1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Oh, for crying out loud, Tom Bishop!

« on: May 14, 2008, 11:54:02 PM »

Is that it!
So, having been rudely sarcastic, completely missed the point (constant angular velocity) you can neither accept what I have said can be observed is true or offer an explanation that has the slightest credibility.

As expected Mr Bishop was silent on the subject.

Sadly, I don't believe anyone missed the point.  This is the FE'ers way, if you can't answer a question, pretend it wasn't asked. 

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 14, 2008, 03:58:26 PM »

As always, no sensible answers.

Well, I think the Earth is a Dodecahedron.  I base this on nothing more than ill-conceived ideas and my own egotistical rantings.  That and smart arse answers!

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 14, 2008, 01:11:52 PM »

How do you circumnavigate a flat earth?

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 14, 2008, 01:58:43 AM »

But surely to keep this myth alive, any nation capable of space travel, or long haul flight, must be involved.

Richard Branson circumvented the globe, either he is a complete fool (his business acumen says differently), or he is in on it?

I seriously doubt your case (i.e. Flat Earth), but I am happy to be proved wrong, so show me some proof!  Don't assume we are all here just to mindlessly argue, although that is fun, I have an open mind, but no one is saying anything intelligent to help their cause.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: another question

« on: May 14, 2008, 01:48:17 AM »

In the same way religious people use the cop out "God works in mysterious ways", FE'ers use "It's a conspiracy".  I'm afraid that isn't a good enough answer.  It makes FE'ers look like complete fools.  If you ask a question, FE'ers tend to answer something else, much like a politician, or use the standard cop out.

Huge Fail to the FE'ers, until someone intelligent can actually join the debate.  Until then, the EARTH IS ROUND, spherical you might say, but most definately not flat.

How about, all you FE'ers storm the "Ice Wall", if you are correct, you will either all be shot, or fall off the edge of the Earth.  If we never hear from you again, we will take it as conclusive proof that yo were right, and we were wrong.

Wow! I'm good.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 14, 2008, 01:37:08 AM »

So, let me get this right....

NASA are the only ones to know, purely on the basis that they want money? 

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 13, 2008, 02:52:22 AM »

Those last two quotes seem contradictory to me.  Whose logic is flawed?

Erm! The FE'ers

Let me guess, the world's governments and their armed forces, NASA and it's Astronauts, even people like Richard Branson are all lieing, all for no apparent reason?

Or can you give me a good reason to believe that we are kept in the dark about the truth? (i.e. the earth being flat?)

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 12, 2008, 05:08:04 PM »

Ok, just so we are on an equal footing, and we can stop mixing words and actually try to answer a question directly....

My point is, the Arctic and Antarctic land masses were similar sizes, so walking the "coast" of either would (theoretically) take similar times.  On the FE model, the Antarctic (aka the Ice wall), would take years to walk around the coast of, unlike the Arctic, which would take a few days.

Now, if I wanted to argue about me grammar, spelling, punctuation etc. etc., I would have joined a "True English Forum", as I didn't, stop avoiding the questions and give answering them a go.

Unless, of course, you can't, in which case you can believe you're own hype and bullshit!

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 12, 2008, 03:04:12 PM »

I notice that no-one is actually answering my questions.

Are there any Politicians here?

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 12, 2008, 02:21:36 PM »

Ok, no!

But... someone could, if it would constitute proof, one way or another.  Perhaps the Admin & Mods of this board should, then it would be people that are trusted.

So, I was asking the questions.... Feel free to answer without copping out.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 12, 2008, 02:15:56 PM »

Another question... would someone walking around the ice wall take the same amount (roughly) of time, as walking around the "North" Pole?  As it does in reality?

Have you done it?

I am not in a position where I can disclose that at this moment in time, incase the FE'rs decide to "keep me quiet" or, indeed, the government see this.

I'd be in trouble one way or another!

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 12, 2008, 02:14:18 PM »

Your north pole/ice wall argument doesn't really make sense to me. Could you define it better?

My point is, in my education, the North an South Poles were similar sizes, so walking the "coast" of either would (theoretically) take similar times.  On the FE model, the South Pole (aka the Ice wall), would take years to walk around the coast of, unlike the North Pole, which would take a few days.

Therefore proving the earth is or is not flat.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 12, 2008, 02:11:42 PM »

Also....

Governments that can not agree on religon, land ownership, even mudane things like which side of the road to drive on, are together on keeping everyone in the dark that the age old idea of the world being flat was, infact, correct?

And, most importantly, where the hell does Santa live, he couldn't survive with so little land!

14

Flat Earth Debate / Q: "What about Lunar Eclipses"

« on: May 12, 2008, 02:01:34 PM »

(Possible A) The moon isn't a spotlight; it glows with light from the sun, reflected off the Earth. Different parts of the Earth are more reflective than others (the seas, the polar cap, the ice wall, for example). Sometimes, the position of the sun (which is a spotlight) means that only very low-reflective or non-reflective parts of the Earth's surface are illuminated, so the moon is abnormally dark. This could potentially explain lunar phases as well.

Seriously?  Can you guys contradict yourselves any more?

Another question... would someone walking around the ice wall take the same amount (roughly) of time, as walking around the "North" Pole?  As it does in reality?  Or is this also your general cop out of "it's a conspiracy"?


More to come, as your logic is so obviously flawed.