flat??

  • 39 Replies
  • 5982 Views
flat??
« on: January 01, 2012, 12:49:38 AM »
well i for a fact know the earth is round, for im in the military and have done the "HALO" jump (high altitude low opening) and have seen it but say what you want its true.

how ever i will humor myself by questioning this theory.

flat earth huh? lets step back and analyse this. first we start with whats at the edges of this - so far i've herd ice covered mountains. which i would like to be enlightened on this because for one. if the earth was flat they're would be one plane at which sunlight would hit. and it would be direct sunlight. which makes ice, which is proven to occur in northern and southern areas out of the question. because it would all be the same temperature. also i'm pretty sure it would take more than mountains to hold back billions upon billions of tons of water seeing as 73% percent of the earth is covered in it. and we have proof of erosion which puts mountains at a chance of 1/1000000000000000. lets just call it 0% chance. also with your theory. no seasons. changing and recurring constellations. well this is where ill end my questioning. would love feed back. and possibly more answers about this theory. chow! XD

?

Mr Pseudonym

  • Official Member
  • 5448
Re: flat??
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2012, 01:30:28 AM »
well i for a fact know the earth is round, for im in the military and have done the "HALO" jump (high altitude low opening) and have seen it but say what you want its true.

how ever i will humor myself by questioning this theory.

flat earth huh? lets step back and analyse this. first we start with whats at the edges of this - so far i've herd ice covered mountains. which i would like to be enlightened on this because for one. if the earth was flat they're would be one plane at which sunlight would hit. and it would be direct sunlight. which makes ice, which is proven to occur in northern and southern areas out of the question. because it would all be the same temperature. also i'm pretty sure it would take more than mountains to hold back billions upon billions of tons of water seeing as 73% percent of the earth is covered in it. and we have proof of erosion which puts mountains at a chance of 1/1000000000000000. lets just call it 0% chance. also with your theory. no seasons. changing and recurring constellations. well this is where ill end my questioning. would love feed back. and possibly more answers about this theory. chow! XD
I guess the military needs to start adding grammar classes to basic training.  Just so you know, you are not the first to come here and make these claims.

As for the rest of your post, there is a theory the earth is on an infinite plain, so no edges.
Why do we fall back to earth? Because our weight pushes us down, no laws, no gravity pulling us. It is the law of intelligence.

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
Re: flat??
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2012, 03:14:01 AM »
well i for a fact know the earth is round, for im in the military and have done the "HALO" jump (high altitude low opening) and have seen it but say what you want its true.
Oh, hey, look. Another "astronaut"/"pilot"/"astronomer"/"sailor". Somebody pile him with the rest.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: flat??
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2012, 03:17:30 AM »
well i for a fact know the earth is round, for im in the military and have done the "HALO" jump (high altitude low opening) and have seen it but say what you want its true.
Oh, hey, look. Another "astronaut"/"pilot"/"astronomer"/"sailor". Somebody pile him with the rest.
Oh, hey, look. Another FEer with an inane idea ("There are two Australias.") who automatically ridicules (as opposed to challenges) an REer's credentials. Somebody put him back in his pile.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12259
  • Now available in stereo
Re: flat??
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2012, 03:52:51 AM »
Oh, hey, look. Another FEer with an inane idea ("There are two Australias.")
I'm fairly sure you're aware what The Lounge is for. After all, you've pointed this out many times to me! Your double standards shine in their full glory, much as usual.

who automatically ridicules (as opposed to challenges) an REer's credentials.
By no means. If he'd like to support his claims, he's welcome to. In fact, he was welcome to do so even before I posted! It just so happens that he chose not to validate his credentials. Of course, you don't have to worry about this, since you have already confirmed to no doubt that you're a telemarketer.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: flat??
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2012, 05:08:37 AM »
Oh, hey, look. Another FEer with an inane idea ("There are two Australias.")
I'm fairly sure you're aware what The Lounge is for. After all, you've pointed this out many times to me! Your double standards shine in their full glory, much as usual.

who automatically ridicules (as opposed to challenges) an REer's credentials.
By no means. If he'd like to support his claims, he's welcome to. In fact, he was welcome to do so even before I posted! It just so happens that he chose not to validate his credentials. Of course, you don't have to worry about this, since you have already confirmed to no doubt that you're a telemarketer.
You do understand the difference between ridiculing and challenging, right?

You do understand the difference between name-calling ("[Y]ou're a telemarketer.") and challenging the contributions here (FEer with an inane idea), right?

You do agree that repeated name-calling should be limited to RM, right?

Please tell me how you determined that he chose not to validate his credentials. Might he just need time to gather and scan his documentation?

You do realize that your idea that there are two Australias was posted in the upper fora, right?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: flat??
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2012, 10:14:00 AM »
When ClockTower gets on a train the tracks disappear.

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: flat??
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2012, 10:30:27 AM »
Another potentially beautiful thread unraveled.  :-\
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

Re: flat??
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2012, 04:23:39 PM »
Question.

Assuming he did provide proper credentials(which could potentially be used to identify him in RL), why wouldn't you dismiss them outright?

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: flat??
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2012, 04:32:36 PM »
HALO jumps are typically done between 25,000 and 35,000 feet. To see the alleged curvature of the Earth, one must be 60,000 feet high. Clearly you're lying about something.

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: flat??
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2012, 04:27:08 AM »
Exactly where was PizzaPlanet when the credentials of "Dr." Rowbotham were discussed? Totally unsupported claims of a higher education by a snake oil pusher are just as good as totally unsupported claims of being in the military. In fact, the latter are not tainted by money, whereby so many con men have used false claims to medical credentials to scam people out of their money and health.

I do not believe anyone who comes here to say things about himself, but I do not try to ridicule any one without some evidence, Can PizzaPlanet say the same?

Re: flat??
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2012, 09:33:31 PM »
ok if earth is a never ending plane how does the sun rotate, how are there changing and reoccurring constellations?

HALO jumps are typically done between 25,000 and 35,000 feet. To see the alleged curvature of the Earth, one must be 60,000 feet high. Clearly you're lying about something.

as for that ^^ lol. so what your saying is even though you believe there is no curve, that you know what distance its visible at? hmmm. something don't make sense. im guessing someone that believes the earth is flat with outrageous ideas of gravity that ive herd so far. (that we're just constantly moving upward in space?) which would make it impossible to skydive or parachute by the way. does a halo jump all the time right. im not saying i seen a whole lot just a small curvature in the horizon that makes me believe its round.

as for the credentials. i dont need to prove anything i that wasn't what my post was about. it was to ask questions and get answers not see who has the bigger junk and can prove it

Re: flat??
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2012, 12:44:38 AM »
I have the biggest junk. Any photos, maps, science, or evidence that says otherwise is false. My proof? Dark energy.
QED, beeyatch.
I came. I saw. I poked fun. I tried to explain things. I failed.
But FET will always be widely regarded as ignorant backwards nonsense by 99.99% of earth, regardless of what is said on this forum. Enjoy :)

Re: flat??
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2012, 12:49:01 AM »
I have the biggest junk. Any photos, maps, science, or evidence that says otherwise is false. My proof? Dark energy.
QED, beeyatch.

That seems to be the way they roll here.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: flat??
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2012, 08:26:49 AM »
HALO jumps are typically done between 25,000 and 35,000 feet. To see the alleged curvature of the Earth, one must be 60,000 feet high. Clearly you're lying about something.

as for that ^^ lol. so what your saying is even though you believe there is no curve, that you know what distance its visible at? hmmm. something don't make sense. im guessing someone that believes the earth is flat with outrageous ideas of gravity that ive herd so far. (that we're just constantly moving upward in space?) which would make it impossible to skydive or parachute by the way. does a halo jump all the time right. im not saying i seen a whole lot just a small curvature in the horizon that makes me believe its round.

That's what RE'ers say, not us. Any curvature you think you see on the horizon is an illusion.

Re: flat??
« Reply #15 on: January 08, 2012, 08:49:42 AM »
Any curvature you think you see on the horizon is an illusion.
You might want to disregard Tausami. For example, his comment above does not match Tom Bishop's claim that it is just the curvature of the Sun's spotlight.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: flat??
« Reply #16 on: January 08, 2012, 08:53:20 AM »
Any curvature you think you see on the horizon is an illusion.
You might want to disregard Tausami. For example, his comment above does not match Tom Bishop's claim that it is just the curvature of the Sun's spotlight.

Actually, we're talking about two completely different topics. Nice try, though.

Re: flat??
« Reply #17 on: January 08, 2012, 09:00:18 AM »
Any curvature you think you see on the horizon is an illusion.
You might want to disregard Tausami. For example, his comment above does not match Tom Bishop's claim that it is just the curvature of the Sun's spotlight.

Actually, we're talking about two completely different topics. Nice try, though.

My oh droll...

... does a halo jump all the time right. im not saying i seen a whole lot just a small curvature in the horizon that makes me believe its round.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: flat??
« Reply #18 on: January 08, 2012, 09:19:46 AM »
Any curvature you think you see on the horizon is an illusion.
You might want to disregard Tausami. For example, his comment above does not match Tom Bishop's claim that it is just the curvature of the Sun's spotlight.

Actually, we're talking about two completely different topics. Nice try, though.

My oh droll...

... does a halo jump all the time right. im not saying i seen a whole lot just a small curvature in the horizon that makes me believe its round.

And Tom is talking about beyond 50-60,000 feet, where the alleged curvature can actually be seen.

Re: flat??
« Reply #19 on: January 08, 2012, 09:29:59 AM »
And Tom is talking about beyond 50-60,000 feet, where the alleged curvature can actually be seen.
Irrelevant. Anyway, we see the curvature where and when RET predicts. FET can't explain how on the equinoxes everyone see 12 hours of day and night with a curved spot light.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: flat??
« Reply #20 on: January 08, 2012, 09:49:57 AM »
And Tom is talking about beyond 50-60,000 feet, where the alleged curvature can actually be seen.
Irrelevant.

No, it's not. You said that I was contradicting Tom. Evidently, I wasn't.

Re: flat??
« Reply #21 on: January 08, 2012, 10:00:34 AM »
And Tom is talking about beyond 50-60,000 feet, where the alleged curvature can actually be seen.
Irrelevant.

No, it's not. You said that I was contradicting Tom. Evidently, I wasn't.
You say it's an illusion. Tom says it's real. I think that qualifies as a contradiction.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: flat??
« Reply #22 on: January 08, 2012, 10:03:43 AM »
And Tom is talking about beyond 50-60,000 feet, where the alleged curvature can actually be seen.
Irrelevant.

No, it's not. You said that I was contradicting Tom. Evidently, I wasn't.
You say it's an illusion. Tom says it's real. I think that qualifies as a contradiction.

You're still failing. You really can't back down, can you? Tom was talking about when you're high enough to see the alleged curvature.
I'm talking about when you aren't high enough to see the alleged curvature. It's two completely different topics.

Re: flat??
« Reply #23 on: January 08, 2012, 10:08:45 AM »
And Tom is talking about beyond 50-60,000 feet, where the alleged curvature can actually be seen.
Irrelevant.

No, it's not. You said that I was contradicting Tom. Evidently, I wasn't.
You say it's an illusion. Tom says it's real. I think that qualifies as a contradiction.

You're still failing. You really can't back down, can you? Tom was talking about when you're high enough to see the alleged curvature.
I'm talking about when you aren't high enough to see the alleged curvature. It's two completely different topics.
I see. To you, "completely different" means a difference in the one parameter of an experiment, the observer's height. Got it. I apologize for assuming that 'completely different' meant something more to you.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: flat??
« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2012, 10:13:06 AM »
And Tom is talking about beyond 50-60,000 feet, where the alleged curvature can actually be seen.
Irrelevant.

No, it's not. You said that I was contradicting Tom. Evidently, I wasn't.
You say it's an illusion. Tom says it's real. I think that qualifies as a contradiction.

You're still failing. You really can't back down, can you? Tom was talking about when you're high enough to see the alleged curvature.
I'm talking about when you aren't high enough to see the alleged curvature. It's two completely different topics.
I see. To you, "completely different" means a difference in the one parameter of an experiment, the observer's height. Got it. I apologize for assuming that 'completely different' meant something more to you.

Are you saying that, in RET, the illusion of curvature at 25,000 feet (also seen on Everest, according to climbers) is caused by curvature? Because that doesn't really make sense.

We should do this more often.

Re: flat??
« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2012, 11:29:04 AM »
Are you saying that, in RET, the illusion of curvature at 25,000 feet (also seen on Everest, according to climbers) is caused by curvature? Because that doesn't really make sense.

We should do this more often.
I'll comment as soon as you tell me how FET predicts that Mt. Everest climbers can see only an illusion. By the way, Tom has even published 360o shot from the top showing the Earth curving away. It's always great to have an FEer provide evidence.

Quote
I can honestly tell you that I have seen curvature at 25000ft. As for curvature at 60,000 ft it is more obvious then at 25000ft. I wish I was authorized to take pictures, but obviously that is taboo due to the nature of the training.

As for the Opposite of HALO, that would be LALO (Low Altitude Low Opening).

That's funny. Curvature isn't even seen from the summit of Mt. Everest.



A height far higher than 25,000 feet.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: flat??
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2012, 12:19:53 PM »
well who says that picture of mt Everest is accurate? and second off. is the horizon the only thing you can argue? have you got no theory's on the rest of my question or is it too complex for you....haha, yea lets completely ignore the rest of the question until we can figure them out.....hmmmm 2+2=<><?



i see a curve in that.....

yours looked like someone does't know how to cover up their Photoshop tracks.....

Re: flat??
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2012, 12:33:50 PM »
well who says that picture of mt Everest is accurate? and second off. is the horizon the only thing you can argue? have you got no theory's on the rest of my question or is it too complex for you....haha, yea lets completely ignore the rest of the question until we can figure them out.....hmmmm 2+2=<><?



i see a curve in that.....

yours looked like someone does't know how to cover up their Photoshop tracks.....
The photograph was presented as evidence and with provenance by FEers. I simply used their own evidence against them. I've argued a great number of topics to demonstrate that the Earth is round. If you'd like my support in any part of your claim, I'll consider a kind request.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Thork

Re: flat??
« Reply #28 on: February 10, 2012, 12:44:54 PM »
As flat as flat can be. Enjoy, its pretty.
http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42433
Re: flat??
« Reply #29 on: February 10, 2012, 12:57:30 PM »
As flat as flat can be. Enjoy, its pretty.
http://www.panoramas.dk/fullscreen2/full22.html

Would you please explain why anyone with more than half a brain should expect to see curvature in a 360 degree panorama regardless of the altitude?
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.