Spooky stuff

a flat Earth....
i thought at first that your all full of crap. but then i realized that i cant prove that it is round. but i also cant prove that its flat either. i don't know what to think!
all the research i do to find this stuff out could be fake. i don't know whats right or wrong anymore!!!

a flat Earth....
i thought at first that your all full of crap. but then i realized that i cant prove that it is round. but i also cant prove that its flat either. i don't know what to think!
all the research i do to find this stuff out could be fake. i don't know whats right or wrong anymore!!!

Good fellow, the world is truly a remarkable place to occupy.  It is also a mysterious  one full of uncertainty.  You must endure times of hardship and not suffer from a drastic loss in the ability to live with uncertainty like I have at times.  It leads to anxiety and depression.  These endeavors must be negotiated with confidence and poise if you are to remain in a stable state of mind.  If you need additional support or counsel please feel free to PM me as needed.  I also know of additional methods which are a bit unorthodox, but still foster desirable results when coping with these psychological difficulties.

i realized that i cant prove that it is round

I can, look:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg

The problem is, they can't prove it's flat, nor can they prove it isn't round beyond saying, "NASA is lying and it's all a cover-up!"  As if, there's really some huge advantage to lying about the shape of the Earth.

You know, I mean... when you assume that the REAL experts in the field are a part of a conspiracy to spread misinformation, well, that leaves you subject to believe anything.  Can the FES prove it isn't a pyramid?

Quote from: Xzentrus on November 13, 2011, 11:04:02 PM

i realized that i cant prove that it is round

I can, look:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg

The problem is, they can't prove it's flat, nor can they prove it isn't round beyond saying, "NASA is lying and it's all a cover-up!"  As if, there's really some huge advantage to lying about the shape of the Earth.

You know, I mean... when you assume that the REAL experts in the field are a part of a conspiracy to spread misinformation, well, that leaves you subject to believe anything.  Can the FES prove it isn't a pyramid?

The question is why would one (you) believe the earth to be  pyramid shaped?  There have been experiments demonstrating the earth to be a plane, where are the results alluding to a pyramid shaped earth?  There is much more than your elementary analysis  of FE advocates and their ideas.  You have simply viewed  a few replies from alleged FE advocates and attributed them to everyone  who might subsequently suggest the earth is flat.  That is rather  mainstream media of you kristagurl.

The question is why would one (you) believe the earth to be  pyramid shaped?  There have been experiments demonstrating the earth to be a plane, where are the results alluding to a pyramid shaped earth?  There is much more than your elementary analysis  of FE advocates and their ideas.  You have simply viewed  a few replies from alleged FE advocates and attributed them to everyone  who might subsequently suggest the earth is flat.  That is rather  mainstream media of you kristagurl.

That's my point.  Why would one believe the earth to be flat?  There have been experiments demonstrating the earth to be a sphere!  Like... pictures! 

I mean, you can't generalize a group of people under ANY umbrella, so we make assumptions of the parts based on the aspects of the majority.  It's human nature.  I'm sorry if I misjudged your beliefs or whatever, rather than simply judging them as wrong.  I know there's more to the FE theory, including a lot of convenient, HIGHLY unlikely haphazard explanations like... we only see one side of the sphere because the rest of it is too dark.  FEers and REers alike disagree on aspects of their theory within their own group. 

I guess... to me... I don't have a problem living on a flat earth if that's what it is.  There's no motivation for me to keep people thinking the world is round.  So, if there's evidence that the world is flat (that doesn't include dismissing the proof of RE as a cover-up) and that the world CAN'T be round, then I'll go with the flat earth.  I beleive that if there was a motivation behind proving the world is a pyramid, you COULD find scientists who could pull some kind of fringe logic out of their asses to prove it.  I guess that's what my point was.  RE came from taking science and forming an unbiased conclusion.  It seems (to me at least) that FE is mainly taking a debunked, outdated conclusion and trying to scrounge for unlikely evidence to support it... like people who try to use the grand canyon to prove the validity of the story of Noah.

So you can say that the earth is in a superposition of beeing every shape at once.

So you can say that the earth is in a superposition of beeing every shape at once.

Haha... the world is what you make of it!

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg

What a nice two-dimensional circle. What is it?

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg

What a nice two-dimensional circle. What is it?

Looks to me like north america wrapping around a sphere.  Observe the image below I just put together in Photoshop:



On the left is the picture you provided.  In the middle is a head-on satellite image of western North America.  It's the closest thing you'll find to a flat image of North America.  You'll see that it doesn't really resemble the first picture.  Now, for the 3rd picture, I took the head-on satellite image and adjusted the dimensions to make it look more similar to the first picture.  In order to do that, I rotated the map (to about the same degree as the Earth's "alleged" rotational axis), and scrunched it up in width, leaving the height alone.  Which... if North America was on a sphere that was rotating, away from the observer, that's exactly how it would look.

So, that piture proves to me the Earth is round.

And besides, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why you can see stars just over the horizon if the Earth were flat?  If it were flat, those stars would be behind the dark portion of the flat Earth, and thus not in sight, right?

Quote from: Xzentrus on November 13, 2011, 11:04:02 PM

i realized that i cant prove that it is round

I can, look:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg

The problem is, they can't prove it's flat, nor can they prove it isn't round beyond saying, "NASA is lying and it's all a cover-up!"  As if, there's really some huge advantage to lying about the shape of the Earth.

You know, I mean... when you assume that the REAL experts in the field are a part of a conspiracy to spread misinformation, well, that leaves you subject to believe anything.  Can the FES prove it isn't a pyramid?

Um, you can easily prove it's round. GPS's work.

FE society destroyed in one two word sentence.

Quote from: KristaGurl on November 14, 2011, 11:59:53 AM

Quote from: Xzentrus on November 13, 2011, 11:04:02 PM

i realized that i cant prove that it is round

I can, look:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg

The problem is, they can't prove it's flat, nor can they prove it isn't round beyond saying, "NASA is lying and it's all a cover-up!"  As if, there's really some huge advantage to lying about the shape of the Earth.

You know, I mean... when you assume that the REAL experts in the field are a part of a conspiracy to spread misinformation, well, that leaves you subject to believe anything.  Can the FES prove it isn't a pyramid?

Um, you can easily prove it's round. GPS's work.

FE society destroyed in one two word sentence.

Well, to play devil's advocate, FE'ers don't really believe that there are satellites going around the earth.  All the signals we get on all our little gadgets come from control towers.  So, to them, Global positioning comes from radio towers.  Not sure how that works but... meh...

Quote from: LinearPlane on November 16, 2011, 08:53:12 AM

Quote from: KristaGurl on November 14, 2011, 11:59:53 AM

Quote from: Xzentrus on November 13, 2011, 11:04:02 PM

i realized that i cant prove that it is round

I can, look:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg

The problem is, they can't prove it's flat, nor can they prove it isn't round beyond saying, "NASA is lying and it's all a cover-up!"  As if, there's really some huge advantage to lying about the shape of the Earth.

You know, I mean... when you assume that the REAL experts in the field are a part of a conspiracy to spread misinformation, well, that leaves you subject to believe anything.  Can the FES prove it isn't a pyramid?

Um, you can easily prove it's round. GPS's work.

FE society destroyed in one two word sentence.

Well, to play devil's advocate, FE'ers don't really believe that there are satellites going around the earth.  All the signals we get on all our little gadgets come from control towers.  So, to them, Global positioning comes from radio towers.  Not sure how that works but... meh...

Yeah I realize they think it is towers and pseudolites, another made up thing because they got cornered. Yet another thing you can't see with a normal telescope.

It's real easy to examine the FREE code out there for creating GPS software and know GPS technology absolutely destroys this fake flat earth society.

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on November 16, 2011, 12:22:15 AM

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg

What a nice two-dimensional circle. What is it?

Looks to me like north america wrapping around a sphere.  Observe the image below I just put together in Photoshop:



On the left is the picture you provided.  In the middle is a head-on satellite image of western North America.  It's the closest thing you'll find to a flat image of North America.  You'll see that it doesn't really resemble the first picture.  Now, for the 3rd picture, I took the head-on satellite image and adjusted the dimensions to make it look more similar to the first picture.  In order to do that, I rotated the map (to about the same degree as the Earth's "alleged" rotational axis), and scrunched it up in width, leaving the height alone.  Which... if North America was on a sphere that was rotating, away from the observer, that's exactly how it would look.

So, that piture proves to me the Earth is round.

And besides, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why you can see stars just over the horizon if the Earth were flat?  If it were flat, those stars would be behind the dark portion of the flat Earth, and thus not in sight, right?

Funny that there's not a single cloud in the sky over the entirely of North America in these "head-on" satellite images.

Quote from: KristaGurl on November 16, 2011, 06:24:57 AM

Quote from: PizzaPlanet on November 16, 2011, 12:22:15 AM

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg

What a nice two-dimensional circle. What is it?

Looks to me like north america wrapping around a sphere.  Observe the image below I just put together in Photoshop:



On the left is the picture you provided.  In the middle is a head-on satellite image of western North America.  It's the closest thing you'll find to a flat image of North America.  You'll see that it doesn't really resemble the first picture.  Now, for the 3rd picture, I took the head-on satellite image and adjusted the dimensions to make it look more similar to the first picture.  In order to do that, I rotated the map (to about the same degree as the Earth's "alleged" rotational axis), and scrunched it up in width, leaving the height alone.  Which... if North America was on a sphere that was rotating, away from the observer, that's exactly how it would look.

So, that piture proves to me the Earth is round.

And besides, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why you can see stars just over the horizon if the Earth were flat?  If it were flat, those stars would be behind the dark portion of the flat Earth, and thus not in sight, right?

Funny that there's not a single cloud in the sky over the entirely of North America in these "head-on" satellite images.

I don't think it's funny.  Especially not when they take satellite photographs when there are no clouds.  Either way, definitely not funny.

Funny that there's not a single cloud in the sky over the entirely of North America in these "head-on" satellite images.

Not to mention how easy it was to distort North America to make it look like it might on a sphere.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2011, 02:52:08 PM

Funny that there's not a single cloud in the sky over the entirely of North America in these "head-on" satellite images.

Not to mention how easy it was to distort North America to make it look like it might on a sphere.

Yeah, I rotated the image.  Kinda like... what happens when the actual continent goes around on the face of the earth as IT rotates.  It was a lot easier than trying to stretch Australia, Africa and South America twice as wide as it should be and then passing it off as, "oh, unproven EAT proves this crap."  Trust me, NASA is full of it.  MY doctored pictures are the REAL deal.

Besides... that picture was introduced to this forum by a FE believer.  How come a picture is admissible if it supports FET, but when I prove it actually supports RET, all of a sudden it's a fabrication.  Either believe it's a hoax or not.  It's not a hoax when it's convenient for you.

You simply showed how easy it is to take a flat ("head on") picture of a land mass and make it appear to be on a sphere. Everyone already knows this, I suspect, but it was nice of you to provide an example.

You simply showed how easy it is to take a flat ("head on") picture of a land mass and make it appear to be on a sphere. Everyone already knows this, I suspect, but it was nice of you to provide an example.

Now, I can't help you if you're not willing to help yourself.

That is exactly what i did.  I showed how the flat picture (which isn't actually flat, you're looking down on a convex land mass) is actually on the face of a sphere by rotating the picture and comparing that to the rotated portion of that area of the sphere!  All the while, using a picture provided by a FE Theorist!!!  What's the problem???  I don't see any FE'ers taking a deformed version of a southern continent and showing how that makes sense on a satellite image...  I'm taking a REAL picture and showing how it fits in a REAL scenario.  And you're using that to prove it could have been photoshopped???  But, the image that was supposed to have been photoshopped was introduced as legitimate by a FE believer!!!  Is the photo real or not???

The picture of the globe is not fabricated.  An example of a digitally fabricated picture of the Earth is this:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 16, 2011, 02:52:08 PM

Funny that there's not a single cloud in the sky over the entirely of North America in these "head-on" satellite images.

Not to mention how easy it was to distort North America to make it look like it might on a sphere.

Um hate to break it to you but there are independent companies who do sat imaging not related to NASA. Again, FET destroyed.

Another problem about satellites:

See the following image:
http://www.astra-aps.de/worldskies/satellites/footprints/NSS-5-340E-Global.jpg

It is the footprint (area of reception) of NSS-5, located @ 20 degrees West, supposedly above the Equator. The picture uses a flat projection (Mercator?) of an assumed spherical Earth. Due to the projection, the boundary looks like a "squircle" - the same image projected on a sphere would show the boundary as a true circle. Projecting it on the disc map commonly used on this forum, yields a completely nondescript shape.

This particular radio source (satellite? tower?) radiates nearly omnidirectionally, so if from a point on Earth, you have a line of sight to it, then a big-enough dish should allow you to receive the signal. Hence the distinctive perimeter shape (to which all other supposed satellite signals tend to converge - often, a more directional beam, when mapped, will look like it is "cut off" by this shape) - at the perimeter, the radio source can be seen touching the horizon; and crossing the perimeter causes it to drop below the horizon, preventing further reception.

My question is: Why is the shape of the perimeter (the curve at which the radio source appears to touch the horizon) shaped the way it is?

If we assume that the Earth is round, then we can easily explain it as an object in geosynchronous orbit (a satellite) emitting the signal. Any point-like object that emits radiation isotropically will always light up an area on any nearby sphere that will be bounded by a circle. The relative radius of the bounding circle is a function of the radius of the sphere, and the distance between the emitter and the center of the sphere.

However, on a flat Earth, we get no such model. Instead, translating the above image onto the disc map will yield a footprint with a perimeter that is impossible to achieve with a single emitter. (Remember, it is not enough to just lose signal exactly at the perimeter - the cause of the signal loss must be the radio source going below the horizon, for the theory to be consistent with observation.) The idea of multiple emitters may come up, but it is easily disproven by the fact that there are no reports of geographical fluctuations/discontinuities in the received signal strength of this source.
(On top of that, I suspect that not even multiple emitters can yield the above footprint on a flat disk.)

EDIT: Here is another radio source showing the same footprint: http://staging.satbeams.com/footprints?beam=6321
(The map projection is different, but it is the same basic footprint.)

Unlike the other one, this "satellite" broadcasts a continuous DVB-T transmission of Benin's Canal 3 TV channel, so it should be easier to confirm.

You have question, right.

But you don't have answers. Is it enough for doubting the existence of satellites?

Another problem about satellites:

See the following image:
http://www.astra-aps.de/worldskies/satellites/footprints/NSS-5-340E-Global.jpg

It is the footprint (area of reception) of NSS-5, located @ 20 degrees West, supposedly above the Equator. The picture uses a flat projection (Mercator?) of an assumed spherical Earth. Due to the projection, the boundary looks like a "squircle" - the same image projected on a sphere would show the boundary as a true circle. Projecting it on the disc map commonly used on this forum, yields a completely nondescript shape.

This particular radio source (satellite? tower?) radiates nearly omnidirectionally, so if from a point on Earth, you have a line of sight to it, then a big-enough dish should allow you to receive the signal. Hence the distinctive perimeter shape (to which all other supposed satellite signals tend to converge - often, a more directional beam, when mapped, will look like it is "cut off" by this shape) - at the perimeter, the radio source can be seen touching the horizon; and crossing the perimeter causes it to drop below the horizon, preventing further reception.

My question is: Why is the shape of the perimeter (the curve at which the radio source appears to touch the horizon) shaped the way it is?

If we assume that the Earth is round, then we can easily explain it as an object in geosynchronous orbit (a satellite) emitting the signal. Any point-like object that emits radiation isotropically will always light up an area on any nearby sphere that will be bounded by a circle. The relative radius of the bounding circle is a function of the radius of the sphere, and the distance between the emitter and the center of the sphere.

However, on a flat Earth, we get no such model. Instead, translating the above image onto the disc map will yield a footprint with a perimeter that is impossible to achieve with a single emitter. (Remember, it is not enough to just lose signal exactly at the perimeter - the cause of the signal loss must be the radio source going below the horizon, for the theory to be consistent with observation.) The idea of multiple emitters may come up, but it is easily disproven by the fact that there are no reports of geographical fluctuations/discontinuities in the received signal strength of this source.
(On top of that, I suspect that not even multiple emitters can yield the above footprint on a flat disk.)

EDIT: Here is another radio source showing the same footprint: http://staging.satbeams.com/footprints?beam=6321
(The map projection is different, but it is the same basic footprint.)

Unlike the other one, this "satellite" broadcasts a continuous DVB-T transmission of Benin's Canal 3 TV channel, so it should be easier to confirm.

I'm not really sure if you're a RE'er or a FE'er... but, the reason for the squircle is that, like how the mercator map forces you to stretch the polar regions, the circle shape it would project has to be stretched at the top and bottom.  When you keep the integrity of the middle of a circle and stretch the top and bottom, you get this squircle shape. 

Yes, I understand why it is a squircle - I merely pointed it out that the weird shape (squircle) has a logical explanation; it's a circle when projected on a spherical surface.

My question was to FEers / those denying the existence of satellites - the boundary being a squircle in a flat (Mercator? Cylinder?) projection is consistent with a satellite radio source orbiting around a globe (round Earth), possibly also with a satellite hovering in circles above a flat plane (flat Earth, with satellites possible - not sure about this), but not with the signal coming from ground sources fixed to a flat plane (flat Earth model with no spaceflight and ground pseudolites).

Quote from: Xzentrus on November 13, 2011, 11:04:02 PM

i realized that i cant prove that it is round

I can, look:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/image/planetary/earth/apollo16_earth_northamerica.jpg

The problem is, they can't prove it's flat, nor can they prove it isn't round beyond saying, "NASA is lying and it's all a cover-up!"  As if, there's really some huge advantage to lying about the shape of the Earth.

You know, I mean... when you assume that the REAL experts in the field are a part of a conspiracy to spread misinformation, well, that leaves you subject to believe anything.  Can the FES prove it isn't a pyramid?

advantage?

to remove GOD from this world you retard

that is the main objective

same with evolution

next time use your brain instead of spouting nasa BS.

I'm sick and tired of you people who are so lazy you just find some stupid link and say it proves something. Where is your research proving the earth is round? See, it's easier for your little brain to use someone else's theory or rather picture. In your small mind you hope you will change people's minds by posting fake photos.

A picture proves nothing.  Denying doesn't change reality.

Why are you here if you do not believe? This site isn't called The Round Earth Society. If you have proof that you obtained yourself maybe we can talk. Until then why don't you go jerk off some-more to all the nasa pictures that seem to give you a hard-on.

The people in charge of this world trick alot of people with their lies. But they make it easy for people with open minds because 100% of what they tell the public are lies. So in simple terms it's usually the opposite of what is sold to the public.

Round earth?

LIES

What's the opposite? FLAT

In my life I enjoy questioning things. Not bent over and salivating at what is coming up the rear.

I don't know or care what side snipez is on because I didn't bother to read it, because if your post contains the word "retard", then your argument is invalid.

I don't know or care what side snipez is on because I didn't bother to read it, because if your post contains the word "retard", then your argument is invalid.

Let me try,  2 subracted from 13 equals 11 Retard.......didnt work, its still fact.

I don't really know or care what you just said

I don't really know or care what you just said

I dont expect you to know or care.  You, or anybody elses concern is beyond my consideration.  My comments and ideas are not dictated by anyones personal interests.  I will not allow others lack of caring to retard my posting habits.

I'll take this one back.

I'm not certain what it means for someone to "retard [your] posting habits"

Oh, I'll be happy to help!

In British English:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/retard_1?q=retard
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/retard_1

In American English:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/retard
http://oaadonline.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/retard