61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space travel conspiracy

« on: April 30, 2018, 11:43:59 AM »

Not a lot of NASA in there....

Thank you yes, added to list of publicly faking space travel.

My question to FE: why do you believe space travel is impossible? Why couldn't the current concept of rockets work?

Some say it's the dome, but only few FE say that. It's maybe not so much that FE don't accept is, but an explanation has to be seen, observed to be accepted as truth. Since we cannot see a rocket from earth, or see earth from space, sometimes better to leave subject as unknown. Always accept the possibility that might be mistaken though. Likewise we cannot see round earth from where we stand. So flat it is. Other FE-ers can maybe explain better than me.

So all it would take for you to believe is a trip to space? Honestly that's a lot more reasonable than others here. I feel like even if we were to send them to space they would deny what their own eyes are showing them.

62

Flat Earth Media / Re: Best Flat Earth Video's

« on: April 29, 2018, 06:06:02 PM »

... why would they just make up cloud patterns for such a hoax when meteorological services provide a cloud layer, which you have seen when the local weather man overlays the clouds on an image of his choosing?

You're proceeding on the basis that SpaceX have either "used phony clouds" or have "(made) up cloud patterns for such a hoax", without proof of either. Where's your proof of either "phoney" or "making up" ?

I am not saying that anyone used phony clouds.

Did you even watch the video that YOU posted? The author is trying to show that the SpaceX video is legitimate because the cloud patterns from that video are the same as cloud patterns in other sources. The author is assuming that if it was illegitimate the cloud patterns would be phony. There is no reason for the cloud patterns to be phony in such a hoax because meteorological services provide a cloud layer, which we see when the weather man overlays the clouds on different images.

Yes but how does that happen in real time? As stated else where CGI doesn't happen overnight.

At any point in the live stream you can perform the same cloud check and it will be correct. How is that possible?

The NOAA does have real time cloud products. Real time data sources are easily searched online.

We can see what the clouds look like right now over the US here: http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/us_comp/small

Overlaying such data over an image in "real time" is trivial. It is overlaid over an image in the above link. The weather man does it. He even often says "this is the cloud coverage right now."

Trivial how?

This wasn't overlaid on an image (which making that fit into a preexisting image of earth would be no trivial task at all). It was live footage. The timestamps are there you can go back and watch the video to see if the screens he used are legit or not.

But my original question wasn't about the video posted here. I was asking about the Starman stream itself, how were those clouds faked into a "CGI" stream in real time and yet accurate to what the cloud formations looked like based on data at the time?

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Common sense?

« on: April 29, 2018, 05:53:40 PM »

There are sites like this where you can put in your location, pick the satellite you want to point at and it works out the angles for you.

http://www.dishpointer.com/

Are they "in on it" too? It's just too silly.

What makes you think that groups like this are entirely different people?

Furthermore, even if they were different people, what makes you think that they are not just creating an easy interface which tells the user where to point, based on a lower layer api or data source from NASA on where they say to point?

What are they telling them to point to, if not satellites? I think that's the bigger question here.

64

Flat Earth Media / Re: Best Flat Earth Video's

« on: April 29, 2018, 04:26:25 PM »

... why would they just make up cloud patterns for such a hoax when meteorological services provide a cloud layer, which you have seen when the local weather man overlays the clouds on an image of his choosing?

You're proceeding on the basis that SpaceX have either "used phony clouds" or have "(made) up cloud patterns for such a hoax", without proof of either. Where's your proof of either "phoney" or "making up" ?

I am not saying that anyone used phony clouds.

Did you even watch the video that YOU posted? The author is trying to show that the SpaceX video is legitimate because the cloud patterns from that video are the same as cloud patterns in other sources. The author is assuming that if it was illegitimate the cloud patterns would be phony. There is no reason for the cloud patterns to be phony in such a hoax because meteorological services provide a cloud layer, which we see when the weather man overlays the clouds on different images.

Yes but how does that happen in real time? As stated else where CGI doesn't happen overnight.

At any point in the live stream you can perform the same cloud check and it will be correct. How is that possible?

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Space travel conspiracy

« on: April 29, 2018, 02:29:53 PM »

It's hard taking evidence like this seriously that is devoid of any facts and just relies on opinions.

https://wiki.tfes.org/A_Close_Look_at_the_Lunar_Lander

Not to mention some of the links to sources on the page are no longer available.

66

Flat Earth Theory / Space travel conspiracy

« on: April 29, 2018, 01:59:40 PM »

So it seems I've misunderstood the NASA conspiracy on the wiki.

https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

This is actually talking about a conspiracy revolving around space travel and provides "evidence" why it is a hoax.

My question to FE: why do you believe space travel is impossible? Why couldn't the current concept of rockets work?

67

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: NASA Live Stream

« on: April 26, 2018, 04:20:01 PM »

So the topic of the thread was whether this live stream is fake, not the FET movement right?

Is there any hard evidence that the live stream is CGI and not actual footage? The argument of it be live is irrelevant and only further derails the thread.

68

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EnaG Chapter XIV. Examination of the So-Called ''Proofs'' of the Earth's Rotundi

« on: April 13, 2018, 07:40:07 PM »

Also you haven't provided any proof. You conducted zero experiments, simply posted some stuff on a forum, and proclaimed it true. For God's sake, you've even claimed to be close to providing 'irrefutable proof' that the earth is round. Some messiah complex you got there.

How is that any different than what you're doing?

I've yet to see any experiments from you or any evidence that isn't just "Dr. Rowbotham said".

Going by your logic all of your proofs are just "posts on a forum".

69

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Math, and what you should see, shall the Earth be round

« on: April 08, 2018, 07:38:13 PM »

It wasn't just the woman (Rona). There was this as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.msg1606905#msg1606905

That's two people who have searched and came up with no results.

Recall, Ski had contacted the university and was told that only a portion of the records were digitized. The majority were in paper archives. The university denied the request to search for Rowbotham due to not knowing the dates of attendance or major, and that it would require a lot of manpower to look through all of the documents.

The person you linked claims that Rowbotham does not exist in the records, nor variants of that name. The fact that he mentions "variants" of the name suggests that he did not look through the paper records and it was a digital search.

There's also the fact that PhDs were not granted until 1917, and the only other places that offered them before then were Germany and the United States.

MDs were offered before 1917; it is not the same thing as a PhD.

He also mentions " in the period concerned" which suggests whatever records were being searched were relevant to any PhDs awarded ast that time.  If he needed to search paper records for that information I imagine he would have done so.

Also I didn't mention MDs because I am specifically following the claim of him holding a doctorate.

70

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Math, and what you should see, shall the Earth be round

« on: April 08, 2018, 06:54:46 PM »

Parallax, you are asking someone to prove a negative, which i have been told one should not expect.

Please supply proof that Rowbotham had gained a doctorate.

You are correct, Edinburgh is in Great Britain, and is also a part of the UK. And as such no PHDs were awarded until the 20th century.

https://www.vitae.ac.uk/vitae-publications/blogs/history-of-phd.pdf/@@download/file/History%20of%20PhD.pdf

He might have travelled outside of the UK, but if he did in fact actually obtain a doctorate, do you not think he would have proclaimed this very loud to try to give credence to his arguments? It has been said that he was very forcefull, often “steamrollering” and even bullying his opponents. A person with a Doctorate would have used that information to back up his claims.

If he was a medical doctor, how in any way does that qualify him to look at the physics that he claimed to have disproved?

I would add on to this, there has been no presented evidence he ever left the UK. The two locations that offered PhD's (Germany and the US) have no records of someone by his name entering them during the time period he was most likely to have visited. As well feel free to peruse this thread as well https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62919.0

Read through that thread. When Ski contacted Rowbotham's university they said that without his dates of attendance or major it would be unfeasible to look through the records because of lack of manpower.

When the university was contacted again there was a woman who claimed to have looked at the records in the same day and proclaimed that there were no records. She did not reply to later queries on whether she was looking at the limited online digitized records, or was going through the archive Ski was told was not feasible to go though without more specific information.

There are numerous references to Rowbotham being a doctor. To claim that he is not a doctor is pretty absurd.

It wasn't just the woman (Rona). There was this as well:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=61409.msg1606905#msg1606905

That's two people who have searched and came up with no results. There's also the fact that PhDs were not granted until 1917, and the only other places that offered them before then were Germany and the United States.

71

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 04, 2018, 11:52:31 PM »

I don't understand how you can say that you don't know how many poles there are and that not bother you.

Why should it bother me? Our chief concern is whether the earth is flat. The Flat Earth experiments you usually see online are just testing the flatness of the earth.

So are you saying you're unsure of whether the earth is flat or not? I thought one of starting points of FET was the earth being flat is an obvious truth.

Also while I'm at it, if flat earth debates/discussions are just a past time for you all then where does the "promotion of the flat earth theory" come into play? How are you actively promoting something that you spend little time actually researching (other than regarding EnaG as irrefutable evidence) and expecting others to accept it? Unless you all don't really care about pushing the theory of flat earth since it's an obvious truth and whether or not anyone accepts that truth matters not.

I have to say I'm a little disappointed. I've been lurking here for a while trying to figure out what makes every FEr such firm believers in a theory that has yet to make any sense to me. But all I ever see from the FE side is denials, diversion tatics, baseless assumptions, and appeals to authorities who have no authority on the subject matter (Shaq anyone?). And any time effort is put forth to prove a flat earth or refute common round earth theories they are immediately debunked and the there's a attempt to stir the conversation in a completely different direction to avoid answering further questions.

I don't think I'll ever understand this theory, and after this admission it feels like I've wasted my time in trying to understand it.

72

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Soundly Proving the Curvature of the Earth at Lake Pontchartrain

« on: April 04, 2018, 10:50:45 AM »

Treep, the sinking ship effect is covered in ENaG. Please familiarise yourself with the theory you're trying to satirise.

How does that explain the extreme curve when viewed from specific spots like in the first few videos? Are you saying if you zoomed in enough you could see all the way to the end of the cables?

73

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth Chart,

« on: April 03, 2018, 01:12:35 PM »

Our total annual budget is $0. The allocated cartography budget is $0.

We are already giving out our little free time away from work to discuss a few matters. You aren't paying us. Why do you guys complain so much?

Where are these discussions being had? Does it involve a map of the flat earth? What's the progress?

74

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: March 29, 2018, 11:11:47 PM »

I'm confused, did they need 815 or 882 miles of cable? I thought someone earlier stated it was 2,226 miles.

These seem to be small excerpts regarding a particular span of time or one single ship, not the entirety of the project.

Ah that makes sense.

75

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: March 29, 2018, 09:01:59 PM »

I'm confused, did they need 815 or 882 miles of cable? I thought someone earlier stated it was 2,226 miles.

76

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no flat earth map?

« on: March 29, 2018, 07:01:35 PM »

"esp"? Hardly.

From the Journal of Education, Toronto, January 1858:

https://books.google.com/books?id=eF09AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=agamemnon+niagara+cable&source=bl&ots=FcSukxL5Lu&sig=cO_MSMDUtXX98OJ5-D7SvdILyeQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjipO2cqfLZAhVG6mMKHZinCes4ChDoAQhCMAQ#v=onepage&q=agamemnon%20niagara%20cable&f=false

By noon on the 30th 265 nautical miles were laid between the two ships ; on the 31st, 540 ; on the 1st of August, 884 ; on the 2nd, 1256 ; on the 4th, 1854 ; on anchoring, at six in the morning, in Douglas Bay, 2,022.

See also The Laying of the Cable, John Mullaly, 1858
https://books.google.com/books?id=iCFDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA307&lpg=PA307&dq=the+agamemnon+has+arrived,+and+she+is+about+to+land+the+cable&source=bl&ots=BFPWf4ddNo&sig=EK4df4xg8WPa7sLMOB5XP-FPCpQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjz3bbQqvLZAhVS82MKHXrFCDUQ6AEIMzAD#v=onepage&q=the%20agamemnon%20has%20arrived%2C%20and%20she%20is%20about%20to%20land%20the%20cable&f=false

What now, Tom?

So can we safely assume we the distances across land and sea now? I'm wondering why no one has responded to this yet.

77

Flat Earth Community / Re: The people of the flat earth society

« on: March 24, 2018, 12:24:19 AM »

That was seven years ago, I'm not going to go back and check when enlightenment hit me exactly. You are free to pour through my post history.

I checked, nothing stood out to me. You went from being against FET, to posting one word responses to RET questions ("Yes"), to linking new comers to the FES wiki. Whatever enlightenment occurred it wasn't publicly available in your post history.

What I can gather though is that it had something to do with physics and light bending. Your first pronounced FET post was challenging someone to argue physics with Bishop and Thork. I'm really interested in why that suddenly changed your view point when not long before that you were basically saying the same thing every RE proponent has brought up here, with nothing proving those points invalid.