1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: To Tom Bishop: Drop your weapons.

« on: December 05, 2007, 02:18:01 AM »

do you think tom bishop should discount NASA because he thinks it is part of the conspiracy?  I mean, isn't it a double standard to do so?

We reject NASA"s work because it's not peer reviewed. No independent person can reproduce the results achieved by NASA.

We accept Rowbotham's work because Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham presents experiments anyone with access to a body of standing water can reproduce to mathematically demonstrate the true form of the earth.

Is it not generalizing to say that none of nasa's experiments can be reproduced?

Also, do you have any proof that rowbotham's experiments have been reproduced?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

This is Round Earth to Major Tom. You're losing your mind... We all knew you were a junkie.
Just stop, the Bedford Level Experiment is VERY well known by anyone who has heard of it to be extremely flawed. Since it has been proven wrong, there has been no performance of the experiment that once again proved it to be correct. Claiming to have done so is an insult to your intelligence.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon Landing

« on: November 30, 2007, 09:51:28 PM »

*shrugs* Not my fault Tom is just 'pretending' to know nothing. I'm just impressed he can keep it up.

3

The Lounge / Re: RUDDSLIDE - AUSTRALIA'S WINNING ELECTION

« on: November 30, 2007, 09:50:35 PM »

You should, it's actually quite nice. Kangaroo and Crocodile meat are both very interesting tasting meat.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon Landing

« on: November 28, 2007, 11:38:21 PM »

Yes, precisely. The mountain does not grow or shrink, as it is kilometers away. It has nothing to do with the angle of the camera, but with the lack of atmosphere. For some reason that confuses some people, and they think everything is right there.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 27, 2007, 04:09:20 PM »

Well, it seems like this is it. I understand nobody wants to admit it, but this does seem to be proof.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon Landing

« on: November 26, 2007, 01:18:31 PM »

Another example Tom.

In that example the mountain gets smaller when the observer walked away. Exactly as one would expect.

You were supposed to show how a mountain gets bigger when the observer walked away, remember?

We've already established that the the fiducials are the same size in both uncropped images, that there is no zoom applied in either of the original Apollo scenes.

The mountain in the Apollo photos did not get bigger when they walked away. It stayed exactly the same size. That is because of how far away it is.

7

The Lounge / Re: RUDDSLIDE - AUSTRALIA'S WINNING ELECTION

« on: November 26, 2007, 05:07:14 AM »

Wow, apart from the title, this really has nothing to do with the awesome victory by the ALP.

John Howard had held his seat in the senate since 1974, and he lost both that AND the PMship. Sucker...

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The conspiracy at work?

« on: November 26, 2007, 05:04:42 AM »

Yes. This is proof that anything named MS Explorer sucks at doing anything. It didn't even tip over properly...

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon Landing

« on: November 26, 2007, 05:03:37 AM »

Hehehe...

I'd very quickly like to point out once more how very far away that mountain is. It isn't just a hill a few meters away, it is kilometers away. The lack of atmosphere and surface objects messes with one's judgement of distance, but it isn't very close at all.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon Landing

« on: November 25, 2007, 07:39:23 PM »

Tom doesn't reply to threads where he's been proven wrong.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon Landing

« on: November 25, 2007, 05:26:22 PM »

You do realize the second image is taken from MUCH FURTHER AWAY correct?  Thus the lander looks SMALLER than in the previous photo. 

Sure, the second image is taken much farther away. That's a big duh. However, the bodies should still stay in proportion. The mountain should shrink in proportion to the lander as the observer recedes.

But it does not shrink with the lander, as we can clearly see. The mountain gets much bigger in proportion to the lander.

Why is this?

Look at my link in this post, you can see the mountian does not grow.

In one image the mountain is as tall as the lander. In another image the mountain is enormous and over towers it. Care to explain how walking 500 meters away creates this disproportionate scene? Why doesn't the mountain shrink in proportion to the lander as the observer gets farther away?

Have you ever taken a photograph on a moon with no atmosphere? You have no idea how far away that mountain is. The only way to tell is to move around, which is what these two photos are demonstrating. It is the same mountain, and it stays the same size in relation to the camera because it is far away. Much father away than you seem to think it is.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 24, 2007, 11:08:50 PM »

Hehe, I couldn't help but try and find out as much as possible about this community. Much more entertaining than the LDF!

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 24, 2007, 02:17:58 PM »

Ah, ok

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 24, 2007, 04:50:26 AM »

If there was more than one sun, there would still be shrinkage and a changeover point.

The phenomenon is identical on both poles, which implies that the two points are on opposite ends of an oblong spheroid.

If one refuses to think of the earth as an oblong spheroid simply because they want to 'not conform', then I will simply say that the evidence of the Midnight Sun implies that the poles are on opposite ends of 'an object'.

No, fail.

...

Find the flaw in this, or I'm right

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 24, 2007, 04:41:56 AM »

If there was more than one sun, there would still be shrinkage and a changeover point.

The phenomenon is identical on both poles, which implies that the two points are on opposite ends of an oblong spheroid.

If one refuses to think of the earth as an oblong spheroid simply because they want to 'not conform', then I will simply say that the evidence of the Midnight Sun implies that the poles are on opposite ends of 'an object'.

16

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions for Clarification.

« on: November 24, 2007, 04:35:53 AM »

I miss the part where this topic wasn't lame.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 24, 2007, 04:15:36 AM »

I will also mention the little detail that quieted Tom B; The theory that can be proven without assumptions is the correct one. So far, there is no evidence for this illusion or reflection. There is evidence that the sun is not a reflection, and does in fact shine on the southern pole for the entirety of its presence in the sky. There is nothing in that 'theory' that needs to be discovered at a later date, and so it is the most believeable of the two.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: International Space Station Sightings

« on: November 24, 2007, 02:09:45 AM »

That... doesn't make sense... How low in the sky was Venus?

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 24, 2007, 02:08:48 AM »

Wow, that is some consistent and solid ice crystals... Is there any evidence of such a solid collection of ice crystals forming such a clear reflection?

Yes.  The existence of the Midnight Sun.

Also, wouldn't the reflection be shrinking and growing most of the time?

Not necessarily.  I think it's because of the angle of reflection changing in accordance with the distance.

The reflection would not magnify the size of the sun, I am fairly sure of that.

The Midnight Sun is not evidence, as you cannot prove that it is caused by reflections.

Unfortunately for this reflection theory, there is absolutely no evidence for it. The sun can be followed along its path along the lower part of the sky, and it doesn't waver or dip beneath the horizon. There would have to be an obvious change-over for the reflection and the real sun.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 23, 2007, 03:28:22 AM »

Wow, that is some consistent and solid ice crystals... Is there any evidence of such a solid collection of ice crystals forming such a clear reflection? Also, wouldn't the reflection be shrinking and growing most of the time?

21

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions for Clarification.

« on: November 23, 2007, 03:20:44 AM »

Whee, look at my thread twirl

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 23, 2007, 03:19:23 AM »

If it were some sort of illusion, the sun in the south would be rippling and hazy.

I see no reason to assume this.

Well, what kind of illusion is being considered here? Ice crystals would not produce a solid mirage.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 22, 2007, 02:40:15 AM »

You may like it, but it isn't a viable theory. Photos of the sun from the North and the South are identical. If it were some sort of illusion, the sun in the south would be rippling and hazy. However there is no issue in the Antarctic Circle concerning the magnification of details on the surface of the sun, even at midnight.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: International Space Station Sightings

« on: November 22, 2007, 02:31:08 AM »

Actually, the ISS was caught on tv by accident here in OZ earlier this year.

Everyone thought it was a UFO until someone (no, not NASA) bothered to check where the ISS was meant to be at the time.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions for Clarification.

« on: November 22, 2007, 01:35:53 AM »

Awesome, awesome.

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions for Clarification.

« on: November 21, 2007, 11:44:47 PM »

Yeah, I figured it would be something like that. It doesn't mean that the extra gravitational pull would be constant, but there is no way for me to tell if it was done for 24 hours straight. Therefore, the question is moot

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 21, 2007, 11:41:44 PM »

Well that certainly put him in his place, thank you folks

Now then, I would really like to get back to the original question:

Is there an FE explanation for the existence of the Midnight Sun in the Antarctic Circle? If there is not, then it is definite proof of a round earth. This is the proof that everyone has been requesting, and can be seen for yourself for around $10,000. If you cannot afford that, then you will have to accept written testimony as evidence, as photographs would be very much useless in this case.

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Questions for Clarification.

« on: November 21, 2007, 01:11:54 AM »

Hmm... Because of a lack of replies, I've had a think about it myself. The only thing I could come up with so far is the 'anti-moon', but it wouldn't be constant enough in one place.

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: one simple question for a non beliver

« on: November 20, 2007, 11:25:07 PM »

That panorama shows proof of the world being neither flat nor round, but dissolving at the very edge of the horizon.  The panorama's horizon disappears at the rate of 1 inch per year.  Within a century, Everest will be the last landmass remaining.

Source?

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of a Round Earth.

« on: November 20, 2007, 11:23:23 PM »

The simplest equation is one that can be completed without the use of assumptions, correct?

Occam's Razor works in favor of the Flat Earth Theory.

Not exactly. But I've seen you use this argument before, so hopefully this will help you refine it for future use.

What's the simpler explanation; that man has successfully designed and built multi-trillion dollar rocket technologies from scratch to send massive payloads into space, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, win the Space Race, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robotic rovers to mars; or that it's all just a Conspiracy?

The simplest explanation is that the technology was built. The simplest explanation for having photos of the earth from space is that they were taken. The simplest explanation for the video signal that was routed through Australia and then recieved by NASA and broadcast over the world is that they had a camera up there sending the video down.

However, you have mistaken the 'simple' part of your answer for 'easiest'.
Yes, it is easier to fake an image than it is to take it. It would be easier to fake moon footage than take it. That doesn't make it simple. Not by a long shot.

What's the simpler explanation; that when I look out my window and see a Flat Earth that my eyes are deceiving me and that I am actually looking at the enormous sphere of the earth spinning through space at tens of thousands of miles an hour, whirling in perpetual epicycles around the universe; or that my eyes are not playing tricks on me and that the earth is exactly as it appears?

In this statement, you have yet another definition for simple; basic.

The simple explanation is that the world is so large that you cannot see the curvature. The stars are so far away that you cannot see them moving at night. They are so far away that you cannot judge the speed of the earth based on them. And yet, if you set up a camera to take a long exposure during the night, you can clearly see how the earth spins, and how they move.

The easiest and most basic way to answer these questions is denial. That does not make it the simplest answer.