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 - airwingmarine

Pages: 1 2 [3]
61
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: continental drifting
« on: August 14, 2008, 12:49:38 PM »
Didn't want to troll through 14 threads.  After 5 it got mundane.  But what explains the matterhorn....  It's on the border of Italy and Switzerland and has rock made up of the European contienent and African contienent.  I know this is completly aside from McDinosaurs fast food and the USS Taradactle, but another fact to ponder for the FEers.....

62
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: VHF Radio Waves
« on: August 14, 2008, 12:24:17 PM »
Ok, flame me if you like, and I tried the search function to no avail, but if this FE theory of yours is correct then VHF or FM, is a conspiracy theory?  Or can someone explain why I can't talk to say, Pittsburgh from
Erie at ground level but, in fact, I can at 5,000 ft or higher?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF

I think this will get buried like my thread cause they have no way to explain it besides another govt. conspiracy

63
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How do you explain Gyroscopic compasses?
« on: August 14, 2008, 12:16:37 PM »
Quote
good question - any two are at least dark enough to observe the stars at any given time, especially in winter when the days are shorter, and flying from one to another by night an observer sees an undisturbed view of the stars, as i've done a number of times. only once to africa i'll admit, but between Australasia and south america, many times.

Sure you have.  ::)

If you have really traveled between those locations, or were actually meteorologist as you've claimed, you would have known that there are such a thing as time zones before claiming that "the southern constellations are consistently visible from all points in the southern hemisphere".

And you can see more stars in montana than in New York city.  Does that mean they don't exist because you don't see them?  Just cause the light blocks them out dosn't mean there not there.  When you go into space...oh wait thats not possible.........um well I give up.


Anywase.  The constilations far enough south would be visiable from all points on the southern hemsiphere if it wasn't for the light of the sun drowning them out.

64
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 12:01:39 PM »
I just wana know how you twist science to disprove rhumb lines, great circles and naviagtions simplest mechanics.  It is all premised on a spherical earth, not a flat one.  Latitude and longitude would not work, well latitude would I guess.

65
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What about high altitudes?
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:56:52 AM »
wow, that was fast.. still, I doubt 'lurking' at the horizon 'moar' would make, say mount everest (wich btw should be VERY easy to spot) show up.

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

Quote
this with the very same methods as you prove it isn't, the "ship comes up from the horizon" thing.

The sinking ship effect is actually a proof for a flat earth.

Hulls of ships on the Pacific restored by telescopes proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

Hulls of ships restored by telescope on Lake Michigan proves not really behind a 'hill of water'

I've been high enough to see the curvature of the earth.  You can do it on a few mountain tops in the US as well.  But anywase, most of you all get a little port hole on the side of the airplane, but when you get a panoramic view from up front at as low as 30,000 feet you can see the curvature of the earth.

66
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:53:26 AM »
Main story in there scientific section I think... Or one of the top 3 that has a picture..

Web Site to actualy answer your question...lol

67
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:48:47 AM »
Fox News trolls.  SMILE you have national attention now!!!!

I'm waiting for my nephew so we can go fishing and couldn't resist this...

68
Flat Earth Q&A / Navigation
« on: August 14, 2008, 11:45:15 AM »
I spent 5 years in the Marines as an Aerial Navigator on KC-130s.  Right before my time the guys still used Celestial Nav to get across the ponds.  Most of this would not be possible if the world were flat (IE they can use it anywhere on the planet northern or southern hemisphere)  Also we use INS systems that use gyroscopes, we have gyroscopic compasses onboard, as well as about 500 charts that would not work if the planet was a disk.  I've flown south of the equator a few times.  Lines of longitude are Great circles around the planet.  This means they get closer to each other as you move farther south or north.  I've also flown over 2500 miles in a single sitting as a navigator and if the planet was flat, simple facts such as rhumb lines and great circle courses would not work.  A rhumb line is a course where you fly the same heading at all times.  If you move in a rhumb line this you will not move you  in a strait line across the surface.  You will slowly curve either to the south poll or the north poll in a cork screw manner because of how the lines of latitude squeeze together as u move up.  On top of all of this the shortest distance along the surface of a sphere between two points is called a great circle.  This is how all the and boats and airplanes get around the planet.  So with my personal experience and being on every continent except Antarctica I'm going to have to disagree with everything you say.  As I'm sure you will do with me.  As near as I can tell, you come up with off the wall reasons to discount stuff, most of which is conspiracy theory stuff.  There is overwhelming proof and scientific fact to show the earth is round.  Everything from Pangea and plate tectonics and volcanism, to celestial mapping space flight, and geosynchronous satellites completely disprove any shred of a flat planet. 

On top of all of this I have a few close friends in the space program.  And I doubt there going to make up stories for little ole me.

Pages: 1 2 [3]