Recent Posts

91
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance between the sun and the earth
« Last post by Oami on May 22, 2017, 07:02:09 PM »
a simple study one day over 100 years ago in London and at the beach 50 miles away revealed two angles to the sun; 61 and 64 degrees which calculates to a distance to the sun of 1000 miles. 

So is this the answer that the flat believers agree upon? 1000 miles, being equivalent to 1609 kilometres?

I might argue, but before I do, I want to be sure against what I actually am arguing. I suppose no one here believes in multiple suns, that might be on different heights at the same time.
92
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Southern midnight sun
« Last post by TomInAustin on May 22, 2017, 06:48:44 PM »
The Flat Earth Theory was revised after the South Pole was discovered in the early 1900's to include the South Pole. Check out the book The Sea Earth Globe and its Monsterous Hypothetical Motions available online in our Library.

Where is the south pole located on a flat earth map?
93
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How big is the conspiracy?
« Last post by TomInAustin on May 22, 2017, 06:29:09 PM »
Then why does the horizon look flat at normal cruising altitudes?
Why wouldn't it look flat? I am not the one claiming to perceive curvature on any sort of plane because it is extremely unlikely when you account for the required altitude and the required FOV. People see what they want to see, they take pictures with cameras that have fisheye lenses. This is what results in people claiming they can see the curvature, when in fact they cannot.

I was being quite honest as the FAQ states. "It is widely stated you would need to be at a height of at least 40,000 ft to get even a hint of curvature if earth were round. Commercial aircraft are not allowed to fly this high. They are only allowed to fly just under this altitude. "   That is either dishonest or ignorant?  It can only be one of those.  Which is it?

Ignoring your improper use of the quote function (hint: you can preview your post before posting, this will help ensure it looks appropriate), I am not sure what you are claiming here. You're initial claim was:

Also, the FAQ says planes are not allowed to fly over 40,000 ft.  Pure bunk.  A Cessna Citation X flys at 51,000 and the same for a Gulfstream g650.  The concord flew at 60,000 and passengers reported seeing the curvature.
I pointed out that your claim regarding the FAQ was false. I also directly quoted the FAQ for you. So yes, you were either being ignorant or dishonest, but I am not sure why you are asking me which one you were.

I pointed out the FAQ is false.  Do you deny it is? 
94
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Ironic
« Last post by TomInAustin on May 22, 2017, 06:15:27 PM »
"They" meaning the conspirators, not the public. Sorry I wasn't clear.

So was I.

Progress.  Good.  Now let's keep going.

You said "Nobody is willfully trying to cover up the fact that the earth is flat. The conspirators most likely don't know that the earth is flat, and are simply portraying it as such in their faked data/pictures because that's what they expect it to be."

1.  If they don't know, how are they conspirators?  That makes no sense.  Is it like Mormons trying to find evidence of their non-existent civilization in the new world?  They didn't ty to fake it though.  Not in mass.  Plenty of example of the catholic church faking artifacts though... is it like that?
2.  Again, how would they gain by faking data or pictures?  Why wouldn't people just say "Hey look, we were wrong, let's go see this dome, close moon, dark disk, explore beyond the wall etc"?   

As my OP stated, a flat dome covered earth it is infinitely more interesting to science than a universe filled with orbiting objects comprised mainly of hydrogen,  oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon. 

95
So, I'm not sure this video is a fair set of complaints - all of them have rational answers within the realms of FET.
CHL has already demonstrated his complete lack of understanding of FET in his "Testing Flattards" series. He has never even gone as far as to read the FAQ, and instead filled the gaps in his understanding with his opinion of what "must" happen if the Earth is flat.

While the man in needlessly insulting, he does make many valid points using geometry in his videos, none of which are discussed in the FAQ.  I would bet he has read it, it only takes a few minutes since it is so lacking in information.  Why is it not updated with questions that are frequently asked?  Who updates it?
96
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Southern midnight sun
« Last post by Oami on May 22, 2017, 05:55:10 PM »
But I don't expect to hear any good explanations for this...it's a helluva stretch for FE'ers to explain any of these southern-hemisphere phenomena effectively.

I have heard that there are three separate rotation axes on the southern sky: one directly south of Australia, one directly south of Africa and one directly south of South America. This way, people in each of these can see rotations in a somewhat logical way. (And they all have the same stars.)

Between these, there are apparently areas where these rotations overlap, but they are in the middle of the ocean so no one sees them anyway.

I have no idea whether this idea is popular here, though.
97
Flat Earth Debate / Re: New here
« Last post by TomInAustin on May 22, 2017, 05:24:50 PM »
If a question isn't covered in the wiki it has a much better chance of being answered. That's why we so strongly encourage checking the wiki before asking the question. Often the proper approach leads to an interesting discussion which is what most of us are really interested in.

I read the wiki and it did not answer the question of "why would anyone cover up the fact that the earth is flat and who gains".   If it other than Nasa, I missed it.  Please be so kind as to provide a quote.


For me, it's not so much "who" as "when".

People were using celestial navigation in the southern hemisphere at least 300 years ago - they'd have seen the huge differences between RE and FE and the result of that would be in every navigation handbook from the time - and it's not...they all talk in terms of RE.

So it takes a cooperation between at least the British, Spanish and Dutch navies - plus all of the whaling fleets, all of the commercial shipping - and all of the pirates of the time.  With all of those people having to know the difference, the idea of an airtight conspiracy tracking down to the present day seems incredibly unlikely.   This knowledge of how to navigate using the stars would have been passed down both verbally and in books...and probably would have to be built in to the mechanics of some of the mechanical contrivances used at the time.

If you ever get the chance, read the book "Longitude" by Dava Sobel - he describes the tremendous public effort to figure out how to calculate a ship's longitude at sea - and the idea that all of that was conspiracy - right down to actual pieces of equipment that you can see in museums today...it's one hell of a stretch to say that all of that was faked.

Very good points.  I started a thread on celestial navigation.  I am curious if I can get real debate.
98
Flat Earth Debate / Re: New here
« Last post by 3DGeek on May 22, 2017, 05:18:37 PM »
If a question isn't covered in the wiki it has a much better chance of being answered. That's why we so strongly encourage checking the wiki before asking the question. Often the proper approach leads to an interesting discussion which is what most of us are really interested in.

I read the wiki and it did not answer the question of "why would anyone cover up the fact that the earth is flat and who gains".   If it other than Nasa, I missed it.  Please be so kind as to provide a quote.

For me, it's not so much "who" as "when".

People were using celestial navigation in the southern hemisphere at least 300 years ago - they'd have seen the huge differences between RE and FE and the result of that would be in every navigation handbook from the time - and it's not...they all talk in terms of RE.

So it takes a cooperation between at least the British, Spanish and Dutch navies - plus all of the whaling fleets, all of the commercial shipping - and all of the pirates of the time.  With all of those people having to know the difference, the idea of an airtight conspiracy tracking down to the present day seems incredibly unlikely.   This knowledge of how to navigate using the stars would have been passed down both verbally and in books...and probably would have to be built in to the mechanics of some of the mechanical contrivances used at the time.

If you ever get the chance, read the book "Longitude" by Dava Sobel - he describes the tremendous public effort to figure out how to calculate a ship's longitude at sea - and the idea that all of that was conspiracy - right down to actual pieces of equipment that you can see in museums today...it's one hell of a stretch to say that all of that was faked.
99
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance between the sun and the earth
« Last post by Rounder on May 22, 2017, 05:03:41 PM »
a simple study one day over 100 years ago in London and at the beach 50 miles away revealed two angles to the sun; 61 and 64 degrees which calculates to a distance to the sun of 1000 miles. 
If you want to refer people to Rowbotham, you should link to the freely available online version of the book instead of Amazon, and more importantly, you should quote him accurately.  He didn't say 1000 miles.  He gave an even more preposterous figure of 700 miles.


i have not yet verified this myself
You will find that you get more respect when you DO verify things for yourself.  Let us know your results, please.

I plan to duplicate the michigan to chicago pictures in another location....joshua nowicki's pictures of chicago should not be possible!
And under normal conditions, they're not.  Are you familiar with the atmospheric phenomenon called a mirage?  That's what's going on there.
If you are interested, there is a good video on YouTube in which a guy shoots video of Sweden's Turning Torso skyscraper from six different distances across the bay.  As expected on a round earth, the farther away he got, the more of the skyscraper was obscured by the earth's curvature.

100
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance between the sun and the earth
« Last post by 3DGeek on May 22, 2017, 05:00:21 PM »
a simple study one day over 100 years ago in London and at the beach 50 miles away revealed two angles to the sun; 61 and 64 degrees which calculates to a distance to the sun of 1000 miles.  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1605064173/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER

duplicate the studies and share your math supporting ballers or flatters.  use math, leave emotions out.  i have not yet verified this myself, but will when i get someone else to measure at the same time, perhaps farther away than 50 miles.

prove it using in empirical evidence that you, personally create.

I plan to duplicate the michigan to chicago pictures in another location.  this really is quite simple!

analyzing a triangle and a circle does not take a Ph.D.  joshua nowicki's pictures of chicago should not be possible!  simple math:
(h squared = a squared + b squared, h being the distance from the center of the earth to chicago):
1.  the reported radius of the earth (a) is 4000 miles and the distance to chicago (b) is 60 miles
2.  square both, add and take the square root to get 4000.450 (h) miles
3.  therefore, chicago on the ball earth would be .450 miles below the line of sight which is greater than the tallest buildings in chicago!

anyone with any math skill can prove this.
anyone with a telephoto lens can easily take pictures of things a few miles away.  even 4 miles would show a drop of over 10 feet, so find yourself a lake, canal or river and shoot.  prove it to yourself and the ballers!
The distance between Michigan and Chicago (according to Google) is 199 miles...but that's to the geographical center of Michigan to the official center of Chicago.  Gary Michigan is only 24.5 miles from the center of Chicago - and that building appears to be right on the edge of the lake - so it's probably a lot closer.

I'm not saying this math is wrong - just that it cannot be reproduced without additional information.

The problem with all of these experiments (both pro- and anti-FE) is that temperature inversions and other atmospheric phenomena close to the surface of the water really screw up ALL of the measurements and conclusions.

So good data needs to come from higher altitudes.

Personally - I think the whole argument about ships vanishing (or not) over the horizon is too embroiled in refractions and mirages and such to allow anyone to draw any conclusions whatever from the results.

IMHO, the fact that in the age of sail - it was always the guy who climbed to that precarious location at the top of the tallest mast who always yells "LAND HO!" before anyone else...that suggests that you can indeed see further from higher up...which suggests RE is true.

But I don't rely on that tricky evidence.

* Tell me why the stars rotate in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere.
* Tell me why the mountains of the moon clearly cast shadows onto the lunar surface.
* Tell me why there are two high tides and two low tides every day.
* Explain to me how a subsonic airplane can fly from Australia to South America at 2.5 times the speed of sound - and over twice it's regular range without refuelling...and if you're going to say "Jet Stream!" - stop and think that there are also aircraft flying from South America TO Australia over the same route.

There are lots more besides.