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 - Copper Knickers

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 29
61
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA filming in a "hollywood studio"?
« on: August 20, 2018, 12:35:43 AM »
Quote from: Copper Knickers
Are you honestly claiming that Amundsen set forth on his adventure based on the 'theory of magnets'? Why, then, would he expend so much effort getting to the geographic south pole rather than the magnetic one? It doesn't make sense. Citation requested.

Where did I say anything about Amundsen? The South Geographic Pole was discovered at around the same time as the South Magnetic Pole. Both were theorized to exist. One involved magnets and the other involved the position of the sun. Learn history.

In response to my point about Amundsen and Scott, you said:

This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!

It was theorized to exist.

Clearly, then, we are talking about the South Geographic Pole as that was Amundsen and Scott's aim. Learn history.

As you say, the Geographic South Pole was theorized to exist, but what was the basis of that theory? It involved a bit more than the position of the sun, wouldn't you say?

62
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA filming in a "hollywood studio"?
« on: August 19, 2018, 03:16:59 PM »
The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.

This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!

It was theorized to exist.

Indeed, and the explorers validated the theory. What was the basis for that theory, do you suppose?

Its based on the theory of magnets. Magnets have two poles. The Earth has two poles. If the Earth is Flat, it has two poles. Makes sense to me.

Are you honestly claiming that Amundsen set forth on his adventure based on the 'theory of magnets'? Why, then, would he expend so much effort getting to the geographic south pole rather than the magnetic one? It doesn't make sense. Citation requested.

63
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA filming in a "hollywood studio"?
« on: August 19, 2018, 02:18:44 PM »
The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.

This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!

It was theorized to exist.

Indeed, and the explorers validated the theory. What was the basis for that theory, do you suppose?

Considering that I was the one who wrote most of the Wikis for those websites, based on the model we came up with 11 years ago, I can say that it was all purely based on Earth Not a Globe, and that we did did not consider any other works.

At the time you did this, did you not think the existence of the South Pole problematical?

64
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA filming in a "hollywood studio"?
« on: August 18, 2018, 11:58:40 PM »
The Flat Earth Society officially switched over to a Bi-polar model in the early 1900's after the discovery of the South Pole, and never officially switched back.The existence of the Monopole model has been purely a result of people reading some of the older literature before the discovery of the South Pole and not reading the later research.

This kind of implies that the South Pole wasn't known to be there and that Amundsen and later Scott just happened upon it. What amazing luck!

65
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universial accereration?
« on: August 18, 2018, 11:48:47 PM »
Nope.  I feel gravity pulling my body down.

Yet, I feel myself being pulled down not getting pushed up.

An astronaut in an orbiting spacecraft is just as surely getting 'pulled down' as you are on the ground. Does the astronaut feel this?

You only feel gravity when resisting it, that is you feel the press of whatever is stopping you falling. This feels no different than would resisting an upwardly accelerating earth.

66
Flat Earth General / Re: The proof earth is round
« on: August 18, 2018, 10:08:26 AM »
The video is a live stream from ISS which shows round earth in real time.

Actually, it's not. It's some old footage that someone is pretending is live.

You can see live ISS streams here: https://www.n2yo.com/space-station/

67
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth - Make me a believer
« on: August 16, 2018, 08:48:21 AM »
I understand that you do not appreciate photo evidence, since it can easily be doctored, so I will relay this information only from my personal experience.

Why should your unsupported account of your personal experience be more believable than photographic evidence? Your own account is easier to 'doctor' than photos - you can just plain lie.

Reading the Forum information page - asks the people of this forum to rely on their senses as opposed to using photographic evidence which could be doctored.

Yes, their senses, not someone else's. Your account of your own sensory experience carries even less weight than photos would have done.

68
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Universial accereration?
« on: August 16, 2018, 04:56:24 AM »
Flat-earthers often replace gravity with UA. If that were true, why can't anyone feel this upward movement?

What would it feel like?

More specifically, in what way would it feel different from what we do feel, e.g. the ground pressing on our feet, etc.?

69
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earth - Make me a believer
« on: August 15, 2018, 01:43:15 PM »
I understand that you do not appreciate photo evidence, since it can easily be doctored, so I will relay this information only from my personal experience.

Why should your unsupported account of your personal experience be more believable than photographic evidence? Your own account is easier to 'doctor' than photos - you can just plain lie.

70
Lol I like the title, nice reference...

It is. I really wish I could claim it as my own. Honesty compels me to credit The Economist:

https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2018/08/11/a-new-space-probe-will-study-the-suns-corona-and-the-solar-wind

71
NASA's Parker Solar Probe launches in about an hour.

https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive

Quite an exciting mission to put a probe into the sun's corona. Of course, with a trip of around 5,000 miles it should be there in no time...

5,000 miles?

It's a figure I've seen bandied about for the distance to the sun in flat earth models. I'll admit my research wasn't thorough.

72
NASA's Parker Solar Probe launches in about an hour.

https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive

Quite an exciting mission to put a probe into the sun's corona. Of course, with a trip of around 5,000 miles it should be there in no time...

Launch was aborted. They're going to try again tomorrow.

73
NASA's Parker Solar Probe launches in about an hour.

https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive

Quite an exciting mission to put a probe into the sun's corona. Of course, with a trip of around 5,000 miles it should be there in no time...

74
Jesus this board is really becoming humorless. But no our daily life suggests that earth is not a globe. But if anyone responds with repeating crap such as look at the horizon, I will ignore you.

Daily life suggests that earth is a globe - just look at the horizon.

75
Flat Earth General / Re: The Matrix Flat earth Round Earth explained
« on: July 31, 2018, 02:54:33 PM »
I have to admit your picture looks little bit more real then Oz's but still fake. Chinese CGI looks good thou lol

In what way does it look fake?

76
Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: July 17, 2018, 03:24:52 PM »
The surface of the Earth is covered by around 70% water. Hardly reflective enough to light up the Moon

Plenty reflective enough, as your own observation testifies. Unless you have another explanation...

77
Flat Earth General / Re: Moonlight: Dangers & Precautions
« on: July 16, 2018, 02:44:26 AM »
Yesterday (and not for the first time) I have witnessed the lie that is our moon

It was a very thin crescent shape YET when looking at it, you could see the WHOLE moon! The rest of it was just really dark but you could clearly see a full circle

And don't give me any garbage about it being some stupid 'optical illusion' and that our brain fills in the gaps or other such nonsense. If the moon is as it is described in official texts, than I should NOT have seen a full moon when there should only have been the thinnest of crescents

Moon is debunked

This is quite common and is a result of the dark side of the moon being lit by earthlight.

In what sense do you think it 'debunks the moon' ?

78
Flat Earth General / Re: The importance of Critical Thinking
« on: July 15, 2018, 02:17:51 PM »
FET isn't anti-science, it's anti-dogma. FET tells people that the scientific method isn't to just rote-learn, it's to think for yourself.

FET is pretty dogmatic in its insistence that the earth is flat whatever the evidence to the contrary.

79
Flat Earth General / Re: The Matrix Flat earth Round Earth explained
« on: July 14, 2018, 02:32:16 PM »
There are also maps made by famous geographers showing ice free Antarctica.

Names? Links to maps?

You don't have to take my word for it, the best kind of research is field study. Witness it for yourselves.  If any of you live in big cities go downtown and see what is happening. Go explore your surroundings, talk to people, get familiar with local legislature. See if your world makes sense to you. You guys are living in shit and think you are on cloud nine, you are dellusional. You are living in a fabricated alternate reality called Globe matrix and the real earth has split from you over 100 years ago.

Can you give an example of something I might personally witness that would support your claims?

80
Flat Earth General / Re: Open minded
« on: July 12, 2018, 02:43:05 PM »
I can science that, you are correct, however the force called "gravity" or simply put the attraction of mass toward the center of the earth is subjective at best, since it is the only theory where the force is a known law.

Can you cite any objective study that concludes that the force of gravity is subjective?

If the force of gravity pulls down everything, a force must push it against so What force is exactly equal to clouds? Clouds are extremely heavy, yet defy gravity.

Does an aeroplane 'defy' gravity? If so, how? What explanations are given for clouds staying aloft? Have you researched this?

81
Flat Earth General / Re: Transit of Venus on the Flat Earth Model
« on: July 11, 2018, 02:49:30 PM »
Rab, I had a minor of astrology in college...

You can study astrology in college? Where is that?

But I do know that the Heliocentric model and the Big bang contradict themselves on numerous levels.

Such as?

I don't know everything their is to know about the heliocentric model or anything of the sort, but the science of the heliocentric model is not accurate...

What are the inaccuracies?

...just like the claim that the sun is 93 million miles away. Well it turns out they measured it based on the speed of light, but wouldn't you know that the speed of light is NOT A CONSTANT!

I'm not sure which measurement method you're referring to, but would the speed of light being constant in a vacuum be relevant at all?

It is very funny in my mind that the sun is 93 million miles away, but dust, gas clouds and other known objects that go through space never seem to get within the direction of the sun.

Based on your research of the heliocentric model, why would you expect that?

Now, that I've had a little time to actually compose a actual problem here is my question. How is it that clouds, that weigh thousands of KG's can defy gravity and float. According to the mainstream scientist, the water particles are too small to actually be affected by gravity.

I suspect you haven't researched this very well. Can you cite that 'mainstream' explanation?

Gravity is strong enough to hold in our atmosphere to our spinning ball PERFECTLY, yet it can't pull down a cloud? They do realize that our atmosphere and a cloud have a large amount of air particles in common.  Something doesn't seem accurate here.  THis is what doesn't make sense, Gravity is strong enough to hold planets that are traveling at MASSIVE speeds and have Massive velocities, yet it can't bring a cloud down or prevent birds from flying. Sorry, but that's not science, you can't test observe, or predict this outcome based on science taught in schools or even at higher levels. I agree with the Saudi clergy man that was just bashed around the world for claiming the earth doesn't spin. No experiment in the history of man has measured the movement of the earth and no airplane accounts for the spin of the earth. Yet this doesn't raise a flag in the minds of the scientific community?

Do some research. Find out how mainstream science actually explains this stuff, rather than how you imagine it does.

82
Flat Earth General / Re: URGENT DANGER: Strawberry Moon
« on: June 28, 2018, 03:07:20 PM »
I've just got in from a walk this evening, the moon had just risen and it was a lovely sight. The full moon is very beautiful when hanging over the horizon.

What does the moon hang from? The dome? And by what? A string?

On the off chance that that's a genuine question, I wasn't being literal with the hanging bit.

83
Flat Earth General / Re: URGENT DANGER: Strawberry Moon
« on: June 28, 2018, 02:53:17 PM »
I've just got in from a walk this evening, the moon had just risen and it was a lovely sight. The full moon is very beautiful when hanging over the horizon.

84
Flat Earth General / Re: A question to my fellow round earthers
« on: June 27, 2018, 11:13:15 AM »
The fourth might also provide evidence of planism or globularism.
The fourth experiment was simply, "Travel to Bedford." I understand this to mean reproduce the famous Bedford level experiment.

Ski could not have meant that surely? The Bedford Level is quite some way from Bedford the town.

85
Flat Earth General / Re: A question to my fellow round earthers
« on: June 26, 2018, 02:14:22 PM »
It's really up to you to decide what settles a matter to your satisfaction, isn't it? It either did or didn't for you. Why would you ask me?

I asked you as it was you who proposed that the act of travelling to Bedford would help to answer the question, "Is the Earth flat or round?"

I guess I am seeking reassurance from you that my interpretation of my experience of travelling to Bedford is correct. It seems reasonable that you would know as it is your proposal.

86
Flat Earth General / Re: A question to my fellow round earthers
« on: June 26, 2018, 01:51:50 PM »
Could you please provide an example of an experiment that each of us could do that might help to answer the question, "Is the Earth flat or round?"
You can travel to Bedford.

I have travelled to Bedford. My understanding that the earth is observably round was unchanged by the experience. I guess that settles it then?

87
Flat Earth General / Re: Dangers of the Moon: Radio Edition
« on: June 26, 2018, 12:00:44 PM »
https://idobi.com/podcast/053-john-eric-davis-flat-earth-society/

Apparently Samantha Scarlet is far more reasonable a person than some of our forum members, as she was not surprised at all to find out about the dangers of the moon.

What's unreasonable about being surprised by something?

88
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica
« on: June 24, 2018, 03:24:45 PM »
Further, I didn't say I don't believe Antarctica exists.  I said I don't have any first hand experience as to the shape of Antarctica. Presumably, neither do you or you'd bring your observations to the table.

We can say the belief that Antarctic exists as a location to which people travel is very probably true. Indeed, it's nonexistence is scarcely a conceivable idea.

If people travel to Antarctica wouldn't they have a pretty good idea of its shape by now?

I've travelled all number of places and never given much thought or received much revelation as to the shape of the continent, island, or imaginary lines demarking borders on a map.

Me too up to a point. I do think about geographical layout sometimes, though.

Where did you last travel? Can you draw me a map based on your experience as opposed to belief?

No, I can't.

What kind of people do you think have travelled to Antarctica? Do you think it likely that none of them have been interested in its shape?

89
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctica
« on: June 24, 2018, 02:54:18 PM »
Further, I didn't say I don't believe Antarctica exists.  I said I don't have any first hand experience as to the shape of Antarctica. Presumably, neither do you or you'd bring your observations to the table.

We can say the belief that Antarctic exists as a location to which people travel is very probably true. Indeed, it's nonexistence is scarcely a conceivable idea.

If people travel to Antarctica wouldn't they have a pretty good idea of its shape by now?

90
Flat Earth General / Re: A question to my fellow round earthers
« on: June 24, 2018, 02:22:08 PM »
Do you have an example of critical thinking that suggests that the earth is flat?

Just look at all of the RET crap about "Atmospheric Ducting" to explain away why a Round Earth behaves like a Flat Earth, Over The Horizon radar caused by the Ionosphere, and all of the ENAG experiments explained by a Flat Earth mirage effect that projects the object at the altitude it needs to be at, no more and no less, for the particular distance looked across.

That's a long sentence which I'll admit I'm unable to parse sufficiently well to know whether it gave the example I was asking for or not.

I'll take a guess, though, that you are positing that a critical analysis of atmospheric ducting would conclude that it is 'RET crap'. If so, would you be able to expand on that analysis at all?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 29