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 - Doglover

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
1
Flat Earth General / Re: Debunk Team
« on: April 29, 2016, 04:35:47 AM »
I'm just here for the snacks.

We have snacks?     

We'd better, else I'm out.

I could make brownies, anyone allergic to nuts?

I'm not but I don't like them. I stick to a organic, soy, and canola oil free kosher diet. You'd be surprised at the choices you still have by sticking to a diet like that.

How bout some nice refreshing organic, free-range, kosher kale smoothies?

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Debunk Team
« on: April 28, 2016, 04:40:37 AM »
I'm just here for the snacks.

We have snacks?     

We'd better, else I'm out.

I could make brownies, anyone allergic to nuts?

3

I will evidently PROVE that the money is there by paying i


Still don't know how to use the word 'evidently' do you?

4
Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Logical Fallacies
« on: March 24, 2016, 04:59:10 AM »
I will leave this here for a little while in case it turns into a real thread.

This must be your idea of a "real thread" Calling people names.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: why are these round earth people here?
« on: December 17, 2015, 04:26:41 AM »
Some are likely paid shills and detractors.

Yup, and the money's pretty good! Comes in handy around Christmas time!

6
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: December 06, 2015, 06:18:56 AM »
Hewie, dude.... you really need to get out of your mothers basement and get a life.

7
The Sun does rise and set.

Most of the "facts" presented in the section devoted to the data relating to the Sun are plain wrong.

That is why a big change is needed: the FAQ must be written by those who do actually know flat earth theory very well, and have been able to defend it for all these years successfully.



Every year my family would spend Christmas Holiday on Mt Terag. Very festive!

8
Flat Earth General / Re: The shape of the Sun
« on: November 25, 2015, 04:51:18 AM »
Then ask yourself how sunsets work. How can the sun go below the horizon on a flat earth?

9
Flat Earth General / Re: How entrenched are belieFErs?
« on: November 23, 2015, 04:49:14 AM »
Only if earth was the size of a billiard ball, but that doesn't mean it is as round as a billiard ball. To tell people the it a shape other than round and only post pictures of earth being round is very misleading.
The video of the earth from the window of the Apollo 11 mission doesn't look as round as the above picture I showed. I do realize that there is a shadow on the right side. The below video shows that. Also, I made note at 1:30 to 11:43min. of the video and I did not see the cloud formations change at all during that time. That is around 150 miles the earth rotated during that length of time, clouds don't stay in one place that long. It doesn't look real to me, it looks like a picture. Does it look real to you?
 " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Smoothness doesn't care about scale you know, right? If the earth is as smooth as a billiard ball it doesn't matter how large it is. If you get the same perspective of a billiard ball as of earth (They both appear equally large) they will seem just equally round. If you scaled a billiard ball up to the size of the earth, then it would appear to be just as round from space, but the surface would be very mountainous.
For the video, I don't know how you can see wether it is a difference or not. It's the same shapes, but it has also only been 10 minutes. Earth rotated about 4 (which is roughly 1.1 of a full rotation - on that video you are not gonna notice anything). I have seen plenty of clouds staying the same shape for 10 minutes. I don't know why it seems so much like an alien concept to you.

You have seen clouds stay in the same spot and shape for 10 minutes? I never have. Watch that video again and see if you can see any clouds move at all over the entire earth, I can't and I believe that would be impossible because you know the wind has to be blowing somewhere and the clouds would be moving. I don't understand why the concept of clouds moving is so alien to you.

Also, don't forget that when you look up you see the bottom of the clouds only a few hundred to a very few thousand feet above you. From space, you see the top of the clouds how ever many thousands of miles away. Just like moving in a car, close landscape appears to move much faster than distant. 

10
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: November 15, 2015, 10:25:00 AM »
H was always far removed from reality, a senile, delusional man sitting in his moms basement and living vicariously through hits on his crappy webpage, but now he is really starting to lose it.

And what is it with that Gitmo obsession.

He's LOVING it. This is the most attention Heiwa's had in years.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The conspiracy and why FE theory is so obscure
« on: November 10, 2015, 04:39:20 AM »
Greetings. Out of interest I have visited this website and forum every now and then over the years and have personally always found it quite a good "mind expanding activity" to try and consider FE theory from the point of view that it might actually be correct (and there's aspects of it that do really get me thinking), but alas I am still not convinced.

I will openly admit I do not have enough knowledge and understanding of the physics, mathematics, astronomy, etc. to try and tackle any of those areas in a serious debate with otherwise knowledgeable participants but to me the whole matter seems to boil down to how "obscure" FE theory is, from the public but, even more so, from the scientific community in general. 

I know the scientific community can be a bunch of arrogant and stubborn knobs a lot of the time, but I have to wonder why FET is so "disregarded" around the world in general?

I have read about a "conspiracy" to keep it all a secret but to me this, in itself, is a very poor argument.

Is the FE theory growing in popularity (I mean on a noticeable scale)?

Because a conspiracy doesn't seem to adequately explain why millions of intelligent men and women around the world aren't being compelled by its "undeniable" truth, especially if all the evidence is apparently obvious and available to anyone with an open mind and a decent knowledge of physics (it seems a lot of the debates come down to this).

Not every "thinker" in this day and age adheres to the preconceptions of modern science, and fear of ridicule (even exile and death) has never stopped the bravest from stating what they believe is the truth. In my mind, the sheer number of independent thinkers around today and the power of the internet should have cracked this conspiracy wide open (or verified FE theory for everyone) a long time ago. At the very least, there should be more fuss being made about it.

Could someone please elaborate on how so many have been fooled for so long? There are other aspects of FET that I would like to discuss but this is the first "hurdle" for me.

PS- This may belong in the debate section but really just looking to get a better understanding.

Well put. I think you answered your own question.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: If the earth is flat, where is Antarctica?
« on: November 10, 2015, 04:19:16 AM »
The map of the flat earth does not include Antarctica.
Despite all the tourists, the ability to go there yourself and all the stations located there, they call it an ice wall that's impossible to cross. It's the "ring" of ice around the edge of the azimuthal projection of the globe.

You forgot the part about how it's guarded by the Army. Not 100% sure it's the US Army, or maybe the UN? In any case, it must be under the 'Black Ops' line item in the budget.

13
Unfortunately the huge number of people involved with operating the ISS are not waisting their time trying to prove it's real to the Tinfoil Hat Nutters.

Sorry guys, that's just the way it is.

"are not waisting their time"? You can't even form an coherent sentence!

Idiot.

I love it when the best thing some people have is pointing out typos.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Hovering Helicopter Experiment
« on: November 05, 2015, 04:51:19 AM »
*sigh* back at ya

The train and car analogies don't compare because you are being propelled forwards at the same speed therefore when you jump or throw the suspended person or ball is still moving at the same speed. The Helicopter is stationary so you still need to prove the air mass moves with the earth. The atmospheric weather patterns seem independent to the solid ground to me.

If the Earth is rotating at about 1000mph, when you are standing on the solid ground, do you always feel a 1000mph wind?

15
Unfortunately the huge number of people involved with operating the ISS are not waisting their time trying to prove it's real to the Tinfoil Hat Nutters.

Sorry guys, that's just the way it is. 

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Can you disprove that the Earth is round?
« on: November 01, 2015, 06:17:49 AM »
Forgive me if you've actually already answered my question but at the moment I have no idea what anyone is saying.
Let me be more clear as to my original question:
A single piece of evidence suggesting the earth is flat.
This evidence has to be easily observable so anyone can verify it.
It can't be based on any third-party evidence as the conspiracy everyone keeps talking about could have affected it to some degree.
You must explain how you know this information.
Notice the word "suggest". I'm giving some leeway on the evidence now to make things a bit easier to understand for me.
Please don't start arguing again though  ;D

Hey Cake Tastes Nice, don't know if you're still hanging around, but the best evidence for a flat Earth seems to be, 'Looks flat to me!'

No, really, go to a lake-ocean shore, or any place with an unobstructed view of the horizon, and 'Open your eyes.' You will see it's flat. There you have it.

18
Flat Earth General / Re: Space programs in other countries
« on: November 01, 2015, 04:29:50 AM »
China space agency launched the tiangong into space and had a manned mission to visit it.
European space agency has the Ariane which has visited space.
Iranian space agency have the data recording and research satellite called hope.
Russian, italien Italian, korean space agencies have also had manned missions and rockets sent to space.

All of these agencies have photos of earth and the moon and sun. Alloc Also these agencies gave have thousands of staff. It is impossible to fake photos accross across 12 countries which have all go e gone to space. Conspiracy is believable to an extent but everyone cant can't be lying in each country.

I've sorted out your numerous spelling errors (above) and kindly pointed out the fallacy you're relying on (below). Your position is illogical:

Quote
Argument from incredulity

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1. P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
2. I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

Do we need to feel superior by pointing out others typos? Nice!

I would point out that the entire FE, 9-11 Truther, NASA-Moon landing conspiracy canon is based upon 'Arguments from incredulity.'

19
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: October 29, 2015, 04:28:53 AM »
Re nuclear bombs I also consider them impossible nonsense based on facts described at my web site at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . But it is against US laws to suggest it and you will be shot un the USA, if you do, so I keep it at that. Imagine being arrested just talking about a-bombs in the USA.

Citation needed.  I live in America and I have never even had so much as an indication that such a law exists.  It is in direct violation of the first amendment, and a law like that could not legally exist.

LOL - high purity uranium - shoot a bunch of neutrons at it? Doesn't work. Free neutrons are available in the atmosphere all the time and would set off any a-bomb at once.

It's not about getting neutrons, the neutrons need to hit the Uranium at very high speed and they need to be neutrons that are not surrounded by protons and electrons.

Therefore a-bombs are just propaganda to make you soil your pants. You really confirm you have no idea of basic physics and astrophysics and just believe the lies being taught at US schools.

Most of what I know about these topic were things I learned outside of school.  The average person in a US school knows about as much about orbital mechanics as you do, as in they cannot tell me what shape orbits are.  Are you claiming that you are an expert in such things?

You sound like any old communist just repeating orders from Moscow. How much are you paid?

Hopefully 1,000,000 if I won your challenge.

Mike, Mike Mike... I know that in many cases public schools leave much to be desired. BUT do you have to go insulting an entire generation of young people?

Give them more credit than that!

20
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: October 23, 2015, 04:38:46 AM »
Heiwa - to put this deceleration into context, you will routinely experience 2g whilst driving. If you ever have had to do an emergency brake (a requirement whilst learning) you will experince 3-4g. Your brain is still fine. Your seat is still fine.

Are you sure about that?

Well, I had to do multiple emergency stops whilst learning to drive and my brain is still in good working order.....

Your brain != Heiwa's brain

21
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: I won Heiwa's 1,000,000 challenge
« on: October 23, 2015, 04:19:50 AM »
Heiwa - to put this deceleration into context, you will routinely experience 2g whilst driving. If you ever have had to do an emergency brake (a requirement whilst learning) you will experince 3-4g. Your brain is still fine. Your seat is still fine.

Are you sure about that?

22

Yep.  I'm guessing the new one is BeanstockBBQ.  Just a guess though. I could be wrong.


I was thinking the same thing about BeanstockBBQ, too.

23
Flat Earth General / Re: SR71 Pilot Observations
« on: October 21, 2015, 04:53:53 AM »
What is this, the worst moderated forum on the internet?

Yes. Jroa LOVES the insult 'retard'

He uses it every chance he gets. Get used to it!

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun and Moon on a Flat Earth
« on: October 20, 2015, 04:26:22 AM »
Gonna say, I didn't expect anything better. Jimmy, for example, doesn't seem to understand the relationship between cause and effect: the round Earth model doesn't predict phases of the moon, there was no hermit hanging around in a cave who decided a rock must be going around the Earth and then wrote down its phases, the moon and its phases were observed, and a theory designed to explain that after the event. Pathetic.

Craters are texture, what's your point? Gaps of illumination. They illuminate in a rhythm, clearly: some are made to be slower. Irregularity such as this is observed in the animal kingdom, to throw of predators.

Why then are Lunar Eclipses predictable? Here is a chart of eclipses until 2099;

http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html?starty=2090

Are you saying these are not predictions?

Feeling like you can't really think at all. Why wouldn't they be predictable?

Um, because you said the RE model doesn't predict phases of the Moon.

Of all the stupid arguments I've heard, that's got to be the worst. Did you even bother to read the next sentence before you added your drivel to this page? Prediction requires making a statement before observation. So, unless you're saying round Earth theory was invented by moles (which would explain a fair bit admittedly), it did not predict the phases of the moon, it was developed in part as an explanation after the fact.
Or are you honestly so stupid you don't understand what 'predict' means?

So... in order to predict eclipses with certainty years into the future (you never argued against this) the interactions of the Sun, Earth, Moon, system must be pretty well understood in RE.

Isn't the gold standard of defending a theory to predict the outcome of an event, wait for that event to occur, and see if the prediction matches the result? Observing past predictions of eclipses (lunar, solar, not to mention planetary transits, etc)  and their outcome, they seem pretty spot on. Would that not be very strong evidence that the RE system is very well understood?

Or are Lunar eclipses the result of the luminous creatures having a bad day.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun and Moon on a Flat Earth
« on: October 19, 2015, 04:06:52 AM »
Gonna say, I didn't expect anything better. Jimmy, for example, doesn't seem to understand the relationship between cause and effect: the round Earth model doesn't predict phases of the moon, there was no hermit hanging around in a cave who decided a rock must be going around the Earth and then wrote down its phases, the moon and its phases were observed, and a theory designed to explain that after the event. Pathetic.

Craters are texture, what's your point? Gaps of illumination. They illuminate in a rhythm, clearly: some are made to be slower. Irregularity such as this is observed in the animal kingdom, to throw of predators.

Why then are Lunar Eclipses predictable? Here is a chart of eclipses until 2099;

http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html?starty=2090

Are you saying these are not predictions?

Feeling like you can't really think at all. Why wouldn't they be predictable?

Um, because you said the RE model doesn't predict phases of the Moon.   

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sun and Moon on a Flat Earth
« on: October 18, 2015, 10:00:46 AM »
Gonna say, I didn't expect anything better. Jimmy, for example, doesn't seem to understand the relationship between cause and effect: the round Earth model doesn't predict phases of the moon, there was no hermit hanging around in a cave who decided a rock must be going around the Earth and then wrote down its phases, the moon and its phases were observed, and a theory designed to explain that after the event. Pathetic.

Craters are texture, what's your point? Gaps of illumination. They illuminate in a rhythm, clearly: some are made to be slower. Irregularity such as this is observed in the animal kingdom, to throw of predators.

Why then are Lunar Eclipses predictable? Here is a chart of eclipses until 2099;

http://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/list.html?starty=2090

Are you saying these are not predictions?

27

4. The person tries to use links to argue for his/her crazy beliefs.  I have never noticed a known troll using a link to pretend to argue for a crazy belief so while the link may not actually support the person's position the use of the link is an indication that the person really believes what he/she says he/she believes.


Heiwa is a perfect example of this. He is constantly linking to his crazy website trying to offer proof.

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Starflip
« on: October 14, 2015, 05:03:36 AM »
Quick question, if earth is flat then why do star constellations appear flipped horizontally in the southern hemisphere compared to northern and vice versa?

Now I must be careful, if you try to cite the bible you will not be taken seriously. This is not a debate so do not attack the question. If you do not understand it, I suggest you STFU and go debate someone else. Keep it short and simple, Thank you!


Take a portrait picture of someone and tape it to your ceiling.  From one side of the room, it will appear that the top of the person's head is at the top of your field of view.  From the opposite side of the room, it will appear that the top of their head is at the bottom.  I don't see what the problem is with constellations doing the same thing.

At the risk of being called a foul name, what are you seeing when you are 90 from top or bottom of the portrait? The right and left sides of their face. How do the stars do that?

29
Flat Earth General / Re: Joined to ask...
« on: October 07, 2015, 04:14:31 AM »
I found this forum a while ago and have been amused by reading some of the debates. But there is one thing I find puzzling.

Why would anyone with any intelligence continue to argue with Papa Legba? He clearly has no scientific understanding at all and is a complete arsehole.
People argue with Papa Legba because they know that what he's saying is true and realise that many free thinking, logical people will see what he's saying is true.

This is the reason why people like you keep changing names and putting up topics about him in order to attempt to make him appear nuts. The problem you have is, we can see through your utter shit and you reek of desperation. Now piss off and get another name because you ruined this one in one post.  ;D

What a clown.  ;D

You've got them on the ropes Papa. They are scraping the barrel now.

What I've found on here is when I'm in a debate with say one or two people I can hold my ground. It seems likes as soon as I score some points I'm immediately bombarded with a half a dozen globe people jumping in and smothering me with dumb questions. I honestly believe when the going gets tough for them they PM each other to gang up on me. It happens a lot. That is when I need people like you and Papa coming in to rescue me. They try real hard, but they are no match for you two.

Psst... Your paranoia is showing...

30
Flat Earth General / Re: riddle me this...
« on: October 06, 2015, 05:57:08 PM »
Quote
These people will have an answer for everything.
Translation from RE speak:
"Retreat! Run away!  We got called out on our lack of knowledge of the basic principles of, well, just about everything!"

Huh, from what I've seen the best evidence for Flat Earth is, "Looks flat to ME." That and "Everything I don't understand MUST be impossible." Oh, and the ever popular, "It's a Government conspiracy I say!"

Never act like you understand FE theory then. You're blind to the flaws in what you believe, that's all.

What flaws?

Play with your dogs, you're clearly not cut out for science.

Never said I was cut out for science. But I stand by my statement. Your reply only serves to prove my point.

Shy much? I'm sure you must think you're cut out for science, if you're on a science forum. I did not answer your question because it is clearly a waste of time, you're just trying to drag me into a repeat of a debate I've had too many times to count. This forum has a search function, and multiple threads dedicated to pointing out these flaws. Or are you unable to browse?

In other words, "It looks flat to me."

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9