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 - Boots

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14  Next >
1
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: What is Below FE?
« on: July 22, 2017, 05:24:02 PM »
No one knows. Possibly Hades?

2
I do agree with you about the double standard but they actually do allow quite a bit here compared to other sites.

Ultimately this forum isn't a democracy. Someone owns it and they get to call the shots and be inconsistent or allow inconsistency if they feel like it.

You can always start your own forum where you can do what you want. For myself, I just leave for awhile when I get tired of it.


3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: For the love of all that is holy, read this.
« on: July 05, 2017, 07:39:51 PM »
I can think of no way for this to fail.
I think you vastly underestimate the resourcefulness of those who are determined to remain unconvinced.

4
Technology & Information / Re: Photobucket wants $400...
« on: July 05, 2017, 06:53:12 PM »
Cut all ties and don't pay 'em a dime! Host your pics on your device, dropbox or google drive. Upload them to postimage when you need a host.

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Mind = Blown
« on: July 05, 2017, 12:16:01 PM »
Hi Librium.

Welcome to the forum, 

I believe the earth is globe-shaped.

Any chance I could talk you out of believing in a FE?

Anyway, good luck.  :)

6
Flat Earth General / Re: The firmament and the etheric field
« on: July 05, 2017, 05:22:03 AM »
What is the next step in our discovery of our FE?

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't we see across?
« on: June 30, 2017, 10:39:57 PM »
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?

The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.



I also don't have a reason to doubt their studies. But does zeteticism only mean questioning NASA and no other organizations? If I could show that NOAA had cgid some photographs would you then reject their studies that show the height of the atmosphere is 62 miles?

Sure, if you show that an organization is untrustworthy, that is reason to question their claims.

Did you see Glenlivet's post?

The Sex in the clouds picture? Seen it.

http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/space/finding-sex-on-nasas-epic-earth-image-once-you-see-it-you-wont-unsee-it/


But apparently it originated from NOAA.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't we see across?
« on: June 30, 2017, 09:54:30 PM »
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?

The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.



I also don't have a reason to doubt their studies. But does zeteticism only mean questioning NASA and no other organizations? If I could show that NOAA had cgid some photographs would you then reject their studies that show the height of the atmosphere is 62 miles?

Sure, if you show that an organization is untrustworthy, that is reason to question their claims.

Did you see Glenlivet's post?

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't we see across?
« on: June 30, 2017, 05:30:42 AM »
I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?

The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.



I also don't have a reason to doubt their studies. But does zeteticism only mean questioning NASA and no other organizations? If I could show that NOAA had cgid some photographs would you then reject their studies that show the height of the atmosphere is 62 miles?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't we see across?
« on: June 29, 2017, 04:57:33 AM »
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?

 For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?

(is this question ridiculous?)

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

But we can see the moon in the USA when it's vertically over the UK?   Surely the atmosphere would block that too?

The atmosphere stretches about 62 miles upwards vertically (as a gradient) and tens of thousands of miles outwards horizontally (not a gradient).

Do you know this for sure are you saying this is according to your preferred model?

I'm using the traditional milage for the height of the atmosphere. If you have any issues with that number in the traditional atmosphere model, let us know.

Not really. I honestly haven't looked into it that deep. But do you accept the traditional mileage as fact? If so, why would you accept it as a fact?

Yes - even in Round Earth theory - the atmosphere has mostly faded to vacuum by around 60 miles.


I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't we see across?
« on: June 28, 2017, 11:55:21 PM »
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?

 For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?

(is this question ridiculous?)

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

But we can see the moon in the USA when it's vertically over the UK?   Surely the atmosphere would block that too?

The atmosphere stretches about 62 miles upwards vertically (as a gradient) and tens of thousands of miles outwards horizontally (not a gradient).

Do you know this for sure are you saying this is according to your preferred model?

I'm using the traditional milage for the height of the atmosphere. If you have any issues with that number in the traditional atmosphere model, let us know.

Not really. I honestly haven't looked into it that deep. But do you accept the traditional mileage as fact? If so, why would you accept it as a fact?

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why can't we see across?
« on: June 28, 2017, 07:34:36 PM »
If the Flat Earth Theory is correct then shouldn't we be able to see across the sea, using a powerful telescope, the opposite land?

 For example, shouldn't I be able to see American shores from a UK beach?

(is this question ridiculous?)

The atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

But we can see the moon in the USA when it's vertically over the UK?   Surely the atmosphere would block that too?

The atmosphere stretches about 62 miles upwards vertically (as a gradient) and tens of thousands of miles outwards horizontally (not a gradient).

Do you know this for sure are you saying this is according to your preferred model?

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity (2.0)
« on: June 28, 2017, 02:41:41 AM »
What is the meaning of 'Check you messages'?
Click

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity (2.0)
« on: June 28, 2017, 02:35:05 AM »
Check your messages

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity (2.0)
« on: June 28, 2017, 02:04:07 AM »
I think a global earth is more realistic.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity (2.0)
« on: June 28, 2017, 01:34:59 AM »
As to this day, the evidence of there being a flat earth in existence is very weak...

Yes.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity (2.0)
« on: June 28, 2017, 01:34:17 AM »
Just a question:

In the UA theory, what causes the earth to accelerate? What force is exerted on the "flat earth".

They do talk about that some on the link I sent you in the other thread. It is worth noting that the cause of gravitation is not really understood either.

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gravity...
« on: June 28, 2017, 12:54:21 AM »
Well, I think that the entire earth would be accelerating at the same rate of 9.8m/s2. The ball at ten feet and the ball at twenty feet are going to accelerate at almost exactly the same rate. You might have a point if you're referring to gravitational differences due to elevation. Under UA this is explained by slight gravitational pull from other celestial bodies.

Check this link out for a little more information.

19
Flat Earth General / Re: Why does my flat earth friend push so hard?
« on: June 28, 2017, 12:47:30 AM »
Quote
All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

The entire premise of your argument in this thread tries to split hairs on our ability to use advanced optics to see distant objects under certain conditions.  The fact is that when an object moves far enough away in relation to the perspective that it is being observed, it can move to a position where it can no longer be observed specifically due to the curvature of the earth (see: line of sight).  That being said, we have the optical technology to see far enough to prove the curvature of the earth, yet you continue with this example of a ship knowing full well it is a bogus example and has been debunked with facts that you can observe for yourself.  To try and press false information as evidence to support a point you know is wrong, is called lying.  Unless you are in fact just delusional and have no idea what you are doing.

Well just for your benefit, I've posted the sum total of my contribution to this thread below. I really think you may have me mistaken for someone else. Either that or you misunderstood my point. I was actually making an argument against TB. He has now responded with a counter argument which I haven't really looked at yet. Do you agree with me or TB. Or what is your point exactly?

If your FE friend was really confident in his belief he wouldn't feel the need to push so hard. It is obvious he is trying to solidify his belief by attempting to convince those around him that he is correct.

Of course it's not necessarily true. I was just trying to fit in with the (lack of) logic on display in this thread.

OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.

Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.

All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

I quoted the parts of your "contributions" that I was discussing.  And then I followed up with an explanation.... 

I am not sure where the confusion is coming from....or maybe I am.

Instead of making this about you, like a child would, why don't you focus on the facts that dispute your position and either admit you are wrong and move on like a big boy.... or at least provide some kind of factual disputing evidence.

Quite simply, I was saying that if the ship can be restored with a telescope it was never beyond the horizon in the first place, only too small to see because of distance or lighting. I then told TB that he needed to address the situations where the boat had not been able to be restored. What exactly do you disagree with? There is no lying and to me it seems pretty staight forward. Tom Bishop had no trouble understanding it.

20
Flat Earth General / Re: Why does my flat earth friend push so hard?
« on: June 28, 2017, 12:39:37 AM »
Quote
All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

The entire premise of your argument in this thread tries to split hairs on our ability to use advanced optics to see distant objects under certain conditions.  The fact is that when an object moves far enough away in relation to the perspective that it is being observed, it can move to a position where it can no longer be observed specifically due to the curvature of the earth (see: line of sight).  That being said, we have the optical technology to see far enough to prove the curvature of the earth, yet you continue with this example of a ship knowing full well it is a bogus example and has been debunked with facts that you can observe for yourself.  To try and press false information as evidence to support a point you know is wrong, is called lying.  Unless you are in fact just delusional and have no idea what you are doing.

Well just for your benefit, I've posted the sum total of my contribution to this thread below. I really think you may have me mistaken for someone else. Either that or you misunderstood my point. I was actually making an argument against TB. He has now responded with a counter argument which I haven't really looked at yet. Do you agree with me or TB. Or what is your point exactly?

If your FE friend was really confident in his belief he wouldn't feel the need to push so hard. It is obvious he is trying to solidify his belief by attempting to convince those around him that he is correct.

Of course it's not necessarily true. I was just trying to fit in with the (lack of) logic on display in this thread.

OK. Here is the response. Sometimes the reason the ship can't be resolved by the human eye is because it is too distant and lighting conditions are poor etc. These are the situations in which Rowbotham concludes that the sinking ship effect can be restored with a telescope. What you need to address if you really want to refute this global earth proof is the times when the ship can't be restored or when we see exactly the same amount of ship no matter what strength of telescope we are using, if any at all.

Are you responding to me? You should read my post again. Please point out where I have flat-out lied.

All right. Well it certainly felt like you were implying that I had  "use[d] the claim that we lack the technology to see far enough to prove the earth is flat." If you feel I made that claim could you point out where? Or do you just make random statements like that periodically.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14  Next >