661

Technical Support / I'd like to request a username change

« on: November 10, 2015, 08:43:35 AM »

I like my current username, but it's doing things like clipping under post text like this:



If you look at any of my posts you can see this in action. Ideally, I'd like to change my username to "EthanBierlein", or maybe "TheEarthIsRound". I haven't decided yet, but if this is possible, and anyone is willing, just notify me and I'll make a choice between the two.

662

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunsets & Sunrises - Two Hits on the already broken flat earth theory!

« on: November 10, 2015, 08:28:56 AM »

I suppose you have never heard of light refraction?

Jroa, I swear to god, how is this related in any way? Stop trying to derail the topic because you know it's not going towards your bullshit flat Earth theories. If you really want to bring up light refraction, then discuss it on a thread that involves it.

If you really want to discuss atmospheric refraction, then why don't you learn what it is before trying to bring it up. Atmospheric refraction does not have the same effect that water does on a straw, it doesn't actually cause the object to "appear" in a different position. In the case of something like an atmosphere, it only causes things like shimmers, or visually different colors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

663

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I am thinking of becoming a flat earther

« on: November 10, 2015, 08:18:21 AM »

Lol, you thing that photoshopping technology did not exist in the 60s and 70s.  You are more gullible that I thought.

Photo editing techniques did exist in the 60s and 70s, but they were physical techniques which involved changing the actual photo. With technology like that you can't just "create a fake image".

In regards to "photoshopping technology", this was what a computer in the 1960s looked like:



At this point in history, in order to run a computer, you'd have to physically change out wires, or move tubes. Almost no computers from this era even had something reminiscent of a screen. Likewise, computers in the 1970s did have screens, but they were all comprised of low-resolution graphics and terminal screens. No "photoshopping" techniques would have been possible to create a photo like the Blue Marble.

How did they manage to fit that in the (alleged) LEM ?

Are you guys retarded? Did you not take one second to look at the image I linked in my post? It's a small guidance computer built for the LEM.

664

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I am thinking of becoming a flat earther

« on: November 10, 2015, 06:22:26 AM »

So, you admit that pictures could be altered back in the 60s and that computers were massive and too big to actually take to the moon.  I think you are providing evidence that the Earth is, in fact, not what they tell you it is.  Thanks.

I am admitting that they could be altered, but if you'd not have been an idiot and actually read my post in it's entirety, you'd see that the techniques used back then were not capable of generating such images.

In regards to the computers used in the moon landings, they had about the processing power of a speak-n-spell, but they still got us there. For reference, here's a picture:



Why don't you go read up on the page for Apollo Guidance Computers before making crass assumptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer

665

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I am thinking of becoming a flat earther

« on: November 10, 2015, 06:11:15 AM »

Lol, you thing that photoshopping technology did not exist in the 60s and 70s.  You are more gullible that I thought.

Photo editing techniques did exist in the 60s and 70s, but they were physical techniques which involved changing the actual photo. With technology like that you can't just "create a fake image".

In regards to "photoshopping technology", this was what a computer in the 1960s looked like:



At this point in history, in order to run a computer, you'd have to physically change out wires, or move tubes. Almost no computers from this era even had something reminiscent of a screen. Likewise, computers in the 1970s did have screens, but they were all comprised of low-resolution graphics and terminal screens. No "photoshopping" techniques would have been possible to create a photo like the Blue Marble.

666

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I am thinking of becoming a flat earther

« on: November 10, 2015, 05:51:04 AM »

Thats what the government want you to think

What a great excuse. I totally believe that an organization of over 2.8 million people, not including other world governments, have been able to "keep quiet" for over 70 years without any sort of "leak". Nice try.

667

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I am thinking of becoming a flat earther

« on: November 10, 2015, 05:45:57 AM »

Many of the people in real life who ive spoke to agree at least partly with the idea, obviously the earth is not round

The Earth is ovviously round. We have plenty of proof to prove it. The best evidence namely is old photographs, taken at a time when computer graphics that could generate a realistic-looking Earth weren't possible.

Take the famous 1972 photo, the Blue Marble:



Now compare this to the best computer graphics technology of the 1970s:



I think, at this point, a flat Earth is a bullshit, nonsensical idea.

668

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I am thinking of becoming a flat earther

« on: November 10, 2015, 05:29:48 AM »

Please. Don't. You're only going to lead yourself into a world where everything is "just another conspiracy by the "roundies" who rule the world". You also have to give up just about every proven scientific fact about the Earth as well. In addition, you'd better be prepared to be looked on as "stupid" or "idiotic" from now.

Just don't do it. Believing in a flat Earth is stupid, B.C.E way of thinking.

669

Flat Earth Debate / Re: One last nail on the coffin of Flat Earth model?

« on: November 10, 2015, 05:24:07 AM »

Well, at least we established one thing; the sun does not move in a straight line and instead moves in an arc across the sky.  Roundie myths are so easy to debunk.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. How is the sun moving in "straight line across the sky" considered a "roundie myth". It clearly doesn't move across the sky in a straight line. Flattie idiots are so easy to call out.

670

Flat Earth Debate / Re: One last nail on the coffin of Flat Earth model?

« on: November 09, 2015, 02:29:39 PM »

How is this "almost straight"?  I suppose the term is subjective, but you really need a loose interpretation of "almost straight" to apply it to the sun.

At the sunrise and sunset, they are almost straight. See for yourself. That's what I mean. Should FE be real, one would expect sharp curves - always oriented towards North - at sunrise and sunset.

I haven't done the math mind you, but to me it looks like this picture is consistent of what would be expected on a flat earth. The Sun reaches a point where it is closest to you, and then fades out into the distance whilst moving away from you.

Yes, it seems that another roundie myth has been busted.  Is this another win for the FES?

Nope. It's not even close to a win. You see, with a flat Earth model the sun will never dip below the horizon as it's doing in this picture. If the sun behaves in the way that you flat Earthers describe it, the sun's movement around the sky would look more like the following. While it's not a great representation, you get the idea.



In your described "flat Earth model" the sun will never dip below the horizon.. A flat Earth simply cannot exist with a model like this. I also don't want to hear any DET bullshit "disproving" this, simply because that theory has no proof to back it up.

671

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's talk about satellites, and why they prove a round Earth model.

« on: November 07, 2015, 08:29:19 AM »

I'll repeat myself. No aircraft pilots, no aircraft operators, no one working with satellites, will ever believe a flat earth. So why do people that live their entire lives oblivious to 99.9% of that area of knowledge have to be the ones dictating the rules about our planet shape? 

Talk about know how!

Kirk,
How can you say that, "No aircraft pilots, no aircraft operators, no one working with satellites, will ever believe a flat earth", do you personally know all these people? I've watched videos on YouTube and have heard pilots say they believe in flat Earth. I've designed and worked on components that supposedly went in satellites and I think the Earth is not round like most people believe. To get back to my earlier post, If everything I listed was possible back before they tell us satellites exist, how does that prove a round Earth? How do you know for sure? What insight knowledge do you have? Or are you simply guessing?

How do we currently receive live HD color news broadcasts from war zones and how did we in 1960?

Have you seen tv news satellite trucks. how do you think they work?  The dishes always point south.

How does my satnav show 19 transmitters across the sky?  No other system with mm accuracy used by surveyors.

How do we currently receive live HD color news broadcasts from war zones and how did we in 1960?

I can tell you how they can do it. They can set up microwave links to an area that has access to underwater cable. A lot of people believe that satellites are what we use to communicate with distant places. The truth is, most communications like that is through underwater cable. 

Have you seen tv news satellite trucks. how do you think they work?  The dishes always point south.
The tv news trucks I believe you are referring to, the ones with actual telescoping masts on the roof of the trucks, are not transmitting to a satellite. They are actually transmitting to the tv station through a microwave link between the truck and the tv station.

How does my satnav show 19 transmitters across the sky?  No other system with mm accuracy used by surveyors.
The same way you use a car's navigation system, cell phone towers. Just because it shows 19 transmitting satellites doesn't make it so. That all can be faked with software.

Not everything can be faked by software. I know this as a fact, since I develop software. You simply can't just "fake" the position of a satellite. There are way too many things to take into consideration. When it comes down to it. you'd never be able fake the position of a satellite.

672

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's talk about satellites, and why they prove a round Earth model.

« on: November 06, 2015, 01:09:56 PM »

Why are you asking how things could have been done?  That does not matter, it's about how those things are done now with all the benefits.

If you don't know the answers then you should go and find out.  But, somehow, I think you do know...

Are you referring to me or Yendor here?

673

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's talk about satellites, and why they prove a round Earth model.

« on: November 06, 2015, 01:07:01 PM »

There are many "proofs" that both prove, and disprove a flat Earth, and vice versa for a round Earth. This, however, may be the most reliable piece of proof that proves the Earth, is in fact, round, and not flat.

Satellites are a big piece of human society, without them we wouldn't have basic things like location tracking, GPS, maps, etc. Without satellites, we'd not be where we are today with all these modern capabilities. There are quite a few reasons why satellites disprove a flat Earth model, but the most important one is this: satellites move in a straight line across the sky, and then disappear beyond the horizon, because they're orbiting a round Earth. If they were "orbiting" a flat Earth in the fashion that the Sun and Moon would, they'd never dip below the Horizon.

Now, before you attempt to provide a "rebuttal", I've prepared a few responses of my own to common ones you may post.

Satellites could simply be orbiting around a flat Earth OP, like an orbit described with a round Earth model.

No. If gravity behaved like this, then the Earth would've formed into a spherical-ish shape, the way it has. You may argue that it's held in by some "magical force", but at that point, you're just making frivolous claims with no proof whatsover to try and prove the existence of a flat Earth.

But OP, satellites are just lights or computer generated visuals projected onto the sky by the most "evil" organization of all, NASA.

No. There are a few problems with saying this here. First off, in order to project a light into the sky, we need to have a surface to project it on. We can't simply project it onto a cloud, because the light would distort along with the shape of the cloud. Secondly, if this was happening, then we'd see light beams being projected into the sky from the ground somewhere, and I've yet to see any news about one of these things being discovered. Secondly, you can't just "project" a computer generated image onto the sky because again, we run into the same problem. You need a surface to project it onto, and we'd also be able to clearly find where it's being projected from.

OP, OP! These are clearly just a bunch meteors, comets, etc.!

No. These aren't meteors, or comets, or the likes. These bodies do not move in a straight, predictable pattern. The often flash across the sky before burning up in Earth's atmosphere, or are too far away and not visible. The reason these items are visible when they're far away is because, unlike satellites, are not composed primarily of highly reflective material.

You stupid round-Earther OP! Satellites are imaginary creations that satanists want us to believe exist!

If they don't exist, then what are the nice bright, slowly-moving dots you can clearly see in the sky on a clear, dark night? They certainly aren't meteors, or light projections.

Since you've studied satellites so much, can you think how things can or could have been done without them.

How did we get TV reception?
How did we go on trips to unfamiliar places?
What where all those lights in the sky in ancient times?
How did ships at sea possibly navigate?
How did we spy on our enemies?
How did we communicate with other countries?

I could go on, but all these things were possible or happened before satellites came about. So really, I could be wrong, but what do satellites bring to the table that can't be done without them?

For the sake of the conversation, I'm going to answer your questions:

1. We used radio towers, similar to cell towers.
2. We used things called "maps".
3. The "lights in the sky in ancient times" are called "stars". If you're referring to satellites, then they obviously wouldn't have been around then.
4. Ships at sea used the positions of the stars, moon, and sun to navigate. They also have things called compasses which always point north.
5. We spied on our enemies using old-fashioned espionage. We'd sneak into another country and gather information by directly observing. We also used high-altitude spy planes in the 1960s.
6. We communicated using radio, mail, and morse code. In the 1970s, cell phones were invented which then added another form of communication.

Today, we use satellites for many things, but some of the most important are listed as follows:

1. Monitoring the weather. We use satellites to help predict things like hurricanes, or view what the weather is currently like.
2. We use them to navigate. Without the GPS program, and the collection of GPS satellites in geostationary orbit around the Earth, we'd still be using plain maps to navigate.
3. We also use them for important space research, like taking photographs of far away space formations.

I don't have time to list everything, but I'll work on expanding it later today when I have time.

674

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'd like to present a few proofs...

« on: November 06, 2015, 11:20:09 AM »

I swear to god, just shut up about "debate tactics" and "who won". I'm talking to all of you here. Especially you jroa. I will delete this thread if it gets too out of hand.

675

Flat Earth Debate / Let's talk about satellites, and why they prove a round Earth model.

« on: November 06, 2015, 11:09:47 AM »

There are many "proofs" that both prove, and disprove a flat Earth, and vice versa for a round Earth. This, however, may be the most reliable piece of proof that proves the Earth, is in fact, round, and not flat.

Satellites are a big piece of human society, without them we wouldn't have basic things like location tracking, GPS, maps, etc. Without satellites, we'd not be where we are today with all these modern capabilities. There are quite a few reasons why satellites disprove a flat Earth model, but the most important one is this: satellites move in a straight line across the sky, and then disappear beyond the horizon, because they're orbiting a round Earth. If they were "orbiting" a flat Earth in the fashion that the Sun and Moon would, they'd never dip below the Horizon.

Now, before you attempt to provide a "rebuttal", I've prepared a few responses of my own to common ones you may post.

Satellites could simply be orbiting around a flat Earth OP, like an orbit described with a round Earth model.

No. If gravity behaved like this, then the Earth would've formed into a spherical-ish shape, the way it has. You may argue that it's held in by some "magical force", but at that point, you're just making frivolous claims with no proof whatsover to try and prove the existence of a flat Earth.

But OP, satellites are just lights or computer generated visuals projected onto the sky by the most "evil" organization of all, NASA.

No. There are a few problems with saying this here. First off, in order to project a light into the sky, we need to have a surface to project it on. We can't simply project it onto a cloud, because the light would distort along with the shape of the cloud. Secondly, if this was happening, then we'd see light beams being projected into the sky from the ground somewhere, and I've yet to see any news about one of these things being discovered. Secondly, you can't just "project" a computer generated image onto the sky because again, we run into the same problem. You need a surface to project it onto, and we'd also be able to clearly find where it's being projected from.

OP, OP! These are clearly just a bunch meteors, comets, etc.!

No. These aren't meteors, or comets, or the likes. These bodies do not move in a straight, predictable pattern. The often flash across the sky before burning up in Earth's atmosphere, or are too far away and not visible. The reason these items are visible when they're far away is because, unlike satellites, are not composed primarily of highly reflective material.

You stupid round-Earther OP! Satellites are imaginary creations that satanists want us to believe exist!

If they don't exist, then what are the nice bright, slowly-moving dots you can clearly see in the sky on a clear, dark night? They certainly aren't meteors, or light projections.

676

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Another stone thrown against the brittle Flat Earth theory.

« on: November 05, 2015, 08:29:42 PM »

lol, clouds can be seen at noon, too.  You do realize that the bottoms of clouds can get light from the tops, right?

Clouds actually block most of visible sunlight. That's why we can't track the exact sun position on a rainy day just by looking at it. You can also tell that by the shadows being cast on the clouds by - what else? - the same clouds.

At sunsets/sunrises, clouds are illuminated from below. Any airplane pilot can fill you on that. lol

I am fairly sure that the sun is not underneath these clouds. 

Please don't interpret it literally. What the OP is trying to say is that at a sunset, the light from the sun is able to be cast upon the undersides of the clouds because of the angle the sun is at in relation to the clouds. This doesn't literally mean that the sun is underneath the clouds.

677

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Another stone thrown against the brittle Flat Earth theory.

« on: November 05, 2015, 08:19:07 PM »

I have to say. This is probably the most reliable proof of a round Earth that I've seen yet. I'd like to see a flat-earther try to disprove this.

678

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'd like to present a few proofs...

« on: November 05, 2015, 04:42:06 AM »

"This thread is about the inaccurate "proofs""... um, where did you get that? I think you misread the OP. If you actually read the link provided, this first part of the link says:

I'll read the rest of your drivel later.  But, this little jewel caught my eye.  Your roundie friend, and possibly low grade paid shill, posted a bunch of "proofs" and it was simple to make him look like an idiot.  Nothing he said were "proofs", nor did he disprove FET.  Like most roundies, he, and you, are very unintelligent, and only come on the flat Earth society forum in hopes of making yourselves seem to look smarter than someone else, yet you people only make yourselves look dumb.  I busted your buddy, and you can't stand it.

I took this rather offensively. Just because I believe that the Earth is round, doesn't make me any less intelligent. I could argue the same way, except in the opposite direction and say that all you flat-earthers are very unintelligent for sticking to a 15th-century way of thinking. Secondly, I don't get paid "low grade shill", in fact- I don't get paid at all. I don't even have a job.  Finally, I didn't come here to make myself look smart. I came here to provide some RE proofs, so that we could have a calm civilized discussion about them, but both of you have managed to turn this into another argument.

679

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'd like to present a few proofs...

« on: November 03, 2015, 05:31:45 AM »

Except you can do that. Look around you for a sphere or a ball or something and try it. It actually works, which therefore can be used to prove that the Earth is round.

Is this another thread where people are claiming that people can make a triangle with 3 90 degree angles and this is suppose to be proof that the Earth is round?  lol 

680

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'd like to present a few proofs...

« on: November 02, 2015, 03:46:55 PM »

You know, if you read the text accompanied with the pictures, it's explained. Don't expect scientific pictures to be masterful works of art. They aren't supposed to be.

You expect the good hard working Americans of this forum to believe a couple of pictures a 12 year old could have drawn?  It seems to me that you are misguided. Here is my personal website, a wonderful resource for anyone seeking the truth in the face of the crock of lies NASA tries to stuff down your throat. http://libertyjfreedom.wix.com/theearthisflat

681

Flat Earth Debate / I'd like to present a few proofs...

« on: November 02, 2015, 03:13:56 PM »

I've taken all these proofs from http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26427/what-is-the-simplest-way-to-prove-the-earth-is-round, so they aren't my own, but I think they're all quite good. I'm open to anyone trying to disprove them, but as it stands, I think these proofs are pretty rock-solid. There are quite a few there, but the below are some of the top proofs:

The shadow of the Earth on the Moon during an eclipse and the way masts of ships are visible when they are out of sight are the classical reasons.

Simplest, you say? There are two that strike me as being simple to demonstrate. Luckily someone on the internet has already spent some time to help us here to make these easy to illustrate:

1. Shadows differ from place to place



Eratosthenes carried out this experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes#Eratosthenes.27_measurement_of_the_Earth.27s_circumference to determine the circumference of the Earth, already assuming its spherical shape; incidentally, the proof of such being consequential of the procedure.

However, a demonstration can be achieved by a simple, local experiment (as opposed to having a party venture to a distant enough point):

Take a piece of card (A3, or so), attach two obelisks to the card by their bases and, with a light source, produce shadows - now, slowly bend the card so that it becomes convex (that is, the side with obelisks attached bulging out) and watch the effect.

2. You can see farther from higher





There are numerous other ways of demonstrating that the Earth is round, or curved, at least, from analysing the center of gravity to simply observing the other round objects that are visible in space; but I believe these illustrations to be the simplest to comprehend.

Another way is the triple-right triangle:

1. You move in a straight line for a long enough distance
2. Turn right 90° degrees, walk in that same direction for the same distance
3. Turn again to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance

After this you'll end up at the starting point. This is not possible on a flat surface since you'd just be "drawing" a half-finished square.

Sitting for a while by the seashore ought to make it clear the Earth isn't flat, even if you don't happen to see a ship go over the horizon. The edge of the discworld Earth would have to be just a few miles away, and there's no way that the entire, circular world would fit inside the circle that the ocean horizon seems to make.

Humans have not just known the Earth was spherical but actually have been measuring its radius for thousands of years. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy

Again, these aren't my own, but I'm open to anyone trying to disprove them, but I still think that they prove pretty solidly that the Earth is round and not flat.