1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ice wall guards

« on: December 08, 2011, 12:08:53 AM »

I was told that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in the "Hollow Earth" theory and that's why many of the Nazi's strategic calculations went awry. It's all very interesting. Hitler also apparently believed in the Holy Grail (not just in Indiana Jones), the city of Atlantis, various forms of magic and a whole list of other occult/esoteric subject matter. Spooky ...

Hitler was not an FE believer until the foo fighters never came back.  While there could have been several reasons for them never returning, Hitler was very hasty at the time while recieving speed injections and experiencing extreme paranoia.  After the german rocket scientists informed him of the possibility of an FE, he was mad with a need to know more.  Unfortunately for him, the war did not permit him to discover anything.

References?

References?  Since when do you consider anything other than your absurd ellipsoid propaganda.  HHitler was indeed a drug addict.  He used to recieve regular injections and at times was nearly impossible to wake up.  It is said that one of the reasons the germans exhibited  such a belated  response to the aliied D-Day invasion was because  they couldnt wake Hitler up as he was exhausted from too much speed.  Experimentation with drugs during WW2 is well documented.  The Japs used to give the kamakazis speed.  How else do you think they got them to crash a plane into something, it had nothing to do with loyalty to the emperor.  They were simply so juiced up they actually thought they would live through it all.  Speed makes you feel like superman, like Thor, like you could take on a legion of flying warriors.  Believe me I know.

I can fully believe that Hitler took speed, it would explain his energetic and rather scary speeches quite well. However, the kamakazi pilots ... not necessarily. Japanese warriors have been willingly committing harakiri and seppuku (ritual suicide) for centuries, it was a well established part of their culture until the Bomb was dropped on them, as far as I know. But anyway, back to the topic. What I dont understand is how the ice barrier is so well protected from exploration. Humans are perfectly capable of surviving in treachorous icy conditions, and are those who claim to have explored antartica also part of the Conspiracy? The FAQs explanation of ice guards is truly inadequate as the rim must be absolutely eeenormous.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: questions

« on: December 07, 2011, 02:02:54 AM »

Evidence? 

Besides, that is one of many examples. I simply put it out there as alternate theory as the whole meteorite hitting earth things strikes me as an absurdity of an idea.  There are many more I could've used, in many different countries, by differing groups of scientists.

Africa, New Mexico, even more of these mysterious craters in India.

http://www.s8int.com/atomic2.html
Even ancient nuclear reactors;
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ancient-nuclear-reactor

Yes folks, these so called primitives were one step away from wiping out all of mankind just as the stone age was coming about.

Hey, you're a smart kid, don't listen to anyone who tells you otherwise. The thing is (and I'm fairly sure of this but not certain) that the craters believed to be created by meteorites most usually do not show signs of radioactivity (unless radioactive material was present in the meteor before it impacted). I also believe that something very mysterious happened in earths ancient history but thats another topic altogether. You haven't said yet WHY you dont believe in meteorite impacts and I would also like to direct your attention to the moon which is covered in craters. How could the ancients set off bombs there if travelling to the moon is impossible according to FET?

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)

« on: December 07, 2011, 01:44:28 AM »

I still want to know what stars are supposed to BE in FE theory. Is it one of those mysteries that has yet to be explained in FET? Are they immortalized greek heroes, pixie dust, did NASA put them there to make people believe in outer space? I would just like to know what those "small" twinklling things actually are ...

Why do we have to have answers for everything? We're not disreputable astronomers who sit in their closets hypothesizing all day. Our answers are based on evidence, not hypothesis.

The stars are small bodies suspended above the earth, exactly as they appear to be. Their material, their composition, and their properties, is of course unknown.

The only thing known about the celestial bodies is their distance from the earth. The 3000 and 3100 mile figures for the celestial bodies are based on triangulation in conjunction with a plane surface. Since the earth is flat, as demonstrated in Earth Not a Globe, simple trig can show that the celestial bodies are very close to the earth, and thus very small bodies.

Trig is also used in the Round Earth Model with the same types of observations to show that the celestial bodies are millions of miles distant. Astronomers use trig on a curved surface to calculate the distance to the sun. The math is much more complicated than the example in the link above. However, as the earth is not curved, these calculations are not true.

First of all, I would like to say that I admire your commitment and dedication to FET aswell as the bravery it must take to challenge such a well established idea as RET. You are also very calm, polite and straightforward with your answers. Well done. I just wonder how you plan to convince the masses when so many things that are adequately explained in RET (for the average person) are simply (and inadequately) put down as "mysteries" by FE'ers. I also wonder how NASA could be the main culprit for a world conspiracy when, surely, it must merely be the face and name of an incredible system of secretive organization that is world wide and deeply ingrained in every country, government and institution above a certain level of development. That, to me, seems like an increeedibly complicated thing to hold together. Ive read the FAQ and dont agree with the conclusions. If you accuse NASA, wouldn't you also have to accuse certain aspects of the US and other world governments? Also, your remark in one of the other threads about the equator and the zebra hunting, loin cloth knitting and odour problems, was, in my opinion, a huge mistake on your part and a terrible blow to your (and FET) credibility as you seem to be one of the more vocal advocates on this website. Why not formulate some rational theories about what the stars are and avoid using words like 'of course' and 'obviously', I see too much of that on this website and it doesn't help anything.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ice wall guards

« on: December 07, 2011, 12:23:19 AM »

I was told that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in the "Hollow Earth" theory and that's why many of the Nazi's strategic calculations went awry. It's all very interesting. Hitler also apparently believed in the Holy Grail (not just in Indiana Jones), the city of Atlantis, various forms of magic and a whole list of other occult/esoteric subject matter. Spooky ...

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ships on the horizon

« on: December 06, 2011, 11:59:39 PM »

This has been asked so many times its unreal. Anyway, the explanation is light bends gradually upwards due to electromagnetic acceleration causing things to disappear as they get farther away.

Thanks but what is the FE explanation?

Lol, that is the FE explanation.

Lol! Oh ok, I was confused (no expert on maths or physics but I do enjoy logic).  Ive since been told by someone else that swells in the ocean can account for this "optical illusion". Bleh! Really thought that I had an example that could'nt be argued with. Damn! 

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)

« on: December 06, 2011, 11:39:45 PM »

I still want to know what stars are supposed to BE in FE theory. Is it one of those mysteries that has yet to be explained in FET? Are they immortalized greek heroes, pixie dust, did NASA put them there to make people believe in outer space? I would just like to know what those "small" twinklling things actually are ...

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Impact by Asteroid or Meteor

« on: December 06, 2011, 11:09:21 PM »

I was wondering if anyone could answer this for me?

Q. If the Earth is a disc-shape, what would happen if a large celestial object like a meteor, asteroid or comet were to clip the very side of the rim? Would the Earth spin out of control like a coin flipping through the air and throw everything on its surface into turmoil, and, perhaps, off into space? The are many examples (huge craters) of cataclysmic impacts, some of which can be found in Southern Africa which would be fairly close to the rim. Has this sort of disaster happened before and if so, why is the Earth not spinning/flipping through space like a coin?

Assuming that there is a a large enough force on the underside of the earth to continually move it upwards at an ever increasing rate, its unlikely that an object only a few miles across could seriously disrupt the course of the earth, or even its stability.  It would be like a rock hitting the windshield of your car, it may leave a crack, but it wont "rock" your car or disrupt its travel pattern, its simply too small and lacking in speed. Leaving a dent is one thing, but moving the whole car, it usually takes another car to do that.

With respect, a car has a very stable aerodynamic shape (as far as human beings can make it so) and four treaded tires keeping a firm grip on the road. A disc however is not a stable shape, especially if it is hurtling face first through an open space. Like you said, it would need a stablizing force from behind but what would that be?

No the issue is not stability, it is size of impacting objects.  And according to FEers UA is the force pushing the earth upwards, or at least i think that is what its called.  Meteorites can not significantly disrupt the orbit of the earth, it took a collision with the moon just to create an off kilter axis.  Not to say impacts do not harm life on earth, but it takes a huge amount of force to disrupt the orientation of the earth noticeably. 

That being said i have done zero calculations, so its really all BS.

I get what you're saying and apologies as it wasn't you who implied that there has to be a stabilizing force from behind, that was another thread. Thought you trying to convert me. 

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Impact by Asteroid or Meteor

« on: December 06, 2011, 11:06:06 PM »

Meteors never impact the earth.

Really?

Indeed. Look it up.

Is this pedantry really necessary?  On second though, forget that I asked.

"Meteor-ites" hit the earth but you're right not to waste your time, it was my error.

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff

« on: December 06, 2011, 08:51:53 AM »

Oh and thanks for the help.

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Ships on the horizon

« on: December 06, 2011, 08:47:16 AM »

This has been asked so many times its unreal. Anyway, the explanation is light bends gradually upwards due to electromagnetic acceleration causing things to disappear as they get farther away.

Thanks but what is the FE explanation?

11

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff

« on: December 06, 2011, 08:44:15 AM »

Wow! Its amazing how easily everyone is swayed from the topic (ON BOTH SIDES!) just because of a few insults. Ive been trying to read the threads with the most interesting titles just because there are so many but it seems that most of them are packed with people fighting like children. Make me laugh. 

I suppose you have evidence for this outlandish claim?

With all due respect, the evidence is in the last few pages and name calling is the least of it. What really makes me laugh is that 'snipez' fellow who basically insults people, sticks out his tongue and then runs away with no intention of debating the things he says (& has done the same thing in a few other threads Ive come across). Very childish if you ask me. You seemed to support him too, ripping off that poor fellow who didnt understand the context in which you used the word 'retard'. I understand if you were just having a bit of fun but in the end it seemed like intellectual bullying. This surprised me as all the other posts of yours that I have read seem very polite and well structured. Am I wrong?
The main reason for my comment, however, is that the topic is "Spooky Stuff" and there has been very little discussion about that particular subject matter (even though the original person was talking about the 'spookiness' of his confusion in what to believe). The interesting title was, as I said before, the reason I was initially interested in this thread.

Good fellow, I can assure you that the poster in question, ''noflatchicks'', was attempting to be condescending and speak down to people here.  Then he posted a rather unlettered comment about the word, ''retard'' which in his shoebox of a world he occupies simply thinks the word means a person of metal handicap.  He set himself up for this with his condescending matter.  Truth is, he had no backing for acting superior, I simply put it out there for all to see.  The poster has since left.  Thank you for noticing my eloquent polite manner, most will not admit it and there is also an anti-Archibald sentiment growing endogenously within some of the dissaffected posters.

Ok, but what about snipez? He comments were both rude and condescending, not to mention obscene ... surely he broke all of the rules? Why was he not at least reprimanded? If I was a moderator I might have even kicked him out altogether as it is obvious that he does want to discuss his views (at least with non FE'ers).

12

Flat Earth Q&A / Ships on the horizon

« on: December 06, 2011, 05:46:34 AM »

I dont know if this has been asked before but Im gonna asked it anyway because doing searches and going through all the threads has gotten really tedious for me. So ...

Q. What is actually happening when a ship appears to "sink" over the horizon of the ocean?

I have seen this personally with (binoculars) and without any visual aid and its something anyone can do. My own observation was that as the ship reaches the horizon point and moves beyond it, it appears to slowly "sink" over the horizon. If the earth was flat, the ship would just continue to become smaller and smaller until its too small to see. If the atmosphere was limiting my field of view, it would gradually fade and dissappear but still be within line of sight (or something like that, you tell me).

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Impact by Asteroid or Meteor

« on: December 06, 2011, 03:08:16 AM »

I was wondering if anyone could answer this for me?

Q. If the Earth is a disc-shape, what would happen if a large celestial object like a meteor, asteroid or comet were to clip the very side of the rim? Would the Earth spin out of control like a coin flipping through the air and throw everything on its surface into turmoil, and, perhaps, off into space? The are many examples (huge craters) of cataclysmic impacts, some of which can be found in Southern Africa which would be fairly close to the rim. Has this sort of disaster happened before and if so, why is the Earth not spinning/flipping through space like a coin?

Assuming that there is a a large enough force on the underside of the earth to continually move it upwards at an ever increasing rate, its unlikely that an object only a few miles across could seriously disrupt the course of the earth, or even its stability.  It would be like a rock hitting the windshield of your car, it may leave a crack, but it wont "rock" your car or disrupt its travel pattern, its simply too small and lacking in speed. Leaving a dent is one thing, but moving the whole car, it usually takes another car to do that.

With respect, a car has a very stable aerodynamic shape (as far as human beings can make it so) and four treaded tires keeping a firm grip on the road. A disc however is not a stable shape, especially if it is hurtling face first through an open space. Like you said, it would need a stablizing force from behind but what would that be? 

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Every star in the universe is 3100 miles above the disc. (300 sextillion)

« on: December 06, 2011, 02:31:16 AM »

Sorry to interject, but if the stars are small and 3100 miles away (and beyond) etc ... what ARE they??

15

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can someone address this?

« on: December 06, 2011, 01:51:33 AM »

I would like to know what the stars are supposed to "be" if they are only 3100 miles above the earth ... while I'm asking, what is the composition of the "spotlight" sun and the moon? Tried to do a search on these things but got impatient (slow internet). Could someone answer this for me? 

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the earth is round...

« on: December 06, 2011, 12:49:48 AM »

That's a common misconception about physics. Although we are subject to a gravitational force, it isn't gravity that you feel when you stand up. What you feel is actually the normal force exerted on you by the floor. To balance the downward force of gravity, an upward force is exerted.

Thank you for correcting me ... will refrain from getting too indepth on that particular subject in the future. 

Flat earther still needs a good answer though, otherwise he/she wouldn't have asked at all ...

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the earth is round...

« on: December 06, 2011, 12:41:16 AM »

That's a common misconception about physics. Although we are subject to a gravitational force, it isn't gravity that you feel when you stand up. What you feel is actually the normal force exerted on you by the floor. To balance the downward force of gravity, an upward force is exerted.

Thank you for correcting me ... will refrain from getting too indepth on that particular subject in the future. 

18

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: If the earth is round...

« on: December 05, 2011, 11:42:43 PM »

Well, for one thing. if gravity existed, wouldn't we feel this force. I'm sure it would be a lot more like being pushed to the Ground. and quite frankly. I think gravity is a Lie.

Hmm? But we ARE being pushed to the ground, that's what gravity is, we feel the force every minute of every day, that's why things fall down. Haven't you ever felt tired and started sloaching or felt the relief of getting into bed after a long day. It requires a certain amount of strength to withstand gravity in an upright position. It takes its toll on our bodies and if we cannot maintain our strength we have to succumb to that "push" towards the earth. When we have a heavy object on top of us we are feeling gravity pulling/pushing it onto us. If you simply believe in an up and a down without needing an explanation, that's fine, but if you actually want an explanation then gravity explains it well.

19

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So what's with this infinite plane thing?

« on: December 05, 2011, 10:50:58 PM »

I have no problem visualising an infinite plane in my head but I wonder, how could such a thing be accelerating through the universe?

According to John Davis, the most vocal advocate of the infinite plane model, it isn't.  It simply produces gravity.

That's interesting but extremely vague. Surely he had some ideas? I wonder, is it an endless plane of water with bedrock beneath and is it infinitely thick/deep too? Just curious.

20

Flat Earth Q&A / Impact by Asteroid or Meteor

« on: December 05, 2011, 12:46:30 PM »

I was wondering if anyone could answer this for me?

Q. If the Earth is a disc-shape, what would happen if a large celestial object like a meteor, asteroid or comet were to clip the very side of the rim? Would the Earth spin out of control like a coin flipping through the air and throw everything on its surface into turmoil, and, perhaps, off into space? The are many examples (huge craters) of cataclysmic impacts, some of which can be found in Southern Africa which would be fairly close to the rim. Has this sort of disaster happened before and if so, why is the Earth not spinning/flipping through space like a coin?

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So what's with this infinite plane thing?

« on: December 05, 2011, 12:02:26 PM »

I have no problem visualising an infinite plane in my head but I wonder, how could such a thing be accelerating through the universe?
 

22

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: questions

« on: December 05, 2011, 11:42:03 AM »

@ Mr Pseudonym.

I like the way you answer questions though, in a very calm and direct way. Well done.

23

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff

« on: December 05, 2011, 11:32:30 AM »

Oh, and a very similiar thing happens in most of the other threads (deviation from the subject matter I mean) but I guess that the contraversial subject matter of FE theory itself tends to get people all 'hot under the collar' as they say. I just wish people could be civil and actually talk to each other rather than angrily playing intellectual tennis and then losing the ball entirely. 

Oh, and perhaps you can help me, I'm a so-called noob and Im trying to figure out how to keep track of my posts. Is there an easy way of doing this?

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff

« on: December 05, 2011, 11:15:47 AM »

Wow! Its amazing how easily everyone is swayed from the topic (ON BOTH SIDES!) just because of a few insults. Ive been trying to read the threads with the most interesting titles just because there are so many but it seems that most of them are packed with people fighting like children. Make me laugh. 

I suppose you have evidence for this outlandish claim?

With all due respect, the evidence is in the last few pages and name calling is the least of it. What really makes me laugh is that 'snipez' fellow who basically insults people, sticks out his tongue and then runs away with no intention of debating the things he says (& has done the same thing in a few other threads Ive come across). Very childish if you ask me. You seemed to support him too, ripping off that poor fellow who didnt understand the context in which you used the word 'retard'. I understand if you were just having a bit of fun but in the end it seemed like intellectual bullying. This surprised me as all the other posts of yours that I have read seem very polite and well structured. Am I wrong?
The main reason for my comment, however, is that the topic is "Spooky Stuff" and there has been very little discussion about that particular subject matter (even though the original person was talking about the 'spookiness' of his confusion in what to believe). The interesting title was, as I said before, the reason I was initially interested in this thread.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Evolution

« on: December 05, 2011, 10:34:31 AM »

Talk about going in circles. I am no advocate of FE theory but I like to debate and I respect anyone or anything that challenges mainstream ideas. Lets face it though, ideas change (evolve if you want) and a hundreds of years from now people will probably laugh at all of us. But anyway ...

I would like to add something that all here might find worthy of note. I watched a documentary called "IMAX Hubble" about the (alleged to FE'ers) Hubble space telescope and all the amazing pictures and data that it has provided on its journeys.
In one section it showed the birth process of stars in the Orion nebula which take on a perceptible 'disc-like' shape as the various gases and clumps of matter (not an expert so please excuse me if Im inaccurate with terminology) swirl around the central ... um ... "nucleus?" ... Anyway, is this not an example of a heavenly body in a the shape of a disc? Galaxies also apparently have a disc-like shape (roughly disc-like) for reasons that Ive always wondered about ... are galaxies not also heavenly bodies when seen with the naked eye or through a telescope?  This documentary was partly the reason that I joined this whole debate. Scientists are constantly learning something new about the universe and are usually taken by complete surprise by what they find ...
To stick to your current debate though, I think that the word "evolution" can be used in both the traditional sense (ie gradual change) and the evolutionist sense of it. Why not? Is this not the English language where one word can mean multiple things?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: So what's with this infinite plane thing?

« on: December 05, 2011, 08:47:16 AM »

Hello, I think I missed something while reading the FAQ and the various threads. Is it accepted amongst FE'ers that the Earth is BOTH a flat disc AND an infinite plane or could/might it be one or the other? If it is BOTH then my question is "how is this possible?" As far as I can see it, an infinite plane could not be a disc because a disc has an edge. An infinite plane however has no edge at all .... am I right? Perhaps Im just tired ....

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Spooky stuff

« on: December 05, 2011, 08:13:41 AM »

Wow! Its amazing how easily everyone is swayed from the topic (ON BOTH SIDES!) just because of a few insults. Ive been trying to read the threads with the most interesting titles just because there are so many but it seems that most of them are packed with people fighting like children. Make me laugh. 

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can someone address this?

« on: December 05, 2011, 06:31:10 AM »

I'm a so-called noob here and don't know how to include quotes from other posts,

Use the little box that says, "quote." 
Nonsensical I know.

Aah ... thank you kindly.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can someone address this?

« on: December 05, 2011, 05:20:11 AM »

Am I correct in saying that all the many and various things that can't be fully explained in FE theory are put aside as 'mysteries'? This really can't be good for your cause.

I'm a so-called noob here and don't know how to include quotes from other posts, but the person who mentions that he "cannot say what people observe on the equator but that they're probably hunting zebras and knitting loin cloths is the sort of person who makes me very worried. Where did he get that information, google, an encyclopedia, the bible? Is he teaching that to his children? I sincerely hope that he just needs to explain himself better.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: questions

« on: December 05, 2011, 04:47:43 AM »

I do believe that people, in general, are easily swayed by ideas that apparently make sense, either because it works for them, they are too busy to think otherwise, or they are intellectually unable to dispute them ... but ... a whole world full of billions of people, many of whom have been forced in recent times to take full stock of their lives and their reality ... ?? ... is it really so easy to fool so many people? This 'Conspiracy' would have to be an insanely huge (and delicate) web of integrated smaller conspiracies. With so much to hide, I feel doubtful that such a thing could exist without falling apart at the seams at some point. Do you believe that the truth will have to be revealed soon, perhaps 2012?

... (Respectfully) To say that you don't believe in cataclysmic events like meteor impacts because you have never experienced one yourself is very poor debate m'fraid. Could you please clarify what you mean?