much? I'm sure you must think you're cut out for science, if you're on a science forum. I did not answer your question because it is clearly a waste of time, you're just trying to drag me into a repeat of a debate I've had too many times to count. This forum has a search function, and multiple threads dedicated to pointing out these flaws. Or are you unable to browse?
