New, with a few questions...

1. What is the FE explanation of Haley's Comet?

2. What was flying around Earth when Sputnik was launched? It was visible to the naked eye, travelling across the sky.

3. Are there any FEs who don't believe in a Creator of some kind? Or does it go hand-in-hand with a Flat Earth?

4. What happened to Christy McAuliffe? She was one of many people aboard the Space Shuttle Challenger when it exploded (which I, along with millions of others, had the misfortune of witnessing). And on that subject. I am willing to give you the credit that the government may have lied about, or possibly even caused, the deaths of other potential astronauts early in the space program, for whatever reason, but why kill an innocent school teacher?

Anyone?

Should I add more vitriole to my post in order to get some attention?  :lol:

As far as 3. goes, "God" (creator) is not an integral part of the theory.  Some use it to explain some of the phenomenon that occurs as do others with phenomenon that occurs in the round world.

I do not believe I could properly answer your other questions though without misleading you.

Should I accuse you people of being flat-headed morons to get attention?

2. What was flying around Earth in the 40s when Sputnik was launched? It was also visible to the naked eye, travelling across the sky.

I have no idea what you are referring to.  Haley's comet was around in the early 1900's.  Sputnik was launched in '57.  There were no satelites in the '40's.

Should I accuse you people of being flat-headed morons to get attention?

No.

1. What is the FE explanation of Haley's Comet?

FEs believe that there is a dome over the planet, correct? So it would be possible that it was merely a reflection of one of the planet's "spotlights" (the moon or the sun) that you saw. It's possible that, with the Sun on one side of the Earth, it reflected a beam of light across the magnetic North Pole (which is situated where our north pole is now, except in the center of the planet), and was visible on the other side of the planet.


--Note, I am just trying to get a FE-perspective in my head. So if there's anything wrong with my theory, please point it out.

Quote

2. What was flying around Earth in the 40s when Sputnik was launched? It was also visible to the naked eye, travelling across the sky.

I have no idea what you are referring to.  Haley's comet was around in the early 1900's.  Sputnik was launched in '57.  There were no satelites in the '40's.

Ok, fixed.

FEs believe that there is a dome over the planet, correct? So it would be possible that it was merely a reflection of one of the planet's "spotlights" (the moon or the sun) that you saw. It's possible that, with the Sun on one side of the Earth, it reflected a beam of light across the magnetic North Pole (which is situated where our north pole is now, except in the center of the planet), and was visible on the other side of the planet.

Haley's comet is a regular occurance, it appears every 76 years.

Perhaps the reflection only happens every 76 years, when a certain glacier/patch of ice forms? Or perhaps the ice patch forms completely at random; it's possible for a random sequence of numbers to turn up exactally the same four or five times in a row.


Yes, I'm trying a little too hard, but... well... it's a possibility, I suppose.



EDIT: Also, this just came to mind; How can you claim that Haley's Comet truly comes around every 76 years? Did you see it come around 76 years before the last time it happened? Did you see it with your own eyes? If there truly is a conspiracy that is going around, couldn't the government merely shine a very bright spotlight on the dome surrounding the planet, and claim it was a comet?

What about #4?

i'm sure they would say that she got too close to the icewall, so they made up this excuse.

What about #4?

Prior to that only NASA personell were put into space. And we all know none of that ever happened. It was all a ploy. But now there was a teacher that wanted to go. They knew they couldn't actually go to space and bring them back. She also couldn't know of the flat earth since she was a teacher. So by blowing her up before she got to space was the easiest way to deal with a problem. They knew she wasn't coming back anyway so it didn't really make a difference where she was killed. Plus it made the sheople fall in love with the space program again and NASA could ask for more funding.

Quote from: "EnCrypto"

What about #4?

Prior to that only NASA personell were put into space. And we all know none of that ever happened. It was all a ploy. But now there was a teacher that wanted to go. They knew they couldn't actually go to space and bring them back. She also couldn't know of the flat earth since she was a teacher. So by blowing her up before she got to space was the easiest way to deal with a problem. They knew she wasn't coming back anyway so it didn't really make a difference where she was killed. Plus it made the sheople fall in love with the space program again and NASA could ask for more funding.

A lot of people want to go into space... NASA just says "no". And how would the death of an innocent civilian endear NASA to the nation and convince them they were safe and deserved funding? 20 years of space launches and they still have major malfunctions like that? Seems like more of a reason to end their funding... and since it's not actually funding anything, there are thousands of other, less evil, ways of diverting funding.

And what about rich people who go into space? Are you saying that if you have $20 million you're trusted with the secret?

Don't you think that, by now, someone would have decided "I am willing to sacrifice my life to bring knowledge to the people." Because that happened A LOT throughout history, and considering the millions of people involved in this, you'd think at least one of them would say "Fuck the consequences, it's worth it."

How would the death of a civilian adhere people to NASA? Do you remember when it happened? What was the only thing in the news for months after it happened? The Challenger accident. It suddenly brought the space program to the forefront again. The space race was back on. News of another shuttle launch was coming so fast and furious that it was hardly making news. And surely not front page news. But when the Challenger blew up..... guess what was on the front page for a long time? You guessed it....NASA.

Rich people in space? No one has ever really been to space. Rich people are taken up to very high altitudes. So high that the air is thin and they can't breathe. So they are given space suits etc... and they believe they are in space but since they are not really astronauts they can't and don't know the difference.

There have been people willing to make the sacrifice you speak of. However, none of them are taken seriously. Take for instance the people who have created this very forum, are they taken seriously?

There have been people willing to make the sacrifice you speak of. However, none of them are taken seriously. Take for instance the people who have created this very forum, are they taken seriously?

Exactly. When you say that no one involved in the government conspiracy has ever broken the silence, I say you're probably wrong. I'm willing to bet dozens, if not hundreds, of peope have broken the silence and come forward. The thing is, so what if one ice wall guard comes forward and says "The earth is flat! The earth is flat! The government stationed me on the edge of the disc, I saw it with my own eyes!" Everyone would just write him off as a nutjob and go right on doing what they were doing. If you live in a metropolitan area you might have even seen some "crazy" homeless guy screaming the earth is flat; did you ever think maybe he wasn't so crazy after all?

He said "nutjob"  :lol:

Quote from: "lomfs24"

There have been people willing to make the sacrifice you speak of. However, none of them are taken seriously. Take for instance the people who have created this very forum, are they taken seriously?

Exactly. When you say that no one involved in the government conspiracy has ever broken the silence, I say you're probably wrong.

Don't you think they'd realize how crazy they would sound and show the confidential information they have? Proof?

Memos, documents, pictures of things ranging from the super-top-secret-seuper-advanced computers created in the 50s/60s to render perfect fake images and fottage, that, to this day, are still infallible, to pictures of the ice wall.

I won't argue that people have tried and been killed, but I still find it absurd to think every single government in the world has been in agreement in keeping this secret for decades, if not longer; through war, terrorism, genocide, threats, assassinations. Nobody has ever decided to retaliate by giving up the big secret, causing chaos worldwide, anarchy. Forget about hijacking a plane, if you want effective terrorism, just show the proof that the world is flat and the billions of people of Earth are being lied to by every single government on Earth.

Ever hear of Watergate? Governments aren't good at keeping secrets.

Rich people in space? No one has ever really been to space. Rich people are taken up to very high altitudes. So high that the air is thin and they can't breathe. So they are given space suits etc... and they believe they are in space but since they are not really astronauts they can't and don't know the difference.

Also, high enough to see the shape of Earth.

Ever hear of Watergate? Governments aren't good at keeping secrets.

It's a lot easier to believe in corrupt government officials than it is to believe the earth is flat. The thing is that the government doesn't even have to be particularly good at keeping the secret any more; anyone who breaks the silence is dismissed at crazy.

Don't you think they'd realize how crazy they would sound and show the confidential information they have? Proof?

Memos, documents, pictures of things ranging from the super-top-secret-seuper-advanced computers created in the 50s/60s to render perfect fake images and fottage, that, to this day, are still infallible, to pictures of the ice wall.

So if I showed you a memo that said

"Earth is flat
Sincerely,
The Government"

You would be convinced?

Or maybe a picture of a '60's style computer with a post-it that said "Top Secret Government Photo Doctoring Machine (PS EARTH IS FLAT)"?

As for those "infallible" picture, I guess someone missed the Fox special on how the moon landing was faked.

Really think, what "Evidence" would you need to see to convince you that the earth is flat? I'm guessing, if you're honest with yourself, the answer would be "nothing would ever prove that to me". Maybe a personal trip to outer space, but in terms of photos, documents, confessions... I'm pretty comfortable in saying you would never be convinced. I know I wouldn't.

2. What was flying around Earth when Sputnik was launched? It was visible to the naked eye, travelling across the sky.

Even though the Earth is flat, things can still fly in the sky. Sputnik could have been a Conspiracy aeroplane deliberately deployed to make Americans and Russians THINK that space travel was possible.

Ever hear of Watergate? Governments aren't good at keeping secrets.

Watergate was deliberately staged by the Conspiracy to make us think that governments aren't good at keeping secrets.

It's a lot easier to believe in corrupt government officials than it is to believe the earth is flat. The thing is that the government doesn't even have to be particularly good at keeping the secret any more; anyone who breaks the silence is dismissed at crazy.

No, because if the conspiracy were as extensive as you say it is, then there are heaps of evidence, beyond memos, that would convince anyone. Of course people on street corners who smell like urine will be dismissed as crazy.

Think about all of the questions people answer with "conspiracy" and look at what that would require, the paper trails and physical evidence etc.

And, as I said before, anyone who wanted to break the silence would KNOW that everyone would think they're crazy and would steal evidence to prove their case.

As for those "infallible" picture, I guess someone missed the Fox special on how the moon landing was faked.

I've seen specials real experts (people with jobs that specialize in knowing everything about their field*,  not guys who obsess in their basement about the government and "conspiracies") debunking that conspiracy.

And I'd like you to go tell Buzz Aldrin that the moon landing was faked. He punched out the last guy who said that to him.

Really think, what "Evidence" would you need to see to convince you that the earth is flat? I'm guessing, if you're honest with yourself, the answer would be "nothing would ever prove that to me". Maybe a personal trip to outer space, but in terms of photos, documents, confessions... I'm pretty comfortable in saying you would never be convinced. I know I wouldn't.

A Computer that could be authenticated as being from the 50s/60s that could Generate Images that NO modern technology could detect flaws in. A former astronaut/President/top-level scientist saying it was faked.

You know, as I write this I think of another question... How do you explain what we see when we look through a high-power telescope? I mean, if you drop a few coins you can get a telescope that cane show you the detailed surface of the Moon (among other things that poke holes in the FE model), not to mention what you could see if you took a trip to a nearby observatory, with one of those massive telescopes.

Maybe I'll search around for observatories and post a list so you can take a trip and tell them you'd like to use their telescope to prove the Earth is flat?

*Not just scientists who would be "in on it", but film experts, and other fields who wouldn't be "in on it".

And I'd like you to go tell Buzz Aldrin that the moon landing was faked. He punched out the last guy who said that to him.

Buzz physically assaulting critics of the Lunar landings just shows his desire to silence people who know what really went down "up there" (read: down here).

Quote from: "EnCrypto"

And I'd like you to go tell Buzz Aldrin that the moon landing was faked. He punched out the last guy who said that to him.

Buzz physically assaulting critics of the Lunar landings just shows his desire to silence people who know what really went down "up there" (read: down here).

I just read a few of your other posts and will no longer be responding to you.

I respect the people who try to offer factual arguments for FE (such as Erasmus, and others), and, although frustrating, I have some respect for the people who rely a little too heavily on the "conspiracy!" answer, but you're just a troll who's essentially mocking the purpose of this forum, and I have no respect for you or your arguments, and so I will no longer waste my time replying to you.

Oh, and their are fossil records of penguins evolving because not all penguins live in Antarctica. It's just harder to find fossils in a frozen desert.

I just read a few of your other posts and will no longer be responding to you.

I respect the people who try to offer factual arguments for FE (such as Erasmus, and others), and, although frustrating, I have some respect for the people who rely a little too heavily on the "conspiracy!" answer, but you're just a troll who's essentially mocking the purpose of this forum, and I have no respect for you or your arguments, and so I will no longer waste my time replying to you.

Oh, and their are fossil records of penguins evolving because not all penguins live in Antarctica. It's just harder to find fossils in a frozen desert.

I am trying to give factual arguments here. I know you won't respond to this, but I'd like you to know that I express all my views with the utmost sincerity.

I am trying to give factual arguments here. I know you won't respond to this, but I'd like you to know that I express all my views with the utmost sincerity.

There is nothing fact-based about dinosaurs and plants travelling from one continent to another. And as I said before, there are fossil records of penguins.

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

I am trying to give factual arguments here. I know you won't respond to this, but I'd like you to know that I express all my views with the utmost sincerity.

There is nothing fact-based about dinosaurs and plants travelling from one continent to another. And as I said before, there are fossil records of penguins.

I didn't once suggest that plants could travel from one continent to another - only dinosaurs (this is my sincere belief).

but plants that could not be in antarctica today (similar has happened in africa/south america) have fossil evidence that they were there at some point in the earths development

but plants that could not be in antarctica today (similar has happened in africa/south america) have fossil evidence that they were there at some point in the earths development

As part of your debunking of the dinosaurs in boats theory, you pointed out that dinosaurs would have had to bring vast amounts of food with them. What do dinosaurs eat? Plants.