Antartica

You were talking about antarctica, you quoted Doplatter's theory on penguins. Stop trying to be cute.

My post wasn't trying specifically to prove anything, I was just trying to demonstrate that the Flat Earth community have a lot more to go on about Antarctica. The OP seemed to be trying to suggest that all we had was a small hand-drawn map of the world.

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

My post wasn't trying specifically to prove anything, I was just trying to demonstrate that the Flat Earth community have a lot more to go on about Antarctica. The OP seemed to be trying to suggest that all we had was a small hand-drawn map of the world.

What's more: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2739&highlight=antarctica

A 17 page thread on Antarctica in which many aspects are thoroughly discussed by Flat Earthers.



Get over it Rick.
How about doing something useful & have a crack at this?

Why are there so many (non government) neutral sites (ie not claiming to be FE or RE) that inadvertantly support an RE Antarctica (or the world for that matter, but lets just stick to Antarctica) but I've yet find one that inadvertantly supports FE?

Quote from: "Rick_James"

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

My post wasn't trying specifically to prove anything, I was just trying to demonstrate that the Flat Earth community have a lot more to go on about Antarctica. The OP seemed to be trying to suggest that all we had was a small hand-drawn map of the world.

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

What's more: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2739&highlight=antarctica

A 17 page thread on Antarctica in which many aspects are thoroughly discussed by Flat Earthers.

Get over it Rick.
How about doing something useful & have a crack at this?

Why are there so many (non government) neutral sites (ie not claiming to be FE or RE) that inadvertantly support an RE Antarctica (or the world for that matter, but lets just stick to Antarctica) but I've yet find one that inadvertantly supports FE?

A foolish opinion shared by thousands is still a foolish opinion.

Quote from: "MMMM"

Quote from: "Rick_James"

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

My post wasn't trying specifically to prove anything, I was just trying to demonstrate that the Flat Earth community have a lot more to go on about Antarctica. The OP seemed to be trying to suggest that all we had was a small hand-drawn map of the world.

Quote from: "Dogplatter"

What's more: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2739&highlight=antarctica

A 17 page thread on Antarctica in which many aspects are thoroughly discussed by Flat Earthers.

Get over it Rick.
How about doing something useful & have a crack at this?

Why are there so many (non government) neutral sites (ie not claiming to be FE or RE) that inadvertantly support an RE Antarctica (or the world for that matter, but lets just stick to Antarctica) but I've yet find one that inadvertantly supports FE?

What site are you on right now, exactly?  Do they support an FE Antartica?

Quote from: "Ancient proverb"

A foolish opinion shared by thousands is still a foolish opinion.

Besides, people go to government-funded schools, or use textbooks written by government scientists that know what the conspiracy tells them to know.

Seriously, if you're going to debate, you would think you'd do some research first.

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

What site are you on right now, exactly?  Do they support an FE Antartica?

Quote from: "Ancient proverb"

A foolish opinion shared by thousands is still a foolish opinion.

Besides, people go to government-funded schools, or use textbooks written by government scientists that know what the conspiracy tells them to know.

Seriously, if you're going to debate, you would think you'd do some research first.

Seriously, if you're going to have a go at providing an answer you might actually read question first.

What part of this do you not comprehend?

"(non government) neutral sites (ie not claiming to be FE or RE)"

Anyone got any serious answers?

Who DOES Need to Know:
NASA -- Okay, so the top three (at most) need to know, we'll say. These are the guys who actually are controlling the conspiracy, and maybe some of the profit is divided amongst them, but they don't need to be bribed to shut their mouths, and thus have no leverage amongst the others. If we say about three other people in NASA know about it, who are helping with image editing, video editing, and general coverage, but working closely with the top three.

RASA -- The Russians are just about equal if not more active in space exploration as the US, so we'll say these guys have six people helping out with the conspiracy as well. As a matter of fact, tag one more on, just because I'm generous. That leaves us with thirteen people.

China -- Yes, in 2003, China became the third country to independently send a manned spaceship into outer space. However, their space program isn't all that big. As a (very) liberal estimate, we'll say they need about three people. But why don't we tag on one more just to make sure I'm not cheating. That leaves us with seventeen people from the space exploration crews that need to know.

GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.

Public Relations People -- NASA or RASA conspirators could fill this role, too, but again, generosity has the better of me, and I'm going to say that the conspiracy hires people to do this, too, since the guys in the space exploration teams are filled with a bunch of pale, pimply white guys, and therefore aren't good at convincing people of the truth. We'll say they need a couple of these guys, bringing the total up to a whopping twenty people.

People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.

Ice Wall Guards -- These guys don't need to be paid in full, either, as they're only guarding an ice wall. I believe that it was Erasmus who pulled some mathematics on this one, and showed that not that many people were needed to guard the ice wall. As they don't really have any leverage on the conspiracy, they won't count for this part (I'll go back to it later), since this is mostly about who needs to be paid to shut their mouths.


Who Does NOT Need To Know:

PotUS -- Why would the president need to know? All he knows is that he's giving money to what he thinks is a space exploration team, and then he sees exactly what everyone in the world sees on TV. He doesn't ever need to suspect a damned thing.

Members of Space Teams -- They see exactly what we see as well, but they're sitting on the ground looking at it "Live." That doesn't mean that they know that the people are actually in space, but they can make a really convincing argument towards it, perhaps.

Seriously, if you're going to debate, you would think you'd do some research first.

Quote from: "MMMM"

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

What site are you on right now, exactly?  Do they support an FE Antartica?

Quote from: "Ancient proverb"

A foolish opinion shared by thousands is still a foolish opinion.

Besides, people go to government-funded schools, or use textbooks written by government scientists that know what the conspiracy tells them to know.

Seriously, if you're going to debate, you would think you'd do some research first.

Seriously, if you're going to have a go at providing an answer you might actually read question first.

What part of this do you not comprehend?

"(non government) neutral sites (ie not claiming to be FE or RE)"

Anyone got any serious answers?

Quote from: "DiegoDraw"

Who DOES Need to Know:
NASA -- Okay, so the top three (at most) need to know, we'll say. These are the guys who actually are controlling the conspiracy, and maybe some of the profit is divided amongst them, but they don't need to be bribed to shut their mouths, and thus have no leverage amongst the others. If we say about three other people in NASA know about it, who are helping with image editing, video editing, and general coverage, but working closely with the top three.

RASA -- The Russians are just about equal if not more active in space exploration as the US, so we'll say these guys have six people helping out with the conspiracy as well. As a matter of fact, tag one more on, just because I'm generous. That leaves us with thirteen people.

China -- Yes, in 2003, China became the third country to independently send a manned spaceship into outer space. However, their space program isn't all that big. As a (very) liberal estimate, we'll say they need about three people. But why don't we tag on one more just to make sure I'm not cheating. That leaves us with seventeen people from the space exploration crews that need to know.

GPS Manufacturers -- I'm going to say they only need one person for this job. There's not really much to do. Machines make most of the chips, and I doubt all of the bosses of the companies need to even bother. They just need to have one guy saying, "Yup, that's right." This guy could even be one of the NASA or RASA members, honestly, but I'm being nice. This rings up to a comprehensive total of eighteen people.

Public Relations People -- NASA or RASA conspirators could fill this role, too, but again, generosity has the better of me, and I'm going to say that the conspiracy hires people to do this, too, since the guys in the space exploration teams are filled with a bunch of pale, pimply white guys, and therefore aren't good at convincing people of the truth. We'll say they need a couple of these guys, bringing the total up to a whopping twenty people.

People Who Have "Been In Space" -- Yes, they need astronauts saying, "Hey! I was up there!" But they're barely part of the conspiracy, they're just people who have a little bit of leverage, and therefore need a bit of bribing. We'll count them as half-people for this count, since they don't really count as conspirators. So, if we have somewhere around fifty people that have "been in space," that means that it counts for about twenty-five conspirators, therefore bringing our total to forty-five which is not as large as is commonly described.

Ice Wall Guards -- These guys don't need to be paid in full, either, as they're only guarding an ice wall. I believe that it was Erasmus who pulled some mathematics on this one, and showed that not that many people were needed to guard the ice wall. As they don't really have any leverage on the conspiracy, they won't count for this part (I'll go back to it later), since this is mostly about who needs to be paid to shut their mouths.


Who Does NOT Need To Know:

PotUS -- Why would the president need to know? All he knows is that he's giving money to what he thinks is a space exploration team, and then he sees exactly what everyone in the world sees on TV. He doesn't ever need to suspect a damned thing.

Members of Space Teams -- They see exactly what we see as well, but they're sitting on the ground looking at it "Live." That doesn't mean that they know that the people are actually in space, but they can make a really convincing argument towards it, perhaps.

Quote from: "A wise man once"

Seriously, if you're going to debate, you would think you'd do some research first.

How about this: they eat what the conspiracy feeds them, like the brainwashed ignorant innocent blokes they are.

Straightforward enough for you?

Quote from: "BOGWarrior89"

How about this: they eat what the conspiracy feeds them, like the brainwashed ignorant innocent blokes they are.

Straightforward enough for you?

Oh yes, the conspiracy, the haven of the fool without evidence!

Come on BOG, you can do better than this can't you?

Sorry, but the conspiracy is not an argument, it's just an excuse, & a poor one at that.

Top Web Results for "argument"

9 results for: argument
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
ar·gu·ment     [ahr-gyuh-muhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
4.  a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.

Ok, I'll give you an observation based on FE science that proves the earth is round.

I am sitting here at my desk and as I look out my window I can plainly see a row of terrace houses sitting on the ground at a very clear angle.
ie, one side of each house is longer than the other & yet the 2 floors are level.
So based on my personal observation, the earth's surface must be curved.

Quote from: "MMMM"

Ok, I'll give you an observation based on FE science that proves the earth is round.

I am sitting here at my desk and as I look out my window I can plainly see a row of terrace houses sitting on the ground at a very clear angle.
ie, one side of each house is longer than the other & yet the 2 floors are level.
So based on my personal observation, the earth's surface must be curved.

You'll have to draw us a picture of your observations.

Quote from: "Tom Bishop"

Quote from: "MMMM"

Ok, I'll give you an observation based on FE science that proves the earth is round.

I am sitting here at my desk and as I look out my window I can plainly see a row of terrace houses sitting on the ground at a very clear angle.
ie, one side of each house is longer than the other & yet the 2 floors are level.
So based on my personal observation, the earth's surface must be curved.

You'll have to draw us a picture of your observations.

Why? Is that hard to visualise?

Ok, I'll give you an observation based on FE science that proves the earth is round.

I am sitting here at my desk and as I look out my window I can plainly see a row of terrace houses sitting on the ground at a very clear angle.
ie, one side of each house is longer than the other & yet the 2 floors are level.
So based on my personal observation, the earth's surface must be curved.

Quote from: "MMMM"

Quote from: "Tom Bishop"

Quote from: "MMMM"

Ok, I'll give you an observation based on FE science that proves the earth is round.

I am sitting here at my desk and as I look out my window I can plainly see a row of terrace houses sitting on the ground at a very clear angle.
ie, one side of each house is longer than the other & yet the 2 floors are level.
So based on my personal observation, the earth's surface must be curved.

You'll have to draw us a picture of your observations.

Why? Is that hard to visualise?

Well firstly, I'm going to make the assumption that the two terrace houses are exactly the same size. You say one of the the houses is at an angle to the other on a level surface.

Then you say that one house looks longer than the other. My first reaction is "of course one looks longer than the other. You are angled differently."

Could you not presume that the ground is simply uneven?