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.


Messages - ogeitla

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Flat Earth General / Re: PROOF that earth is round
« on: August 26, 2010, 12:27:19 AM »
The microphone is probably not attached to the metal casing. If it was, the sound would be very different and distorted. Plus, the camera is for identifying problems. Why would NASA need sound to the extent that they would attach a microphone to the metal casing? If you look at footage of a shuttle rolling, there is no sound in the footage.

But once again, there's air at 67 km. In the video, you can hear the sound get softer as the air begins to dwindle. When the SRBs fall, you can also hear the wind rushing past. The microphone is NOT attached to the metal casing. It is simply picking up sound in the air.

It has to be, as it's a piezoelectric microphone. You have to fit it too the casing for a piezo to make sound, as it senses vibrations to generate sound, it's a common pick-up on guitars. These 'microphones' are nothing like condenser/dynamic microphones.

I'm not exactly sure what you think a distorted recording sounds like, but I can tell you that whole video is horribly distorted. 

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Simple geophysics and astronomy
« on: August 25, 2010, 05:57:32 PM »
Oh ma god! I can see them at night!? Or can you just see specks? Who say's those specks are actually the ISS and not something else?

The magic speck that seems to follow the same orbit as the satellite, what a coincidence!

Or perhaps it's you ability to reason that's floating away?

It's ok though, we'll wait for the earth to 'catch up' with it.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: does anyone have any credentials here???
« on: January 04, 2010, 05:55:36 PM »
If  Dr.Dre can be a doctor without having a PHD, then so can I.

4


Did you even see my post about Square Enix?  The evidence is piling up and I expect to find a great deal more.

Square Enix is a company formed from Squaresoft and Enix. For many, many years they were un-related companies, well apart from both being big players in the RPG scene. Please get a reality check.

5

With our technology today it should be no problem to convey the world as spherical.  Video games strive to be more and more realistic, yet they continue to ignore the supposedly basic notion that the world is spherical.  I credit them with having balls of steel to stand by their convictions in the face of the Global Conspiracy, and only hope our exposing them here doesn't lead to them being shut down by the government, or forced to show the world as it is.  My guess is they will leave them alone, but don't be surprised if more spherical worlds pop up in video games in the future.

Because no one cares if it's spherical when they play a game, no casual gamer would notice at all. They haven't mastered physics in games yet anyway.

6
Maybe it looks more realistic because that's how things happen.

Yeah because a bunch of programmers know more about the earth then scientists and researchers. ::)

I'm sure when coded it would be much more efficient and realistic to simply blur the horizon, then have the whole map built on curve, infact, I don't think I've ever played a game in which the entire map is curved.

7

Yes, it's much easier to program it blur, fade, and other effects than simply map the game on a curve.  ::)

Most likely if it looks good.

8

Right but this appears to be an industry-wide phenomenon.  I think Ichy has just touched the tip of the iceberg with his observation.  This requires much zetetic rumination.

And I suggest Mr McIntyre or Mr Davis or one of the serious FE believers contact the CEOs and head programmers of Nintendo, Electronic Arts, Square Enix et al as soon as possible as they appear to be brothers-in-arms.  If they can persuade them to go public with their beliefs it could lead to a great surge for the movement.  Video games wield an enormous influence on the youth of the world; that's probably why they chose them as the medium to subliminally air their opinions.

You sure it wasn't easier to code the game like that?

9
Worst thread ever.

10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution didn't happen
« on: July 14, 2009, 04:09:01 AM »

That is a ridiculous question, creativity is not a real thing, it is simply a term we use for inductive reasoning a form of logic. And who says god is in any way "creative?" The christian theology in no way claims an understanding of god or how he originates, it explicitly states that god is unknowable, a being of incredible power that we will never understand.


cre⋅a⋅tive  [kree-ey-tiv]  Show IPA
–adjective 1.   having the quality or power of creating.

So yes Yahway is creative. Creativity is a 'thing', you either can create or you can't.

Quote
Your questions make a demand beyond anything that is reasonable. May I ask you where the singularity of the big bang originated? It is the same problem. We are obviously only a single universe within many.

I don't know, I'm not a scientist that deals with physics.

Of course they were demanding, but,  as usual it's the same old "god works in mysterious ways" bollocks. Along with the "god of the gaps". I hear those two "arguements" over and over again.

11
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution didn't happen
« on: July 13, 2009, 10:01:27 PM »
Then I'm not sure that we have an issue here.  I think that every sane person on these boards can agree with us that life was designed by an intelligence

Or is it that you relentlessly subscribe to the "god of the gaps" arguement?

So let me ask you the age old question, where did this "intelligence" originate? What was the point in creating anything? Did god create creativity before being creative aka. a paradox, or, are there concepts in which even god cannot control?

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Another Question for Flat Earther's
« on: July 12, 2009, 10:36:51 PM »
Let me explain it this way. You view the outside world as things made by man. Meaning that we can have the same understanding of nature that we can of the things we make by hand. There are extraordinary problems with this mindset.

And that is why there are still creationists.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How Do You Explain This?
« on: July 12, 2009, 10:34:41 PM »
Pictures and videos can be faked.

You can clearly see that the earth is curved:



Did you see that clip on Jonathon Ross?

Pictures and videos can be faked.

This website could be fake, the point is moot and I wish people would stop using it.

14
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution didn't happen
« on: July 12, 2009, 04:42:28 AM »
Pongo please tell me you are not a christian  :-\

15
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution didn't happen
« on: July 12, 2009, 01:56:57 AM »
Sorry I meant microevolution, but that it leads to macroevolution. sadly the video has been votebotted by creationists, it was 5 stars last time i checked.

16
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution didn't happen
« on: July 12, 2009, 01:34:10 AM »

All of evolution is basically unarguable.  No one was there to observe it so it's simply not science.  Also, here is some insight for you...


I was agreeing with you. Though macroevolution has been observed, use google and lurk moar.

17
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution didn't happen
« on: July 12, 2009, 12:57:28 AM »
It's not that we deny the evidence for evolution, we just interpret it differently.  

Can't argue with that. You should have Raist's mod position.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thank you to Tom Bishop.
« on: July 12, 2009, 12:54:39 AM »
All plants, in fact, grow toward the direction of Tom Bishop, not to maximise sunlight.

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thank you to Tom Bishop.
« on: July 12, 2009, 12:49:04 AM »
Tom is a sexy beast
Every woman that has ever met Tom would agree with you.

Why limit it to females?  ;D

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Creationism
« on: July 12, 2009, 12:47:25 AM »


So anyway, post why you think creationism is right, and Ill explain to you why your wrong.

(P.S., I saw the religion debate threads, but this focuses completely on how the Earth came to be, over the other absurd acpects of religion)[/color]

So, ignorance now implies a belief in a creator. Good job at being a generalizing idiot.

Because you are against it, it is probably correct.

I won't post why creationism is "right" but if you would like me to I would post why it is correct.

I would love to hear why creationism is "right".

I would like to hear people correctly use terms such as correct.
[/quote]

lul wut? Do you have split personality?

21
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Creationism
« on: July 12, 2009, 12:33:45 AM »

So, ignorance now implies a belief in a creator. Good job at being a generalizing idiot.

Because you are against it, it is probably correct.

I won't post why creationism is "right" but if you would like me to I would post why it is correct.

I would love to hear why creationism is "right".

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: lol I dont get it
« on: July 12, 2009, 12:32:46 AM »
My point is, basing you whole theory around a conspiracy isn't a strong standpoint.

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: A thank you to Tom Bishop.
« on: July 12, 2009, 12:30:52 AM »
Tom is a sexy beast

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: lol I dont get it
« on: July 12, 2009, 12:16:38 AM »

and you're not a midget cocktail waitress, but how is that related to the debate?

I was making a joke. You simple made an arrogant assertion without backing it up. I think it is more evidence that you have to believe that NASA is a conspiracy to believe FET is true.

Christian fundies also believe that scientists are in some "conspriacy" to stop people believing in god and to stop alternative science in the classroom such as intelligent design, which they believe is as "equally" valid as evolution.

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: lol I dont get it
« on: July 11, 2009, 11:55:38 PM »

The world is flat, and sustained spaceflight is impossible. It's hard to convince the government to fund a space organization when you can't go into space (for more than a short period of time).

Hey, you're not Tom Bishop!

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: lol I dont get it
« on: July 11, 2009, 11:48:50 PM »
Quote
Q: "What is the motive behind this Conspiracy?"

A: Although their main objective can only be speculated upon, the most favored theory is that of financial gain.  In a nutshell, it would logically cost much less to fake a space program than to actually have one, so those in on the Conspiracy profit from the funding NASA and other space agencies receive from the government.

This is from the FAQ.

I would think the cost of the cover up would end up being greater than the money gained from the fake space program.
NASA's budget is larger than the GDP of some small countries. They have the money to fake it, and pocket plenty left over.

When conspiracies end up being the pillar that holds together FET, it starts looking a little weak.
Pillars don't hold things together, they hold them up. Anyway, the conspiracy is not "the pillars that holds together FET". The conspiracy isn't part of FET, they are part of the cover-up of FET.

So if Nasa was telling the truth then what would be the purpose for FET?

You're right about the pillar thing though.
If NASA told the truth, they would be shut down.

And you know that....because?

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Introducing myself
« on: July 11, 2009, 11:36:02 PM »
Hey I quoted didn't I?  ;D I didn't not edit a word you said.

28
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Evolution didn't happen
« on: July 11, 2009, 11:34:18 PM »
Raist, I've never seen someone argue that "Evolution didn't happen" and win a debate.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: lol I dont get it
« on: July 11, 2009, 11:31:45 PM »
Quote
Q: "What is the motive behind this Conspiracy?"

A: Although their main objective can only be speculated upon, the most favored theory is that of financial gain.  In a nutshell, it would logically cost much less to fake a space program than to actually have one, so those in on the Conspiracy profit from the funding NASA and other space agencies receive from the government.

This is from the FAQ.

I would think the cost of the cover up would end up being greater than the money gained from the fake space program.
NASA's budget is larger than the GDP of some small countries. They have the money to fake it, and pocket plenty left over.

When conspiracies end up being the pillar that holds together FET, it starts looking a little weak.
Pillars don't hold things together, they hold them up. Anyway, the conspiracy is not "the pillars that holds together FET". The conspiracy isn't part of FET, they are part of the cover-up of FET.

So if Nasa was telling the truth then what would be the purpose for FET?

You're right about the pillar thing though.

30
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Christianity and Evolution
« on: July 11, 2009, 11:29:08 PM »

Lol. In what way? All animals are composed of the same chemicals as us we are. It's just having niche characteristics, a frontal cortex that sets us apart in terms of survival. Outlasted the other human like species despite their greater strength or intelligence.

Fixed.

Was there, really, any point to that?

Yeah, actually there was.

Not really, but I guess appearing to be smart is better then actually contributing eh Raist?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4