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 - flyingmonkey

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24
61
Does ENaG count?

It was written in 1881 though...

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


It's a book of rubbish and misunderstandings that I'm sure you will find amusing if it doesn't meet your criteria (or just too long)

62
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Edge of the Earth
« on: May 06, 2010, 01:25:03 PM »
Pretty sure multiple FEs must have to know what was there for their theory.

Oh who am I kidding

63
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« on: May 06, 2010, 01:18:36 PM »

We've been through this, so lurk more. The degree of expense and effort involved is too great. I'm in college at the moment, and I cannot afford the time or the expense. If cartography is so easy, why did it take RE'ers so long to finalise their maps, despite huge investment?


Because now that all the information is readily available to you to make such an endeavor, it should be relatively easy if you hold this theory so dear to your heart.

It took RE so long, because they had to gather all the available information, which you now have to use.

64
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET evidence?
« on: May 05, 2010, 09:23:13 PM »
Going by the pictures, it's taken on that little point bit to the left of Calais.


65
Flat Earth General / Re: Youtube enrages me
« on: May 05, 2010, 09:17:51 PM »
It's about time they got onto it instead of hiding behind excuses.

66
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Is there a FE consensus on Moon shape?
« on: May 05, 2010, 08:33:49 PM »
Well, James, how old is the Moon? Where does it keep getting it's own matter to continue feeding itself?

Surely it would have consumed itself by now.

67
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: On the Burden of Proof
« on: May 05, 2010, 08:31:59 PM »
So how is that invisitiger, Wilmore?

68
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« on: May 05, 2010, 08:24:35 PM »
That map is essentially used as a rough guide to communicate the concept of a FE with Antarctica as a distinct continent rather than the rim continent, and as it's just a projection based of RE maps, undoubtedly contains many errors. But people can't just go around claiming to have proven this or that based on theoretical planes and boats. We need real data, not MS paint scribbles.

Get a fucking testable map already then.

Enough with hiding behind your rough guides and models, sit down and actually do something to help your goddamn cause rather than sticking your finger up your ass.

How do you expect anyone to be swayed into FE if all you have is a fucking kindergarten grade drawing - because that's basically all you have in the mapping world.

Make it work.

Last time I checked, planes and boats aren't theoretical, your maps are.

69
Flat Earth General / Re: Youtube enrages me
« on: May 05, 2010, 08:12:38 PM »
Get an FE map that holds up to scrutiny if you want them to even think about rewording their phrase about the shape of Earth.

70
The path that you take to get there, the things you do while there, and means in which you do them are all irrelevant.

Are you stating that the processes to become a scientist and the processes that are key to being a scientist are irrelevant?

I wonder how one becomes an expert in science if the process to become an expert in science is irrelevant.


You cannot just be a scientist, there are processes that you must partake to be a scientist - You seem to think they are irrelevant.

71
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« on: May 05, 2010, 03:00:55 AM »
and STILL fails to explain exactly what path the Sun takes.

Let's just draw the current Sun path on his map and make him explain why it travels that way.

72
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET evidence?
« on: May 05, 2010, 02:59:37 AM »
All I see in Rawlolbums pages is him making a new theory of perspective when taking into account the curvature of the Earth.


Ofcourse the bottoms of things are going to disappear when trying to explain perspective on Earth, Earth has curvature, Rawlolbums obviously didn't take this into account and therefore, it has had an influence on the results of his new theory.

To test perspective, you must do it where things like curvature of the surface will not change the results.

Amateur mistake on his part, I'm surprised you missed this.

73
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« on: May 05, 2010, 02:48:27 AM »
Please read my messages about the path of the sun; I have posted much material pertaining to this subject, please make use of it:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183&start=15#p35487

The only reason it states the Sun travels like that is because it has to, to fit the model that is being defined.


Your maps and models make FE even worse than it already is.

74
Flat Earth General / Re: George Scott Fallacy
« on: May 05, 2010, 02:44:40 AM »
I see it went how I expected.

Thank you for the experiment.

75
I saw God.



Are you going to quote me and use me in an argument about Religion?
That's all you have.


What we have is explanations as to why.

76
Flat Earth General / Re: Why I became a Flat Earther
« on: May 04, 2010, 08:39:11 PM »
I think maybe he left

77
Flat Earth General / Re: George Scott Fallacy
« on: May 04, 2010, 08:37:59 PM »
John, you like Rawlolbums map best right?

How do you explain the 12000miles of Antarctic Coastline being able to encircle the 78000miles of the edge of the Earth?


Let's see how this goes.

78
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET evidence?
« on: May 04, 2010, 08:27:50 PM »
Wow Dave, nice image (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Lord_dave/cliffsofdover.jpg)

You can actually clearly see that the Base of the cliffs is behind water, just by looking at erosion patterns.

79
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« on: May 04, 2010, 08:21:21 PM »
No need to draw maps, same explanation applies from east to west.

Actually, let's check eh?

I took 3 various routes from Sydney.




What exactly is the edge of your map here?


Want me to make it look worse and draw on the Suns path? Deceiver is onto something there.

80
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« on: May 04, 2010, 08:13:20 PM »
And we all know Map 1 cannot have the 12000miles of Antarctic Coastline encircle 78000miles of the rest of the Earth.

That's just a basic logic failure on a whole different level.

81
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Changes in the amount of daylight
« on: May 04, 2010, 08:08:26 PM »


I want any FE'er to take this diagram here, and change the shape of the Earth around until the light on it doesn't change significant shape.

Guess what shape you're going to need to change it into.

82
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Axes to FES Part 3
« on: May 04, 2010, 08:00:05 PM »
There are numerous theories for the layout of the continents:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/Antarctica

And all of them are wrong, maybe you should read what cities he posted and note how far away they are in all of your maps and notice it is a consistent error.

83
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: May 04, 2010, 07:53:32 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.ogv

Hell, that would look mean ass with 3D glasses.

That is the animation several flat guys have dismissed as "computer generated" and thus claiming it doesn't prove libration, which is why I went out and took images which backed it up.


We all know flat guys are stupid, I assumed they did something like that, that lone skywatcher must be part of the conspiracy too!

How big is this conspiracy?
Sure people have the means to do all these things to cover up the shape, but only the conspiracy has the motive, nobody else has reasons to change evidence.
Why should they?

All they are doing is blocking their ears and screaming - they are the only people that they are making look stupid.

84
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Which Map Do Most FE'ers Agree With
« on: May 04, 2010, 09:30:33 AM »
Who wrote this: ...your map still doesn't account for flightes from Australia to South America.  These head east and do not cross land until they get to South America.  They also take far less time and travel a much shorter distance than your map suggests.???

Santiago - Juneau 27 hr

http://www.expedia.com/pub/agent.dll?qscr=fexp&flag=q&city1=SYD&citd1=SCL&time1=720&time2=720&cAdu=1&cSen=0&cChi=0&cInf=&infs=2&date1=10/09&date2=10/16&&rdct=1

Santiago - Sydney about 18 hr

London - Santiago 18 hr

Perfectly compatible with my map, as are all other flight distances.

Net time, check where the planes fly, eh?

That's a fucking long way to fly to get from South America to Australia.

85
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proof the Moon is not a flat disc.
« on: May 04, 2010, 09:24:00 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase_Oct_2007.ogv

Hell, that would look mean ass with 3D glasses.

86
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: May 04, 2010, 09:12:08 AM »
Forward motion doesn't stop with thrown objects when they reach the top of their arc, as ENaG would have you believe.

That book is more holey than righteous.

87
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Changes in the amount of daylight
« on: May 04, 2010, 09:08:53 AM »
Very good....at least your trying.  I know the search function isnt the best.

I found this one as well

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=22864.0


Last time I checked, the day doesn't light up like that.

It's more like:

http://www.die.net/earth/

Transfer that information to your flat map and see what it looks like and realise a spotlight cannot create that pattern.

88
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FET evidence?
« on: May 04, 2010, 09:02:47 AM »
It's amazing what nice elevation does as well.

89
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Flight Times?
« on: May 04, 2010, 09:01:39 AM »
(proven by ENaG)

I'm pretty sure that makes it just you and Tom that believe that.

90
I can tell you've never actually met a scientist.

1) to be a scientist, you first have to go to school, and do well.
2) you have to do more schooling, and do extremely well.
3) finally, you have to prove to your peers (IE anyone that knows anything about what you are discussing) that you have something actually significant to publish, and at your peril, many groups of scientists will try to show your experiment/conclusions wrong because that means you won't be taking their grant money since you are clearly incompetent and a poor researcher.

You are, by definition, entirely wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientist

And what is this "Expert" word used to define scientist?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/expert

Note where it continues to say high degree of skill or knowledge.

As we all know, nobody possesses high skill or knowledge without practice and teaching.

He was entirely correct.

Also: He never said anything about defining "scientist" maybe you should get more knowledge in reading comprehension.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 24