1

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: There are many problems with this theory!

« on: February 14, 2011, 01:32:06 PM »

1) As has been described to you before, when you step off a chair, you observe that you follow a parabolic path towards the surface of the Earth. There is no specific way to discern whether the Earth comes up to meet you or whether you fall down to the Earth using purely Zetetic observation.

If someone throws you a baseball you know that the baseball is moving towards you because you can see it move.

Likewise, when you step off a chair and observe the earth rise upwards you know that the earth is moving because you can see it move. You do not observe yourself traveling towards the earth. You observe that the earth lifts upwards and smacks itself into the bottom of your feet. You can see, directly, that the earth is moving upwards.

No sees "graviton particles" or whatever dribble you RE'rs mumble about in your closets. When stepping off a chair all that is seen is that the earth rises upwards.

2) I suppose that's one way of looking at it. I can think of a couple other reasons (diplomatic - although I admit I don't know much about the political atmosphere of the time period - and scientific) why they would have done this. I don't know exactly why they did it, but then again, neither do you. You are rather closed-minded for shutting out other reasonable possibilities and only focusing on the one that conveniently supports your theory.

So they did it for "diplomatic reasons"? What kind of "diplomatic reasons" were those?

NASA was clearly caught trying to fool people into believing that they had gone to the moon and brought back rocks from its surface.

3) You are correct that there is no evidence to support light bending. You should, however, believe in it if you believe in FET seeing as how it doesn't work without it.

"Bendy Light" isn't part of conventional Flat Earth Theory. Read Earth Not a Globe. There is no bendy light described in the text. In ENAG light travels in straight paths.

Tom, don't quote the conspiracy  FAQ. I seem to remember Doyh dismissing everything in it in about an hour.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dolphins

« on: February 10, 2011, 05:40:50 PM »

I would like to discuss the similarities of this paper and the discussion that occurred when England was trying to decide if aboriginees were people and exempt from hunting.

That sounds boring. Dolphins are much more fun.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Dolphins

« on: February 10, 2011, 05:35:45 PM »

I take this to mean we should punish dolphins for committing murder and rape, as they are known to do.

4

The Lounge / Re: @Dancing Badger

« on: January 24, 2011, 01:06:13 PM »

I love this guy. He is someone who might actually out-lurk the Yahoo Spider.

A champion lurker, a veteran. I wonder if he is a FEr yet?

Are you?

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Has the zetetic model contributed anything to the development of humankind?

« on: January 23, 2011, 09:27:21 PM »

He tried to beat the train. It's tragic, but it is also a rather common way to die any not should not be fodder for conspiracy theories.

6

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

« on: January 23, 2011, 07:18:47 PM »

If Hiroshima hadn't been nuked, it would have more damage. In an attempt to make it more realistic, we would have bombed it as bad as we did the entirely undeserving city of Dresden. Read Slaughter-House Five.

7

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.

« on: January 23, 2011, 06:53:40 PM »

No, millennia (or millenniums, either are proper English) are macro-time. Years and days and such are micro-time.

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?

« on: January 23, 2011, 06:41:53 PM »

Plate Tecnonics has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

Except that they don't work in the FE model.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy fakes evidence of bendy light!

« on: January 23, 2011, 05:31:23 PM »

You guys seem to imagine that Tom Bishop makes all this up. He doesn't. He is a very thorough academic and has spent years studying the topic. He is probably sick to death of explaining it to you all. Why not read it first hand from somewhere. As you must have all read ENaG by now, broaden your horizons.

How light refracts near the earth.


Left: conventional physics.                 Right: flat-earther's physics.

Modern flat-earthers do indeed assume that refraction is at work. They attribute the disappearance of the ships over the horizon to a refraction effect, and even point out that with some atmospheric conditions, ships, icebergs, and distant mountains have been observed to rise above the horizon, and even turn upside down!

The diagram at the right shows how this works. The angle that the rays strike the earth's surface is correct, matching the left diagram.

To complete their path from the sun to the earth the rays must curve to strike the earth at the correct (observed) angle. The curvature of the rays for latitude differences of less than 50? hardly shows on the diagram. Of course this result can be obtained in various ways. The curvature could be confined to the region near the earth, even within the atmosphere. The diagram shows circular arcs, but other shapes might be used as well.

That doesn't change the fact that refraction caused Rowbotham's results. As I am getting sick of explaining, when the experiment was repeated several feet higher, they proved that the Earth is round.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: the standard of FEs

« on: January 23, 2011, 05:14:29 PM »

What you should be concerned with, instead of trying to slur and talk down to us, is prove that you have the right to do so.  Starting out with blatant prejudice is a huge step in the wrong direction.

In fairness, the basics of Flat Earth hypothesis are dependent on the idea that all Round Earthers are ignorant...

True enough.  Though in equal fairness, so is the scientific method.

I'm going to play ClockTower here, and ask you to provide proof of your outlandish claim.

The scientific method would have no raison d'etre if everyone was not ignorant.  Because we would know everything.


Also, keep the thread on track.  All of you.

This is kind of irrelevant. IOA was saying that your hypothesis depends on the fact that people are too stupid to notice the effects of a flat Earth on their everyday lives..

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy fakes evidence of bendy light!

« on: January 23, 2011, 05:09:51 PM »

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/01/21/squishy-moonrise-seen-from-space/

Yeah.  Light bending downward due to atmospheric refraction is part of RET.  It is also used as the explanation for the results of the bedford levels experiment.   So stop using this phenomenon as evidence of UA which in FET causes light to bend upward.

I think TB knows this, but refuses to talk about it. I've mentioned it to him several times, but he tends to ignore me. I'm mostly posting this in the hopes that it'll force him to debate it with you. Good luck!

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Why do RE believers come here?

« on: January 23, 2011, 03:15:35 PM »

I just don't get it? Why do you guys hate me? Why taking all those cheap shots?

For me, it's because you are smug, ignorant, and stubborn. In other words, I'm a hypocrite.

13

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Plate Tectonics?

« on: January 23, 2011, 02:11:46 PM »

 I posted this a few days ago. Apparently they don't believe in Plate Tectonics, either.

14

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Millenniums are not scientifically proven.

« on: January 21, 2011, 06:08:42 PM »

No one has ever witnessed a millennium. Therefore, they are a faith; a religion, if you will.

What needs to become plural?

15

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Millenniums are not scientifically proven.

« on: January 21, 2011, 01:44:15 PM »

No one has ever witnessed a millennium. Therefore, they are a faith; a religion, if you will.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Has the zetetic model contributed anything to the development of humankind?

« on: January 21, 2011, 12:47:37 PM »

When you're on your death bed you have better things to think about -- like your impending death, all the people you will be leaving behind, and who will support your family once you are gone.

If it were me, I'd want the world to know the truth before I die. I don't know, I guess I'm just not that much of a coward.

If it the government is willing to take out ex-NASA employee Thomas Baron's family, what makes you think that they wouldn't be willing to take out yours?

Really Tom? You still think that they murdered him with a train?

Well, either they were murdered or the entire family decided to have a group suicide together by parking their car on some train tracks.

How many family group suicides do you see?

It wasn't a suicide.

Thomas Baron's death is ruled an accident by the Florida Highway Patrol. The investigating trooper concluded that Baron had tried to beat a train at a crossing.

Didn't Apollo defenders once claim that Baron had committed suicide?

Yes. That report was based on discussions among historians that occurred in about 2002 but was ultimately revealed to be little more than hearsay. Investigative journalist Gary Corsair reports the findings of the Florida Highway Patrol, and has uncovered no evidence of suicide.

This website is quoted several times in the FAQ, so don't you dare tell me that it isn't accurate.

17

Flat Earth General / Re: the standard of FEs

« on: January 21, 2011, 12:39:40 PM »

What you should be concerned with, instead of trying to slur and talk down to us, is prove that you have the right to do so.  Starting out with blatant prejudice is a huge step in the wrong direction.

In fairness, the basics of Flat Earth hypothesis are dependent on the idea that all Round Earthers are ignorant...

True enough.  Though in equal fairness, so is the scientific method.

I'm going to play ClockTower here, and ask you to provide proof of your outlandish claim.

18

Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy motivation

« on: January 21, 2011, 12:37:19 PM »

But were blimps performing the duties of satellites in the 1960s?

Since sustained space travel is inherently impossible, yes they were.

First of all, Petitio Principii. Second, the most high-tech, modern unmanned airship can stay in the air for almost a month. That's a lot, but not compared to 18 months. Do read the arguments before debunking them.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: Has the zetetic model contributed anything to the development of humankind?

« on: January 20, 2011, 08:45:07 PM »

You cannot use words like "proof" is a reasoned debate

Yes I can. Rowbotham's work has been confirmed and verified by others. Therefore his work meets the status of "proof".

No. Earth Not a Globe proves that the earth is flat. Therefore the shuttle and NASA's other space ventures must be a sham.

Are you suggesting that Rowbotham was infallible in his reasoning?

Rowbotham's work is correct because it has been validated and confirmed by others.

Actually, real scientists have disproved it.

20

Flat Earth General / Re: the standard of FEs

« on: January 20, 2011, 07:15:48 PM »

new earth i was purely commenting on the fact that you think that dolphins can breathe underwater.... i didnt realise TB was so well respected here, sorry i ment no harm. but atleast i see new earth doesnt hold the same respect. dolphins...lol surely you wasnt serious

Why do liberals love dolphins so much? Worship God, not Dolphins.

Stop being a jerk. Telling atheists to believe in your god isn't going to make it so.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: the standard of FEs

« on: January 20, 2011, 07:12:51 PM »

new earth i was purely commenting on the fact that you think that dolphins can breathe underwater.... i didnt realise TB was so well respected here, sorry i ment no harm. but atleast i see new earth doesnt hold the same respect. dolphins...lol surely you wasnt serious

He's only respected among FE'ers.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy motivation

« on: January 20, 2011, 06:18:49 PM »

I don't think an airship would 'pop' at 60,000 AMSL.  I hope this answers your objections.

To lift off the ground, the average zeppelin requires quite a bit of pressure, especially when using Helium. And again, it would need to stay up there for years, where the moost high-tech modern unmanned blimps can stay up for a month when greatly conserving fuel.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy motivation

« on: January 20, 2011, 05:57:49 PM »

What is the 'it' to which you refer?

My posts were about the possibility of high altitude unmanned airships used as platforms for various communication technology and were made in response to Markjo.

That's what I was talking about. I don't know where you got so confused. A blimp is an airship is a dirigible is a zeppelin. There are slight differences, but you can more or less use the words interchangeably.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Australia

« on: January 20, 2011, 05:34:11 PM »

Please provide 'empirical evidence' that the banana orbited your dog.

I have photos but as it shows the curved limb of the banana so you will probably denounce it as a NASA fake.

Everyone knows that bananas are flat.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy motivation

« on: January 20, 2011, 05:25:41 PM »

Do not confuse balloon with airship.  I never made a NASA claim either.   

When did I say it was a balloon? And I mentioned NASA while I was pointing out the the DoD is not part of the Conspiracy.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy motivation

« on: January 20, 2011, 04:48:08 PM »

Yes, I guess. Atomic clocks and airships were both around before 1969. 

Airships with satellites attached to them that stay in the air for years at a time? It is very recently that we have had the technology to make a high-altitude blimp (due to expansion, the blimp would pop like a weather balloon), and the design was never made due to budget problems.  It was being made by the DoD, not NASA. And it would only have been able to stay in the air for  month.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Has the zetetic model contributed anything to the development of humankind?

« on: January 20, 2011, 04:43:32 PM »

When you're on your death bed you have better things to think about -- like your impending death, all the people you will be leaving behind, and who will support your family once you are gone.

If it were me, I'd want the world to know the truth before I die. I don't know, I guess I'm just not that much of a coward.

If it the government is willing to take out ex-NASA employee Thomas Baron's family, what makes you think that they wouldn't be willing to take out yours?

Really Tom? You still think that they murdered him with a train?

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Has the zetetic model contributed anything to the development of humankind?

« on: January 20, 2011, 04:42:45 PM »

Rowbotham isn't infalliable, but he is correct.

If Rowbotham isn't infallible, then there is a chance that he could be wrong.

Not if his work has been reviewed and verified to be correct.

So the only people who saw the astronauts go into the shuttle were people employed by the Conspiracy, then?

Are you suggesting guilt by association or are the technicians actual conspirators?

If they know that they are sending up cheaply made props then obviously they're in on it.

It has been stated that there are 45 people in on the conspiracy. You are adding several hundred technicians, private corporations, the UN, and the leader of every country in the world to that number.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Conspiracy motivation

« on: January 20, 2011, 04:35:47 PM »

Ah well, I'm not privy to any of their back room activities history.

Are you implying that we've secretly had this technology since before the moon landing that you claim didn't happen?

Well, atomic clocks have been around since the early 1950's but that's surely no secret.

Who siad anything about moon landings? 

You are saying that we had a futuristic technology since before it happened.

30

Flat Earth General / Re: the standard of FEs

« on: January 20, 2011, 04:08:30 PM »

I am English. I have been to the Bedford Canal. It is very flat indeed.

New Earth is a Newfag and a REr anyway. Tom Bishop is just on another level to most people. Whilst what he says may seem ridiculous to the simple-minded, those who can see the true meaning of his posts are always delighted at the eloquence of delivery and sheer insightfulness of observation.

Lurk Moar

Read the FAQ

So eloquent.