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 >
Flat Earth General / Re: NASA is not fake.
« on: April 23, 2017, 04:40:28 AM »
How the fuck do you know? Do you know exactly what each and every "satellite" is equipped with when it is launched? Either "Star Wars" exists or space travel isn't possible or feasible. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE IN HELL that we haven't Weaponized space if it is even remotely possible.

That's a false dichotomy.  One could just as easily say "Either the Army has secret units composed of avenging angels, or angels don't exist".  One can easily believe in angels (reject statement #2) without believing we've weaponized them (reject statement #1)

Flat Earth General / Re: Planetary Ecliptic
« on: April 23, 2017, 04:28:47 AM »
The planets are only seen at night when they are on the opposite side of the earth from the sun. If the solar plane system is gradually tilting higher, with the sun constantly affixed fixed to its highest point, it follows that whatever is on the opposite side of that sun will be seen to be lower than what was recently seen. And vice-versa, when the solar plane system is tilting lower, with the sun constantly affixed to its lowest point, whatever is rotating in that system on the opposite side of the sun would be seen to be higher than what was recently seen.

Tom, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying the orbital plane of the planets is tilted at an angle compared to the plane of the earth?

Me too.  Tom, can you post a drawing of what you have in mind here?  A simplified system including only the Earth, Sun, and Jupiter would suffice to illustrate the premise, I think.

I think it's important not to dissuade people from seeking orthodox medical treatments.

Tom what you are doing is borderline immoral, giving people diet tips is fine but you are doing harm to people of you discourage them for seeking professional help.

Anyone who takes medical advice from a random stranger on the internet has only themselves to blame for their "treatment" outcomes.  Just saying.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Satellites
« on: April 18, 2017, 04:58:07 PM »
They don't need to be well funded to go out and gather some quite simple data.  For example, with a consumer grade camera you can document the locations of these satellites.  Here is a list of such satellites (may not be complete).  You can point a camera at the celestial equator and take a long exposure photo.  The stars will form 'star trails' but there will be a few dots that remain fixed.  Those are geostationary satellites.
For example:

There's actually a cool demonstration in that gif.  You will notice that most of the stationary dots in the frame form a line.  This is the celestial equator.  There are a couple, however, orbiting off that line.  These are satellites orbiting at some inclination to the equator, and therefore are not geostationary, but instead are geosynchronous.  They orbit in sync with a given longitudinal line on the moving surface of the earth, but they move north-to-south over the course of each orbit.  Several examples are visible in this image.  Find Alphasat, in white text on the left and positioned below Eutelsat 25B.  Unlike the conga line of the other satellites, Alphasat is A) not in line, and B) obviously moves upwards (north) across the frame.  Move to the right a little bit and find Eutelsat 16C, black text.  It moves down (south) but not very much, you have to look closely.  Find Astra 2D, black text right of center, about 1/3 in from the right side of the frame.  This one makes a visible shift downward (south) in the frame.  There's another, unidentified satellite that begins near the "0" at the end of the Meteostat 10 label.  It also moves south over the course of the gif.

Flat Earth General / Re: UA
« on: April 18, 2017, 04:49:26 PM »
One line of thought is that the flat earth itself does not produce a gravitational field, but the celestial bodies do produce a celestial gravitational field that influences things like tides and the measured variations in the UA's "gravitational" field.
The moon is much smaller than the earth.  Why does it produce a gravitational field, if the much larger earth does not?

Flat Earth General / Re: Boy, NASA sure has a lot of pics
« on: April 18, 2017, 04:45:51 PM »
One or maybe two faked trips to the moon would have convinced a lot of people that they had been there. And in that same vein, why would they fake a failed mission: Apollo 13?
Right, so you think the goal of the conspiracy (or at least the Apollo missions) is to "convince a lot of people". That explains a lot about your reasoning.
Are you saying the "fake" Apollo missions WEREN'T about convincing a lot of people?  What else could they have been for?  I mean, I have an answer, they were about actually going to the moon, but I know that's not your answer.

Here is another startrail:

Fine, lets compare your two star-trail photos.  Notice that the stars in both photos appear to converge as they move toward a certain place in the frame, and diverge as they move away?  Notice where that spot is in both photos?  Center of frame.  Did your two photos point at the same place in the sky?  The changing scenery says NO.  That means the phenomena you claim is happening in the sky is actually happening in the camera.  Which everyone knows.  If it were happening in the sky, constellations would distort as they crossed the sky, but that doesn't happen.

Honestly, I wonder sometimes if you've ever even seen the sky.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Bishop Model: Clockwork Sun
« on: April 10, 2017, 03:36:10 AM »
Look at star trails from the equator:

Your photo was not taken at the equator.  If it had been, the star trails would be perpendicular to the horizon.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is the edge
« on: April 07, 2017, 01:53:03 PM »
I'm one to examine the texts of ancient civilizations as to the nature of the earth. I think that governments in the recent centuries have hidden plenty of facts from us, and Antarctica is no different. Take a look at the Book of Enoch, and ancient Hebrew text. It's some interesting content.

Also, I read in an old newspaper article that there was a map found in a cave on Hawaii that shows a chain of islands surrounding the known world, islands which aren't depicted on any of our maps. Worth a glance at least
Why?  The ideas of the ancients were based on less information than are modern ideas, backed by limited local data with no collaboration from other parts of the world, and are more often than not quite liberally dosed with myth and superstition.  Why are they of any value today?

Your Hawaii cave map is a perfect example.  The people of Hawaii knew a world of ocean and islands.  Of course they imagined a chain of islands surrounding the known world!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: absorption spectroscopy
« on: April 07, 2017, 01:44:39 PM »
I wonder if the confusion some people have over this issue is because they imagine that ALL the hydrogen in a star is undergoing fusion right now?  Which it's not, there is a small percentage of the available hydrogen actively undergoing fusion right now, while the rest of the hydrogen is unfused, waiting its turn.

Flat Earth General / Re: Moon and Sun Angles Don't Line Up
« on: April 07, 2017, 02:38:59 AM »
Why do I need to perform some kind of experiment to confirm someone else's argument? If you are making a claim that a certain experiment will confirm your argument, YOU need to do the experiment.

If you have an experiment for us that will confirm something you believe to be in your favor, it is your responsibility to perform the experiment. Telling us to go here, wait this long, and do this and that to perform some experiment which you blindly assume will produce a result favorable to your argument doesn't fly. Your claim, your burden.

I'll tell you why we want you to perform the experiment.  If one of us does it, you won't be convinced.  If many of us did it, heck if ALL of us did it, you wouldn't be convinced.  Mabe if YOU do it, you will be convinced.  Or maybe you can show us why it doesn't mean what we think it means.

This is the same reason we so very much want the DETAILS of your eponymous experiment: some among us (who did not propose it and do not believe it) want to attempt it and either be convinced, or show you why it doesn't mean what you think it means.

The fact that people CAN be deceived does not mean they ARE being deceived about one specific topic.   

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:
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.

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.

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?

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

Flat Earth General / 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.

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."

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.

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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25  Next >