The New Theory

Ooh, the old, "I know something you don't know!" ploy.  How quaint.

Lol. But seriously, if he has pies I want some.

Nope, its not that. That's too quaint for my tastes. You'll notice it soon enough, so just relax. You asked a stupid question, you got a  stupid answer.

EDIT: Pombo, no, I don't have pies Even if I did, how would you get them?

I do love the occasional apple pie.

They are pretty good, eh? Man, you guys are making me hungry...

Nope, its not that. That's too quaint for my tastes. You'll notice it soon enough, so just relax. You asked a stupid question, you got a  stupid answer.

EDIT: Pombo, no, I don't have pies Even if I did, how would you get them?

I'd come over there and get them.

Their integrity is called into question because if the Earth is flat, they are part of a conspiracy. This would taint any results that they release.

Circular reasoning. If the Earth is flat, then they must be a part of a conspiracy. In the same way that anybody else who has proof that Earth is round must be in on the conspiracy as well. On that basis it's impossible to prove the earth is round, since if you do then you're a part of the conspiracy.

And money is the primary motive. You think it costs more to fabricate launches and photos vs. building large space crafts and flying into space?

Yeah. NASA must still employ all their staff, still give their staff budgets to do stuff, still set up shuttle launches, still buy rocket fuel, still appear to be running a space exploration agency. On top of that you've got bribe money, money to set up fake satellites, money to set up secret broadcasting towers to broadcast satellite signals, money to develop computer technology to fake photos of earth, and the massive expense of hiring a private army and maintaining this army for 40 years in the most hostile terrain in earth. It must cost more.

There's no such thing as circular reasoning. All reasoning is flat.

(Being Tom is fun )

Well after reading many of the threads.

Ok so the earth is flat.

1. Any photos of the edge of the earth? Anyone know anyone else who has fallen off or come to the end of the earth.
2. Would someone please provide a map? See next point.
3. Using this map how do we navigate from continent to continent while always travelling in one direction (east or west). i.e Fly from here to China, through the middle east on through Europe, maybe a quick stop in England , and then back to Canada. Once back in Canada continue to fly the same direction always heading East. The trip can be done over and over. How can that be?

I have family who has sailed their own boat around the entire world. More then once! For some reason they couldn't find the edge, maybe they just weren't looking though.

Read the FAQ.

Aye, most, if not all of those questions have been answered in the FAQ. Don't cry to us if there are glaring inaccuracies in the FAQ, we know about them, and a new FAQ is being written.

Read the FAQ.

Ok. Supply me with a map, and I will return the favor by supplying you with a map.

Aye, most, if not all of those questions have been answered in the FAQ. Don't cry to us if there are glaring inaccuracies in the FAQ, we know about them, and a new FAQ is being written.

I hear ya, the FAQ provides very little in terms supported scientific theory or evidence, conspiracy well ummmm...well...ummmm how do I put it? I read the FAQ, and still have these questions.

All I ask is for a Flat Earth Map! One with all the cities, countries, and continents on it. How hard is that? Provide it please. Since the flat earth scientists (if there is such) believe in a flat earth, well obviously they have done enough research to develop a correct map of a flat earth. Us non-believers can at the very minimum provide anyone with a very accurate map!

Now I hate to put down people in an educational sense, and this isn't directed at any specific person here. Anyone studying Hydrogeology, Geometry, Geology, Geophysics, Telemetry, Space, Math, Physics, would tell you the earth is NOT flat. Provide any imperical evidence to support a flat earth. A Paper published recently to support it, without arguing 'conspiracy' because you do not clearly understand the scientific methodology.

Refer to you're rediculous FAQ is hardly a debate. For the most part, educated people refrain from visiting this site. Why? Because for every point a Flat Earth person makes involves a implication of a conspiracy with no known answer the the question. Thats weak!

FAQ- Frequently Added Quotations
The FAQ is nothing. It needs updating badly since half it's babble doesn't make any sense and doesn't work. Take the FAQ explanation for seasons, doesn't work on so many levels.

FAQ- Frequently Added Quotations
The FAQ is nothing. It needs updating badly since half it's babble doesn't make any sense and doesn't work. Take the FAQ explanation for seasons, doesn't work on so many levels.

That's quite fitting though, the Flat Earth theory doesn't work on so many levels

Circular reasoning. If the Earth is flat, then they must be a part of a conspiracy. In the same way that anybody else who has proof that Earth is round must be in on the conspiracy as well. On that basis it's impossible to prove the earth is round, since if you do then you're a part of the conspiracy.

Nope. What "proof" do they have?

Yeah. NASA must still employ all their staff, still give their staff budgets to do stuff, still set up shuttle launches, still buy rocket fuel, still appear to be running a space exploration agency. On top of that you've got bribe money, money to set up fake satellites, money to set up secret broadcasting towers to broadcast satellite signals, money to develop computer technology to fake photos of earth, and the massive expense of hiring a private army and maintaining this army for 40 years in the most hostile terrain in earth. It must cost more.

No, no. The point of the conspiracy is that they're not spending the money on what they claim to, or what they would "need" to. It wouldn't make much sense to have a conspiracy and not make money. They would have no need to develop fake satellites, or do the ice guards (depending on the method or particulars of the Ice Wall), etc...

And I don't doubt the still paying their staff and such, but using computer technology instead of building a shuttle must be fairly different.

All I ask is for a Flat Earth Map! One with all the cities, countries, and continents on it. How hard is that? Provide it please. Since the flat earth scientists (if there is such) believe in a flat earth, well obviously they have done enough research to develop a correct map of a flat earth. Us non-believers can at the very minimum provide anyone with a very accurate map!

There is a "map" in the FAQ. However, it's not to scale and is simply a projection. And no, most of the believers haven't the means to develop an accurate map of the Earth.

Now I hate to put down people in an educational sense, and this isn't directed at any specific person here. Anyone studying Hydrogeology, Geometry, Geology, Geophysics, Telemetry, Space, Math, Physics, would tell you the earth is NOT flat.

And what does that prove?

Provide any imperical evidence to support a flat earth. A Paper published recently to support it, without arguing 'conspiracy' because you do not clearly understand the scientific methodology.

The empirical evidence would be no different than what is already discovered on this "round" Earth.

Refer to you're rediculous FAQ is hardly a debate. For the most part, educated people refrain from visiting this site. Why? Because for every point a Flat Earth person makes involves a implication of a conspiracy with no known answer the the question. Thats weak!

Wrong.

Nope. What "proof" do they have?

Photos, maps, first hand testimony of people who have been to space, google earth, even Wallace and other geographers or surveyors conducting the experiment laid out in Earth not a Globe. But because the Earth is definitely flat, then that proof must be fake, right? It's impossible to provide any kind of evidence that won't be dismissed as fake.

And I don't doubt the still paying their staff and such, but using computer technology instead of building a shuttle must be fairly different.

They did build a shuttle though. Quite a few in fact. The business of space exploration is so visible that it would be really hard to fake. Your average rocket launch consists of a huge jet of flame shooting up into the atmosphere accompanied by a loud noise, for instance. Anybody could track it with a telescope

Think of all the materials they buy as well. There'll be an audit trail, can't fool the taxman.

I call Narcberry on this entire conversation.

Read the FAQ.

the FAQ is way too old and needs to be updated.  stop treating it like some kind of god.

Quote from: TheEngineer on January 31, 2008, 07:05:36 PM

Read the FAQ.

the FAQ is way too old and needs to be updated.  stop treating it like some kind of god.

Blasphemy! Burn him! BURN HIM AT THE STAKE!!!!

Photos, maps, first hand testimony of people who have been to space, google earth, even Wallace and other geographers or surveyors conducting the experiment laid out in Earth not a Globe. But because the Earth is definitely flat, then that proof must be fake, right? It's impossible to provide any kind of evidence that won't be dismissed as fake.

Not that they are fake, but have the possibility of being fake.

They did build a shuttle though. Quite a few in fact. The business of space exploration is so visible that it would be really hard to fake. Your average rocket launch consists of a huge jet of flame shooting up into the atmosphere accompanied by a loud noise, for instance. Anybody could track it with a telescope

The rockets don't have to be fake. And just because someone can track it doesn't mean that they do.

Think of all the materials they buy as well. There'll be an audit trail, can't fool the taxman.

And the premise would be that they do fool them. Or, unfortunately, they add another aspect to the conspiracy. I prefer the former since it's easier.

Quote from: A man called Skank on February 01, 2008, 04:32:22 AM

Photos, maps, first hand testimony of people who have been to space, google earth, even Wallace and other geographers or surveyors conducting the experiment laid out in Earth not a Globe. But because the Earth is definitely flat, then that proof must be fake, right? It's impossible to provide any kind of evidence that won't be dismissed as fake.

Not that they are fake, but have the possibility of being fake.

Quote from: A man called Skank on February 01, 2008, 04:32:22 AM

They did build a shuttle though. Quite a few in fact. The business of space exploration is so visible that it would be really hard to fake. Your average rocket launch consists of a huge jet of flame shooting up into the atmosphere accompanied by a loud noise, for instance. Anybody could track it with a telescope

The rockets don't have to be fake. And just because someone can track it doesn't mean that they do.

Quote from: A man called Skank on February 01, 2008, 04:32:22 AM

Think of all the materials they buy as well. There'll be an audit trail, can't fool the taxman.

And the premise would be that they do fool them. Or, unfortunately, they add another aspect to the conspiracy. I prefer the former since it's easier.

1. So, according to you, the photos/videos etc. may be fake or they may be real.  That doesn't sound like solid evidence supporting FE.
2. Ok, the rocket's don't have to be fake.  I agree with you on that, seeing as it's pretty difficult to effectively substitute the image of tons of propellant being shoved out of a tube in the eyes of people watching it from up close.  I don't see, though, how (given the combined initial thrust from the two SRBs and three liquid-fueled engines--SSMES) the rocket could somehow stop in midair, maneuver around and magically come to a landing on an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean traveling at 25x the speed of sound, or something like it.

1. So, according to you, the photos/videos etc. may be fake or they may be real.  That doesn't sound like solid evidence supporting FE.

I never said that that was solid evidence supporting FE.

I don't see, though, how (given the combined initial thrust from the two SRBs and three liquid-fueled engines--SSMES) the rocket could somehow stop in midair, maneuver around and magically come to a landing on an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean traveling at 25x the speed of sound, or something like it.

Why is it doing this?

Quote from: against science on February 02, 2008, 09:40:26 AM

1. So, according to you, the photos/videos etc. may be fake or they may be real.  That doesn't sound like solid evidence supporting FE.

I never said that that was solid evidence supporting FE.

Quote from: against science on February 02, 2008, 09:40:26 AM

I don't see, though, how (given the combined initial thrust from the two SRBs and three liquid-fueled engines--SSMES) the rocket could somehow stop in midair, maneuver around and magically come to a landing on an aircraft carrier in the middle of the ocean traveling at 25x the speed of sound, or something like it.

Why is it doing this?

Clearly talking to Tom Bishop doesn't help clarify things regarding the FE theory.  Tom said that the space shuttle is just a glider, so that, to fake the launches, once it's lifted into the stratosphere and out of sight it secretly lands onto  an aircraft carrier in the Pacific Ocean.  So...yeah.