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 - Fletch

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9
61
Also, thanks for noticing that the Bible says heaven has to be close to the ground, not tens of thousands of miles away. Bingo.
It says the tree reached the heavens. How tall do you think they grew back then? And do you really think people could see thousands of miles then, but it's not possible now?

Jesus told parables. Are they meant to be taken literally or were they story telling used to illustrate a point? I'm not using them to discredit his words, just to say that it doesn't mean the earth was literally flat.

62
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 05, 2008, 02:32:28 PM »
If NASA is spending all the money they're making off the lie just to support the lie then what is the point? I thought money was the motive. That would be like hiring a gang of thieves for 10,000 dollars and having them pull a heist to steal 10,000 dollars.

What then is NASA's motive for the lie?
To keep themselves gainfully employed. If you are a pharmeceutical company, do you spend research dollars on eradicating a disease, or on treating the symptoms of the disease to ease the suffering of those afflicted with it. The former puts your company out of work, while the later generates income. If you discovered that space flight was impossible and therefore your government department would stop receiving the funds (or the vast majority of them) it would be in your best interest to keep that information to yourself.

63
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Contra FE Gravity-Theorie
« on: September 05, 2008, 02:41:16 AM »
so everything, also feathers and anvils would drop at the same speed, like in vacuum.

anyway I am talking about 2 things at the same time, but only this fact makes it clear that the earth doesnt move up but we get attracted by the earth instead.
What? Why? What?

64
Go to the beach, you can see the slow curvature of the earth when you look out to sea.
No. You can't. And if you did a quick search of these forums you'd see that has been posted many times before. Please, lurk moar. Search and read the forums.

65
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Centrifugal Force
« on: September 05, 2008, 02:17:37 AM »
Ya, but gravity has been proven; you can call it upward acceleration. Neither camp has an answer for it, so we are both in the same boat when it comes to gravity. I really like how gravity also relates very well with the other planets orbits, their moons, our moon, the sun… Yet FE has all these different theories that don’t make a whole lot of sense.

But then you keep going with your theoretical magic that answers everything… that you can’t answer.

Gravity has been proven? But you don't have an answer for it? What?

Again, your theoretical magic that answers everything is gravity. Can you honestly not see the contradiction in believing in gravity because you can't actually answer what keeps us on the surface of the round earth, what keeps the planets circling the sun, etc, etc and at the same time ridiculing FET for coming up with different explanations?

66
Daniel 4:11 - "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth"

The only way you can have a tree that's tall enough to be seen all over the earth is for the earth to be flat.
Not only that but the earth has to be about a dozen square miles in size. And heaven has to be really close to the ground.

Adding to Steve's post, any bible texts that aren't obvious metaphors?

67
It's a fish eye lens massively distorting the image.

68
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Centrifugal Force
« on: September 04, 2008, 11:40:11 PM »
Fletch quit using theory’s to prove facts. You can't use an imaginary force or whatever you want to call it to explain everything. Facts please, not magic.
The RE theory seems to rely on Gravity to explain an awful lot of things. And you can't explain how that works. Why can you use an imaginary force to explain things, but I can not? Also, I'm not using theory's to prove facts. That sentence doesn't actually make sense, but what I was doing, was answering a question.
how then do you explain the corriolis effect.... bah! ill go find it...
The UA is rotating underneath the earth, seems to be the explanation for that.
and it seems that several FA-ers are kinda testy when it comes to new people asking questions... someone recently posted a rhetorical question in the form of an answer in a way that sounded a bit angry... all i masking is for some basic info, please reply with simple answers.
I have replied with a simple answer. The testiness of some of this forums members is a result of 2 things. Answering the same questions over and over again to new members who can't search the forum AND people coming in and posting abusive comments.

69
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The Centrifugal Force
« on: September 04, 2008, 09:26:35 PM »
The UA is rotating underneath the earth, seems to be the explanation for that.

70
The Bible and my parents both say it's flat and I feel in my heart it is flat and that God is there.
I'm keen to read the quote in the bible that says the world is flat. Can you point that out to me, please.

71
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 04, 2008, 03:01:38 PM »
I'll start again.

A: People keep insisting the goverment isn't in on this, yet they are silencing people. Explain.
People are using Government and NASA interchangeably. This is a mistake. It is NASAs conspiracy.

B: Far more people would need to know. Ice wall guards (and suppliers, and maintenance, etc) the teams of people required to fake video well, people who secretly install fish-eye lenses, anyone who has been in space, people who made the stratellites (and put them up in the sky, and give them maintenance (by the way: how do the stratellites propel themselves so fast and for so long?), and refuel them (which no one has ever seen) and design cunning ways of fooling lasers, and red shift theorem, long-haul plane navigators, etc etc. How could NASA do that alone, and for just 10 billion pounds? We need ten times more than that just to build a windfarm!

C:Why don't the NASA execututives live in complete luxury? They have an income in the billions (according to you) so why are they not spending it? If its just so no-one suspects them, whats the point doing it in the first place?
Obvioulsy NASA execs don't have billions of pounds at their disposal as they are using it to pay the people you listed in point B. Regarding that, I don't believe they would both guarding the Ice Wall. Seems a lot of expense for no real gain. The people required to fake video wouldn't necessarily be told the world was flat. I think "We need to get to the moon before the Russians, and all our rockets are exploding on take off. It'll be easier if we fake this stuff and make the deadline that President Kennedy set for us." would do the job.

72
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 04, 2008, 05:06:40 AM »
Yes, I read and responded, but I'm not upset. Whereas you clearly seem to be. So why keep frequenting this forum?

Because I love a good argument, and I don't let concern trolls like you ruin it for me.

And it sounds to me like you're upset. Don't like me posting in your forum with my pesky questions? It doesn't matter to me anyway, because as far as I know you haven't responded to even one of them, and if you have, it was probably something retarded, and I disregarded it.
Are you getting a good argument here? And I'm certainly not trying to ruin anything for you? My question stems from my past experience that indicates many people seem to come here with a burning desire to prove others wrong. Your assertion that only "qualified" people be allowed to argue the point seemed to back that up. Assuming I probably said "something retarded" is also the words of someone who is not actually looking for a debate, but keen to show how "superior" he is.

What words have I used that would indicate I am upset?

And this isn't my forum. Like most people here I am just a visitor.

For the record my first post in response to one of yours was to congratulate you on the tremendous 3D models you created and ask you what program you use.

73
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What do FErs think of Google Earth?
« on: September 03, 2008, 05:07:48 AM »
No, you are all wrong - it was pixies who drew it. It was just sheer fluke that it happened to precisely fit a globe in the correct manner.

Thus it is more proof of a conspiracy.
What do you mean it precisely fits a globe in the correct manner?

74
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 03, 2008, 05:04:13 AM »
Yes, I read and responded, but I'm not upset. Whereas you clearly seem to be. So why keep frequenting this forum?

75
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What do FErs think of Google Earth?
« on: September 03, 2008, 04:50:06 AM »
So it would be more labour intensive to do it from aircraft. That does not make it impossible.

76
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: This Theory is Amusing
« on: September 03, 2008, 04:45:42 AM »
Your uncle flies in a concorde?

Who else needs to be involved?

77
Flat Earth Debate / Re: No motive, no case
« on: September 03, 2008, 04:42:06 AM »
Bottom line, if there's no one here at TFES with a higher education in physics, astrophysics, and aeronautics, you really have no grounds to promote the wild ass theories proposed.
So no-one's allowed to post on the internet unless they have a degree or diploma certifying them in the field they wish to post about? That doesn't seem very fair. I would suggest a better system would be for those that get upset by something they are reading on the internet, to simply stop reading it.

78
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What do FErs think of Google Earth?
« on: September 03, 2008, 03:55:55 AM »
The only other way I can think of to take the pictures is with planes, but that wouldnt work because you would have to photograph an impossibly large area.
Why is it possible with satelites but impossible from aircraft?

79
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: gasses
« on: September 03, 2008, 03:48:20 AM »
but wouldnt the air get more and more compressed. and also if tides are caused by tilting, should the air be less dense above the side that is tilted up slightly
Do you mean continually over time? Why doesn't gravity in RE continuously make the air more compressed if it's always attracting it to the earth at 9.8ms/s.

Yes, I don't believe titling a FE can cause the tides. I think it more likely the UA is causing it by rotating underneath the earth.

80
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: This Theory is Amusing
« on: September 03, 2008, 03:42:58 AM »
1. This conspiracy is only known by NASA and the other space agencies of the world, not the governments themselves. And not all the employees of NASA, just the upper echelon. I'm guessing in the early 60's they discovered that space flight is impossible, because without an atmosphere to help with lift, the thrust required to stay aloft and get to the moon was unatainable. Now they could admit this and put themselves out of work, or they could generate a charade that would allow them to continue to syphon billions of tax payers dollars from the government cophers. Also, they promised their dead president they'd walk on the moon before the end of the decade, and they certainly weren't going to let the impossible stand in their way.

Your uncle is using the information he has been given, it's just wrong. And you cannot see the curve of the earth from a plane.

2. I'm going to make the assumption you mean tides, not waves. And yes I don't think the tilting earth can be the cause of the tides. Particularly if the Earth is an infinite plane bisecting the Universe. The best explanation I've heard is that the UA which is propelling the Earth upwards is rotating underneath us, and that is causing the tides.

3. Again, there are not that many people that need to be in on the conspiracy.

81
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flight from Sydney to Buenos Aires
« on: September 03, 2008, 03:13:35 AM »
So are you interested in removing your last 4 posts to clean the thread?  I'm eagerly waiting for some genuine Flat-Earth'ers to respond.

(I think dyno and POBOL should keep theirs, they're funny and on topic)
How many posts do you think would actually be in this forum, if only genuine FE'ers responded? Then you'd just be here talking to yourself. And wouldn't you feel foolish.

82
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Invalid Inductive Argument
« on: September 03, 2008, 02:44:52 AM »
Well said Matrix.

So explain this.
I say this argument by itself is completely invalid since there is no logical reason to jump from seeing a few miles to concluding the rest of the earth is the same. 
I look out the window at the lighthouse at Byron Bay the Easterly most point of Australia. I have a full 180 degree field of vision that is all ocean. Now if I can see directly east to the horizon, where ships apparently disappear due to the curvature of the earth, then I should be able to see the earth curve away to the north and the south.

But I do not. Does this not demonstrate that the earth is flat?

83
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why?
« on: September 03, 2008, 02:22:17 AM »
I guess I'm an atheist as I don't believe in any god.  Yet I do believe in the supernatural.  I think there is an afterlife, but it's what we believe will happen while alive.  For instance, if a christian who believes they've adhered to the bible and god's will, they will go to "heaven", or basically their consciousness will create a version of heaven for them to exist in.  An atheist who believes we are worm food will cease to exist only so much that they shut down all external and internal stimuli and basically rot for eternity.
Waht about those that have no clear belief on the afterlife?

84
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why?
« on: September 03, 2008, 02:21:11 AM »
urrrrgghh stop being so Romantic. I high doubt anything will happen, I mean do you remember what you were doing before you were born? Exactly, so why do you think anything will happen afterwards?
I don't remember what I was doing when I was 5, but I'm pretty confident that I Was there.

85
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Invalid Inductive Argument
« on: September 02, 2008, 04:08:01 AM »
I say this argument by itself is completely invalid since there is no logical reason to jump from seeing a few miles to concluding the rest of the earth is the same. 
How about this. I look out the window at the lighthouse at Byron Bay the Easterly most point of Australia. I have a full 180 degree field of vision that is all ocean. Now if I can see directly east to the horizon, where ships apparently disappear due to the curvature of the earth, then I should be able to see the earth curve away to the north and the south.

But I do not.

86
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Proof
« on: September 02, 2008, 03:50:16 AM »
Most religious folk don't try to prove their points with fake science as far as I'm aware, with a few minor exceptions.
So you're saying that people that prove try to prove their points with fake science deserve to be harassed by ignorants?

87
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: daylight times
« on: September 02, 2008, 03:27:13 AM »
I would think any change of location between Sunrise and Sunset would compromise the results. Also, will making a note of the time be sufficient? Will photographic evidence be required, and if so, will a photograph with a time stamp on it be acceptable? Easily faked I realise.

88
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Free will?
« on: September 02, 2008, 12:15:19 AM »
But only for the observer. The observed would be unaware. In this instance isn't it about FoR?

And after some sleep, I'm going to go back to my other thought. If we get to a choice in our life and have to choose A or B. The choice we make will result in 2 entirely different futures, and gives us free will. Now if God can see how the future would turn out if we made either choice, would that give us free will, but also allow God to know the future?

89
This book presents evidence that the surface of standing water cannot possibly be convex. 

So there is no such thing as a drop of water? Because that's essentially what the Earth's oceans are (according to RET): a gigantic drop of salt water surrounding the rocky crust of the Earth, with the exception of the continents. If you look at it from a more distant perspective like that, you will notice that the oceans are not actually standing water at all. Not only are they basically a drop of water, they have currents as well and are therefore in constant movement. So they defy every possible definition of "standing water". In addition, presuming that the author's argument is just an observation of water in a still container or on a flat surface, the reason for the flat surface would be gravity. Due to the nature of gravity, there is no actual up or down in space, only "in" towards concentrations of matter (read:objects). The water on Earth is only strongly affected by the gravitational pul of Earth itself, which pulls it evenly inward to form a roughly spherical shape. The only other object that has a major effect on the oceans but not the rest of the Earth is the Moon, which causes the tides.

Well, then. I've contradicted a whole lot of FET doctrine just now, haven't I?
Way to totally misinterpret a sentence.

If you go to a large body of water, say a lake, on a totally windless day, so that the surface of it is entirely still, and you look across it, on a Round Earth you would be able to measure the curve. The experiments listed in this book show that you cannot.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

90
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Tripping the Light Fantastic
« on: September 01, 2008, 11:46:55 PM »
:'( But I changed my name to this out of the goodness of my heart to please some angry noob.
Well I'm intrigued to know what it was before.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 9