you people can't be serious...

First:



It's ok to assume NASA did that with photoshop.

Second:

You talk about a wall of ice that holds the water in place. What if you fly over it? space?  then what keeps the air in?

Third:

You take a plane and go east. Eventually you will arrive at the same spot. Why? because the Earth IS round.

Forth:

The horizon

Your sight can see a star billions of miles away yet a ship hides in the horizon?

Assuming its mist: why is the mast the last part of the boat you see? If it where mist you would see the entire boat fade at the same time.

Fifth:



That is a long exposure photograph of the stars.

Do you think all stars rotate going in circular paths around the earth? Why don't they form squares? why do all stars rotate in circles?

It must be the Earth that is moving. But if the earth where flat and it where moving in a way to create those circles the water would fall. It would be like turning a cup upside down.

sixth:

Concorde passenger view:


seventh:

Why would science say the earth was round if they knew it wasn't true?

Eighth:

How can it be summer in Australia when its Winter in the UK? 

Ninth:

TIME ZONES

How can it be day time in UK and night time in Australia?

Tenth:

The SUN is round. According to your theory of flat earth the gravity would be something unexplained where everything goes down except the Earth. So why doesn't the Sun's Hydrogen and Helium fall down? Why does it form a ball?

If you respont to that with the tendency of those gases to go up then why does the sun "come up" at sunrise and "go down" at sunset? Why doesn't it keep going up?
Same questions with the moon.



Now the people who believe the Earth is flat should give proof of their claims.

PS: By saying the world is ROUND i mean it is a SPHERE.
PPS: An example of a SPHERE is a ball.

These forums are an insult to human intelligence and logic.... or a big joke. One or the other.

FAQ/search function.

FAQ/search function.

Yes.

FAQ/search function.

I think we al know this never works. The reason people keep asking these questions is because they haven't been answered to any suitable level in the FAQ or any of the topics that come up in a search.

That's because they're crap at searching. It's an art.

Quote

FAQ/search function.

I think we al know this never works. The reason people keep asking these questions is because they haven't been answered to any suitable level in the FAQ or any of the topics that come up in a search.

Many of his questions are directly answered in the FAQ.  He can take the time to read it just like the rest of us did when we first arrived.

It's just logical sense... you can say 1+1=3 in a FAQ but i aren't going to believe it.

-1+1=2
-A=A
-The whole is bigger than the part
-The earth is round

And why would the government hide it from us? For unknown reasons? lol... that's proving my point... there is no reason.

You can explain certain aspects of the "flat world that appears round" by using extremely complex theories that can't be proved. But its impossible for you people to explain the universe if you apply those rules you have created to make the idea of a flat world possible.

Just stop trying to make science waste time on these aspects. Earth is round, not flat. I can logically, mathematically and experimentally prove its round but you can only prove its flat by using other hypothesis that defy physics rules.

These forums are a direct insult to the scientific community and humanity as a whole. You deny simple logic to make up a overly complex theory that can't be proved for "unknown reasons".

Com'on FEs, stop telling us to read your FAQ because your FAQ doesn't explain these big holes in your theory:

1- Undetectable shadow disk that hides a part of the moon during lunar eclipse (any bodies emit radiation that are detectable, no matter what is their frequencies)
2- Impossible to restore the sun (or anything else) that disappears over the horizon with a telescope (NO, it is not because of perspective, Rowbotham completely failed this chapter)
3- Impossible to simulate zero gravity for over than 30 seconds, while you can see videos of astronauts and objects in zero gravity that last for at least 3 minutes

It's ok to assume NASA did that with photoshop.

It's not "ok"; it's true.

You talk about a wall of ice that holds the water in place. What if you fly over it? space?  then what keeps the air in?

If you fly over it, you enter space and, depending on which model you refer to (Cambridge or FAQ model), you either undergo inertial motion or accelerate upward at 9.8m/s² relative to the Earth. The DEF happens to hold the atmolayer, preventing any diffusion from taking place.

You take a plane and go east. Eventually you will arrive at the same spot. Why? because the Earth IS round.

Circumnavigation is perfectly possible on FE. Traveling east or west is basically circling around the Earth.

Your sight can see a star billions of miles away yet a ship hides in the horizon? Assuming its mist: why is the mast the last part of the boat you see? If it where mist you would see the entire boat fade at the same time.

See: perspective laws.

Do you think all stars rotate going in circular paths around the earth?

Yes.

It must be the Earth that is moving. But if the earth where flat and it where moving in a way to create those circles the water would fall. It would be like turning a cup upside down.

What the hell?

Why would science say the earth was round if they knew it wasn't true?

They are funded by the conspiracy.

How can it be summer in Australia when its Winter in the UK? 

TIME ZONES

How can it be day time in UK and night time in Australia?

Tenth:

The circular path of the sun and moon above the Earth causes seasons and time zones. There are two diagrams of this scenario in the FAQ.

According to your theory of flat earth the gravity would be something unexplained where everything goes down except the Earth. So why doesn't the Sun's Hydrogen and Helium fall down? Why does it form a ball?

This question makes no sense.

If you respont to that with the tendency of those gases to go up then why does the sun "come up" at sunrise and "go down" at sunset? Why doesn't it keep going up?

Same questions with the moon.

It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it's disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

Now the people who believe the Earth is flat should give proof of their claims.

PS: By saying the world is ROUND i mean it is a SPHERE.
PPS: An example of a SPHERE is a ball.

These forums are an insult to human intelligence and logic.... or a big joke. One or the other.

You're welcome.

Quote from: agun on March 11, 2009, 02:15:02 PM

If you respont to that with the tendency of those gases to go up then why does the sun "come up" at sunrise and "go down" at sunset? Why doesn't it keep going up?

Same questions with the moon.

It's a perspective effect. Really, the sun is just getting farther away; it looks like it's disappearing because everything gets smaller, and eventually disappears as it gets farther away.

It is not true. If the sun is just so small that it disappears over the horizon because of perspective, than you should be able to see it through a telescope. But it's obviously not the case.

EDIT: By the way, the sun doesn't seem to become smaller as it reaches the horizon.. it only seems to disappear underneath the Earth.

Pst. They're not serious. Noone here believes in a flat earth. They're all just trolls. They've said so themselves.

Pst. They're not serious. Noone here believes in a flat earth. They're all just trolls. They've said so themselves.

I take this forum very seriously, and I treat the subject matter seriously, and most of the FEers who frequent the upper forums do as well.  This forum is for the discussion of flat earth theory and if you think that by discussing and defending FET we're just trolling, well, I wonder why you're even here in the first place.

Quote from: theriddler on March 12, 2009, 03:09:47 AM

Pst. They're not serious. Noone here believes in a flat earth. They're all just trolls. They've said so themselves.

I take this forum very seriously, and I treat the subject matter seriously, and most of the FEers who frequent the upper forums do as well.  This forum is for the discussion of flat earth theory and if you think that by discussing and defending FET we're just trolling, well, I wonder why you're even here in the first place.

Isn't the control of the FE Troll population a worthy endeavor?

I wonder why you're even here in the first place.

I posted to try and save humanity of entering a new higher level of stupidity.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 12, 2009, 11:00:13 AM

I wonder why you're even here in the first place.

I posted to try and save humanity of entering a new higher level of stupidity.

Good luck with that.

Quote from: NTheGreat on March 11, 2009, 03:29:25 PM

Quote

FAQ/search function.

I think we al know this never works. The reason people keep asking these questions is because they haven't been answered to any suitable level in the FAQ or any of the topics that come up in a search.

Many of his questions are directly answered in the FAQ.  He can take the time to read it just like the rest of us did when we first arrived.

so you think your FAQs are correct?

your FAQs are full of nonsense.

naboo is real



mustafar is real



naboo from a different angle


Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

naboo is real



mustafar is real



naboo from a different angle


Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

Since no one claims that these are real, did you have a point?

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 PM

pictures

Since no one claims that these are real, did you have a point?

That is my point exactly. Why believe in something ridiculous just because there is a "photo."

The RE religion complex really is quite sad.

naboo is real



mustafar is real



naboo from a different angle


Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

Were any of those rendered in 1972?

Quote from: MayTheBetterModelWin on March 12, 2009, 10:20:56 PM

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 PM

pictures

Since no one claims that these are real, did you have a point?

That is my point exactly. Why believe in something ridiculous just because there is a "photo."

The RE religion complex really is quite sad.

You are attacking a strawman. No one believes in RE just because there is a "photo". RE documents the time and source of its photos. RE photos are consistent and PREDICTIVE. (Such as: Oh! Look. There's a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico.) The RE model better explains that photos. Again, RE is the better model.

Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

There is a point to your posts I'm sure. I just can't see what it is.

Are you saying NASA used CGI to fake photographs of earth from space (in 1967 no less)?

And is continuing to do so?

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 PM

Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

There is a point to your posts I'm sure. I just can't see what it is.

Are you saying NASA used CGI to fake photographs of earth from space (in 1967 no less)?

And is continuing to do so?

I'm saying photos are evidence of nothing, and posting them as part of your argument is a weak tactic. Did any of you take my post with the pictures serious? If not, then please do not add pictures to your posts to add credibility. It is one of my biggest pet peaves.

Pictures can be faked. To what degree, I do not know, but photoshop would not be how they faked it in the 60's, fake models and airbrushes are what I'd assume.

Google the "moon ball." Why would NASA need a perfect scale replica of the moon to conduct "trials?" Wouldn't any surface similar to the moon's have trained the astronaut's sufficiently? Why was this expensive moonball destroyed after filming the "test runs"? Such an art work would have been perfect for a museum, perhaps it would have raised the question of how well they could fake a space flight.

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 PM

Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

There is a point to your posts I'm sure. I just can't see what it is.

Are you saying NASA used CGI to fake photographs of earth from space (in 1967 no less)?

And is continuing to do so?

Here's a picture from 1968 that someone posted in another thread.  You can see that the Earth looks every bit as realistic in this image as in anything produced by NASA, and this was from Star Trek, which isn't exactly remembered for its astoundingly realistic special effects.  Clearly it wasn't that difficult to fake, even in the 60s.

Quote from: theriddler on March 13, 2009, 09:19:10 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 PM

Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

There is a point to your posts I'm sure. I just can't see what it is.

Are you saying NASA used CGI to fake photographs of earth from space (in 1967 no less)?

And is continuing to do so?

Here's a picture from 1968 that someone posted in another thread.  You can see that the Earth looks every bit as realistic in this image as in anything produced by NASA, and this was from Star Trek, which isn't exactly remembered for its astoundingly realistic special effects.  Clearly it wasn't that difficult to fake, even in the 60s.

Sorry Roundy, but that picture is from the remastered special effects version of the series.
Here is the remastered shot:


Here is the original 1968 shot:

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 13, 2009, 12:22:19 PM

Quote from: theriddler on March 13, 2009, 09:19:10 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 PM

Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

There is a point to your posts I'm sure. I just can't see what it is.

Are you saying NASA used CGI to fake photographs of earth from space (in 1967 no less)?

And is continuing to do so?

Here's a picture from 1968 that someone posted in another thread.  You can see that the Earth looks every bit as realistic in this image as in anything produced by NASA, and this was from Star Trek, which isn't exactly remembered for its astoundingly realistic special effects.  Clearly it wasn't that difficult to fake, even in the 60s.

Sorry Roundy, but that picture is from the remastered special effects version of the series.
Here is the remastered shot:


Here is the original 1968 shot:

Oops.  Wow, that Earth in the original really looked like crap.  Obviously Roddenberry didn't have the same special effects wizards on his payroll that NASA did.

Obviously not.

Quote from: theriddler on March 13, 2009, 09:19:10 AM

Quote from: Raist on March 12, 2009, 09:48:51 PM

Star wars is real, do you really think it could be done with photoshop?

There is a point to your posts I'm sure. I just can't see what it is.

Are you saying NASA used CGI to fake photographs of earth from space (in 1967 no less)?

And is continuing to do so?

I'm saying photos are evidence of nothing, and posting them as part of your argument is a weak tactic. Did any of you take my post with the pictures serious? If not, then please do not add pictures to your posts to add credibility. It is one of my biggest pet peaves.

Pictures can be faked. To what degree, I do not know, but photoshop would not be how they faked it in the 60's, fake models and airbrushes are what I'd assume.

Google the "moon ball." Why would NASA need a perfect scale replica of the moon to conduct "trials?" Wouldn't any surface similar to the moon's have trained the astronaut's sufficiently? Why was this expensive moonball destroyed after filming the "test runs"? Such an art work would have been perfect for a museum, perhaps it would have raised the question of how well they could fake a space flight.

The point that you ignore is that the photos are attributed. You also ignore the predictive value they provide. Just saying that a photo may have been faked doesn't mean that it was. RET better describes the photos and uses their data to make value prediction, as such RET is the better model.

RET better describes images it makes? No shit?

Yeah, the fact that photos produced by NASA confirm predictions made by RE seems like an incredibly weak argument against a conspiracy to me.