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 - Deostructor

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What Would Happen?
« on: July 16, 2016, 04:43:29 PM »
Okay, let's say I go to space and take footage of the earth being ROUND.

I'd like to see what you guys' reaction would be, quite interesting I expect...

also, please no replies like;

-you faked the footage with photoshop LOL liar!!! u dumbass believe teh earth iz ze round wtf we are in 2016 its flat dude
-You faked in a studio the same place they did the moon landing, lol, we aren't fools. you failed to fool us dumb betch.
-replies that are not related to your reactions (its fake, photoshopped, its a lie, its just edited)

What would make your round earth footage more reliable than the footage NASA says is of the earth?


What makes a picture of a flat Earth reliable?

2
"Without using Google"

Why?

Psst! Use a book!

Nah,

I'l use the official Wikipedia app,

technically not Google.

3
"Without using Google"

Why?

4
Penguins are not evil, just misunderstood. Proof of this is there are no homosexual penguins.

Penguin shill detected  >:(

Ok, so I read the shadow zone link, and from what I understand it is caused by water in the crust? Is that correct? If that is the case, then I don't know what the question is, since there is definitely water under the ground on the flat earth.

There is definitely some water in the crust, but water has nothing to do with shadow zones.
there are two types of waves generated by an earthquake:
S-waves and P-waves
S-waves can pass ONLY through solids.
P-waves can pass through both solids and liquids. (but their intensity is decreased a bit when passing through liquids)
A shadow zone is an area opposite of the earthquake (assuming the Earth is round) that lacks S-waves and has P-waves who's intensity is decreased.
So since the crust and the mantle are mostly solid, both waves travel through them without any problem. The inner core is solid, but the outer core is liquid.
Because the outer core blocks the S-waves, they will not appear at the opposite side of the world.

For example if an earthquake happened in Spain, a shadow zone would appear around New Zealand.


The FET does not explain this.

5
Flat Earth Debate / How does the FET explain earthquake shadow zones?
« on: July 12, 2016, 07:26:23 AM »
Definitions of shadow zones:

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/glossary/?termID=170&alpha=S

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_zone

Any intentional derailment will be reported.

And by the way, I'm still waiting for visual evidence that the Earth is flat, so post it if you have it.

6
First of all, the question in the title, if the answer is yes and if you possess such evidence, please post it.
(Note: a cut from 360° footage won't work)
I'm asking again because none of you presented valid evidence last time I asked.

Also, the wiki has a slight problem.
In the section where gravity is "explained", it is said that the entire universe is accelerating, and that gravity isn't a force, BUT, when the decrease of the gravitational force with altitude is "explained', it is said that the celestial bodies have a slight gravitational pull. Well why the fuck doesn't Earth have one? And don't comment bullshit that it happens because magic.

ALSO, how would you explain the decrease of gravity when approaching the equator?

P.S. please don't avoid the topic, that happens alot lately.

7
Moon rays or sun rays don't have light from the sun or moon really? then why do we see it coming towards us AND see it's rays up in the sky? But according to you and who else  we can not see it going towards the moon? Yet we see the moon rays shining away from it into space? No I am not talking about a "hue" surrounding it. I am talking about it's beam shining away from it far into space and NO that is NOT the "optics" of my scope.

I am talking about seeing the moon sideways, when only a portion is lit up or so it seems to the eyes and that portion projects light into space. Yet NO light coming towards it that we can so "conveniently" for you, not see) . Come on man who's the joker here. So selectively you see the light you want to see? The sun projects rays (bursts) that we can see in space, yet never going towards the moon?
The moon is producing it's own light very feasibly. Stars do, Planets do apparently as well seeing we see no light going towards them, yet they "reflect". Or are you suggesting a star's light does not travel through space before it gets to us. If so then according to you the stars light must be killed in space as we can not see light in space. You have not been to the moon neither has NASA, or anyone, therefore we do not know what it's surface is made off.

So the moon makes its own light and i just proved it!


You didn't prove anything, you made a hypothesis, which was impossible to understand due to the lack of your conversation and English skills.

With all due respect (which is none by the way), if you are going to be a troll at least try to not fail at your first post.


8
Would you finally believe us if we disproved this?
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html
Disproved all of WHAT?  Why would you think that a Flat Earth Theorist would adhere to everything on this website.
First he is a "high conspiracists" which I am not.
Second I have not taken time to read through his thinking and theories, nor, given my current reading schedule (and my writing) on the nature of the Universe, do I intend to.

This is a "throw paint at a wall post" of the very low quality kind. Rather I think you would find that in order to further a debate, or answer questions, you will need to be specific on the points you want to disprove and frankly should be addressed one by one.

OK then, just wanted to know if FE-s agreed with the content of the website.

10
Sorry, but I would like to say you people are way off the subject.

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth has no sphericity
« on: March 30, 2016, 01:19:04 PM »
Wouldn't the horizon also be curved if the Earth was flat?
Nop !

Imagine if you were at the flat Earth somewhere near the middle, and suddenly rose up to 100 km (could be less, doesn't matter).
I don't have to " imagine " being on the flat/stationary Earth, because I am living on the flat/stationary Earth (right now) !

You're the one who needs to “let ‘imagination’ picture to the mind what force air would have which was set in motion by a spherical body of 8,000 miles in diameter, which in one hour was spinning round 1,000 mph, rushing through space at 65,000 mph and gyrating across the heavens? Then let ‘conjecture’ endeavor to discover whether the inhabitants on such a globe could keep their hair on?

If the earth-globe rotates on its axis at the terrific rate of 1,000 miles an hour, such an immense mass would of necessity cause a tremendous rush of wind in the space it occupied. The wind would go all one way, and anything like clouds which got ‘within the sphere of influence’ of the rotating sphere, would have to go the same way. The fact that the earth is at rest is proved by kite flying.”
- Thomas Winships.

The curvature would still be there because the edge of the flat Earth is curved and thus it would create the view of a curved horizon, the only problem being that you would see the entire flat Earth if you could be able to see so far.
What curvature ???

This one ?



It's fake.

In Reality " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">TV, the horizon never bends :)

Guess why ?

First of all, all of the air IS going in the same direction, some slower and some faster, but those differences are minor compared to 1000 mph, that's why we get winds going in different directions relative to the Earth's surface. Also we are alive right now because we ALSO are moving at 1000 mph (regarding rotation).

The right photo is taken with a fisheye camera, the left shows Earth's curvature. The fact that you matched the curves proves nothing.

The horizon was not curved in that video because 360 degree video works that way, you would only see the curvature in 360 degree video if you were REALLY high up, way higher than the video shows.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Why do you FE-ers claim the horizon is flat?
« on: March 30, 2016, 12:06:10 PM »
Wouldn't the horizon also be curved if the Earth was flat? Imagine if you were at the flat Earth somewhere near the middle, and suddenly rose up to 100 km (could be less, doesn't matter). The curvature would still be there because the edge of the flat Earth is curved and thus it would create the view of a curved horizon, the only problem being that you would see the entire flat Earth if you could be able to see so far.

Edit: Also do you believe these proofs? Just wondering because it seems like complete nonsense.
http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

13
I'm new to the forum, and I didn't read much of your previous posts, so please point me towards the reasonable doubt.

On which topic, specifically?

Any topic, feel free to present more if you want.

14
I just said I and other RE-ers are right because you don't have any evidence that the Earth is flat, you will be right when you disprove our evidence and present your evidence, which I'm still waiting for. Present us a picture that proves the FE theory.

It is impossible to not be right, and then later be right just because a new piece of evidence is presented.  The person was right all along, but you were wrong in your determination that he was not right.  Am I right?

When you're looking form the perspective of someone that knows everything, you are right, but we don't know everything, and it's rational to believe the person with evidence, rather than the opposition without it. So if the opposition disproves original evidence, and finds other evidence to back it's claims, it suddenly becomes rational to believe them.

All of that aside, I would like to see the visual evidence of a flat Earth, if such evidence exists, if you or anyone else doesn't present it it would be rational to believe that the Earth is round.

In the American legal system, a person should not be convicted of a crime if there is reasonable doubt that the person committed said crime.  I have presented reasonable doubt on many occasions against your RET.  You simply chose to ignore what I say and then proclaim yourself right for lack of evidence against you.  You want to be the judge, jury, and executioner for the flat Earth movement.  Well, I have news for you, not everyone is as closed minded as yourself.

I'm new to the forum, and I didn't read much of your previous posts, so please point me towards the reasonable doubt.

15
I just said I and other RE-ers are right because you don't have any evidence that the Earth is flat, you will be right when you disprove our evidence and present your evidence, which I'm still waiting for. Present us a picture that proves the FE theory.

It is impossible to not be right, and then later be right just because a new piece of evidence is presented.  The person was right all along, but you were wrong in your determination that he was not right.  Am I right?

When you're looking form the perspective of someone that knows everything, you are right, but we don't know everything, and it's rational to believe the person with evidence, rather than the opposition without it. So if the opposition disproves original evidence, and finds other evidence to back it's claims, it suddenly becomes rational to believe them.

All of that aside, I would like to see the visual evidence of a flat Earth, if such evidence exists, if you or anyone else doesn't present it it would be rational to believe that the Earth is round.

16
If yes please present said proof in the comment section.
Good morning and I hope you had a Blessed Easter Morning yesterday. Thanks to my young American friend on this site I was able to finally down load the two photos I scanned into my trusty computers that are of my recent flight on British Airways taken a few weeks ago. Unfortunately three of the most important photos of the sun rising (as we moved towards the east) showed nothing because of the suns glare on the window of the airplane.

The first photo is proof of our Turkish colleague's hypothesis on viewing the moon, and how the view would not be possible on a round earth.The second show NO curvature of the earth from a terrific height.
Edit: I am unable to post the photos (upload them?) so I am attempting to past the link that will take readers to my two most excellent photographs.
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/719x471q90/r/924/4z1Vx7.jpg
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/601x451q90/r/923/ACpaWC.jpg

After my recent journey that included air flight allowing me to see from very high elevations there is no doubt the Earth is flat (with a small chance of concavity(.

How do you mean the second one shows no curvature, the curvature seems pretty obvious.

17
No, we're not the brainwashed ones. 

Oh, yeah.  That is right.  I am the one who goes to the flat Earth society in order to argue that the Earth is actually round.  ::)

It would sure be nice if one of you ever had an original thought.

Original doesn't have to mean right, and in this case it isn't right.

Being unoriginal also does not mean you are right.  I simply means you are part of the herd.  ::)

Did I ever say I'm right just because I'm unoriginal? No, I didn't.
I'm right because you still haven't proved that the Earth is flat.

Oh, you are right because you say so?  ::)

I just said I and other RE-ers are right because you don't have any evidence that the Earth is flat, you will be right when you disprove our evidence and present your evidence, which I'm still waiting for. Present us a picture that proves the FE theory.

18
What math do you want?  I can show RE'ers presenting math were they claim that if the Earth accelerated at a constant rate, it would eventually reach or exceed the speed of light, lol.  Oh, wait, was that you making that claim?  ::)

We want math or some other explanation for the things Blue Moon listed in a FE system, if an explanation for those things even exists in the FE system.

Also we want visual evidence that the Earth is flat.

None of the things that Blue Moon listed had any kind of argument attached to it.  It was just a list.  He might as well have added paper clips, rocks, and beer to the list.  It is meaningless.  How am I supposed to explain something that is meaningless?

The argument is that the FE theory does not explain those things on the list, but I gave you a chance to prove me wrong.

Also you have yet to provide the visual evidence that the Earth is flat.

19
No, we're not the brainwashed ones. 

Oh, yeah.  That is right.  I am the one who goes to the flat Earth society in order to argue that the Earth is actually round.  ::)

It would sure be nice if one of you ever had an original thought.

Original doesn't have to mean right, and in this case it isn't right.

Being unoriginal also does not mean you are right.  I simply means you are part of the herd.  ::)

Did I ever say I'm right just because I'm unoriginal? No, I didn't.
I'm right because you still haven't proved that the Earth is flat.

20
No, we're not the brainwashed ones. 

Oh, yeah.  That is right.  I am the one who goes to the flat Earth society in order to argue that the Earth is actually round.  ::)

It would sure be nice if one of you ever had an original thought.

Original doesn't have to mean right, and in this case it isn't right.

21
What math do you want?  I can show RE'ers presenting math were they claim that if the Earth accelerated at a constant rate, it would eventually reach or exceed the speed of light, lol.  Oh, wait, was that you making that claim?  ::)

We want math or some other explanation for the things Blue Moon listed in a FE system, if an explanation for those things even exists in the FE system.

Also we want visual evidence that the Earth is flat.

22
All of the visual evidence tends to point towards the Earth being flat.

I said if you have such evidence, please present it to us.
I'l be nice and present visual evidence that the Earth is round
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Earth_seen_from_Apollo_17.jpg

All explained by FET. 

Explain it then. All of it.

23
Well the ones that don't show the curvature are either taken from a low altitude or have mountains or hills in the picture.
Sorry about the weird quoting before, I don't understand the code for the site.

24
If yes please present said proof in the comment section.

Pages: [1]