UFET Dome does not exist

Uniplanar Flat Earth Theory (UFET) is the normal FE model (one disk with a dome that rotates around the N. Pole that has the Sun, Moon, planets, stars, galaxies and satellite images on it). Similar to the "Truman Show", it starts in Antarctica.

Per the Dual Earth fiction/fantasy (DEF), there is a S. Pole. The sky rotates around the N.Pole to S.Pole axis. The DEF disproves UFET.

[expletive]. Stop trying to discredit my model with your meaningless arguments, trolling [expletives]

If you're so secure, try to be honest for once.

Oh just piss of you miserable penguin. Stop trying to discredit my model with your meaningless arguments, trolling bullshit, and general fuckwittedness.

If you're so secure, try to be honest for once.

I am being dead serious here. I am discussing the contrast between UFET and DEF. They (Flat Earth Society per the FE model explanation) say there is no S.Pole as a single point (hence the Antarctica wall conspiracy). Your model has one. Which model is correct? They both can't be.

Stop the insults and tantrums. Discuss this like are real adult.

Since you know so much about your DEF, tell the UFET people why they are wrong.

UFET believers, please explain why there is no S. Pole to disprove DEF.

I am being dead serious here.

No, you're not. You don't accept either model, you've just sat down and decided "You two, fight!" like the arrogant [expletive] you are. We don't need to play your game. Maybe you'll get tired and go away.
If you were being serious, you would have made some form of evidence in your initial post. You might even have noticed that classical FET and the dome model aren't synonymous. Who knows, maybe you'd have used your little brain and realized that the evidence I use is under discussion elsewhere on the forums, REers have been trying to disprove FET by proving a South Pole for ages. We're not going to waste time with your stupid game.
[expletive]

Evidence:

• DEF has a S. Pole - UFET doesn't.
• With DEF you can see the SCP (we have pictures), UFET you can't.

You dismissed UFET with a hand-wave. You presented no evidence and that was OK.

Most UFET models were similar. Details changed (e.g. what caused the gravity effect). DEF is TOTALLY different. DEF explains more that UFET. Why will the Flat Earth Society (this website) maintain the deception then.

I don't accept either model. I have disproved both models.

The other people on this forum need to know which model they need to disprove. They are wasting their time disproving UFET if it is no longer viable - "kicking a dead horse". If DEF is superior to UFET, demonstrate that so everyone can forget about UFET and look at DEF. Anything else would be dishonest - a deception.

You dismissed UFET with a hand-wave. You presented no evidence and that was OK.

Wrong. I dismiss it for many reasons. I gave none of them here because I am not playing your game [expletive]. The more you try, the more pathetic you seem. Try taking in a post for one, rather than insisting everyone do and think exactly as you want them to.

So no comparing UFET to DEF?

You expect REers to waste their time disproving 2 totally different models?

Is this site simply for trolls? No real meat?... just BS?

Let me tell you what I believe is REALLY going on... DEF - a trolling attempt gone wrong.

• Testify made up some BS theory about the Moon suddenly appearing 2000 years ago as the "Star of Bethlehem". EVERYONE, FEers and REers, could see this was just BS.
• WeissEdel then came up with the Moon being animals migrating across the dome. EVERYONE, FEers and REers, could see this was just BS.
• Now you JRoweSkeptic, came up with DEF (started much earlier - an unfinished work in mothballs). The problem is JR, you are "too good". Your model is better than UFET actually. It explains more. Because it will be harder to disprove it should be the preferred model. It is what all the REers should be focusing on. Why "kick a dead horse" - UFET?
• Of course, you weren't planning on it having as much traction as it does.  I, with my limited knowledge of it, can disprove UFET with it.
• Now you scream - "WAIT, STOP, IT WAS NOT MEANT TO ACTUALLY DISPROVE UFET, IT WAS JUST A TROLLING ATTEMPT." - a trolling attempt that WORKS BETTER THAN UFET (that is how easy it is to disprove UFET).
• Now, you don't want to take the next logical step and replace UFET with DEF. No FEer on this website does.
• You, JR, have single-handedly undone everything the UFETers have been doing for YEARS. Oooops!
• You, who are so proud of your DEF, don't want to fight UFET.
• You do not want anyone else to use your DEF to fight UFET.
• You want REers to debate DEF as a real theory but not use it to disprove UFET?? This does not make sense.
• You either need to withdrawal DEF as a serious model (difficult because it is better than UFET) or destroy UFET with it and have it take its rightful place as the FE model.
• Sorry JR, you were just "too good" and it back-fired. You should not have brought it out of mothballs.
• DEF - a trolling attempt gone horribly wrong.

So no comparing UFET to DEF?

You expect REers to waste their time disproving 2 totally different models?

Is this site simply for trolls? No real meat?... just BS?

Bullshit, like your normal.
I am not playing your game. Just because you fancy pitting two models against each other, and acting as though the model rather than the observational evidence behind the model is what matters just so you can play your pathetic egotistical games, doesn't mean any of us are obliged to live out your little fantasy.
So, what you offer is more of your paranoia, a refusal to read (see: "the evidence I use is under discussion elsewhere on the forums") and completely incoherent accusations of being a troll just because you can't cope with the fact that I don't want to waste time on a penguin like you.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 08, 2015, 06:23:27 AM

So no comparing UFET to DEF?

You expect REers to waste their time disproving 2 totally different models?

Is this site simply for trolls? No real meat?... just BS?

Bullshit, like your normal.
I am not playing your game. Just because you fancy pitting two models against each other, and acting as though the model rather than the observational evidence behind the model is what matters just so you can play your pathetic egotistical games, doesn't mean any of us are obliged to live out your little fantasy.
So, what you offer is more of your paranoia, a refusal to read (see: "the evidence I use is under discussion elsewhere on the forums") and completely incoherent accusations of being a troll just because you can't cope with the fact that I don't want to waste time on a penguin like you.

Nothing I said you disputed.

"you fancy pitting two models against each other" - silly. We "pit" RET against UFET and DEF, and vis versa. Are you suggesting we don't? Why exactly shouldn't we "pit" DEF against UFET?... against RET is OK, but against UFET it is not? Hypocrisy or "doubles standard"?

"acting as though the model rather than the observational evidence behind the model is what matters" - Exactly what observational evidence? Provide an example. We can't discuss something that does not exist. The model is all we have.

"the evidence I use is under discussion elsewhere on the forums" - What evidence? Which forum?

"completely incoherent accusations of being a troll" - show where you have provided anything other than debate tactics, arguing for the sake of arguing (i.e. trolling). Just look at what you are doing here on this thread.

Bullshit, as per usual. Fuck off you whinging penguin. You don't understand anything. You apaprently don't even understand the concept of observing the real world. How the fuck am I meant to talk to someone that moronic?!