1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evidence of the Conspiracy

« on: June 13, 2007, 07:53:42 PM »

For evidence of the Conspiracy simply ask a government official what the shape of the earth is.

Okay.  Here we go:

Tom: What shape is the Earth?
Gov: Spherical.
Tom: Conspiracy!

Hmmmm.

Me: What shape is the Earth?
Tom: Flat.
Me: Conspiracy!


That's not proof, Tom.  You can point the conspiracy finger at anything if you want to, but it isn't proof.  I don't even know what that is.  That's just.. stupid.

I've met blind, deaf, mute, autistic four-year-olds who can make more cogent arguments.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evidence of the Conspiracy

« on: June 13, 2007, 07:49:08 PM »

lol shit! i only need 5 more.. better get to work

Nah, slappy gets to stay.  I approve of slappy.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evidence of the Conspiracy

« on: June 13, 2007, 07:46:40 PM »

There are too many noobs here!  Anyone without at least 100 posts should be banned from this point on.

or put them in a separate forum.






You.. crazy.. noobs..

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evidence of the Conspiracy

« on: June 13, 2007, 07:41:04 PM »

you know, I was kind of hoping that this would be a semi-serious thread, where FE'ers could post and RE'ers would be free to shut them down... but..

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evidence of the Conspiracy

« on: June 13, 2007, 07:35:56 PM »

Here's all I've dug up. It took a lot of work.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evidence of the Conspiracy

« on: June 13, 2007, 07:27:06 PM »

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Other Planets

« on: June 13, 2007, 07:24:28 PM »

Can we have a new, separate, n00b forum?

8

Flat Earth Debate / Evidence of the Conspiracy

« on: June 13, 2007, 07:23:36 PM »

Post your evidence here!

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: General Relativity and Atomic Clocks

« on: June 13, 2007, 07:06:23 PM »

But since you asked, please reference: http://www.physclips.unsw.edu.au/jw/foucault_pendulum.html

Now try referencing an organization which does not receive funding from NASA.

Aren't the results the same?

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What would it take for you to believe in a RE?

« on: June 11, 2007, 05:41:07 PM »

Nothing could change my mind. Not even a trip to space. The Earth would looked curved from space, its just an optical illusion.

Wow.  Just wow.

How is this an optical illusion?  You're just seeing Africa.  Where did the rest of the flat Earth go?  Oh.. wait.. that's right.. it has to be round..



Or this, Tom.  How could this possibly be a flat Earth?




EDIT: Shit.  I didn't realize it wasn't actually Tom.  I just look at the picture, you know?

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites/Conspiracy

« on: June 11, 2007, 02:39:25 PM »

I think it's rather stupid to call anything impossible in the first place.  The odds are that someday you're going to be proven wrong.


EDIT: Unless it's something that requires disproving something that's already proven.

A flat earth comes to mind...

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'

« on: June 11, 2007, 02:38:05 PM »

I'd rather watch you make a fool of yourself with random attempts at making me look bad.

A - In order for me to look bad, the text of mine you quote needs to, you know, actually showcase me being an idiot.

You are an idiot of the medieval type. To say that the eye can’t see what’s further than some distance (in free space) is plain ignorance. Then, you got deeper in the shit when you said that we don’t see Polaris, but only rhe light coming from it. Of course, you Texan retard. How can the light now when to stop and not hit our retina? And, remember, you claim to be a photographer.

The other points are not important. It’s something like the thing you keep inventing that I’m Tom or Fecals. For all I know, you maybe Tom Bishop.

Yeah, you Texan retard!  Stop contaminating my state!

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites/Conspiracy

« on: June 11, 2007, 09:01:03 AM »

Engy Baby, we were having a perfectly legitimate debate on the validity of FE, and you come along and start insulting RE'ers because of bad grammer and logical fallacies.

So he made a mistake, so he had a typo or two. You attack him like because of this one mistake his whole arguement from here on out is now invalid.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

One could argue that his inability to use grammar, and spell properly would greatly diminish the credibility to whatever he is claiming. Surely, a non-ignorant person would know to not judge a person in such a way, but I'd ask to at least have the courtesy to proofread and use the English that most of use were taught in elementary school.

It was also decently ironic.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the world is round

« on: June 11, 2007, 08:56:11 AM »

And the upcomming iPhone. Which uses Google Earth. And shows the roundness of the Earth. Oh, and I still stick to my "Cylindrical Earth" vs. Flat Earth Argument. For those that don't remember, if the world really is flat, then its a cylinder. So it should be CE. Anyways... Google  Earth.

You're going to have to explain your argument before you get shot down.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the world is round

« on: June 11, 2007, 08:50:55 AM »

Zing!

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universal Acceleration 101

« on: June 10, 2007, 09:01:19 PM »

That's what I was thinking. The photoelectric effect is when electrons are emitted from a substance (usually metallic, doesn't have to be very short wavelengths work for some other materials) because that substance has been exposed to an electromagnetic wave. Can you explain to me how this makes the sun and moon accelerate in accordance with the FE? I am actually curious because how you passed if off before makes me think you can't. If you can't then I suppose you'll have to work more on the theory.

Also kinereoj has given quite the nice rebuttal to the UA theory here:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11295.0

Any thoughts on this?

Of course not. That would require intelligence... or at least some better rhetoric to fool us.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the equivalence principle . . .

« on: June 10, 2007, 08:59:49 PM »

FE is a religion.

FE can reference experimental evidence for its claims of a Flat Earth.

What experimental evidence can you reference for a Round Earth?

I think there's a robot on the other end.  We're typing in the same queries and getting the same responses.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: the equivalence principle . . .

« on: June 10, 2007, 08:55:32 PM »

I said the same thing in Gin's sunsets and wave crests thread. Tom doesn't know anything. Whenever Tom or most of the FE proponents come across a thread or topic they can't answer they ignore the points that contradict what they say, and then proceed to attack some random comment in the thread thinking they've done something good. As is evident above Tom ignores the actually point of the thread to comment on some arbitrary crap about religion. Which ironically only seemed to strengthen the point he was countering. Yes Tom FE doesn't ignore the actually scientific evidence like a religion, that's just exactly what you are doing as you made that comment, and I might have ignore this glaring contradiction if I didn't find it so funny.

FE is a religion. It is not based in science it is based in faith. Faith in a massive global conspiracy, faith in a 130 year old book, faith in pseudo-science and a 60000 mile icewall guarded by 600 men. FE is largely religion-based in that it hinges on the earth being for some reason different from the rest of the universe. Everything else is observably spherical, what makes the earth so special that it should be different, if it isn't a religious thing that is? Remember that whole God put man at the center of the universe that was the religious idea. What makes it so special for FE? The fact that humans are here, and we must be special? I would really like to know what it is because nobody has answered me on that yet.

Aliens ftw.

RE: See my rant above.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Questions on the theory

« on: June 10, 2007, 05:44:27 PM »

1. How do you guys think Earthquakes occur?
2. Is it an ice wall, or a mountain range?
3. How do you explain the Atmospheric circulation/Coriolis effect?

I am not an FE'er, but I'm assuming that these are the theories (correct me if I'm wrong)

1. The same was as in RET.
2. "Ice wall" is a general term for everything from the initial ice cliffs to tundras, mountains, etc. when you go southward.
3. I don't know/am too lazy to look it up.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'

« on: June 10, 2007, 12:32:49 PM »

1.  Photographic proof isn't allowed (?)

Sublime, the horizon in that star trail you posted is obscured by some sort of hill.

4.  With a powerful telescope you should still be able to see them.  I realize this isn't proof, though.

How would a telescope allow you to see through the fog of the atmosphere? The atmosphere consists of atoms, which are not transparent. After a certain far off distance all incoming light will be blocked by a blue-gray haze.

1.  That's why I had number two.  Actually, your photos pretty much win that part. Yay for Tom!

2.  You can't prove this and neither can I.  That's why I said it isn't proof.  You can't prove that a telescope can't see through the atmosphere unless you went out and bought one.

And also, you just got owned by slappy, so address all of what he's saying, and not just single quotes for which you might have a rebuttal.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'

« on: June 10, 2007, 12:19:48 PM »

Hmmm.  The person cannot see Mount Everest, but he can see a star.  The star's light has to go through more atmosphere than the mountain.  Explanations?

Stars don't appear within five degrees of the horizon, where the bulk of the atmosphere lays.

Image 1: http://www.astronet.ru/db/msg/1210491/eng/

Image 2: http://www.capella-observatory.com/images/StarTrails/STRICHSPUR-08.jpg

Stars will fade out as they approach the horizon.

1.  Photographic proof isn't allowed (?)
2.  We don't know even exactly what these photos are showing
3.  Good post, though, Tom; we'd like to see more of them
4.  With a powerful telescope you should still be able to see them.  I realize this isn't proof, though.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A test of respect for the FE community.

« on: June 10, 2007, 12:12:03 PM »

They really need to update that garbage.

No joke.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: A test of respect for the FE community.

« on: June 10, 2007, 12:07:49 PM »

That's why I was careful to say that the ISS only proves sustained spaceflight is possible.

Spaceflight is already possible with an airplane, and the sustained nature of that entails fuel consumption and refueling in air. Unless you mean outer-space, then that's different. Please use the appropriate term.

In the FAQ is says "spaceflight", speaking of outer-space orbit-type spaceflight, so I'm going with that.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'

« on: June 10, 2007, 12:04:21 PM »

Wrong thread. Suffocate with your hood.

But my hood isn't alive. 

Hahahaha.  You can't win an argument against this guy.  Oh man..

I drew a diagram for all you people whose mental capacities have somehow been compromised.
The blue is the earth.
The green is the atmosphere.
The redish line is the line of vision of someone looking toward the horizon.

In the first diagram, the person is looking toward Mount Everest.  This is the blue thingy at which the line of vision stops.  Now, let's say I'm the person.  I cannot see Mount Everest from where I am.

In the second diagram, the person (me, I guess) is looking toward the horizon and sees a star.  Now as we know, I can see a star on the horizon.  I have done it many times, to all directions.





Hmmm.  The person cannot see Mount Everest, but he can see a star.  The star's light has to go through more atmosphere than the mountain.  Explanations?

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'

« on: June 10, 2007, 10:59:26 AM »

Ships sink over the horizon.

I wish I could sink over things.

Sigh.

I blame English.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The truth about the conspiracy

« on: June 10, 2007, 10:58:03 AM »

You will all die, die, die.

You sure do talk the talk, but you don't walk the walk.

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth Isn't Flat 2 (Proof Included)

« on: June 10, 2007, 10:55:36 AM »

Wouldn't an airplane "circumnavigating" a flat Earth notice, at least the tiniest little bit, that they're always turning in one direction? I mean, it'd be a very slight turn, yes, but you'd have to notice at least something, wouldn't you? With all of the Earth laid out below you, wouldn't you notice that your orientation seems to be changing?

That's like saying, "if you walk along the (round) earth long enough, wouldn't you notice you're going kind of downwardish, like on top of a huge ball?"

The proportions are just too big.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'

« on: June 10, 2007, 10:53:05 AM »

Looking upwards is looking through less atmosphere than looking straight ahead.

No it isn't. Besides, you don't look vertically upwards at the Moon but at an angle and this is AM15

Agreed. Why are we still able to see the moon as it sinks over the horizon?  Why are we able to see stars that are right on the horizon?  The light from these would have to go through more atmosphere than the Eiffel Tower or Mount Everest or whatever.


Wait, wait, I got it.  Cold light penetrates atmosphere!  And so does starlight and sunlight!

How convenient.

Have you ever watched a sunset where half the sun is missing before it hits the horizon?

No.

have you...?

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites/Conspiracy

« on: June 10, 2007, 10:46:02 AM »

Sorry, Divito, but any thread in which you intervene inevitably turns into an insult battle..

Like my Myspace states:

"I'm incredibly blunt and rather emotionally detached from most things. This probably causes me to be much more objective and argumentative than most people so I essentially tell it like it is with little regard for people's poor logic, causing most people to become angry under their irrational thought process."

I can't help it. Actually, that's not accurate, I could if I wanted to but I don't.

Yeah, but either way it's pretty well-stated.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking the 'law of perspective'

« on: June 10, 2007, 10:45:00 AM »

Looking upwards is looking through less atmosphere than looking straight ahead.

No it isn't. Besides, you don't look vertically upwards at the Moon but at an angle and this is AM15

Agreed. Why are we still able to see the moon as it sinks over the horizon?  Why are we able to see stars that are right on the horizon?  The light from these would have to go through more atmosphere than the Eiffel Tower or Mount Everest or whatever.


Wait, wait, I got it.  Cold light penetrates atmosphere!  And so does starlight and sunlight!

How convenient.