41

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The only Embassy in Jeruselum

« on: January 13, 2018, 07:48:39 PM »

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/06/568748383/u-s-decision-on-jerusalem-sparks-anger-and-concern

There is literally no reason except to make Israel happy.   Though I never even knew there was  a law in place already.  What moron would allow such a law?  Oh right, all of them.  Even fucking Bill Clinton campaigned on it.

God damn idiots.

What the hell, is he hoping that if you strong arm everything and lock it in, it'll be fine?  Yes, Israel controls Jerusalem.  Yes they say it's their capital and have all their government stuff there.  Effectively it IS there capital but not being dicks about it to everyone else has helped.

I'm not sure what'll happen here but I expect ISIS will get a fuck ton more followers.

Jerusalem was never intended to be given to Israel during the creation of Israel after WW2. Look it up: Jerusalem was to be reserved as a neutral, international area, shared by both Israelis and Palestinians and governed by the UN. But Israel seized it--neutral land--from the international community, not Palestinians. Israel's occupation of the city is illegal. That is why the president declaring Israel's illegal occupation as legal and recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital is so controversial. And that is why Palestinians and Muslims are mad. International law is being broken for Israel. Now, I can understand that politicians are bought by pro-Israel groups like AIPAC and that the USA is a close ally of Israel. Israel is one of the most if not the most advanced nation in the middle east, and honoring Israel by recognizing Jerusalem as its capital strengthens their relationship. But this still may not bode well for the USA. It may worsen relations with middle eastern nations. What does condoning Israel's disregard for international law say about the USA? That it disregards international law

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How would mountains work?

« on: January 13, 2018, 04:32:25 PM »

Oh I'm not disputing they exist, but I thought that was using a round earth model.

Why would the view of mountain formation remain exclusive to the RE model?

What makes the current views of mountain exclusive only to RE?

I don't think some of these ideas are exclusively RE.
The Himalayas are caused by the plate India is on slowly pushing north. That is why Everest is still growing.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900917&slug=1093659
In the RE model the tectonic plates fit together like a jigsaw but there is no "edge" to a globe.
In the flat earth model the plates would be the same but that would mean the entire edge of the disc has to be the edge of those plates.
And what happens at that edge? In the RE model a subduction zones are boundaries where two plates converge, and one plate is thrust beneath the other.
But in the flat earth model there is no other plate because this is the edge. So what happens?
Subduction zones in RE are areas prone to earthquakes and volcanoes, if the edge of the disc is one big subduction zone then we're lucky the ice wall doesn't melt or crack.

I guess the question is if plate tectonics is accepted in the FE model then that does raise questions about what happens at the edge.

Why exactly can't the Antarctic plate be a stationary "frame" around the earth's perimeter? The Antarctic plate boundary is miles away from the Antarctic land. The boundary is in the oceans.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: so this guy zooms into saturn & the ISS

« on: January 13, 2018, 03:26:10 AM »

Allaroundtheworld,

Well, it could be. But what is your basis for thinking it is?

Because the earth as far as we know it IS different: life, water, oxygen, etc. Why shouldn't I conclude the earth isn't a planet?

We have a model of the earth as a globe which orbits the sun as do the other planets. That model has come about through observations. 

If that is what you want to believe...

Over time that model has changed - from geocentric to heliocentric, for example, when retrograde motion of the other planets couldn't be made to fit with the geocentric model.
But we now have a model which seems to work well and matches our observations.

It changed because one of the rivaling, competing theories (spherical earth) got the upper hand and obtained a monopoly in academia that it continues to have today.

We have GPS and Satellite TV, we have a global airline network and cruise line industry.

And your point...?

All these things demonstrably work.

But are they in actuality dependent on the idea of a round earth? And GPS isn't 100% reliable.

The flat earth model doesn't even have an agreed map.

That's to be expected since flat earth theory hasn't had the kind of funding and support as round earth theory has had to progress. We're still in the developing phase.

It can't explain sunset (as I said to Tom elsewhere, perspective doesn't cut it, on a flat plane perspective just makes things smaller, it doesn't make them disappear behind the horizon).

I hate to burst your bubble, but flat earth can and most certainly does explain sunsets with perspective. Yes, perspective does make more distant things smaller. But it also makes closer things bigger and causes an object in the sky to descend closer to the horizon the farther it is from the observer. The more distant away an object goes, the smaller it gets until it blends in with the surrounding environment. That goes for space too (the space between the horizon and Sun). Then for the Sun you must also factor in the clouds, fog, forests, buildings, and other obstacles that would obscure it the farther away it travels from the observer.

Can the flat earth model explain the retrograde movement of the other planets? Or the fact different constellations are seen and move in opposite directions when viewed from the different hemispheres? Or the Coriolis effect which makes weather patterns rotate differently in each hemisphere?
The flat earth model doesn't work on any level. If a model doesn't work then you change it to one which does. And we have one which does.

Again, much of flat earth theory is still in the developing phase. Flat earth has not had the privilege to progress and advance its theories due to little funding andsuppirt. Round earth theory has had a head start for hundreds of years (and even before then) to progress.

Come on. You are reaching here. NASA publish a website which tells you when you can see the ISS from your location. That is how people know how to photograph or film it.

And they couldn't do that with a balloon?

And they have a live feed from it.

Which we don't know is authentic. But I guess because NASA says it's from space, then that's all the evidence you need, right?

If they are trying to fool people then they are going out of their way to make it difficult for themselves.

I think they're trying to be as elaborate as possible. And I imagine public demand for such things like live feed forced them to meet the demands. Not doing so would have made people question "why not?"

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: so this guy zooms into saturn & the ISS

« on: January 13, 2018, 02:21:05 AM »

IF the iss is indeed a real "satellite and not a balloon hoax, it wouldn't matter. To answer your questions, it depends on the person and what he believes. I have no problem with a satellite spinning around the flat earth. I don't necessarily accept it, but it doesn't contradict flat earth.

I see this type of belief a lot on here. Satellites spinning above a flat Earth. I would love to harness that free energy that keeps them moving in a perpetual circle. (i.e. without some external force, those satellites are going to go straight)

There are more than one model of the flat earth. William Carpenter believed that the flat earth spun on it's axis. In that model, the satellites would not be moving but they would appear to move in a continuous circle around the north pole due to the spinning of the flat earth. In the traditional flat earth model, an explation for satellites would be that they move in a circular path around the north pole because they possess technology to move, or an unknown natural whirlwind-like force may be propelling the satellites.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 13, 2018, 12:35:24 AM »

Stinkyone,

Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.

I proposed a model that fits in with observation. Round earthers do the same thing all the time. For example, to explain how comets can still exist after billions of years, they propose an unproven theory: the oort cloud. Yet, they aren't accused as "making stuff up".

They aren't accused of making stuff up because it's based on data we've gathered with satellite, radar, telescopes, spectroscopic analysis, and a host of other things flat earthers dismiss outright.

You really should factor that into your calculus before you start trying to equate globe-tards with flat-earthers.

Gonna let Stinky handle the rest of your reply, I just wanted to point out this one discrepancy in your comparison of how the two demographics are treated.

In other words: because the oort cloud and gravity fit in with the round earth worldview, they're acceptable. That is so biased! There is no evidence for gravity or the oort cloud. They're speculative and theoretical, but that's alright with round earthers because it helps the round earth worldview. But flat earth theorists are held to a different standard.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 13, 2018, 12:27:38 AM »

Douglips,

I see it slightly differently. People pointed out that what you are claiming can't occur in the sun, so you suggested that it occurs outside the sun.

The problem is I never said that electrolysis occurs in the Sun or that the Sun was a closed system. Show me where I typed that. People either assumed that is what I typed, which I then corrected them by adding specifics, or they intentionally resorted to strawman fallacies to misrepresent my position.

I then said, perhaps clumsily, that if such a system were to exist it would also have problems.

Such as...?

You might not be committing ad hoc fallacies, maybe the entire time you have had a model of how water is removed from the sun and added back to it, and that's fine. What I'm saying is that such a model also has problems, and if you propose solutions to those problems you will likely have other problems to face. It doesn't have to be an ad hoc fallacy, it's just that the model you have posited has problems at the level to which you have explained it.

Please elaborate.

Sorry, let me rephrase.
It turns out that at equilibrium you'd the sky hydrolysis system would need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.

What exactly are you basing that on?

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 13, 2018, 12:24:50 AM »

Kal_9000,

There's a metric crapton of evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

Further reading:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

"Critics of Holocaust denial also include members of the Auschwitz SS."

"Holocaust denial is widely considered to be antisemitic."

More evidence:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_survivors

Unlike you, Wikipedia cites its sources.

Well, of course you can present something as real and factual if you are presented only one side of the story. It is important to hear out all sides and think critically. I am not going to address the holocaust here in much detail because that's a separate debate. What I will say is that if you look at the evidence for yourself without opinionated input, with objectivity, and through a historical context, you'd realize how ambiguous and biased they are. I don't deny that minorities and political enemies in Germany were imprisoned in labor camps and that many died (no evidence for genocide, though). I just see no evidence that Jews were singled out and tortured and killed for being Jews. There are many "holocaust survivors" such as paul rassinier, joseph g burg, and maria van herwaarden who deny the holocaust. Furthermore, the early investigations of the holocaust were performed by the allied nations (international military tribunal), and the declassified Nazi info and holocaust testimony were revealed by anti-Nazi resistance. So, you can't rule out fraudulent practices by the allied nations or by the anti-Nazi resistance. What makes you think that the anti-Nazis of German-occupied territories didn't fake their information in order to slander Nazis and get nations to fight the third Reich? I firmly believe that the allied nations faked the holocaust in order to crush German resistance and to get the Germans to willingly embrace the Versailles agreement again, which is what they essentially did to some extent. Guilt is an effective method in psychological warfare. No, I'm not an anti-Semitic. I just don't accept things from biased investigators and paramilitary groups. I try to think critically for myself.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 13, 2018, 12:16:59 AM »

Kal_9000,

Calling yourself a "poor little girl" is a way of making yourself look cute so he'll back off.

That was never my intention. If I wanted sympathy, I would've mentioned my recent undergoing of chemotherapy for cancer. But I didn't mention that. Do you know why? Because I don't want pity. No, I don't want him to back off. If I did, I would have politely told him to back off.

Second of all, you're right, he should stop using ad hominem attacks. However, just because he's doing that doesn't make his argument invalid. 

Then why would he use ad hominem attacks if his arguments were valid? Ad hominem attacks are used by individuals losing an argument; it's their last weapon of defense.

Advancing Flat Earth Theory is not scientific in any way. Science involves discarding and/or modifying theories that have been proven wrong, not ignoring and faking evidence to support a flawed hypothesis.

That's what we are doing here: modifying flat earth theory and deciding what works and what does not work. and who's faking and ignoring evidence? Do we sometimes ignore claims? Yes. But evidence? And advancing flat earth IS scientific. We haven't had the kind of support and funding that round earth theory has received over the last few hundreds of years. That's the only reason why the spherical earth model seems like the better choice to most.

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 13, 2018, 12:13:44 AM »

Stinkyone,

Bad chemistry aside, do you have ANY evidence for this or is it just something you made up? We know a lot about the Sun. Much of what we know pre-dates NASA, so you can lose the bogus conspiracy argument.

I proposed a model that fits in with observation. Round earthers do the same thing all the time. For example, to explain how comets can still exist after billions of years, they propose an unproven theory: the oort cloud. Yet, they aren't accused as "making stuff up". The same is true for gravity being some sort of distinct force, which has never been proven or produced in a lab. I can buy magnets and electrical appliances but no gravity-based technology? Maybe the reason why I can't is because gravity doesn't exist?
Have you ever considered that maybe just maybe that much of what you know about the Sun is wrong and based on faulty logic and erroneous premises?

Yeah, that doesn't mean much if your school is failing you.

What about my 1595 SAT score?

Yeeaahhhhh...zero evidence for the holocaust. Not the appropriate forum, but lets just say you might need to be careful who you're listening to.

I'm simply looking at the "evidence" through historical context and listening to all holocaust survivors. You're listening to the conclusions based on the investigations carried out by allied nations and on the claims from anti-Nazi rebels who obtained and made public (allegedly) Nazi documents and testimony concerning the holocaust. The question is--and this is where critical thinking comes into play--can you trust them? What about the holocaust survivors who deny the holocaust such as paul rassinier, joseph g burg, and maria van herwaarden? You're not looking at all sides. Mass hysteria inside labor camps doesn't translate to evidence for gassing of Jews.

If you work from the premise that the Earth is round, and your experimental data confirms your premise, you were correct. Take something like DirecTV. They are a private company that uses satellites to broadcast TV. If their satellites didn't work because the Earth was flat, they would know about it. No amount of presupposition fixes that.

And what exactly is the "experimental data" that supports a round earth and the method used to obtain this "experimental data" based on? They're made to fit the round earth model so that the results confirm a round earth! Theoretical calculations are not proof of anything.

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 12, 2018, 09:19:11 PM »

Very simply put, no one has to address the conspiracy claims in order to demonstrate why the flat earth model is not consistent with reality. Happy to discuss the conspiracy claims in another thread and show you why THEY fall flat for totally different reasons, but right now I want to hash this out and demonstrate the hypothesis in the title:

"If one attempts to demonstrate or defend the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy theory, one will either concede that they are mistaken, concede that they MAY be mistaken, or inevitably invoke conspiracy theory in order to make up for a lack of scientific observations that can withstand scrutiny."

Once we take the time to actually demonstrate why this is, the only response proponents can retreat to is hand-waving about conspiracy.

Mind you, I'm not knocking the conspiratorial elements utterly - certainly there's all kinds of things the elites and the authorities keep hidden from us for one reason or another, however sinister or mundane. All I'm saying is that THIS isn't one of those conspiracies.

As best you can, try to present evidence supporting the flat earth model WITHOUT invoking conspiracy. If it's really about what we can and can't observe, measure, record, etc. with our own two eyes, then it shouldn't matter that you have a restriction like this - you should be able to demonstrate the consistency of the flat earth model as easily as I would demonstrate the same of the globe model. It is only rational to then assume that whichever model we call "true" must therefore not only be logically consistent, but also exhibit few internal contradictions.

As a gesture of good will, I will not use any photographic or video evidence from NASA or other government space agencies. I will only use independent sources if I have to refer to photographs or video.

I submit to you that one cannot accomplish this task and maintain any kind of reasonable measure of certainty without invoking conspiracy claims to make up for gaps in empirical observation. Happy to debate those claims with you another time, but for the purposes of this thread, we're just talking about the science - the physics and the mathematics that explain the phenomena we observe in reality.

Flat earthers have the floor to submit their most compelling evidence, and we'll have a back and forth to mete out each exhibit.

When have flat earth theorists used conspiracy theories to defend or prove a flat earth? We haven't. We have concluded that there is a conspiracy taking place that fakes space exploration (for whatever reason such as embezzlement). We base that conclusion on the inconsistencies present in NASA photos, etc. This includes such anomalies as lemmings and a flying bird on mars, and obvious Photoshopping of space images.

But this is separate from flat earth in general. Yes, we use it to dismiss the satellite images of earth, but we're not suggesting that anyone is intentionally hiding a flat earth. NASA and other space agencies are simply faking images based on what the public already accepts. Again, we have valid reasons independent of flat earth to believe space exploration is a hoax.

I recommend you refrain from using strawman fallacies here (if that is what you are doing). You're portraying us as crazies, which we most certainly are not. If you're going to make claims that all we have are conspiracy theories, may you please cite a few? Then I suggest you read the tfes wiki

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity confirmed - UA dead?

« on: January 12, 2018, 08:56:01 PM »

Now that LIGO has detected gravity waves warping space-time on multiple occasions (and once again confirming that Einstein was right), where does that leave UA? In FEH, there is no such thing as gravity, so I'd love to hear a rational explanation for the detected waves.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html

This wouldn't be the first time proponents of gravitational waves made a mistake and mistook a more mundane explanation for the alleged detection of gravitational waves. Also, not everyone accepted the results. For example, scientists such as James Creswell, Sebastian von Hausegger, Andrew D. Jackson, Hao Liu and Pavel Naselsky were skeptical when the results were made public.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.04191

http://osnetdaily.com/2016/02/7567/

52

Flat Earth Theory / Ehy haven't round earthers gone to the South pole to prove flat earth wrong?

« on: January 12, 2018, 08:51:54 PM »

If flat earth theorists are wrong about Antarctica, why don't round earthers PROVE it by going to the "south pole" to debunk us?

Well, it seems simple enough to me. Right? Most flat earth theorists (myself included) believe traveling to the "south pole" is off limits to people. I get that there was amundsen who THOUGHT he made it to the south pole, but why haven't round earthers in modern times with more advance technology gone to the "south pole" to prove us wrong in a more precise way?

Round earthers have no excuse. They have the funding and do not believe they would be denied entry to the south pole. So, why have they never gone to the south pole to debunk us? Maybe because flat earth theorists are correct and the round earthers know it? They demand us with our little support, funding, and backing to perform such an elaborate and expensive endeavor. How ludicrous! We're literally incapable of doing such due to our status in society. But what exactly is stopping the round earthers?

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 11, 2018, 06:41:37 PM »

JohnAdams1145,

How civil of you to resort to name-calling / ad hominem attacks on a poor, little girl. You should be ashamed of yourself. Because while I and other flat earth theorists are here trying to answer questions scientifically and to contribute to the scientific endeavor of advancing flat earth theory, you're being a hindrance to our scientific ambitions and a bully. You are therefore an enemy of science and progress.

I think I have answered quite nicely here, regardless of your attempt to resort to using strawman fallacies by suggesting that I proposed the Sun performs its own electrolysis. The facts still remain: the earth used to have more atmospheric hydrogen, the earth contains over 70% of h2o, and h2o is a byproduct of oxygen-hydrogen combustion. Thus, it is logical to conclude that earth's h2o is the product of hydrogen-oxygen combustion, and this fits in nicely with a flat earth. The earth is also the only planet with large bodies of water, which gives further credence to the idea that the earth contains the Sun within earth's atmosphere. Now, isn't that a better conclusion than "comets deposited water onto the earth"? You know, on a side note, it makes no sense how comets can even still exist if the solar system is billions of years old. They would be gone by now due to the second law of thermodynamics. But round earthers make up an excuse like the oort cloud (that has never been proven) and then they accuse us of speculating and making things up to fit into our worldview? The nerve!

Pickel -- You clearly didn't even read about thermolysis.

Of course I have. What about it?

I'm not communicating effectively because I'm trying to explain rather complicated scientific concepts to one who obviously has no knowledge whatsoever in even basic physics and chemistry.

Or because you don't use the right words...

There is no such thing as water in the Sun; no molecules can exist at such high temperatures.

I never proposed that water is in the Sun. Pay attention, please. Or is this another strawman attempt of yours? I suggested that h2o is formed by the Sun and that the hydrogen and oxygen are quickly replaced with New oxygen and hydrogen that are drawn in by the Sun to be used as fuel.

If you posit that something else is transferring energy to the Sun by chemical means, it would require a massive amount of matter to move into the Sun, and we'd see it get more massive

May I ask what are you basing that on?

(you can't extract water from the Sun because it is chemically separated long ago -- the equilibrium would be on the side of the reactants even at the surface temperature of the Sun).

That's assuming that the Sun is really as hot as is claimed by round earthers. Also, what do you mean "you can't extract"? Are you suggesting that I have proposed that h2o is in the Sun but remains h2o and thus is able to be extracted by humans? Because I never suggested that.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 11, 2018, 06:35:49 PM »

Douglips,

Pickel - the original question was "What is the source of the Sun's energy?"

Correct. It was somewhat ambiguous though, which I pointed out. But I answered that combustion of hydrogen and oxygen was the fuel used as energy for the Sun to exist. Some on here just assumed that I meant that the Sun is a closed system and that fuel for the Sun is limited to the fuel already inside the Sun.

If your water vapor in the heavens electrolyzed hypothesis were to, pardon the expression, hold water, then all you have done is punted from the original question to "what is the source of the energy required to drive sky electrolysis?"

No. I have always been consistent here. I originally answered that the Sun is the result of hydrogen-oxygen combustion. People wanted to know about it (or misrepresented what I typed), so I added more specific information. I was not committing ad hoc fallacies if that's what you're implying.

It turns out that at equilibrium you'd need to be providing more energy than the sun provides. If that mechanism were localized somewhere in the sky, it would necessarily be brighter than the sun. If it were spread over the entire sky, the entire sky would be much brighter than the Moon.

You need to specify exactly what you mean. "I" need to be providing more energy at equilibrium? See what I mean? I can't understand what it is that you're trying to convey. If it's not too much trouble, may you please rephrase what you typed in a more articulate way so I could reply in a more appropriate way?

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 11, 2018, 06:33:13 PM »

StinkyOne,

Yes, trace amounts of oxygen does exist on the Sun. That is the whole point I am making - TRACE AMOUNTS. There is not enough oxygen to sustain OH combustion. If it isn't there, it can't be used by the Sun.

As I have already typed, a trace amount of oxygen is detected. That just means the rest of the oxygen has already combined with hydrogen and has been released and escapes detection.

I feel bad that you have been so let down by the education system.

Don't feel bad. I have always been a straight-A student with a 4.0 GPA.

Were you home schooled by religious parents? Your viewpoints line up.

Not at all.

Probably got some antisemitism going on there, too. The whole denying the holocaust thing.

So, denying something that has zero evidence for it makes me anti-Semitic?

A ton of science that corroborates round Earth is done by people not associated with any gov't org. Free you mind from the shackles of conspiracy!

May you cite a few? Not that it makes a difference. Everything regarding the earth's shape is done with the presupposition that the earth is round. So of course things that confirm a spherical earth will be used.

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Apollo landing conspiracy

« on: January 11, 2018, 04:44:40 AM »

Nickrulercreator,

Straw man. I never claimed that life not existing on mars is a reason to reject the architecture. I said sentient aliens can't exist on Mars and people who believe so can be derided.

Strawman? In YOUR own words:

Yes, people are derided for seeing architecture on Mars because we know, for a fact, that there's no sentient aliens on Mars.

The implication of what you typed was that there can't be architecture on mars because life there doesn't exist. How is that strawman?

As for the apparent appeal to authority, no, it isn't fallacious. We have significant proof that there does indeed exist a reflector or device of some sort on the moon where we claimed to have placed them. It may not be a retro-reflector, but it has to be a man-made object up there.

Why must it be man-made? Because NASA and the government say it is? That's the very definition of appeal to authority logical fallacity that you're resorting to again. You have no evidence that the retroreflectors are man-made placed on the moon during an alleged lunar landing. All you have is "the government and NASA say so, so it must be fact".

Independent scientists and organizations, with the right equipment, have confirmed the existence of some reflecting object up there.

No one is denying the existence of these. But where is the evidence that they're man-made left behind during a visit by humans to the moon?

NASA isn't a lone source. The soviet agency also put a reflector up on their probe missions. This has been confirmed. Independent agencies have bounced lasers off the reflectors. They aren't affiliated with NASA.

No, it hasn't been confirmed that any nation went to the moon and set up man-made retroreflectors there. All that is known is that there are some sort of reflectors up there which could very well be natural objects on the moon.

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Apollo landing conspiracy

« on: January 11, 2018, 02:13:40 AM »

The wiki informs that the Glat Earth Society believes the Apollo landing program is a hoax.

what is the FET explanation on the retroreflectors left on the moon by the Apollo missions?

Let me get this straight: people are derided for seeing pyramids and architecture on mars and using that as evidence for intelligence on mars. But people who detect retroreflectors on the moon and use that as evidence for intelligence on the moon are applauded and praised. Am I missing something here?

Pickel, the "pyramids and architecture" on Mars was a result of poor quality imaging and/or odd lighting causing an optical illusion. Take, for example, the apparent "face of Mars": https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg. This is an image of the region of Cydonia that was taken in 1976 by the Viking 1 orbiter. When this photo was released, it was thought to be, by some, a product of aliens. This image is of a somewhat poor quality and the shadows do seem to resemble a face. More than 20 years after this photo was taken, NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter took new photos of the feature: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg/425px-Face_on_Mars_with_Inset.jpg. As you can see, it was simply an optical illusion, created by odd lighting, and poorer image quality.

The same goes for other features. Pyramids on mars aren't pyramids, they're rocks. I know the image you're likely referencing too. It's possible that the "pyramid" is just a volcanic rock. These rocks tend to have sharp edges. The darker part of the pyramid is just a shadow. Again, optical illusion.

Yes, people are derided for seeing architecture on Mars because we know, for a fact, that there's no sentient aliens on Mars. Any life living on there is likely deep underground, and in the form of tiny microbes, hidden away from the surface of Mars.

As for the reflectors, we put them there. We know they're there. We know they aren't illusions, because we made them.

How can you use "we know that life doesn't exist on mars" as a reason to reject the "architecture" on mars? You're resorting to the appeal to ignorance fallacy. And your premise to the retroreflectors being manmade is also fallacious (appeal to authority). The government and NASA tell you it's theirs, and that's all the "proof" you guys need!

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Apollo landing conspiracy

« on: January 11, 2018, 02:00:37 AM »

People should be derided for both. There are reflectors on the mood because we put them there.

Well, I'm glad you admit that round earthers who claim that the lunar retroreflectors prove humans went to the moon should be derided. It takes guts for a round earther to admit that. And saying we put the reflectors on the moon doesn't make it true. All you guys have as proof that it's man-made is because the government and NASA say so, which is fallacious mind you (appeal to authority fallacy).

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Apollo landing conspiracy

« on: January 11, 2018, 01:55:05 AM »

PickYerPoision,

To be fair, they are using it to suggest that intelligent life (humans) visited the moon, not that it exists/lives there (natively or otherwise).

A lot of people actually believe ancient humans from earth did travel to mars rather than live there, and that the "pyramids" and such are remnants of ancient space exploration.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the source of the sun's energy?

« on: January 11, 2018, 01:40:42 AM »

98% of the Sun is made up of either hydrogen or helium. Why are we even talking about OH combustion?

Just because oxygen isn't detectable in large quantity within the sun doesn't mean it isn't used by the sun. Oxygen may be obtained and quickly utilized and combined with h2o to be released before detection. Even JohnAdams1145 admits from the spectral analysis that he holds so near to his heart that trace amounts of oxygen exist in the Sun.

In order to form H2O, there must be one oxygen atom for every two hydrogen atoms, so wouldn't that mean that there would have to be more than trace amounts if it were to be used?

That is, the amount of hydrogen that can be used to make H2O is limited to twice the amount of oxygen. So trace amounts of oxygen means trace amounts of H2O at best. Meanwhile the rest of that hydrogen is not taking part in that process and instead would just be consumed - fire isn't very patient.

Trace amounts of oxygen in the Sun doesn't mean that oxygen isn't being continuously supplied to the Sun and quickly combined and released. It just means the oxygen is being quickly used up and replaced (by outside sources) at the same rate so that a constant trace amount of oxygen remains detectable at any given point in time.