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 - Merkava

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
1
Flat Earth General / Re: RECORD SUN/MOON TRIAL!
« on: August 12, 2017, 08:34:52 PM »
Smokified, thank you for the reply. Appreciate attention!
Quote
Why don't you simply go buy a $50 telescope and look at the moon.  Do some simple math to determine the distance, and observe how it moves in the sky.  That simple exercise alone will prove that the earth is not flat...if you are not absolutely nuts.
I don't think watching through telescopes will change anything! The moon, the stars will still look kinda holographic and strangely fake, even when watching with bare eyes!!!
A lot of weird videos related and my little personal observations for entire past year show me that big amount of information, that we're being intentionally overfed with to exhaust us and our intuition, psychie(not joking.) with logic "power bond", is "shifted from where it belongs" and distorted to an unsortable point.

Quote
Do some simple math to determine the distance
Same math appliable to possibly holographic objects/projections?

Quote
if you are not absolutely nuts.
To this i will say: anyone who has awakened, and starts to tell others about something that doesn't fit into society's hivemind paradigms, will be mocked and spit at.

Better than pictures would be accurate directions and times.  But one thing I don't understand...  You seem to be saying the moon and stars look like "holographic projections"?  Are you suggesting they are projected from Earth and really there?

2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Another careful proof project.
« on: August 12, 2017, 04:25:11 AM »
Are you assuming that the Round Earth coordinate system did not exist before 1973?

GPS didn't.

3
Kudo's to anyone who even understood what Hmmm was attempting to communicate.  I'm not on that list.

4
Flat Earth General / Re: Great hollywood blockbuster movie potential
« on: August 12, 2017, 04:17:25 AM »
So....
In the final scene....
Our hero's have found their way onto the next fake NASA launch.  It's takes off and travels higher and higher until...!....!....!


They see the Spherical Planet Earth and in a tearful embrace exclaim....  I ALWAYS NEW IT WAS FLAT.....ME TOO......I LOVE YOU>>>>  fade to black......

Discus>

5
Flat Earth General / Re: Great hollywood blockbuster movie potential
« on: August 12, 2017, 04:11:31 AM »
So to keep the FET afloat, flatters deny the FET map? This has to be a medical condition, and it has to have a name.

Who actually put research into charting a Flat Earth map?

Dude, if I ever find out you where kidding the whole time I'll buy you a years supply of beer.  Your posts kill, it's seriously better than comedy central.

6
So it seems there are plenty of different ideas of the shape of the earth and what surrounds it.

I've seen sources claiming it's flat or that it's a kind of bowl shape.

Some people believe in the firmament, while others disagree.

Is there an ice wall or aether surrounding the planet?

Some claim there are lands beyond the known Earth, while others think there is a defnitive edge.

What I wanna know is what are the most likely theories. Obviously a lot of them are speculative, some are based on math and observations.

But they can't all be true. So which is most likely, and why?

The right question to ask is, IMHO:  Is there any functional model of a flat Earth at all?

There absolutely is not, is the answer.

What you will find is a constant attempt by the curious (possible believer) to the skeptic (majority, it seems) to pin down ANY aspect of flat Earth theory that would be able to explain or predict, with equal accuracy, basic observable natural phenomenon or unquestioned, excepted public information.

You seem genuinely curious, but I would ask that you consider what I just said.  If the Earth were flat, shouldn't it be at least equally be able to explain what the "false" theory can?  Given the information and technology we have easy access to, at a minimum present a generic "functional" model?  Like it could explain:
When and where(direction)  the sun rises and sets?
Distances between ANY major locations?
Phases of the moon?
Times of solar/lunar eclipses and their nature?

All of which are 2 clicks away on google and check-able by the entire world to verify the Globe.  That's a bare minimum list.

By all means pursue your answer, but at least demand more than a picture to prove it.


7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 11, 2017, 11:18:40 PM »
By the way, who is us?  You are the only brave enough to try to derail this thread.  Sad as that may be.

Are there any others?  He's the only one I've seen in weeks reply to anything.

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 11, 2017, 11:14:32 PM »
On that note, would any of these methods suffice in your mind? Note that distances given by the USGS use these methods. If you find them agreeable that is a location from which we could draw distance data and compare it to what has been given. If they match, we have once again shown those distances as accurate. If those methods do not suffice, please provide exact detail on how we should acquire a distance that you would accept.

Triangulation uses three "known" locations. Are those known locations based on the coordinate system of a Round Earth?

So do highway mile marker use round earth numbers?   If I drive from Austin Texas to Dallas Texas on I35 can I trust the mile markers or are they a scam too?  Would my Odometer match the mile markers, the miles to go signs and my GPS?   I can't see where you are coming from on this.

Try this one

1. I use Google maps and put Austin TX as my start and Dallas TX as my destination. 
2. The results say 195 miles. 
3. They have specific start and end points.   
4. I put those exact spots into my GPS (BWM) and also into my phone (iPhone 6s)
5. Set my trip meter to zero
6. Drive point to point


Are you saying the actual mileage is unknown?   Or is it all a scam?

You will need to show that this produces consistent results rather than expecting us to believe that it does.

I would pay money to watch you attempt a job interview at my work or any aviation company.  You literally have no idea what the hell you are even saying, it's awesome.  What do you do for a living?

9
Just quick and dirty.


Left is the image from the website showing what the moon should look like, Right is a crop from :32 sec into the video, I adjusted contrast and brightness to make it easier to see.  Looks pretty much spot on.

Yes, we all agreed that the moon appears to be in 95% illumination. The problem is that it should not be in so much illumination.

Your calendar is based on what the moon does do, not what it should do.

Wrong as you perpetually are.  It's just as it should be.  This whole thread is a straw man attempt to run from another thread.  It looks, EXACTLY as it should and as ALL reputable sources say it should, as all math and accurate diagrams say it should.  Trying to explain this to you is like trying to explain to a 5 year old that insists the world is moving and not the car why they are wrong.  Shrink your "should be" picture to scale, move it where it should be and render a picture in a 3D graphic program.  That's 3 1,2,3 dimensions...  Savvy?  NVM, obviously, no.  Forget it, head to the beach, chant "it's flat, it's flat"  while rocking back and forth.
I enjoy honing my skills on you, but really, how the hell do you continue to defile yourself defending a "theory" (laughable to even call it that) that can't predict even 1 natural, observable phenomenon?  Your attempting to argue a global conspiracy that has miraculously kept the whole world in the dark about the true nature of the Earth but has somehow failed to notice the FUCKING MOON doesn't look right every month?  So while we can predict and explain everything anyone can see looking up, with formulas that have been around for 100's-1000's of years. (Including the phases of the moon)  somehow they failed to "bullshit" the moon as well?
So really, PUT UP OR STFU!  You and your band of simpletons can't produce a map, the distance between any 2 locations, the direction the sun is going to rise or set tomorrow, what time it is in a given location, the phase of the moon, the next solar or lunar eclipse, why either of them occur.  You can't scrounge together enough money or interest to pursue even the simplest of research or experiments humans have been performing for the same 1000's of years while riding horses and sail boats!
We have freaking pictures of the planet and you say the are Photoshoped?  Really, well how about you all Photoshop us a picture of your world and put everything we see in it?  While your at it, animate the moon, planets and stars and let's check it out.
No one avoided this charade as you said we would, it's just stupid.  Something everyone see's all the time is "impossible"  because you lack the skill to understand, illustrate or convey it?  Pathetic...

10
Just quick and dirty.


Left is the image from the website showing what the moon should look like, Right is a crop from :32 sec into the video, I adjusted contrast and brightness to make it easier to see.  Looks pretty much spot on.

11
Quote


The scale of the diagram is off by a LOT - and it has one glaring error.

The moon has to be about ten times further from the Earth for the scale to be correct.  As it is, it's a bit misleading.   The part where it says "How the moon should appear" isn't too far off - but it's a side-view.   The little piece of darkness at the bottom of the moon would be a few percent of the diameter of the moon - I dunno - maybe 10%,   But because the image of the moon is a circle, the bottom 10% of the diameter is MUCH less than 10% of the area.

The part where it says "How the moon does appear" is incorrect though.  It shows a perfect "full moon" with none of the moon in shadow.

The data that Tom found for that situation actually says that the moon was only "0.95" illuminated - 95%.   So 5% of the moon's AREA was not bright...but 5% of the area is a lot more than 5% of it's DIAMETER - which is what is so horribly misleading about this picture.

As seen from Earth, the moon is never actually LITERALLY 100% illuminated - but the difference can be very small...to small to be really obvious to the naked eye observer.

This easily fits within "gut feel" expectations if you draw the diagram to scale and don't lie about "How the moon does appear"...that's a downright lie...fake...fake...fake!

So, please FE'ers don't lie and cheat to make a point.  Look at the data you're quoting and please don't assume we're stupid...we're not.

I linked the phase before, here it is.

I also checked your date, the moon phase was Waxing gibbous - Visible: 93%
https://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/2017/april

The line between dark and Light is a gradient, just like on Earth.  I'll try and draw a better scaled, gradient moon later, but it's going to look perfect to me.

BTW, I saw a moon this morning low that was well lit at about 6:30ish, opposite the sun rising, in the east.

12
Trying to chase this distraction down I ended up posting in the thread Tom was running from.  Copying it here as well.  I'll also add, I noticed while moving the time of the video is spot on for the line of site in the picture.  Wait?  Aren't we supposed to run away scared of these hard questions?  I had to chase you down lol.



There you go, nice paint picture.  What do you know, I put your horizon lines, put them on your moon phases picture and Shazam!  In the morning and evening you can see a very illuminated moon, who knew?  Oh yeah, everyone.

I also checked your date, the moon phase was Waxing gibbous - Visible: 93%
https://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/2017/april

But, SUPER JOB AVOIDING EASILY VERIFIED DISTANCES PROVING YOU WRONG, no one even noticed.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« on: August 10, 2017, 03:20:49 AM »


There you go, nice paint picture.  What do you know, I put your horizon lines, put them on your moon phases picture and Shazam!  In the morning and evening you can see a very illuminated moon, who knew?  Oh yeah, everyone.

I also checked your date, the moon phase was Waxing gibbous - Visible: 93%
https://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/2017/april

But, SUPER JOB AVOIDING EASILY VERIFIED DISTANCES PROVING YOU WRONG, no one even noticed.

14
Yes, please post us your diagram where a stick figure is 30,000 miles tall and looking around the curvature of the earth. We can't wait to see it!

Please keep in mind that the horizon looks like this in Round Earth Theory:



Your just daft.  Go to :44 sec  The shadows cast show the sun is the opposite direction.  So for a brief time the moon is illuminated by the sun.  The moon isn't that far above the horizon and it isn't full.  Buy a dam globe, hang a tennis ball and shine a flashlight at it!  You draw little silly 2D pictures in paint (just can't shake that flat obsession) that don't represent reality.  The difference in the moons orbit and Earths (~5 degrees) is why there isn't a lunar eclipse every month.  There's nothing unusual about any of this, we could tell you the next time you'd be able to see one, but you won't look.

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« on: August 10, 2017, 02:08:21 AM »
Religion implies super natural in most definitions

The people who believe in God don't think that their beliefs are "super natural" or "para-normal. They would describe it as very natural and normal. Those people outnumber you. Therefore the burden of proof is to prove them wrong. You cannot simply redefine their beliefs.

Quote
No one on our side would back away from explaining in detail as best they were able ANY "If the Earth is round then how come X......?"

This is incorrect. There are several questions you back away from and cannot explain. For instance, the full moon should be impossible on a Round Earth, but the topic is generally avoided and excuses are given when brought up.

I am one of those people, so no, I'm not outnumbered.  As were most of the greatest minds humanity has ever produced.  (Einstein, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, many many more.

“Everyone who is seriously committed to the cultivation of science becomes convinced that in all the laws of the universe is manifest a spirit vastly superior to man, and to which we with our powers must feel humble.” Another famous quote of his was “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
Albert Einstein

I was simply referring to the dictionary definition.  God is most certainly "supernatural" and no knowledgeable believer in at least Christianity and Judaism is going to say different.  I know you don't read and think seriously about anything we post, but I've said it 3 times now.  The creator of the universe would, by definition, be outside the influence of what he created.  Furthermore, I believe your problem here is your definition of religion is believing in something everyone knows isn't true.

Also, I, as a believer, don't have to disprove a dam thing to you. (As you've you spent most of this thread asserting in order to avoid any effort on your part)

As for a full moon being impossible and us running away....
I realize you have a unhealthy obsession with everything being flat, apparently your even projecting it into space.  It may come as a complete shock but the orbits of the planets and other objects in the universe are not....wait for it.... FLAT  Dun dun dun
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/why-isnt-there-an-eclipse-every-full-moon
 

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« on: August 09, 2017, 06:48:49 PM »
Quote from: Curious Squirrel
You continue to either not understand or ignore the actual thrust of my argument. Now, I'll admit looking I don't see an official stance from any that God cannot be found with science (at least recently, and digging back further is proving difficult for some reason) but it IS a stance of a not insignificant amount of believers from what I'm seeing. But really, that's neither here nor there.

Again, this isn't about how you feel, or majority in other fields. This is about science, where the commonly accepted theory is the default. The one that has to be disproven. RE did this a few thousand years ago. Now FE is in that position, and it has much larger hurdles to overcome because of scientific advancement. Religion and god are not comparable in this field. RE and FE are not yes/no or existent/nonexistent sides of a coin. They are Option A or Option B. That is why god and religion have no place and can't be compared to this. One side isn't proving or claiming a negative, one side is presenting the arguments held as truth/correct by the scientific community, and the other is attempting to say those are wrong. IN SCIENCE that means the latter have the burden of proof. I don't know how to make that any more clear. This is how the process works, this is how we've had breakthroughs and discoveries for many years now. Scientific progress is about showing how something currently thought correct is incorrect, or only correct to a point. Right now, science says RE is correct. That makes the burden on FE to disprove RE and create a working replacement. Ye god I hope this gets it through to you and you don't just ignore it like you've done multiple times now, but my hopes are low.
[/quote

The existence of a God who created and controls the universe is a scientific concept. How is it purely a religious concept? Religion is making a direct claim about how the universe operates. There are MORE PEOPLE who believe in the existence of God than not, who say that the universe operates in this way. That means that the burden of proof is on you.

If you are unable to cope with the responsibility of disproving God, that just means that you are clearly wrong, and a coward, for walking away from your burden of proving a negative, and we have nothing further to discuss.

Religion implies super natural in most definitions, I personally feel whatever your paradigm is, is your religion.  As I said in my other post God would be outside the laws and physics of this universe by definition.  He is no more subject to them than a programmer is to a simulation he wrote.  and still has nothing to do with any of this.

Are you taking the position you have no responsibility to back up any claims or assertions you make because "we" haven't disproved God?  It's preposterous.  and again so telling.  No one on our side would back away from explaining in detail as best they were able ANY "If the Earth is round then how come X......?"  You are running down the nuttiest debating tactic I have ever seen to avoid having to come up with any reasonable answer for anything.  Take all your theories and provide a single formula (based on your theories, not RE) that can be used to predict or explain anything we ALREADY can, you won't.  You haven't even checked what direction the sun is rising at your own location.  I'll give you a hint, it's getting closer and closer to due East.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« on: August 08, 2017, 11:40:30 PM »
FFS Why don't you get together and buy a decent theodolite and just start checking near you?  We have to prove you wrong, but you have no map, no math, no theory, nothing.  Don't you get it?  When you can't come up with a single equation to predict sunrises, sunsets, elevations, eclipses etc......   and WE CAN EVERYDAY, what's left to check?  I can't prove anything wrong you can't even come up with.©

There is a lack of funding to develop such things. Our yearly budget is $0 while Round Earth Theory has had hundreds of years and near endless funding.

Much of our time is dedicated to educating the public that Round Earth Theory isn't as certain as it seems, such as the eclipses and planet predictions being based on using pattern recognition on historic tables of past observations, and not actually predicted in a geometric sense.

Umm, Bullshit.  All the equations are on wikipedia and use Radians and Pi for some reason?  and a theodolite: https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwjY9J6458jVAhXcCCoKHeUWCcEYABABGgJ0bQ&sig=AOD64_0r70GMhLywOZTA31X5HQf7BJMoug&ctype=5&q=&ved=0ahUKEwj0xJi458jVAhWn5lQKHVfQAQkQpysICA&adurl=

$400

18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« on: August 08, 2017, 09:40:23 PM »
So you guys are ok with taking the word of one man on his experiments, but you can't trust the distances we've been given for the landmasses of the continents of the Earth and the oceans? Because that's what I'm getting out of this. The numbers for the distances across the states are easy to find. The distances for the width of Australia, Europe, NA, SA, Asia, Africa and Antarctica are easy to find, as well as the distances broken down into smaller chunks. You're telling me that we can't trust any of those distances? That you blanket refuse to use them in an effort to put together a map because...why exactly? If making a map is so hard, how did the map of the globe come about? How is it accurate at the local level for everyone? Where did the distances for the Rand McNally Road Atlas come from? Your claim boils down to "We can't make a map because all the people who created maps and charted distances that are available online are part of the Round Earth conspiracy!!!!1!1!!"

Once again your post contribution in that thread seems to be "Disprove me because that's what you have to do!" rather than understanding it's on you to provide the proof. If you can't make a map that works with known distances (hopefully/potentially corroborated via flight times) you don't have a theory. You have a hypothesis, and a rather poor one at that.

The issue is that no one in the society will give serious consideration to the notion of simply "looking up" distances. Questions will arise on whether it was calculated on the presumption of a globe, and flight logs will be necessary. Then there is a matter that planes do not make direct straight line paths to their destinations, will regularly use jet streams, be delayed, etc.

It is also not a given that taking a flight from location A to location B tells us the distance between those two points based on the time of arrival. One might theorize that an aircraft has a cruising speed of so and so miles per hour, but how was that calculated? Based on assumed Round Earth distances when the plane made a test flight to a "known" location in its development?

As you can see, the matter is all a little more complicated than just needing to Google distances.

FFS Why don't you get together and buy a decent theodolite and just start checking near you?  We have to prove you wrong, but you have no map, no math, no theory, nothing.  Don't you get it?  When you can't come up with a single equation to predict sunrises, sunsets, elevations, eclipses etc......   and WE CAN EVERYDAY, what's left to check?  I can't prove anything wrong you can't even come up with.©

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« on: August 08, 2017, 06:59:27 PM »
It's the one commonly accepted among the world (by a wide margin)

Religion is most commonly accepted among the world. Therefore religion is true and science is false. Burden is on you to disprove religion.

Who says that God is untestable? He exists, He does things, therefore He is testable. Once you are able to disprove God, get back to us, because the burden is on you to disprove this popular null hypothesis and not on its claimants.

ALL mainstream religions believe the Earth is a Globe and that's what the topic is.  So focus 

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: How can we debunk this theory?
« on: August 08, 2017, 06:36:57 PM »
Or you could watch the data as commercial airlines fly from point to point using great circle navigation.  Using proven accurate technology no less.  Or is Flight Track data only real when I use it?

I have yet to see an assessment which discounts all possible continental layout and distance configurations.

No shit, you've only seen it discount all of your possible layouts and distance configurations.  Works swimmingly on ours.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >