1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: WHY?

« on: December 22, 2008, 01:59:54 PM »

well at least they do not use the infamous "its a conspiracy!!" sentence, everytime they are accused.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: WHY?

« on: December 22, 2008, 01:52:22 PM »

You do know, that what you are saying sounds more fictional than the Da Vinci Code?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: WHY?

« on: December 22, 2008, 01:47:02 PM »

At First: Russians would love to prove US landing wrong.
Then: Russians are part of the conspiracy.
After: Russian space program is part of the conspiracy (not the gov).

Hmm..and what happened to Russian government being part of the conspiracy, and the cold war being part of the conspiracy?? (That is what other FE stated)

I am done. Gimme a shout when you are done changing the stories to fit your needs.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: WHY?

« on: December 22, 2008, 01:31:08 PM »

you do realize that first you tell me that Russians would love to prove US's lunar landing to be fake...and now you are saying that the Russians are part of the conspiracy?

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: WHY?

« on: December 22, 2008, 11:48:43 AM »

The Russians would love to be able to prove we faked a moon landing.  Can they prove it?  Probably not, or they would have said something.  Will they say something without being able to prove it?  Don't be silly, of course not.  They hate to look ridiculous.

No actually, all I am going to tell you is that another FE believer has told me that Russia was part of the conspiracy, and that the Cold War was part of the conspiracy too.. soo yeah... Can you please make get your minds together, come up with one story, and stick to it?! Because it seems like you people are changing the story to make it fit the situation!

As far as I can tell tell, the ESA is in the same position as NASA.  I suppose you're going to tell me that if someone came to you and showed you a way to make hundreds of millions of dollars/Rubles/Yen/whatever over the next twenty years, while becoming a powerful person in the national community, you'd turn it down, and so would ever other person in Europe.

Let's see the accounts of the ESA, shall we?  Are they as far off as Nasa's?  The profits are not for the countries... but the people in the individual companies that are in on the conspiracy.  They are robbing the countries.

One more thing. The ESA is composed by the Space Agencies of most of Europe. Each individual Space Agency makes its own contribution to each individual project, and gives human resources, as well as economical toward the project...To me, and this is my point of view, it seems hard to get away with faking a space program, and getting away with it, in front of workers from 17 (i think, not sure) different countries.

FES officially welcomes Japan to the conspiracy.   

The problem is that every-time they are corned by evidence or logic, they use the conspiracy card..

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: WHY?

« on: December 22, 2008, 11:00:02 AM »

dunno if u ever been to university, but wikipedia is usually NOT used as a font of information.

I have said that there are 60 space agencies, never said anything about how many things were put in space. Putting things into space doesn't happen on a daily base, and I am not shocked that so few space agencies succeeded.

I can understand that the moon landing could seem dodgy..but why havent the direct competitors --the Russian-- not said anything about it? Why have they not tried to discredit the US?

Mars exploration is being carried out by ESA too (which includes 3/4 of Europe)..So are we saying ESA is corrupted too? (It is a bit hard to share profits equally among such different countries :p)

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: WHY?

« on: December 22, 2008, 09:27:42 AM »

i hate it to break it down to you people, but the USA are only one part of the rest of the world, making NASA only one of the many Space agencies around the world.

Now, unless we are assuming that all other space agencies around the world have stupid engineers and scientists that do not realize NASA is faking it all, we are also saying that all the other space agencies are part of the conspiracy. What does that leave us with? Thousands of engineers, scientists, and militaries getting paid to lie, and keep a secret.

So lets summarize. Let say we have more or less 60 Space agencies around the world (including the UN body in charge of Outer Space affairs), that gives 60/192 nations in the world supporting a major conspiracy (over 1/3 of the nations in the world). Obviously, NASA is not at the center of the conspiracy anymore. Why the hell would 1/3 of the world try to keep silent such a conspiracy? And yes, do not say profit, because I doubt the Malaysian space agency is making much profit.

Moreover, are we making this conspiracy even bigger, by including the UN? You think they would just sit on their butts and watch this conspiracy take place, while there are MILLIONS of people starving and dying around the world??

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Haley's comet

« on: September 03, 2008, 05:38:41 PM »

To oscar:
didn't c your location was france lol!

anywhoos.. peace out ppl!

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Distance proof.

« on: September 03, 2008, 05:22:02 PM »

You are wrong. QED

And you are obviously blind :p jk..I know, ive pointed out it was a mistake after a couple of posts.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Haley's comet

« on: September 03, 2008, 05:16:18 PM »

Oui je sais, parce que je ne l'ai pas etudie en France. Je l'ai etudie dans un pais Africaine. Et c'est la premiere fois en 3 ans que j'ai ecrit en francais! C'est dure apres qualque an!

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Distance proof.

« on: September 03, 2008, 05:10:50 PM »

Ban this idiot.

Thank You!

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Haley's comet

« on: September 03, 2008, 05:03:28 PM »

bhe, tu sei un grandissimo pezzo di merda.

La premiere ligne est italianne, et elle dit q tu es une merde.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Haley's comet

« on: September 03, 2008, 04:55:30 PM »

says mister redundant. "There are other words other than noob." lol good sentence.

Just to let you know, English is my third language. After you learn other two languages, and speak them fluently, maybe--and I say maybe--you can criticize me.

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Haley's comet

« on: September 03, 2008, 04:41:04 PM »

Already had one, why else would anyone believe Flat Earth

Well, except them being a conspiracy, with a hidden agenda?

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Haley's comet

« on: September 03, 2008, 04:27:23 PM »

Noobs, answer the questions, noob. Otherwise stop posting and read the FAQ

You know, I truly think you need to expand your vocabulary. There are other words other than noob.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ultimate and easyily doable EA experiment.

« on: September 03, 2008, 04:17:58 PM »

Hills were installed by the government as part of the conspiracy to perpetuate the Round Earth Myth. Prior to NASA hills did not exist.

Oh Obviously, silly me!

Btw, what happens to shuttle after they lift off? Do they land anywhere (since orbiting is not possible) --This is a serious question--

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ultimate and easyily doable EA experiment.

« on: September 03, 2008, 04:12:56 PM »

Sadly I looked out of my window and saw a curved earth, but I think this says more about me living at the top of a hill, than the earth being round.

This is quite funny. I live on top of a hill too, and since I have always looked out of my window and saw it curved, I have deduced that the earth must have been a sphere!!

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ultimate and easyily doable EA experiment.

« on: September 03, 2008, 04:02:58 PM »

Step 1. Look outside your window

Repeat this quote out loud, and hear how stupid you actually sound.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: I have personally seen the curvature of the Earth

« on: September 03, 2008, 03:53:52 PM »

Besides, the road itself could be engineered to appear as if it was bending.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Couple of questions

« on: September 03, 2008, 03:30:13 PM »

Health Warning: Smoking and Drinking can damage you.

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Couple of questions

« on: September 03, 2008, 03:29:38 PM »

Drink some alcohol, smoke something, re-read the whole conversation.

Repeat loud and clear: I believe it.

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: This Theory is Amusing

« on: September 03, 2008, 03:19:03 PM »

He must be in the payroll of NASA. Just proves the conspiracy!

And he is quite a professional too, since he doesn't crush at the influence of alcohol

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case

« on: September 03, 2008, 03:06:45 PM »

Well, intially NASA is launched under the assumption of the spherical Earth. After initial funding and missions, experiments etc... they discover it is not spherical. They devise a plan:

Quote from: divito the truthist on Today at 12:23:07 PM
NASA makes their request for a budget amount, complete with justifications and such to Congress. Congress looks it over and approves or attempts to amend based on their decisions. The resulting money from the budget is used to fake the subsequent missions and plans they had submitted to Congress, and given that it costs much less to fake it than actually produce the real results, the higher-ups can profit the difference.

So wait...NASA discovers the Earth is not spherical..What about the Russian and Sputnik? (just asking out of interest)

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Distance proof.

« on: September 02, 2008, 12:53:48 PM »

Well you do realize that if you navigated from the Artic to Antartica, and if you were using a missleading GPS, you would still get a value for your journey, and if that value was greater than 20000km that would be a proof in FE's advantage.

But then again, how can you prove the distance?

And about avigating in a straight line...hmm..use the stars? jk!

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Dialation (sic)

« on: September 02, 2008, 08:13:34 AM »

Yes, which is represented by ρ.

Please next time make sure to correct me everytime im in a hurry, and i dont care to put apostrophes, commas, and spell out fully.

Are you familiar with the distinction between mass and weight?

ok honestly, are you going to hang me because i said weight instead of mass?

I know its a huge mistake, yeah, and i apologize for that, but there is no need to make a huge deal out of it, since its just a discussion.

How about you just correct me next time, make me look stupid that way, and answer my question, possibly making me look even more stupid ?

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Dialation (sic)

« on: September 02, 2008, 08:03:11 AM »

I wouldn't mind so much if p couldn't also mean momentum or pressure. Using p instead of ρ just adds ambiguity.

Well then I take it you are slightly obtuse, since I was referring to density.

I take it you have never taken any physics in high school, then?

Yes I have, care to show my mistakes in my previous statement so that I can learn?

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Dialation (sic)

« on: September 02, 2008, 07:56:52 AM »

Oh I am very sorry that i didn't spend my time to look for the greek letter while i was typing. And I know very well what rho is, thank you very much for wasting your time in explaining it to me.

And I am very sorry that I cannot use the terminology right. Unfortunately, as a human being, I dunno everything there is to know in the world. I make mistakes, and I learn from them.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Dialation (sic)

« on: September 02, 2008, 07:48:13 AM »

I am assuming you were talking of p=m/V

And then I am so sorry professor, not everyone is a smart ass like you.

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Time Dialation (sic)

« on: September 02, 2008, 07:38:04 AM »

well no matter what the density is, if you are saying that the earth might be infinitely thick, you still have an infinite weight, and you would still need an infinite energy in order to accelerate it.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results

« on: September 02, 2008, 06:17:23 AM »

You know what? Since we actually do not know what the regulations are, and how hard it id to get a permission to fly in certain airspace, we cannot quite continue this discussion. All I know is that we read all the FAA regulations we could continue this, but honestly I am not That bored to read them! lol..

One thing I have read is that the US charges by nautic mile to navigate in their airspace. So it might be a question of paying in order to be in someone's airspace.

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/international_aviation/overflight_fees/