Proof

  • 50 Replies
  • 7171 Views
?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Proof
« Reply #30 on: November 01, 2009, 04:04:56 AM »
The book Earth Not a Globe proves the earth is flat.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm


Just in case any newbies believe Winston's post here, I'd like to add that when the experiments in Earth Not A Globe were repeated by people who were trained surveyors, they demonstrated there is a curvature to the earth's surface. Therefore the experiments are at best inconclusive.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Proof
« Reply #31 on: November 01, 2009, 05:21:38 AM »
[now disproved] bendy light theory

Please stop claiming that bendy light has been disproved. It has not.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Proof
« Reply #32 on: November 01, 2009, 06:12:20 AM »
[now disproved] bendy light theory

Please stop claiming that bendy light has been disproved. It has not.

Your beliefs are irrelevant in this thread.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Proof
« Reply #33 on: November 01, 2009, 06:43:53 AM »
Your beliefs are irrelevant in this thread.

Correct, but irrelevant to what I said.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40481
Re: Proof
« Reply #34 on: November 01, 2009, 08:43:13 AM »
Tom, until you can show us a photo of what you believe the sun really looks like in a vacuum, you have no basis of comparison between a genuine and a fake picture of the sun in a vacuum.

Why, are there stage lights in space?

I don't know.  Can you provide of picture of a stage light in a vacuum so that we can compare that with the Apollo picture in question?  Until then, you have no basis for claiming that it's a stage light. 
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Proof
« Reply #35 on: November 01, 2009, 10:02:45 AM »
I know a guy that I met on these forums, we became good friends.
He decided to take a trip to the Ice Wall. Lets just say that I haven't heard back from him.
 This was about a few months ago. I had a different account back then but I forgot the info.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17648
Re: Proof
« Reply #36 on: November 01, 2009, 12:28:43 PM »
Tom, until you can show us a photo of what you believe the sun really looks like in a vacuum, you have no basis of comparison between a genuine and a fake picture of the sun in a vacuum.

Why, are there stage lights in space?

I don't know.  Can you provide of picture of a stage light in a vacuum so that we can compare that with the Apollo picture in question?

Actually you're the one who is supposed to be justifying the existence of stage lights in space.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2009, 12:32:21 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Sean

  • Official Member
  • 10736
  • ...
Re: Proof
« Reply #37 on: November 01, 2009, 12:30:55 PM »
What makes you think it is a stage light?
Quote from: sokarul
Better bring a better augment, something not so stupid.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17648

?

Christianrocker90

  • 3135
  • Rays Republic
Re: Proof
« Reply #39 on: November 01, 2009, 12:34:54 PM »
Tom, until you can show us a photo of what you believe the sun really looks like in a vacuum, you have no basis of comparison between a genuine and a fake picture of the sun in a vacuum.

Why, are there stage lights in space?

I don't know.  Can you provide of picture of a stage light in a vacuum so that we can compare that with the Apollo picture in question?

Actually you're the one who is supposed to be justifying the existence of stage lights in space.

Answer me this then, if you don't know what a light looks like in space, how can that photo try to justify it? Or how do you know the real sun wouldn't look the same when messed with in a photo editor?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17648
Re: Proof
« Reply #40 on: November 01, 2009, 01:01:35 PM »
Tom, until you can show us a photo of what you believe the sun really looks like in a vacuum, you have no basis of comparison between a genuine and a fake picture of the sun in a vacuum.

Why, are there stage lights in space?

I don't know.  Can you provide of picture of a stage light in a vacuum so that we can compare that with the Apollo picture in question?

Actually you're the one who is supposed to be justifying the existence of stage lights in space.

Answer me this then, if you don't know what a light looks like in space, how can that photo try to justify it? Or how do you know the real sun wouldn't look the same when messed with in a photo editor?

The real sun doesn't look like that in a photo editor. Try it yourself.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40481
Re: Proof
« Reply #41 on: November 01, 2009, 01:02:36 PM »
Actually you're the one who is supposed to be justifying the existence of stage lights in space.

Umm... No.  You are the one claiming that the sun in that Apollo picture is a stage light.  I'm just asking you to provide evidence that the photo in question is not consistent with the conditions claimed by NASA.  You have yet to do so.

The real sun doesn't look like that in a photo editor.

Unless you have a picture of the sun taken in a vacuum for comparison, you have no evidence to support that statement.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2009, 01:05:41 PM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Proof
« Reply #42 on: November 01, 2009, 01:13:55 PM »
What makes you think it is a stage light?

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33855.msg830773#msg830773

All I see in that crummy video is you tooling around with Photoshop. There is no evidence at all that it isn't the sun in the picture - most of what you're looking at in the original image is lens flare. If you think the big wide circle is supposed to be the edge of the actual sun or a stage light, you are far wrong. Film and scanned images have limits to their dynamic range, and the lens flare alone on the original negative would have easily reached d-max, meaning that the smaller spot of the sun within it could not be seen as seperate from the flare. Don't forget I work for the conspiracy in the imaging field and so I know what I'm talking about. The square blocks within the image after you've tampered with it are merely jpeg compression artefacts. What about that picture makes you think it's not the sun, exactly?
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Christianrocker90

  • 3135
  • Rays Republic
Re: Proof
« Reply #43 on: November 01, 2009, 01:40:28 PM »
Tom, until you can show us a photo of what you believe the sun really looks like in a vacuum, you have no basis of comparison between a genuine and a fake picture of the sun in a vacuum.

Why, are there stage lights in space?

I don't know.  Can you provide of picture of a stage light in a vacuum so that we can compare that with the Apollo picture in question?

Actually you're the one who is supposed to be justifying the existence of stage lights in space.

Answer me this then, if you don't know what a light looks like in space, how can that photo try to justify it? Or how do you know the real sun wouldn't look the same when messed with in a photo editor?

The real sun doesn't look like that in a photo editor. Try it yourself.

There's no evidence to support that statement cause according to you, space flight isn't possible.

?

Christianrocker90

  • 3135
  • Rays Republic
Re: Proof
« Reply #44 on: November 01, 2009, 09:28:35 PM »
bump

Re: Proof
« Reply #45 on: November 01, 2009, 10:09:58 PM »
Why do they always say we have the burden of proof?  There is so much proof out there that proves them all wrong.  They choose not to accept it (even though its kind of retarded).  Once one of them actually goes to space they wont ever be able to prove themselves right.  All they have done so far is make up there own non proven ideas and make a website.  Im sorry FE's but the burden of proof is on you.  RE's have tons of proof.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Proof
« Reply #46 on: November 01, 2009, 11:47:08 PM »
Why do they always say we have the burden of proof?  There is so much proof out there that proves them all wrong.  They choose not to accept it (even though its kind of retarded).  Once one of them actually goes to space they wont ever be able to prove themselves right.  All they have done so far is make up there own non proven ideas and make a website.  Im sorry FE's but the burden of proof is on you.  RE's have tons of proof.

We aren't the ones who came and joined your website and started demanding proof, nor did we force you to start posting here. You've come here to us, so the burden of proof is on you. Alternatively, you're free to leave at any time.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

?

Christianrocker90

  • 3135
  • Rays Republic
Re: Proof
« Reply #47 on: November 02, 2009, 12:37:29 AM »
Why do they always say we have the burden of proof?  There is so much proof out there that proves them all wrong.  They choose not to accept it (even though its kind of retarded).  Once one of them actually goes to space they wont ever be able to prove themselves right.  All they have done so far is make up there own non proven ideas and make a website.  Im sorry FE's but the burden of proof is on you.  RE's have tons of proof.

We aren't the ones who came and joined your website and started demanding proof, nor did we force you to start posting here. You've come here to us, so the burden of proof is on you. Alternatively, you're free to leave at any time.

But you are the unproven theory, so quit trying to dodge it, and "try" to "convert" us to FE'ers.

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12106
Re: Proof
« Reply #48 on: November 02, 2009, 12:48:09 AM »
This is not some proslytizing faith. Unlike the high priests of globularism, we encourage you to come to your own conclusions.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord

?

Christianrocker90

  • 3135
  • Rays Republic
Re: Proof
« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2009, 02:14:25 AM »
This is not some proslytizing faith. Unlike the high priests of globularism, we encourage you to come to your own conclusions.

I know, they were used as metaphors.

Re: Proof
« Reply #50 on: November 02, 2009, 10:41:37 AM »
I thought this is where we debate this subject?  Im trying to debate this... but first I need some LEGIT proof from you guys, jesus christ.