1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?

« on: July 18, 2017, 06:49:24 PM »

The sinking ship effect, and the lunar eclipse proofs are both frequently brought up. But while the original experiments are old, they both have been repeated often since then. We even had a Navy submariner on recently that attested to the sinking ship effect at sea being seen with his own eyes, and how raising the heights of the periscope served to bring ships back into view, but zooming in did not. FE states lunar eclipses happen via an invisible untraceable object, yet we can pinpoint the time and date of a lunar eclipse with astounding accuracy, and have been for centuries. How do those two things work? I haven't seen a good answer to that one on here yet.

The Lunar Eclipse prediction is based on an analysis of historical tables of past lunar eclipse events and finding the pattern to predict when the next one will occur. This is how the Ancient Babylonians did it, this is how Aristotle did it, this is how post-enlightenment astronomers did it, and this is the method explained today on NASA's lunar eclipse prediction website.

It has been said that the these analysis only predicts when eclipses will happen but not where they can be seen wich can be done today.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The distance between the sun and the earth

« on: May 26, 2017, 06:06:53 PM »

this a debate thread ..... I want to hear the answer from your own words

That's brilliant. Unfortunately, debating the very basics over and over is particularly uninteresting, especially when people ask the same question multiple times a day. That's why we wrote our own words down in the FAQ. It is expected of you that you will read it before engaging in discussions here. If you choose not to do that, well, that's on you, but don't expect to be taken any more seriously than geckothegeek

You wrote it with your own words, then that means you know the answer to his question. Why twist it around? He's just asking a what happens to the sun, not where he can find the answer.

It seems that all what you are doing is juggling around as to not commit to anything you could say so it won't be used against you, so instead you point to the wiki, but when someone use the arguments in the wiki against you and then you say "Yeah, but that's what the wiki says, not me" or "thee wiki is quite outdated". Is just a full circle of not commiting to anything.

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions about the Flat Earth Theory and the Eclipses

« on: May 19, 2017, 07:50:34 PM »

For the first question about eclipses, the eclipses are predicted by finding the patterns where they occur in the sky and predicting when the next pattern will occur. This is how it has been calculated for millennia. In fact, if we go to NASA's Lunar Eclipse Website -> Resources ->  Eclipses and the Soros we will find that NASA is using a method created by the Ancient Babylonians, a society of people who believed that the earth was flat. NASA is using a method created by Flat Earthers. This is the only method NASA describes for finding the eclipse on that website.

Sure, you can predict the "when" part thanks to the babylonians, but what about the "where"?

4

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA is not fake.

« on: May 19, 2017, 06:50:41 PM »

A simple argument can dispel all conspiracies about NASA: Why didn't the Soviets disprove it? And why wouldn't America disprove soviet successes such as Sputnik to give themselves a more prominent position? A rebuttal of an entire space program that is a main source of national pride would be a HUGE propaganda coup, and why wouldn't the Americans disprove the Soviet's missions or the Soviets disprove NASA's missions? You could say that they wanted to preserve themselves, but what about North Korea? They have no space program, the technology to show that there is nothing in space, and the hatred of America as a motive!
(Before Tom Bishop says something about the "Domination of space" and "ICBMs in orbit", let me tell him that ICBMs are stored in silos firmly rooted in the ground. If they have launched and are in orbit, that means that someone has started a nuclear war. There are no nukes in orbit.)

So if the earth is actually flat there is a very plausible reason why every government would lie and go with the idea that America and the rest of the world could and have made it to outer space. The obvious answer is that for 500 years we have been told that the earth is round, 93 millions miles away from the sun, spinning 1,000 mph as we circle the sun all while hurling through space at 56,000 mph. Then we sink billions of dollars into a space program to show us this ball. What happens if we find the earth to be flat and that we can't get out of our atmosphere? All of science becomes a joke! Every "intellectual" that droned on and on about how people who think the earth is flat are stuck in the dark ages now becomes an imbecile. Everything we've been told and believed would be proven a lie. If they fooled us about this, what else are they attempting to fool us about? What is to be believed?

That's a lot of egg on the face of science.

Why start with the lie in the first place?
What's the reason of all this?
What's so important that apparently the whole world is working togheter to cover it up instead of working for world peace?

Money
Power
Money

Can you explain how faking a round Earth generates money and power?

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the FE model is correct, then how can explain extra-terrestrial phenomenon?

« on: May 17, 2017, 02:53:07 PM »

Infinite universe.

Lol, you really like your unproven assumptions huh? Hey, when it's proven the universe is actually infinite, you might have a point. Until then you are using one unproven assumption to support another. I really hope you are able to see why that's logically untenable. But dogmatic belief can be quite strong.

Wow and wild conspiracy theories too! I'm sorry but surely you see that when you have to strain this much to prove a point you're probably wrong.

I hope you notice the irony in your comments.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA is not fake.

« on: May 16, 2017, 07:49:09 PM »

A simple argument can dispel all conspiracies about NASA: Why didn't the Soviets disprove it? And why wouldn't America disprove soviet successes such as Sputnik to give themselves a more prominent position? A rebuttal of an entire space program that is a main source of national pride would be a HUGE propaganda coup, and why wouldn't the Americans disprove the Soviet's missions or the Soviets disprove NASA's missions? You could say that they wanted to preserve themselves, but what about North Korea? They have no space program, the technology to show that there is nothing in space, and the hatred of America as a motive!
(Before Tom Bishop says something about the "Domination of space" and "ICBMs in orbit", let me tell him that ICBMs are stored in silos firmly rooted in the ground. If they have launched and are in orbit, that means that someone has started a nuclear war. There are no nukes in orbit.)

So if the earth is actually flat there is a very plausible reason why every government would lie and go with the idea that America and the rest of the world could and have made it to outer space. The obvious answer is that for 500 years we have been told that the earth is round, 93 millions miles away from the sun, spinning 1,000 mph as we circle the sun all while hurling through space at 56,000 mph. Then we sink billions of dollars into a space program to show us this ball. What happens if we find the earth to be flat and that we can't get out of our atmosphere? All of science becomes a joke! Every "intellectual" that droned on and on about how people who think the earth is flat are stuck in the dark ages now becomes an imbecile. Everything we've been told and believed would be proven a lie. If they fooled us about this, what else are they attempting to fool us about? What is to be believed?

That's a lot of egg on the face of science.

Why start with the lie in the first place?
What's the reason of all this?
What's so important that apparently the whole world is working togheter to cover it up instead of working for world peace?

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"

« on: May 12, 2017, 02:25:24 PM »

And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Is easy, we accept he ones that hold to scrutiny

You accept the ones that are shielded from scrutiny. In fact the entire Flat Earth Theory is literally scrutiny of the currently accepted model, if there wasn't more than enough chinks in the armor of said model, the FES wouldn't exist.

The way people react so violently and incredulously to FET actually shows they aren't open to scrutiny or honest debate.

The entire Flat Earth is based on assumptions and untested phenomena. The sole explanation for eclipses falls appart quite easily, and that's just one example.

ANd no, people doesn't act violently to FET, you guys barely deserve attention, but hate? Nah, don't victimize yourself. People's reaction to FET is merelly one of surprise, i mean, at this time and age, are you guys really this dense? I mean, i do challenge some of the things around me and that's ok, people shoul'd question what they do and see, but you guys only throw wild guesses with what can be barely called explanations.

You people are really awfull at being skeptical.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"

« on: May 09, 2017, 08:36:56 PM »

And the original point still stands. Accusing the round earth theory of having some aspects that seem remarkably convenient does not explain away the same phenomenon in the flat earth theory. Not to mention that the sun and moon being the same size in the sky does not violate any known principles of the behavior of light, unlike the flat earth theory of magnification which is based on a physical effect that has never been proven to exist.

But it is very telling which remarkably convenient explanations you accept wholeheartedly and which ones you criticize.

Is easy, we accept he ones that hold to scrutiny

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Half-sunken ships Restored by simply looking at them through a Telescope

« on: May 08, 2017, 02:50:26 PM »

I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.

Why use a laser with a beam that gets wider at farther distances?  There is a thing that has been used to do this for nearly 100 years.  It's call a theodolite.  A used digital one can be acquired for under $500.

im just saying, even if the beam gets wider, it should be noted the change in height it still shows on the measurement object on would be using. And lasers are very potent, there are some that can reach to cockpits in comercial planes.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Half-sunken ships Restored by simply looking at them through a Telescope

« on: May 05, 2017, 01:46:04 PM »

I think that the best way to determine wheter the earth has a curve is using a laser pointer and a table with measurements to notice how the laser goes "higher" the farter we move from its origin.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Half-sunken ships Restored by simply looking at them through a Telescope

« on: May 03, 2017, 12:57:48 PM »

I would like to see some cities that are over the horizon get restored through magnification.

Apparently you have not read Earth Not a Globe: http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za33.htm

Interesting, would reading that book make him or the telescope able to see through the horizon?

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: There is 30 millions flat earth believers in whole world

« on: May 02, 2017, 06:16:12 PM »

Talking about generalization...

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: Let's develop here

« on: May 02, 2017, 05:46:34 PM »

discussion environment

Im curious, do you actually know the concept of what a "discussion environment" is?

I think you have an eye-opener knowledge about it. Do you want to share it?

Sure i can!

A disscusion environment is a place where ideas and opinions are heard and exchanged between one or many participants to foment a disscusion while casting aside childish behaviors, like the old "lalalala i can't hear you lalalala" technique, the "head under the sand" approach or the somehow favorite "if you interrupt my disscusion with others i'll ignore you" routine.

One example of this concpet is this forum, this place suits the concept pretty well.

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: Let's develop here

« on: May 02, 2017, 12:04:41 PM »

discussion environment

Im curious, do you actually know the concept of what a "discussion environment" is?

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does the sun get bigger if it's setting because of "laws of perspective"

« on: April 28, 2017, 09:51:55 PM »

I have to see some evidence of this "Sun looking twice as big near the horizon" claim. If anything, the Sun is either the same exact size near the horizon as it was in the middle of the sky, or slightly smaller or slightly squished vertically, based on what I've seen. I don't know if a spotlight sun is widely accepted by the FE community. I certainly don't think it is a spotlight, and from what I see, there is a gradual transition from day to night. The further the light travels, its color changes due to interaction with the atmosphere. Shortly after the red wavelength, it becomes invisible. The atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, it's opacity, and the distance to the light source, is what causes the darkness of night.

As for why it appears to go under the horizon seems to be chalked up to not knowing what a 300mi diameter object looks like as it goes overhead. If you watch a plane fly out over an ocean, even though it may be maintaining its altitude, it appears to be heading down to interact with the horizon before it becomes invisible due to the atmosphere. The assertion is we simply don't know how an object like the Sun would appear if it is beyond the vanishing point.

If that's the case for the sun to appear going "down the horizon", then why is the sun and therefore its light colored with a redish-orange hue during sunsets?

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Upcoming Solar Eclipse in USA

« on: April 28, 2017, 09:02:58 PM »

Yea, 68 years of infrared astronomy and we just keep on missing it.

Who is looking for it?

No one, but is kind of odd that in all the infrared pictures taken of the sun, this object is still undiscovered.

If we could not see the stars or celestial bodies with the naked eye, and our only access to the heavens were through observatory telescopes, we would have never discovered the planets.

But then, how do you know about this "shadow object" if you haven't seen it with your naked eye? 

Is thanks to the telescopes that we can confirm what the ancient astronomers saw and cataloged as planets in the first place, otherwise, they would be just stars, just as they appear to the naked eye.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Upcoming Solar Eclipse in USA

« on: April 28, 2017, 07:40:19 PM »

Why do solar eclipses only happen during the new moon? How are the motion of the moon and the motion of this shadow object so exactly synchronized that the obscuring of the sun only happens when the moon is exactly at the new moon phase? And same question for the lunar eclipse? As far as I can tell, in the Wiki, it says the phases of the moon are caused by the height of the moon above the earth. Why would that limit or affect when the shadow object could be in the way of the sun?

And that without putting in account that, without actually seeing this dodgy "shadow object", we can predict the place and time where both lunar and solar eclipses can be visible.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Upcoming Solar Eclipse in USA

« on: April 28, 2017, 06:56:01 PM »

Yea, 68 years of infrared astronomy and we just keep on missing it.

Who is looking for it?

No one, but is kind of odd that in all the infrared pictures taken of the sun, this object is still undiscovered.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Upcoming Solar Eclipse in USA

« on: April 28, 2017, 03:51:00 PM »

If the "dark object" also causes the lunar eclipses, then why does it not block out the stars in the sky surrounding the moon as it moves into position in front of the moon?

Apparently, this object only orbits the sun, shrouded in the sun's light in order to remain invisble to laymen eyes.

Is funny that this object is still a secret since we have in our power infrared telescopes that are able to take termal images of the celestial bodies.

So a lunar eclipse happens when the shadow object is lined up between the sun and the moon as described in the wiki. That would seem to make it pretty easy to know where to look for it in the sky during a lunar eclipse...just look along a line from the sun to the moon. So that would not require a survey of the entire sky, but a very small portion of it.

Exactly!! That's what i told Mr. Bishop on my reply! http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6121.msg115683#msg115683

Why survey the whole sky if we're only looking for an specific object wich location we can somehow predict as "around the sun"?

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Upcoming Solar Eclipse in USA

« on: April 28, 2017, 12:01:26 PM »

If the "dark object" also causes the lunar eclipses, then why does it not block out the stars in the sky surrounding the moon as it moves into position in front of the moon?

Apparently, this object only orbits the sun, shrouded in the sun's light in order to remain invisble to laymen eyes.

Is funny that this object is still a secret since we have in our power infrared telescopes that are able to take termal images of the celestial bodies.

Infrared observatories are only able to capture a very small section of the sky at a time when a picture is taken. Infrared telescopes don't see a large part of the sky. They are dishes which look at tiny sections of the sky, or are large deeply recessed observatory sized optical telescopes. And observatory telescopes don't "zoom out". It's like looking at the sky with a drinking straw. They are unreliable to catch something if you do not know where and when it will be.

This infrared sky map, for instance, was taken by stitching thousands of squares of sky together over a long period of time.

Wait, why should an infrared telescope take a picture of the entire sky in order to see this object?  That sounds utterly convoluted

I mean, if the objective is to find this "shadow object", as i see it, all you need to do is be in the oposite side from where the lunar eclipse is taking place (the antipode if you wish) in order to get a glimpse of this object with the telescope and just focus on the area around the sun. It doesn't sounds that hard.