1

Flat Earth General / Re: Are satellites real?

« on: February 16, 2018, 04:32:01 PM »

And what’s your claim to fame ? Apart from a cult reject?

Nothing ...that's what i am among other things !!!
But the last thing i would personally do is go to a forum and act like a total jerk and try to fight the native forum members wherever i could.

Native forum members? LOL wtf is that? Does that mean that you (among others) are the primitive, ignorant savages waiting for intelligent people to come to enlighten you? If so, I agree with your notion about "native forum members".

You and other longtime posters who redicule the flatearth wherever you can are so incredibly arrogant....and the scary part is, you don't even realise it....
Do your friends and family know you are here to redicule flatearthers in your spare time ??

No one cares, bud. Even the ones who spend their time trying to reason with morons like you are laughing at you.
Personally, I'm just here to ridicule your spelling of redicule because arrogance and stuff... and such.

By all means though, please providence evidence that satellites either don't exist or don't work as asserted. Everyone needs a good laugh so please have at it.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Able to see stars total eclipse?

« on: August 22, 2017, 12:23:27 AM »

Awesome stuff fellas. Wish I could have been anywhere near totality but I live in a southern continent that doesn't exist, so..

This was my first total eclipse.  Amazing experience.  I was only 3 miles within the edge of totality, so it went by quick.

Nice! Did you happen to get any photos?

I did indeed.  The last picture is my setup.  A Nikon 3100 with a cheap Opteka 650-1300 lens and a sheet of filter material I made a frame for.  After the last filtered shot of the last sliver of sunlight disappearing, I switched to a Nikon 55-300 and went handheld.  Between looking around in awe at the landscape and the sun's corona, and then taking one pic and checking the preview really quick, I only had time to keep shooting and tweaking the focus.  I didn't have time to mess with different ISO or aperature.  They're shot in RAW, so I can still do some work on them.  Messed a few a little bit so far.  Being about 3 miles in, it went quick.  The gopro was set for time-lapse at 5 second intervals.  I didn't know what the approaching darkness would look like (saw some neat pics of an approaching umbra in Hawaii) so I figured I'd try. 

Epic! Seriously great job.

As soon as I saw your post, I expected you to have taken photos and you didn't disappoint 

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Able to see stars total eclipse?

« on: August 21, 2017, 09:45:27 PM »

Awesome stuff fellas. Wish I could have been anywhere near totality but I live in a southern continent that doesn't exist, so..

This was my first total eclipse.  Amazing experience.  I was only 3 miles within the edge of totality, so it went by quick.

Nice! Did you happen to get any photos?

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Advanced Flat earth model Best I've seen

« on: August 19, 2017, 12:03:51 AM »

I... can't find much fault with this.

Move over the globe/N-E, we've finally found a winner!

5

Flat Earth General / Re: How many FE'rs are seriously on a quest to prove spherical realists wrong?

« on: August 12, 2017, 10:16:50 PM »

If you can't prove the Earth is flat, then, I don't know, maybe shut the hell up about it?

I can't tell you how, because it's all bullshit, you can't prove something that just isn't true.

I can tell you how they'd be able to prove the Earth's flat, easily: by talking about it, by developing models, by developing predictions. You know, the kind of thing that can only be done by sitting at a computer and conversing with other people all around the world.

You're the one specifically claiming there's some Nobel-winning path. (And, as a side note, also the one who previously said FEers have pages of what they claim as evidence, which you seem to be now pretending doesn't exist, demonstrating my objection pretty plainly).

You are perhaps the most boring contrarian on the internet. You seem to have a problem with every thread a RE'er makes, regardless of the content (see your absurd objections to observable red shifting, for example).

Yawn.

No FE'er will ever take the time to fully develop a model (before you object with "non-euclidean!!", no, that's not a model; it's round earth+non-euclidean=flat earth- it will never be developed beyond that) , so all we are left with is idle chatter on one or two forums. It's hardly controversial to say that it is rather beyond their (even collective) abilities.

They're not FE'ers because they're smart, educated and knowledgeable, after all.

Some of what the OP suggested, however, isn't beyond their means and might actually produce usable data/evidence. But nah, FE'ers would rather just do what you suggest: cocoon themselves in echo chambers and have a circle jerk, whining about how unfair it is that the feckless masses are so stupid and ignorant whilst they bounce around bullshit ideas in YT videos they share with each other.

Yea, seems much more productive, you're right 

6

Flat Earth General / Re: RE Arguments Summarized

« on: July 27, 2017, 03:24:07 AM »

As round earthers typically just make the same few arguments endlessly..

That's typically because the facts don't change. An explanation for sunrise/sunset is the same today as it will be in a thousand years time.

We aren't dealing with mysteries here, ya know?

Secondly, the fact that the arguments don't change is a point for RE. If the explanation for a sunrise/sunset changes every day like it does for a FE depending on which crackpot you ask, that in and of itself would make the position for a RE rather tenuous, wouldn't it?

Also, "FE scientists"... ROFLOL

If only FE scientists even could get past the very first question... 

The first one's pretty trivial. Most of them are really, it's REers that struggle to read the answers.

Hmmmm, no. In my experience on this site, every FE "model" (sic) I've ever seen proposed has trouble even explaining one aspect of reality, let alone two at the same time. Once the questions keep piling up, so do the contradictions. There is of course a very good reason why no FE "model" (sic) can ever seem to explain multiple natural phenomena simultaneously without completely breaking reality: that's because the earth is a oblate spheroid.  Always has been, always will be. You just cannot project a sphere onto something flat without something breaking, hence all of the problems faced by FE mentally-ill retards advocates. This is why people like you need to invent all sorts of bullshit (*cough* aether *cough*) in an attempt to explain away things that are trivially easy to explain with a globe. You've literally had to rewrite just about every law of physics just to make your trash "model" (sic) fit.

Secondly, no RE has trouble reading any of the (rare) responses from FE'ers when they actually decide to answer a question; it's just that the response is so easily and demonstrably wrong, that the response (or what passes for it) isn't accepted. Huge difference between that and what you're insinuating, so nice strawman there, champ.

Sorry but not sorry to break it to you JR, but the shape of the earth has already been determined. I know it may not be exciting for people like yourself who feel the need to dream up nonsense in attempt to feel special and seem to think that anything said on this forum has some bearing on the real world, but it doesn't. You have to be seriously intellectually dishonest (and a host of other things) to call into question the shape of the earth.

Here's my advice to you and the other FE tards that none of you asked for: Grow the fuck up and find something actually productive to do with your time (if you can).

Feel free to add any of the above to the list of typically used RE arguments because I feel it does crop up from time to time.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GoPro: Experiment Results

« on: June 24, 2017, 11:00:56 AM »

Yep, this never happened. Mikey is spot on. This is just a comedy write-up and, while initially funny, is becoming more and more pathetic the more JR attempts to sure up his ruse.

Full marks though for the "I'm getting sued"  story though, that one earned a few guffaws from me! A bridge too far to be sure, but still a good one.

As another pointed out, if you actually did any of what you claim, you would have some pictures & documentation of your setups. Don't worry though, you're in good company: Scepti has also made many fanciful claims such as building an Ice Dome model with "real growths and waterfalls" and attempting to bluff his way out of claims he sent the pictures of his contraption to a member on this site who, of course, never received any such pictures.

I guess it's just a nice little reminder that FE'ers really do live in a pretend, made-up world.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: Is Science the new Religion ?

« on: June 01, 2017, 10:35:32 PM »

As a vegan of 8 years, I'd just thought I would chime in.

There is also vitamin B12 that a vegan diet in times past would have been totally absent lending to the weight that evolved to consume animals and their products.

Even today despite an abundance of food a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation.

Simply not true. B12 is a bacteria found in soil and waterways and would have actually been far easier to obtain naturally before than it is today with everything being sanitised.

On top of this, even the animals you consume are fed B12 supplements because even they lack the ability to obtain in naturally in certain situations. So no, this isn't really a vegan-only problem.

Do you even have a source for your claim that "a typical vegan diet will fall short of B12 if not completely without supplementation" that doesn't come from a junk, evidence-free opinion piece?

Eating meat, eggs and dairy in effort to get a single vitamin is asinine, especially considering everything else that naturally comes with such food such as saturated fat, cholesterol and trans-fatty acids. B12 can be easily obtained either through fortified foods or supplementation, so why filter nutrients/vitamins through someone else's body?

@Rabinoz
All 9 essential amino acids can be found in non-animal products

Generally, patients on a plant-based diet are not at risk for protein deficiency.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/#b33-permj17_2p0061

Sure, but where could any primitive society get such a varied plant based diet.
A healthy vegan diet is possible now but was simply not feasible even a century ago.

What are you basing this on? It's been shown time and again that the diet of our ancestors was largely plant/starched based and that eating meat was something that couldn't be relied on and was thus only a small part of their diet.

The vegetarians I know are almost like religious zealots.    I don't know a single one who doesn't take vitamin supplements.

Thanks for your worthless anecdote. If you'd like to me to destroy the idea that veganism/vegetarianism is somehow analogous to religious dogmatism, let me know because I'd be happy to clear up your misconception.

Vegans can shove their tofu.

You remind me of this guy. It's about as good as your 'argument' (for lack of a better word) gets.

sounds like your (you're*)are vegan.
and with that comment you just proved that you get not enough nutrition to have a fully functional brain.

Satire? Sarcasm? Joke? Really hard to tell on this forum.

If not, could you tell me of the nutrient found only in meat, eggs or dairy that also isn't found from a plant-based source that relates to brain function?

Cheers 

And you must be stuffed full with indigestable solids and meat byproducts, I bet you eat alot of animal penis dont you. Well how would you know anyway?

let me ask you: are you a real total vegan?
Or are you one that only pretend to be one?

what are your shoes made of
do you have silk or wool clothing?
what car do you drive?
what do you do for living, is your workplace also complete vegan?
...

I think before attempting to refute something which you clearly know little about, I would do just a tad bit of research. Veganism ≠ perfectionism; it's about minimising harm to other animals insofar as practicable and possible. All you've done is built up a strawman and knocked it down. Congratulations, it's already been done and refuted countless times before!

Now, speaking of researching/looking things up, I would check out what the Tu Quoque fallacy is because it actually seems applicable to your post.

Sorry for any derail; feel free to start a new thread elsewhere/PM me if you have any Q's.

Cheers 

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Has he been hard done by? Let's examine his evidence.

« on: May 25, 2017, 01:54:17 AM »

They're just imperfections; non-lit rocks on the lit surface.

I understand you believe this. Stating what you believe achieves nothing. Justify it, or don't say anything.

Also, shadows that just happen to face away from the angle of incident light? That also change based on the angle of incident light? Erm... ok then!

10

Flat Earth General / Re: Composition of the Sun?

« on: May 24, 2017, 06:09:59 AM »

Your posts are huge rants with maybe two lines of valid questions, and they're still mostly assumptions. This is my problem. if you want to make an argument then make the fucking argument. You don't need your self-righteous "Ha ha you're so stupid ha ha FEers are dumb," whinging.

Well, I do make arguments... I just happen to also include some derisive commentary on the shit I'm responding to.

Feel free to get over it.

What are you even taking about? if I'm talking about personal attacks, it's pretty damn clear I'm not talking about aether.

Show me where I personally attacked you.

Flow of aether, the direction of the Sun's light. The explanations aren't detail free, I'm just assuming you actually read your own question. And yes, the Sun's a spotlight, are you seriously asking about the model when you aren't even aware of that? I provide a diagram of the damn thing. i explicitly state as much on multiple occasions.

You provide a child-like, 2D drawing which is hardly helpful. That's literally all everyone who reads your "model" has to go off: An incoherent wall-of-text, no experiments, no mathematics and a few childish drawings... and  you wonder why people are beyond confused.

So, the "flow of aether" provides the reflection we see in the sky and also "cuts off" the sun's light when it "rotates out of view" (but only ever at the horizon). Ok then, this is unsubstantiated piffle with zero backing, but I'll just go with it.

My next question is: We know half the world is always receiving sunshine, so I assume there must be more than one "flow of aether", right? I mean, your bland explanations are ambiguous enough to suggest that once it "rotates out of view", the world would be left in darkness. Of course this doesn't happen, so it must be that the spotlight sun's lit face must always face the "flow of aether", correct?

Following on from this, could you explain the mechanism for why the aether carries the light from the sun to both hemispheres but at completely different points in the hemispheres? This obviously has to be the way it works for anyone living even remotely close to the equator because, according to you, they are literally on opposite sides of the world but can agree on a fixed position of the sun in the sky. Once again, a diagram of this would be really helpful.

Then again, no one has any idea where anything is, how high up the stars are or the distances between things so... nothing can really be falsified here, can it?

Hold a torch. Rotate it so the light moves away from you. The unlit plastic cuts off your view of the light. What is hard about this?
Leave aside all your moronic babbling, have you considered that I might actually have answers? You seem to just be going in with the goal of intentionally misinterpreting every word I say; take that transparent 'personal attack' straw man. It just makes you look stupid.

Just remember JR, you're the one with a fantasy DE "model" so I'd really consider eating some humble pie before I would consider calling others stupid.

Again I ask, why does this cutting off only coincide with the physical horizon? The aether apparently can achieve this phenomenon for all locations on earth perfectly, except for the Midnight sun in the Arctic and Antarctic, and then of course the added complication of polar nights. I truly wonder how someone would go trying to map out all of the angles for this, again with the complication of it matching angles observed in both hemispheres, then include all of the aforementioned polar phenomenon.

Seems incredibly complicated to my simple mind. Just remember JR:

there is a much simpler and much more elegant explanation for this so... just let me know if you'd like for me to explain that.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt regarding overlooking this, but just to remind you:

Everything you ascribe to aether already has very well-defined phenomena and, better yet, actually has a rigorous mathematical framework that works and from which we can make predictions about, so what need is there for your aether?

To finish, if you could also respond to this, I'd appreciate it:

Apparently, the sun, moon & most/all of the observable universe exists in a "low concentration of aether" at the center of the Earth, between our two pizza-hemidisks. You then go on to say that there is "there is no distance between the top, and the bottom" which then must mean that most/all of the observable universe exists in literally no space at all. I'm using your own logic here and taking it to its own logical conclusion. If no space (ie. "distance") exists between the hemidisks, how can objects exist in this no space? It should be noted that you don't even say, for instance, infinitesimally small distance/space between these two points; you literally say no distance/space.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Composition of the Sun?

« on: May 23, 2017, 02:30:12 AM »

Ditto.
Do you realize how little substance there are to your objections? Given how often you've made similar posts I'm not sure you do. There is no possible way for me to respond to a complete lack of an argument.
You think my overview is unclear. Great. I've started threads on that subject before. There aren't responses, the best case scenario is people quoting random bits, but you never say why.

Odd. My objection contained multiple questions which you attempt to answer below, so what on earth are you talking about?

Secondly, if nearly everyone who comes across your rambling wall-of-text "model" says they can't understand it, are confused or object to the brief and bland descriptions given, does this not point to things either a) not being explained properly, b) does not contain enough detail to curtail confusion, c) is poorly written or d) all of the above? Is that not an explanation? Are such complaints not pointing to obvious deficiencies about your "model"? It's very clear nobody really understands what they've read on your site given  the rudimentary questions they ask.

I think a review of your wall-of-text is in order at the very least.

Leaving aside the lie and personal attacks about aether, you give no indication as to why it doesn't. The best you offer, in this one case, are tangentially related questions that themselves hold little water.

How can I "personally" attack your aether? What the actual fuck...? Are we back to it being a sentient being again? Also, what "lie" are you referring to? If it's about you having no evidence for your aether being real, that's not a lie, that is axiomatic to everyone.

Secondly, I don't understand what you mean by "you give no indication as to why it doesn't". Why it doesn't what?

Everything you ascribe to aether already has very well-defined phenomena and, better yet, actually has a rigorous mathematical framework that works and from which we can make predictions about, so what need is there for your aether?

This is the definition of rotation; thus the flow in that direction no longer meets the lit face of the Sun.

What flow? Flow of aether? Flow of the whirlpool?
What direction?
Is the sun a spheroid in your world, or is it a spotlight? I ask because because when you say the lit face of the Sun, that implies to me that sun either isn't always shining or it's a spotlight.

Again, these bland, detail-free "explanations" aren't satisfactory in the slightest.

The top-down/bottom-up aspect is simply down to the fact it is rotating out of view.

So a reflection off the 'aether dome' or whatever is rotating out of view? I don't understand why this only coincides with the physical horizon where we observe it appearing and disappearing. I also don't understand why climbing to a higher elevation when this reflection is "cutting off" I can then see more or less of it when it is setting or rising, respectively.

Again, a diagram would greatly help out here.

What you observe is the unlit face cutting off the lit, from your perspective. It is absolutely compatible because it is just the same principle at work.

So... just to reiterate: the unlit face cutting off the lit... from my perspective. I have no idea what this means. It is meaningless gibberish even taking in the entire context of your "model".

Why is the "unlit" face "cutting off" the lit face? I feel making a dirty joke but... I'm just so confused. From what I think I understand, the aether carries the light from the sun in the center of Earth to an aether dome of some sort whereby what we see is just a reflection of the sun projected into the sky... because simple elegance! you say so. Is that how it goes? I'm really confused over why the aether just "cuts off" the light from the sun but only at the horizon.

You know JR, there is a much simpler and much more elegant explanation for this so... just let me know if you'd like for me to explain that.

If you were to ask simple questions like this, which takes all of two lines, instead of page-long rants about grievances, much more might be achieved.

Well, erm.. I'll just have to take your word for that because I don't see you engage in much discussion with anyone. It's nearly always a circular argument with you. JB took you to task in another thread and you stopped engaging with him, despite him clearly explaining his objections to your assertions.

But hey, maybe this will be different.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: Composition of the Sun?

« on: May 22, 2017, 07:50:24 AM »

Oh boy, we're back to the ole' hard-done-by shtick where "nobody listens" and everyone "plucks things out of context". Yawn!

Here's a wild thought JR: maybe we're confused about your "model" because very little makes any logical sense and that there are yawning gaps in your ideas and exceedingly little detail about important things, like for instance, sunrise and sunset.

I've told you this before, but your conjecture leaves so much room for interpretation, it's laughable that you claim things in your model are "rigorously defined". Again, back to the sunrise/sunset, this is what you say to explain it:

In the very center, we will have the Sun. The largest (at the core of the aetheric flow), which rotates. Its image will be projected to the top and bottom, and it will rotate on the spot due to the whirlpool. As it turns, the location we view it to be will vary, until it faces away from us: at that point, we will observe a sunset, as the non-illuminated rock faces the flow of aether that carries the sunlight. There will also be a slight variation in vertical inclination as the Earth tilts, varying with the time of the year. This causes the seasons, and acts as an analogue to the classical FE answer: the light of the Sun (and the stars) is sometimes more directed to the northern hemiplane, and sometimes more directed to the southern.

Now, I know I'm not the only one who doesn't understand what the hell I just read. You actually believe this explanation is clear and "logically follows" from your evidence-free assertions about a non-existent "aether". It's absolutely laughable. Do you honestly believe this "explanation" is scientific? How is the sun "facing away" from the flow of aether? Why is the sun observed to appear and disappear from the top-down and bottom-up for a sunrise and sunset, respectively? How is this in any way compatible with your explanation of it "facing away from us"? How?!?

Secondly, since you objected to this being posted in the other thread, I'll post here it here again:

Apparently, the sun, moon & most/all of the observable universe exists in a "low concentration of aether" at the center of the Earth, between our two pizza-hemidisks. You then go on to say that there is "there is no distance between the top, and the bottom" which then must mean that most/all of the observable universe exists in literally no space at all. I'm using your own logic here and taking it to its own logical conclusion. If no space (ie. "distance") exists between the hemidisks, how can objects exist in this no space? It should be noted that you don't even say, for instance, infinitesimally small distance/space between these two points; you literally say no distance/space.

Again, there is so much nonsense to deal with in your model, it's really hard to even articulate what exactly I'm struggling with because it's all so... incoherent. That's the best way to describe it. Maybe if you made a few more diagrams about sunrise/sunset, I could better grasp just what the hell you're talking about.

 

13

Flat Earth General / Re: How is Massive Brainwashing accomplished and how can we neutralize it for all?

« on: May 22, 2017, 04:05:59 AM »

I vote this as candidate for the most insipid post on the internet for 2017. Your entire rant is just one big fallacy after another: arguments from ignorance, arguments from incredulity etc. All you've done is lumped everything together and dismissed it out of hand as "lies" and deceit whilst claiming that those who challenge your bullshit conclusions are either trying to "muddy the waters" or are just fear mongering and trying to stop others from discovering the twoof!

Of course, it all makes sense now!

Yes, people lie and yes, there are real conspiracies that happen all the time, but to lump just about everything you know together and arbitrarily dismiss it out-of-hand as either lies or obfuscation is beyond absurd. By all means continue on in this vein but just know that reality operates independent to your understanding of it. It simply doesn't care about your incredulity, ignorance or stupidity.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: DET Evidence Challenge: Make Me Leave

« on: May 22, 2017, 02:31:00 AM »

Your entire 'model' relies on aether without which you have a fuckload of phenomenon to explain. As Mikey already touched on, you use aether to bend and transport light; simulate gravity; bend/contract/fold 'space'; affect and move mass but apparently exerts no friction whilst doing so; form 'whirlpools' and fuck knows whatever else you've decided. It is incoherent psychobabble at best and needn't be 'refuted' by anyone because there is literally nothing to refute.

Apparently, the sun, moon & most/all of the observable universe exists in a "low concentration of aether" at the center of the Earth, between our two pizza-hemidisks. You then go on to say that there is "there is no distance between the top, and the bottom" which then must mean that most/all of the observable universe exists in literally no space at all. I'm using your own logic here and taking it to its own logical conclusion. If no space (ie. "distance") exists between the hemidisks, how can objects exist in this no space? It should be noted that you don't even say, for instance, infinitesimally small distance/space between these two points; you literally say no distance/space.

I'm sure, of course, that I'm just mistaken, stupid and/or lying in trying to comprehend what you call a model. I'm sure you'll correct me on this misconception and I'm sure it'll have something to do with aether.

One of my favourite things about your wall of rambling text is how you spend so much effort going into semantics about evidence. It's very clear you know you have zero evidence for the batshit you propagate, so you must come up with a laboured meaning for something that is already very clearly defined. The only thing you're right about in your "Evidence" section is that an observation may have multiple explanations. Correct, it could! That's why we have experiments which are carefully designed, repeated and carried out by multiple parties to explain the observation, something conspicuously absent from anything you've done for your fantasy and something you will never do.

Thusly, your rambling bullshit is dismissed out of hand as claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Your semantics argument notwithstanding, you provide no physical or mathematical evidence for anything you assert, rendering your challenge meaningless. You don't have a "theory" or a "model" so please try again.

Do rockets launched into space count as evidence?

All of space is a perpetrated hoax, according to him.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: Where is your "map?"

« on: May 03, 2017, 05:04:22 PM »

I am sorry if understanding this incredibly simple concept is too challenging for you. Keep working at it friend, you just may figure it out someday. Best of luck!

I always find it funny when FE retards (redundancy of words there, tbh) like yourself attempt to be derisive towards others. As laughable as it is, I can understand it: must be hard being in such a tiny minority of people whereby you can only discuss your bizarre, evidence-free beliefs in the deepest recesses of the web without ridicule. I think that sort of explains your passive-aggressive, all-rhetoric-and-no-substance style of (shit)posting.

Anyway, we're all still waiting on a FE map that matches reality even if only a little bit. Then again Junker, don't trouble your tiny mind in trying to come up with a working FE model/map because the global model works just fine.

I'm just sayin'.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Undeniable Flat Earth Evidence 5/2/17

« on: May 03, 2017, 04:16:40 PM »

I got about 3 minutes before I had to stop before I got some form of cancer.

As per usual when it comes to the case for a FE: arguments from incredulity; quotes from scientists taken out of context; morons making moronic arguments... yea, how hasn't this shit not gone viral yet?

If the arbitrary expectations of the worlds least educated and intelligent people aren't met on subjects they have little to no understanding of, there must be a global conspiracy to hide the twoof from the ignorant masses. Sounds legit.

PS- I highly, highly doubt that video has any evidence whatsoever of a FE. If it does, would you perhaps present it here in your own words?

17

Flat Earth General / Re: Best footage yet of space x launch and landing.

« on: May 01, 2017, 08:36:46 AM »

Thanks for the video; I missed this launch

Events like these will continue to happen with more and more frequency and no matter how many camera angles there are, photographs taken by amateurs and/or professionals or eyewitness testimonies, it will never be good enough for the cretins who deny this is a reality.

Those machines are awesome!

That venting just before launch make it look like they're alive.

Yeah, that thing had some serious gas. I was wondering why it farted so much during fall back.

Serious question: do you talk about any of the bullshit you believe in with people in real life and do they do the same thing most on this site do when you post your drivel ie. laugh at you?

Secondly, how does it feel to not have any evidence for any of the nonsense you buy into? I'd imagine it must feel pretty sad or maybe being delusional moron has a fun side I can't quite grasp.

Lastly and on a related note, do you have any evidence to say that what we saw didn't actually happen? Yea, didn't think so.

Next FE retard, please!

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Picture from the edge?

« on: April 28, 2017, 06:44:33 AM »

Well, to be fair, there is no 'model' to speak of. It's a jumbled ad-hoc trash heap of vague ideas arbitrarily strewn together by different people. Very few so-called 'models' have more than one thing in common. This makes any of them impossible to debunk or refute because you can't debunk something that doesn't actually exist. There is no FE 'model' official or otherwise because we all know why they can never settle on any one model: it's because their bullshit ideas are so easily debunked it's much better to just say, "Well, that wasn't our claim anyway!" and shift the goalposts to something else.

I mean, fuck me, they can't even settle on the height of the sun on any fucking model that I've ever seen! And we all know what happens we the 3000 miles claim is refuted.. ditto.

jamesrohr1, don't be discouraged by this thread. It can be very rough for first-timers on this site as to how things actually work around here. As you've just experienced, you'll find it's almost impossible to distinguish a FE-believer from a troll and that semantics and syntax are the things they love to debate the most. It may not seem like it now, but there is truly a lot of entertainment to be had with these dunderheads and their laughably asinine claims.

My suggestion would be to stick around and have fun with it 

But you can debunk them.
All FE models have common flaws.
For example, the existence of the north and south celestial poles, always 180 degrees apart, completely contradicts any possible modern FE model.
In order to have both, you need to go back to the ancient ones where Earth is just a small section of what it really is, for example, denying the existence of everything on Earth outside of Belgium, or deny the existence of the celestial poles. Both require denying aspects of reality observed and confirmed by so many people it isn't funny.

Oh yes, I agree with you. However, only their claims can be debunked, there are no models to refute/debunk because none exist. The only one that comes close for me is JD's and that is really nothing more than a glorified, convoluted spherical earth, anyway.

Just out of curiosity, how many different explanations are there for gravity or this forum alone? I've counted 5 at least and all of which were mutually exclusive. So, yea, it's really hard to pin any one FE down on one claim they make, because they all make different claims.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Picture from the edge?

« on: April 28, 2017, 04:51:17 AM »

This quote is from the forums very own FAQ. But keep moving the goal posts. It seems like that is par for the course here.

"As seen in the diagrams above, the earth is in the form of a disk with the North Pole in the center and Antarctica as a wall around the edge. This is the generally accepted model among members of the society. In this model, circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle around the North Pole."

And not everyone accepts that model.

And yet we've gone on for over two pages. I asserted the earth must be round and provided a method for proving it is flat.

Rather than trying to provide a method to show it can't be flat and can be round.
Your method of proving it is flat is one which only works for one particular model of a flat Earth.

Well, to be fair, there is no 'model' to speak of. It's a jumbled ad-hoc trash heap of vague ideas arbitrarily strewn together by different people. Very few so-called 'models' have more than one thing in common. This makes any of them impossible to debunk or refute because you can't debunk something that doesn't actually exist. There is no FE 'model' official or otherwise because we all know why they can never settle on any one model: it's because their bullshit ideas are so easily debunked it's much better to just say, "Well, that wasn't our claim anyway!" and shift the goalposts to something else.

I mean, fuck me, they can't even settle on the height of the sun on any fucking model that I've ever seen! And we all know what happens we the 3000 miles claim is refuted.. ditto.

jamesrohr1, don't be discouraged by this thread. It can be very rough for first-timers on this site as to how things actually work around here. As you've just experienced, you'll find it's almost impossible to distinguish a FE-believer from a troll and that semantics and syntax are the things they love to debate the most. It may not seem like it now, but there is truly a lot of entertainment to be had with these dunderheads and their laughably asinine claims.

My suggestion would be to stick around and have fun with it 

20

Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX Will Fly a Rocket Back to Earth in Broad Daylight This Weekend

« on: February 19, 2017, 11:20:19 PM »

Absolutely effing scary how people believe this shite but, each to their own fantasy, I suppose.

So, sceptimatic can't explain how a rocket can land back on the earth and that if course proves it false.

I have to hold my hands up and say, you're right, I do not know how they land a rocket back on Earth in an upright position.
Obviously you do because you're an expert and so is anyone who witnesses the footage.
Piss easy, apparently, isn't it?

Would anyone like to place a furnace at the front of their car and accelerating forward into it?
Neither would I to be fair.
How about lay a rocket flat and have it thrust a furnace friom the back end but then also do it at the other end that is much weaker and watch it surge forward into that expelling ignited gases.
Maybe from a distance, eh? Because we know what's going to happen.

How about we send up a rocket that expels burning gases from it's arse end and then stop it at a certain height, then allow it to fall whilst using the same type of expelling, burning gases for the rocket to fall into and land onto?
Yeah, let's do that because that is a massive advance in technology and rocketry.

Or; is it?

Maybe it's an advance in CGI/special effects.

Actually nah. It's not even an advance in that because the actual launches and landings are looking second rate compared to earlier so called massive rocket launches.

It's so mental to think people fall for this but I shouldn't really be surprised when sci-fo films/programmes are the rage; enough to have people adorn their walls and homes with all kinds of posters and effigies of them.
And no, I'm not just talking about kids. I'm talking about the convention goers and those that actually have trouble understanding that it's not real.

Understanding that it's not real. If only some people could/would , then they might actually just treat these rocket launches and landings to and from so called space as sci-fi.
That way it at least keeps everything meaningful, real and everything set out as fantasy but thrown out as real...as easily seen through.

Do you have anything substantive to offer or are we just going to hear your usual arguments from incredulity? If the latter, spare us, please.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: SpaceX Will Fly a Rocket Back to Earth in Broad Daylight This Weekend

« on: February 19, 2017, 11:18:01 PM »

Absolutely effing scary how people believe this shite but, each to their own fantasy, I suppose.

Actually, the really scary thing is how people like you can believe what you believe on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Must be tough.

Fun fact, scepti: Spaceflight has been around for more than 60 years. Not only that, there is mounds of evidence as to not only its existence but also its validity. So I find your attempt at ridicule for those who accept these well-known, verifiable and provable facts somewhat ironically hilarious. You really need to do better than that.

Do you have anything substantive to offer or are we just going to hear your usual arguments from incredulity? If the latter, spare us, please.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: ASTROLOGY and the Flat Earth

« on: February 14, 2017, 02:00:10 PM »

Unknowable, invisible, impotent, inactive, improbable, improvable, inaudible, etc, etc, etc.
Bollocks in my opinion.

Your god will "die" and join the other dead gods...

What a fool you are. God is most certainly provable. Do you think murder is ok? What about lying? Are those things acceptable in your mind? If not, why? God.

God is provable? Mmmm no he isn't otherwise you'd offer up the evidence. Not only that, but which god are you referring to? No doubt it's the one you have faith in.

It really speaks to the insecurity of the religious that they seemingly rarely choose to fly under their true banner of faith. Instead, they choose to pretend that their religion has evidence for the extraordinary claims it makes and/or that all that science proves is how amazing their god was all along.

Odd that, if you had been born in a different country, you would (more than likely) believe in a completely different god. Does that not speak more to indoctrination than the veracity of the religious texts?

You talk like a person who has never heard any counter to the position you hold ever. Do you really think the human species got to where we were before the commandments were handed down thinking that rape, pillage, theft and murder were good things? Please.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: How could this be a HOAX?

« on: February 14, 2017, 01:01:23 PM »

Unfortunately human beings are ultra gullible. We believe official explanations. We respect authority, on the whole, even if at times it is grudgingly.
We idolise people put before us, whether it's  acclaimed scientists or pop stars or fooballing stars...in fact name anything that projects a fellow human into our visual and mindset.

The scary part is, it doesn't just stop at idolising human beings. We idolise cartoon characters. And I don't mean just kids either.

Then we have the on-going soaps that people regularly watch and spend the next day gossiping about with like-minded people. People actually talking as if the scenes are literally real life scenes, to the point that some people will actually attack a soap star who's played a baddie or whatever.

I've seen many people in tears over story lines as I bet you all have.

So it's not remotely beyond the realms of any possibility that we are also sold stories and films of space and all the rest of the crap.
It makes for exciting viewing. The music added in and the sharp tone of the voices of the narrators. A bit of slow motion rocket lift off's to heighten the tension.

Add in many series of lost in space and star trek/star wars and all the rest of it and we can go anywhere you want to go if the Hollywood special effects department are given the go ahead by the puppet masters.

We live in a world where humans? play out different games with the gullible populations of Earth.
Excite and scare in the right proportions to keep the masses moving in the direction set out.

All the space stuff is complete and utter bollocks but the frenzy crews are always out in force to tell us all different.

Impotent frustration is what I would call this meaningless word salad. It must be indeed frustrating to not be able to provide evidence for literally anything you say.

By all means prattle on with your nonsense and keep living in your tiny fantasy world. Just please know that the earth and the universe operate and exist independent of your understanding of them.

You're really like every other FE'er on here, despite having your own made-up-bullshit 'model': You think an inability to understand something means obfuscation and/or collusion.

You seem to think that scientists tell us this is how it is and that the discussion ends there. Needless to say, you couldn't be more wrong. Not only is science subject to internal regulation through peer-review, something like the shape of the planet can also be investigated by any regular person with a bit of know-how... and guess what? The evidence checks out; the earth is an oblate spheroid. Always has been, always will be.

I honestly hope you don't waste your life with this gibberish, scepti.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: DET: Come at me

« on: February 08, 2017, 09:36:06 PM »

Aside from just saying I have issues with just about everything your model (sic) presents and that such ideas that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, I'll be specific.

The sun, moon and planets follow on from the equator. As far as a diagram goes, it is physically impossible to draw such a thing in 2-D. If there is a part of the text-based explanation that you don't understand, please let me know. I could give an illustration with four pins, a piece of card and an elastic band, but it's exceedingly difficult to draw that.
But as far as the rest goes, it doesn't matter what you find easy to 'buy,' what matters is what's logically consistent. I don't 'rely on aether when things are otherwise unexplainable,' aether is a well-defined and explained aspect to the model that is crucial, yes, but it is a reasonable answer because it is well-defined. Objecting to it simply because it's used to answer objections isn't logical. It is an entity that is defined simply at the start, little more than appending one trait to something we know exists, and the consequences follow.

Simply saying that the sun, moon and planets follow on from the equator is far from a satisfactory or sufficient answer. How does it follow on? You've gone from A-Z in one bound, then simply declare that "It follows!". The amount of handwaving is breathtaking.

The formation of the Earth, moon, stars and other planets in your incoherent-wall-of-rambling-text model does not 'follow on' from the 'properties of aether'. Unless you've left out some rather lengthy and detailed explanations about aether and your space dust, there is no logical connection between aether flowing (for arguments sake, let's just accept it) and the formation of a DE, the sun & moon in the middle of the DE and the formation of the stars in aetheric whirlpools above a DE. Where is the follow on? What am I missing? There is no connection between aether flows & space dust to the formation of the Earth and everything we observe.

Again, for the sake of argument, I'm happy to just concede the existence of aether and your space dust. Now, could you attempt to coherently explain how you get from that to a DE, the sun, moon and the stars? I ask because your Overview does little more than assert that these things happen, rather than offer something substantive and/or falsifiable.

Once you cover that, I have questions about sunrise and sunset.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: UA vs Denpressure

« on: January 31, 2017, 09:47:55 AM »

I honestly think you're causing scepti much more harm than good; certainly in the long run, at least.
...
I'm sorry, but I think your objections are flat-out wrong. Why shouldn't idiocy like denpressure be patronized, especially when its creator is one of the most patronizing individuals on this board?

Yeah, you can stop pretending you actually care.

Oh good, I was getting tired with the effort of keeping up such a pretense.

Why do you consider critically challenging such evidence-free opinion so (seemingly) wrong to do so? I know you have issues with the quality of argument from time to time, but these purported models aren't describing a hypothetical world, they're meant to be describing reality, and yet you take exception to bringing up established scientific evidence in a discussion (or what passes for it around here)? You assert people start off thinking that a non-RE/Newtonian model is wrong, and you may be right, but the inference here is that you view skepticism as a bad thing. Do you honestly think such demonstrably and empirically incorrect ideas be given the benefit of the doubt, especially when all of them make fantastic claims with no evidence whatsoever?

I think that if you're going to mount an argument against a model, it needs to be an informed argument. I also think that if you're going to object to a model, you need to provide raw evidence rather than "It's not the same as (completely different model literally no one's claiming it's the same as)."

Raw evidence? You mean, the evidence that is rejected out-of-hand a priori by scepti and FE'ers alike? I'm sure you'd agree that, if you could reason with flat earthers, they wouldn't be flat earthers. I mean, how else are you meant to discuss things with these people?

I would say the majority of GE posters on this board are more than reasonable in discussions with FE'ers. You've got A2O, Rab, Rayzor, JB, markjo, MFs, Boots, sok, DS etc all of whom present well thought-out arguments and are usually very patient in the face of the usual slew of ad hominems from FE'ers. Dare I even make a short list of the most prominent FE'ers who post on this board? Because it's not pretty at all and really just demonstrates my point: the quality & integrity disparity between the FE & GE posters is starkly in favour of the GE'ers.

Surely even you would agree with this.

Walk before you can run. If you don't put any effort into understanding how the model applies to a hypothetical world, there's no purpose in trying to leap ahead and apply it to reality, you're doomed before you even start. There's no point in asking for evidence if you have no idea what the evidence is meant to be for.

Again, these models are compared to the real world, not hypothetical ones. They're actively trying to replace the working model with ad hoc nonsense. I can hardly understand your objection because, when asked to explain a sunset on a FE, what else are we comparing it to but the real world?? What is your suggestion?

I only ever object to the standard of so-called arguments, more often than not they're just insults masquerading as an argument that doesn't hold when any kind of actual knowledge about the model in question is applied.

Ideas about a FE deserve ridicule, particularly in this day and age. In fact, FE'ers are lucky people even engage them in discussion about it all. Why should such primitive, backward bullshit be treated with respect especially (as I mentioned before) if such bullshit is disseminated to other ignorant, gullible people? Should people like jeranism be treated with respect?

26

Flat Earth General / Re: UA vs Denpressure

« on: January 30, 2017, 08:29:58 PM »

I very much disagree with this. I think the arguments put to sceptimatic are scientifically literate on the whole. Some people arguing with him make mistakes, of course, but mostly it's accurate science, at least within the assumption of Newtonian gravitation, which I would say is fine in the relevant contexts.

No, that's fundamentally incoherent. It would be like arguing that gravity can't exist because of UA. If people are explaining the RE model, sure that makes sense, i'm with you, but when people argue against denpressure by just assuming it's wrong and not trying to deal with the answers, that's just idiocy.

Not to mention the enormous amount of patience that his opposition show in the face of repeated and continual accusations of dishonesty, indoctrination and weakness of brain. The irony leaps off the screen.

It's very rare Scepti's the one that starts that. Look at the at-best patronizing tone REers address him with.

I honestly think you're causing scepti much more harm than good; certainly in the long run, at least.

By getting him to explain his (delusional) model you are, in a way, reinforcing his belief in it even if he understands you don't accept his ideas critically. In what way is this helpful? You know it has no basis in reality; you're just intellectually curious about the 'model'. Imagine if we all did that, and not just about denpressure but about backward nonsense like FE, too. Would not such bullshit propagate much more rapidly if it wasn't called into question?

Reminds me of religion, to be honest: Don't question the doctrine, just accept it all on faith.

Why do you consider critically challenging such evidence-free opinion so (seemingly) wrong to do so? I know you have issues with the quality of argument from time to time, but these purported models aren't describing a hypothetical world, they're meant to be describing reality, and yet you take exception to bringing up established scientific evidence in a discussion (or what passes for it around here)? You assert people start off thinking that a non-RE/Newtonian model is wrong, and you may be right, but the inference here is that you view skepticism as a bad thing. Do you honestly think such demonstrably and empirically incorrect ideas be given the benefit of the doubt, especially when all of them make fantastic claims with no evidence whatsoever?

I'm sorry, but I think your objections are flat-out wrong. Why shouldn't idiocy like denpressure be patronized, especially when its creator is one of the most patronizing individuals on this board?

edit: grammar

27

Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity

« on: January 27, 2017, 11:08:42 PM »

I think I'm catching on to this whole denpressure thing. It really has more to do with density than anything else.

I think it has more to do with absolute vacuum, of the kind found in some people's heads

True, but be careful around scepti when mentioning the word vacuum.. it seems to draw his ire 

28

Flat Earth General / Re: Air Pressure vs Gravity

« on: January 27, 2017, 11:07:07 PM »

Skip to 2:50 and see how the density of a material will displace the real amount of water.
The only way a volume of air inside any object will displace water is if energy is applied to it, which is a falsity in itself in terms of measurement.

So what do you say about the charge I levy against you that it's very clear to anyone who knows your MO (and like most FE'ers, anyway) that you would reject the video you posted if it went against denpressure? Because it's not even remotely controversial to say that any video/demonstration/experiment that destroys denpressure you reject out-of-hand a priori.

You're a dishonest charlatan.

You also attempt to muddy the waters by bringing gravity into a discussion about displacement. What does gravity have to do with how much volume an object will displace in water? Since I've called you on this, and if your past behaviour is anything to go by, you'll now dogmatically defend bringing gravity into this discussion of which it has no real place.

Since everyone else has thoroughly destroyed your 'ideas' about displacement (as well as denpressure itself), I'll just leave it there.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Is this video real?

« on: January 27, 2017, 06:47:28 PM »

Why are most flat earthers completely devoid of any sense of scale, proportion or perspective?

Because they're flat-earthers. See how that works?   

I think you have cause and effect swapped around.

They're flat-earthers because they are completely devoid of any sense of scale, proportion or perspective.

Ah yes, very true! I completely misread what you said.

 

30

Flat Earth General / Re: My thoughts on the "Real Map" because UN Map obv. isn't correct

« on: January 27, 2017, 02:44:32 PM »

 

What's also interesting, is Noah's Ark came to rest in the Mountains of Ararat in Turkey after the flood. All of the nations of the world descended from Turkey when the people followed Nimrod into the wilderness. They later built the Tower of Babel in the plain.

Noah's ark has been so thoroughly refuted and debunked as to be not even thought of as allegory, let alone historical fact. It is pure drivel.

I suggest you read some books outside of the biblical texts. You might actually learn something about reality for once.