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.
The United States is the only government who matters in the world because it is the most powerful one. The United States is the world's only superpower. The rest are fleas on the elephant's back.Please justify this statement. This could go for a while
Please justify this statementThese videos wouldn't have been taken by residents at the government's south pole military base by any chance, would they?THE government? Why is there only one government's base there?
The Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is an American military base.
There is only one government's base there because there is only one government who matters.
Prove he exists. Either way his word is not proof.The word of a Christian is not enough proof for you?Simply the word of anyone is not proof enough for any side of a story.
Unless it's the infallible word of God, of course, but I don't think He weighed in on this issue.
I am pretty new to this site, and would like to make it clear that I am not, "trolling", as it is called.TV signals don't get transmitted halfway across the world. The only explanation I can't draw from that sentence is that you're talking about them being relayed by a satellite. Regardless, even if they were, that in no way disproves either theory.
I simply wish to answer a few of my questions and have a respectful debate. I have been looking through the forum, and what I have gathered is this: many of you FE theorists seem to believe that there is a worldwide cover up of the real, flat earth. I just wanted to know the real motive for such a thing, because really, it would cost millions of dollars to produce false evidence and keep those who know about it quiet. Even if they were paying off or killing those who know the truth, in such a large operation someone would leak proof. I just don't understand why anyone would want to keep people from knowing about a flat earth; what would be their reasoning?
And another question: how do you explain TV signals? I know some of you dismiss space travel and technology altogether; then how do explain how TV signals are transmitted halfway across the earth? Now let's say you don't dismiss space travel; how would this remain consistent with the FET that the flat earth is constantly moving upward? What i mean to say is this: How would any satellite keep up with the constantly moving earth? If you say flat earth isn't moving, then you lose simulation of gravity, thus creating an even larger hole.
I thank you for reading, and apologize if I made any mistakes regarding grammar or your theory. That being said, grammatical mistakes do not put the authenticity of my post into question( as many of you would like to believe), so please do refrain from pathetic trolling.
The word of a Christian is not enough proof for you?Simply the word of anyone is not proof enough for any side of a story.
These videos wouldn't have been taken by residents at the government's south pole military base by any chance, would they?THE government? Why is there only one government's base there?
You killed it.Let me help you here. He appears to be using a translator. Apparently his native language's work for "bump" translated to the English word, "impact".ImpactBest post ever.
In short, your post makes no sense. Try being more basic with your explanation.
ImpactBest post ever.
There is absolutely no way of telling what angle they are pointed at. For all you know the building they are attached to is on it's side. Point still stands.I believe such is the case with you. Yes, they will not be aimed directly upwards. Again, TheJackel claims that they will not be aimed at the horizon, which they are both in this picture and my observation. All I have done is pointed out how irrelevant your point was. Thank you.According to the picture's source (the credibility of which I cannot guarantee) claims that this is a Dutch building, not the Equator. I have also observed the same in my home city in Poland, which is also not at the Equator.You clearly have no grasp of what I just said. Your previous comment only stated exactly what I have said.
According to the picture's source (the credibility of which I cannot guarantee) claims that this is a Dutch building, not the Equator. I have also observed the same in my home city in Poland, which is also not at the Equator.You clearly have no grasp of what I just said. Your previous comment only stated exactly what I have said.
No one has been into space. It's unlikely you will be the first.Outlandish claims never have and never will be evidence. Get out if you have no correct contribution to make.
Geostationary satellites are only directly upwards at the equator. everywhere else they must be pointed at an angle. Please learn more about being less retarded.Remember that there is not only the FAQ but you can also use the search function to look into your question(s).
If you understand how satellite dishes work, you wouldn't get a signal worth a shit by pointing it into the sky under FE. There is a reason why you have to actually aim the dish to that which is transmitting the signal. Hence under FE the Dish would not be pointing up into the sky. Sorry, but dish alignment matters! If you think I am wrong, feel free to point your satellite dish to face the horizon in any direction. So when you learn that the direction of the signal is coming from space, you might just have an epiphany. After you are done, you can call your provider to come out a fix your alignment because you thought the earth was flat lol.
(While I realize that pictures are not evidence, and that this one is a bit oddly colourful,) I have seen satellite dishes not pointing upwards many times. Like this:
Are you saying these people weren't very bright and probably had no TV reception in their houses?
Proof plz.If that is not acceptable then Google Earth can't do it any better.Sever distortion and warping of images is not acceptable. k?They would match up fine if you account for all the non-imaged areas such as the oceans which make up the vast majority of the planet. In addition your original argument is flawed - just because you can piece together the images to make a sphere doesn't mean you can't do it to make any other shape.I can do it easily. Its just not worth my time. If its worth yours go for it. I have work to do. Believe it or not, my day job is not rewriting Google Maps for a random person on an internet forum.
They would match up fine.
And here is your logic flaw.
Yes, mapping GE to a cube is fine, all that it would do is change it from a sphere, but it would still have all the same properties as the sphere model
Mapping it to a flat plane is where They wouldn't match up fine.
Sever distortion and warping of images is not acceptable. k?They would match up fine if you account for all the non-imaged areas such as the oceans which make up the vast majority of the planet. In addition your original argument is flawed - just because you can piece together the images to make a sphere doesn't mean you can't do it to make any other shape.I can do it easily. Its just not worth my time. If its worth yours go for it. I have work to do. Believe it or not, my day job is not rewriting Google Maps for a random person on an internet forum.
They would match up fine.
And here is your logic flaw.
Yes, mapping GE to a cube is fine, all that it would do is change it from a sphere, but it would still have all the same properties as the sphere model
Mapping it to a flat plane is where They wouldn't match up fine.
1 != constant.Baw.
Yeah, because this is bawwing and your constant requests for my banning aren't.
2fst4u is angry because of my post count. admit it.I'm not going to lie. Yes.
So, what shape overall is the FE? Is it a large cube or is it rather thin?The Earth has no gravitational field of it's own
This is where your understanding falls short.
GTFO if you can't understand simply gravity, RtT you n00b. It's really quite simple to understand the earth being a giant magnet pulling everything towards the centre.guys, just look at how magnets work, they use MAGNETIC energy to pull them selves together. I dont think im seeing the magnets fall towards eachother. aspeshaly when im holding them side by side.
the earth's core is just one massive magnet, and it so powerful, it's able to pull everything around it towwards it.
just think of that little magnet of yours (assuming you have one that is) as a mini planet core.
Is that what you think gravity is?
Of the earth, yes it would be negligible. It's all about scale.Photo of 3d object creates a 2d [distorted] version (Not the fact that it's on a flat piece of paper, but more the fact that things like countries disappearing behind the horizon are squashed. The photo of the country has captured a distorted image of the object at the edges.)
Needs more images.
which is point A)
Would you agree that photos of the ground 1mm x 1mm in size would not be influenced by your distortion?
No shit retard.Why aren't there any shit retards in here?
No, I don't want to get into it too much as I've explained it before and nobody understood it.2d images don't fit on 3d models without distortion.
That all depends on:
A) how many 2d images there are.
B) how many faces the model has.
Unless your are arguing about the North and South poles of Google Earth, that's not distortion to make them fit - but distortion, from close reference points, because that's how they fit.
