The Reason Flat Earth Theory is Rediculous!

Quote from: jroa on March 23, 2014, 02:28:21 PM

Not since Friday.  Has another space shuttle or something blown up?  Serious question.

Look it up.

Have you found out what satellite info us being used for.

Quote from: inquisitive on March 23, 2014, 02:29:49 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 23, 2014, 02:28:21 PM

Not since Friday.  Has another space shuttle or something blown up?  Serious question.

Look it up.

Have you found out what satellite info us being used for.

No.  I researched the news for space shuttles blowing up, but found nothing recent. 

Quote from: inquisitive on March 23, 2014, 04:01:21 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on March 23, 2014, 02:29:49 PM

Quote from: jroa on March 23, 2014, 02:28:21 PM

Not since Friday.  Has another space shuttle or something blown up?  Serious question.

Look it up.

Have you found out what satellite info us being used for.

No.  I researched the news for space shuttles blowing up, but found nothing recent.

searching for plane wreakage...  looking at satellite images, don't rubbish it.

[...]yet scientists are proven to lie or just be wrong all the time.

Sorry jroa, but this is just rubbish (and I'm guessing you know that?)

There's no way that scientists lie all the time, and if they were wrong all the time you wouldn't be using your cell phone, or driving your car, or microwaving your dinner, and you probably would've died by now from some disease or other.  In fact, you wouldn't be able to broadcast this silly claim of yours across the world LOL.

And if you do seriously believe that scientists are wrong all the time, what sort of evidence do you have in support of this?

Now, who is playing the semantics card?  )

You can tell by the context that I was referring to them being caught or exposed often.  It does not mean that all of them lie every time they say something.  Nice try, though. 

Quote from: jroa on March 23, 2014, 12:29:07 PM

[...]yet scientists are proven to lie or just be wrong all the time.

Sorry jroa, but this is just rubbish (and I'm guessing you know that?)

There's no way that scientists lie all the time, and if they were wrong all the time you wouldn't be using your cell phone, or driving your car, or microwaving your dinner, and you probably would've died by now from some disease or other.  In fact, you wouldn't be able to broadcast this silly claim of yours across the world LOL.

And if you do seriously believe that scientists are wrong all the time, what sort of evidence do you have in support of this?

Besides who would want to be a scientist of you have to lie all time. That is not a life.

Now, who is playing the semantics card?  )

You can tell by the context that I was referring to them being caught or exposed often.  It does not mean that all of them lie every time they say something.  Nice try, though.

Show us a sample of caught or exposed!

I have posted several in the past.  Such as fudging numbers on carbon-14 dating, and flat out lying for the tobacco companies.  There are many more. 

I have posted several in the past.  Such as fudging numbers on carbon-14 dating, and flat out lying for the tobacco companies.  There are many more.

Tobacco companies are not in the business for the better of our society. They are in the addition and money business.

The scientists who conduct the studies to determine whether or not tobacco is safe are supposed to be in the business of bettering society, are they not?

I have posted several in the past.  Such as fudging numbers on carbon-14 dating, and flat out lying for the tobacco companies.  There are many more.

You must be talking about the shroud of Jesus. If you learn about carbon dating you will understand how it works. It is not that hard.

Satellite image is false, overhead plane photo image may not be.

How is it that you apparently have the scientific expertise to ascertain that the satellite images of the (supposed) wreckage of the 777 are "false"?  Particularly as you haven't examined and/or analysed them in person—other than on your PC just like the rest of us?

And what exactly do you mean by the plane images "may" not be false?  How can you differentiate one from the other as far as their authenticity goes?  Could it be possible that they're both bogus?  Or both legitimate?

Your logic is....?

Quote from: jroa on March 23, 2014, 05:34:52 PM

I have posted several in the past.  Such as fudging numbers on carbon-14 dating, and flat out lying for the tobacco companies.  There are many more.

You must be talking about the shroud of Jesus. If you learn about carbon dating you will understand how it works. It is not that hard.

Even environmental scientists have been proven to have adjusted numbers in order to make problems seem worse than they are.

The scientists who conduct the studies to determine whether or not tobacco is safe are supposed to be in the business of bettering society, are they not?

It has been proven time and time again it is bad for you but because people to have the freedom to chose smokers still want it. It has nothing to do with lying. If someone chooses to drink, smoke and take drugs it is still bad but it is their choice.

No, I am talking about all the studies conducted by scientists and funded by tobacco companies that claim the opposite.  Even medical doctors where in on this. 

Yeah, those idiots.  It is not like they launched the first satellite or something, right?  )

Nope, it was the Ruskies.

Quote from: jroa on March 23, 2014, 03:55:14 PM

Yeah, those idiots.  It is not like they launched the first satellite or something, right?  )

Nope, it was the Ruskies.

No sh*t, that is whom we are talking about, and you obviously can not understand sarcasm. 

I think that scientists can be paid to say anything.

Then your thinking is grossly distorted, or you're becoming paranoid jroa.   

Do you think scientists were "paid" to tell you that drinking water contaminated with E. coli could kill you?  Or that the inclusion of fluoride in toothpaste would virtually make caries in kid's teeth a thing of the past?  Or that an MRI could save your life?  Or that E10 gasoline produced less atmospheric pollutants?
 
Really?
 
 

No, I am talking about all the studies conducted by scientists and funded by tobacco companies that claim the opposite.  Even medical doctors where in on this.

The tobacco companies are playing the game. Besides the results are not recognized as valid. Just because you have a degree it does not mean you research will be recognized.

Quote from: jroa on March 23, 2014, 02:10:44 PM

I think that scientists can be paid to say anything.

Then your thinking is grossly distorted, or you're becoming paranoid jroa.   

Do you think scientists were "paid" to tell you that drinking water contaminated with E. coli could kill you?  Or that the inclusion of fluoride in toothpaste would virtually make caries in kid's teeth a thing of the past?  Or that an MRI could save your life?  Or that E10 gasoline produced less atmospheric pollutants?
 
Really?
 
 

E10 uses up food resources, while still contributing to the CO2 problem, and there has never been a conclusive study that shows that artificial fluoride does anything to improve teeth. 

Quote from: jroa on March 23, 2014, 05:51:08 PM

No, I am talking about all the studies conducted by scientists and funded by tobacco companies that claim the opposite.  Even medical doctors where in on this.

The tobacco companies are playing the game. Besides the results are not recognized as valid. Just because you have a degree it does not mean you research will be recognized.

It was the scientists and doctors who were playing the game.  And, they got paid well for it.  The tobacco companies were simply doing business. 

We have aircraft from WWII that still fly. 

You do realise that WWII planes such as the Boeing Stearman N2S-1, B-17 Flying Fortress, B-24 Liberator, B-29 Superfortress, the P-51 Mustang, the Grumman G-2 Goose et al  are only museum pieces don't you jroa?

Yes, of course they still "fly"—but not in any sort of regular commercial or military service.  Again, you're splitting hairs.
 

Are you claiming that people do not fly WWII airplane regularly, or are you claiming that because they are no longer used by the military, they can't fly? 

Russia copied our shuttles, and they still use them.

Nope.  Baseless claim.

In 1988, the Russian's only shuttle, the Buran made its one and only flight.  That it was copied from the US equivalent was nothing more than an urban myth (which you too have swallowed).  The Buran project's chief architect Valentin Glushko did not blindly copy the US shuttle but instead went through the long and laborious process of determining an original architecture from the ground up.

The Buran used four main engines compared with the US shuttle's three, and  these engines were placed into a separate rocket stage, rather than on the winged orbiter itself, as was the case with the US shuttle.

The Buran could transport up to 95 tons of equipment (because of its disposable main engines) whereas the US shuttles could only carry a 25 ton payload.  Ironically, it was the Americans who attempted to reverse engineer the Russian's later Energia design with their Shuttle-C project (which never got off the ground LOL).

Many aerospace engineers today say that the Russians actually built a better system than the US did at that time.  Ouch!

—And you're welcome.   
 

You can tell by the context that I was referring to them being caught or exposed often.  It does not mean that all of them lie every time they say something.  Nice try, though.

Nope.  You didn't say "often" exposed or caught out.  You actually said "...scientists are proven to lie or just be wrong ALL THE TIME"

Words don't lie my friend.  And it's nothing to do with "semantics" either.  Nice try, though.
 

So, your proof that they did not copy it is that there are minor differences?  Way to go.

Also, how do they know what the payload is, since it only made one unmanned test flight?  I am sure that they would not put 95 tons on a test flight.  Perhaps they fudged the numbers a little in order to make their shuttle seem better than the American's? 

So, your proof that they did not copy it is that there are minor differences?  Way to go.

Also, how do they know what the payload is, since it only made one unmanned test flight?  I am sure that they would not put 95 tons on a test flight.  Perhaps they fudged the numbers a little in order to make their shuttle seem better than the American's?

Or perhaps you know nothing about that shuttle.

You think all govts of the world got together and planned an elaborate hoax of the round Earth, controlling NASA, JPL and all science organization and all aviation, and every aspect of everyone's lives, and the millions of pilots, independent scientists could not figure out this elaborate hoax?

You think all govts of the world got together and planned an elaborate hoax of the round Earth, controlling NASA, JPL and all science organization and all aviation, and every aspect of everyone's lives, and the millions of pilots, independent scientists could not figure out this elaborate hoax?

It must be sad to live in a world of conspirators and mistrust.

They don.t see the mental state is what causes this. Not any true reason to believe in a Flat Earth.

Ask anyone who believes in any other conspiracy such as the Moon landing or 9-11. They will talk your ear off with their reasons. The Flat Earthers can't even list 1 reason they think the Earth is flat. Not ONE! I have never heard fo a conspiracy such void of any substance like this before.

You see on the other post? His reason was "Earth is not globe"

Ok. Then how do you know this?