China

Prove me wrong.

Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof is not on me.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 12, 2011, 11:40:16 AM

Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof is not on me.

It is generally accepted that the known distances associated with different parts of the world are accurate. You are the one presenting the alternate idea that these distances are wrong. If you cannot back up your claims then the best you can hope for is to be ignored.

So stay alone with your foolishness.

Quote from: Tausami on November 12, 2011, 11:45:38 AM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 12, 2011, 11:40:16 AM

Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof is not on me.

It is generally accepted that the known distances associated with different parts of the world are accurate. You are the one presenting the alternate idea that these distances are wrong. If you cannot back up your claims then the best you can hope for is to be ignored.

That's not what we're talking about right now. To summarize the last couple of posts, Zhark got angry at me because he was beginning to realize that I was right, so he resorted to an ad Hominem about me being insane. Now he's telling me to disprove the fact that I'm insane, and I'm telling him that it is up to him to prove the state of my mental well-being, and not me.

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 12, 2011, 11:48:03 AM

Quote from: Tausami on November 12, 2011, 11:45:38 AM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 12, 2011, 11:40:16 AM

Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof is not on me.

It is generally accepted that the known distances associated with different parts of the world are accurate. You are the one presenting the alternate idea that these distances are wrong. If you cannot back up your claims then the best you can hope for is to be ignored.

That's not what we're talking about right now. To summarize the last couple of posts, Zhark got angry at me because he was beginning to realize that I was right, so he resorted to an ad Hominem about me being insane. Now he's telling me to disprove the fact that I'm insane, and I'm telling him that it is up to him to prove the state of my mental well-being, and not me.

Actually getting back to the topic at hand, what evidence do you have that the distances we use are wrong?

The prevalent theory is that the known Earth is shaped like a circle, with the arctic region at the center and the antarctic at the edge.  When traveling east or west, or turnwise or widdershins as they're sometimes referred to, one is actually traveling in a large circle around the north pole.

The Earth is constantly accelerating upwards at a rate of approx 9.81 m/s/s.

Disproved by INS.
Disproved by variations in gravitational strength at different locations.

Quote from: Tausami on November 12, 2011, 11:51:17 AM

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 12, 2011, 11:48:03 AM

Quote from: Tausami on November 12, 2011, 11:45:38 AM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 12, 2011, 11:40:16 AM

Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof is not on me.

It is generally accepted that the known distances associated with different parts of the world are accurate. You are the one presenting the alternate idea that these distances are wrong. If you cannot back up your claims then the best you can hope for is to be ignored.

That's not what we're talking about right now. To summarize the last couple of posts, Zhark got angry at me because he was beginning to realize that I was right, so he resorted to an ad Hominem about me being insane. Now he's telling me to disprove the fact that I'm insane, and I'm telling him that it is up to him to prove the state of my mental well-being, and not me.

Actually getting back to the topic at hand, what evidence do you have that the distances we use are wrong?

We already went over this. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is a flat disk. Thus, it follows that distances are about the same as they would be on a disk.

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 12, 2011, 11:56:42 AM

Quote from: Tausami on November 12, 2011, 11:51:17 AM

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 12, 2011, 11:48:03 AM

Quote from: Tausami on November 12, 2011, 11:45:38 AM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 12, 2011, 11:40:16 AM

Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof is not on me.

It is generally accepted that the known distances associated with different parts of the world are accurate. You are the one presenting the alternate idea that these distances are wrong. If you cannot back up your claims then the best you can hope for is to be ignored.

That's not what we're talking about right now. To summarize the last couple of posts, Zhark got angry at me because he was beginning to realize that I was right, so he resorted to an ad Hominem about me being insane. Now he's telling me to disprove the fact that I'm insane, and I'm telling him that it is up to him to prove the state of my mental well-being, and not me.

Actually getting back to the topic at hand, what evidence do you have that the distances we use are wrong?

We already went over this. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is a flat disk. Thus, it follows that distances are about the same as they would be on a disk.

Likewise, I could say that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is round.

If you're going to resort to circular logic then I see no more reason to continue listening to you.

Tausami's argument of choice: "The Earth is flat because the distance between two points matches that of a flat disk... The distance between two points matches that of a flat disk because the Earth is flat..."

Quote from: Tausami on November 12, 2011, 12:41:20 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 12, 2011, 11:56:42 AM

Quote from: Tausami on November 12, 2011, 11:51:17 AM

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 12, 2011, 11:48:03 AM

Quote from: Tausami on November 12, 2011, 11:45:38 AM

Quote from: EmperorZhark on November 12, 2011, 11:40:16 AM

Prove me wrong.

The burden of proof is not on me.

It is generally accepted that the known distances associated with different parts of the world are accurate. You are the one presenting the alternate idea that these distances are wrong. If you cannot back up your claims then the best you can hope for is to be ignored.

That's not what we're talking about right now. To summarize the last couple of posts, Zhark got angry at me because he was beginning to realize that I was right, so he resorted to an ad Hominem about me being insane. Now he's telling me to disprove the fact that I'm insane, and I'm telling him that it is up to him to prove the state of my mental well-being, and not me.

Actually getting back to the topic at hand, what evidence do you have that the distances we use are wrong?

We already went over this. It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the Earth is a flat disk. Thus, it follows that distances are about the same as they would be on a disk.

Likewise, I could say that it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is round.

If you're going to resort to circular logic then I see no more reason to continue listening to you.

Tausami's argument of choice: "The Earth is flat because the distance between two points matches that of a flat disk... The distance between two points matches that of a flat disk because the Earth is flat..."

I never said that the Earth is flat because of distance. The Earth must be flat because of experiments performed by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham

Likewise, the Earth was proven to be round by experiments done by Eratosthenes, Foucault, and many others.

Likewise, the Earth was proven to be round by experiments done by Eratosthenes, Foucault, and many others.

We've disproven those in the past.

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 12, 2011, 01:05:23 PM

Likewise, the Earth was proven to be round by experiments done by Eratosthenes, Foucault, and many others.

We've disproven those in the past.

Likewise, the experiments of Rowbatham have been soundly disproven also.

Quote from: Tausami on November 12, 2011, 01:07:50 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 12, 2011, 01:05:23 PM

Likewise, the Earth was proven to be round by experiments done by Eratosthenes, Foucault, and many others.

We've disproven those in the past.

Likewise, the experiments of Rowbatham have been soundly disproven also.

Refraction is a cop-out.

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 12, 2011, 03:00:34 PM

Quote from: Tausami on November 12, 2011, 01:07:50 PM

Quote from: jraffield1 on November 12, 2011, 01:05:23 PM

Likewise, the Earth was proven to be round by experiments done by Eratosthenes, Foucault, and many others.

We've disproven those in the past.

Likewise, the experiments of Rowbatham have been soundly disproven also.

Refraction is a cop-out.

It's also repeatable, matches observations, and is explainable using known scientific processes. Sounds good to me.

People navigate using the accepted distances from the RE globe and guess what?  The distances are correct.  If people were to realize that it took twice as long to go from one place to another using RE distances compared to real distances, don't you think that people would have stopped using these distances a long time ago?  Come on, if a flight was supposed to take 8 hours, for example, but took 14 hours instead, that would be a major flag that something is wrong, especially if it happened consistently.  Plus planes would likely be crashing left and right due to lack of fuel in the Southern Hemisphere, but not in the Northern hemisphere.  Can you provide proof that this happens?

People navigate using the accepted distances from the RE globe and guess what?  The distances are correct.  If people were to realize that it took twice as long to go from one place to another using RE distances compared to real distances, don't you think that people would have stopped using these distances a long time ago?  Come on, if a flight was supposed to take 8 hours, for example, but took 14 hours instead, that would be a major flag that something is wrong, especially if it happened consistently.  Plus planes would likely be crashing left and right due to lack of fuel in the Southern Hemisphere, but not in the Northern hemisphere.  Can you provide proof that this happens?

The conspiracy lies about the plane's specs. They move faster then is claimed and carry more fuel.

Gosh, more and more people in the conspiracy every time!

Gosh, more and more people in the conspiracy every time!

They don't need more people. The leaders of NASA have a lot of power. A bribe here, a murder there, and it's all good.

The conspiracy lies about the plane's specs. They move faster then is claimed and carry more fuel.

But they automatically slow down in the Northern Hemisphere?

Quote from: Tausami on November 13, 2011, 07:30:55 AM

The conspiracy lies about the plane's specs. They move faster then is claimed and carry more fuel.

But they automatically slow down in the Northern Hemisphere?

Is that so hard to believe?

Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2011, 12:01:22 PM

Quote from: Tausami on November 13, 2011, 07:30:55 AM

The conspiracy lies about the plane's specs. They move faster then is claimed and carry more fuel.

But they automatically slow down in the Northern Hemisphere?

Is that so hard to believe?

It doesn't make any sense for aircraft to move this way UNLESS the pilots themselves are a part of the conspiracy as well. So far, that's a lot of people that need to be bribed by NASA 

Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2011, 12:01:22 PM

Quote from: Tausami on November 13, 2011, 07:30:55 AM

The conspiracy lies about the plane's specs. They move faster then is claimed and carry more fuel.

But they automatically slow down in the Northern Hemisphere?

Is that so hard to believe?

Yes, it is hard to believe.  Even if you had presented any sort of evidence to support this, it would still be hard to believe.  But, instead of evidence, you offer that it must be that way in order for any of  the flat earth maps to work.

Yes indeed.  Very hard to believe.

So hard it can be nothing but dismissed.

The prevalent theory is that the known Earth is shaped like a circle, with the arctic region at the center and the antarctic at the edge.  When traveling east or west, or turnwise or widdershins as they're sometimes referred to, one is actually traveling in a large circle around the north pole.

The Earth is constantly accelerating upwards at a rate of approx 9.81 m/s/s.

WHAT?

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 29, 2011, 10:25:44 AM

The Earth is constantly accelerating upwards at a rate of approx 9.81 m/s/s.

How many miles upward has the Earth traveled since its creation?

Creation... see?  Religion.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on October 29, 2011, 10:46:12 AM

GPS tracking.

A GPS would be entirely as successful at describing your path on any map of the Earth. Case in point: Mercator is commonly used in GPS.

hahaha WHAT??? The standard for use in Global Positioning is the WGS 84 model, which assumes a round Earth.  And, it just so happens to be... THE MOST ACCURATE!!!!!  People closer to the equator can get away with a mercator model because it doesn't distort towards the equator.

They certainly don't use the idiot FE model.  God help us.

Quote from: Tausami on November 13, 2011, 12:11:09 PM

Quote from: jroa on November 13, 2011, 12:01:22 PM

Quote from: Tausami on November 13, 2011, 07:30:55 AM

The conspiracy lies about the plane's specs. They move faster then is claimed and carry more fuel.

But they automatically slow down in the Northern Hemisphere?

Is that so hard to believe?

It doesn't make any sense for aircraft to move this way UNLESS the pilots themselves are a part of the conspiracy as well. So far, that's a lot of people that need to be bribed by NASA 

The pilots do not have to be members of the conspiracy. They are not controlling this. The plane is lying to them.

Planes are know to be big liars.

They lie enven more than cars or boats.

Ladies and Gentlement, I present to you the Flat Earth Movement:

The pilots do not have to be members of the conspiracy. They are not controlling this. The plane is lying to them.