61

Flat Earth General / Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

« on: August 21, 2015, 07:44:58 PM »

lol, jroa, the local enforcing of the NEC is not the same as the state adopting it as law as you have stated lol.

Banzai

If every locality in a state enforces it, then it is statewide, dumb-dumb, even if the state does not mandate it. 

Wahooo

But that is not what you said.  You said by the state.  Not in the state.  Maybe you should be learn to proofread before you comment eh?

Also, what about, Illinois, for instance, that has only enacted it for localities that don't have their own Code?

62

Flat Earth General / Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

« on: August 21, 2015, 07:31:32 PM »

Thanks for letting me know. Unfortunately, that's wrong, too.

The state of Indiana adopted the 2008 NEC with amendments by deleting any requirements for Tamper Resistant and by deleting AFCI.

This isn't the only example of the adopted rules being less stringent than the original code. Just so you know.

lol, Arc Flash Protection is mandated by NFPA 70E, so it is redundant to also mandate it in NFPA 70.  So it makes sense for them to delete the redundancy.

lol, you think that AFCI is arc flash protection.  Maybe you should go learn what it is before you comment.  lol.

Also, maybe you should also learn that some jurisdictions don't follow the NEC but have their own electrical code that they follow. lol

63

Flat Earth General / Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

« on: August 21, 2015, 07:25:07 PM »

NFPA 70 (NEC) has been adopted by all 50 states as law.

Then what about Arizona, Missouri, and Mississippi?  With no statewide adoption of the NEC?  Seems to me that you need to research your blanket statements better before post them.
http://www.jade1.com/jadecc/nec_code_adoption.php

Yeehawww

So you working on a new catch phrase?  I think you better keep working.

lol, BJ, the states you listed do not mandate which version of the code is used at the state level.  That is not the same as saying that the entire state has not adopted the code at the local level.   

lol, jroa, the local enforcing of the NEC is not the same as the state adopting it as law as you have stated lol.

Banzai

64

Flat Earth General / Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

« on: August 21, 2015, 02:00:39 PM »

NFPA 70 (NEC) has been adopted by all 50 states as law.

Then what about Arizona, Missouri, and Mississippi?  With no statewide adoption of the NEC?  Seems to me that you need to research your blanket statements better before post them.
http://www.jade1.com/jadecc/nec_code_adoption.php

Yeehawww

So you working on a new catch phrase?  I think you better keep working.

65

Flat Earth General / Re: Plastic RF Filters are possible - proof to Rayzor

« on: August 17, 2015, 06:08:10 AM »

The caps are not in parallel, they are in series, idiot.  Rayzor confirmed this.  I suppose that you think you are smarter than a couple of engineers who do this for a living.  Maybe we can now discuss the RF circuit that everyone else is discussing?  Or, maybe we can just hear your hair brained ideas about what is and what is not a series circuit?

I have never said they were in parallel.  I have just mentioned that they are not in series.  I have also shown why I believe this.  All you have don is ad hominems and assertions.  Also, from what I have read, Rayzor did not say that ALL the caps are in series, just the ones in the signal.  You also might need to go back to basic electronics class and relearn some things.  Because you seem to think that this circuit is a series circuit, when it is clearly not.

66

Flat Earth General / Re: Plastic RF Filters are possible - proof to Rayzor

« on: August 16, 2015, 08:26:07 PM »

Once again, you are not understanding what was written. Your reading comprehension lacks severely.
Rayzor was asking you about non-conductive antenna and RF filters.  You then went on and gave an example of a plastic RF filter that is electroplated with copper and silver.  Which, to me, supports his claim that non-conductive antenna and RF filters are not available.  Unless you are claiming that copper and silver are non-conductive.

They can be simply made from rectified charged ceramic . But that technology is way beyond your pay bracket. 

Strange, I just did a google search of the term rectified charged ceramic, and all that is turning up is a bunch of links for porcelain and other types of tiles.  Could you supply more information about this technology?

67

Flat Earth General / Re: Plastic RF Filters are possible - proof to Rayzor

« on: August 16, 2015, 08:22:55 PM »

OK, jroa, how could all the capacitors in this circuit have the same current going through them?
Let us start from the bottom left and work our way to the top left.  Capacitors will be labels C1 thru C4 starting at the bottom left and working around counter clockwise.

Let us assume that all junctions split the current equally for ease of seeing things.

-Current X enters and splits off into L1, R, and C1.  The current going through C1 is X/3.  It appears that this is the current flowing through all the capacitors according to your statement that all the capacitors are in series.

-Current X/3 then gets split at the next junction point.  So between L2 and C2.  Current flowing through C2 is X/6. 

-Current X/6 then joins up with current from the resistor, which was X/3.  So this current is now X/2.

-Current is now split between going off to the right and through L3.  Which is now X/4.

Now to the upper right.

-Current X/4 from the right joins the current X/4 from L3.  So we have X/2 back there which is flowing through C3.

-So X/2 through C3 now joins up with current X/6 from L2.  We now have a current of 2X/3 flowing through C4.

-This then joins up with the current X/3 from L1.  This brings us back to a current of X.

So now we have the currents flowing through the capacitors.
C1 = X/3
C2 = X/6
C3 = X/2
C4 = 2X/3

So tell me, why would you claim that all the capacitors have the same current flowing through them?
Oh wait, thats right, you are ignoring all the other components in the circuit.  Silly me, I guess we don't need inductors or a resistor in this circuit.

68

Flat Earth General / Re: Plastic RF Filters are possible - proof to Rayzor

« on: August 15, 2015, 08:35:31 PM »

Would someone please explain the difference between series and parallel for BJ1234?

Please show where there are 4 capacitors connected in series would you?  If you could draw the current path, that would be great.

I am on my phone, so I can't draw right now, but remove the inductors and you will see that the caps are in series.  It is not rocket science.

OK, so you remove the inductors.  Tell me, how are the 4 capacitors now I'm series?  I see two sets of two series capacitors.  One of which has a resistor in parallel with it.

69

Flat Earth General / Re: Plastic RF Filters are possible - proof to Rayzor

« on: August 15, 2015, 06:37:12 PM »

Would someone please explain the difference between series and parallel for BJ1234?

Please show where there are 4 capacitors connected in series would you?  If you could draw the current path, that would be great.

70

Flat Earth General / Re: Plastic RF Filters are possible - proof to Rayzor

« on: August 15, 2015, 04:48:08 PM »

Ok, my bad.  So, the individual capacitance is 15 pF, but the are still in series, so the total capacitance would be,1/4 of the individual capacitance.  So, what is the cutoff frequency for the,total capacitance, and what is the cutoff frequency for the total inductance?  Do the calculations, and I am sure you will find that the inductors cutoff well before the caps.

I don't know how you are seeing the capacitors as in series.

There are two capacitors in series and two sets of these in parallel connected on either end and center with inductors.  They are not all in series.

71

Flat Earth General / Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

« on: August 14, 2015, 03:59:16 PM »

It seems these people are contradicting each other. One minute it's a fire brick. There next minute it's a ceramic porous tile and the next minute it's something like loft insulation, except more rigid and as light. 

That is because those materials are very similar.  It is in an attempt at using something familiar to explain something not quite as familiar.

We know we will never get to see the demo in any physical way, because it's a complete an utter load of old tosh.

No, it is more likely because you are too lazy to climb the stairs out of your mom's basement to do anything that would rupture your little bubble that you have created to protect your fragile ego.

72

The Lounge / Re: M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL!

« on: August 12, 2015, 05:24:39 PM »

Yendor's example of a non-conductive RF filter.

73

Flat Earth General / Re: Plastic RF Filters are possible - proof to Rayzor

« on: August 11, 2015, 04:29:06 PM »

Once again, you are not understanding what was written. Your reading comprehension lacks severely.
Rayzor was asking you about non-conductive antenna and RF filters.  You then went on and gave an example of a plastic RF filter that is electroplated with copper and silver.  Which, to me, supports his claim that non-conductive antenna and RF filters are not available.  Unless you are claiming that copper and silver are non-conductive.

74

Flat Earth General / Re: Plastic RF Filters are possible - proof to Rayzor

« on: August 11, 2015, 12:33:05 PM »

Rayzor pretty much called me a liar when I mention plastic RF Filters in one of our debates. I think he said something about rolling all over the floor while laughing and he even called me a clown. Well this one article proves him wrong. In fact it is exactly the way I explained it to him.

Web site:
http://www.cybershieldinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/rfmicrowavehousingapplicationnote.pdf


 RF Filter Housing - Plated Plastic
Problem Current RF Filter Housings are manufactured by die casting and/or machining aluminum to the final dimensions, then applying Silver plating. The excessive cost to die cast and machine the aluminum housings has caused RF Filter OEM’s to evaluate lower cost injection molded and plated housings. Cybershield Solution Cybershield has teamed with SABIC Plastics to develop an injection molded plastic and plated RF Filter Housing. SABIC Plastics has developed Ultem 3452, which has outstanding dimensional stability needed to mold to the precise dimensions required for the RF Filter Housing. Other plastic resins may also be
suitable for RF Filter applications, including Polycarbonate, Liquid Crystal Polymer to name a few. Cybershield applies All-Over Copper electroless plating, which is subsequently Silver plated to provide identical electrical properties as machined aluminum. Based on evaluations to date, plated plastic RF Filter Housings offer >20% cost reduction compared to aluminum and are approximately 40% lighter.

These RF filters are not solely plastic.  They are plated with copper and silver. Pertinent information bolded in your own quote.  Learn to comprehend what you are reading before trying to call someone out.

75

Flat Earth General / Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

« on: August 08, 2015, 02:00:47 PM »

To get the whole block white hot they had to leave it in the oven for over two hours, which is far longer than re-entry ever lasts. Heat will flow through the blocks but extremely slowly.

As for the other block they sit on, that will take a fair while to cool as it has a very high heat capacity as it is a solid slab, although the temperature will be more uniform throughout as it should conduct heat more easily.

They put it in an oven not a blast furnace.

Actually, modern blast furnaces only heat to around 900-1300 degrees C, so that oven was much hotter than a blast furnace.

Your re-entry so called shuttle and it's super tiles are coming in like a blast furnace, supposedly, so this 2 hours heating time is clap trap because if those tiles were 90% air and 10% silica then they would absorb the super friction of re-entry as told to us and the thing would simply melt like a blob of molten metal.

Umm...  Scepti, do you understand that the purpose of insulation is to keep the heat from transferring from one region to another, don't you?  Although the surface of the tiles can dissipate heat fairly quickly, the rest of the tile transfers heat very slowly. 

The real silly part is that Felix Baumgartner at supposedly 128,000 feet and falling 800 mph as we are told..feels nothing upon his body because he's falling though a vacuum at 128,000 feet and yet this shuttle re-entry is like a frigging furnace, allegedly.

That's because Felix wasn't traveling several times the speed of sound. 

Anyway that seems to divert a little so let's stick to the super absorbing tiles and the re-entry friction we are told about.
They simply can't work. It's clear nonsense.

That's because the shuttle's insulating tiles were designed to not absorb heat.

If they were designed not to absorb heat then they wouldn't have made them as porous as they did.

So why is fiberglass insulation, and other types of insulation usually extremely porous?

Look up insulation.

I have installed plenty of insulation.  There is a reason that it is called glass wool insulation.  I would hope you could figure that one out.

76

Flat Earth General / Re: It's 2015 and you aren't even close to owning a Spaceship

« on: August 07, 2015, 07:23:08 PM »

To get the whole block white hot they had to leave it in the oven for over two hours, which is far longer than re-entry ever lasts. Heat will flow through the blocks but extremely slowly.

As for the other block they sit on, that will take a fair while to cool as it has a very high heat capacity as it is a solid slab, although the temperature will be more uniform throughout as it should conduct heat more easily.

They put it in an oven not a blast furnace.

Actually, modern blast furnaces only heat to around 900-1300 degrees C, so that oven was much hotter than a blast furnace.

Your re-entry so called shuttle and it's super tiles are coming in like a blast furnace, supposedly, so this 2 hours heating time is clap trap because if those tiles were 90% air and 10% silica then they would absorb the super friction of re-entry as told to us and the thing would simply melt like a blob of molten metal.

Umm...  Scepti, do you understand that the purpose of insulation is to keep the heat from transferring from one region to another, don't you?  Although the surface of the tiles can dissipate heat fairly quickly, the rest of the tile transfers heat very slowly. 

The real silly part is that Felix Baumgartner at supposedly 128,000 feet and falling 800 mph as we are told..feels nothing upon his body because he's falling though a vacuum at 128,000 feet and yet this shuttle re-entry is like a frigging furnace, allegedly.

That's because Felix wasn't traveling several times the speed of sound. 

Anyway that seems to divert a little so let's stick to the super absorbing tiles and the re-entry friction we are told about.
They simply can't work. It's clear nonsense.

That's because the shuttle's insulating tiles were designed to not absorb heat.

If they were designed not to absorb heat then they wouldn't have made them as porous as they did.

So why is fiberglass insulation, and other types of insulation usually extremely porous?

77

Flat Earth General / Re: What if you were approached by a government agent claiming that Earth is flat?

« on: August 07, 2015, 06:08:34 PM »

What if a government agent approached you claiming that Earth us flat and that there is a conspiracy to hide it, and that you will be paid $1,000,000 a year to keep it under your hat. 

This is even less plausible than Heiwa paying the million he owes you!

What's the logic of spontaneously bringing someone into a conspiracy and then paying hush money to keep them quiet about it?

Cronyism.  You are obviously the agents buddy, and you will be giving this agent a kickback of 100,000 dollars out of the million.

78

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Malware Tester

« on: July 24, 2015, 02:04:41 PM »

Okay, it's malware that doesn't harm you. Are you both happy now, ladies?

I don't use linux because of compatibility.  Wine is only so good.
rm -rf /

And that is what I have been trying to explain to him.

79

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Malware Tester

« on: July 23, 2015, 07:10:30 PM »

Malware is software written with a malicious purpose. 

Incorrect.  Malware is

software intended to damage a computer, mobile device, computer system, or computer network, or to take partial control over its operation

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

If software is written to test, and therefore fix, security issues, then where is the malicious intent? 

Doesn't need one.  Was the software intended to damage the system or take partial control over it?  Notice the definition does not include the word malicious in it.

There are many hackers who make a living by breaking into systems.  Not for the purpose of doing harm, but for the purpose of showing where security flaws are located.  Should we prosecute these "white hat hackers" the same as we prosecute the "black hat hackers"?  No, because the companies invite them to try to hack their systems, compesate them for their time, and then use the knowledge gained to strengthen their security. 

 
And in order to test and break into the systems, the white hat hackers try to create software to damage or take partial control of the system.  Or in other words, they write malware to attack the system.

Dont pretend that all hackers are bad,

I am not, and not even sure why you brought this up.  Even the good hackers write malware.

and don't pretend that any software that exploits a vulnerability is malicous, and therefore malware.

Well, sorry,if a program is written to exploit a vulnerability it is malware, weather the intent is to be malicious or to help the company fix their vulnerabilities.  So yes, it is malware.

80

Flat Earth General / Re: Pluto, I'll call it now.

« on: July 22, 2015, 03:01:49 PM »

Scepti, I'll say it now. If they reclassify Pluto as a planet but not Eris, I will eat 10 pounds of sawdust on stream then cut both my arms off.

Point is, we have rules now for how a planet is defined. Pluto does not fit the bill. If we were to change the rules to include Pluto, it would also have to include other Kuiper belt objects like Eris and the asteroid Ceres.

You don't have to go that far. I understand your naivety and I don't hold you entirely responsible for being so naive. I blame your life of severe indoctrination that you simply can't get away from.

After being here for a short while, you should be under no illusions about the lies you're told, so of you continue being or acting naive, then you're not here to understand anything, only to promote the lies.

There's no such thing as planets which means there's no such thing as pluto as a planet...BUT, the issue isn't about that. The issue is about reclassifying the fictional dwarf planet as a full on planet once again and believe me, they're not going to fill you full of bullshit about a 9 year mission just to keep it as an insignificant dwarf planet or whatever. Nahhhhh, this is going to run its course...you just sit back and watch the shenanigans with this pile of crap.

Do you have some sort of timeframe for when Pluto will be reclassified? By the end of the year? by 2020? by 3000? Your prediction means nothing unless you also predict when it will happen.

It's hard to predict when a bunch of jokers are going to come up witth the next selection of bullshit  but I'll hazard a guess.

I predict that pluto the (fictional) dwarf planet will be reclassified as a (fictional) planet before the new year.

Which new year?  2016?  Please put a date on it so you can't weasel out of it by saying you didn't specify the year and really meant 2030 or some such year.

81

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Malware Tester

« on: July 21, 2015, 08:09:45 PM »

People find

Just install Linux and problem solved.

Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats
Just because they are less prevalent, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Did you happen to read the part of your link that said few, if any, are actually found in the wild?

Did you happen to read the list of malware for linux?

Is it really malware if it is not found anywhere exept in some egghead's computer lab?

WOuld a list of malware include items in it that were not malware?

I did not make the list.  But, apparently the people who made the list did.  Much of that list was from people who wrote the code in order to test security patches.  It was never intended to do any harm.  Another good bit is server specific, so your home computer is not the target.  I am sure we could find something on that list that is malware in the Windows sense, but I am sure you would be hard pressed to find cases where people caught this stuff.  Like I said, even the author said he does not know of any "in the wild" cases.  Seems to be pretty crappy malware if someone has to purposely install it.   

Moving the goal posts I see.  The quality of the malware was not in discussion, just the existence of it, which I have shown evidence for.

I see that you will not even attempt to prove that anyone has ever unintentually been infected by any of the items on your list, which was the whole point of the conversation.  I wonder why?

Since when do you get to decide the point of other people's posts?

The point I was making was that you don't have to worry about about malware and antivirus software on a Linux desktop, to which you decide, unsuccessfully, to prove me wrong.  So yes, I do get to decide what my point was.

But, since when do you get to decide the point of MY post?  Which was to point out there is malware for linux.  WHich you tried to argue against, yet I did solidly provided evidence  that there is.

To which I countered that it is not malware if it is not a threat; it is simply code that was written to take advantage of vulnerabilities in order to test security patches.  It is not written to mess with you or your computer.  I then asked for you to prove me wrong by providing evidence that anyone caught one of these, like Windows users do, because even the author of your list readily admits that he does not know of anyone who has. 

So, if the software is not a threat to you, then it is not malware.  It was coded for a purpose, and that purpose is not to infect your desktop.  Do you see how silly you are being yet?

Yet you had no response as to why something other than malware would be on a list of malware.  The mere fact that these programs exist show that there is malware for linux.  It is still a program that is designed to exploit a security hole.  It is irrelevant how many people have been infected by it.  Yet you still argue that it is not malware.  So who is being silly, the one who acknowledges that malware exists, even if it is not much of a threat, if any, at the moment, or one who blindly believes that their system is 100% safe?

If I recall, only a few years ago, that was one of the claims from Apple propaganda.  That their system was virus/malware free and didn't catch bad things.  Got a bunch of people off guard there didn't it?

82

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Malware Tester

« on: July 21, 2015, 07:35:59 PM »

People find

Just install Linux and problem solved.

Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats
Just because they are less prevalent, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Did you happen to read the part of your link that said few, if any, are actually found in the wild?

Did you happen to read the list of malware for linux?

Is it really malware if it is not found anywhere exept in some egghead's computer lab?

WOuld a list of malware include items in it that were not malware?

I did not make the list.  But, apparently the people who made the list did.  Much of that list was from people who wrote the code in order to test security patches.  It was never intended to do any harm.  Another good bit is server specific, so your home computer is not the target.  I am sure we could find something on that list that is malware in the Windows sense, but I am sure you would be hard pressed to find cases where people caught this stuff.  Like I said, even the author said he does not know of any "in the wild" cases.  Seems to be pretty crappy malware if someone has to purposely install it.   

Moving the goal posts I see.  The quality of the malware was not in discussion, just the existence of it, which I have shown evidence for.

I see that you will not even attempt to prove that anyone has ever unintentually been infected by any of the items on your list, which was the whole point of the conversation.  I wonder why?

Since when do you get to decide the point of other people's posts?

The point I was making was that you don't have to worry about about malware and antivirus software on a Linux desktop, to which you decide, unsuccessfully, to prove me wrong.  So yes, I do get to decide what my point was.

But, since when do you get to decide the point of MY post?  Which was to point out there is malware for linux.  WHich you tried to argue against, yet I did solidly provided evidence  that there is.

83

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Malware Tester

« on: July 21, 2015, 04:48:49 AM »

People find

Just install Linux and problem solved.

Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats
Just because they are less prevalent, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Did you happen to read the part of your link that said few, if any, are actually found in the wild?

Did you happen to read the list of malware for linux?

Is it really malware if it is not found anywhere exept in some egghead's computer lab?

WOuld a list of malware include items in it that were not malware?

I did not make the list.  But, apparently the people who made the list did.  Much of that list was from people who wrote the code in order to test security patches.  It was never intended to do any harm.  Another good bit is server specific, so your home computer is not the target.  I am sure we could find something on that list that is malware in the Windows sense, but I am sure you would be hard pressed to find cases where people caught this stuff.  Like I said, even the author said he does not know of any "in the wild" cases.  Seems to be pretty crappy malware if someone has to purposely install it.   

Moving the goal posts I see.  The quality of the malware was not in discussion, just the existence of it, which I have shown evidence for.

I see that you will not even attempt to prove that anyone has ever unintentually been infected by any of the items on your list, which was the whole point of the conversation.  I wonder why?

Since when do you get to decide the point of other people's posts?

84

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What Is The Worst Flat Earth Fallacy ?

« on: July 20, 2015, 09:39:09 PM »

I nominate sceptimatic.

We are talking about fallacies, not phallus.

85

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Malware Tester

« on: July 20, 2015, 09:36:11 PM »

People find

Just install Linux and problem solved.

Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats
Just because they are less prevalent, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Did you happen to read the part of your link that said few, if any, are actually found in the wild?

Did you happen to read the list of malware for linux?

Is it really malware if it is not found anywhere exept in some egghead's computer lab?

WOuld a list of malware include items in it that were not malware?

I did not make the list.  But, apparently the people who made the list did.  Much of that list was from people who wrote the code in order to test security patches.  It was never intended to do any harm.  Another good bit is server specific, so your home computer is not the target.  I am sure we could find something on that list that is malware in the Windows sense, but I am sure you would be hard pressed to find cases where people caught this stuff.  Like I said, even the author said he does not know of any "in the wild" cases.  Seems to be pretty crappy malware if someone has to purposely install it.   

Moving the goal posts I see.  The quality of the malware was not in discussion, just the existence of it, which I have shown evidence for.

86

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Malware Tester

« on: July 20, 2015, 07:25:20 PM »

People find

Just install Linux and problem solved.

Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats
Just because they are less prevalent, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Did you happen to read the part of your link that said few, if any, are actually found in the wild?

Did you happen to read the list of malware for linux?

Is it really malware if it is not found anywhere exept in some egghead's computer lab?

WOuld a list of malware include items in it that were not malware?

87

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Malware Tester

« on: July 20, 2015, 06:24:28 PM »

Just install Linux and problem solved.

Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats
Just because they are less prevalent, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Did you happen to read the part of your link that said few, if any, are actually found in the wild?

Did you happen to read the list of malware for linux?

88

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Malware Tester

« on: July 20, 2015, 05:32:24 PM »

Just install Linux and problem solved.

Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats
Just because they are less prevalent, doesn't mean they don't exist.

89

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What Is The Worst Flat Earth Fallacy ?

« on: July 20, 2015, 05:30:21 PM »

I would have to go for the fact that there are no flat earth maps.

They exist, the distances just don't add up.

Which brings us to another FE fallacy.  That math is a lie.

90

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What Is The Worst Flat Earth Fallacy ?

« on: July 20, 2015, 03:20:27 PM »

It seems to be a common RE fallacy that there have never been NASA whistle blowers.    I wish you people would do some research and quit making stuff up.

The painter/comedian guy constitutes a singular so called NASA whistleblower claiming the Earth is flat.  So one guy. 

You mean Math Boylan, the guy who claims that NASA used to pay him to fake photos.  But, don't forget the most famous NASA whistle blower, Thomas Baron.  NASA killed him and his whole family the day before he was to testify before congress about NASA's deceit.

You have a strange definition of before.  When his car was struck by a train 6 days AFTER his testimony

Six days after his testimony, Baron was killed instantly, along with his wife and stepdaughter, when a train crashed into their car near their home in Florida

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Baron
Oh and he was blowing the whistle on safety concerns not about the flatness of the earth.

Unless you have some evidence to support your claim...