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 - Ranger 3

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: GoogleEarth
« on: July 08, 2011, 04:46:55 PM »
The FE'rs will claim the curvature is actually distortion from the window you're looking out of.

Using their logic...

Their bowels are full of sh!t.
Their bowels are inside of them.
They are full of sh!t.

2
The moon is bigger.

Derp

Please don't make low-content posts in the upper forums.

As if "The moon is bigger" is high content...

What is your standard of measure?

4
The moon is much brighter.

/> Helpful.
/> Scientific.
/> Zetetic.

5
The Lounge / Re: Apparently, I don't look Polish.
« on: March 31, 2011, 01:46:12 PM »
This. And trim your fuckin' eyebrows.
lol wat.
Men are supposed to have predominant eyebrows.

But he's three hairs away from being a chimp.

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dish Network Earth Channel
« on: March 31, 2011, 01:34:16 PM »
You seem to be misinterpreting the remark. The point is that there are heavy winds when one is high up but still in the atmosphere (i.e. in the region where one would place stratelites or slightly above or below that region).


The stratellites, one would think, would be placed somewhere around 65,000 ft.  Winds aloft are not equal at all altitudes and there is a relatively mild wind zone somewhere between 60,000ft. up to 70,000ft. 

You're guessing. Return when you can post something measurable.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dish Network Earth Channel
« on: March 31, 2011, 01:30:48 PM »
Quote from: John Davis
So are the dishes...

Thank you for the concession.

Quote from: John Davis
"Its also possible they hit 'satellites' above the earth in the space medium."
That is my best answer to that question.

I smell bullshit, but okay...

Quote from: John Davis
Its self evident that there is no atmospheric wind beyond the atmosphere.  This should be obvious even to a kindergartner.

At what altitude does the atmosphere end, what altitude does the wind stop, and at what altitude do your imaginary pseudo/stratelites operate?

Quote from: John Davis
If you don't hold they are hitting satellites or pseudolittes or bouncing off theatmosphere, what exactly do you think the dish is pointed at?  Are you seriously saying they are pointed at ducks?

Ah, no. This is a bad attempt on your part to redirect the debate. I specifically stated that
Quote
It's possible, however unlikely...
. You apparently missed the humor.

8
The Lounge / Re: Apparently, I don't look Polish.
« on: March 31, 2011, 12:49:20 PM »
No, that would be my pubes.

Ball hair & brevity.

Obviously.

9
The Lounge / Re: Apparently, I don't look Polish.
« on: March 31, 2011, 12:41:52 PM »

10
The Lounge / Re: Apparently, I don't look Polish.
« on: March 31, 2011, 10:21:36 AM »
This. And trim your fuckin' eyebrows.
Lurk moar.
Also, u jelly?

Did.
No.

11
The Lounge / Re: Apparently, I don't look Polish.
« on: March 31, 2011, 07:32:45 AM »
LEGO HAIR



This. And trim your fuckin' eyebrows.


12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dish Network Earth Channel
« on: March 30, 2011, 05:57:10 PM »
I have no evidence that all the twigs in my yard are pointing in the same direction too, that doesn't mean I assume they do.

But your twigs are observable, measurable, quantifiable.

Just because they are the same company doesn't mean they are pointing at the same place.  If the Earth was round one could calculate them to point in the same place sure, but since its not round if we take that same data and look at it objectively we see it could very well be pointing in two different directions, like you mention.  Just because they point at different areas than expected does not mean each dish needs its own satellite.  It could be pointing at a different pseudolite.

You keep saying "could". We're not interested in "could". Tell us what "is".

Quote from: John Davis
There is not any atmospheric wind at high altitude at all.

Present evidence supporting your statement.

Quote from: John Davis
Also, you clearly missed where I said: "Its also possible they hit 'satellites' above the earth in the space medium.

It's also possible, however unlikely, that they're hitting Space Ducks.




13
Flat Earth General / Re: The Terror of Truth
« on: March 30, 2011, 12:51:26 PM »
Likewise, the impossible is sometimes simpler than the possible.

An example of such would be...


14
Flat Earth General / Re: Round Earther's
« on: March 30, 2011, 08:38:57 AM »
I am legitimately curious, what will it take for you to realize that the Earth is flat? Despite the absolute WEALTH of information and proofs on this site you continue to deny the truth, open your eyes.

1. An accurate and scaled map.
2. Proof that pseudolites or stratellites exist.
3. An explanation as to why there are two celestial poles moving in sync with one another.


15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Dish Network Earth Channel
« on: March 30, 2011, 08:28:34 AM »
There is no such thing as a geometric reality.

Graphs do not necessary correlate to anything.  Nor do vectors.

Its quite possible the signals bounce off the ionsphere or some other part of the atmosphere.  Its also possible they hit satellites above the earth is the space medium.

Please explain how a straight line from my satellite, and the straight line from my friend's satellite in California, do not "correlate to anything," especially since they point to the exact same place.
I have no evidence that they indeed point to the same place.  

Further to that, you have no evidence that they don't.

If there were indeed pseudolites or stratellites, they would have to be tethered. Where are the anchor points? Somebody would notice this. I'll not harp on the fact that there is also wind at high altitude, which would blow these pseudo/stratellites around quite a bit, hence screwing up the reception on a finely adjusted satellite dish.

If they were not tethered, they would have to be working under their own power to keep themselves locked over a specific point. Even if they run on solar power (which is impractical as a single-source of energy), they would need to be serviced, refueled & repaired sometime.

There's a large infrastructure required to support this, and it wouldn't go unnoticed.

16
Flat Earth General / Re: QA
« on: March 15, 2011, 05:24:25 PM »

Economic relations? What are you talking about? Economic relations are always separate from political relations. If Lockheed Martin wants to do business with Iran or Cuba, they are free to do so regardless of our opinions of those countries. As long as they're following the sanctions (duties, no nukes, etc) they're free to do whatever.

Tom, equipment related to space flight is classically some of the most restricted exports there are, because it is so connected to building ballistic missiles. Lockheed Martin would have trouble getting permission to bring a lot of their tech to countries the US is friendly with, let alone Iran.  The exports to Iran are severely restricted, with only a few hundred million, and is kept track of very carefully.  Most of those products are agricultural and medical products that are specifically exempted from the sanctions. Occasionally other stuff does slip through (see e.g. this article) but there's no record of any space cooperation. How would they even coordinate? Is the Iranian end getting paid large sums of cash to pretend also? And no one has noticed these large sums why?  

Iran isn't getting paid large sums of cash, Iran is paying large sums of cash to NASA.

When NASA first opened its doors it was being paid many billions of dollars by america's allies to put up satellites for them and conduct space research. Britain, Brazil, India, and yes, Iran, were all clients of NASA and its contractors. Eventually, due to protests of the people of those countries complaining that their money was being wasted on a foreign entity, NASA helped to establish entities such as the Indian Space Agency and the European Space Agency, agencies which those countries could call their own. Those agencies are still probably being managed by NASA behind the scenes, NASA having built them brick by brick.

The point of having a space agency is to fool the world into believing that you have the capability to put ICBM's into orbit. NASA's early assistance played a key role in organizing this world-wide space travel hoax.

Evidence please?

17
The Lounge / Re: I am now...
« on: February 11, 2011, 10:32:09 AM »
Congratulations. What is an EMT?

You have no idea? You may have been congratulating this person for becoming a donkey rapist. That's fantastic.

As for EMT, a quick Google search yields this...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+an+emt%3F

18
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Quick Moon Question
« on: February 08, 2011, 10:17:34 AM »
the many harmful and dangerous side-effects of the Moon

You mean the fallicious, baseless guesswork that could be attributed to any other dozens of ailments, environmental factors, and events?

Reminds me of the lightbulb debate. Do they emit light or do they suck in dark? They must suck in dark, because when they go bad, they turn dark, hence, they must be full of dark.


19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Quick Moon Question
« on: February 08, 2011, 10:14:44 AM »
Would you care as to give me an exact quote so I can find the section instead of having to read all of that text again in detail?

The nonsense starts here...

Quote
The light of the moon is damp, cold, and powerfully septic; and animal and nitrogenous vegetable substances. exposed to it soon show symptoms of putrefaction. Even living creatures by long exposure to the moon's rays, become morbidly affected. It is a common thing on board vessels going through tropical regions, for written or printed notices to be issued, prohibiting persons from sleeping on deck exposed to full moonlight, experience having proved that such exposure is often followed by injurious consequences.


Thank you.

You're welcome. But...

Quote
Would you care as to give me an exact quote so I can find the section instead of having to read all of that text again in detail?

1. You didn't read it the first time, no need to pretend you did.

2. It's gobbledygook, so you didn't miss anything anyway.



20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Quick Moon Question
« on: February 07, 2011, 01:56:12 PM »
Would you care as to give me an exact quote so I can find the section instead of having to read all of that text again in detail?

The nonsense starts here...

Quote
The light of the moon is damp, cold, and powerfully septic; and animal and nitrogenous vegetable substances. exposed to it soon show symptoms of putrefaction. Even living creatures by long exposure to the moon's rays, become morbidly affected. It is a common thing on board vessels going through tropical regions, for written or printed notices to be issued, prohibiting persons from sleeping on deck exposed to full moonlight, experience having proved that such exposure is often followed by injurious consequences.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: My "Weather" Balloon
« on: February 01, 2011, 12:52:28 PM »
Your "100% custom video format".

So you wrote the code? Post it. The FE'ers will pull it apart and find something wrong with it.

Blah blah blah about the camera (of which you didn't note a make or model) "which was solid-body".

As if there were liquid body cameras?

22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Australia
« on: January 11, 2011, 12:28:06 PM »
You can observe the results...So what leads you to believe that UA is a superior theory than Gravity? You can't see UA, you can't see Gravity, but you trust one more than the other. Why?
I find it truly hilarious how you keep asking the same question. My answer hasn't changed during the last hour.

I find it truly hilarious that you claim I "keep asking the same question" when it's actually the first time I have asked it of you.

www.rif.org


23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Australia
« on: January 11, 2011, 12:10:16 PM »
Can you see radiation?
But you can see the UA?
I can observe the results of radiation successfully, yes. I can also observe UA's effect on every body that is claimed to be affected with it, which renders it vastly superior to gravity in that respect, for the reasons mentioned above.

I'm sorry, did my use of the word "see" confuse you? Just to be sure, here's a clarification, just for you  :-*
Perceive*

You can observe the results...So what leads you to believe that UA is a superior theory than Gravity? You can't see UA, you can't see Gravity, but you trust one more than the other. Why?

24
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Empirical evidence for moon shrimp
« on: January 11, 2011, 12:04:52 PM »
I would like to keep this thread on topic if I may, James has stated that there is ample empirical evidence which allowed him to deduce that the creatures which emit light from the moon's surface are shrimp-like bacteria, and I would simply like to know what that evidence is.

I think the "How to ROFL" picture has more evidence against it.
Please don't make low-content posts  (ROFL pictures) in the serious debate fora.

Contribute or complain...

COMPLAIN!

25
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Australia
« on: January 11, 2011, 08:29:36 AM »
All objects affect others with gravity, the problem is our planet is the most massive one, so we cannot feel the smaller fields.
That's very convenient. It works, you just can't ever possibly see it!!!!!

Can you see radiation?

26
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Moon actually not a disc.
« on: January 11, 2011, 08:19:53 AM »
Stars have been seen by a number of famous astronomers to occult (pass in front of) the Moon.

Do you have any citations to support this statement?

Read Earth Not a Globe.

Can you provide a source, aside from a 120 year old book and your own Wiki, that can substantiate your claim?

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« on: January 03, 2011, 12:36:23 PM »
Yet there you are, comparing them to life.

I am only comparing the perspective effect to reality.

The video game itself is not comparable to reality, as the excerpt disclaims.

Then why include it?

28
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Antarctica circumnavigation facts and figures
« on: January 03, 2011, 11:21:55 AM »
For Tom Bishop, the mere possibility (though however unlikely) that something could be faked, forged, fudged, mistaken or lied about is evidence enough that it was, is, or has been.


29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sinking Ship in ENaG
« on: January 03, 2011, 10:25:16 AM »
It says that a telescope can restore bodies disappeared by perspective and gives several accounts where they have.

Your link does state this, but it simply doesn't happen outside of your wiki.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: Wikileaks
« on: December 23, 2010, 04:59:57 PM »
flat earth is just trolls and loons, julian badassange doesn't care about you lol

I think logically that since the advent of the Internet and technological advances in the general communications, we have seen the truth come out in a lot of conspiracies, so it beggars the question of why has the flat earth conspiracy not been blown in its 500 years or more of existence, particularly since the internet. There are thousands of employees in NASA, Google, Air Traffic Control centres, map makers etc worldwide and I am confident that proof would have leaked out by now.

I think the more obvious solution at the moment is that the conspiracy theory is actually flimsy at best when looked at closely, and as this is the most important aspect of modern FE theory (excepting the Zetetics) then the whole FE concept as currently understood has no solid grounding whatsoever. At least, until we get actual proof of the global conspiracy from within - but such a big revelation would have broken by now.

FE is a joke. It's a bunch of intellectual hopefuls who are more concerned with winning a debate than proving a concept. Look at FE responses to questions & criticisms. They tend to respond with more questions or criticize sentence structure.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5