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 - jargo

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6
31
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA caught in their own lies!
« on: January 27, 2009, 08:35:48 AM »
But the astronauts themselves claimed they could not see stars.

To see the stars you would need to look away any bright object such as surface of the moon and wear spacesuit helmet that does not have darkened glass.

They have also been quoted saying they could not see it from space, their space shuttle, etc.

They probably also have darkened windows. And besides you really can't easily see stars even through window of your own house if you have lights on inside.
I can see the stars perfectly, even with ambient light.  Why cant you?

That really depends how close to the window you stand and you probably don't have  10 inch portholes as windows in you house.

32
Flat Earth General / Re: The Apollo 12 sun is not real
« on: January 26, 2009, 12:21:35 PM »
A real Lens Flare doesn't look anything like the Apollo 12 sun. The edges of a lens flare aren't anywhere as intense as the light source.



That is clearly part of the lens flare and it is looks just as intense as the light source.

If we do a Google Image Search for "lens flare," we see absolutely nothing that looks anything like what you're saying that this is.

Lens flares looks very different on overexposed out of focus images.

33
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Plate tectonics sheer rubbish!
« on: January 26, 2009, 11:24:40 AM »
While we are on the subject of geology and some of its possible flawed theory, consider the following:

How does sand form? Officially, according to the USGS member I contacted, it is formed through the erosion of crystalline rock where the sand particles are the crystal grains of the rock. But if this is the case how come you get sandy beaches in areas where the rock is exclusively sedimentary (i.e. non-crystalline) and the rivers in the area have all flowed through sedimentary rock areas also? And why aren't weathered crystalline rocks rough like sandpaper but smooth to the touch instead? And further why at the base of cliffs of crystalline rock don't you get piles of sand?

But geologists aren't entirely dishonest as they have admitted to a mistake they have made in the past. Desert varnish is not caused by minerals percolating to the surface of the rock causing it to darken or redden but is instead caused by wind blown clay particles adherring to their surfaces. But why couldn't they ascertain this earlier by simply analysing the surfaces of the rock in the laboratory? Apparently they failed to do this properly........  :D

What causes earthquakes then?

34
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy
« on: January 25, 2009, 08:05:36 AM »
And as I have told you several times you need to ask grogberries he has the evidence and he has said that he will show it to you if you only ask.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26006.100

If he had evidence he would have posted it. Continuing to withhold evidence you guys claim to have isn't a very convincing tactic. Why don't you go deliberate for a while and PM me when you guys actually have something to present. If you're talking to me about evidence and you don't have any you're just wasting my time and digging yourself deeper into fail.

He has clearly stated that he will present it when you ask for it from him. You have failed to do that.

So why do you not ask grogberries this simple question?

The only ansver I can come up it is that you are afraid that the opposing side have the evidence supporting their claim.

You have asked me for evidence but I don't have it grogberries has as I have said many times.

35
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy
« on: January 25, 2009, 05:39:19 AM »
Quote
So why do you not ask to see the evidence?

Two out of every three of my posts on this forum consist of me asking you guys for evidence. Obviously I want it.

And as I have told you several times you need to ask grogberries he has the evidence and he has said that he will show it to you if you only ask.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26006.100


36
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy
« on: January 25, 2009, 03:29:18 AM »
I would brother to write a 5 word response, if the opposing side would claim to have evidence and would present it to me if I just asked for it.  The fact that you refuse doing this miniscule task proves that you believe that the opposing side has evidence that demonstrates that the effect was seen elsewhere and you are just afraid to ask for it. After all only thing you would need to do to prove the opposing side wrong is to write a 5 word response where you ask to see the evidence. If I were offered such an opportunity I would surely do what the opposing side was asking me to do unless I was afraid that opposing side actually had the evidence to support their claim.   

What are you mumbling about? Either post evidence if you have it or get the hell out of here if you don't.

You need to ask grogberries the same question and you will have your evidence.

Only thing you would need to do to prove the opposing side wrong is to write a 5 word response where you ask to see the evidence.
 
So why do you not ask to see the evidence?

The only ansver I can come up it is that you are afraid that the opposing side have the evidence supporting their claim.

What point do you no understand?

37
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy
« on: January 25, 2009, 03:14:31 AM »
Grogberries offered to show them to you if you just asked him. If you are too lazy reply his message with 5 words then it is  an even bigger fail for you. With same logic I could ignore your flat earth literature list because I am too lazy to click the links.

If he had something which demonstrated that the effect was seen elsewhere he would have posted it.

I would brother to write a 5 word response, if the opposing side would claim to have evidence and would present it to me if I just asked for it.  The fact that you refuse doing this miniscule task proves that you believe that the opposing side has evidence that demonstrates that the effect was seen elsewhere and you are just afraid to ask for it. After all only thing you would need to do to prove the opposing side wrong is to write a 5 word response where you ask to see the evidence. If I were offered such an opportunity I would surely do what the opposing side was asking me to do unless I was afraid that opposing side actually had the evidence to support their claim.   





38
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy
« on: January 25, 2009, 12:49:11 AM »
Quote
You were given change to see the evidence, that the same effect can be seen on pictures taken on earth with polaroid cameras, but you just ignored it.

Really? Please show me where the same effect is seen in Polaroid cameras.

Grogberries offered to show them to you if you just asked him. If you are too lazy reply his message with 5 words then it is  an even bigger fail for you. With same logic I could ignore your flat earth literature list because I am too lazy to click the links.


39
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy
« on: January 25, 2009, 12:30:14 AM »
Tom, I gave a pretty good reason why those photographs behaved like they did. I don't think you can use that as proper evidence now.

What reason did you give to cause the sun to look exactly like a spotlight? Some odd distortion in the camera film which manifests in perfect doughnut shapes?  ::)

You were given change to see the evidence, that the same effect can be seen on pictures taken on earth with polaroid cameras,
but you just ignored it.

Fail. 

And please answer my original question. Can you give me a one good reason to believe the global re conspiracy?

40
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JAXA part of the conspiracy?
« on: January 24, 2009, 11:00:14 AM »
Quote
Even if ISS would be in the upper startosphere it would still burn up at so high speeds

Proof for this unsupported statement?


The power required to overcome the aerodynamic drag is given by:


The observable speed of the ISS is about 7 km/s. If anything were flying that speed at upper stratosphere it would vaporize pretty much instantly and if it were made of some exotic material that could take the heat then it would be glowing red hot which we can observe not be true by looking through telescope.


Quote
Also how does ISS maintain it speed and stay up there for so long ?

I wouldn't know what technologies or mechanisms it uses for buoyancy and speed. I didn't design it.


Keeping ISS up there going that speed and that long would require the existence of some amazing never before seen engines much
more advanced that NASA claims to have used to launch rockets in space. Are you claiming that NASA have this kind of technology?     

41
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JAXA part of the conspiracy?
« on: January 24, 2009, 07:09:12 AM »
Quote
At so high speeds air resistance would be ernoumus.

It's good thing that there isn't much air resistance in the upper stratas then, isn't it?

Even if ISS would be in the upper startosphere it would still burn up at so high speeds
unless it was made from some never before seen material.
Also how does ISS maintain it speed and stay up there for so long ?
It would require the existence of some amazing never before seen engine.   

42
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JAXA part of the conspiracy?
« on: January 24, 2009, 06:39:33 AM »
Quote
I it is not in space how it can move so fast?

Things have to be in space to move fast now?  ???

At so high speeds air resistance would be ernoumus.

43
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy
« on: January 24, 2009, 06:37:17 AM »
Quote
So you do not believe that NASA is part of a conspiracy?  :o

Nope. I don't believe anything about NASA's claims until confirmed empirically.



That would also mean that you are not sure if earth is flat :o.


Quote
I have not claimed anything in this thread. I you are referring some previous threads the answer is that yes we have provided evidence for our claims.

Really, where did you provide evidence that NASA sent men to the moon, robots to mars, and probes to explore the solar system?   ???

We have provided you proof of the exictence of the ISS. But that debate belongs to a different thread.
 

Hey. I'm the one asking the questions here. I'm the skeptic. You need to prove your claim that NASA really sent rocket ships into space. Where's the proof?

I have not claimed that in this thread. I was just asking one good reason to believe the existence of huge global conspiracy.

44
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JAXA part of the conspiracy?
« on: January 24, 2009, 06:30:33 AM »
I can look at the ISS through my telescope, and people with powerful enough telescopes have photographed it. Where is your evidence of these so called projectors tom? You are the one that made the claim that there are projectors.

Looking at the ISS fly by overhead doesn't do anything to prove that it's in space, or whether it's in orbit around a globular earth.

I it is not in space how it can move so fast?

45
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JAXA part of the conspiracy?
« on: January 24, 2009, 03:44:05 AM »
Questioning FE honesty isn't a claim. It's a question. Show me evidence!

So no evidence for your space ship science fiction then?

So no evidence for the FE your own imagination then? And who claimed that the JAXA space ship was real?

46
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy
« on: January 24, 2009, 03:29:05 AM »
The FE:rs claim that we should not believe the unobservable claims that NASA has for example launched robots to mars.

But then why should we believe the unobservable claims that NASA is part a huge extremely complex conspiracy of all the countries with space programs and for example have secret bases where they land their spaceshutles after the fake space launches.

You think that a lie would be observable?  ???

So why should we believe that?  ???
Can you give us any good reason why should we believe the NASA conspiracy?

47
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy
« on: January 24, 2009, 03:28:28 AM »
Quote
That's doesn't matter. You shouldn't believe in something that is not observable. Why do you contradict yourself?

I'm not believing or claiming anything.
So you do not believe that NASA is part of a conspiracy?  :o

I'm questioning. I'm questioning your claim that NASA has sent men to the moon, robots to mars, and probes to explore the solar system.

So far you've provided absolutely no evidence to back up your claims.

I have not claimed anything in this thread. I you are referring some previous threads the answer is that yes we have provided evidence for our claims.

48
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy
« on: January 24, 2009, 03:01:37 AM »
If nasa were correct, then the earth would be round. Clearly, then, they are not being truthful and are lying. This is why.

But again the claims used to proof this are unobservable. We can't for example see the unobservable gears in the sky we can only see the stars supposedly attached to them.

49
Flat Earth Debate / Why should we believe the unobservable conspiracy
« on: January 24, 2009, 02:44:30 AM »
The FE:rs claim that we should not believe the unobservable claims that NASA has for example launched robots to mars.

But then why should we believe the unobservable claims that NASA is part a huge extremely complex conspiracy of all the countries with space programs and for example have secret bases where they land their spaceshutles after the fake space launches.

50
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA given $400 million to study global warming
« on: January 24, 2009, 02:14:12 AM »
NASA is known for their lies, especially about global warming.  I already gave two instances of them lying.  I can dig up about 500 more :P.  Just do a search.

Proof that you provided for your claim that "stars would not be visible during daytime if there were no atmosphere" were proven wrong.

51
Flat Earth Debate / Re: NASA given $400 million to study global warming
« on: January 24, 2009, 02:04:40 AM »
That's another thing. Read my post again. IF THEY PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GHOSTS, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DON'T EXIST.

So if they tell me about a ghost encounter they had or show me a smudge on a photograph I have to prove them wrong?  ???

No. But if you then made a claim that there is a huge 2000 years old conspiracy that produces fake images of ghosts and spreads ghost stories then the burden of proof would be on you to proof exictence of this conspiracy. Normal people would just claim that the photo is a fake and that would be a reasonable assumption unless thousands of people would have allready seen that ghost and you could also see it if you would just go to place where it haunts.

52
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The principle of simplicity.
« on: January 24, 2009, 01:23:23 AM »
Quote
The validity of that map has been verified by amateur astronomers (for example me).

Really? Did you verify that the earth was a globe as the map depicts?

You can project that map on flat plane if you want to. That does not change the fact that it predicts the current observable position of ISS. And if that were a flat earth map ISS would have to be moving even faster.

53
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JAXA part of the conspiracy?
« on: January 24, 2009, 01:15:05 AM »
Quote
So do you think santa claus and big foot are believable because they can't be proven wrong?

The point was that you could make any kind of outlandish claim with no proof to support it. The question I was asking you was that what makes you believe the NASA conspiracy but not santa claus or big foot?

Santa Claus and Big Foot are unobservable and unexperienced, just like NASA's missions to the moon, mars and around the solar system.

So is the NASA conspiracy. You can observe ISS through telescope but you haven't shown any proof about the conspiracy.

54
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The principle of simplicity.
« on: January 24, 2009, 01:02:47 AM »
http://www.heavens-above.com/

There is the current position of ISS. The validity of that map has been verified by amateur astronomers (for example me) and you can calculate the speed of the ISS from that.

Do you expect us to give that NASA-affiliated website any credibility?

The validity of that map has been verified by amateur astronomers (for example me).

And besides there are other non-NASA-affiliated websites

http://desktop.google.com/plugins/i/isscurrentposition.html
http://software.techrepublic.com.com/abstract.aspx?docid=791867

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Windows-Widgets/News/ISS-Tracker.shtml

55
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The principle of simplicity.
« on: January 24, 2009, 12:58:35 AM »
Quote
How does it stay up there and is able to move so fast if it is not in space?

How can we tell how fast it's moving if we don't know how far away it is?

http://www.heavens-above.com/

There is the current position of ISS. The validity of that map has been verified by amateur astronomers (for example me) and you can calculate the speed of the ISS from that. You don't have to know how far away the ISS is if it is observed by multiple observers.

56
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The principle of simplicity.
« on: January 24, 2009, 12:48:10 AM »
Quote
Where else would it be?  ???

Not in space. Like everything else man has created.

How does it stay up there and is able to move so fast if it is not in space?


57
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JAXA part of the conspiracy?
« on: January 24, 2009, 12:42:03 AM »
For practical purposes, the distance between USA and Europe is about 5 hours by plane. Whether it's 100 or 3000 miles doesn't make a difference to me.

Answer the question. Do you think it would be believable that the distance between Europe and USA is only 100 miles because someone could profit from lying about it?
No need to get rude just because you are incapable of defending your position. Unless it can be proven wrong, it is believable, regardless of whether someone can profit from it or not. Is it believable that an atom is the smallest particle in the universe? How about electron? Quark? What's the point of your question, anyway?

So do you think santa claus and big foot are believable because they can't be proven wrong?

The point was that you could make any kind of outlandish claim with no proof to support it. The question I was asking you was that what makes you believe the NASA conspiracy but not santa claus or big foot?

58
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JAXA part of the conspiracy?
« on: January 23, 2009, 12:32:00 PM »
For practical purposes, the distance between USA and Europe is about 5 hours by plane. Whether it's 100 or 3000 miles doesn't make a difference to me.

Answer the question. Do you think it would be believable that the distance between Europe and USA is only 100 miles because someone could profit from lying about it?

59
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JAXA part of the conspiracy?
« on: January 23, 2009, 12:11:10 PM »
The following picture was taken from NORAD Santa Tracker on the Chrstmas eve, 2007:

There were also videos.
If you accept photographic evidence of the roundness of Earth, you must accept this as evidence of Santa's existence.
I surdenly would not believe something just if I would see photo of it. The point of this tread was that JAXA claims to have sent a satellite on the moon and do FE:rs believe that JAXA is part of the conspiracy. If yes then conspiracy again got a little bit more complex and made little bit less believable especially when there is no proof of it.

I could make a claim that distance between Europe and USA would only really be 100 miles and there would just be huge conspiracy of shipping companies and airliners that would claim otherwise. You should then believe this claim because there is just as much evidence for this than there is for the RE-conspiracy and it would  make sense for the shipping companies and airliners to maintain this conspiracy. If you do not believe this claim I would like you to explain why.

60
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is JAXA part of the conspiracy?
« on: January 23, 2009, 11:48:50 AM »
The following picture was taken from NORAD Santa Tracker on the Chrstmas eve, 2007:

There were also videos.
If you accept photographic evidence of the roundness of Earth, you must accept this as evidence of Santa's existence.

Photos can be faked yes, but don't tell me you can't see that this photo is computer graphics?
If someone claims that a certain photo is fake, then they must prove that the image is fake, otherwise
it must be considered a valid proof.

At least when the the claim that the photo is used to proof is falsiable. Proving that santa clause does not exist is impossible proving that JAXA is part of a conspiracy is possible.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6