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 - tunu

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Not your usual time lapse videos from space
« on: August 05, 2013, 11:21:51 PM »
The first video is pretty.

I love how both are taken from the iss, but one shows a nice crisp outline of the earth and the second shows a wide, hazy blue atmosphere. While I love looking at any and all pictures of the round earth (mainly for laughs now) they all contradict each other on what the earth looks like from space, even from the exact same vantage point, and as far as I'm concerned are all entirely fabricated.

Feel free to post some more.

I'm convinced that all the "evidence" for the Flat Earth Hypothesis is all entirely fabricated.  Now what do we do?

2
Flat Earth General / Re: When did the conspiracy start?
« on: August 05, 2013, 11:19:10 PM »
Im a flat earther, but I myself don't believe in the conspiracy. I think NASA genuinely sent up satallites, put men on the moon, took pictures of Earth from space and all that jazz. I used to believe in the conspiracy until FES's founder/great mind, said of the first photo of Earth taken to space as presented to him in 1957, "it is easy to see how a picture can fool the untrained eye". At first I didn't get this but then it hit me! The sun shines roughly half the earth while the rest lays in darkness in the night with only the moon, and the sun acts as a spotlight, this giving and illusion of a round earth, when it instead only shows the circle of light around our flat (but circular) world

so NASA sent men to the moon (which is round?) and then took pictures of earth (which is flat?), and have no reason to lie to the public about the details of those missions?

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Why can you trust what you see out your window?
« on: August 05, 2013, 11:01:15 PM »

Anyway, I have not seen any FE'ers who have said that refraction does not exist.  Could someone quote a post?

I'm not trying to say anything about refraction, other than it exists, and we can see it.

In this case what we see for ourselves does not represent what is actually happening in reality.

Why then can we look out the window and know for certain that what we see is real, and anything else is a grand conspiracy?

Shouldn't my gaze out the window be questioned just as much as any other evidence presented?

sorry, still new to the flat earth hypothesis.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure a Ladder
« on: August 05, 2013, 12:50:41 PM »
low content arguing aside, is there a response to this from the FE group?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Weightlessness" and faked video evidence
« on: August 05, 2013, 12:46:57 PM »
It might even be a combination of the two I mentioned.

Also, just because you say something is unlikely, that does not make it impossible.

but for some reason, when you say a round earth is unlikely, that makes it impossible. . . . . .

why does nasa have better CGI than the rest of the world?

and if it's "multiple vomit comet" rides spliced together, how do you explain uncut communication (with video) with people on earth, including classroom QandA where students make up the questions *that day* (precluding the possibility of a pre-recorded, spliced video being used)?

Also, how do you account for the perfect rest during a splice for things that cannot be perfectly reset (i.e. floating bits of water/debris)?


That's a lot of questions, take your time, I won't be back on till tomorrow at the earliest.

It's starting to look like the "simplest explanation" is an ISS. . . .

6
my question is:

if the earth is flat, why doesn't that picture show the ice wall?

7
Flat Earth General / Re: A zetetic observation... of a round earth
« on: August 05, 2013, 11:48:09 AM »
It is not the strength of the light in this case.  It is the path that the light takes.  If the clouds were not there in mexicanwave's situation, then the sun's light would not have reached his eyes because of the distance.  Place a cloud between you and the sun and the sun's light does reach the cloud and then is diffused, which means that the light is scattered and is no longer traveling the same path that it was before.  The light is much less intense after being diffused, but enough of it can be seen for you to notice it.

Same goes for the atmolayer.  I still don't understand what is confusing you people.


I'm confused again.

I'm to far away from the sun to see it, but the clouds are closer, so they can be hit by the sun.

You claim that the light is "refracted" by the clouds, but wouldn't that make the light less intense, not more intense?

The clouds would have to magnify the sun's light to make it travel far enough to reach me, right?

or are you saying that the clouds are a light source and that's why I can see them, but not the sun (further away than the clouds).

8
Flat Earth General / Re: When did the conspiracy start?
« on: August 05, 2013, 11:41:43 AM »
Quote
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?

Therefore a shadow on the moon is direct evidence that a body exists to cause it. We like to call this body the Anti-Moon, or as I prefer, the Shadow Object.

The Shadow Object exists. There is no doubt about that. There is some contention on what it exists as, exactly, but it none the less exists. The Shadow Object even exists in the RET model. In RET the Shadow Object is the earth.

I just want to clarify:

1. there is a shadow on the moon

2. something must cause that shadow

3. it is impossible to tell whether or not this "shadow object" is an antimoon or the earth

isn't this as much evidence for RE as FE?

The shadow of the earth on the moon is direct evidence that the earth is round, right?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Weightlessness" and faked video evidence
« on: August 05, 2013, 10:55:50 AM »
none of those three hold up to any amount of scientific scrutiny whatsoever, especially in hours long videos showing people and objects moving at varying speeds in varying directions.

So now I'm back to:

Is there a FE hypothesis that explains this?

10
Flat Earth General / lets do some math!
« on: August 05, 2013, 06:02:13 AM »
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

that's right, you can *actually* calculate the radius of the earth, yourself, with nothing but an ocean shore, the knowledge of your height, and a stop watch!!! YAY!!!

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Why can you trust what you see out your window?
« on: August 05, 2013, 04:45:02 AM »


I see a lot of "look out your window".

Anytime someone presents "evidence" that the earth is round, the FE group claims that the evidence can't be trusted because of "bendy light" or "photoshop".

Why then, can we trust what we see out the window?

Why is one point of view more acceptable than the other?

put a straw in water, take a look. Isn't that "proof" that water alters physical reality, because you saw it with your own eyes?

You claim that the earth is flat because you "saw it with your own eyes". So if the earth is flat, isn't the straw displaced in reality, too?

12
Flat Earth General / Re: When did the conspiracy start?
« on: August 05, 2013, 04:35:26 AM »
I say, follow the money. Hollywood has made billions off RE theory. The reason the Scientologists run Hollywood is because Hollywood needs true believers in RE theory and Scientology provides an entire religious theology based on space travel. Not hard to connect the dots here: A RELIGION OF SPACE TRAVEL -> BLOCKBUSTER MOVIES LIKE STAR WARS  -> $Billions and $Billions

you do realize that the "star wars" franchise existed decades before the "religion of space travel" that you claim created it. . . . . .

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: creation myth for FEH?
« on: August 05, 2013, 04:31:19 AM »
The fact is I don't need to go to Australia to prove its existence.

Of course not, there are plenty of people that have been to Australia that you can talk to. I doubt you know a great deal that have been to Jupiter, however.

I just want to point out, "talking to someone that has been to Australia" is, by definition, "indirect evidence", which you suggest CANNOT exist.  So now we're back to "Australia doesn't exist because YOU haven't been there."  Anything short of YOU going there is indirect evidence.   So, now I have to ask, what's the difference between your belief that Australia exists and my belief that the moon exists?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: "Weightlessness" and faked video evidence
« on: August 05, 2013, 04:25:57 AM »
I'm a little late to the party, and find it difficult to parse responses nested 15 quotes deep.  Is there a FEH explanation for "levitating" hair and other inanimate objects of varying density/composition?

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: creation myth for FEH?
« on: September 12, 2012, 07:47:12 PM »
still waiting on the creation myth for the flat earth hypothesis.

anyone?

Why do you assume that there must be a myth to explain the flat-earth? There is nothing saying it couldn't have come about through entirely natural processes. If you NEED a myth, there is one about elephants and a turtle you may enjoy.

Also, it's called flat-earth theory, not flat-earth hypothesis.

no, this is a hypothesis, definitely NOT a theory. It's not your fault, most people don't know what the word theory means, you've fallen into the same trap as countless millions.  (in order for it to be a "theory" you'd have to be able to point to peer-reviewed, repeatable, falsifiable tests, that provide evidence for a flat earth.  As you absolutely cannot do this, the idea that the earth is flat remains a hypothesis.)

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how a flat earth could have been created without violating simple, testable, falsifiable physics.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: creation myth for FEH?
« on: September 09, 2012, 01:53:42 AM »
still waiting on the creation myth for the flat earth hypothesis.

anyone?

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newton
« on: August 16, 2012, 12:21:25 AM »
Do you know what a "statistically significant" means? ???

answering my question with a question isn't going to get us anywhere.

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newton
« on: August 16, 2012, 12:11:08 AM »
It certainly disproves Cavendish and the accepted models. Why are you so obstinately clinging to error?

show me a testable, falsifiable, peer reviewed projection with less than .75% deviation.


Why do you seem to think that less than one percent deviation is the same thing as being one hundred percent false??

19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newton
« on: August 16, 2012, 12:09:19 AM »
What is a FEHer?

Someone who believes in the Flat Earth Hypothesis. . .

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newton
« on: August 16, 2012, 12:01:06 AM »
No, I asserted that a .75% deviation is unaccounted for and that Cavendish is wrong. I seriously worry about the world's mean reading comprehension level.

a .75% deviation is WAY more accurate than anything provided by a FEHer.

It's still grasping at straws, and it doesn't "disprove" anything.

21
seriously you guys, everyone knows that any website that ends in .jpg is full of java script and the best way to spread viruses.

22
my problem is still with your impossible life form moving impossibly quick in an impossibly organized fashion. 

if you can explain these away, there will only be a few hundred reason left why the flat earth hypothesis is false.

23
is there an atmosphere, or water on the moon that can support the life you're talking about? 

No, but I don't see how that is relevant. Neither an atmosphere nor water is necessary for life.

Aren't you the one that was criticizing people for posting in the vein of "it could be, therefor it is"

Show me evidence of this life, or you're just making stuff up. 

Quote
How far away is the moon?  with a telescope wouldn't you be able to get a pretty clear picture of this "lifeform" you're talking about?

A telescope is not capable of seeing any fauna on the Moon at any significant amount of detail. You can google how far away the moon is.


why not? why wouldn't a telescope be able to see this lifeform that is SO LUMINESCENT that we can see it with the naked eye?  Also, wouldn't the "googled distance" of the moon make it impossibly far away from a flat earth?  If I accept that distance wouldn't it disprove the Flat Earth Hypothesis?

Quote
You really are a terrible troll.  You've got to come up with something better than "impossible life form moving impossibly fast, in an impossibly organized manner".  Seriously, go back to 9gag and practice trolling more, you're awful at it.

Please do not post personal attacks.

That wasn't a personal attack, that was a zetetic observation and some advice.  If you don't want to continue your career as an internet troll that's fine.  If however, you want to get better, the folks over at 9gag are a good roll model.


Calling a skunk a skunk isn't a personal attack.  You're an internet troll, identifying you isn't a personal attack.  I was just trying to help.


Also, please defend your impossible life forms moving impossibly fast in an impossibly  organized manner.  I'm not going to let you dodge the issue that easily ;)

24
Lunar eclipses are caused by periodic agitation in the life forms that reside upon the moon. It is similar to this, simply on a much larger and more noticeable scale. The periods between such happenings can be predicted based on the position of the Sun relative to the position of the Moon. The exact cause is unknown.

is there an atmosphere, or water on the moon that can support the life you're talking about?  How far away is the moon?  with a telescope wouldn't you be able to get a pretty clear picture of this "lifeform" you're talking about?


You really are a terrible troll.  You've got to come up with something better than "impossible life form moving impossibly fast, in an impossibly organized manner".  Seriously, go back to 9gag and practice trolling more, you're awful at it.

25
Hmmm. trying to hide the evidence by lying about a picture found from Google trying to run a java-script. God you flatearthers a pathetic.

I've already reported you for posting a link to a malicious site. I can show the antivirus and Firefox NoScript warning to mods if needed. Getting angry about a debate is one thing, trying to disrupt someone else's property and then continuing to do so is simply crossing the line. Please take your script kiddie shenanigans elsewhere.

you are, hands down, the worst internet troll I've ever come across.  Your trolling is bad and you should feel bad.

26
Flat Earth General / What is the FEH explanation for lunar eclipses?
« on: August 15, 2012, 01:14:58 PM »
I'm sure you have an explanation, I'm just not sure what it is (this time).  I could do a search, but that would only yield what you guys thought lunar eclipses were 5 months ago.  I'd like the current model if possible.

27
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newton
« on: August 15, 2012, 01:01:25 PM »
Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

No, the quote says, (75 times out of 100) 3, the results varied from Newtonian predicted results.

7.5 times out of 10 to the third.  That means 7.5 times out of 1000.  That works out to 0.75%

Ah yes. I misinterpreted. I just finished my coffee and this is making a lot more sense now.

So we can agree that this was a misinterpretation and .75% isn't evidence of anything more than a delusional person grasping at straws to support the ridiculous theories of a deranged mind, correct?

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Newton
« on: August 15, 2012, 03:51:58 AM »
Mathis is published. I'm sorry your blind allegiance to Orthodoxy requires you to reject everything out of hand. To the best of my knowledge he is a globularist.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983PhDT........15C
"A statistically significant deviation at the level of 7.5 parts in 10 to the 3rd power from Newtonian behavior is observed. It does not conform to either of the non-Newtonian models."

Feel free to do your homework.

did you just quote a 0.75% failure rate as the reason to throw out all evidence of gravity?  please be clear here.

29
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sun lighting bottoms of clouds during Sunset...
« on: August 14, 2012, 12:48:20 AM »
How else could I have seen my hand if the light from the sun wasn't bouncing off the ground?

"visible" and "illuminated" are two VERY VERY VERY VERY different things. You can ALWAYS see the bottoms of clouds, but only during sunset are they ILLUMINATED.


So, a simple question:

Was your hand "visible" or was your hand "illuminated"?

30
Are you daft?  ???

Not as daft as the idea of a flat earth  ::)

You argue like a child, and you seem to be a highschool student who just took his first physical science class and has an uneven, pockmarked, rudimentary knowledge of science. Please don't argue for things you don't understand, you're humiliating yourself, and you're making the rest of us look stupid. Although, I suppose both sides of these debates should have someone that makes us look stupid.

ad hominem attacks don't make you right, you have presented nothing that could be confused for "science", so his "rudimentary knowledge of science" far out-shadows your own capabilities.

Talk about humiliating.

Pages: [1] 2