1

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica not existing

« on: October 21, 2006, 06:34:57 PM »

1. If you think that the North pole is similar to the south pole, then you are displaying clear ignorance of the facts you supposedly believe in. As I said before, filghts over the North pole are very common and perfectly safe, but to the best of my knowledge Antarctic flights are extremely dangerous and commerical flights very rare.

The sole reason I mentioned the north pole was because of the similar temperatures encountered. You provided no explanation for why you thought it was dangerous to fly over Antarctica, so could deduce only that..

2. To be in a deviant state of mind or to have a deviant mind would imply that there is something basically wrong with that mind and the way it functions. However, by your logic, anyone who doesn't believe in God or supernatural beings has a deviant state of mind, as the majority of the worlds population does to some degree. So by that reasoning, anyone who questions accepted assumptions has a deviant mind- Gallileo and Einstein spring to mind.

Of course, this is not the case, as their minds worked in a perfectly normal way- it is merely their beliefs which are deviant, as in my case.

You just don't get it, do you? Relating your situation to that of religious persons and "deviant"(?) atheists is a completely different scenario. It seems you once again failed to read my post. Questioning widely accepted assumptions is not indicative of a deviant mind. What I am addressing is the fact that your alternative "theory" lacks any credible evidence, logic or reasoned thinking. But the fact you hold such overwhelming conviction in this concept implies a corrupted or otherwise deviant mind. It's just rediculous that you compare your situation with that of Gallileo and Einstein. Their postulates were never based upon conspiracies and unjustified arbitrary theories tailored to suit their POV.

3.
Well, though that's probably the most childish thing you've said so far, I'd just like to point out that I replied to your post 25 minutes after you posted it (which you would know if you had bothered to look at the time of posting which is on every post), whereas you took 2 hours to make your reply. But because I'm not an ass, I'm not going to make any childish comments about it- I'll just presume that like me, you were away from your computer when I posted.

It wasn't childish, I was just curious to how long you spent scrutinizing the very nature and application of the word "deviant".

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica not existing

« on: October 20, 2006, 07:43:55 PM »

Deviant: "departing from normal standards"- Oxford English Dictionary

By saying I have a deviant mind, or that my mind is in a deviant state, you imply that my mind is in some way abnormal- hence that there was something wrong with me. Perhaps you meant to say that my beliefs were deviant, but then, that isn't what you said, is it?

By saying my mind is 'deviant', you are implying that there is something intrinsically wrong with my mind, and that this is the reason that I think the way I do. What I am saying is that questioning the things we are told in no way means that we have "deviant minds"- on the contrary, we are simply holding our powers of rational to the highest standard, by questioning and scrutinizing what we are told. So, either you believe that it is in some way abnormal to question the world around you (in which case I am quite happy to remain abnormal), or you do not know the meaning of what you said.

No, you are mistaken (moron). LANChile and Aerolineas Argentinas fly over Antarctica on every sector from Santiago/BA to Auckland and vice versa. Whilst not directly over the South Pole, the route does take them over Antarctica.

Could you provide me with the specific details of these routes? I was under the impression that Antarctic flying was extremely dangerous, and that as such, unlike the north pole, it was generally not flown over to any great degree. I may be wrong, but that was what I have been lead to believe.

Nice analysis! How long did that take you? Half an hour? A whole hour?
What you said is only partial. Questioning and/or scrutinizing what we are told is one thing and there is nothing wrong or abnormal about that. But to pose and pursue an alternative model (FE model) which is formed on the basis of illogical and arbitrary reasoning is to have a deviant state of mind (since you are departing from normal standards or otherwise differing from the accepted standards of society).
I don't have any details of the Oceania-South America routes on reference. However, with regards to your impression of it being extremely dangerous, that is incorrect. Cathay Pacific Airways offer a non-stop service from Hong Kong to New York which travels directly over the north pole. Whilst alterations need to be made to account for the very low temperatures, it is hardly dangerous.

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Flight distances - HOW does this fit the flat earth view?

« on: October 20, 2006, 07:26:39 PM »

LOL!! Wow. You really are quite unintelligent. You pretty much shot yourself in the foot with that remark. Not only does it disparage yourself, but since my assumption was correct, your comment towards me is irrelevant. With regards to the blatant hypocritisizm, I'm sure you'll get there soon.

In what way was your assumption correct? Do you deny that GPS is completely reliant on satellites which are exclusively controled by the United States military?

You assumed I didn't know how GPS is supposed to work (and I do, thanks to the Discovery channel, though in fact a quick google could tell you exactly how it works if you needed to know), and I simpy pointed out that it is essentially run by the military, which means that you are getting your information from the organisation probably most involved in the conspiracy. Anyone who puts their faith in the worlds most advanced and secretive military might want to think about what exactly that entails.

*Sigh* Another example of your poor interpretive ability. My assumption was that CrimsonKing did not know how a GPS is fabricated, operated nor had used one before. He/she verified this. OK?
I'm not even going to bother arguing with you about the potency of the military to alter the global GPS system. Why? Because your antipathy towards RE logic means that my time would be better spent placing my hand in a waffle iron.

Oh, and by the way, 'hypocritisizm' is not a word. One might go so far as to say your English is 'deviant', if one were so inclined...

Ha.ha!
Please accept my apology, the word I had intended to say was hypercriticism. I didn't reali(s?)(z?)(s?)(z?)e you were that pedantic over spelling. But I've acknowledged it now so there is no need for you to lose any sleep.  

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Flight distances - HOW does this fit the flat earth view?

« on: October 20, 2006, 05:35:47 PM »

Just so you know, when you assume, it makes an ass out of  U &, well, thats pretty much it. Just you.

LOL!! Wow. You really are quite unintelligent. You pretty much shot yourself in the foot with that remark. Not only does it disparage yourself, but since my assumption was correct, your comment towards me is irrelevant. With regards to the blatant hypocritisizm, I'm sure you'll get there soon.

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica not existing

« on: October 20, 2006, 05:23:30 PM »

Ohh... so because we can't physically see it first-hand with our own two eyes that's enough for you to justify questioning the credentials of something you don't have half the knowledge about? Also, you might want to refer the meaning of "deviant" as your last statement made no sense.

See above post. And I made no reference to the meaning of deviant; I merely suggested that saying we are deviant just because we question what we are told by forces we have no reason to trust is foolish.

Can you read?! I know you didn't make a reference to the meaning of "deviant".  I'm saying you should as you completely misunderstood the meaning of the word (and it's obvious you still do)!

Good point. There are also other scenarios for which this would apply....

No, it's not a good point, because anyone who went would have to get their own plane (expensive) and then, as per the conspiracy, risk confrontation with the security forces which patrol the ice-wall.

He is also mistaken in his belief regarding commercial flights over 'Antarctica' by the way- they are extremely rare.

No, you are mistaken (moron). LANChile and Aerolineas Argentinas fly over Antarctica on every sector from Santiago/BA to Auckland and vice versa. Whilst not directly over the South Pole, the route does take them over Antarctica.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Flight distances - HOW does this fit the flat earth view?

« on: October 20, 2006, 05:11:34 PM »

Generally, this is explained by the conspiracy, I dont think the pilots, but sensitive instruments could lie.

Ohh yes... I'm assuming you have absolutely no idea how a GPS system is fabricated, operated or let alone used one. But hey! It threatens to disparage FE theory so let's proclaim it as part of a conspiracy.

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica not existing

« on: October 20, 2006, 04:49:25 PM »

If the flat earth society was actually interested in proving their theory, they would have collected enough money to have ONE PERSON try it by now.

Good point. There are also other scenarios for which this would apply....

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica not existing

« on: October 20, 2006, 04:45:38 PM »

They are indisputedly ignorant, in that they believe in something they have never seen. I'm not saying they are stupid- we are all ignorant, myself included. It's not an insult, merely a fact. We are ignorant, but to deny our ignorance is stupidity. To paraphrase Socrates, 'I am only wise in that I know I know nothing'.

And this is supposed to infer what exactly? How can one possibly have a logical and sensible debate with someone who claims that any disparaging evidence is a conspiracy? As I stated prior, it is like arguing with a brick wall.

It is supposed to infer that you have no right to claim we are 'deviant' when your opinions and beliefs are based entirely on what other people have told you. Tell me, what authority do they have that we don't?

Ohh... so because we can't physically see it first-hand with our own two eyes that's enough for you to justify questioning the credentials of something you don't have half the knowledge about? Also, you might want to refer the meaning of "deviant" as your last statement made no sense.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica not existing

« on: October 20, 2006, 06:58:02 AM »

It's funny how you exaggerate certain comments in order to reinforce your weak POV.

Has it ever occured to you that the reason we're outnumbered is because the majority of people are indisputedly ignorant?

No, that has not occured to me. I have more sense than to relegate myself in to your deviant state of mind. Indisputedly ignorant? Again, you are mistaken.

Surely even you wouldn't argue that most people can claim to have seen 'antarctica' for themselves?

And this is supposed to infer what exactly? How can one possibly have a logical and sensible debate with someone who claims that any disparaging evidence is a conspiracy? As I stated prior, it is like arguing with a brick wall.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Antartica not existing

« on: October 20, 2006, 05:55:03 AM »

Hmm, I guess one of us must be lying. How do we know which one?

Hmm, I think it's a safe bet to say the grossly outnumbered, manifestly deluded individual. Oh wait... that's you!

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Government Manipulation

« on: October 18, 2006, 05:14:03 AM »

touche.

perhaps theres a small secret society not directly connected with governments but still have sway in key places to be able to effectively keep the conspiracy alive without actually letting on to those they work through that the conspiracy is the earth is flat.  if i were paid great sums of money to do sneaky things i wouldnt be concerned with what was being hidden.  off the top of my head, one possible group that performs this function could be the Exclusive Bretheren.

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps... Personally, I would imagine you to be one of the most frustrating individuals with which to hold a conversation. We negated how it would be physically impossible for governments of the world to conspire in protecting this secret of a flat earth. Now that we highlight inconsistencies to FE theory, you go on to pose utterly obscure theories about a small secret society. Clearly, you are just pulling things out of your a$$ without ever applying logic or reasoned thinking. You can't even hold a firm comprehension of how a FE may operate!

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Government Manipulation

« on: October 18, 2006, 05:05:05 AM »

The question was 'what is the cause of gravity (it's mechanism)'

A question like that follows the same line of track as fundamental questions such as, "Why do we exist?" Nobody can answer that...
He gave you an explanation of gravity and how it conforms to the processes we witness within the boundaries of the Earth and other external influences. The scenario of an "accelerating earth" on the other hand is far more superficial, and unlike that of a gravitational field, is severely devoid of credible evidence.

13

Flat Earth General / Re: Has anyone actually seen the "Ice Wall"?

« on: October 17, 2006, 06:56:07 AM »

It's quite devious the way you people emplace the burden of evidence on to those who highlight your lack of logic. How is it feasible to prove something to you when our contradiction is only taken from knowledge of the (reputable) spherical world? With regards to this matter, you're only going to suggest some arbitrary drivel along the lines of "What you thought was Antarctica is something completely different." And then "back it up" with your inconclusive statement: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." We might as well argue with a brick wall.......

14

Flat Earth Q&A / Government Manipulation

« on: October 17, 2006, 06:01:29 AM »

dont forget its possible the conspiracy is so old the original peoples who KNEW the conspiracy was a conspiracy have long since pasted away and in todays world there is nobody that needs to protect the conspiracy because everybody truely does believe there is no conspiracy.

you are obviously one of these people.  so much so that you sem to be bitter about us even suggesting the earth is different to whats generally accepted.

With that mentality you could claim anything a conspiracy just by questioning the credentials of something you don't have half the knowledge about. In fact, your first paragraph offers nothing more to the reader than your obvious paranoia. Your whole concept of a government conspiracy is just rediculous, no matter how old you may think it is, you would be a lunatic to think that with the constant establishment of new governments, new political structures, new countries, new political personell somehow this "conspiracy" remained protected.
The only reason my attitude is bitter is because the modus operandi of you society defies logic, is plagued with conjectures, has NO convincing evidence whatsoever and thrives upon manipulation of the less intelligent.

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Government Manipulation

« on: October 17, 2006, 03:10:43 AM »

It has come to my attention that your perception of the concept of a round-earth as a global government conspiracy is simply a cliché that appears to lack any logic or viable explanation whatsoever. Firstly, the word "governance" applies to a very broad spectrum and can be defined as the political direction and control exercised over members of a society. So when you claim it as a "government conspiracy" what section of what type of government(s) are you referring to exactly? People are removed and appointed from/to governments all the time, sometimes by force, sometimes by community preference. It COMPLETELY defies ALL logic for every single individual of every single government of the world, past or present, to keep this "conspiracy" a secret. Also, it's sad to say, but the world does not operate in a collaborative manner to ensure this "conspiracy" remains a secret. Global governments don't just "appear" disorganised to quash scepticism, this is ludicrous as governments don't ever remain the same, again defying logic.
Any "answers" you have for these flaws in your system are tailored to remove the doubt but severely lack any solid or even minor evidence. "NASA is part of the consipracy." How convenient! "NASA spent their money on developing advanced computers instead of space travel." How convenient! GPS systems mislead pilots and/or pilots are part of the conspiracy. How convenient! [btw... my father is a pilot so don't try and dump that s*** on me]. See what I mean? When someone provides false information, witholds or distorts relevant information, uses paralogisms on a mass basis - this is MANIPULATION, manipulation on your part. When enough simpletons succumb to manipulation, voila - we have groups like the Flat Earth Society. All respected theories that coincide with a round earth have substantial scientific backing and conform to the basic laws of physics (which, if you also claim to be a conspiracy, is just going to envelope you further into your growing pile of pretentious BS).

16

Flat Earth Debate / My Trip To The Ice Wall

« on: October 16, 2006, 05:17:10 AM »

Additionally, that last pictute is so mind-numbingly obviously edited.

ORLY?


~D-Draw

Yes, really. Apart from the obvious observation that the area has just been coloured black with specks of white added in to it, I'm assuming Microsoft Paint or a similar program (a really poor attempt at an edit I might add), but I analysed the image on Photoshop which, in turn, verified this. When you apply a brightness and definition mask on to the image, it clearly shows a massive disparity between the black area and ice shelf with no gradient effect whatsoever. It is physicaly IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a photograph like this (even if there was a point source of light or something similar).
Furthermore, you are very naive. Did you honestly believe that people would accept these random photographs and a fallacious story as a true basis of proof that there really is an ice-wall at the end of a flat-earth? Although you may be easily manipulated, this however does not apply to the masses. No published and reputible scientific theory is based solely upon an anecdote and a few ambiguous photographs, so your claim: "Is it because I have more proof than you?" is ludicrous to say the least...

we have ourselves a new moron, seeing as its his first post and his terminology i find it very difficult to believe that he is joking.

in conclusion...ciroc is a complete tard  :twisted:

LOL, why the blatant hypocritisizm? Perhaps you may wish to debate the points I made, rather than persisting with petty insults. It's quite juvenile really and just accentuates that you really have no basis for a debate on this matter. You people are so easily manipulated, and yet you seem so unaware with your pretentious claims and theories you claim as evidence. I could have a more intelligent conversation with my cat for christ's sake......

17

Flat Earth Debate / My Trip To The Ice Wall

« on: October 16, 2006, 05:09:23 AM »

Furthermore, you are very naive. Did you honestly believe that people would accept these random photographs and a fallacious story as a true basis of proof that there really is an ice-wall at the end of a flat-earth? Although you may be easily manipulated, this however does not apply to the masses. No published and reputible scientific theory is based solely upon an anecdote and a few ambiguous photographs, so your claim: "Is it because I have more proof than you?" is ludicrous to say the least...

:lol:  you are very naive to take this thread at face value with such a righteous attitude.

Oh, I see, let's try turn the humiliation on me now.
The original post was not intended as a joke, any attempt to claim it as one would be revoking the BS the original poster tried to laden upon us. This, of course, would only be done in a defensive manner to avoid being "caught out"  :wink: You're all too superficial, really....

18

Flat Earth Debate / My Trip To The Ice Wall

« on: October 16, 2006, 04:44:26 AM »

Additionally, that last pictute is so mind-numbingly obviously edited.

ORLY?


~D-Draw

Yes, really. Apart from the obvious observation that the area has just been coloured black with specks of white added in to it, I'm assuming Microsoft Paint or a similar program (a really poor attempt at an edit I might add), but I analysed the image on Photoshop which, in turn, verified this. When you apply a brightness and definition mask on to the image, it clearly shows a massive disparity between the black area and ice shelf with no gradient effect whatsoever. It is physicaly IMPOSSIBLE to obtain a photograph like this (even if there was a point source of light or something similar).
Furthermore, you are very naive. Did you honestly believe that people would accept these random photographs and a fallacious story as a true basis of proof that there really is an ice-wall at the end of a flat-earth? Although you may be easily manipulated, this however does not apply to the masses. No published and reputible scientific theory is based solely upon an anecdote and a few ambiguous photographs, so your claim: "Is it because I have more proof than you?" is ludicrous to say the least...