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 - E349

Pages: [1] 2
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctic Cruises
« on: April 18, 2009, 12:48:47 PM »
I don't quite think that you guys are grasping what I am trying to get at. Here let me explain the series of events as I see it:

1) Some ancient "scientist" and a corrupt government space agency discover that, contrary to the beliefs of millions of people and the conclusions derived from thousands of scientific observations, the earth is in fact as flat as a pancake. Oh.....and there's a giant wall of ice surrounding the earth.
Pancakes come in many different levels of thickness.
I am afraid that you have confused this planet for a pancake.
2) The corrupt space agency realizes that there is no money to be made from flat-earth space discovery and creates an elaborate plan to hide the reality from the ignorant and unsuspecting population. They form a vast bureaucracy and *efficiently* manage to carry out a program of misinformation while staying within their *budget constraints*.
NASA's budget is bigger than the GDP of small countries. And contrary to unpopular belief, money is power.
Yes, but NASA also employs more people than the populations of some small nations. And in accordance with popular belief, government = inefficiency.
3) This forum is created and you, the "enlightened" individuals who will spread this universal truth, go about divulging the information that the government has spent billions of dollars to cover up.
Another win for Captain Obvious.
It is amazing how you have failed to master that which you have pointed out.
4) The government does absolutely nothing about this because they know that nobody will believe you and that everybody will dismiss you as a group of crazies. I wonder why? ::)
Also,because if they took it down it would just 1. Raise suspicion. and 2. Be put back up in a different country outside their control.
Raise suspicion!?!?! Somehow the government has managed to dupe the entire world without raising suspicion and yet you don't think it capable of eliminating ONE WEBSITE.
5) Cruise line companies exploit the last natural frontier that the earth possesses, the ice wall. They show thousands of obese tourists the massive geological formation that the government has spent billions of dollars and employed thousands of guards to hide and defend.
It wouldn't be suspicious at all if cruise lines were just flat out told "NO, you cant go there. You don't need to know why."
While I admit that it would be very suspicious for the government to do this, it runs contrary to their policy of secrecy and global ignorance to permit it.
6) The government, once again, does absa-fucking-lutely nothing about this.
See above.
See above.
Now, I don't know if I being obtuse or something, but this sounds like the most poorly contrived conspiracy theory ever. You are telling me that the government is trying very hard to dupe us with the concept of gravity, but that it isn't doing shit to hide the 17,000 mile-long wall of ice whose farthest side proves the idea of a flat earth.

G-G-G-G-GET THE FUCK OUT
Bigger is not always better.
*question: since when has the government ever been able to do anything efficiently or within its budget constraints?
The majority of the time.
Let me remind you that this is the same government that needs six men to do a two-man job. Example: Road work.

2
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctic Cruises
« on: April 15, 2009, 07:10:38 AM »
I don't quite think that you guys are grasping what I am trying to get at. Here let me explain the series of events as I see it:

1) Some ancient "scientist" and a corrupt government space agency discover that, contrary to the beliefs of millions of people and the conclusions derived from thousands of scientific observations, the earth is in fact as flat as a pancake. Oh.....and there's a giant wall of ice surrounding the earth.

2) The corrupt space agency realizes that there is no money to be made from flat-earth space discovery and creates an elaborate plan to hide the reality from the ignorant and unsuspecting population. They form a vast bureaucracy and *efficiently* manage to carry out a program of misinformation while staying within their *budget constraints*.

3) This forum is created and you, the "enlightened" individuals who will spread this universal truth, go about divulging the information that the government has spent billions of dollars to cover up.

4) The government does absolutely nothing about this because they know that nobody will believe you and that everybody will dismiss you as a group of crazies. I wonder why? ::)

5) Cruise line companies exploit the last natural frontier that the earth possesses, the ice wall. They show thousands of obese tourists the massive geological formation that the government has spent billions of dollars and employed thousands of guards to hide and defend.

6) The government, once again, does absa-fucking-lutely nothing about this.

Now, I don't know if I being obtuse or something, but this sounds like the most poorly contrived conspiracy theory ever. You are telling me that the government is trying very hard to dupe us with the concept of gravity, but that it isn't doing shit to hide the 17,000 mile-long wall of ice whose farthest side proves the idea of a flat earth.

G-G-G-G-GET THE FUCK OUT

*question: since when has the government ever been able to do anything efficiently or within its budget constraints?

3
Flat Earth Q&A / Antarctic Cruises
« on: April 13, 2009, 07:12:19 AM »
I am sure that this topic has been covered before, but what of the matter of Antarctic cruises? At this point in time a number of Cruise Liners make Antarctic voyages in which thousands of individuals, myself being one of them, can get up close and personal with such antarctic features as continental ice shelfs and the likes of such. How exactly does this fit into FE conspiracy theories? If the governments of the world are conspiring to keep the public ignorant, why would they allow the public to experience, first hand, one of the most closely guarded aspects of the secret, the giant ice wall? Please discuss.

4
You like lies my friend, and "they" are "those" who lie. Conviction are for the faithful.


Uh...You still fail at geography. Birmingham, London, Paris and Frankfurt are in EUROPE. Europe is not Asia. If you wanted to fly to Asia you would still have to fly over the Arctic circle.

Learn2Geography

5
What it all comes down to is this: When FE'ers fail to respond to a RE'ers sound arguement it is because thet are incapable of producing evidence in support their theory. Through FE'ers failure to respond to one's post, the post is eventally lost to the vast list of posts which have come before it. Subsequently, by selectively choosing the arguements which they respond to, FE'ers are able to: 1) see only what they want to see, and b) keep the vast majority in the dark regarding the sound arguements of RE'ers.  Case in point: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=23409.0

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hi Im tommy
« on: October 01, 2008, 10:13:12 AM »
or if you had scrolled up and read the title before you posted......

Sorry, what I meant to ask is:
What is the purpose of this thread NOW?

I am a little new to the concept of a forum and I was wondering what happens to threads like this that have fulfilled their initial purpose. Does somebody ask a new question and debate resumes or does this thread merely sink into obscurity like the many threads which have come before it.

7
wouldn't the centripetal force of a round earth bring the plane crashing down since the force downward is more than gravity? I think i have busted the round earth conspiracy

Huh? Do you even know what centripetal force is? Do you know what keeps a plane in the air? I think that you better understand these concepts before you pursue this discussion any further.

8

A better question would be how a plane follows the longitudinal curve... Shortest path?

Explain your point and question with more words. If I did understand correctly same reason why they don't fly over the North pole to get to Asia. D-E-C-E-P-T-I-O-N

"They"? Who is this generic "they"? If you mean flights from australia then it is obvious why they do not fly over the North Pole to get to Asia - that would take forever. If you mean flights from north america then you are simply fail at geography - they do fly over the arctic ocean to get to asia. In either case this was not a very convincing arguement.

9
Wow.  The fail of this thread is epic.  I mean truly epic.

I concur. Although I am unable to explain this phenomenon (I have yet to take a school course in physics) I can assure you that planes do not constantly trim their flight to maintain altitude. Just as a rock that is tied to one's finger may be kept spinning about it, a plane that is pulled to the earth by the force of gravity will not just float off into space bacause it is going fast

As for your "evidence" in the form of hearing observations, there is no way that you could have heard a commercial jet's hydrolics from inside the cabin (which can be as loud as 86 decibels).

10
Wait a second...

This might actually represent a WIN for FET.
HOORAY!!!

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hi Im tommy
« on: October 01, 2008, 08:21:56 AM »
Yep, browsing the forum would definitely bring new meaning to this thread. Thanks for the intelligent insight and another great contribution to this thread.

12
The Lounge / Re: EA is sued over Spore DRM software
« on: October 01, 2008, 05:29:16 AM »
You are all failing to see the point...

This is just another step in EA's quest for world domination.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hi Im tommy
« on: October 01, 2008, 04:43:15 AM »
So... Uh... What was the purpose of this thread again?

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hi Im tommy
« on: September 30, 2008, 05:46:59 PM »
why are so many people so unfriendly on here?
i meant i only know what i have been taught with regards to a round earth
and im perfectly happy to question this.


lurk moar. It is never enough.


He's right. If you think that people are unfriendly now you should see them when others ask them questions that have already been answered many times before. It gets frustrating when people stand to question a theory which they have not even a rudimentary knowledge about. Thus, the only solution is to...


Read the damn FAQ
Why aren't you lurking moar?

Was that addressed at me? By the way, I think that CHEAP AND DECADENT has been scared away by the "less than friendly" response to his initial post.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Another addition to the conspiracy? Thoughts?
« on: September 30, 2008, 02:19:34 PM »
Quote
Have you ever made an insurance claim, Tom?  Did the insurance adjuster not come out to look at the damage?  Did the agent issuing the policy not take pictures of your car when you got the policy (for, among other reasons, to make sure that you actually had a car to insure)

NASA could have easily claimed that the satellite was completely vaporized upon re-entry, or that its pieces hit the ocean and sunk away never to be found.

We aren't exactly talking about a toaster here. When a satelite (many of which are the size of cars) re-enters the atmosphere it burns up in a fiery ball which is clearly visible in an otherwise featureless sky. How exactly is it that satelite insurance companies (which could lose millions of dollars to a faulty claim) are incapable of monitoring such occurences? They have a huge amount at stake to be ignoring their assets in such a manner.

Also, you would need an awfully high flying plane or a truly immense weather balloon to get a satelite to a height suitable to drop it from. (responding to post prior to last edit)

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Hi Im tommy
« on: September 29, 2008, 11:17:16 AM »
why are so many people so unfriendly on here?
i meant i only know what i have been taught with regards to a round earth
and im perfectly happy to question this.


lurk moar. It is never enough.

He's right. If you think that people are unfriendly now you should see them when others ask them questions that have already been answered many times before. It gets frustrating when people stand to question a theory which they have not even a rudimentary knowledge about. Thus, the only solution is to...


Read the damn FAQ

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship experiment Results
« on: September 28, 2008, 09:11:20 PM »

...if this is a true effect it means that the observations of Mr. Rowbotham were erroneous.


God Forbid!

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What it all comes down to...
« on: September 28, 2008, 08:40:34 PM »
But ... Both Le Verrier and Babinet agreed that both The Earth and Neptune are in orbit around The Sun. So neither of them were Flat Earth proponents. So the discrepancy between Neptune's predicted and true orbit, huge as it is, does not support a flat Earth.

Person A and B are both wrong by orders of magnitude in reference to thesis D. But .. both believe anti-E. Therefore E is manifestly wrong?


Assuming that I don't understand that which you said (and I don't understand a word of it), could you please explain this to me in the vernacular.

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What it all comes down to...
« on: September 25, 2008, 11:27:12 AM »
I have a question: What is the speed of light in the FET? Is it the same as the speed of light in the RET, or do the different forces which are found in the FET influence the speed of light?

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What it all comes down to...
« on: September 24, 2008, 06:29:52 PM »
I bet if I added something that sounds good but is technically incorrect it would last much longer.  Adding a line that effectively says "wiki sucks" wasn't exactly subtle.

My experience is that the people that monitor pages know the topics that they monitor.  It would probably be difficult to "create" information that will pass by someone who is intimately familiar with the information.

This is especially true considering that the people who monitor such pages can see when changes have been made and can check such changes for veracity. However, I would not go as far as to say that all of the monitors are "intimately familiar" with the information they monitor.
This was examplified by the following:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-441432/Wikipedia--accurate-online-encyclopedia.html

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What it all comes down to...
« on: September 24, 2008, 04:26:43 PM »

Edit: a fair point, but ...

How long will it be before someone edits that out, though?

I find that most Wikipedia articles have very zealous editors attached to them.

Sounds like a fun expirement to me.  Link it to your favorites and check it twice a day or so.

A most excellent experiment indeed!

(I am enjoying this!)

This was brilliant! :)

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What it all comes down to...
« on: September 24, 2008, 04:08:10 PM »
Quote
Incomplete it may have been, but it was good enough to facilitate the discovery of Neptune:

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

Covered in Earth Not a Globe:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za60.htm

I may be being somewhat obtuse with this question but, what exactly does this prove? Besides cementing the fact that a man, using a pencil and paper, discovered the existence of a planet (though with a considerable percent error), this exerpt puts the distance of neptune from the Earth well beyond any distance which could exist in the FE model. This exerpt merely proves that calculators in those days sucked. ;)

23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Sun
« on: September 24, 2008, 03:56:00 PM »
I meant that the SUN can't be at nearly 100% of efficiency, a 100% efficiency sistem doesn't lose energy under the form of heat

The Sun's entire energy output is in the form of radiation, which is a form of heat. You are thinking of a device with 100% efficiency in producing mechanical energy, which is not the case with the Sun.

I believe that you too are thinking of a device with 100% efficiency in producing mechanical energy, for the entire concept of efficiency revolves around the existence of a standard from which to base one's judgement. Because no man-made standard exists (you don't have a sun in your backyard do you?) and because comparison with other stars would reveal little (a variety of factors influence solar output), the entire notion of a "100% efficient sun" is flawed.

Besides the fact, nobody cares about your opinion regarding the sun. ;)

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What it all comes down to...
« on: September 23, 2008, 05:18:14 PM »
Sorry - I get confused as to who is on which side sometimes.

It doesn't help that some people appear to switch sides for fun!

I got that same impression when the following was stated:

What about objects with no mass?  What about at the sub atomic level?

Motion on the subatomic level is dominated by the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces.

Only in FET. 

What are you implying?

I am not implying anything, my message (or so I see it) is clear. I am merely pointing out that the response which you gave, "Only in FET", gave me the the impression that you did not believe the aforementioned information. This, combined with my observation that you frequently take a pro-FE stance, confused me with regard to you alignment in this discussion regarding gravity.

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What it all comes down to...
« on: September 23, 2008, 04:44:16 PM »
Sorry - I get confused as to who is on which side sometimes.

It doesn't help that some people appear to switch sides for fun!

I got that same impression when the following was stated:

What about objects with no mass?  What about at the sub atomic level?

Motion on the subatomic level is dominated by the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces.

Only in FET. 

26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What it all comes down to...
« on: September 22, 2008, 04:40:33 PM »
The round earth theory is based off of gravity, something which, despite all of its subsequently derived theories, remains unproven.

But we *do* know why gravity happens - mass bends space-time so that objects follow curved paths along it (Einstein).

And in the every-day world this is indistinguishable from a "force" which causes masses to attract each other (Newton).

And even if we *didn't* know why gravity happens, that wouldn't invalidate the scientific theory of how gravity acts.

You are allowed to have basic premises in science.

Newton noted that massive objects attract each other and he was happy to leave it at that.

With his theory - an incomplete  one, I grant you - he was able to explain the motion of the planets around the Sun in the Solar System.

With his theory - an incomplete  one, I grant you - we have been able to send men to The Moon and back safely.

"But the Moon Landings were faked by the conspiracy!", I hear you cry.

"B*ll*cks to your conspiracy theory!", say I because there is a host of independent evidence to back up my claim:

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

First of all, as I stated before, I am not a proponent of the flat earth theory and do not believe in the conspiracy regarding the forgery of the lunar landings. Secondly, I did not state that gravity does not or cannot exist. Rather I merely suggested that the lack of definitive *proof* leaves the potential for other explanations. Lastly, just because Newton took the attraction of physical masses at face value does not mean that society should. I believe that the scientific comminity should continue to endeavor to explain gravity, lest we begin to accept without questioning the theories which govern the natural world.

Now, if you don't mind, I must get back to photoshopping '60s cameras into images of the lunar landings.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What it all comes down to...
« on: September 22, 2008, 03:28:48 PM »
Thus, the round earth theory falls short in its failure to provide an explanation for its most fundamental force

This is not a failing of RET, this is a failing of modern physics. RET theory attempts to describe the shape of the Earth, and is 100% succesful.

How can you say that the RET is '100% successful' at describing the shape of the earth when gravity, a very critical part of the theory, has yet to be proven? The RET without gravity would make no sense and, subsequently, it can be said with certainty to possess a critical flaw. The RET is simply a detailed elaboration on a circumstantial piece of evidence and, as a result, should be treated as no more.

(Note: I am a strong believer in the RET and merely attempt to get others to question the facts which they accept without proof)

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What it all comes down to...
« on: September 22, 2008, 12:32:22 PM »
By the way this is the FE debate section.

No, this is the dabate and DISCUSSION section. This is a topic that is open for discussion.

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What it all comes down to...
« on: September 22, 2008, 12:16:10 PM »
What I am getting at is…
because both theories contain their errors, I believe that the narcissism which exists in this site (whose ramifications are evident in the Angry Ranting section) is entirely unnecessary. Neither side can argue that they are ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’, only that their theory is an acceptable alternative. For this reason I believe that petty insults should be filtered from this site (except for use in the condemnation of Neanderthals).

30
Flat Earth Debate / What it all comes down to...
« on: September 22, 2008, 12:14:41 PM »
is that both the flat earth theory and the round earth theory are erroneous theories in certain aspects. The round earth theory is based off of gravity, something which, despite all of its subsequently derived theories, remains unproven. At the same time, the flat earth theory is based upon the supposition that the entire wealth of astronomical data which has been accumulated since 1962 is actually a load of shit. Thus, the round earth theory falls short in its failure to provide an explanation for its most fundamental force, and the flat earth theory falls short in its inability to (scientifically) disprove the science behind the round earth theory (and explain why the flat earth is perpetually accelerating). Both theories can merely argue their case, leaving the reader to decide which side (or neither) that they will take.

Pages: [1] 2