FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.

  • 54 Replies
  • 6841 Views
*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« on: December 14, 2011, 03:26:06 PM »
Attention FE'ers who wish to debate their views -- From now on, please be sure to respect Dr. Bishop's new vetting process:


RE'rs regularly claim that they've observed communication satellites with the naked eye, that they are NASA astronauts, or otherwise a pilot or a surveyor for the purpose of the discussion. We have multiple Neil Armstrongs, several administrator's of NASA, rocket scientists, dozens of professional astronomers, and a large number of pilots/navigators.

RE'ers who reply and claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources. Referencing a third party study would be far more credible.

Please submit your study for peer review.


FE'ers regularly claim that they've observed the entire Earth "rising" with the naked eye when they step off of a chair, and that they have conducted experiments with contrary results to those conducted by countless thousands of astronauts, pilots/navigators, surveyors, rocket scientists, professional astronomers, and so on. Some FE'ers have even been known to claim that they are "accomplished magicians".

The people making these claims represent a miniscule fraction of one percent of the population. Referencing a third party study would be far more credible.

Please submit your studies for peer review.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #1 on: December 15, 2011, 03:14:23 PM »
I quite like the fact that Bom Tishop denies the fact that we can see satellites with naked eyes.

If he want to make a complete jerk of himself, that's up to him.

But I maintain my statement: I've seen satellites passing in the sky. I've never said communications satellite and I've never said I was an astraunaut or anything else.
The Earth looks flat, therefore it is FEers wisdom.

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #2 on: December 15, 2011, 03:26:39 PM »
I quite like the fact that Bom Tishop denies the fact that we can see satellites with naked eyes.

If he want to make a complete jerk of himself, that's up to him.

But I maintain my statement: I've seen satellites passing in the sky. I've never said communications satellite and I've never said I was an astraunaut or anything else.
Hey Tom, go look!

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #3 on: December 15, 2011, 04:51:14 PM »
In my statement I said "communication satellites."

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2011, 05:28:28 PM »
In my statement I said "communication satellites."
So? Are you arguing that the ISS is not a satellite, or that we don't communicate with it?

If anything is in Earth orbit, including the ISS, then your Zetetic-unimpeachable conclusion that sustained Earth orbit is impossible is wrong!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41646
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2011, 06:48:57 PM »
In my statement I said "communication satellites."

How about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare#Iridium_satellite_flare
Quote
The Iridium communication satellites have a peculiar shape with three polished door-sized antennas, 120 apart and at 40 angles with the main bus. The forward antenna faces the direction the satellite is traveling. Occasionally, an antenna reflects sunlight directly down at Earth, creating a predictable and quickly moving illuminated spot on the surface below of about 10 km diameter. To an observer this looks like a bright flash, or flare in the sky, with a duration of a few seconds.

http://www.heavens-above.com/iridium.asp?Dur=7&lat=36.600&lng=-121.894&loc=Monterey&alt=23&tz=PST
Quote
Iridium Flares
Clicking on the time of the flare will load another page with more details,
 including a map showing the track of the flare along the ground, and the
 location of the nearest point of maximum intensity.
 
Search Period Start: 18:44,  Thursday, 15 December, 2011
Search Period End: 19:44,  Thursday, 22 December, 2011
Observer's Location: Monterey ( 36.6000N, 121.8940W)
Local Time: Pacific Standard Time (GMT - 8:00)

 
DateLocal
Time
Intensity
( Mag)
Alt. Azimuth Distance to
flare centre
Intensity at
flare centre
(Mag.)
Satellite
16 Dec05:11:21
-6
16
173 (S  )
1.6 km (W)
-6
16 Dec06:10:03
-1
18
65 (ENE)
76.1 km (E)
-6
16 Dec06:14:45
-6
20
66 (ENE)
5.4 km (W)
-6
17 Dec05:05:38
-1
13
174 (S  )
44.9 km (E)
-6
18 Dec05:43:32
-1
13
59 (ENE)
106.3 km (E)
-6
18 Dec05:53:00
-2
16
62 (ENE)
73.7 km (W)
-6
18 Dec17:12:37
-2
73
60 (ENE)
16.7 km (W)
-9
19 Dec05:37:19
-6
12
58 (ENE)
14.8 km (W)
-6
19 Dec06:19:56
-1
12
141 (SE )
66.1 km (W)
-5
19 Dec17:06:30
-8
73
66 (ENE)
1.0 km (E)
-9
20 Dec04:56:37
-3
13
180 (S  )
22.4 km (W)
-6
20 Dec06:14:01
-5
11
142 (SE )
23.5 km (E)
-5
21 Dec04:51:12
-4
9
180 (S  )
19.6 km (E)
-6
21 Dec06:16:47
-1
14
145 (SE )
74.1 km (W)
-5
22 Dec06:10:51
-6
13
146 (SSE)
6.6 km (W)
-6
22 Dec18:43:52
-0
43
40 (NE )
40.6 km (E)
-8
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.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2011, 01:28:52 PM »
Quote from: Clocktower
So? Are you arguing that the ISS is not a satellite, or that we don't communicate with it?

The ISS is not a communications satellite.

Quote from: Clocktower
If anything is in Earth orbit, including the ISS, then your Zetetic-unimpeachable conclusion that sustained Earth orbit is impossible is wrong!

I never claimed that the ISS was in earth orbit.

In my statement I said "communication satellites."

How about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare#Iridium_satellite_flare

When a car passes by and a flare hits you for a couple of seconds, in that brief moment do you say that you saw a car, or that you saw a flare of the sun?

The satellite (stratellite) is completely invisible except on the rare occasion when it passes a flare to to the ground. No one can claim to have "seen a satellite." They saw a flare for a couple of seconds. The originator itself cannot be identified and is not seen.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 01:32:29 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2011, 02:06:06 PM »
Quote from: Clocktower
So? Are you arguing that the ISS is not a satellite, or that we don't communicate with it?

The ISS is not a communications satellite.

Quote from: Clocktower
If anything is in Earth orbit, including the ISS, then your Zetetic-unimpeachable conclusion that sustained Earth orbit is impossible is wrong!

I never claimed that the ISS was in earth orbit.
1) Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim? We have years of records of communications with that satellite? How is your claim relevant?
2) Again, how is this relevant? Please read once again what I claimed.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2011, 02:10:19 PM »
The ISS is not a communications satellite.

Yet another semantics victory under your belt! Congratulations! I'd argue that a communications satellite is any satellite that can communicate, but who cares! In semantics, everybody wins!


More to the point:

I've seen satellites passing in the sky. I've never said communications satellite

So uh... what an enormous waste of time this was.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2011, 02:11:59 PM »
Quote from: Clocktower
So? Are you arguing that the ISS is not a satellite, or that we don't communicate with it?

The ISS is not a communications satellite.

Quote from: Clocktower
If anything is in Earth orbit, including the ISS, then your Zetetic-unimpeachable conclusion that sustained Earth orbit is impossible is wrong!

I never claimed that the ISS was in earth orbit.
1) Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim? We have years of records of communications with that satellite? How is your claim relevant?
2) Again, how is this relevant? Please read once again what I claimed.


1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_satellite --

    "A communications satellite (sometimes abbreviated to COMSAT) is an artificial satellite stationed in space for the purpose of telecommunications."

    "They are also used for mobile applications such as communications to ships, vehicles, planes and hand-held terminals, and for TV and radio broadcasting, for which application of other technologies, such as cable television, is impractical or impossible."

2) You said

    "If anything is in Earth orbit, including the ISS, then your Zetetic-unimpeachable conclusion that sustained Earth orbit is impossible is wrong!"

But I never claimed that the ISS was in earth orbit.

Quote from: zarg
Yet another semantics victory under your belt! Congratulations! I'd argue that a communications satellite is any satellite that can communicate

It's not, see above.

Quote from: zarg
More to the point:

I've seen satellites passing in the sky. I've never said communications satellite

Well I guess "EmperorZhark" didn't meet the original premise then. I never said that the ISS was invisible. The ISS is visible because it is as large as two football fields.

The bulk of the hundreds of satellites supposedly zipping through the air, Communications Satellites, are invisible. Scientific satellites of similar sizes are also invisible.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 02:26:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2011, 02:27:26 PM »
Quote from: Clocktower
So? Are you arguing that the ISS is not a satellite, or that we don't communicate with it?

The ISS is not a communications satellite.

Quote from: Clocktower
If anything is in Earth orbit, including the ISS, then your Zetetic-unimpeachable conclusion that sustained Earth orbit is impossible is wrong!

I never claimed that the ISS was in earth orbit.
1) Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim? We have years of records of communications with that satellite? How is your claim relevant?
2) Again, how is this relevant? Please read once again what I claimed.


1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_satellite --

    "A communications satellite (sometimes abbreviated to COMSAT) is an artificial satellite stationed in space for the purpose of telecommunications."

2) You said

    "If anything is in Earth orbit, including the ISS, then your Zetetic-unimpeachable conclusion that sustained Earth orbit is impossible is wrong!"

But I never claimed that the ISS was in earth orbit.

Quote from: zarg
Yet another semantics victory under your belt! Congratulations! I'd argue that a communications satellite is any satellite that can communicate

It's not, see above.

Quote from: zarg
More to the point:

I've seen satellites passing in the sky. I've never said communications satellite

Well I guess "EmperorZhark" didn't meet the original premise then. I never said that the ISS was invisible. The ISS is visible because it is as large as two football fields.

The bulk of the hundreds of satellites supposedly zipping through the air, Communications Satellites, are invisible. Scientific satellites of similar sizes are also invisible.
Again, you make irrelevant points. Do read what I asked.

Please reference Heavens Above for you next opportunity to see a satellite dedicated to communication.

Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2011, 02:34:45 PM »
Well I guess "EmperorZhark" didn't meet the original premise then.

Yes, and arguing that the ISS isn't a communications satellite had nothing to do with the original premise either. It was all a deviation from the point -- a very common FE tactic.


Quote
Communications Satellites, are invisible.

Except when they aren't.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41646
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #12 on: December 16, 2011, 06:53:40 PM »
In my statement I said "communication satellites."

How about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare#Iridium_satellite_flare

When a car passes by and a flare hits you for a couple of seconds, in that brief moment do you say that you saw a car, or that you saw a flare of the sun?

The satellite (stratellite) is completely invisible except on the rare occasion when it passes a flare to to the ground. No one can claim to have "seen a satellite." They saw a flare for a couple of seconds. The originator itself cannot be identified and is not seen.

Motorola (necessarily a conspiracy member) spend a great deal of money to put 72 satellites into very specific, predictable orbits.  Since the orbits of these satellites is well known, predictions of when flares off of those satellites can be made.  If you want to dismiss these predictions, then that's up to you. 
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.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #13 on: December 22, 2011, 05:53:55 PM »
Oh, first-hand evidence is not trustworthy?

LOL SCIENCE DISPROVED
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

?

EireEngineer

  • 1205
  • Woo Nemesis
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #15 on: December 22, 2011, 07:30:39 PM »
I see that Tom is still his willfully obtuse self.
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2011, 07:58:08 PM »
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #17 on: December 22, 2011, 09:15:15 PM »
No, I was clarifying for you. Your first statement is correct, but your obnoxious caps-lock conclusion is false. The scientific method includes the part that I linked to precisely because of this fact:

Quote from: the article
Sometimes experimenters may make systematic errors during their experiments, unconsciously veer from a scientific method (Pathological science) for various reasons, or, in rare cases, deliberately report false results.

In other words, first-hand evidence is not trustworthy.

That's why these things -- peer review, replication, etc. -- exist. FET has long ignored its responsibility to this process, and continues to, yet here we have Tom dismissing RET on the same basis. That's the special pleading fallacy you keep hearing about. This is the same man who expects us to believe he regularly proves the Earth is flat with a telescope on a beach in California, despite the fact that no scientist is able to reproduce it.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2011, 06:28:21 AM »
I quite like the fact that Bom Tishop denies the fact that we can see satellites with naked eyes.

If he want to make a complete jerk of himself, that's up to him.

But I maintain my statement: I've seen satellites passing in the sky. I've never said communications satellite and I've never said I was an astraunaut or anything else.
Some time ago i put, on a romanian archery forum, the entire list of object/distance of sight taken from an 1954 soviet military manual, most of the people who read that said they can not see objects as far as they were in the manual.
So you claim to have seen a 51-109 metre object at a distance of 350 - 410 km (acording to wikipedia) ? Are you some form of hitech robot or what ?

What you have seen was a aeroplane (bigger than a satelite) and at a distance of ~10km.

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2011, 10:36:53 AM »
I quite like the fact that Bom Tishop denies the fact that we can see satellites with naked eyes.

If he want to make a complete jerk of himself, that's up to him.

But I maintain my statement: I've seen satellites passing in the sky. I've never said communications satellite and I've never said I was an astraunaut or anything else.
Some time ago i put, on a romanian archery forum, the entire list of object/distance of sight taken from an 1954 soviet military manual, most of the people who read that said they can not see objects as far as they were in the manual.
So you claim to have seen a 51-109 metre object at a distance of 350 - 410 km (acording to wikipedia) ? Are you some form of hitech robot or what ?

What you have seen was a aeroplane (bigger than a satelite) and at a distance of ~10km.
LEO starts as low as 160km. Please also state your claim clearly and then make your case logically. Because 'most people' said one thing does not imply another thing for all people.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2444
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2011, 10:43:10 AM »
I quite like the fact that Bom Tishop denies the fact that we can see satellites with naked eyes.

If he want to make a complete jerk of himself, that's up to him.

But I maintain my statement: I've seen satellites passing in the sky. I've never said communications satellite and I've never said I was an astraunaut or anything else.
Some time ago i put, on a romanian archery forum, the entire list of object/distance of sight taken from an 1954 soviet military manual, most of the people who read that said they can not see objects as far as they were in the manual.
So you claim to have seen a 51-109 metre object at a distance of 350 - 410 km (acording to wikipedia) ? Are you some form of hitech robot or what ?

What you have seen was a aeroplane (bigger than a satelite) and at a distance of ~10km.
LEO starts as low as 160km. Please also state your claim clearly and then make your case logically. Because 'most people' said one thing does not imply another thing for all people.
Basically, what he is saying is that you can't see satellites with the naked eye as they are simply too far away, and I am inclined to agree. I don't know, but I struggle to believe that one can see something that is about the size of a house from a minimum distance of 100 miles away.
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2011, 10:54:59 AM »
Basically, what he is saying is that you can't see satellites with the naked eye as they are simply too far away, and I am inclined to agree. I don't know, but I struggle to believe that one can see something that is about the size of a house from a minimum distance of 100 miles away.
You should consider that when you see a meteor you're often seeing a grain at 60-100 km in height.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 41646
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2011, 10:56:31 AM »
I quite like the fact that Bom Tishop denies the fact that we can see satellites with naked eyes.

If he want to make a complete jerk of himself, that's up to him.

But I maintain my statement: I've seen satellites passing in the sky. I've never said communications satellite and I've never said I was an astraunaut or anything else.
Some time ago i put, on a romanian archery forum, the entire list of object/distance of sight taken from an 1954 soviet military manual, most of the people who read that said they can not see objects as far as they were in the manual.
So you claim to have seen a 51-109 metre object at a distance of 350 - 410 km (acording to wikipedia) ? Are you some form of hitech robot or what ?

What you have seen was a aeroplane (bigger than a satelite) and at a distance of ~10km.
LEO starts as low as 160km. Please also state your claim clearly and then make your case logically. Because 'most people' said one thing does not imply another thing for all people.
Basically, what he is saying is that you can't see satellites with the naked eye as they are simply too far away, and I am inclined to agree. I don't know, but I struggle to believe that one can see something that is about the size of a house from a minimum distance of 100 miles away.
However, sunlight reflecting off of a satellite's solar panels or antennas can be quite visible (sometimes even in broad daylight).  This phenomenon is know as a satellite flare and at an altitude of approximately 485 miles, the Iridium constellation of satellites are particularly well known example.
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.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2011, 12:00:27 PM »
I struggle to believe that one can see something that is about the size of a house from a minimum distance of 100 miles away.

Please understand that the following is a straw-man attack:

The satellite (stratellite) is completely invisible except on the rare occasion when it passes a flare to to the ground. No one can claim to have "seen a satellite."

No one has claimed to see anything but the reflecting sunlight.
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #24 on: December 23, 2011, 01:30:11 PM »
LEO starts as low as 160km. Please also state your claim clearly and then make your case logically. Because 'most people' said one thing does not imply another thing for all people.
At first you wrote 160km, later in another message you try to bring down the number to 60 km. Dont be a prick, you know very well that 160 km for Low Earth Orbit Satelites is only in theory, in reality no satelite can go lower tham 300 km (assuming they are real).
And trust me, at a distance of 300km you would not see nothing, not even if it was the size of a small town, nor the reflection of that object.

In case you should see something, you should know that there are a lot of things that roam the skies.


*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2011, 03:55:45 PM »
And trust me, at a distance of 300km you would not see nothing, not even if it was the size of a small town, nor the reflection of that object.

So FET claims that due to glare the 32-mile-diameter sun 3000 miles above seems to grow in size and can be seen across a 24900-mile-diameter Earth.

Yet we can't see solar panels reflecting 150 miles.

Interesting.


In case you should see something, you should know that there are a lot of things that roam the skies.

I see. Are there 72 of those predictably orbiting exactly according to Motorola's claims?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #26 on: December 23, 2011, 04:17:31 PM »
LEO starts as low as 160km. Please also state your claim clearly and then make your case logically. Because 'most people' said one thing does not imply another thing for all people.
At first you wrote 160km, later in another message you try to bring down the number to 60 km. Dont be a prick, you know very well that 160 km for Low Earth Orbit Satelites is only in theory, in reality no satelite can go lower tham 300 km (assuming they are real).
And trust me, at a distance of 300km you would not see nothing, not even if it was the size of a small town, nor the reflection of that object.

In case you should see something, you should know that there are a lot of things that roam the skies.
You'll have to point out to me the posting where I claimed that 60km is LEO.

No, I won't trust you. Either provide evidence or science to support your claim. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

No, I don't see how a drawing of a creature in a tree supports your position in the least.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #27 on: December 23, 2011, 11:40:34 PM »
So FET claims that due to glare the 32-mile-diameter sun 3000 miles above seems to grow in size and can be seen across a 24900-mile-diameter Earth.

Yet we can't see solar panels reflecting 150 miles.

Interesting.
The F.E.T. is wrong if its not based on the Holy Bible, and we dont have any references to the size of the sun, only one that sais "the sun is shining very much, and the moon is shining less". Therefore we can not measure the sun.
Quote
I see. Are there 72 of those predictably orbiting exactly according to Motorola's claims?
From eyewitness reports we know that:
- " The Iele are said to live in the sky, in forests, in caves, on isolated mountain cliffs and in marshes, and reported to have been seen bathing in the springs or at crossroads. "
- " They mostly appear at night by moonlight,  in secluded areas such as glades, the tops of certain trees (maples, walnut trees), ponds, river sides, crossroads or abandoned fireplaces."
- " The place where they had danced would after remain carbonized, with the grass incapable of growing on the trodden ground, and with the leaves of the surrounding trees scorched. Later, when grass would finally grow, it would have a red or dark-green color, the animals would not eat it, but instead mushrooms would thrive on it. "


That was just one example of what can be found at our height level, but have been numerous showings of diferent types of demons in the atmosphere that can fool uninitiated people into beliving they are satellites.

BTW,      Motorola makes extemly sh*te phones, why would you ever belive them ?

@ClockTower, read again your messages on the second page of this thread.
Do you know what Dostoievski said about sience ?
So take your sience(fiction) and go to others that belive in that crap.

*

zarg

  • 1181
  • Saudi Arabian inventor of Dr. Pepper
Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #28 on: December 24, 2011, 01:22:30 AM »
The F.E.T. is wrong if its not based on the Holy Bible

So the FET is wrong, then.


From eyewitness reports we know that:
- " The Iele are said to live in the sky, in forests, in caves, on isolated mountain cliffs and in marshes, and reported to have been seen bathing in the springs or at crossroads. "
- " They mostly appear at night by moonlight,  in secluded areas such as glades, the tops of certain trees (maples, walnut trees), ponds, river sides, crossroads or abandoned fireplaces."
- " The place where they had danced would after remain carbonized, with the grass incapable of growing on the trodden ground, and with the leaves of the surrounding trees scorched. Later, when grass would finally grow, it would have a red or dark-green color, the animals would not eat it, but instead mushrooms would thrive on it. "


That was just one example of what can be found at our height level, but have been numerous showings of diferent types of demons in the atmosphere that can fool uninitiated people into beliving they are satellites.

You're cute, I like you.


BTW,      Motorola makes extemly sh*te phones, why would you ever belive them ?

Because based on what they claim about their satellites, we can accurately predict when and where we'll see them next. Have you predicted anything through FET lately?
Quote from: Cat Earth Theory
[Lord Wilmore's writings] are written the way a high schooler thinks an educated person should sound like.  The pathetic pseudo-academic writing can't hide the lack of any real substance.

Re: FE'ers who claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources.
« Reply #29 on: December 24, 2011, 02:19:26 AM »
So the FET is wrong, then.

As in all cases the answer is in the Holy Bible, and in the Modern Bibles its beeing told that Jesus was taken by devil on a high mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the world, so this suports the F.E.T. but in the Transilavian Bible of XVII century, it sais that Jesus was taken in a high mountain, clearly inside the mountain, and its in suport of the Geocentrist Theory (Round Earth).
I can never know for sure because I can not read ancient greek, to understand if it was "in" or "on" a mountain. In both cases satelites would be fiction because in FE there is not posible for them to orbit, and in the RE they will be hit by the sun & moon who actualy orbit the earth at that hight.

Quote
Because based on what they claim about their satellites, we can accurately predict when and where we'll see them next. Have you predicted anything through FET lately?
They can do witchcraft to make demons apear in the sky, not a very hard thing to do because we know that demons live in the first sky, that's why we see them.