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 - Pilgrim

Pages: [1] 2 3
Flat Earth General / Re: Is VirginGalactic part of the Conspiracy?
« on: June 02, 2014, 05:55:43 AM »
As I anticipated, we are yet to be at a satisfactory juncture in the development of Virgin Galactic, to warrant a discussion of any potential evidence it yields. Certainly closer to that point with this latest news, but that is irrelevant.

Perhaps once flights have commenced and people begin YouTubing Earth from Space videos, will RE proponents have evidence to bring, and like have dismissed, by FE proponents.

Flat Earth General / Re: Is VirginGalactic part of the Conspiracy?
« on: June 01, 2014, 07:27:18 AM »
Regardless of Virgin Galactic's motives, symbology et al, it is certainly an interesting development. A couple of years ago, it was continually purported on these boards that this Virgin Galactic project would never get off the ground (excuse the pun, if you will) and that it was all an elaborate ruse to take peoples' money for something that Virgin never had any intention of bringing to fruition.

Perhaps this new development is another delaying tactic. Perhaps everything will be given the green light, only for a last moment issue causing the entire project to be abandoned. That said, the reports, it seems as though they are certainly advancing the programme, as opposed to throwing up issues.

I still feel this is a little early to begin speculating on what potential customers will view on these flights at this stage, but we're certainly one step closer to be able to bring that to the table.


Flat Earth General / Re: Why is there a squirrel on Mars?
« on: June 06, 2013, 08:50:13 AM »
In his post, FlatOrange has correctly dispelled the optical illusion presented in the original post. The same can be done simply by placing ones own hand over the 'head' and observing how the remainder of the supposed rodent dissolves into the simple rock formation that it is.

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA diversifies
« on: May 13, 2013, 01:07:55 PM »
I kindly refer you to this video if you will:

I find it highly unfair to suggest that simply because somebody has musical talent, Chris in particular, and has put together a music video, that he must be an actor and not a real astronaut. Consider the following:

"Hadfield was described as "perhaps the most social media savvy astronaut ever to leave Earth" by Forbes after building a considerable audience on social media, including over 760,000 Twitter followers as of May 2013, [1] and creating one of the top Reddit AmA threads of all time.[2]Hadfield has enlisted the help of his web-savvy sons Evan and Kyle to manage his social media presence.[3]"

Hadfield is currently working on the first original music album to be recorded in orbit during his free time on Expedition 35. He will be recording the album using a Larrivée Parlor guitar, Shure microphones, and Cakewalk for recording.[4] The first song recorded in space, Jewel in the Night, was released via YouTube on Christmas Eve 2012.[5] His collaboration with Ed Robertson of the Barenaked Ladies and the Wexford Gleeks, Is Somebody Singing? (sometimes shortened I.S.S.), was aired on the CBC Radio program Q and released by CBC Music online on 8 February 2013.[6] Hadfield sang Is Somebody Singing along with singers across Canada for the national Music Monday program.[17] Hadfield has been credited musically on his brother Dave Hadfield's albums.
On 12 May 2013, after handing over command of the ISS before returning home, he released a music video recorded on the ISS of a modified rendition of "Space Oddity" by David Bowie.[18]

I find it in tolerable to think that somebody in a professional position cannot pursue hobbies, personal interests and goals. Are we to dismiss some of the fantastic poetry written from the trenches of The Great War, simply because they were soldiers and not writers?

1. Chris' Twitter account:
2. Chris Hadfield's Reddit AMA From Space
3. Article RE web-savvy sons.
4. Chris talking RE guitar playing in space.
5. First song recorded in space article:
6. ISS (Is Somebody Singing).
7. Chris leads nationwide singalong. Article.
8. Chris's Space Oddity Video: #ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Space Oddity

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 13, 2013, 12:44:28 PM »
Wonderful, thank you icanbeanything, that certainly aids the explanation!

In regards to the physics teacher; that is certainly most unsettling, but such a common misconception, that I find myself unsurprised.

In conclusion, a full moon, a new moon and solar / lunar eclipses of varying degree do work demonstrably on the currently understood Round Earth Theory. Obviously, this only applies if making calculations that assume the Earth and other celestial bodies are as they are in aforementioned RET.

Flat Earth General / Re: ISS's social media butterfly
« on: May 13, 2013, 06:50:43 AM »
Regardless of the shape of the Earth; that was a cracking video. Thank you for sharing.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Full moon
« on: May 13, 2013, 06:47:39 AM »
The way a full moon 'works' in RET, I've found, is fairly straightforward to get your head around when you start looking at planes of orbit in relation to the moon and the Earth. It also helps to understand how phases of the moon work generally, and what's going on when we see the different phases of the moon.

Just to clear the misconception; the phases of the moon are not caused by the Earth's shadow. (Apologies for this potentially patronising statement, but it is a very common misconception that I come across when talking about the moon with peers.)

The principle of why we are able to see a full moon is the same as why we don't have a solar eclipse every time the phase of the moon is new, (every 29.5 days.) If the moon orbited Earth on the same plane (the ecliptic) then we would indeed observe two eclipses per month. Every two weeks in fact, at both the new and full phases of the moon. This is where the confusion seems to have arisen with the impossibility of observing a full moon with those that refute the RET.

As it is, the moon's orbit is inclined to Earth's by about 5 degrees. Twice a month, the moon intersects the Earth's orbital plane at two points called nodes. If the moon is going from south to north in its orbit, then it's an ascending node. If it's going from north to south, then it's a descending node. Eclipses happen when the full or new moon is close enough to one of these nodes; when the moon and Earths orbital planes intersect. Otherwise the shadow from the Earth / Moon does not fall upon the Moon / Earth.

I say "close enough to the nodes", because we can actually observe more eclipses than just the two when the nodes intersect entirely, which account for partial eclipses. There are partial and total eclipses, and they are very predictable and well worth seeking out; some are truly stunning.

Ultimately, phases of the moon (and eclipses for that matter) can, and do, work when using a round Earth model; but obviously agreeing with the conclusions requires belief of orbital planes, a stationary sun, and of course a spherical Earth.

Flat Earth General / Re: NASA had faster-than-light radios in 1969
« on: May 12, 2013, 04:25:27 PM »
Could the answer to this be found in that NASA did not establish direct links with the television channels?

"NASA hadn't established a direct link with the television channels. The live pictures transmitted from the Moon were displayed on a 10-inch black-and-white monitor, and a Vidicon camera was pointed at the screen, the output of which was given to the channels.

            Television channels actually showed us the live footage from the ASTRONAUT's side. i.e. the voices of the mission control that we heard in the footage were coming to us from the moon, and not directly from mission control. The conversation between the mission control and the astronauts as seen in the footage was hence, without any time delays."1

1 - The Absolute Verdict on Debunking Conspiracy Theories. []

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Seeing a sunset and sunrise?
« on: May 01, 2013, 02:08:46 PM »
Mikebob. Welcome.

I see you've gone and made a whole host of threads already. A couple of things; check out the Flat Earth FAQ, which gives explanations for many of the common questions you have made threads for.

Failing that, all of the questions you have put forward have been asked and answered many, many times before. A quick use of the handy search feature would have fielded a library of results for you to browse.

For the sake of general tidiness, and to avoid irritating the regulars with the same old questions, I suggest you use the tools available to you to find answers in future, before hitting the 'New Thread' button.

Warm regards,


Flat Earth General / Re: ISS's social media butterfly
« on: April 27, 2013, 06:10:54 AM »
Your tone has changed Sceptimatic. Thank you for clarifying your belief structure. It is not unusual to reject evidence that conflicts with your own stance in this society. I would advise, however, that you qualify your rejection with something beyond 'because its stupid to believe' (even if you honestly believe that it is) if only to allow an insight into your position.

I am sure you wish to share your stance and have reasonable dicussion about others? Is that not why you are here? Civilised discussion requires respectfully going through the motions of establishing your case. Many will have gone through a similar eximination of evidence as you have, and will have conluded differently.

Flat Earth General / Re: ISS's social media butterfly
« on: April 27, 2013, 04:52:00 AM »
I didn't say I believe them. I said I believe them more than I believe you. Which is very telling.

Flat Earth General / Re: ISS's social media butterfly
« on: April 27, 2013, 04:04:03 AM »
Somewhat hilariously, I find myself believing these so-called 'astroliars' far more than I believe that you don't. Which makes you an even worse actor, and a hypocrite once again.

We've discussed this, Sceptimatic. Behave yourself.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: railroad ties argument
« on: April 26, 2013, 02:23:38 PM »
According to Round Earth Theory, the distance to the centre of the Earth is 6369 km. Pythagoras theorem therefore tells us that the earth curves about 12.5 centimetres for every kilometre. For a skyscraper 150 metres high, and 50 metres wide, the curvature to compensate for would be 0.62 of a centimetre. Which is negligible; there'd be higher fluctuations from temperature differences.

Taller skyscrapers, as mentioned, are generally built with wider bases anyway to support weight and wind sheer on the structure.

Ski's remark about the top floor of skyscrapers being greater in floorspace than those on the ground floor is somewhat over-exaggerated. While technically true, the increase in size (as observed using the Round Earth Model) is practically irrelevant.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« on: April 26, 2013, 10:43:23 AM »

Welcome. You have severely missed the boat with your first post though. There are plenty of threads on just such a topic that the handy 'Search' features of these forums will reveal.

Ultimately though, no, you have no definitively proved anything. Prove we went to the moon, that the laser ranging experiment is possible and that it all corresponds to a model which is infallible (i.e, don't assume things based on a round earth model when that is not the accepted belief amongst those you are trying to persuade) and you will have a starting point.

You will quickly learn, if you stick around here, that posting evidence of experiments or claims that go against the Flat Earth model will generally result in dismissal based on lies, fabrication or simple impossibility, unless you can categorically and infallibly demonstrate it yourself. Even then, prepare to defend your stance against an onslaught of counter claims, evidence and proofs from proponents of the Flat Earth Theory.

I wish you luck, and welcome.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« on: April 26, 2013, 05:29:54 AM »
I can confirm that the time in England, United Kingdom, is (as of now) correct to the second.


I confirm that the time is not accurate Maryland, it is off by 2 hours and 10 minutes.

Ah! Compelling. Interesting that it is correct for some, but not others. It does mean that it can't be used as irrefutable proof though. (EDIT: Assuming you were using it to check on sunrise / sunset time)

Quote from: Ze_PilOt
By the way, still about "faking" things, a video about why faking the moon landing was pretty much impossible from a pure technical point of view :

I really enjoy this video, and not just because of his witty demeanor. However, for Flat Earth proponents, he does somewhat provide ammunition by stating that (while unlikely) there is a process by which it would be possible to create the film. He does then suggests it is probably easier to just go to the moon, and this is the crux of the argument. It might be easier to go to the moon in the RET, but as it is an impossibility to go to the moon in the FET, then the only conclusion for the FE theorist to conclude is that it must be faked - however difficult that faking process would have been to achieve. The only other conclusion is that the FE model is incorrect, which is for the FE proponent to decide. 

Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Faked" Photographic Evidence? Pfft.
« on: April 26, 2013, 03:59:26 AM »
Hi Ze_PilOt! Welcome to this wonderful and thought provoking society!

You present interesting queries. However, while I am sure your position as a 'lead technical director for lighting and shading' makes you very knowledgeable about how light works within the confines of small scale, Earth based studies, I am fairly sure that supporters of the Flat Earth Theory (FET) will likely argue that light behaves differently to what you expect through atmospheric circumstance such as this, or on this scale, or in this particular environment. The points you raise may be true on a round Earth model, but if the Earth is flat, you will have to demonstrate that it works on both infallibly. Also, photographic evidence is not a particularly reliable source of evidence for proponents of either FET or RET, so your argument may simply be dismissed on those grounds.

Again, welcome to the Flat Earth Society.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Science?
« on: April 25, 2013, 10:53:10 AM »
I have read what you posted again, as you suggested, but still hold to what I said. In this very thread you state: "except silly ones that supposedly portray it as being a rotating sphere." Are you not silly for holding onto your belief in a flat Earth, just as much as anyone else that believes in a round Earth, or any other Earth model? Where no infallible evidence exists thus far to demonstrate conclusively the truth, is it not an arrogant and hypocritical statement to suggest your own position is superior, or that another position is lower or 'silly'?

Perhaps I am reading too deeply between the lines. Perhaps you need to re-examine how you present your stance.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Science?
« on: April 25, 2013, 08:51:16 AM »
Sceptimatic takes the stance that we should all clear our minds of accepting mainstream truths, simply because we are told they are true, but hypocritically assumes that his own stance is correct, simply because he believes it to be true. Furthermore he thinks everyone should accept his view.

Evidently from discussion, Sceptimatic, many do not "realise it is flat", despite "clearing their minds" and making their own conclusions. Their stance is as completely valid as your own. You will have to present evidence (just as they will for you) of sufficient quality and infallibility to change a belief that independent observation, study and research has founded.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Science?
« on: April 25, 2013, 07:09:27 AM »
The principle remains the same. If you could infallibly convince a flat earth proponent of the earths rotundity, then you would. The only explanations that remain are either you have yet to offer such infallible evidence, or that flat earth proponents are in denial. I am sure many would suggest the former.

I used water as an example of something both parties agree upon. Possibly because, as you suggest, you can perceive water in it's entirety. It is easier to prove, and that is why proof is so infallible and why everyone agrees. Ultimately, to convince somebody of the Earth's shape against what they believe, you're going to have to try harder as it is much harder to prove. I do not begin to suggest that this is an easy feat, but then I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Science?
« on: April 25, 2013, 06:24:25 AM »
Many proponents of each theory concur on countless things. Water is wet. Fire is hot. Justin Bieber is annoying, etc.

Obviously, if evidence (for either a round or flat earth) is presented that simply goes against what one believes, obviously some exceptional proof is going to have to be presented to confirm it. If you want to claim that water isn't wet, fire isn't hot and that Justin Bieber isn't annoying, then you're going to have to present infallible, inexcusable and undeniable proof to change my mind.

Indeed. A shadow isn't anything; it is merely the absence of light rays hitting a surface due to an object obstructing it. As, according to the round Earth model, the moon reflects the sun's light, if the Earth were to pass between the sun and the moon, we can only see the portion of the moon that the sun's light rays are hitting. Darkness does not exist - only the absence of light.

So, in the RET, the shadow does not extend through space to touch the surface of the moon, but rather the sun's light rays do not reach the surface of the moon to illuminate it.

I am not suggesting that at all. I am fairly certain that large burning spheres of gas quadrillions of miles away would look the same.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Creation of a Flat Earth
« on: April 23, 2013, 11:51:34 AM »
Do you know Him?

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Creation of a Flat Earth
« on: April 23, 2013, 11:48:40 AM »
Quote from: BenW
I'm no master theologian, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Christian faith say that everyone has sin? Hence the reason for confession, baptism, Jesus' death, etc?

Christians believe that we are sinners as a product of a broken, fallen world. God hates sin, and it must be punished - the punishment for sin is death. In ancient Israel, sacrifices would be made, as a substitute for ourselves - the priest would 'cast the sin' of the people into the animal and it would be put to death as a substitute.

God sent His only son - himself incarnate as a man to walk among us. He came with the full intent of becoming a perfect sacrifice. Without sin, he took on the sin of the world and was put to death - and as a perfect sacrifice, he paid the perfect price. Those that acknowledge they are sinners and accept Jesus can know that their sins are forgiven. The price has already been paid, completely and in full. We just have to accept it. This is the love and grace of God. He doesn't want to make it hard for us to do.

Upon accepting Jesus, we are immediately justified before God. The sin we commit (and most certainly do continue to commit) has been paid for already. That is what God's grace and love is. As we enter this relationship with God, we are sanctified - slowly losing the desire to do what God wouldn't want us to, but knowing that we are still loved just the same if we do. There is a freedom in Christ that is extremely hard to explain.

I would argue that if ENaG is truth, then it is truth, regardless of when it was written. If subsequent evidence categorically confirms that the truth is a fallacy, then so be it. I'm sure FET proponents would say this has yet to happen, however.

I have removed no meaning for those that believe the Earth is flat, any more than I have for those that don't. Proponents of the FET (whether they believe it or not) can argue their case and those that argue the Earth is round can do the same - they don't need a safe, padded room to do it - otherwise this forum would not be public and the Flat Earth Society would be discussing their theories amongst themselves.

This is no playground for the intellectually curious, rather, this is a place where one can argue against the norm and against accepted truths without (ideally) mockery for such viewpoints.  There is an accepted theory to a FE, this is not a free for all of random guesswork and 'anything goes as official' theories. What this society does, however, is transcend mere discussion of the shape of the Earth and allows freedom to probe other accepted truths.

The Flat Earth is a platform (excuse the pun) to jump into an exciting world of discussion. As I said, come before this society with what you wish to bring - whether it be to argue against or for a Flat Earth or simply to observe discussion in progress. Hopefully you will leave enlightened, or at least entertained. 

Arts & Entertainment / From the Wall
« on: April 23, 2013, 06:38:55 AM »
On that day, where ice-pick pierced the craggy top,
and liars, still daring to pinch the last fraying inch
of wool to pull and blind, fell to truth's spear.

Droning planes, like lazy hornets, fly straight
yet yearn for us to learn of their ever present turn
and sharp hulls slice not a ball, but a dice.

Heaven's stare rather here, than there, shine
stars; celestial flecks on light-less canvas.

Rewriting history. The moon; still night's mystery
untrodden or disturbed by NASA's boot, hangs on
a mobile, dances with Sol.

Space-stations plummet under the burden of truth
and gravity releases it's pull.

And from this lofty perch, from the wall's sheer face
with an unknown wind to offer an embrace
I turn to step into infinity, or fall to limitless space.

The Flat Earth society, from the observance of many threads over many months, is not simply a society aiming to prove the Earth is flat. Instead, it represents a rare environment; one that allows a member to think freely, questionably and radically. While many members, I am sure, do believe that the Earth is flat, I am just as certain that this society is much more to many others.

Stepping into this domain with the intent of disproving the Flat Earth Theory is ultimately futile. The theory is not merely constrained to the Earth's shape, but rather represents a state of mind. Why shouldn't the Earth be flat? Simply because you have been taught otherwise? Simply because it is accepted? No; the Flat Earth Society places a banner firmly in the ground, and rallies those who wish to think differently, to question, to consider, to speculate and to suggest a thrilling proposition - that the Earth is flat!

Many are here for many reasons; some evidently enjoy the back and forth of lively debate, regardless of the topic or whether they believe the position they are arguing. Others simply enjoy locking horns with those passionately attempting to prove or disprove the Flat Earth Theory. A select number simply enjoy annoying others with ridiculous sentiment.

Take from it what you will, contribute accordingly and leave, hopefully, enlightened or entertained.

I believe that most flat Earth proponents would argue that the sky is exactly what it appears to be - that stars are not burning spheres of gas, billions of miles and light years away, but are indeed small emitters of light - as they appear to be. You are making the assumption that the Flat Earth Theory conforms to a Round Earth Theory universe, which it doesn't. Everything in the observable universe is much closer to home.

A lot of your confusions and queries are answered in the detailed FAQ section of the Flat Earth Wiki: (

For further reading, I suggest Earth Not a Globe: (, which details much of what many flat Earth proponents hold to be true.

You are correct, Jroa. No collection of dishes in the desert can conclusively prove the shape of the Earth. Just as no photograph can prove the existence of a flat / round Earth.

Of greater importance is what it is officially reported to be. In this instance, it is reported to be a radio array collecting deep space and cosmological data. This is either true, or a lie. If it is a lie, then it must be something different; either a prop to mislead, or actually serving an unknown purpose. Generally, some deeper evidence beyond "It must be a lie, because it wouldn't work on a flat Earth, and the Earth is flat" or "We are told it is a radio array collecting data, so it must be," would be appreciated.

At best, we can speculate either side of the fence as to its purpose - there is interest in that, however, so continue on!

Pages: [1] 2 3