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 - fpot

Pages: [1]
1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« on: October 22, 2008, 01:35:06 AM »
Bendy light. You assume that earth is flat and therefore come up with BL as a solution. OK, that is a theory, but in science you need to be able to test and retest to validate a theory. Right now you appear to be saying here is a theory of bendy light which proves flat earth can work. We can prove the theory because the Earth is flat! Running round in circles there mate.
Circular logic, quite ironically.

What is also ironic is the way you mention the dark ages and the way they believed in witches. You know what else they believed in the dark ages? That the world was flat.

What would be hilarious is to take one of these morons on a trip on a space shuttle and watch them furrow their brows as they finally realise that the world is round. Actually, all you'd need to do is put them on a sailing ship and travel in a straight line long enough before they'd get to the same place. And no-one has made mention of being in a plane and _seeing_ the curvature of the earth with their own eyes. Or are planes part of the NASA god conspiracy as well.

Jesus christ, I can't believe there are people still this stupid in the civilised world :/

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« on: October 20, 2008, 10:45:03 PM »
This might be so, because I feel like I have to put things in simple terms which is---what people can and cannot do in this life.  Some people feel so important w/ all their "technical" jargon.  At the end of the day, this 'jargon' is still 'jargon'.  And this 'jargon' cannot change the way things are, fpot. 

I know you feel like you are standing on such high & mighty ground w/ your NASA god.  You guys have accomplished so much in such a short time.  Hallelujah!

To the "rocket" point, I might add that these "rockets" went quite a bit more than 20 feet.  Even a bit more than 2,000 feet.  But you must believe what you must.  I can only point the way....

What is your reason for believing NASA went to "space" and photographed the earth?
I see you missed the part about quotation marks in my post, or simply ignored it.

For the record I didn't use any technical jargon in my post. Which parts didn't you understand? I'll gladly explain them to you. I have seen the term 'NASA god' thrown around this forum quite a bit. Is this supposed to discredit us, by comparing NASA to those who have faith in a certain religion or something? The difference between those who have a faith in religion and those of us who know that NASA went to space and the earth is round is simply that, faith. Faith requires no evidence of any kind for people to believe, whereas us who support science require tangible evidence, which is truly in abundance when it comes to the space program. I guess in your next post you are actually going to ask me to tell you what that evidence is. Yawn.

And you completely misunderstood what I was getting at with the 20 feet comment. Perhaps you should learn to comprehend what is written before you make a comment on it. What I was saying that the first successful heavier than air flight only traveled 20 feet or so, with numerous complete failures before that. Now we have planes that travel 5000km/h whilst cruising at 500000ft. Technological advancement is a slippy slope.

And the reason NASA went to space and photographed the earth? Why did cavemen leave their caves? Why did the the spanish set off to find the new world? Why did the British embark upon the first fleet? It's human nature to want to explore, to find out new things and to go to places they haven't been before. The next challenge for the human race was to embark upon space, and then eventually the moon. I guess the next challenge is to set foot upon mars, which is something I hope to see in my lifetime.

Your writing style and general way you come across suggest someone of a very low intelligence by the way. Perhaps anyone who has half a brain and sits on his side of the fence should remark upon that before hitting the 'post reply' button.



3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« on: October 20, 2008, 10:14:17 PM »
I am glad you asked fpot....The earliest attempts at "rocket" science proved just how far these "rockets" and by extension, humans, can or will ever go in "space"....But put a better way is how far humans can travel from the earth. 

Anyways, these "rockets" all shared the same fate.  Each one of them blew up when they reached these enormous altitudes.  Some reports had it that they disentegrated up there in the upper "atmosphere".  But we can just go w/ 'blew up' for now. 

The point being, that these "rockets" went as far as they could go.  They went further than NASA goes now, when they snap these earth "photos".  There is something up there that is impenetrable.  I have heard it called the 'Van Allen Belt' and maybe that is what it is.  Either way, no amount of technology is going to go past 'it'....
See that little quote button at the top right of peoples posts? Click that to quote properly.

Of course early rockets blew up, that always happens to new technology, things going wrong. By your theory planes would never be able to fly farther then 20 feet because the that's all the Wright brothers could manage. I don't mean to get narky and rude on an internet forum, but what you just said is a total load of bullshit. It sounds like the sort of explanation you'd give a child, vague and completely void of any details and reasoning. There is just 'something' up there which is impenetrable is there? What could that be? Oh the magical Van Allen Belt oh I have heard of that! Maybe it's that!

The Van Allen Belt (that would make an awesome name for a band or clothing label or something but I digress) are charged radioactive particles that exist in the upper atmosphere of our planet. Yes, passing through the VAB is deadly to organic life and exposed sensitive electronic equipment. That you'd think that this sort of thing could cause a rocket to just magically explode shows your complete lack of understanding of what you are talking about. To safely traverse the VAB organic matter and electronic equipments needs to be shielded and protected. Have you heard of a metal called lead? It does wonders for shielding against radiation.

And by the way just in case you haven't realised, putting certain words in quotation marks doesn't make your argument any more convincing or compelling, it just makes you look really stupid.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« on: October 20, 2008, 09:47:39 PM »
What they most certainly did not do & will never do is go to "space".  NASA knows it cannot engineer a "space" journey.  It is not even possible to us.  There is only so far that we can go up "there" and that is it....And no amount of technology that we have now or will ever have is going to make a difference.  

But thank you Mr. Kepler for keeping an open mind :)  
Pretty much the furtherest we can go at the moment is restricted by the amount of life support that can be contained on a manned vessel. What restrictions do you think are keeping us from exploring space?

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof of Conspiracy
« on: October 20, 2008, 09:35:22 PM »
But wait, haven't you guys ever been up in a plane before, and been able to see the curvature of the earth with your own eyes? haha.

Seriously this site is hilarious. I will post my favourite bit from this thread.

And the RE believers have shown evidence, and while it is not credible to some people,
it is alot more than I have seen from any FE'er

Really? Where's your evidence that NASA has invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second, and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars?

You're the one making all of these claims. You're the one claiming that government contractors can send 100 tons of matter straight upwards at 7 miles a second (third stage of the Saturn V), and that NASA can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden of you is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

I like the bit about 'never before seen rocket technologies from scratch'. Are you implying that all inventions and technological innovations have to of existed in some form before they were invented? I really don't know what you are trying to get at here.

These things have been proven. They have been proven by people witnessing the rockets taking off. They have been proven by watching spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere. They have also been proven by the photographs and videos taken while in space. Your accusations that these photographs and videos are fake are weak and ironically the burden of proof is on you to prove that they are fake, which you can't. That NASA spent a lot of money and got some of the top minds in the world to develop rocket technology to propel us out of our own atmosphere is a much simpler explanation than them staging the whole thing with fake rockets/photographs/videos/physical evidence with numerous people in on the conspiracy and no apparent motive. Can't you see that? Are you really that dense? Is that infantile little analogy at the end there really supposed to convince anyone that the world is flat? Because all it did was make me laugh.

The problem with you people is that you come to a conclusion (the world is flat) and then work your way backwards into the facts (the photographs must be faked and other skewed interpretations of evidence to support your claim). The proper way to look at things is to examine the evidence and facts and then come to a conclusion, which to anyone of sound mind is that the earth is round.

6
Flat Earth Debate / This site is a trap to track paranoid schizophrenics
« on: October 20, 2008, 08:14:48 AM »
Beware! The government is tracking paranoid schizophrenics and adding them to a register using the details from this site. Delete your cookies immediately. This thread will be closed soon and that is proof of a conspiricy!

Pages: [1]