Alter the FAQ

  • 9 Replies
  • 1720 Views
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Alter the FAQ
« on: November 13, 2015, 04:08:30 PM »
The number of newbies that come to this forum and ask the same few questions is getting tiresome. While a lot of what's covered is in the FAQ, there are always one or two that aren't.

More importantly, though, I think the FAQ should be made to reflect the variety of theories. The number of threads that start talking about UA, or the south pole, as though these were automatic refutations to all branches of FET, is getting ridiculous, and we should do what we can to dissuade REers from this notion.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Alter the FAQ
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2015, 04:21:53 PM »
If an admin ever comes back, I suggest that they make you an FE editor, which would allow you to edit the wiki.  The FAQ can only be edited by mods and above, though.  If you want, you can send me a short definition of your theory or an edited text of what you would like to have changed, and I will copy/paste it to the FAQ. 

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Alter the FAQ
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2015, 02:05:27 AM »
If an admin ever comes back, I suggest that they make you an FE editor, which would allow you to edit the wiki.  The FAQ can only be edited by mods and above, though.  If you want, you can send me a short definition of your theory or an edited text of what you would like to have changed, and I will copy/paste it to the FAQ.
I couldn't sum up my theory without misrepresenting the kinds of details REers jump on. It's fine, I don't expect my model to take over the forum, but i think it would be better to have an acknowledgement somewhere that there are differing models, just so that REers don't think a problem they have with one aspect defeats all FET.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: Alter the FAQ
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2015, 05:27:36 AM »
My suggestion is to add a section for flat earthers to clarify things and put their own FAQs.
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6203
Re: Alter the FAQ
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2015, 08:26:51 AM »
The FAQ should be modified drastically since much of its content has been debunked in countless threads (the sun does rise and set, no 32 mile diameter, no 3000 mile altitude, no ice wall, and much more).

There should be a very serious discussion among the mods/admin (when he/they come back) on this topic.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5300
Re: Alter the FAQ
« Reply #5 on: November 20, 2015, 05:38:39 PM »
The FAQ should be modified drastically since much of its content has been debunked in countless threads (the sun does rise and set, no 32 mile diameter, no 3000 mile altitude, no ice wall, and much more).

There should be a very serious discussion among the mods/admin (when he/they come back) on this topic.

What could be put in a flat earth FAQ that wouldn't be de-bunked, including the very notion that the earth is a flat disc ?
t
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6203
Re: Alter the FAQ
« Reply #6 on: November 21, 2015, 03:43:42 AM »
Faint Young Sun Paradox

Gas Cloud Formation Paradox

Helium Flash/Triple Alpha Process Paradox

Jupiter's IR Anomalous Radiation & Angular Momentum of the Sun Paradoxes

Comets' Tail Paradox

Electric Comet Theory


Ether Physics

Ether Drift Proofs

Allais Effect Proofs and Applications



Double Forces of Attractive Gravitation Paradox

Lamoreaux Effect

DePalma Effect

Kozyrev Effect

Biefeld-Brown Effect


Restoring Forces Paradox

Geocentric Coriolis Force

Clouds Weight and Trajectories Paradoxes


Sirius Meridian Transit Points Data

Extended Schroetter Effect


Gauss' Easter Formula Applied to the Axial Precession Paradox

Archaeomagnetic Dating of the Artifacts at Pompeii


Subquark Structure of the Atom

J.C. Maxwell Original Set of Ether Equations


Tunguska Event Data



Here is a brief excerpt from the Tunguska Event file: the perfect proof that the surface of the Earth is actually flat





JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.


A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above

I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).




The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.


Tesla had a bold fantasy whereby he would use the principle of rarefied gas luminescence to light up the sky at night. High frequency electric energy would be transmitted, perhaps by an ionizing beam of ultraviolet radiation, into the upper atmosphere, where gases are at relatively low pressure, so that this layer would behave like a luminous tube. Sky lighting, he said, would reduce the need for street lighting, and facilitate the movement of ocean going vessels.



A photograph with an exposure time of 20 seconds taken at 10.50 p.m., July 1, 1908 by George Embrey of Gloucester.



The telluric currents/ether/subquark-magnetic monopoles strings transmitted the energy input from the Tesla ball lightning spheres which exploded over Siberia (Tunguska):  this is how the bright luminescence in the night skies of Europe and Central Asia was created.


If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Tunguska file:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,59690.msg1537115.html#msg1537115

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59690.msg1535846#msg1535846 (no comet, meteorite, or asteroid)


Tesla - Tunguska:

http://www.teslasociety.com/tunguska.htm
http://www.tfcbooks.com/articles/tunguska.htm

Geo-magnetic disturbances were already observed even before the explosion!!

Many years later, researchers from Tomsk came across a forgotten publication by a Professor Weber about a powerful geo-magnetic disturbance observed in a laboratory at Kiel University in Germany for three days before the intrusion of the Tunguska object, and which ended at the very hour when the gigantic bolide exploded above the Central Siberian Plateau.


Tesla experimented with the ball lightning ether for YEARS before the Tunguska event; from the Wardenclyffe tower he sent longitudinal waves for days BEFORE the event itself in order to carefully set up the experiment.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 03:47:07 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Alter the FAQ
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2015, 05:37:11 AM »
I absolutely vote for sandokhan and JRoweSkeptic to take over the FAQ!

*

Frank Lee

  • 318
  • Truth has no agenda. Science does.
Re: Alter the FAQ
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2015, 06:11:16 AM »
I absolutely vote for sandokhan and JRoweSkeptic to take over the FAQ!

Say it ain't so.
I still don't understand the model, and I just can't read that much at one sitting.
But if you think it's best, I am all in.
Science is religion for people who will not be subject to a supreme Creator. Free choice is love.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6203
Re: Alter the FAQ
« Reply #9 on: November 26, 2015, 11:44:48 PM »
The FAQ has to be changed.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64951.0#.VlgHE9IrK1s

People who do believe that the Earth is flat, but who are mystified by the strange data included in the Faq.

Can anybody here talk to Daniel, Wilmore, or someone else, to at least modify the faq to include the data that has been used to properly defend the FET?

When it comes to the Sun, we need the following links to be included there:


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290 (faint young sun paradox)


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1640735#msg1640735 (dating methods of the past)


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1488698#msg1488698 (distance to the sun, ham radio measurements debunked)


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1490014#msg1490014 (the 15-20 km distance to the Sun, 636 meters diameter of the Sun successfully defended, starts on page 7 goes to page 9)


http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81284#msg81284 (impossibility of a spherical sun)


Can someone include these links in the faq?