« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

The Vast Antarctic Security Organization

  • 22 Replies
  • 5159 Views
*

bullhorn

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 634
  • +3/-4
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« on: July 12, 2006, 03:14:19 PM »
I have come to the conclusion that the only presence in the Antarctic are people whom are members of the Vast Security Network, it is the only plausible way that the ice wall has remained guarded for this time, I have herd through the annals of conversation that they are masters of all knowledge and hold the key to the answers that we all seek.
Logged
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2006, 12:18:11 AM »
And how, pray, did you come to this conclusion?
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

Mr Hanky

  • 36
  • +0/-0
Re: The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2006, 01:43:05 AM »
Quote from: "bullhorn"
I have come to the conclusion that the only presence in the Antarctic are people whom are members of the Vast Security Network


They are contractors employed by the government to patrol the rim.  The company is called "Control Rim Armed Police", and here's a new recruit about to set out on the first day of his job...

Logged
color=orange]When my life is over and my time has come to pass, I hope they bury me upside down so the world can kiss my ass.[/color]
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
Re: The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2006, 04:53:35 AM »
Quote from: "bullhorn"
I have come to the conclusion that the only presence in the Antarctic are people whom are members of the Vast Security Network, it is the only plausible way that the ice wall has remained guarded for this time, I have herd through the annals of conversation that they are masters of all knowledge and hold the key to the answers that we all seek.


Clearly, though, they allow tourists to see the inner areas of the ice wall. You can go on antarctic cruises etc., so there must be some bogus "scientific" staff to make it look like there's no conspiracy. The vast majority of people in Antarctica are military personnel employed by the conspiracy.
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

Aralith

  • 322
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2006, 05:45:46 AM »
Why don't you listen to reason? What the fuck is wrong with a round earth, especially when all evidence points to it. You people skew the laws of physics to make even a weak arguement for your case, and are therefore a disgrace to the scientific community and all of mankind. There is no conspiracy to protect a wall simply because a wall does not exist. Perhaps you should view the picture I posted in one of the other threads about Antartica and the gian wall. I think you'll find it quite enlightening.
Logged
 am a round-earther traversing this site to disprove false claims and bring the light of science to those who remain in the dark without it. Thank you for your time.
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2006, 06:19:10 AM »
Quote from: "Aralith"
Why don't you listen to reason? What the fuck is wrong with a round earth


It doesn't look round when I walk around on it, or when I perform experiments to try and determine its shape.

Quote from: "Aralith"

You people skew the laws of physics to make even a weak arguement for your case, and are therefore a disgrace to the scientific community and all of mankind.


Established "science" already skewed the laws of physics - we're unskewing them.

Quote from: "Aralith"

There is no conspiracy to protect a wall simply because a wall does not exist. Perhaps you should view the picture I posted in one of the other threads about Antartica and the gian wall. I think you'll find it quite enlightening.


Pictures of antarctica prove very little. We know it exists, we know it's a pseudo-continent of ice. How does a coastal image of Antarctica disprove the idea the it's holding the ocean in?
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

Aralith

  • 322
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2006, 07:42:51 AM »
And, praytell, what experiments have you conducted to try to determine it's shape, because a simple eyeball glance won't do.
Logged
 am a round-earther traversing this site to disprove false claims and bring the light of science to those who remain in the dark without it. Thank you for your time.
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2006, 07:50:46 AM »
Quote from: "Aralith"
And, praytell, what experiments have you conducted to try to determine it's shape, because a simple eyeball glance won't do.


http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za07.htm
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za08.htm
http://etc, etc, etc
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

Aralith

  • 322
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2006, 08:26:04 AM »
I'm sorry I'm calling bullshit. The earth is much larger than that. Six miles along the earth is not going to create a six foot variance. Bullshit. The circumference of the earth is about 24,854.84 mi (40000 km) this would mean that the six miles you are talking about is about .087 degrees. I came to this figure by using simple math techniques, if you really need to know what, I took the 24,854.84, divided it by 360 to discover how many miles one degree was, and then divided six by that number to ascertain what the degree value for six miles would be. On an open horizon, sailors can most certainly see farther than that, so therefore, the first experiment you provided is either extremely ( and I mean EXTEMELY) flawed, or it is blatantly lying to you.
Logged
 am a round-earther traversing this site to disprove false claims and bring the light of science to those who remain in the dark without it. Thank you for your time.
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2006, 08:33:58 AM »
But there would still be SOME variance, right?
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

Feralkitten

  • 137
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2006, 09:05:19 AM »
i doubt a variance of .087 degrees could be measured a few hundred years ago using a telescope, water and a tripod.

But yes using modern day technology (ie. Lasers) a .087 degree variance could be detected.

you could reproduce
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm
by watching a ship sail over the horizon.

This is somewhat flawed though cause the horizon is more than 6 miles out and the sea is never completely flat. You will see the hull of the ship disappear over the horizon before the Flag on the Mast however, but that is a different argument, and we have discussed this before.
Logged
verybody knows you can conjure anything by the dark of the Moon. - Tori Amos
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2006, 02:34:54 PM »
Quote from: "Sarthos"

And do you honestly believe that test is authentic?  Some pot smoker made it to help the rest of his drug buddies like you.


As far as I know, Samuel Rowbotham was a devout, conservative christian who probably didn't even drink, much less smoke ganja.
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2006, 03:41:46 PM »
Quote from: "Dogplatter"
Quote from: "Sarthos"

And do you honestly believe that test is authentic?  Some pot smoker made it to help the rest of his drug buddies like you.


As far as I know, Samuel Rowbotham was a devout, conservative christian who probably didn't even drink, much less smoke ganja.


Try this test: http://resources.yesican-science.ca/lpdd/g06/lp/unit2.html
Logged
*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
  • +1/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2006, 03:44:23 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"

Try this test: http://resources.yesican-science.ca/lpdd/g06/lp/unit2.html


Eratosthenes's tests assume that the Sun is at a certain distance (very far away) from the Earth, which FE'ers reject.
Logged
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2006, 08:49:07 PM »
Quote from: "Aralith"
I'm sorry I'm calling bullshit. The earth is much larger than that. Six miles along the earth is not going to create a six foot variance. Bullshit.


You're way off base.  Try doing some actual calculations before doing a proof-by-what-feels-right.

The "drop off" of the Earth's surface from a tangent line over a distance x is given quite simply by R (sec(x/R) - 1), where R is the radius of the Earth.

If x is 6 miles, then the dropoff becomes 0.0045420 miles or 23.982 feet, which coincidentally, is exactly what Samuel Rowbotham lists in that table that I'm sure you looked at.

You ought to have no difficulty verifying the formula, but I can draw a picture if you like.  Having a look at the Wikipedia article on trigonometric functions should help a lot.  As usual, this topic was discussed to death in another thread in which the RE detractors just kinda quieted down.
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2006, 11:08:27 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Aralith"
I'm sorry I'm calling bullshit. The earth is much larger than that. Six miles along the earth is not going to create a six foot variance. Bullshit.


You're way off base.  Try doing some actual calculations before doing a proof-by-what-feels-right.

The "drop off" of the Earth's surface from a tangent line over a distance x is given quite simply by R (sec(x/R) - 1), where R is the radius of the Earth.

If x is 6 miles, then the dropoff becomes 0.0045420 miles or 23.982 feet, which coincidentally, is exactly what Samuel Rowbotham lists in that table that I'm sure you looked at.

You ought to have no difficulty verifying the formula, but I can draw a picture if you like.  Having a look at the Wikipedia article on trigonometric functions should help a lot.  As usual, this topic was discussed to death in another thread in which the RE detractors just kinda quieted down.


We can't trust you, because you don't use science to support your claims.
Logged
?

Mephistopheles

  • 892
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2006, 11:10:55 PM »
Sure he does.

Its you that no one can trust.

You've made outlandish claims all day; why should anyone even pay attention to you anymore?
Logged
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2006, 11:22:23 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
We can't trust you, because you don't use science to support your claims.


What??   Which claim?  My only claim is purely geometric.  Do you doubt the mathematics, or the radius of the Earth?  I took the latter from Wikipedia.  The mathematics are more or less also easily reproduced by a quick read from Wikipedia, and I presume you know how to use a calculator.

Really, no "science" needs to be involved.  Just some math.  The reason you ought to believe the "claims" I made is that you can reproduce them yourself.

Note that -- and this is admittedly off-topic -- the ability of evidence to be reproduced by yourself is not a feature of photographs from space or of measurements of the Earth's gravitational field atop Mt. Everest.
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2006, 11:46:52 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
We can't trust you, because you don't use science to support your claims.


What??   Which claim?  My only claim is purely geometric.  Do you doubt the mathematics, or the radius of the Earth?  I took the latter from Wikipedia.  The mathematics are more or less also easily reproduced by a quick read from Wikipedia, and I presume you know how to use a calculator.

Really, no "science" needs to be involved.  Just some math.  The reason you ought to believe the "claims" I made is that you can reproduce them yourself.

Note that -- and this is admittedly off-topic -- the ability of evidence to be reproduced by yourself is not a feature of photographs from space or of measurements of the Earth's gravitational field atop Mt. Everest.


You did mention a "drop off." How can you prove there is a drop off?
Logged
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2006, 12:34:03 AM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
You did mention a "drop off." How can you prove there is a drop off?


Um.... didn't you think I was a flat-Earther?  In that case, wouldn't I believe that there is in fact not a drop-off?

Or are you just not sure what I meant by a drop-off?

Or are you playing some sort of infantile "see where this sort of thought process gets you?" game?

Either way I'm losing you here.
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2006, 10:52:24 AM »
Quote
The "drop off" of the Earth's surface from a tangent line over a distance x is given quite simply by R (sec(x/R) - 1), where R is the radius of the Earth.

If x is 6 miles, then the dropoff becomes 0.0045420 miles or 23.982 feet, which coincidentally, is exactly what Samuel Rowbotham lists in that table that I'm sure you looked at.


The distance would probably be something more like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 degrees per metre rather than something longer like 6 miles.
Logged
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #21 on: July 16, 2006, 05:59:51 PM »
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
The distance would probably be something more like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 degrees per metre rather than something longer like 6 miles.


I don't understand this sentence.  What distance would probably be what you're describing, and under what conditions?

I really think it would help if you answered the "which part of my claim do you disagree with" question.
Logged
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?
?

Ubuntu

  • 2392
  • +0/-0
The Vast Antarctic Security Organization
« Reply #22 on: July 16, 2006, 06:26:40 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Ubuntu"
The distance would probably be something more like 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 degrees per metre rather than something longer like 6 miles.


I don't understand this sentence.  What distance would probably be what you're describing, and under what conditions?

I really think it would help if you answered the "which part of my claim do you disagree with" question.


Okay, if you calculated it correctly, that means ever 1358.6 feet there would be a 1 foot drop. That means every foot the Earth drops 0.000736051818 feet. So every foot you walk you drop seven ten-thousandths of a foot.

I guess that actually supports the Round Earth Theorem. My mistake. :)
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »