Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rounder

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25  Next >
1
The fact that people CAN be deceived does not mean they ARE being deceived about one specific topic.   

2
Shaq has observed far more of the plane than most anyone.
Certainly, anyone posting here.
Incorrect.  Those of us (myself among them) who served in the Navy have observed more of the GLOBE than he.  And by "observed" of course I mean "conducted observations with our own eyes, observations that had real world consequences for navigation of billions of dollars of naval vessel" not whatever the 360° angle nonsense was that Shaq talked about.


Really, you have evidence there are currently thousands of people with the same credentials?
Sounds more like hyperbole to me.
Advanced degrees in education are available from hundreds of colleges.  Each of which awards multiple degrees, in multiple years.  To be a teacher requires more and more degrees and certifications all the time, so YES, there are certainly thousands with the same Ed.D credentials.  Probably tens of thousands.


Are you saying that a Doctor of Education doesn't know anything about education?
Others have said exactly that.  In many cases, the Ed.D isn’t worth the paper it is printed on:
Quote
Nothing shows how downright phony the game is than the Ed.D.s — the Doctors of Education. I have seen administrators who have had trouble writing clear letters home to parents and who murdered the English language in public go about brandishing their degrees and insisting on being called “Doctor.”


Mostly though, what I’m saying is this ‘doctorate’ of his gains him zero insight into the shape of the earth.  No more than it would gain him insight into the events of 9/11, the efficacy of vaccines, the fate of D. B. Cooper, or the identity of Nicole Brown Simpson’s real killer.  It's fine for him to have opinions on these matters, it's fine for him to talk about those opinions, it's fine that you agree with him.  His degree is irrelevant to any of it, is what I'm saying.

3
Flat Earth Information Repository / Re: Flat Earth and the Qur'an
« on: March 20, 2017, 05:16:40 AM »
When Astronomers are not quoting NASA, they are quoting Aristotle.
Citation needed.

4
There are literally thousands of people with more or less the same credentials as the one Shaq has holds.  Why don't we hear them in their multitudes proclaiming the flat earth?  Because they don't believe in the flat earth!  Why does Shaq's degree give his flat earth notion credibility, but the very same degree confers no credibility to the thousands of round earth believers?

5
How amateur radio amateur operators make the same measurements by bouncing radio signals off the moon in their "Moon Bounce" Operations...Admittedly not as precise as those of the astronomical observatories.
But accurate enough to reject the "about three thousand miles away" figure.  Lots of materials exist on the web to help amateur radio operators achieve the coveted EME (earth - moon - earth) transmission.  Private folks have been doing it since the 50's

6
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Random Questions
« on: March 08, 2017, 05:18:26 AM »
Lol. TTIOH, you are rapidly becoming my favorite flat earther. This is gold.
He's not a flat earther, he's undecided. It's not easy being a creationist in that regard. :)
Is he, though?  Is he undecided?  That's easy to SAY, but on matters relevant to the shape of the earth I don't believe I have ever seen him question or challenge a FE post, nor have I seen him agree with an RE post.  If I'm wrong about that, I would love to be reminded of when either of those happened.

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: February 24, 2017, 05:20:42 AM »
I noticed that you still won't say what specific beach you were on.

I noticed that too.  I would still like to know: Which exact beach were you laying on, and which exact beach were you looking at?  An experiment of this importance deserves the attention to detail that we request, and such detail should be easy to obtain.  After all, according to a quote attributed to you, you have performed this test "over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions"  You should have no trouble locating the spot where you spent so much time, since you can "simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this simple test."

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Private Space Companies
« on: February 22, 2017, 05:47:43 AM »
We don't have private space vacations or space hotels a map of the flat earth as of yet, despite constant promises since the 1960's 1800's. They don't seem to be smart enough. :(
Fixed that for you.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Private Space Companies
« on: February 21, 2017, 05:54:30 AM »
Kinda odd that SES didn't notice that their 52 satellites didn't make it to orbit, or Intelsat didn't notice that their 59 satellites went missing.  (Of course, Intelsat used to be government, so I suppose they might be part of the Conspiracy still.)

In fact, if orbit is not achievable, somebody should really tell ALL of these companies to stop throwing their money away.

Additionally, if orbit is not achievable I look forward to the explanation for what causes the observable and predictable Iridim Flares, since it obviously cannot be the fleet of Iridium satellites as we've been told.  And the observable (with more specialized equipment) and predictable transits of the ISS across the sun and moon.

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: February 20, 2017, 08:55:50 AM »
There are other small beaches in that area that point towards Santa Cruz.

I believe I used a reflecting telescope of about 500x. Everything was upside down.

What else would you like to know?
I think we all, Flat and Round, would like to know: Which of those "other small beaches" were you using?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: What causes high/low tide in a FET
« on: February 20, 2017, 08:45:22 AM »
More than 24 hours without a FE answer, so I think I will satisfy your curiosity and tell you what a fairly definitive FE source believes: the continents float upon the sea, and they bob up and down in the water.  So what appears to land based observers to be water rising and falling is actually the land itself rising and falling.

12
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Phases of Venus
« on: January 26, 2017, 05:33:04 AM »
Nobody has attempted to answer "What is the flat earth model explanation?"

Yes, I would like to know the explanation as well.

Have a basic question?  Read the wiki for their basic answer.

13
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The "Conspiracy"
« on: January 21, 2017, 03:05:26 PM »
I dunno about "most", but yes, some do believe that. That, however, is completely inconsequential to your suggestion that "it cannot be otherwise".
Would you care to describe how "going to space" actually works on a flat earth?  I know how it works (as much as any non rocket scientist can claim to know) on a round earth where gravity works the way they teach it in school, but cannot picture what it would look like in a UA (or something else?) situation.

14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The "Conspiracy"
« on: January 19, 2017, 11:34:42 PM »
I'm not suggesting they didn't go to space.
That puts you quite at odds with most FE, who believe one cannot "go to space" above a flat earth.

15
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The "Conspiracy"
« on: January 19, 2017, 05:22:37 AM »
It cannot be otherwise.
Of course it can. For a quick example, they could simply be wrong about the conclusions of their observations.
I don't think so.  Individual people could be wrong about what they see.  Hundreds of people pretending they went to space, and thousands of people building and supporting the hardware they pretended to take to space?  That's the very definition of a "conspiracy"

16
The video and stills of "giant UFOs" and "black cubes" in the SOHO imagery: those "objects" are all pixelated.  They are so very obviously not actual objects, that I have to believe you're kidding. 

But in the spirit of the website, I'll play along.  IF you think there is one or more "black cubes" out there, a few more questions come to mind.
  • If there really was a "giant UFO" near the sun, they're not doing a good job of "hiding" or "covering up" the evidence if they were so careless as to release these images.  Seems to me, a coverup like this would have at least one guy whose job was to prevent such evidence from getting out.  He wouldn't even necessarily need to be in on it.  They could feed him a line like "Don't relase any pictures with 'glitches' in them, folks are counting on clean imagery for their research" or words to that effect.
  • Are you aware that SOHO is a satellite?  As evidence goes, if you believe these images are genuine photographs of the sun, then it goes against your statement about space being fake.  Seems to me you must either reject these images as complete fictions, in which case the black boxes mean nothing anyway, or you must accept that spacecraft orbiting a ROUND EARTH are a thing, in whch case what point are you even making here?
  • Suppose they had managed to keep these images from getting out.  How could such an object be hidden from terrestrial observers?  There are probably thousands of people all over the world, most of them unaffiliated with NASA, ESA, or the SOHO project, who take solar images for research or hobby purposes.  You could buy the requisite equipment yourself if you have $9000 to spare.

17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: The "Conspiracy"
« on: January 16, 2017, 05:30:38 AM »
I don't see that much difference in the ideas about conspiracy between the two societies. Both seem to say essentially this:
Quote
    P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an
    obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
    P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth
    P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that
    contradicts the FET
    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
    C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
    is fabricated evidence
    P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then
    there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
    P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
     - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.
This is not even remotely close to the views of most people here. I won't speak for them, and personally I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theory.

Maybe you don't.  Maybe others don't.  That merely means that you, and any Flat Earth adherent who does not believe in a massive conspiracy, have failed to examine the implications of the FE belief.  A flat earth where dozens of nations claim to have objects orbiting a round earth right now, a flat earth from which hundreds of people claim to have personally orbited the earth and found it to be round, a flat earth from which a handful of people claim to have walked on the moon and observed and photographed a round earth from there: this is a flat earth that is home to a massive conspiracy!  It cannot be otherwise.

18
First, Welcome to the forum.  Please stick to the standard fonts for the bulk of your posts, using big or bold or whatever for emphasis.  Creating an entire post in giant bold font does not make your point any better.

They say the curvature can't be measure because the moon's tidal forces and gravity are constantly pulling and pushing on the Earth's surface distorting any measurements.
Who says this?  Who is "they" to whom you refer?

Here are my thoughts or theories on the Flat Earth.

1.   The 8 inches curvature squared for every Statute Mile either is incorrect or can’t be observed and therefore doesn’t exist.
2.   Stars and galaxies staying in perfect alignment since the beginning of time with everything in constant motion at the speed of light and all while being unobservable.
3.   Photos, videos, and data of our Sun, Moon, and Outer Space, in general being heavily edited, doctored, or just withheld.
4.   The Secrecy about Antarctica useless frozen land mass. Yes, there our natural resources but the conditions are not feasible to be of any benefit.
Here are my thoughts on your thoughts:
1. "Can't be observed" is not the same thing as "doesn't exist"  For most of human history the capability to observe bacteria had not been invented, but bacteria existed nevertheless.

2. Stars have NOT remained fixed since the beginning of time, nor even since the beginning of mankind's observations of them.  (And none of them are moving at the speed of light, not even close.)  The movement observed earliest in human history is precession, the movement across the starscape of the spot around which the other stars appear to rotate.  Today that spot is very near to Polaris; the illustration below shows the path taken across the sky.  In 3000 BCE, for example, you can see the pole star is one of the stars in the modern constellation Draco (Thuban, a star only 1/5 as bright as Polaris)


Observable by modern instruments on a much shorter time scale is the movement of one star relative to other stars.  For example, here is Barnard's Star, moving against the background of "stationary" stars (actually, stars moving as well, but much MUCH slower)


3. The statement that photos CAN be doctored is neither proof nor even evidence that they HAVE BEEN doctored.  Also, the supposed ease with which the moon landings could have been faked?  That's a lie too.  It would have required film equipment and technology that did not, and even now DOES not, exist.




4. There is no secrecy; you can go there yourself.  YOU specifically, Cherno Berserker, could pay for a trip to Antarctica.  It costs a lot, but you can go.  And ask yourself this: suppose there was a vast untapped region of natural resources.  Why would the government(s) keep that a secret?  Why not exploit it?  Resources buried in the ground are worthless, it is only in their extraction that natural resources become valuable.

19
I didn't get any answers, from what I could glean.
Sure you did: the answer was "NO".  I'll quote the relevant section:

The big objection to this idea is that I believe that there is little argument that looked at in the short term, ie day by day,
the sun certainly appears to rotate in a circular path with (on the Antarctica Ice Wall model) the north pole as its centre.
Near mid-summer,= in the northern hemisphere, it is above the Tropic of Cancer all the way around the earth,
near either equinox, it is above the Equator all the way around the earth and
near mid-summer in the southern hemisphere, it is above the Tropic of Capricorn all the way around the earth.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: flat earth questions
« on: January 07, 2017, 06:26:24 AM »
Hi been checking few things according the round globe which does not add up. Lots of places it states that the solar constilation is different in the north and south of the hemiphere. I'm in Namibia which is southern part of Africa looking at the lil dipper and Orion's belt. Only difftence is they are upside down compared to if u are in northern part of the globe for example when I stayed in south Carolina the dipper is right side up and Orion's sword points downwards. Here in Namibia its the opposite. With a globe spinning and positions according the round globe there is no way this can be possible?
Actually, constellations being upside down when viewed from the other hemisphere is exactly what you should expect on a globe.  The crescent moons will be opposite as well.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25  Next >