1

Flat Earth General / Re: I have seen the International Space Station with my own eyes.

« on: December 11, 2014, 12:11:56 PM »

When you sit and think about it. What clowns would build a space station in that stupid shape and as flimsy as that.
I mean, we keep getting told that it keeps hitting drag, plus those ham fisted idiots that float out to repair silly things could easily make a right mess out there.

The dozy gits can't even hold a frigging spanner without losing it and we're expected to believe they constructed this large piece of junk. 
I will admit though. That thing probably is in space now I think about it. It's most probably hanging from someones loft space with the lights out. I think the jaffa orange was added in later. 

I bet the model enthusiast that put this together is proud. Space rider in kit form, from all good model shops.

There are certain people who believe an individual's personality is set by the conditions on the day they were born.

It's utter hogwash of course but it makes one wonder that if it were true, what the hell must have been going on the day you squirted out of your mother's ass.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: Magnetism

« on: December 08, 2014, 01:29:35 PM »

We do explain the effects of "gravity".  Perhaps you just have not been here long enough to have read them?

You do many things here. "Explain" is not one of them.

Protip: When someone asks a question and after you post a ridiculous one sentence reply and the person asking the questions next post starts with, "Then how do you explain..." you're not really explaining anything.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet

« on: December 08, 2014, 12:02:03 PM »

Hey, did you also know that the speed at which a rocket outside the atmosphere accelerates is exponential? That is because without the drag of the atmosphere and the light rocket (because it has burnt most of its fuel and jettisoned the lower stages), the thrust to weight ratio becomes extremely big! That means it requires little time and little fuel to accelerate it to an escape velocity with those powerful engines.

I find it funny that you dare trash talk and bash things you don't even understand.

This is overkill. It's obvious from his posts that he cannot comprehend that the spacecraft's velocity was provided by the three stage rocket it was launched with in Jan, 2006 (and the gravity assist from Jupiter).

He still thinks the RTG is responsible for the craft's propulsion and that it's been providing that propulsion for ten years..

4

Flat Earth General / Re: Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet

« on: December 08, 2014, 11:47:11 AM »

No I don't believe in nuclear power. Anyway, so this thing is fissioning (allegedly) in a probe and somehow creating electricity without any water coolant to stop it going critical as we are led to believe this stuff does. And yet this thing is fissioning for over 9 years and somehow powering this probe.

These things are not even used exclusively in space... Russia used 1000 such devices (in lighthouses for example) since they required little maintenance and were very reliable power sources.

But it's probably a good thing the devices are hokum and radioactivity doesn't exist. That will be great comfort from the three Georgian woodsmen who found two of the devices and nearly died...

"In December 2001, three woodsmen found two heat-emanating ceramic objects near their campsite in the remote Inguri river valley of Georgia. Two of the woodsmen involved in the accident carried the containers on their backs and experienced nausea, vomiting, and dizziness within hours of exposure. The third carried the source attached to a wire. At a hospital in Tbilisi, Georgia, the woodsmen were diagnosed with radiation sickness and severe radiation burns, and at least two of the three were in serious condition."

http://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull48-1/48105994247.pdf

5

Flat Earth General / Re: Rosetta's Philae probe makes historic landing on comet

« on: December 08, 2014, 09:51:10 AM »

Oh ok, then what made the space craft get to these speeds if it didn't use any fuel. gravity pulling? what did it do? just sling shot around planets and whizz into space?
Tell me oh great one.

A Lockheed Martin Atlas V 551 rocket, a Centaur second stage and a ATK Star 48B third stage along with the gravity sling shot provided by the Jupiter flyby.

I forgot abut that radioisotope thermoelectric generator. How does this work? petrol generator?

It's plutonium-238 oxide, clad in iridium and encased in graphite. It "uses an array of thermocouples to convert the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material into electricity by the Seebeck effect." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

You do believe in nuclear power don't you? You should. It's all push on push. Just think about it.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How thick can you be?

« on: November 18, 2014, 08:07:23 AM »

Oh look, a strawman over semantics from jroa. How can this be?

From the context it's obvious he's talking about little g not big G.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: I was told there would be Flat Earth Astronauts

« on: July 10, 2014, 08:05:46 AM »

1) When and where did the astronauts launch?
2) Who paid for the mission?
3) What kinds of data and/or photos were acquired?
4) What were the astronauts' names and nationalities?
5) What kind of rockets/aircraft were used?

And despite a few of us asking for Vauxhall to post the answers to these questions, he's obviously unable to.  And this sort of thing—grand promises made on the spur of the moment by flat earthers—is more than typical of people who have no evidence to support their claims.  It's only when round earthers ask repeatedly and get no response that their questions prove the lies.

Over to you Vauxhall—if you're game that is LOL.

I cannot for the life of me understand the seriousness you are taking the "debates" with the obvious trolls and lunatics. It makes me wonder what kind of dysfunction is rolling around inside your head.

To me, it is akin to the following:

ausGeoff: Can you explain your theories on the elemental make up of the flat earth core?


"Yep! It's made of jelly beans!"

ausGeoff: Once again you make bold assertions of "fact" with no supporting, peer reviewed sources to back up your contentions! Please provide evidence for your claims or be exposed for the intellectual fraud you are!

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: My biggest question as a newbie

« on: June 27, 2014, 12:56:45 PM »

I live in a river valley with hills all around me.  I've never seen the earth be flat and likely never will.

I live in a mountain valley, and I seem to miss the Earth being round every day. How peculiar.

You're totally missing his point.

rif.org

9

Flat Earth General / Re: Contrails or chemtrails?

« on: June 23, 2014, 11:23:23 AM »

Notice that this chemical that katsung claims is responsible for all this murder and mayhem is never named.  He just "thinks" it is a "chemical", but obviously he's not even certain about that broad description of the deadly destructor LOL.

And unless he can put a name to this imaginary "chemical" then his whole argument—such as it is—falls apart, and can simply be written off along with all the other flat earth pseudo-science.

Never heard of Ice-9 have we?

10

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: CHEMTRAILS..... Fact or Fiction?

« on: June 23, 2014, 08:42:06 AM »

The original quote doesn't even seem to be genuine, or if it is, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Can you find an original source for it? It only seems to be on chemtrail websites as far as I can see.

Ask ausGeoff. I agree that some more context would be helpful.

I'm missing what the big controversy is over his comments. He's basically saying that his study into single contrails is inhibited by the large number of contrails around transportation hubs and naturally occurring cirrus clouds. In any event he's researching the potential negative effects of contrails, not chemtrails, making his remarks irrelevant to the discussion.

• Contrails often form near to or within extant cirrus
• Air traffic over CONUS is dense & contrails form in overlapping
clusters
• Quantifying individual contrail effects difficult because of
continuous air traffic, existing cirrus clouds, and poor
measurements of humidity fields
• 2001 air traffic shutdown removed many impediments for
contrail study

http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/aviation05downloads/Minnis.pdf

11

Flat Earth General / Re: Flat Earth Photography

« on: June 17, 2014, 08:46:19 AM »

This is the original full res image captured by none other than the ISS! ERMMMRRRGRRRD!!!! And wait there's more. Honestly I thought you were showing a picture of Andromeda taken from ground level but this is.

Wait for it.

a Lens flare.

I had no idea JJ Abrams was an FE astronaut!

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

« on: June 12, 2014, 08:14:20 AM »

I see the dome all the time. I see all the reflections on it. I see the icicles falling from it. I see the sun reflected off it, as well as the moon, etc.

Again, no direct answer. What about the volcano that you describe that no one can see? Or the elemental makeup of the dome you've never been to?

I'm guessing you don't answer is because answering would mean admitting you're guilty of the same thing you accuse RE's of... believing in something you have no actual knowledge of.

The only difference is your bullshit isn't from a book, just one of your fever dreams.

What volcano is this then?

The central sun ejects periodic debris in earth and also the ice dome drops icicles, periodically.
What you see as slow comets with tails, are icicles of helium/hydrogen interacting with the heavier gases below them, creating the tails but also creating the slow movement, due to the frozen gases being resisted by the heavier gases.
The central sun ejects debris which you will see as super fast shooting stars.

Icicles, 99 times out of 100 will evaporate in the far upper atmosphere over time.
The central sun will have volcanoes around it, ejecting debris into the air and back down.
Just like a coal fire will spit hot fragments at you.

Why haven't they been discovered?
The very same reason why the ice dome foundation will never be discovered.
Instant death for anyone who gets remotely close.
If you're thinking of a little north pole and believe it's all been conquered, then it's not surprising your stance will be to reject it out of hand.

Until you go on a mission yourself to see how far you would get, you will never know the real truth and even then you may not find it.

Again, how do you know all these things without actually seeing them?

How do you know the things you know without seeing them?

So you're full of shit but are too much of a coward to admit it. Gotcha.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

« on: June 11, 2014, 04:10:34 PM »

I see the dome all the time. I see all the reflections on it. I see the icicles falling from it. I see the sun reflected off it, as well as the moon, etc.

Again, no direct answer. What about the volcano that you describe that no one can see? Or the elemental makeup of the dome you've never been to?

I'm guessing you don't answer is because answering would mean admitting you're guilty of the same thing you accuse RE's of... believing in something you have no actual knowledge of.

The only difference is your bullshit isn't from a book, just one of your fever dreams.

What volcano is this then?

The central sun ejects periodic debris in earth and also the ice dome drops icicles, periodically.
What you see as slow comets with tails, are icicles of helium/hydrogen interacting with the heavier gases below them, creating the tails but also creating the slow movement, due to the frozen gases being resisted by the heavier gases.
The central sun ejects debris which you will see as super fast shooting stars.

Icicles, 99 times out of 100 will evaporate in the far upper atmosphere over time.
The central sun will have volcanoes around it, ejecting debris into the air and back down.
Just like a coal fire will spit hot fragments at you.

Why haven't they been discovered?
The very same reason why the ice dome foundation will never be discovered.
Instant death for anyone who gets remotely close.
If you're thinking of a little north pole and believe it's all been conquered, then it's not surprising your stance will be to reject it out of hand.

Until you go on a mission yourself to see how far you would get, you will never know the real truth and even then you may not find it.

Again, how do you know all these things without actually seeing them?

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

« on: June 11, 2014, 01:14:05 PM »

I see the dome all the time. I see all the reflections on it. I see the icicles falling from it. I see the sun reflected off it, as well as the moon, etc.

Again, no direct answer. What about the volcano that you describe that no one can see? Or the elemental makeup of the dome you've never been to?

I'm guessing you don't answer is because answering would mean admitting you're guilty of the same thing you accuse RE's of... believing in something you have no actual knowledge of.

The only difference is your bullshit isn't from a book, just one of your fever dreams.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

« on: June 11, 2014, 12:36:06 PM »

I'm just being honest, Geoffrey. If I had bounced a laser beam off of the dome I would tell you. I haven't so I can't say I have and I can't calculate anything. Can you understand this.
Your calculations came from a? a what? Book? What was it?

Yet you've never seen the dome or tested it's elemental makeup or been to the giant volcano at the north pole, that no one has ever seen because getting near it would be instant death. How can you calculate all these "facts" you have about them without ever have laid eyes on them?

I'll note you've never once answered this question directly, though it's been put to you a number of times.

You've never laid eyes on anything you talk about but you talk about it all as if it's all real. Why?
I'll answer for you.
It's because you were told and read and saw pictures of this stuff and you took it all on face value. Why would they lie, right?
Why would they lie?

I've explained in full detail about my thoughts. If you haven't read them, then you will be forever wondering, or maybe not. Just stick to what you know. You know it's a spinning globe and all the other bumph so there's no real need to even bother with a fool like me, is there. Be honest: there isn't any point, as what I say is pointless to you and others.

Just be on your merry way and leave us nut cases to ponder. You have your model, you don't need to share it with people who already did so, once and discarded it as being absurd.

The question was:

Yet you've never seen the dome or tested it's elemental makeup or been to the giant volcano at the north pole, that no one has ever seen because getting near it would be instant death. How can you calculate all these "facts" you have about them without ever have laid eyes on them?

And yet again you refuse to answer the question. Why is that?

16

Flat Earth General / Re: Why did Google pay $500,000,000 for a satellite company yesterday?

« on: June 11, 2014, 12:18:31 PM »

Where do you get your information about Skybox being a jet manufacturer?  According to Google and skybox.com, it's a satellite company.

Ignore him. He's a troll.

My question is, I thought the reason for a round earth conspiracy was money. Why spend a half a billion dollars for another fake company to fake satellite pictures you are already faking.

You can't say it's to better fleece money from the sheeple. If it's a fake satellite company then you could just fake building your own fake satellite company and save all that money.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

« on: June 11, 2014, 12:07:15 PM »

I'm repetitive and a crazy psycho that knows nothing, so I should be discarded from your mind... Hahahahahahaha.

Hey, this is the first thing scepti has ever posted that I can totally agree with as fact.

Truth be told I am fascinated by the last few pages of scepti's manic ego stroking. It could be a case study in Poe's law.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

« on: June 11, 2014, 11:58:37 AM »

I'm just being honest, Geoffrey. If I had bounced a laser beam off of the dome I would tell you. I haven't so I can't say I have and I can't calculate anything. Can you understand this.
Your calculations came from a? a what? Book? What was it?

Yet you've never seen the dome or tested it's elemental makeup or been to the giant volcano at the north pole, that no one has ever seen because getting near it would be instant death. How can you calculate all these "facts" you have about them without ever have laid eyes on them?

I'll note you've never once answered this question directly, though it's been put to you a number of times.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

« on: June 11, 2014, 09:17:33 AM »

As you said, we were bouncing lasers off the moon before the Apollo missions.  So, we spent billions of dollars to put reflectors on the moon that are totally useless.  Yeah, right.  You think this story is completely true?  How many times could we have bounced a laser off of the moon for that same amount of money?

Because the Apollo program's sole purpose was to place a reflector on the moon. 

The fact that photons are returned back to their source regardless of the angle does not make the reflectors useless, it makes them invaluable. A rare and random return of photons off the moon's surface is what's useless, in practical terms.

You don't even know what a photon is, except that you're told it's a photon. Stop blindly believing in crap and gain some factual knowledge.

Actually, I detected evidence of photons in the sixth grade, coming from a piece of Fiesta dinnerware. I was using a highly technological piece of equipment called a Geiger counter. You can also detect them for yourself at home by putting a piece of aluminum foil in your microwave.

True I was told by a "conspirator", aka my science teacher, that they were photons, instead of inventing some bullshit in my own brain and pretending that's really the truth like you do.

But in his defense, he did explain it in terms that an 11 year old could understand so you should accept it.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

« on: June 11, 2014, 05:50:20 AM »

As you said, we were bouncing lasers off the moon before the Apollo missions.  So, we spent billions of dollars to put reflectors on the moon that are totally useless.  Yeah, right.  You think this story is completely true?  How many times could we have bounced a laser off of the moon for that same amount of money?

Because the Apollo program's sole purpose was to place a reflector on the moon. 

The fact that photons are returned back to their source regardless of the angle does not make the reflectors useless, it makes them invaluable. A rare and random return of photons off the moon's surface is what's useless, in practical terms.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

« on: June 10, 2014, 02:00:08 PM »

Have you seen any evidence of them bouncing a laser off any other area of the sky that is totally black, no object or light at all?  If not, then this moon bouncing does not prove they are just bouncing light off the IMAGE of the moon on glass sky.

Signals were bounced off the moon prior to the Apollo astronauts placing the reflector on the moons surface. It was possible but very difficult. The reflector makes this much easier because it is designed to reflect a signal directly back to its source regardless of the direction in which it originated.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

« on: June 10, 2014, 12:57:03 PM »

Have you personally bounced one off the moon have you?

If so, tell me about it and what you used.
Maybe you read about it in a book, eh?

First of all, not many sibscribe to it. I do and one or two others on here.
The dome is ICE, made up of frozen helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, etc depending on positition in the natural build of it.
It covers all the solid ground we exist on to a unknown height.

Have you personally tested the composition and structure of the dome have you?

If so, tell me about it and what you used.
Maybe you read about it in a book, eh?

Hypocritical halfwit.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Theory: the moon, sun and stars are just reflections

« on: June 10, 2014, 12:49:40 PM »

Fire the laser and hit the small retro reflector will take approximately 1.4 seconds while the Earth is spinning at 1038 mph.

Why do you continue to use this figure? You've been told multiple times that the earth's rotational speed depends on your latitude.

24

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Are All These Circumnavigators Lying?

« on: June 05, 2014, 09:12:28 AM »

Do these circumnavigational planes have to take into account of this coriolis effect and if so, what device do they use?

In theory, yes. In practice, no. The effects of winds especially is magnitudes greater that the Coriolis effect. *edit* Let me rephrase this, because the Coriolis effect is a pseudo effect and this sounds like I'm saying that the plane is being affected by Coriolis forces, which it is not.

My point is that a plane does not need to correct it's path due to the earth rotating beneath it since winds will have already forced a multitude of course corrections.

In any event, the device used to correct for both of these forces is the same: it's called the rudder.

25

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Are All These Circumnavigators Lying?

« on: June 05, 2014, 08:56:40 AM »

Huh, I thought that gif was pretty clear - the two planes leave in the same direction. So if the orange path is what happens if you go straight, the blue one is obviously turning, right? I can make a clearer one if that doesn't make sense. Try imagining it as an even smaller circle even closer to the north pole, maybe.

Yeah, that's the thing, I don't think anyone has ever done it. Look at the Rutan Voyager or the Global Flyer's routes, they flew round in one go without landing but there's still a lot more to flying round the world than just turning on cruise control and putting your feet up. The only way to know that a route like theirs or Magellan's was a circumnavigation rather than just going round in a circle is by the abilities of navigators, pilots, cartographers and instruments and the FE folks are happy to assume that everyone and everything is brain impaired, duped or lying, because otherwise this whole thing doesn't work.

This is a typical jroa logical fallacy.

1. Longitudinal circumnavigation is impossible on a flat earth.
2. No one has flown a longitudinal circumnavigation.
3. Therefore, the earth is flat.

This ignores the fact that Pan Am 50 was incapable of making the flight without refueling so its course was dictated by its stops for fuel.

This also ignores the fact that it may not be impossible on a flat earth. If phenomena on the scale of bendy light, celestial gears, the anti-moon and denpressure are accepted theories of a flat earth believer, what prevents an asteroids style magic bananas south pole warp to the other side of the flat earth?

26

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Are All These Circumnavigators Lying?

« on: June 04, 2014, 11:18:05 AM »

Yes, now please provide proof of your great circle theory so we can all know that circumnavigation can occur in any direction.  Thanks.

I'd like to point out that jroa now requires a great circle route for polar circumnavigation. This is specifically so he can dismiss this flight:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=GFZOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9vgDAAAAIBAJ&dq=pan%20am%2050th%20anniversary&pg=1973%2C3373450

27

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Amateur Radio

« on: June 03, 2014, 11:11:35 AM »

I had a poster of that very image years ago.  I was naive and never questioned it because I was conditioned from grade school to believe what I was taught.  I know better now.  If you cannot tell that is a fake image, you are gullible.

No, it's not fake. It HAS to be fake so that your fantasy doesn't crumble. It makes me wonder why you asked your initial question. Even you have to be aware of the answer, unless you're mentally unstable.

So why do you feel that the earth HAS to be flat? Are you afraid a round earth would make God a liar?

Do you believe in God? What exactly IS God?  I have my thoughts on it but you are the one to bring it up so please answer first.  For your information, I do not feel the the Earth HAS to be flat.  I have admitted that I don't know for sure what shape it is.  But a spinning sphere, it is not.

Ok so the earth does not have to be flat, but cannot be a spinning sphere... that's simply semantics. My question is why?

28

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Amateur Radio

« on: June 03, 2014, 08:11:01 AM »

I had a poster of that very image years ago.  I was naive and never questioned it because I was conditioned from grade school to believe what I was taught.  I know better now.  If you cannot tell that is a fake image, you are gullible.

No, it's not fake. It HAS to be fake so that your fantasy doesn't crumble. It makes me wonder why you asked your initial question. Even you have to be aware of the answer, unless you're mentally unstable.

So why do you feel that the earth HAS to be flat? Are you afraid a round earth would make God a liar?

29

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Amateur Radio

« on: June 03, 2014, 07:12:52 AM »

I also agree that Whiskey's ISS video does not prove it's authentic.  It could have been created on a computer.  There's no zooming in, no birds or planes, nothing.

Because it would be impossible to add birds to a fake video?

This is something that I think will never be resolved. You can reach any conclusion you like from behind your computer. Anything you don't like is fake, anything you do like is proof. Easy.

But at some point you either have to get the equipment that this (apparently) ordinary internet user used -the way many others have- and see if you spot a space station or not, or you have to accept that he already did so. Just saying "fake" isn't going to lead you anywhere you aren't already at. Which, I'm well aware is the reason for doing it, but can we stop pretending that mere skepticism alone is some kind of means to progress? Especially when it's only aimed at things you already don't like 

Can you give a logical reason why any of us would claim the ISS or NASA photos are fake?  Seriously dude, there is nothing for us to gain in doing so.  It is what it is and if you disagree, then move on.  SMH

NASA has to be fake to wingnuts such as yourself. Otherwise you entire belief system is destroyed with a single photo.

30

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Amateur Radio

« on: June 02, 2014, 08:35:45 AM »

I'll give you a hint, ausGeoff.  One of those pictures is not real.  Let me know if you need help figuring out which one is the fake.

Ahhh. Another patented jroa straw man arguing over irrelevant minutia. You stay classy.

How about does this...

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">STS-135 (Atlantis) and ISS in broad daylight - 7/17/11

look anything like this?

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Weather Balloon Or Just A Balloon UK 19 February 2013

Are you also claiming that the picture in question is a "real satellite"?

Here is an article with a description and picture of the real "OSCAR":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCAR

If you want to call it a fake, tell that to the American Radio Relay League and all the hams involved.Or....Are they just some more members of the "conspiracy" ?

Why are you moving the goal posts?  We were discussing the picture that ausGeoff posted.  I assume that he and others are trying to claim that this picture of a satellite is real.  What about you, Googleotomy?

You know that it wasn't presented as an actual image of a satellite in space... it was posted to show the difference between the shape of a satellite and a weather balloon.

I posted actual pictures of a real satellite and a real weather balloon which you, of course, ignored to argue the "irrelevant minutia" of your straw man.

This is because you're a petty functionary on a whacko web site who gets his rocks off trying to divert reasonably intelligent people from actual "debate" about the ridiculous belief that the earth is flat to an endless argument about unrelated issues.