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 - ausGeoff

Pages: [1] 2
Suggestions & Concerns / Logout Time Fixed at 60 Minutes?
« on: October 19, 2017, 12:32:23 AM »
I've tried to reset my logout time to 240 minutes, but it always reverts to 60 minutes regardless of how I set it.  Is there some way to set the timeout, or is the 60 minutes a board default?  Or am I just thick as a brick LOL.  (I don't necessarily wanna stay logged in all the time.)


Flat Earth General / Coriolis Effect on Ocean Currents and Winds
« on: October 19, 2017, 12:26:28 AM »
If we consider that the earth is a rotating sphere, and produces a force on all bodies moving relative to itself, then this force—known as the Coriolis effect—is greatest at the poles and least at the Equator. It then causes the direction of winds and ocean currents to be deflected.  In the Northern hemisphere, the winds and currents are deflected toward the right, in the Southern hemisphere they're deflected to the left (or towards the west in both hemispheres).

This has been proved by meteorological and oceanographic data.

My question then is:  By what means are the winds and ocean currents deflected on the flat earth model?  I'm assuming that the "disc" of the flat earth is not rotating about its axis—is this correct?  And assuming this to be the case, what produces each of the two counter-opposing current streams/airflows on the flat earth—at locations on either side of the equator?

Suggestions & Concerns / Moderators and Flat Earther Bias
« on: May 11, 2015, 08:01:53 AM »
I note that after being banned for a couple of weeks for allegedly breaching the Q&A forum rules that the moderators are still showing favouritism to the flat earth members of the forum, and allowing inappropriate posts in that forum to pass unremarked upon, or to even elicit a warning.

For example, flat earther charles bloomington posted this comment in the Q&A topic Please Define AETHER
Well how dumbed down a level do you want it at?  Maybe you should have spent more time learning about things that "matter" & less time on your deluded level of intelligence.  Supported by nothing more then a hotchpotch of different language drivel thrown together. I personally find people that don't resort to every day bastardisation of the  English language nothing more then dramatized anal retentive moronic bores.  Shall I be placing you in that category?

Meanwhile, an (apparent) round earther ZennerOne posted this comment: 
I thank you for yet ANOTHER non-response to my comments.  Is there any reason in particular that you invariably avoid posting meaningful responses to my comments - as well as the comments of others?  You seem repeatedly to fall back on veiled insults, and empty rhetoric.  And I note that you still have not defined aether in any terms relevant to accepted science.  You keep bleating that aether "just is" without ever identifying its essential qualities.  The closest you have come is to claim that aether = air = space (I think LOL) which is of course nonsensical.

The first comment is totally off-topic, irrelevant to the OP question, and nothing more than an ad hominem attack laced with offensive language.

The second comment is at least loosely on topic and has relevance to the OP question (see bolding).

Which member receives the warning and a threat of banning?  Wow..... who would've guessed?  The round earther of course.  I'd appreciate it if a moderator could clarify this obvious discrimination against the round earther and/or the favouring of the flat earther as demonstrated clearly in these examples.

Flat Earth General / Super Typhoon Maysak From the ISS
« on: April 03, 2015, 08:32:12 AM »
Astronauts aboard the International Space Station have captured some fantastic and awe-inspiring shots of Super Typhoon Maysak and its cavernous eye.  The typhoon, now spinning in the far western Pacific Ocean with winds of 225km/h, is forecast to weaken and hit the Philippines over the weekend with winds of about 170km/h.  The curvature of the earth and its limb are clearly identified.

Typhoon Maysak taken from the International Space Station.
Photo: Samantha Cristoforetti

Samantha Cristoforetti MSME is a European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut of Italian nationality, and was trained specifically for the second long duration mission of the Italian Space Agency (ASI) on board the International Space Station.  She will be a Flight Engineer for Expeditions 42 and 43 between December 2014 and May 2015. The Soyuz TMA-15M carrying Cristoforetti and two other astronauts was launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan.  (Note:  These two missions have no connection with NASA.)

Flat Earth General / The Earth is Flat, Rory Cooper says so!
« on: March 12, 2015, 03:41:54 PM »
As the name Rory Cooper has been mentioned several times on these forums as a viable [sic] source of information in order to "prove" that the earth is flat, I thought it appropriate to post a link to a YouTube video that, to me, offers one of the most accessible sets of explanations totally debunking Cooper's nonsensical "theories".  It runs for around 30 minutes, but manages to unequivocally refute every one of Cooper's claims with clear diagrams and mathematical solutions to questions about the shape of the planet and horizon lines etc.

The Horizon Problem

"Here we’re going to take a look at the horizon problem, and the pathetic and juvenile excuses the Flat Earth community invoke in order to explain it away—and also their patent ineptitude at simple geometry and maths, and how simple concepts such as scale and curvature are beyond their collective ability to grasp.

Also explored is the propensity for the Flat Earth community to hilarious contradict itself at every turn, and the fact that the word "parallel" seems to be alien to them (either that, or they believe that the ground of this Flat Earth is both at the same altitude as wherever your eyes are AND under your feet at the same time).

We’ll also put to rest the Flat Earth claims surrounding the Bedford Level experiments, and reveal just how scientifically illiterate you have to be in order to believe there is experimental evidence suggesting the earth is flat.

I didn't realize you were  a lawyer as well as an author. You must be very accomplished. Would you mind showing us your credentials?

Uh... one doesn't have to be a qualified lawyer to quote laws that are easily accessible on any government web site.

In Australia, there are very strict state and federal laws governing so-called "not-for-profit" organisations such as associations, societies, and incorporations.  I'd assume similar laws operate in the USA.

And as far as I can ascertain, Neil is perfectly correct in his demands for public disclosure of the fund-holders and/or trust fund details for the FE expedition.

Flat Earth Q&A / JFK Assassination & FE Coverups...
« on: January 23, 2015, 02:41:42 PM »
There have been numerous conspiracy theories put forward about JFK's assassination (by iWitness most recently), one being that he was about to divulge his insider knowledge that the earth was in reality spherical, and that he had to be silenced at all costs.

To comply with a directive posted by Pongo in another thread in Q&A, I've therefore started this new thread.

Q1.   Is there any evidence that JFK would've actually possessed "insider" knowledge of the "true" results of NASA's space research?

Q2.   What would Kennedy have achieved politically by divulging the (alleged) true shape of the earth?  Or gained financially?

Q3.   Do any other flat earthers agree with iWitness's claim that Kennedy was assassinated to shut him up?  And if so, by whom?

Flat Earth Q&A / Universal Acceleration & Terminal Velocity
« on: January 18, 2015, 04:27:28 AM »
The Flat earth Wiki says the following of terminal velocity:  "In the Round Earth model, terminal velocity happens when the acceleration due to gravity is equal to the acceleration due to drag. In the Flat Earth model, however, there are no balanced forces: terminal velocity happens when the upward acceleration of the person is equal to the upward acceleration of the Earth."

Q1.   Should that not be the deceleration due to drag?  Friction cause something to slow down; rather than speed up.

Q2.   Terminal velocity occurs as the person moves towards the earth rather than "upwards" and/or away from the earth.

Q3.   If the person's "upward" acceleration equalled the "upward" acceleration of the earth, would they in fact never meet?

Q4.   In FE terminology, what do "upward" and "balanced" forces mean?  If a person is standing stationary on the earth's surface, are not all forces
        balanced.  If not, would he not disappear into the ground and/or float above the surface?  Does upward simply mean projected perpendicular
        to the earth's surface, or at some angle between 0º and 180º to the earth's surface?

—Any/all answers welcome.

Flat Earth General / Where is the map? (Split Topic)
« on: January 16, 2015, 10:51:48 AM »
We don't have a flat-earth map and surprisingly, demanding one won't get you one like it would get a Twix bar in the checkout lane.  If I stood outside a physics department at a university and demanded an explanation for gravity could I summarily dismiss physics as wrong because they can't provide one?  Of course not.  We'll have a map as soon as our expedition is complete.

Q1.  After 150 years since Rowbotham proved [sic] that the earth was flat, why do you still have no maps?

Q2.  Why do need to carry out your Antarctic expedition in order to produce your map? 

Q3.  If you have no FE maps for reference, how then can you be so confident the RE map is totally erroneous?

Q4.  Are you claiming that the observable and replicable phenomenon known scientifically as "gravity" does not exist?

Flat Earth Q&A / Magnetic Fields Occurrence & Location on Flat Earth
« on: January 16, 2015, 05:48:59 AM »
I've been reading an article claiming that "Sea Turtles use Magnetic Fields to Find Their Birth Place".

Adult sea turtles use the earth's magnetic field to return to nest on the same beach they were born on, researcher Roger Brothers from the University of North Carolina believes.  While the phenomenon of animals using a magnetic field to navigate was not uncommon, very few animals used it to find their way home. 

These new findings provide evidence that nesting females relocate those natal beaches by seeking out the unique magnetic signatures along the coast and implies that hatchling turtles are learning those fields when they're young and using that information to return as adults. The most likely explanation is that they have tiny magnetic particles in their brain made from the same material used to make compass needles and these magnetic particles will also respond to the earth's field.

Q1.  Do FEs agree that regardless the geometry of the planet, at its surface it will display unique and consistent lines of magnetic flux?

Q2.  Can the FEs produce a flux map of their interpretation of these magnetic fields on a FE, and are they similar to those on a RE?

Q2.  Presupposing the FE flux map is different, can the FEs provide their interpretation in comparison to the RE flux map?

Q4.  Do FEs agree that many terrestrial animals and insects, marine mammals, and migratory birds rely on the earth's magnetic fields for navigational purposes?

Flat Earth General / Comet Set to Share the "Love" This Weekend...
« on: January 08, 2015, 08:57:15 PM »
I thought this astronomical event may be of interest to both round earthers and flat earthers.  It's the appearance of the Lovejoy comet, which will enter its brightest phase over the weekend 10th/11th January.  Anybody who can see the constellation Orion can use it as a reference point—to the left of the left knee of the "hunter".

The comet is expected to be bright enough for backyard astronomers and professional sky-gazers alike to see its greenish glow with the naked eye, or using binoculars if the skies are misty.  Comet Lovejoy is about 70 million kilometres from the earth—or nearly half the distance from the earth to the sun.

Suggestions & Concerns / Innapropriate Moderation Increasing
« on: December 31, 2014, 01:00:15 AM »
I wish to lodge a further complaint about inconsistent and improper moderation across all Flat Earth forums.  I'm doing this on the advice of Pongo, whom (I consider) undeservedly reprimanded me for posting what he termed an "off topic" response.

To recap the specific scenario:

The question "For what reason would NASA need to lie to us about the earth being round?" was posted as a topic starter in the Q&A forum by RoundEarthFact on 21 December, 2014 @ 07:58:38 PM.

Shortly thereafter, iWitness posted this comment:

Do you think when they realized the earth really was flat in the 1960's after failed space launches, they would just be like "oops, we were wrong the earth really is flat?" I think we can all agree, it would be easier to make a movie than risk the possibility of mass hysteria. My theory, is JFK was heavily involved in the early space program, and after finding out the earth was flat he was considering telling the public... but that didn't sit well with other world powers, and you know what happened next. RIP last great President.

Subsequently, I responded thusly:

Q1.   What credible evidence do you have that proves JFK was "heavily involved" with the space program?  What does heavily involved mean exactly?
Q2.   What evidence do you base your claim on that JFK was "considering" telling the public the earth was (purportedly) flat?
Q3.   Why weren't any of the other confidantes of Kennedy silenced as well?  Hundreds of technicians would've also been aware of it.

Then, today, 30 December, Pongo posted this response as a result of my three questions (as above):

Why are you bringing up JFK questions here?  At best you're woefully off topic, at worst, you're arguing with moderation.  If you want to complain about moderation then do it in S&C.  If you want questions about JFK in regards to a flat-earth, start your own thread.

So... as a flat earther, the posting by iWitness was not considered "off topic", nor was he warned n any way.  On the other hand, my direct response to his (apparently acceptable comment) was considered by Pongo to be off topic, and I was duly warned.

I'd appreciate—firstly a response from other moderator(s) (other than Pongo of course)—and also responses from other forum members, both flat earth and round earth—as to whether or not this is a classic example of unfair moderation favouring flat earthers, whilst at the same time disadvantaging round earthers.

As people are probably aware, this is not the first time I've raised the issue of unsatisfactory moderation on these forums.  As an old internet hand, I'm a member of literally dozens of other forums based around all sorts of subjects, and these Flat Earth forums are undoubtedly one of the worst moderated forums I visit regularly.  There seems to be no consistency amongst the different moderators—nor are the forum's rules (such as they are!) applied equally to flat earthers and round earthers.

If any moderator feels the need, then I'm more than happy to respond to any PMs to avoid an on-line war of words.

—Thanks.    :)

Flat Earth General / NASA Cameras Capture Solar Flare
« on: December 25, 2014, 04:57:04 PM »
These are images of a massive solar flare on the sun...

See them here

The sun fired off a massive solar flare late Friday (19 Dec 14) after days of intense storms from our nearest star.

The huge solar flare registered as an X1.8-class event, one of the most powerful types of flares possible, and was captured on camera by NASA's powerful Solar Dynamics Observatory.  The flare triggered a strong radio blackout for parts of earth as it peaked Friday at 7:28PM EST, according to an alert from the US Space Weather Prediction Center overseen by NOAA.

X-class solar flares are the strongest solar flares the sun can unleash.  When aimed directly at earth, they can disrupt communications and GPS navigation systems on earth, and even pose a threat to satellites and astronauts in space.

Independent astronomer Tony Phillips of the space weather monitoring website  reported that the Friday's X1.8 solar flare sparked a high-frequency radio blackout over Australia.  And I should know as I live there.

Can any flat earther explain how this event would relate to a sun of only a purported 32 miles diameter at an altitude of a purported 3,000 miles?  Wouldn't these sorts of solar flares actually destroy earth?  Or would any flat earther care to post any viable evidence that these images are bogus, rather than genuine NASA images?

(And please guys;  I won't accept any of the usual "Oh NASA images?  Then they're obviously fake".  I want facts and figures.)

Flat Earth General / Technological Advances Tested on ISS
« on: December 21, 2014, 02:00:18 PM »
Astronauts print first 3D tool aboard International Space Station.

Check out the article HERE.

We couldn't even do this sort of CAD-CAM stuff here on earth a couple of decades ago, and now we're doing it remotely, and in a gravity-free environment.  One of the major issues is managing the distribution of the particulate material for the 3D "printer".  The technology is revolutionary and those working in space exploration hope that it will usher in a new age of out of this world manufacturing.  It allows those in space to print as needed, rather than having to estimate which parts are likely to break and having to take excess tools with them. Now, they'll be able to replace any part (as long as it’s not too big, for now) and also print any tool that they need on demand.

This is the printer:

The Zero-G Printer [Image Courtesy of Made In Space]

Suggestions & Concerns / Poor Server Speed Affecting Site Viability?
« on: December 12, 2014, 06:15:11 PM »
Site is becoming almost unusable because of slow server speeds.

Log-in timing = 1min 50sec to 2min+
Reload current open page = 25sec to 40sec
New load existing page = 35sec to 50sec
Post reply = 35sec to 1min+

My line speeds:

I'm using Win 7, 64 bit plus Firefox 33.

Can one of the administrators please check into this and report back to us?

—Thanks.    :)

Flat Earth General / Gravitational Theory Empirically Proven
« on: November 17, 2014, 08:03:10 AM »
This is a 5 minute video from "Human Universe" on BBC2 in the UK which involves dropping a bowling ball and feathers in a near-perfect vacuum:

Brian Cox visits the world's biggest vacuum chamber

With the 30 tons, or 800,000ft3 of air removed—leaving only 2g—the feathers and ball fall at precisely the same rate, just as Galileo predicted and Newton showed mathematically.  The bit at the end is referring to Einstein's equivalence principle.

Flat Earth General / Sceptimatic, Science, and Scientists
« on: November 13, 2014, 06:32:37 AM »
At sceptimatic's request, I've started a new thread in order to discuss from which scientists he—and possibly some other flat earthers—gained their knowledge of geophysics and astrophysics from in order to form their own opinions of the planet and the universe.

I've named a few from whom I've gained a lot of knowledge about matters scientific:  Neil deGrasse Tyson,  Stephen Hawking, Alan Guth, Murray Gell-Mann, Roger Penrose, Peter Higgs,  Charles Townes et al.

As we all know by now, sceptimatic emphatically refutes the works of all the major contemporary scientists (such as the ones I've named above) and claims that they're all part of a conspiracy of misinformation, are being paid by the government and/or corporatists to deliberately lie, are suffering from some form of mental dysfunction, or are afflicted with delusions of grandeur.

Therefore, I'm asking him, or any other flat earthers for the names of their "heroes" of science;  people that they acknowledge and respect as experts in their fields of work.  There's plenty of scientists who support the oblate spheroid model of the earth, or the status quo, so I'd like to know a few contemporary scientists that support the flat earth hypothesis, and to whom sceptimatic relies on for his knowledge of mechanics, geophysics, astrophysics, aeronautics, and the laws of gases and optics.

This is a serious question that addresses the contemporary scientific roots of the flat earth model(s), and deserves some serious answers.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Science or Religion?
« on: November 09, 2014, 12:51:45 AM »
In the Australian media today, renowned scientist Dr Karl Kruszelnicki stated that:

"In the USA, 25 per cent of the population deny that the Earth goes around the sun, 40 per cent deny evolution, and 51 per cent deny the Big Bang".

Q1.   Do flat earthers, in general, also accept these denials?
Q2.   Of the three, which denials are either accepted or rejected by flat earthers?
Q2.   Do the flat earthers who accept one or more of these denials also believe in the writings of the Abrahamic bible?
Q4.   Are there any superficial connections between flat earth theory and young-earth creationism?


Flat Earth General / Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« on: November 08, 2014, 07:18:28 PM »
I have never once mentioned any degrees. Geoffrey's just trying to desperately stop me exposing the bullshit he has been paid to hang onto.

You previous claimed to possess thirteen academic qualifications.

Can you please name them and end this stupid back-and-forth discussion?

Note that I'm not asking you to prove their existence in any way—simply name them.  When people use their credentials to support the veracity or accuracy of their claims, then it's imperative they name those qualifications.  If for example someone has a Ph.D in biology, then they're poorly equipped to debate the intricacies of astronautics for example.

And I really can't believe that you're unable understand even the basic high-school level physics that explains why the balloon slides along the string.  If you can't grasp this centuries-old principle, how then are you gonna cope with contemporary science and/or rocket propulsion?

Give this diagram to any high schooler, and they'll explain the theory in a couple of minutes.  Why can't you?

Flat Earth Q&A / Sunrise & Sunset Versus Earth's Orbit
« on: October 28, 2014, 03:39:08 PM »
Apparently, this diagram illustrates the sun's orbit and elevation above the earth's (flat) surface according to the widely accepted flat earth model...

Q1.   How can the illuminated half of the earth be separated relatively sharply along a well-defined straight line from the darkened half (rather than a curved line)?

Q2.   What prevents the sun—or the sun's light—from being seen from the darkened half by using a telescope?

Q3.   How can it be that the north pole is always illuminated by exactly the same amount of sunlight (when it's been observed otherwise)?

Q4.   How can it be that the Antarctic circle (or ice wall) undergoes a 12/12 hours period of light and dark (when it's been observed otherwise)?

Q5.   How were the 12,450mile, 3,000 mile and 13.5º figures derived?  Which was measured 1st and 2nd in order to derive the 3rd? 

Q6.   Why were the measurements taken from the underside of the sun rather than from its centre (knowing its diameter)?

Q7.   Is the sun's degree of illumination identical at both the north pole and the Antarctic circle (or ice wall) locations at midday or 12PM?

Q8.   How can the observed angular elevation of the sun be different at different times of the year considering its plane of orbit is always parallel to the earth's surface?

—Thanks in advance for any answers.

Flat Earth General / Second solar storm hits Earth 13 September 2014
« on: September 13, 2014, 04:17:18 AM »

This worldwide astrophysical phenomena is going to be extremely difficult for the flat earthers to deny.  It's also going to be impossible for them to explain it using any of their current flat earth theories.  The only scientific explanations are all bound to the accepted spherical earth model and its associated model of the universe.

Second Solar Storm Hits Earth

This is an image taken in Tasmania (Australia) last night 12 September:

"A second of two major solar storms has hit the Earth, creating ideal conditions for colourful night skies over polar regions, but also creating the risk of disruption to communications and power networks.

Solar wind conditions suggest that this activity will continue for many hours and aurora watchers should be in for a good treat," the centre said, adding it would issue warnings if more "intense storming" occurs.

The second of two solar storms, in the form of a coronal mass ejection (CME) from a solar flare, hit Earth on Friday (US time) following the first burst a day earlier".

Flat Earth Q&A / Tom Bishop & Dark Matter
« on: August 03, 2014, 09:19:30 AM »

When interviewed on 10 Sep 2012, Tom Bishop is quoted as saying: "Purveyors of the Scientific Method seek to 'stand on the shoulders of giants', building one hypothesis upon the next in mumbling pretension until we have house of cards model of the universe consisting nothing but undiscovered phenomena like graviton particles and dark matter to glue the entire horrid mess together".

The Flat Earth Wiki says:  "... the Bishop constant, named in honour of the great Flat Earth zetetic Mr. Tom Bishop, which defines the magnitude of the acceleration on a horizontal light ray due to dark energy."

Can somebody explain why Bishop accepts the existence of dark energy, but not the existence of dark matter?  As it stands currently, science accepts the existence of dark matter—due to regular perturbations in the path of photonic energy from distant galaxies—but has yet to define a theory about dark matter—other than it's "something" that fills 23.3% of the cosmos.

Why is Bishop's viewpoint on dark energy and matter exactly the opposite of science's?

Flat Earth Q&A / Electromagnetic Acceleration Theory
« on: August 03, 2014, 08:52:45 AM »
According to the Flat Earth Wiki, this is the formula for determining Electromagnetic Acceleration:

'x' and 'y' are the coordinates in the plane of the light ray.
'C' is the speed of light.
'β' is the Bishop constant.

Could someone please explain where the factor of ¾ originates, and the cube root? How is the numerical value of ß determined from its y value along  x axis  (or vice versa)?  And why is the x value raised to the 4th power?

Also, as I understand it, "rays" of light are not coplanar, but propagate radially from their point source.  How then is "the plane" of the light ray determined in this equation, considering that no individual "ray" of light follows a discernible, discrete path?


Flat Earth Q&A / Sunlight, Moonlight and Combustion.
« on: August 02, 2014, 08:55:43 AM »
In Zetetic Astronomy, Samuel Rowbotham states:

"It is a well known fact, that if the sun is allowed to shine strongly upon a common coal, coke, wood, or charcoal fire, the combustion is greatly diminished; and often the fire is extinguished".

And:  "When the light of the moon is allowed to play upon a common carbonaceous fire, the action is increased, the fire burns more vividly, and the fuel is more rapidly consumed."

I have reason to believe that both these statements are incorrect.  In the first case, there is no evidence that despite bushfires occurring under a clear sky, in the middle of summer, that there's any diminution of the intensity and/or duration of the fire.  Why is this?

In the second case, lighting a match indoors at night, or outdoors under a full moon shows no increase in the rate of combustion or fuel reduction when outdoors.  Why doesn't the match burn more brightly but for a shorter time outdoors?

Lastly, what exactly does Rowbotham mean by the phrase "a well known fact"?  Does this mean a causal observation by numerous lay persons, or documented research by scientists?

Flat Earth Q&A / Sunlight, Moolight and Combustion.
« on: August 02, 2014, 08:55:07 AM »
In Zetetic Astronomy, Samuel Rowbotham states:

"It is a well known fact, that if the sun is allowed to shine strongly upon a common coal, coke, wood, or charcoal fire, the combustion is greatly diminished; and often the fire is extinguished".

And:  "When the light of the moon is allowed to play upon a common carbonaceous fire, the action is increased, the fire burns more vividly, and the fuel is more rapidly consumed."

I have reason to believe that both these statements are incorrect.  In the first case, there is no evidence that despite bushfires occurring under a clear sky, in the middle of summer, that there's any diminution of the intensity and/or duration of the fire.  Why is this?

In the second case, lighting a match indoors at night, or outdoors under a full moon shows no increase in the rate of combustion or fuel reduction when outdoors.  Why doesn't the match burn more brightly but for a shorter time outdoors?

Lastly, what exactly does Rowbotham mean by the phrase "a well known fact"?  Does this mean a causal observation by numerous lay persons, or documented research by scientists?

Suggestions & Concerns / Inconsistent Moderation Standards
« on: July 27, 2014, 11:58:23 AM »
[Moved from main forum by ausGeoff]

The moderation on these forums is truly woeful, and as has been suggested by others, the moderators repeatedly break their own rules.  For example; on one thread alone, after commencing with the combined rhetoric and insult of "Are you asking for someone to guess or just make something up?  You know, like your round Earth scientists do?" jroa has posted another dozen comments with absolutely no bearing on the topic (How the earth was formed under a flat earth theory).

The question raised by the OP was "How did the Earth become a flat plane?" and which surely deserved a meaningful answer, particularly from a moderator who's allegedly so keen to maintain the credibility of the Q&A Forum.

Thus far, not one flat earther has even attempted to answer this perfectly legitimate question.  Why is this?  What's the point of having a Q&A forum if flat earthers avoid addressing questions posted therein?

Surely it would've been more productive for jroa to have posted some sort of meaningful answer for the OP, rather than a string of irrelevant one-liners?

It's becoming increasingly obvious that if the flat earthers and/or moderators are unable to answer a question sensibly, they simply resort to jokes and one-liner round earth put-downs, or blatant personal insults.  It's also obvious that the moderators are granting flat earthers far more leniency with the content of their comments in comparison with those of the round earthers.  It seems that some flat earthers can post any old off-topic rubbish (such as sceptimatic for example) and not even be warned, although it occurs repeatedly.

—Not good enough.

Suggestions & Concerns / Member Identification Icon?
« on: June 28, 2014, 12:08:40 AM »

Sometimes, especially with newbies or members with somewhat erratic viewpoints, it's difficult to ascertain whether a member is a genuine flat earther or a round earther, or someone sitting on the fence.

It's a situation sort of like this:

"Theist" flat earther = believes/accepts totally the flat earth theory.
"Agnostic" flat earther = accepts nominally the flat theory, but is open to round earth possibility.

"Atheist" round earther = rejects all flat earth theory in totality.

Would it be possible to have some sort of icon attached to the member's username/avatar on the forums as an indicator of which of the three groups a member is part of?  It'd also cover the scenario when a true flat earther uses satire or sarcasm—which in the past has been mistaken by some round earthers as a genuine comment, (often because of a lack of an appropriate smiley).  Sometimes—particularly with infrequent respondents—it's difficult to remember which group they belong to, particularly with imprecise content that could be interpreted either way.

(Moderators please delete this thread if it's considered inappropriate or unnecessary)

Technology, Science & Alt Science / CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?
« on: June 20, 2014, 11:47:12 AM »
From a round earther's perspective, alleged "chemtrails" simply don't exist, and are just a manifestation of yet another conspiracy theory.

What we see in the image (above) are correctly described as "contrails".  Contrails are lengthy condensation "trails" formed behind jet aircraft when their engine's condensate rapidly freezes into ice crystals.  When burned, fuel containing hydrogen is combined with oxygen in the air to form water vapour, among other byproducts.  Contrails form when water vapour in the exhaust from jet engines then freezes high in the troposphere where aircraft cruise. If the ambient air is dry, contrails will evaporate almost immediately. The ambient air must be close to saturation with water for a persistent condensation trail to form.

And this image (below) shows what chemtrails look like (and European Honey Buzzards):



Patrick Minnis Ph.D,  B.Eng,  M.Sc, a senior research scientist at NASA's Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, studied satellite images of contrail clouds of military craft during the three days airports were shut down in the US after the 9/11 attacks.  On a typical day, an estimated 13,000 planes criss-cross the nation's skies.

They create so many contrails that cross each other's paths that the satellite images are just a blur.  Minnis found that the cirrus clouds formed from these contrails lasted an average of six to eight hours and that six to eight contrails can grow to form a cloud cover the size of Massachusetts.

To understand the extent to which conspiracy theorists are prepared to go, check out these two images which were posted to two separate blogs:

100's of commercial airline pilots protesting in New York against chemtrails...
They don't look like conspiracy theorists to me.
(Meaning responsible airline captains couldn't and/or wouldn't be lying would they?  And they, of all people, should know.)


Over 700 hundred Continental and United pilots, joined by additional pilots from other Air Line Pilots Association
(ALPA) carriers, demonstrate in front of Wall Street on September 27, 2011 in New York City.

The first image (obviously) is from a "chemtrail" conspiracy site, and the second image is from the UK Daily Mail (Australia) site.  I wonder how many flat earthers also believe that the US government is spraying its citizens with some sort of chemical cocktail in order to dumb them down?  I don't for a moment believe it is, but judging by some of the weird and wonderful responses from the flat earthers, I'm beginning to have a tiny modicum of doubt.    ;D

Technical Support / Server Problems?
« on: June 07, 2014, 10:44:29 AM »
For the past few days, I've been having lots of problems with opening/reading/posting/previewing on the forums.  Is there any known issue with the FE server?

The ping seems to be okay, although the round trip time and latency are pretty poor.

My 20Mbps ADSL2+ connections is fine with all other sites:

I'm using Win 7, 64 bit and Firefox 29.0.

Any advice appreciated.   :)

Flat Earth Q&A / FE believers deviation from Rowbotham
« on: April 24, 2014, 06:38:54 PM »

There are several things I believe Dr. Rowbotham got completely wrong. His work, however, is the basis for the majority of Victorian Zetetic movements, and is comprehensive. That is why it is so often cited.
Can you please let us know specifically which things you believe Rowbotham "got completely wrong", and also why you think they're wrong?

Can you also tell us how you, personally, differentiate the things he got wrong from the things he got right.  And as you agree that he made "several" mistakes, how can you be certain that he didn't make other mistakes which aren't immediately apparent, or which your research hasn't discovered?

Is it even possible that the entirety of his works are erroneous in their conclusions?

Pages: [1] 2