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.

Topics - Sliver

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Q&A / A Request for levee.
« on: June 09, 2010, 05:55:23 PM »
Can you doodle some latitude and longitude line on this map of yours, please?


Flat Earth Q&A / A Few Issues With the OTHER FES Map
« on: June 06, 2010, 05:25:41 PM »

OK, looking at this map, a few issues come to mind. 

The first one is, what the heck is holding in the water?  At least the other model had a wall of ice holding it all in.  What does this model, and levee's model as well, claim is holding the water on the planet?

The second has to do with a question I asked in another thread.  What would happen to someone attempting circumnavigation going from north to south in a straight line?  On a globe, they would cross the south pole, head north from there, and eventually reach their starting point.  On this model, they would seemingly cross the south pole, and then run off the planet.

Please explain guys.

Topic speaks for itself.

Flat Earth Q&A / Sunrise and Sunset (WITHOUT Bendy Light)
« on: May 28, 2010, 08:10:13 PM »
How does FET explain sunrise and sunset WITHOUT using bendy light?  How do you explain how the clouds are illuminated from underneath?  I'll be waiting for an explanation.

Suggestions & Concerns / My Recent Banning
« on: May 20, 2010, 06:46:12 PM »
Well, first off, I'm back!  I want to thank Catchpa for going to bat for me.  I was planning on posting a thread asking who banned me and which post got the job done, but James owned up to it.  So... 

To James, I'd like to say, you really need to work on your modding skills.  I am in no way the only person making posts with profanity.  Far from it.  As for low content posts, you seriously just made that up when referring to that post.  It was a thread that Ichi had derailed, and it seemed he and another poster were debating that because a video game had a flat Earth, than the real Earth was flat.  This seriously struck me as absurd, so I called him on it.  Perhaps if I had not dropped the f-bomb in the post, you would have ignored it like so many of my other posts.  You know, the ones that ask you for proof of the ludicrous things you post.  So, take that into consideration next time you want to show some favoritism toward certain posters.

Flat Earth Q&A / Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« on: May 04, 2010, 08:13:51 AM »
Well guys, since we can't get any real response in the Unified FET thread, I figured this one would help.

If you are an FE'er, I need you to post which map you voted on, and why.  Thank you.

Flat Earth Map #1

Flat Earth Map #2

Flat Earth Q&A / Changes in the amount of daylight
« on: May 03, 2010, 07:33:02 PM »
Here's a question I haven't seen addressed yet.  How do FE'ers explain that in the northern hemisphere the days are getting longer, while in the southern hemisphere, they are getting shorter?  See in your model, that would mean the sun would have to do some really weird orbiting wouldn't it?  I mean, with a globe it's pretty easy to do, but with a flat surface, I'd venture to say it's impossible.  Especially with the size of your light source and how close to the surface your model puts it.  Care to clear it up guys?  And that stupid model you have in the Wiki doesn't get the job done.

Here's a list of sunrise and sunset times from today if you need clarification that days are currently longer north of the equator.

Flat Earth General / Interesting Hypocrisy!!
« on: May 01, 2010, 05:10:46 PM »
Many Fe'ers are quick the denounce any video or photographic evidence that goes against their claims that the Earth is flat.  However, here is a post from the "Flat Earth Believers" section...
Quote from: levee
If the solar eclipse is caused by a certain star, then we have a very high probability that the lunar eclipse is produced by another heavenly body, and is NOT an effect of weather modification. It is very important to realize that the moon does not generate the solar eclipse, and that the Black Sun has the shape of a disk:

Here is the lunar eclipse (it is NOT due to any possible effects of the weather):

The Sun, just 1 km behind the ISS, with a diameter of 1000/phi:

Sun - Mercury transit, same size/diameter of Mercury as that of the ISS...

Moon - ISS transit; same distance between the Moon and the ISS, same diameter as that of the Sun...

The shape of the Sun is that of a disk, just like all the other planets/stars...

There are three kinds of stellar orbits, here is the photograph to prove it:

See the following links for complete explanations:

Venus - Sun transit:

Here are the Black Sun eclipsing our visible Sun, and Venus nearby:

These are the very best proofs on which we can base our statements re: the size of the Sun, and of the other stars/planets...

He sure does link a lot of YouTube videos and even posts, dare I say, a picture!  I must say the pic posted looks like a really bad PhotoShop job.  I may be wrong, but, well, just look at it.  I'd say this shows a pretty large amount of hypocrisy.  How about you?

Flat Earth General / You Guys Need Your Own Show
« on: April 29, 2010, 08:14:35 PM »
This is a serious suggestion.

Why not contact the Discovery channel to put your theories up against some scientists?  I mean, I'm sure Tom Bishop, James, and John Davis would have a field day with the scientists that would try to disprove FET.  Why not go for it, guys?

You know, you could even try to contact Jesse Ventura?  He's got a show about conspiracy theories.  I'm sure if there was a conspiracy of the level that you guys suggest, he'd love to put your evidence of it on TV.

What say you, FE'ers?

Your FAQ says the moon is 32 miles wide and 3000 miles away.  Well, the formula for apparent size and distance is Sa=S/D.  So, that means that the Apparent size=size/distance.  You your model, that means an object measuring 32 miles wide, viewed at a distance of 3000 miles would appear to be .01 ft or .128 inches.  Not even a quarter of an inch.  Last time I looked at the moon, it appeared bigger than that.
And for you metric folks...
Quote from: The same thing I posted above but in metric
Your FAQ says the moon is 51.5 km wide and 4828.03 away.  Well, the formula for apparent size and distance is Sa=S/D.  So, that means that the Apparent size=size/distance.  You your model, that means an object measuring 51.5 km wide, viewed at a distance of 4828.03 km would appear to be .01067 m or 1.067 cm.  Last time I looked at the moon, it appeared bigger than that.

Flat Earth General / The Lie Theory
« on: April 26, 2010, 07:54:56 PM »
I've been thinking about the whole "Flat Earth Theory", and it dawned on me.  It's a lie!  Let me explain how I came to this conclusion.

When someone tells a lie, they are then burdened with the task of convincing others that their lie is actually truth.  Then, as the people he is trying to convince find fault with the lie, the liar is forced come up with more lies to help support the first one.  Let's move on to the example.

Joey goes out and cheats on his wife.  His wife asks him why he's 3 hours late getting home from work.  Joey tells the first lie and says, "I was working late, honey."  Now, he has to convince her that this is true.  He adds some details, all lies, to make his working late story appear true.  She buys it.  However, a few days later her friend tells her that she saw Joey at a bar, while he was supposedly working late, having drinks with another woman.  Uh-oh.  Now Joey has to make up another lie to not only convince his wife that we has working late, but also that he was not at the bar with another woman.  He tells her, "It was my twin brother Steve and his girlfriend."  The wife sort of buys it.  But when she asks why she's never met this twin brother, Joey now has to make up a lie the supports the lie about working late, the lie that he wasn't at the bar, AND why his wife has never met his twin brother.  His biggest problem, is he has not one real shred of proof for any of his lies.  The only thing he can use to convince her he speaks the truth, is more lies.

You can see how this is snowballing on our buddy, Joey here.  Now, let's apply this to the FES. 

They tell one lie, the Earth is flat.  Some buy it, but some question it.  So, they make up a few lies to try to support the first lie.  These would include the ice wall, the bullshit about the sun being a spotlight, and others.  Then as those lies are called into question, they have to come up with more, like bendy light, antimoon, and the "conspiracy".  You can see how this is snowballing on the little club?  What makes it worse for the FES, is that it's not just one person making up the lies, it's a group.  And they are not all keeping track of each others bullshit.

Now, how do I know that it's the FES that's lying and not the members of the "conspiracy"?  The FES has no evidence that can prove any of the lies they claim are fact. 

So, there you have it, the "Flat Earth Theory" is nothing more than a lie.

Flat Earth Q&A / Question For Tom Bishop 2.0
« on: April 26, 2010, 07:28:10 PM »
The last thread I started asking questions of Tom got derailed and ignored.  So, we're gonna try this again.  Could everyone else please refrain from posting in this thread UNTIL Tom has answered the question.  Thank you.

I read this in your Wiki...

Quote from: FES Wiki

The Sun
The sun is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.
Spotlight effect
The Sun's area of light is limited to a circular area of light upon the earth much like the light of a lighthouse is limited to a circular area. This means that only certain portions of the Earth are lightened at a time. It also describes how night and day arise in Flat Earth. The apparent view of rising and setting are caused by perspective, just as a flock of birds overhead will descend into the horizon as they fly into the distance.

What is your evidence to back this up?  Especially the part about the size and location of the sun.

Flat Earth Q&A / Magnetic Poles, V. 2.0
« on: April 25, 2010, 02:39:07 PM »
My first attempt had a typo and was closed, rather than addressed.  So...

I read this in the FAQ.
Quote from: FES FAQ
Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"

A: The magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as with the RE (Diagram). Thus, the magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, just like on the RE.  The magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth. The Ice Wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field. The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.

I'm wondering what evidence you have to back this up.

Flat Earth Q&A / Antimoon?!?!?!
« on: April 25, 2010, 02:30:21 PM »
Again, I read this in the FAQ.  (You may be noticing a trend in my recent threads.)
Quote from: FES FAQ
Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses?"

A: A celestial body, known as the antimoon, passes between the sun and moon. This projects a shadow upon the moon.

Where is your evidence to back this up?

Flat Earth Q&A / New Ice Wall Question
« on: April 25, 2010, 02:24:30 PM »
Read this on the FAQ.
Quote from:  FES FAQ
Q: "Why doesn't water run off the Earth?"

A1: In the general model, there is a vast ice wall that keeps the water where it is. The ice wall is roughly 150ft high. This also explains why you can find a vast plane of ice when you travel south. Antarctica as a continent does not exist.
If Ice floats on water, how exactly does it hold in the water?  Also, where is your evidence to back this up?

Flat Earth Q&A / Magnetic Poles
« on: April 25, 2010, 02:22:52 PM »
Read this on the FAQ.
Quote from:  FES FAQ
Q: "How can a compass work on a Flat Earth?"

A: The magnetic field is generated in the same fashion as with the RE (Diagram). Thus, the magnetic south pole is near the geographic north pole, just like on the RE.  The magnetic north pole is on the underside of the Earth. The Ice Wall is not the south pole, but acts as it, as it is the furthest from the center of the earth that you can follow the magnetic field. The field is vertical in this area, accounting for the aurora australis.[/faq]
Where is your evidence to back this up?

Flat Earth Q&A / Why No Map!?!?
« on: April 25, 2010, 10:10:03 AM »
Why is there no consistent model/map for FET?  If your society has been in existence for so long, and I'm sure has, at some point, enjoyed the membership of someone wealthy, then why have you not been able to map the flat Earth?  I mean, ancient cultures managed to make fairly accurate maps with much less resources than we have access to today.  Why can the FES actually do their own research and get it together to make a map?  Surely some of your serious members are pilots.  They can take flights and document what they see from the air.  This alone could help to disprove that the Earth is round.  I don't see any of this here.  What I see, are a lot of baseless claims and made up theories to try to help and make the original theory work.

There is only one other place where I see this type of behavior.  When someone is telling a lie!  They make up a lie.  Then they have to make up details so you will believe the lie.  (Baseless data in the wiki.)  Then, when someone finds fault with the lie, they have to make up more details to cover it.  (Bendy light, ice wall, conspiracy, etc...)  Before long, they can't even remember half of the lies they made up to help support the original lie.  (Posts like "Read the wiki.)

So, to get back to the original question, why has The Flat Earth Society, after more than 120 years, (Originally The Universal Zetetic Society, which was founded after Samuel Rowbotham's death in 1884.) has been unable to produce a consistent map?

Also, if you are a FE'er, you must first attempt to answer the questions I've posted before you can try to change the subject.

Flat Earth General / Where are the Crazy Rich Guys?
« on: April 19, 2010, 09:11:44 PM »
See, RE'ers have guys like Sir Richard Branson.  Guys who have way more money than they'll ever know what to do with.  They then spend this money doing crazy things like sending civilians into space on chartered flights.  Why doesn't FET have people like this?  People with nothing better to do with their money than pour it into proving FET?  You would think there would be at least one rich crazy guy on your team.

Flat Earth Q&A / A Question for Tom Bishop
« on: April 19, 2010, 07:10:56 PM »
This is a straight, and honest question for you, Mr. Bishop.  Do you have any proof, whatsoever, of the theories in your Wiki?  If so, could you please post some.  And a post saying, "Read the Wiki," doesn't count.  I mean, show something that backs up your claims.  And rather that simply telling me to read a specific book, simply quote the part that proves your theory.

Flat Earth Q&A / I Have A New Theory
« on: April 19, 2010, 07:31:49 AM »
I'm beginning to think that this site is not really a community of people who seriously believe that the Earth is flat, but rather a community of internet trolls who love nothing more than aggravating the scientific community.  Given the fact that most "FE'ers" either ignore evidence against FET or simply throw out baseless statement and then challenge "RE'ers" to disprove them, all the while keeping their eyes closed and the ears covered, this is the only logical explanation.  Any FE'ers car to disprove this theory?

Flat Earth Q&A / How is this possible???
« on: April 18, 2010, 10:06:18 AM »
In your FAQ, it states that the Earth is 24,900 miles across.  Now, making some rough adjustments, let's say, measuring across the North Pole, that the distance from Sydney, Australia to Buenos Aires is around 20,000 miles.  A ballpark figure from looking at a flat Earth model.  Now, at a speed of 530MPH, this trip would take a little more than 37 non-stop hours.  However, the flight is made, going in a curve, over the Pacific ocean, in a matter of about 14 hours.  Now, this route would be a longer than flying directly over the North Pole, yet takes less time than it would take to make the trip using the shorter route.

Here's a rough diagram.

Anyone want to try and explain this one?

Pages: [1]