Several disproving factors.

  • 49 Replies
  • 6055 Views
Several disproving factors.
« on: January 05, 2012, 10:28:57 PM »
Well the earth is in fact a globe, and not flat. It may SEEM flat, but it isn't. Look at the photo from outer space here:

Do you see the Americas or any other land masses that surround the Americas in the picture of Earth from outer space?


I'll ask you another question.
How do you explain the movement of the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars across the sky?

How about this one?
How do you explain, that by looking across the horizon, that the sky curves downwards to touch the horizon, same as at night time?


I'll ask you this question and don't take it to heart: Are you stupid or just brainwashed? There has been so many pictures, tests and LARGE AMOUNTS of proof disproving the fact that the earth is flat.

To even think that the earth is flat in this day and age would be outrageous and down right dumb.

You have to look at the facts, and not the assumptions.

So what do you think?

I'll post these questions again, answer them in detail.

1.)Do you see the Americas or any other land masses that surround the Americas in the picture of Earth from outer space?

2.)How do you explain the movement of the sun, the moon, the planets, and the stars across the sky?

3.)How do you explain, that by looking across the horizon, that the sky curves downwards to touch the horizon, same as at night time?

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #1 on: January 05, 2012, 10:43:49 PM »


I can post fake pictures too. Isn't it fun?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #2 on: January 05, 2012, 11:03:22 PM »
Pictures which show the earth as a globe have obviously been faked, considering that the earth is flat.

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #3 on: January 05, 2012, 11:04:18 PM »
The picture I posted isn't fake. It's been proven that the earth is a globe, believing otherwise is just dumb.

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #4 on: January 05, 2012, 11:12:50 PM »
Want to prove the earth is in fact not flat, but round? Take a weather balloon, fill it with helium, tie it to a platform, such as a flat piece of board, put a camera on it, with a live feed down to a computer at ground level. Send the camera up, feeding a live video from the camera. As the camera gets higher, it begins to show the curvature of the earth. The short distance, and partials of earth show that the earth is flat, but it's not. If you were to cover all of the earth with a level, you would notice that the earth begins to curve away from the center point, before finally the level does not touch on either end, where as it touches in the middle.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17732
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #5 on: January 05, 2012, 11:18:28 PM »
Pictures like this from the edge of space are not faked or unexplainable in FET. At the edge of space the balloon is looking down at a circle, and thus would see some slight curvature to the horizon.

The same explanation is given for what SpaceShipTwo/MiG Fighters/the Concord saw at the edge of space.

A third party source unconnected to NASA would need to see the earth as a globe for it to be acceptable evidence to us. Peer review and all that. NASA's claims generally go unreviewed and unreproduced by unconnected third parties. No one peer reviewed Apollo.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2012, 11:35:24 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #6 on: January 05, 2012, 11:42:49 PM »
Your argument is invalid, it doesn't have any opposing evidence that takes away what you say. The current accepted idea is that the earth is round, you have no evidence -against- the accepted theory that is valid evidence, hence why your argument is invalid. The Flat Earth Society is full of blind idiots that have no clue what they're talking about.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2012, 11:52:24 PM »
Your argument is invalid, it doesn't have any opposing evidence that takes away what you say. The current accepted idea is that the earth is round, you have no evidence -against- the accepted theory that is valid evidence, hence why your argument is invalid. The Flat Earth Society is full of blind idiots that have no clue what they're talking about.

Perhaps your accepted idea is that the world is round, but us here at TFES have more of an open mind when presented with facts.

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2012, 11:58:49 PM »
I understand how you guys argue from the MANY threads I've read. You claim to be open minded and that you look at the 'facts'. Facts which have probably never been discovered through experimentation, rather than by reaching inside your ass and pulling what comes out. You have to be completely and utterly retarded to believe that the earth is flat. The model you created, is bullshit. You can fly a plane from the north pole, to the south pole, and keep going and reach the north pole again. With your theory, you can't explain that. Your theory states that the South pole doesn't even exist. Which makes no sense, since there have been people at the south pole.

If anyone wishes to know whether the earth is flat or not. Take a plane and fly directly south. Just keep flying once you start heading directly south and after time, you will end up where you took off.
Disproves your theory completely.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #9 on: January 06, 2012, 12:16:44 AM »
I understand how you guys argue from the MANY threads I've read.

As of me posting this, your total online time is less than an hour. For the sake of arguement, and dismissing the time you've spent posting, how "MANY" threads can you say you've honestly digested?

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #10 on: January 06, 2012, 01:07:08 AM »
I understand how you guys argue from the MANY threads I've read.

As of me posting this, your total online time is less than an hour. For the sake of arguement, and dismissing the time you've spent posting, how "MANY" threads can you say you've honestly digested?

I've read through around twelve of the threads and seen a large variety of the FE'ers and their arguing techniques.

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #11 on: January 06, 2012, 02:35:09 AM »
Pictures which show the earth as a globe have obviously been faked, considering that the earth is flat.
There's a great example of the FE Ostrich Technique (FOT). The evidence must be wrong because it doesn't agree with them. I guess we know that FEer aren't open-minded. How damning.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #12 on: January 06, 2012, 02:39:20 AM »
At the edge of space the balloon is looking down at a circle, and thus would see some slight curvature to the horizon.

The same explanation is given for what SpaceShipTwo/MiG Fighters/the Concord saw at the edge of space.

A third party source unconnected to NASA would need to see the earth as a globe for it to be acceptable evidence to us. Peer review and all that. NASA's claims generally go unreviewed and unreproduced by unconnected third parties. No one peer reviewed Apollo.
What circle would that be, Tom?

Please define unconnected. How is CNSA connected?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

Moon squirter

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #13 on: January 06, 2012, 08:04:32 AM »
Pictures like this from the edge of space are not faked or unexplainable in FET. At the edge of space the balloon is looking down at a circle, and thus would see some slight curvature to the horizon.

But I can also see a curvature to the blue atmospheric haze that preceeds the horizon.  Explain that, numb nuts.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2012, 11:49:34 AM »
Pictures which show the earth as a globe have obviously been faked, considering that the earth is flat.

That's your argument? That the photo is fake because 'obviously' the Earth must be flat; no evidence, no reasonable counter theory, just almost religious conviction that you must be right.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2012, 12:04:31 PM »

...

If anyone wishes to know whether the earth is flat or not. Take a plane and fly directly south. Just keep flying once you start heading directly south and after time, you will end up where you took off.
Disproves your theory completely.

I don't think this coincides with RET or FET.

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #16 on: January 09, 2012, 12:19:19 PM »

...

If anyone wishes to know whether the earth is flat or not. Take a plane and fly directly south. Just keep flying once you start heading directly south and after time, you will end up where you took off.
Disproves your theory completely.

I don't think this coincides with RET or FET.
Only if you're being pedantic, does this fail. The point is to start to head south to the SP and then north to the NP and then south to the starting points, thus circumnavigating the Earth around its poles. adioman did not say 'only' south.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

The Knowledge

  • 2391
  • FE'ers don't do experiments. It costs too much.
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2012, 12:27:31 PM »

...

If anyone wishes to know whether the earth is flat or not. Take a plane and fly directly south. Just keep flying once you start heading directly south and after time, you will end up where you took off.
Disproves your theory completely.

I don't think this coincides with RET or FET.
Only if you're being pedantic, does this fail. The point is to start to head south to the SP and then north to the NP and then south to the starting points, thus circumnavigating the Earth around its poles. adioman did not say 'only' south.

But you forget that pedantry and semantics are the main tools the FE'ers use to dodge the meat of arguments. See the "FE semantics" thread or any other in which RE'ers make reference to aircraft travelling in "straight lines".
Watermelon, Rhubarb Rhubarb, no one believes the Earth is Flat, Peas and Carrots,  walla.

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #18 on: January 09, 2012, 12:38:15 PM »
Oh for sure, north and south are to be used interchangeably.  Glad we cleared that up.  It will be most helpful deciphering RE posts in the future.

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #19 on: January 09, 2012, 12:42:16 PM »
Oh for sure, north and south are to be used interchangeably.  Glad we cleared that up.  It will be most helpful deciphering RE posts in the future.
Where did anyone say that north and south are to be used interchangeably? FSM much?
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #20 on: January 09, 2012, 12:50:40 PM »
I took you at your word that the difference was only some matter of trivial pedantry.

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #21 on: January 09, 2012, 12:57:49 PM »
I took you at your word that the difference was only some matter of trivial pedantry.
FSM still? Tell us where adioman said anything about going only south. Adding a word to an REer's post is FSM.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #22 on: January 09, 2012, 01:02:03 PM »
Directly south means north?  As I said, I'm glad we cleared that up but why add more caveats such as 'only?'

I have no clue what FSM means.

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #23 on: January 09, 2012, 01:06:27 PM »
Directly south means north?  As I said, I'm glad we cleared that up but why add more caveats such as 'only?'

I have no clue what FSM means.
No, it does not. That's a great question. Why do you add the word 'only' to his post?

Lurk moar. The search function is your friend.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #24 on: January 09, 2012, 01:14:34 PM »
FSM still? Tell us where adioman said anything about going only south. Adding a word to an REer's post is FSM.

your word

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #25 on: January 09, 2012, 01:19:05 PM »
FSM still? Tell us where adioman said anything about going only south. Adding a word to an REer's post is FSM.

your word
Yes, it is. I assumed that you were inserting it in order to make your claim that his post was wrong. Do tell us how you consider it wrong without adding that word, and I'll apologize. Otherwise, we'll just chalk up another FSM.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

*

PizzaPlanet

  • 12253
  • Now available in stereo
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #26 on: January 09, 2012, 01:28:42 PM »
Lurk moar. The search function is your friend.
Interesting. The only meaningful results for "FSM" from the search function are:
  • The Flying Spaghetti Monster discussions.
  • Berny misspelling FMS (flight management system).
  • You introducing an incorrect abbreviation for "FEDA straw man argument" (a term used only by yourself in all history of humanity) and then using it as a magic incantation, hoping that no one will point this out to you.

This leads me to one of the two possible conclusions:
  • Whatever soundness your logic may once have had has died, as you've started comparing people to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
  • You think people will accommodate your inane terms when you're the only person who uses them... which brings us back to the loss of soundness of your logic.
hacking your precious forum as we speak 8) 8) 8)

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #27 on: January 09, 2012, 01:34:00 PM »
Lurk moar. The search function is your friend.
Interesting. The only meaningful results for "FSM" from the search function are:
  • The Flying Spaghetti Monster discussions.
  • Berny misspelling FMS (flight management system).
  • You introducing an incorrect abbreviation for "FEDA straw man argument" (a term used only by yourself in all history of humanity) and then using it as a magic incantation, hoping that no one will point this out to you.

This leads me to one of the two possible conclusions:
  • Whatever soundness your logic may once have had has died, as you've started comparing people to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
  • You think people will accommodate your inane terms when you're the only person who uses them... which brings us back to the loss of soundness of your logic.
By your (lack of) logic, no abbreviation or short could ever be started. Cool.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards

?

Mrs. Peach

  • Official Member
  • 6258
Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2012, 01:43:03 PM »
That statement is SAB, ya know?

Re: Several disproving factors.
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2012, 02:11:31 PM »
Lurk moar. The search function is your friend.
Interesting. The only meaningful results for "FSM" from the search function are:
  • The Flying Spaghetti Monster discussions.
  • Berny misspelling FMS (flight management system).
  • You introducing an incorrect abbreviation for "FEDA straw man argument" (a term used only by yourself in all history of humanity) and then using it as a magic incantation, hoping that no one will point this out to you.

This leads me to one of the two possible conclusions:
  • Whatever soundness your logic may once have had has died, as you've started comparing people to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
  • You think people will accommodate your inane terms when you're the only person who uses them... which brings us back to the loss of soundness of your logic.
By the way, kudos on catching the Flying  Spaghetti Monster allusion. It was rather esoteric. Good job!
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards