151

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ok Round Earth here

« on: April 18, 2008, 09:57:52 AM »

Nope. Magellan sailed in a circle around the North Pole. The Ice Wall was all around him the entire time.

Says who? You? So far you've done a bang up job of being entirely unbelievable.

Of course there is a Ross Ice Shelf...and a Statue of Liberty, and a big mountain in Africa, and some wall in China. Nice pictures by the way. I thought nobody was allowed to get close enough to take pictures of your massive ice wall?

You still haven't answered any of my questions about psudolites...

152

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ok Round Earth here

« on: April 18, 2008, 09:38:53 AM »

Here's what I'm saying, if it is there, why didn't he say "hey d00dz, you should see this huge ice wall!" instead of claiming it to be the total opposite? It makes no sense. Certain things just cannot be bought. You guys like to quote scientists from way back when... even when they were threatened with death or something equally fun, they would maintain their view of the world, and tell everyone they could about it.

You're claming that someone who worked so hard to get to there, then turned to his crew and said "Hey, just for fun, let's not tell anyone what we saw. Here's $50 bucks."

153

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ok Round Earth here

« on: April 18, 2008, 09:09:00 AM »

I thought the wall was some 250'+? I mean, it is supposedly holding all of the water on this [terry prachet reference]diskworld...[/terry prachet reference]

Why not name it "Teh Wa11!"?

154

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The possibility of proof...

« on: April 18, 2008, 09:05:51 AM »

Of course a launch wouldn't prove the roundness of the earth. My question is, if it is nothing but a farce why spend all the money and time to make it look real? Where to the satellights and space shuttles go, if not into orbit?

155

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The possibility of proof...

« on: April 18, 2008, 07:52:52 AM »

Correct, I didn't make that clear in my earlier post. They exist, but the thought of them replacing a satellight is absurd. Thanks. :-)

156

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Intellectual Benefit of this Website

« on: April 18, 2008, 07:26:35 AM »

157

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The possibility of proof...

« on: April 18, 2008, 07:15:52 AM »

Considering satellight tv, satellight radio, GPS, and satellight internet, I would have to say this idea of a "psedolite" is quite absurd.

I noticed at one point it was said on this board that GPS was run by either pseudolite or high powered radio array. My response to that is, why did my GPS work on top of Pike's Peak in Colorado, but my cell phone didn't?

Also, satellight radio will work up to 20 miles offshore, where there are no radio arrays. Explain.

As well, have you ever seen a satellight launch? (Or even the space shuttle launch?) Why spend all the money and time on that if it's a hoax and doesn't work?

158

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The possibility of proof...

« on: April 17, 2008, 01:32:06 PM »

Ah, yes... the stars are buzzing around up in the heavens so as to stir up gravitational forces to control the worlds oceans. Yes... that makes perfect sense.

Here's a question, why do they do that?


And no, I never had until you mentioned this:

159

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The possibility of proof...

« on: April 17, 2008, 01:25:46 PM »

I noticed...

Tom, I know I'm going to regret asking, but what is a "pesudolite"?

Also, what does "little hops along continents" and "internation shipping" have to do with a 24 hour flight from LAX to Auckland, New Zealand?

Also, about the stars, I saw your time laps pictures of the flying stars on another thread, just by looking at the pictures you can see the rotation of the earth - not zooming stars.

When you travel Northwards or Southwards across the earth you are rising a different set of stars up into the sky through perspective.

What?? How does that make any sense?

160

Flat Earth Debate / The possibility of proof...

« on: April 17, 2008, 12:07:37 PM »

That's all I'm looking for here. Proof that this Flat Earth Society isn't just a big joke to entertain people like myself when they should be working.

Anyway, I've lurked the forums for a while and done some reading through the threads and the FAQs and I have some questions that are up for debate.

1.) First, according to the FE world map, in order to fly from Texas (where I'm from) to New Zealand (where I've been), the most direct path would be through Canada, the Land of Eh. This should be obvious considering that all airline pilots are evil satanists and are controlled by a one world government that wants to save on fuel costs.

Instead, I had to fly to LAX, and then over-ish.

Why? (By the way, it's possible that my FE map is way out of date. Anyone have an updated on? Maybe w/ a scale?)

2.) This is more of a serious question, why is it when I was in New Zealand there are a differernt set of stars to eyeball at night? This would make sense to a RE opinion, but I can't see how the FE model answers this.

3.) If space travel really isn't possible due to the fact that the earth is rising (for gravity) how is it the satellites can stay up? Don't tell me they aren't there because it's fairly easy to spot them at night. (Believe me, they're up there. My family is from WV and everybody knows when a satellight is going overhead...they all go out and watch!)

I have more questions, but I figured this would be a good place to start.

Let the debates, begin!