31

Flat Earth General / Re: Little Man, Big Door

« on: August 26, 2012, 03:13:11 PM »

Found the transcript:
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS17_TEC.PDF

Page 1892 is where we're at in the video.  The voice doing the countdown is one of the astronauts, Harrison Schmitt.  I don't see why his countdown wouldn't match the liftoff considering that the transmission of the video and his voice were subject to the same delay.

32

Flat Earth General / Re: Little Man, Big Door

« on: August 26, 2012, 02:56:46 PM »

The irrefutable observations that have all been refuted already?  I'm not sure what leg you think your argument still has to stand on.

I'm still awaiting an explanation to the time delays. I've heard it due to editing (which it can't be as it was televised live), that it was from the astronauts point of view hence the reason the count match the take off, that it was the controllers point of view hence the reason there is no delay between reply from astronauts, and no explanation at all as to how the speech is fluid with no gaps between the two and that it matches the speed of the video.

Here's a much longer video of the live footage if you're interested #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo 17 Part 7 The LEM Liftoff from The Moon
(liftoff goodness around the 30 minute mark)

I can tell you that the speech doesn't sound very fluid to me, it's quite choppy and sometimes they talk over each other.

I have difficulty telling who is who in these videos, so it's kinda difficult to identify what might be going on with time delays and such.

33

Flat Earth General / Re: Little Man, Big Door

« on: August 26, 2012, 02:24:53 PM »

The irrefutable observations that have all been refuted already?  I'm not sure what leg you think your argument still has to stand on.

34

Flat Earth General / Re: Little Man, Big Door

« on: August 26, 2012, 02:09:15 PM »

The point is that there is no debate to engage in with you because you're not interested in debates or discussions, merely trolling.  You've already shown that you're willing to ignore perfectly good points just because they're brought up by the wrong person.

Maybe this is good advice after all?

The only way to deal with this is to completely ignore his posts regardless of their content.

35

Flat Earth General / Re: Little Man, Big Door

« on: August 26, 2012, 01:52:10 PM »

So you already knew that the footage was being taken by a rover, and that there were previous attempts to track the ascent that had failed?

Because if not, you had no reason to not read markjo's post.  On the other hand, if you did already know, why were you pretending otherwise?

36

Flat Earth General / Re: Little Man, Big Door

« on: August 26, 2012, 01:47:29 PM »

My pointing out to Markjo (again) that I don't want to talk about earth's shape with him (again)

This is a conversation about the moon hoax, not the shape of the earth.

I see no valid reason why you would ignore markjo's post given that it answers one of your questions.

37

Flat Earth General / Re: Little Man, Big Door

« on: August 26, 2012, 01:39:27 PM »

You aren't able to argue my points, so you attack my character? Awful, just awful.

Go away Mr 20,000 posts. We've discussed everything before.

And I reiterate:

I've outted myself as a troll and ultimately a bad one.

38

Flat Earth General / Re: Little Man, Big Door

« on: August 26, 2012, 01:20:03 PM »

Just a reminder to people taking Thork seriously:

I've outted myself as a troll and ultimately a bad one.

39

Flat Earth General / Re: Evidence for a Flat Earth

« on: August 25, 2012, 05:01:20 PM »

I'm sorry, it's strange that the earth is giant 

40

Flat Earth General / Re: How are there timezones

« on: August 24, 2012, 10:58:26 PM »

I think you've missed quite a few points, rushy (intentionally, of course).

The stars and moon are around the same height as the sun, but much dimmer.  Yet we can still see them when they would be just as far away as the setting sun.

The second point you glossed over is the sun lighting up clouds before it's even visible.  If the atmolayer stopping the light of the sun is preventing us from seeing it, why is light from the sun visible on the bottoms of clouds?

41

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Priority of Perception

« on: August 24, 2012, 08:12:40 PM »

(successfully defended = speaker overcame any disputes with data provided)

Overcame them by running away?

42

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Priority of Perception

« on: August 23, 2012, 08:50:50 PM »

Oh wait, I did find the Greenwich Free Press quoted somewhere else, in Punch.  That would be funny if the entire article was satire and Rowbotham didn't realize it.  It certainly reads like satire.

43

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Priority of Perception

« on: August 23, 2012, 08:38:02 PM »

The only content I can find from the Greenwich Free Press is that snippet of an article about Rowbotham.  It ran for ten whole years and we have no idea what sort of paper it was.

I'm having trouble believing scientists were shaking in their boots at the thought of having to face him, so it's likely that more than a little exaggeration was going on there.

44

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the radius of the FE Earth model?

« on: August 22, 2012, 10:11:47 AM »

The lines of longitude are related to the position of the sun at noon equinox. At 0 degrees (equator) the sun is directly overhead. At 45 degrees North the sun has descended 45 degrees in the sky.

If longitude lines are related to the position of the sun at noon equinox, why are you talking about the equator and 45 degrees north?  Those are latitude lines.

Are the lines of latitude evenly spaced?  Because if they represent the position of the sun at noon on the equinox they can't be unless you want to throw out trigonometry (which you've done in the past, so it wouldn't surprise me).

45

Flat Earth General / Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?

« on: August 22, 2012, 10:06:12 AM »

there is no "conspiracy"
NASA as with otehr space agencies are plain just getting it wrong.
Easy to do if you were taught from birth the earth was a sphere.
Soon with Zetetics in space...the truth will be known

I'm pretty sure I've seen this exact post from you before, and never once have you been able to explain how they get a little thing like the shape of the earth wrong yet still manage to get into space, and even go into orbit, despite all their calculations necessarily being wrong.

46

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If a ship/plane travels across the earth

« on: August 22, 2012, 06:59:53 AM »

Flat suns?

Hmm, I'm not sure.  You'll have to ask James for all the juicy details.

47

Flat Earth General / Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.

« on: August 22, 2012, 06:58:19 AM »

No. Weak trolling.

Well at least you admit it.

48

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If a ship/plane travels across the earth

« on: August 22, 2012, 06:31:35 AM »

You would hit the vast, mysterious ice wall, and beyond that dinosaurs and multiple suns.

49

Flat Earth General / Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.

« on: August 22, 2012, 06:18:53 AM »

Speed can be fooled by perception.

Please do elaborate.  This is some weak devil's advocacy you're doing here.

50

Flat Earth General / Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?

« on: August 22, 2012, 06:15:19 AM »

Paranoid schizophrenia does odd things to the way people see the world, yes.

51

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Priority of Perception

« on: August 21, 2012, 08:33:35 PM »

Please remember that Dr. Rowbotham successfully defended his claims in person many times in front of skeptics. 

Except that this didn't happen.

52

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the radius of the FE Earth model?

« on: August 21, 2012, 08:31:09 PM »

Don't be pedantic.  You'd be able to see enough to judge their dimensions.  I obviously don't need to be able to see all parts of a tennis ball at once to be able to measure that its diameter is about 2.63 inches.

Except that your estimates of the diameters of the sun/moon rely on knowing the distance to them, and oddly enough the answer to that question always comes up differently depending on who's doing the calculating and where they're doing it.

53

Flat Earth General / Re: ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.

« on: August 21, 2012, 06:48:47 PM »

A 227 ton man-made space vehicle? Please, this isn't Stargate.

You've been told already that argumentum ad ridiculum is no defence in this thread. Repeating the same stuff won't make you more correct.

Interesting that Ichi has gone quiet when asked to defend his two conflicting statements that the ISS both looks like a plane and has a big branch of solar panels. I suggest that he was not truthful about observing it with his telescope.
Not one person has presented any refutation of my original post that the ISS can be proved to be an object in orbit and not an aircraft, regardless of what it looks like up close, simply from its positions and movements.
Another win for RE.

False.
All you've shown is that you can see an object in the sky.  You have no evidence to say it is at the altitude needed for orbit.  It could easily be a large plane with a flat bottom that's painted to resemble what you would ordinarily see.  The fuel could easily be delivered while the ISS was over an ocean where there are virtually no viewers.

Easily?  I think you should look up the definition of that word, and then look up how many places in the world you can see the ISS and the speed it would need to be going at.

54

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Priority of Perception

« on: August 21, 2012, 05:16:48 PM »

FYI, Krista, Mr Pseudonym is trolling.  He often makes exaggerated claims about FET and then disappears from a thread when any real debate starts.

55

Flat Earth General / Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?

« on: August 21, 2012, 05:02:06 PM »

Or you can overlook all the small details that prove the hoax. And keep on believing the lies.

Except that they don't prove a hoax.  If you have the right paranoid mindset, anything can seem sinister.

#noexternalembed" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">What is Gangstalking?

Are you convinced by the narrator in this video, hoppy?

Everyone else watch that video, too, it's fascinating stuff.

56

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the radius of the FE Earth model?

« on: August 21, 2012, 04:50:28 PM »

we can use his shadow experiment to estimate Flat Earth figures for the diameter of the earth

How?

Let's take a look at the wiki page here:

Syene and Alexandria are two North-South points with a distance of 500 nautical miles. Eratosthenes discovered through the shadow experiment that while the sun was exactly overhead of one city, it was 7°12' south of zenith at the other city.

7°12' makes a sweep of 1/25th of the FE's total longitude from 90°N to 90°S (radius).

Therefore we can take the distance of 500 nautical miles, multiply by 25, and find that the radius of the Flat Earth is about 12,250 nautical miles. Doubling that figure for the diameter we get a figure of 25,000 miles.

There are many problems here, but let's start with the bolded section first.  Obviously longitude should be latitude there.  It's a small mistake and who cares.

What I would like to know is how are lines of latitude related to the position of the sun in FET?

This article seems to be saying that if I go up 7 degrees, 12 minutes in latitude, that the sun's position will shift by that much.  If that's so, are lines of latitude evenly spaced apart in FET?

Secondly, how do you know these lines go to 90 degrees north and 90 degrees south?

57

Flat Earth General / Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?

« on: August 21, 2012, 07:45:29 AM »

Thanks for posting this Tom. Maybe someone will watch it and see the space programs lies for what they are.

Or they'll watch it and realize the Truth, which is that if you spend enough time poring endlessly over anything you'll probably find small details that look weird.  So either everything ever is a hoax, or we should be expecting a bit more out of silly videos like this before believing such things.

58

Flat Earth General / Re: How do Flat Earth Theorists explain Yuri Gagarin?

« on: August 21, 2012, 04:39:21 AM »

The Apollo astronauts were even saying that they couldn't see stars from the moon.

Do you have a source for this?  I've heard that they're no brighter than on earth (i.e. difficult to see if there's any light pollution) but not that they were absent.

59

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the radius of the FE Earth model?

« on: August 21, 2012, 04:28:41 AM »

I should also note that Eratosthenes' observations would place the sun approximately 4000 nautical miles above the flat earth.

I'd love to know how it can be used to find the circumference of the flat earth, though.

60

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is the radius of the FE Earth model?

« on: August 21, 2012, 04:13:38 AM »

It's his proof of a round Earth.
How can you use it to demonstrate a FE?

Much of chemistry was learned through the sisyphean efforts of alchemy. Should we throw away all that was learned because opposite results were achieved?

A.  A question was asked, which you apparently can't answer.

B.  Alchemists made observations on how different materials reacted, which were useful to know for chemistry.  Eratosthenes made observations about a round earth.  It could be used for FET, I suppose, but that brings us back to the question of how.

The wiki page is nonsensical.