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 - EmperorZhark

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 74
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars in the southern hemisphere
« on: September 04, 2012, 11:38:38 AM »
It takes sophisticated mapping teniques to map an area, not simply living there. If someone lived in New Zealand for 80 years, with never having seen a map, they would no more be able to draw an accurate map of the island than a traveled tourist.

How come that any roadmap you can buy gives you accurate information, such as a precise drawing of the country which in no way resembles what we have in FE maps?

2
Flat Earth General / Re: Lost all Hope in Humanity....
« on: September 04, 2012, 10:22:24 AM »
This is a noob thread, started by a noob. Don't hi-jack it.

I know, insulting people prevents you from answering the questions.

3
Flat Earth General / Re: Lost all Hope in Humanity....
« on: September 04, 2012, 10:06:37 AM »
You should add some content instead of showing us endlessly those diagrams which do nothing for explaning FET.

Yeah, you were hoping. Jog on.

My answer would be celestial gears. You've had that conversation before. Lets stop the madness here or we'll end up like a couple of geriatrics arguing the same old stuff ad infinitum. This is a noob thread, started by a noob. Don't hi-jack it.

Celestial gears AKA I don't have any theory beyond that. It doesn't explain anything.

4
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars in the southern hemisphere
« on: September 04, 2012, 09:47:22 AM »
Lurk:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49558.msg1216816.html#msg1216816

A map with no conservation of the distances?
A wher you cannot travel from Chile to Japan?
A map where Australia and New Zealand are deformed beyond recognition?
A which has proven to be projection of a globe on a flat surface?

Lurk.

Just because Australlia and New Zealand are not the shape you are expecting from your years of RE brainwashing does not mean they are deformed. What kind of conceit is that?

OZ and NZ are not the way they are shown on FE maps. Any imbecile can see that, starting by the millons of people who live and travel there.

As usual, FET hasn't solved the map problem, and your attitude isn't helping.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Lost all Hope in Humanity....
« on: September 04, 2012, 09:39:40 AM »
Of course no one can explain why the Sun's trajectory is round and why it changes the width of its course in winter.

What was the point in that comment? This is precisely what we are talking about in the suggestions forum. You added nothing. Are you hoping I now spend 15 mins answering your one line post only for you to pop down another one? You aren't a noob any more. You know what I'm going to write. How about you provide some content for a change?

You should add some content instead of showing us endlessly those diagrams which do nothing for explaning FET.

6
Flat Earth General / Re: When did the conspiracy start?
« on: September 04, 2012, 09:38:20 AM »
A shadow on the moon is direct evidence that something is causing that shadow, correct?

Not necessarily.  For all you know, it could be the lunar bioluminescent life forms going through some sort of dark phase.

This is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof is on you.

I believe that Markjo was suggesting this idea to try and discredit Tom's question, not submit it as a possible explanation. I, however, do support the idea of bioluminescent lunar life and I do believe that the life forms are less active or nonexistent in the shadowy areas. This is all one giant derailment though. I just wanted to clear up that point a bit. If you wish to learn more about lunar bioluminescence, may I recommend starting a thread in the Q&A section.

...Or try to find an explanation because nothing makes sense with the moon shrimps.

7
Flat Earth General / Re: Lost all Hope in Humanity....
« on: September 04, 2012, 07:46:25 AM »
Of course no one can explain why the Sun's trajectory is round and why it changes the width of its course in winter.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite TV
« on: September 04, 2012, 12:32:24 AM »
True. I can't prove it, but I guess anybody who installs satellite dishes can.

9
Flat Earth General / Re: When did the conspiracy start?
« on: September 04, 2012, 12:31:00 AM »
It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.

There is no explaination of such a massive object who would:
- only appear during eclipses
- only obscure the Moon but no the stars.

Can you please refrain from low-content posting?

The Anti-Moon (sometimes called the Shadow Object) is a body which comes between the sun and the moon, casting a shadow upon the moon. Under RET this body which comes between the sun and moon is the earth. Under FET this body cannot be the earth, as the earth is flat and does not move between the sun and moon. Therefore it must be some other body which comes between the sun and moon to cause the Lunar Eclipse. This body is colloquially known as the anti-moon. The Lunar Eclipse is direct evidence of its existence.

The anti-moon may very well be on the "day" side of the earth, rotating around the sun, which would explain why it is not generally seen. Almost all celestial bodies are unseen in the day, since the sun's light washes out the atmosphere.

This is called wishfull thinking, not science.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite TV
« on: September 04, 2012, 12:27:49 AM »
It has been shown that a TV signal received via a dish does not necessarily come from a geostationary object in space.

Your problem is that it isn't right with ALL the TV signals received via a dish. Therefore, untill disproven, we have to stick to the geostationnary satellites.

11
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars in the southern hemisphere
« on: September 04, 2012, 12:23:53 AM »
Lurk:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49558.msg1216816.html#msg1216816

A map with no conservation of the distances?
A wher you cannot travel from Chile to Japan?
A map where Australia and New Zealand are deformed beyond recognition?
A which has proven to be projection of a globe on a flat surface?

Lurk.

Read the thread.

As I said:

A map with no conservation of the distances?
A wher you cannot travel from Chile to Japan?
A map where Australia and New Zealand are deformed beyond recognition?
A which has proven to be projection of a globe on a flat surface?

Your map is inconsistent. It doesn't work.

You still seem to have dire reading issues.

You still seem to have a problem proving your beleifs.

12
Flat Earth General / Re: When did the conspiracy start?
« on: September 03, 2012, 03:23:36 PM »
It's a montage of photos of the lunar eclipse.

There is no explaination of such a massive object who would:
- only appear during eclipses
- only obscure the Moon but no the stars.

Can you please refrain from low-content posting?

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Seasons and lighting
« on: September 03, 2012, 03:19:59 PM »
Time is money. Start putting donations into my account and I'll tell you when to stop.

I thought you were eager to prove FET. Turns out you're not. Why is that so?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« on: September 03, 2012, 03:14:45 PM »
As you said: "Science is a branch of philosophy."

Everybody disagrees with that. They are intertwined.

I know that as a regular FEer you always want to be right, but you really have to use your brain on this one.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Seasons and lighting
« on: September 03, 2012, 03:05:09 PM »
The problem with the illustrations is that they assume that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.

Woot! Tom rolls up in here now!

So Tom, how would the lighting look like if the Earth is not a globe? Please do explain I am sure we would love to hear it.

So the question is... What would the lit portions of Earth be on a flat Earth compared to the observable lighting on a round Earth? I would really like to see. And please do give evidence.

If you want extraneous research done you should paypal all donations to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com. I will be sure to prioritize your request.

You can do it with internet, but are you going to do it?

Once I see an appropriate amount of money in my account I will begin your research project.

YOU want to prove the Earth to be flat. Do a little work lazy man. It just takes time and a computer.

16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Seasons and lighting
« on: September 03, 2012, 12:23:09 PM »
The problem with the illustrations is that they assume that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.

Woot! Tom rolls up in here now!

So Tom, how would the lighting look like if the Earth is not a globe? Please do explain I am sure we would love to hear it.

So the question is... What would the lit portions of Earth be on a flat Earth compared to the observable lighting on a round Earth? I would really like to see. And please do give evidence.

If you want extraneous research done you should paypal all donations to tom.bishop.enterprises@gmail.com. I will be sure to prioritize your request.

You can do it with internet, but are you going to do it?

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars in the southern hemisphere
« on: September 03, 2012, 12:21:32 PM »
Lurk:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49558.msg1216816.html#msg1216816

A map with no conservation of the distances?
A wher you cannot travel from Chile to Japan?
A map where Australia and New Zealand are deformed beyond recognition?
A which has proven to be projection of a globe on a flat surface?

Lurk.

Read the thread.

As I said:

A map with no conservation of the distances?
A wher you cannot travel from Chile to Japan?
A map where Australia and New Zealand are deformed beyond recognition?
A which has proven to be projection of a globe on a flat surface?

Your map is inconsistent. It doesn't work.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« on: September 03, 2012, 12:20:18 PM »
Then perhaps you should choose different links which don't delve into why science is a philosophy Cough* WIKIPEDIA*Cough
(I'll give you a clue, reread my last post about empiricism and realism)

Why don't you read more wikipedia?
I quote : "Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language. By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy.[3] However, "science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such as library science or political science.

In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with 'natural and physical science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics."

Which part did you get wrong?

19
Flat Earth General / Re: When did the conspiracy start?
« on: September 03, 2012, 12:15:40 PM »
God is a spiritual being.  Look in your heart if you really want to find Him.

I'll be sure to ask my heart surgeon if he has seen God lately.

People have seen the antimoon?

There's absolutely no record of it.



Nice painting!

Even if it was a time-lapse photo, such a massive object has never been detected.

20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Seasons and lighting
« on: September 03, 2012, 11:31:45 AM »
The problem with the illustrations is that they assume that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.

You can easily correlate your FE maps with rising times and sunset times and show clemenza089 if he is wrong or right.

21
Flat Earth General / Re: When did the conspiracy start?
« on: September 03, 2012, 11:29:36 AM »
Unfortunately, being unable to prove something doesn't automatically mean that it's incorrect.

See: Russell's Teapot.

Furthermore, I'm not asking you to prove that God, Jesus, angels etc. don't exist - I'm asking you to back up your assertion that they contradict reality. In other words, how reality would appear different if they did exist.

I looked in the sky for God, Jesus, angles, etc., and didn't see any. This is a proof that they do not exist. They are nowhere to be seen. Any claim that these entities do exist contradicts the reality that they do not.

Yay! So I can use this as a proof against the Antimoon and all that stuff? Really Tom, you are trying to get us to accept that you think if you look for something and can't find it, it proves its non-existence? It very much depends how you look for something though doesn't it? So if invisible kangaroos existed, and you looked for them and couldn't see them, you'd take that as proof they didn't exist and be wrong. I looked in the sky for earthworms and didn't see any, therefore earthworms don't exist.
You're a joke.

If no one has ever seen an invisible kangaroo, that would be evidence that invisible kangaroos do not exist. In terms of germ theory, the anti-moon, etc, people have seen those things. Therefore there is some evidence of their existence. They are not completely invisible to human experience.

Perhaps if you show me where I can look to find God, Jesus, angles, etc., those things can start existing. Until then, they do not exist.

People have seen the antimoon?

There's absolutely no record of it.

22
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« on: September 03, 2012, 11:25:39 AM »
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!

Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "EZ definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.

Barely my definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html
Annnnd  ???
Are you trying to post random links or arguing realism and empiricism are not philosophies?

I am answering to your false claim: "Science is a branch of philosophy".
Apparently you're more interested in patronizing me that countering my arguments. Neither scientifical nor philosophical approach, my good Ichimaru G&T.

23
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite TV
« on: September 03, 2012, 11:23:07 AM »
Do you have any evidence to show that satellites and not stratellites are being used?
How about if I throw the Wikipedia page you mentioned back to you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite Please read it carefully.
We have had satellite TV since the late 80s, and as of today, maybe 25 years + later, Stratellite technology is not mature enough to be deployed commercially, (WATCH OUT, HUMOUR COMING!!!) considering that Sanswire can't even secure their website, as it is currently hacked  ;D
Concluding, since Stratellite is a brand name owned by Sanswire, we can agree that there are no "stratellites" broadcasting TV signals.

For the rest, you do the math. Perhaps it's not enough for your zetetic style, but I'm confident I disproved your stratellite.

I will rephrase. Can you provide any evidence that the concept of high altitude broadcasting platforms are not in use in lieu of space-faring platforms? The concept is viable and thus has the possibility of existing. Your only supporting argument was a signal coming from a singular locale, which a high altitude platform would provide.

The concept might be viable but is not in place. Can you cite me some airports where we could see those stratellites taking off or landing?
I only know of one that was in Florida, a secret military operation. My step-father used to work there, he said it was a blimp used to broadcast tv signals into Cuba. It went up and down but was always tied to land.

So it was acting like a fixed antenna, not like a satellite?
I cannot say for sure, it is blimp operated by the military. It is always in the air, except for maintenence.

Nothing to do with a stratellite, then?

Next example, please.

24
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« on: September 03, 2012, 09:48:23 AM »
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!

Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.
The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "EZ definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.

Barely my definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

25
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Earth as seen from the moon
« on: September 03, 2012, 07:32:49 AM »
Science is a branch of philosophy. The only way you can claim it isn't is if the "TK definition" of science exempts it as being a mode of thought and answering questions.
Here's a novel idea: Pick up a book from the library for once!

Here's a novel idea: pick up a GOOD book from a library, so you won't say things as "Science is a branch of philosophy". Though they are interlinked, one is not part of the other one.

26
Flat Earth General / Re: Hello all wanna interview?
« on: September 03, 2012, 05:34:06 AM »
Don't forget also to send us Tom Bishop's answers so that we can debunk them.

27
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite TV
« on: September 03, 2012, 03:38:48 AM »
Do you have any evidence to show that satellites and not stratellites are being used?
How about if I throw the Wikipedia page you mentioned back to you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite Please read it carefully.
We have had satellite TV since the late 80s, and as of today, maybe 25 years + later, Stratellite technology is not mature enough to be deployed commercially, (WATCH OUT, HUMOUR COMING!!!) considering that Sanswire can't even secure their website, as it is currently hacked  ;D
Concluding, since Stratellite is a brand name owned by Sanswire, we can agree that there are no "stratellites" broadcasting TV signals.

For the rest, you do the math. Perhaps it's not enough for your zetetic style, but I'm confident I disproved your stratellite.

I will rephrase. Can you provide any evidence that the concept of high altitude broadcasting platforms are not in use in lieu of space-faring platforms? The concept is viable and thus has the possibility of existing. Your only supporting argument was a signal coming from a singular locale, which a high altitude platform would provide.

The concept might be viable but is not in place. Can you cite me some airports where we could see those stratellites taking off or landing?
I only know of one that was in Florida, a secret military operation. My step-father used to work there, he said it was a blimp used to broadcast tv signals into Cuba. It went up and down but was always tied to land.

So it was acting like a fixed antenna, not like a satellite?

28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellite TV
« on: September 03, 2012, 02:44:26 AM »
Do you have any evidence to show that satellites and not stratellites are being used?
How about if I throw the Wikipedia page you mentioned back to you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite Please read it carefully.
We have had satellite TV since the late 80s, and as of today, maybe 25 years + later, Stratellite technology is not mature enough to be deployed commercially, (WATCH OUT, HUMOUR COMING!!!) considering that Sanswire can't even secure their website, as it is currently hacked  ;D
Concluding, since Stratellite is a brand name owned by Sanswire, we can agree that there are no "stratellites" broadcasting TV signals.

For the rest, you do the math. Perhaps it's not enough for your zetetic style, but I'm confident I disproved your stratellite.

I will rephrase. Can you provide any evidence that the concept of high altitude broadcasting platforms are not in use in lieu of space-faring platforms? The concept is viable and thus has the possibility of existing. Your only supporting argument was a signal coming from a singular locale, which a high altitude platform would provide.

The concept might be viable but is not in place. Can you cite me some airports where we could see those stratellites taking off or landing?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: weight of the atmosphere (levee's model)
« on: September 03, 2012, 12:49:59 AM »

http://www.realityreviewed.com/


This website is a load of shit and hatred. I'm not going to take into consideration anything said by it.

Let me quote:

"There is a very real and serious danger that the Zionist/Nazi regimes of Britain, the United States and so-called 'Israel' are going to commit another false flag atrocity in London, with a view to pinning the blame upon Iran/Syria and/or Venezuela and thus starting World War III."

"Zionism is a Vatican/Jesuism plan"

Etc.

30
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Stars in the southern hemisphere
« on: September 03, 2012, 12:41:49 AM »
Lurk:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,49558.msg1216816.html#msg1216816

A map with no conservation of the distances?
A wher you cannot travel from Chile to Japan?
A map where Australia and New Zealand are deformed beyond recognition?
A which has proven to be projection of a globe on a flat surface?

Lurk.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 74