Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Mikey T.

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70]
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 14, 2015, 03:34:35 PM »
so how does the zig zag argument prove anything?  If the ball is spinning then from your perspective the sun travels in a circle above you while near the poles during their summer.
The way the sun travels at the North pole zig zag or around you, however you want to limit the dimensional reality of your field of view, will not prove or disprove either argument.  It can be proof of both the sun spotlighting down on a flat Earth traveling in a circle, a small sun rotating around a round stationary Earth, or a tilted rotating Earth.  The transit of the sun at the North pole alone is not proof, it is evidence to support all three claims.  Now if you believe the South pole midnight sun is correct, then that does provide proof of the flat Earth model, but does not disprove the other 2. 
So since we are on the flat Earth society website lets remove any data concerning the south pole, since it clearly is not acceptable to the flat theory.

So zig zag argument is invalid for these purposes.  I am not saying incorrect, just that it is not valid to the shape of the Earth or can disprove tilt.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Skydiving
« on: February 14, 2015, 01:54:40 PM »
Just to give something more,  The screenshot Jroa posted is from the fixed camera facing the pilot, yeah wide angle camera.  and that means the hand held camera must have been a fish eye camera?  I think I saw evidence of at least 3 different cameras inside the plane that was used for that.  The 1 facing the pilot, the one facing the host, and the one he was using to show you the awesome views outside the cockpit.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 14, 2015, 01:31:51 PM »
uhh the zigzag argument as you call it, why would the sun change directions if you were on a rotating ball?  if you were tilted slightly towards the sun it would stat out the day, in the Arctic or Antarctic during their respective summers, lower on the horizon then as you rotated rise higher in the sky while traveling across the sky till you reached midday where (because you are on a spinning ball) it would continue to travel in the same circular direction (from your relative perspective) but start to sink toward the horizon.  If you accept the tilt argument then while the spinning ball you are on is tilted towards the sun, depending on how close you were to the axis of spin, then sun would rise and fall in the sky but not quite set beyond the horizon as long as you were situated on the tilted ball where the sunlight still reached.  This also explains the longer days during the summer, if you are on a tilted ball then your transit time through the dark side would be shorter the further towards the axis of rotation you go.  You keep trying to say the sun goes East then West therefore it zigzags.  It circles all the way around you on a tilted sphere.  But if you want to think in 2 dimensional then yeah it travels from your right to your left behind you then it travels from your left to your right in front of you so long as you remain fixed facing one direction and don't look up. 

Well now, I figured with my post I would try to get things steered away from name calling and immediate dismissals but I see I was incorrect.  I also provided you with my own summary of my life story which in it had some proof in itself of refuting some of your claims, i.e. you can't climb over 18000 ft without so much equipment and gear that it becomes too cumbersome to move due to low atmospheric, no no lets just say air to keep it neutral, pressure.  I claimed told you in another thread that its not like you are underwater and the oxygen tank is not your only means of breathing, that its a supplemental supply.  In that post I was immediately dismissed also.
I also said, but you must have misread, that you were not one of the copy paste people.
I have provided a question about flight times from Santiago to Aukland vs flight times from LA to Aukland (BTW I flew from Santiago and my wife flew from LA a few years back, both on nonstop flights and my flight time was clearly an hour less than hers.  Side note: New Zealand is one of the most beautiful places I have ever visited and I would thank any of the people here that may be from there for their countries awesome hospitality.
Back to the subject, How is this possible if I was traveling almost twice the distance as she was.  I am positive she wasn't lying about her transit time. 
Also my handle on the site, yeah I chose one that was one of my favorite online MMO characters I used to play, and my cat does love to play with toy balls. 
Why must anything I ask or state be labeled as arrogant?

Ill wait my turn as someone posted a question while I was typing, feel free to copy paste my post when you are ready to start our discussion up, as I see right now you are in another "debate".

So Ill ask like I have before. If you remove the conspiracy angle, for the sake of arguments, lets concentrate on trans-pacific flight times.  One hour less for a flight from South America than one from North America to Australia.  Clearly on the flat Earth model this would be very close to twice the distance.  Lets take away the pilots are part of the conspiracy part.  So as you say, here is my evidence.  Lets discuss it and determine together what this evidence either proves or disproves.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« on: February 14, 2015, 06:45:15 AM »
awe, and I was so looking forward to some thing nice to use as my new desktop wallpaper.

ok Im not going to get into the we didn't land on the moon thing because I cannot provide proof to argue for or against the possible conspiracy model.  But while thats a nice picture of Apollo 11 boots on that site they are not the overboots wore while outside the capsule.

supposed picture on the moon notice the boot matches the print.

Jack Schmitt's Apollo 17 overboot or so they say

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 14, 2015, 06:15:53 AM »
ok immediately to the copy paste again.  Lets try this one more time.  Tell me why there is no tilt.  Then we will work on other items.

Please explain this to me sceptimatic.
Why is it that when you state your opinion, its automatically fact with no evidence to support it,
But when I either state my opinion or refute yours with evidence, I am not thinking for myself or i am participating in a huge conspiracy?
I also believe what I see, and by what I have personally seen there is overwhelming evidence to doubt a Flat Earth model.  There is very sparse evidence to support it and only if you ignore half or more of the data.  I have read over these forums quite a bit in the last few days since I came here trying to see if there was any evidence to contradict my own observations and all I see is you and a couple of others who either immediately take offense to your ideas being challenged, you start name calling, you try to change the subject, or you try to overwhelm any serious discussions with mounds of copy pastes of your own previous posts.  Now scepti you haven't been one of the later types that copy paste, but your claims of degrees and life experience do not seem to line up with reality.  I won't go into the things I have seen you say that are obviously false, we sill stick to your position and your theories. 

As for myself, let me give you a little background on myself, take them as lies if you wish.  I am 39 years old, I spent 21 years in the military, primarily in intelligence gathering.  I did spend about 14 of those years as a reserve.  I spent 12 years installing different types of satellite antenna that led to a lead position as the regional trainer for other installers.  I also have spent 2 1/2 years in the middle east with the military.  I also have been on 3 climbing expeditions to the Andes mountains that unfortunately were not 100% successful, highest elevation reached was 21000 ft. (we had to abandon the last attempt due to medical complications with my then 60 year old father).  I also recently, after my retirement from the military, went to the University of Southern Mississippi (yeah Mississippi, but awesome instructors and professors in engineering school) and received BaSc in Computer Engineering Technology and Electronics Engineering Technology, with Minors in Computer Science, Automation Engineering, and Physics (graduated in May 2014).  So yeah I think my thinking for myself skills are pretty good.  I know that since I did so much time in the military you are going to spout off about conspiracy this or brainwashed that but you would be wrong.
I came here because I could not understand the opposing position and I cannot seem to find knowledgeable, open-minded people who will either explain it to me or debate it with me in a grown up type manner.  So yeah I am human also and I have lost my bearing and made fun of some of the sillier things I have seen here but this entire forum seems to be a joke really.  Any person willing to be open minded about an opposing viewpoint would honestly listen to refutes weigh the information given without automatically dismissing the opposing viewpoint as conspiracy or hoax when you cannot argue against the refute.  I am not saying you must believe what I believe, because if we all agreed 100% there would be no interesting debate and there would never be new discoveries. 
Also know that I am willing to take another look at evidence if you are willing to honestly willing to discuss my refutes as I am with yours

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 14, 2015, 05:34:16 AM »
Please without copy pasting yet again, clearly and calmly explain why the Earth isn't tilted. 
Once again, do not copy paste the same stuff again, lets just give this to me piece by piece since you like to state something is a fact then use that as proof of the rest of your argument.
Lets stick to just why the Earth isn't tilted. 

Plus this before you copy paste from your previous comment
The celestial equator is a great circle on the imaginary celestial sphere, in the same plane as the Earth's equator. In other words, it is a projection of the terrestrial equator out into space. As a result of the Earth's axial tilt, the celestial equator is inclined by 23.4 with respect to the ecliptic plane. 
This is not anything but a reference tool for plotting and relaying where to look in the sky to see celestial bodies.  Since it is said that we rotate on this ball the stars move along this path from your point of view.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Proving the flat earth with photography
« on: February 14, 2015, 12:02:32 AM »
Hell give me one almost convincing fake image of a flat earth.  They don't even have those.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 14, 2015, 12:00:48 AM »
ok the treaty in a nutshell is that all countries with stations present there agree that all research shall be shared with anyone, stations available to inspection, no military, and no territorial claims.
The countries that haven't signed the treaty are pretty much the ones that either do not give a crap about doing anything there or have not developed to a point to be able to waste time and resources on it. 
Quite possibly, no, they would be facing the combined resistance of the 39 countries that have signed the treaty so why provoke them if you can easily just share in their research or sign the charter to set up your own station.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 13, 2015, 11:46:41 PM »
and putting quotes around treaty?  Seriously another conspiracy?  And no not all countries have signed it, originally it was the 12 that had research areas there but now I believe its up to 39 or so that have signed it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 13, 2015, 11:43:35 PM »

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 13, 2015, 11:37:48 PM »
No one lives there, they go there for a short period.
Many people live in the Arctic circle (North Pole region).
No one lives in Antarctica.  It is only research stations.
Therefore, less people, less cameras.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 13, 2015, 10:21:58 PM »
While I await my punishment for being rude, Ill talk about this zig zag argument.

Ok I am now imagining myself on a merry-go-round and a large stadium light is high and away from me but pointing in my general direction.  I am not riding on a horse so I can remain focused on the light.  as the merry-go-round spins with me on it I have to turn my body to keep the light in my field of view.  Also because the thing is spinning the light looks like it circles the merry-go-round. 
BTW this is a bad analogy since you have so much other objects around you. 
Lets imagine myself on a ball,say the size of the "fake, global conspiracy model" Earth, slightly tilted towards a extremely bright object, lets say the Sun.  Now nothing else is perceivable due to the brightness of this Sun.  The huge ball spins.  I being quite small compared to the ball cannot feel the spin, but I can see the light.  It appears to circle the ball.  Without knowing that I am on a ball, I assume the light is circling me rather than the ball is turning and the light is relatively stationary.  The tilt of the ball allows me to see the light for the full rotation, and depending on how far I am from the center of rotation (pole), the angle of the light will rise and fall.  Now if I am very close to the center of rotation, and if the tilt is say, I dunno 23 or so degrees towards the light, The light will appear to remain higher in the field of view and rise and fall to a lesser degree, as lang as the tilt is toward the light. 
Oh another thing, the main reason there are not many, yes there are some, videos of the south pole midnight sun is because there are only a few people who work on Antarctica.  It is treaty bound to not be claimed by any one nation and therefore no permanent residents.  Also most of the people there are either Scientists, support staff for the scientists, or military support for... you guessed it, scientists.  I don't think they feel the need to prove the Earth is round for you.  Even the videos that are out there are called hoaxes, actually at the North Pole,or photo-shopped.


Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 13, 2015, 09:59:04 PM »
No no no sokarul didn't you see, he said he crushed all round Earthers with his "proo.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA  uhh sorry
He proved undeniably that the Earth is flat.
I apologize for my outburst of laughter there, no disrespect intended. 

I await my ban hammer

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 13, 2015, 09:53:21 PM »
I give you the Official Flat Earth map with red lines on it... 
Ok If you were to fly from Santiago nonstop flight to Aukland 11hours 20 minutes
If you flew from Los Angeles nonstop to Aukland 12 hours 15 minutes

Ok I guess we are flying in a circle coming from LAX for maybe 4 hours to cover up the truth of the flat Earth?

Ok I'll admit it, not only are Unicorns real but the NASA government types ride them along the ice wall due to their extreme resistance to cold weather

Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: February 13, 2015, 08:26:17 PM »
I must say, this has been the most entertaining thread I have read yet on this forum. 
Love the arguments of hey its true because I said it responses also.  Here ya go a copy paste of the same stuff I pasted 120 times already. 
I have also seen this argument made, the Earth is stationary.  So how, if the Earth is a stationary celestial body, do things fall back down to Earth if there isn't this universal acceleration thing going on to explain gravity? 
Now before you rebut with I didn't say that, you have in many places.
Also before you say gravity explains that, you have already stated that gravity doesn't exist or exists in a much more diminished "power" than is believed by mainstream scientists, thus the stationary Earth will not work for even a flat Earth scenario. 
Before you try the higher pressure argument pushing down on us, know that is 100% verifiable and observed that the higher in altitude you go the lower the air pressure is.  Scepti argued this himself with the its impossible to climb Mt. Everest debate because of the lower atmospheric pressure. 

Also the argument of the sun seems to sink due to light refraction cannot be argued and then argue against a light refraction cause of the whoever it was that did the 6 mile canal experiment.  So its either that light can bend due to gravitational and/or atmospheric causes or light doesn't bend.  So either both models are wrong or both are possible.  This means the boat experiment, and unfortunately sunrise/sunset arguments will have to be removed from the "proof". 

Now on to observational evidence.  Planets can be seen by basically anyone with a telescope, and it doesn't have to be a good telescope at that.  Lets look at the moon for instance.  Not a planet but a large enough celestial body for, if gravity is real, to make it form into a spherical body.  With a really cheap telescope you can look at the moon and ascertain that it is in fact round.  Watch it, starting with a full moon and observe it over several nights to watch how the shadow, night side of the moon, changes.  You can also tell by looking at it that it is in fact a sphere.  Ok now if you have access to a larger telescope, focus on Mars, or Jupiter.  Watch them closely the same observations can be made that they are also, in fact spheres.  So believe what you see in your own personal observations.  Now I postulate that if the other celestial bodies in our immediate vicinity are in fact spheres, why is the Earth shaped differently?  But lets make the argument that those other celestial bodies are just small objects and the Earth is not the same class of object then.  Now then, why are they there in the first place?  Also if they are not orbiting the sun in different orbits than what the Earth is in, oh yeah the Earth doesn't orbit the Sun, my bad I forgot you said so therefore its overwhelmingly shattering of everyone else's observations, why does gravity explain their movements in the sky?  Mathematically predictable movements based on gravity with basically so near perfect accuracy that you can point a telescope to where ever the math tells you to that the planet in question is centered in your view. 
But hey, I'm just a cool-aid drinker right.  I'm upset because you are devastating my beliefs, or lies, whatever you think I have.  It's not like I have any engineering degrees or ever did things like climb mountains, or visit other parts of the world... oh wait I do and I have done those things.  Well I haven't been to space, I'm too old now and too broke to do that.  I have to rely on other experts that have to bring me back data for analysis.  Wait a minute...  they are also part of the BIG CONSPIRACY.  To save face because someone, somewhere a thousand years or so ago did some failed math and theorized that the Earth was round, We are in a world wide conspiracy to make sure this one person's theories are protected.  Hell we even "created" the moon landings, all the shuttle flights, numerous satellites, Probes, etc.  All the Pilots and the airplane factories are in on it, all the telecommunications companies are in on it, GPS is magical, Unicorns are real, Governments spend trillions upon trillions of dollars on this conspiracy to support one dude and the few globe manufacturers income.  I guess Google is in on it also since they made Google Earth, oh yeah they got the original backbone of that program from the military (which used it as a tracking program for highly precise drone and missle strikes), BTW did I admit that Unicorns were real?

HumanKentipede, that was meant for Sceptimatic btw, you commented while I was typing

Training is not only acclimating when you climb.  You first have to get into good shape, the better shape your body is in the more efficient your body burns its fuel.  Obviously you have never climbed.  I have.  Your hypothesis about not being able to go above 18000 ft, what did you do, goolge the height at which you have to carry breathing gear with you, cause yeah, even the most fit climber cannot overcome the low oxygen percentages at extremely high altitudes (above 18000 ft).  But its not like you are underwater and that is you only air supply.  The higher you go the more you have to rely on your extra supply to supplement the low oxygen content. 
You know I came here in hopes of understanding what the theories involved with the flat earth hypothesis was and to keep an open mind, but you have strayed into something that I know for a FACT.  18000 ft is not the limit that you can climb and live to tell about it.  BTW 21000 ft is not it either, that's the highest I have been, how about you?  The Mt. Everest story you are pawning off, just stop.

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Sunset
« on: February 10, 2015, 11:57:15 PM »
Ok the sinking ship effect, This one will have to be explained further to me.  Taking into account the magnification effects of the light from the sun having to pass through more material making it seem to grow in size until it disappears from being too far away still doesn't explain a sunset to me.  Maybe its the sinking ship effect that isn't computing with my observations.  If you watch a sunset without trees, or uneven terrain like mountains, it "sinks" below the horizon.

From what I have seen, and please correct me if I am misstating the theory, light not only magnifies but bends as it travels through more material.  This causes the sun or a ship to appear to sink below the horizon? 
How does the sinking ship effect work with changing altitudes?  If you take the assumption of a round earth, then if you increase altitude while on a relatively flat plain, use the ocean for instance, can you see further the higher in altitude you go.  Also you can prolong a sunset by increasing altitude.  With increasing altitude you are actually increasing the distance to the far object.  Example While on a oil drilling platform, you cannot see the coastline from anywhere below the bottom 3 decks but you can just make out the land on the 4th deck and by deck 6 you can see much more clearly and further into the background.  Is this more light bending in differing ways due to increased material for it to travel through? 
While it is true that if you do the math with the assumption of a flat earth, simple trig will show that the sun would be smaller and much closer than mainstream scientist say, I cannot pick and choose what observations I take when performing experiments.  So with that being said, I am trying to keep an open mind and experiment on my own to see if the flat earth theories hold the same weight. 

Flat Earth Q&A / Sunset
« on: February 10, 2015, 12:04:17 AM »
So, I am a little confused, looking at the model for the flat earth the sun "wobbles" in a circular pattern and is more like a flashlight beam than a light bulb.  My question is, if the earth is flat and the sun is just illuminating certain areas of the earth to give us day and night, how does the sun disappear behind the horizon. 
First, you can't say it only looks that way because its how it is. 
Second, explain why the moon does the same thing.

Pages: 1 ... 68 69 [70]