81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 13, 2020, 02:12:14 PM »

Since you guys are trying to show that the globe is accurate in this discussion, it looks more like an inability to cope with being wrong to me.

We did show it, it's your inability to prove otherwise. I'll say it again though, we show you cable lengths match the globe but not a flat earth (if your 'model' is the north pole in the middle it's the outer half that doesn't match and if it's the bi-polar 'model' then it's even more crazy and out of place). Your refute was some guy wrote a book that shows the ocean floor isn't as even as the ocean surface and thus the world is flat? No dude, the book just shows the ocean floor isn't as level as the surface, we still know the length of the cables, the measurements of all the land masses and we have a far greater understanding of the ocean floor thanks to technology now, there is no way around that. You're going to have to try a different angle because the book you gave as evidence doesn't disprove all of the above information that we have... Ignore the book for now because it's not helping you. Why do you claim the cable lengths aren't what is documented? Because it so happens to match the globe extremely well by some crazy coincidence.

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 13, 2020, 12:56:09 PM »

I suspect tom is just trying to bounce around the issue he's having, that technology today is accurate at mapping the ocean floors and we also know the length of cables used. Any attempt at saying otherwise puts the burden of proof on him since we've already provided documented cable lengths. Like I said at the start the only reason that would be incorrect data is if there was a huge conspiracy with hundreds of companies involved or if people that are capable of doing their job are also somehow incapable of doing their job...

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 12, 2020, 01:25:05 PM »

And that cable would not likely be precariously balanced on the tip of that seamount.

Ok cool, I can see you're just trolling this whole time. Good show.

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 12, 2020, 01:11:22 PM »

Here tom, both lines are going along the same direction, which coloured line would be longer?

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 12, 2020, 12:54:37 PM »

Please stop with the straw man. I didn't say anything about people being dumb in the mid-19th century, but it's not controversial to suggest the accuracy with which things can be mapped and measured today is significantly higher. I don't know whether underwater mountains are a factor, quite possibly. I'd suggest that exploration of the sea bed was far less advanced in the mid-19th century too.

But the main point I was making that taking a quote from a book written in the mid-19th century and thinking it proves a point is disingenuous at best when you're ignoring the last 150 years of history, improvement in techniques and knowledge

You have failed to provide any evidence that they didn't know how to measure things in the 1800's, beyond your own unsourced and unbacked speculation.

You are aware that many aspects of manual navigation and measurement have not changed, and are still in use, right? Next you will be telling us that rulers were inaccurate in the 1800's, solely because it was 'long ago".

Yet again we receive low quality posts filled with wild speculation and baseless statements.

You see how easy it is to use your own arguments against you surely? Again you're seemingly being purposefully obtuse or some level of denial isn't allowing you to think about things objectively. here, I'll say what you just said back to you in my favour instead;

"You have failed to provide any evidence that they did know how to measure things in the 1800's, beyond your own unsourced and unbacked speculation.

You are aware that many aspects of navigation and measurement have changed, right? Next you will be telling us that rulers today are inaccurate, solely because it was 'how can we determine that measurements are correct?.

Yet again we receive low quality posts filled with wild speculation and baseless statements."

Stop doing this 12 year old act. It's more annoying than when a kid starts saying "why?" after everything you say to them, it's dumb, it's pointless and you're wasting everyones time doing it. Unless you know for a fact that the ocean floors were mapped out in the times when they laid the cable in that book or you know for a fact that all the companies that own/laid the cable are for some reason lying stop bothering to baselessly claim it. Try to look at this from a logical point of view, or at least a statistical one.

86

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 12, 2020, 10:38:52 AM »

How did you determine that beyond just stating it?

The cable map website has information on which companies own the cables and there's a lot of known ones, facebook, vodafone etc. Some cables being fiber optic can be verified simply by the speed of light and shockingly none of these extremely well known sources of information have said these lengths are incorrect. Failing that if you were really, really lame about it you could actually go out on a boat and measure them yourself if you're really wanting to be that obtuse. Unless you are claiming there is some secret conspiracy with all of these companies involved for apparently no reason I would suggest you're just grasping at straws here. |These cables aren't mystical, magical unknown entities, they're documented and again, laid down by regular, everyday people. What's more likely here? that the cable lengths are all made up and faked, with thousands upon thousands of random, regular people keeping it a big secret or that the lengths of the cables are as stated and documented?

Tom, How did you determine john mullaly was even a real person beyond just stating it? How did you determine the cables aren't the correct lengths? See I can be childish too, if you really want to keep up this level of discussion there's always the CN section of the forum.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 12, 2020, 09:30:29 AM »

Once again, a simple statement without evidence for these cable lengths. I am unable to see that any evidence has been presented at all, other than an opinion that the cable lengths all exactly match an RE. As there has been a failure to provide evidence for those statements, those statements can be safely discarded without evidence.

I provided a map of cables as evidence and you can use google maps I'm sure. So I guess you're going with 'unverifiable' even though tons of regular workers who laid those cables exist, the globe map exists and this all works.

Are you refuting that those workers didn't exist or something? Who put down the cables? Why is it not verification that those workers know the lengths of the cables they put down? If it were untrue, why has no one come forward to say the distances were massively different? It's crazy that you would post a book of someone who laid cables down and then refuse to accept that any other workers existed... One guy wrote a book and suddenly he's the only verifiable worker? I mean, I can very safely make the assumption that he isn't the only one who put those cables down and even his book describes cables that match a globe model.

Tom, bottom line, the cable map provided shows distances, why is this not considered enough evidence for how long those cables are? Because imagine this were flipped and the cables on that website show lengths that cannot match a globe and are closer to what may seem like a flat earth match, would you still be denying this stuff or would you be adding it to the wiki as fast as you possibly can?

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 12, 2020, 01:42:45 AM »

Oh no sorry Tom you're right about the northern hemisphere my bad it's 2:30am here I think I'm going crazy waiting for renders to finish. the northern hemisphere on the flat disk map wwhere north is the middle would be the same. But you seem to be ignoring the southern hemisphere still. There are cables going east to west and there would be a difference. It's not speculation, basically any cables coming off Australia going to other land masses east or west of Australia would should be a match for the globe, because those landmasses are connected to others and so on so fourth. We know the exact size and shape of land masses there is no disputing that (and if you really want to dispute that I would rather it be taken to another thread). So connecting cables would also need to match so for example

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/oman-australia-cable-oac

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/telstra-endeavour

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/japan-u-s-cable-network-jus

all three would need to be the length it says it is, if one is a lot shorter because a landmass is actually further to the east or west, then the other cables would need to be longer. So in that sense e know Australia is exactly where it should be on a globe map and that the three cables in question are the correct lengths. If one of those is wrong then at least another is wrong and that would in a sense make the globe map wrong, if you're following. I find it hard to explain things sometimes (or rather people find it hard to understand my explanations of thing so I'm told) so if you don't get what I mean hopefully someone else could explain.

Not to mention this cable would have to be that size if Australia is that long, so if you'd suggest everything in reality is stretched you'd be wrong.

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/indigo-central

89

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 12, 2020, 01:17:15 AM »

I don't really see many cables running East-West in the Southern Hemisphere. I mostly see them running North-South in the Southern Hemiphere. There are a couple of cable between South America and Africa, but those are near the equator.

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/



The cables mostly wrap around the land masses. If the cables branch out into the ocean, they branch out to the islands near the continents (ie. Australia to New Zealand)

I don't really see what you are talking about in regard to the massive discrepancies which should be seen.

There's a ton of cables going east to west in the northern hemisphere though, which if the earth were flat the cables wouldn't need to be as long. And sure, theres not as many in the southern hemisphere but there are still some, in fact I pointed out particular ones to begin with to this point. And regarding discrepancies, of course we'd see some (and rather extreme) if the shape of the earth wasn't a globe... the northern hemisphere east to west cables would be shorter and the southern hemisphere east to west cables would be longer... But you know this.

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Submarine cable distances

« on: May 11, 2020, 09:06:09 PM »

https://wiki.tfes.org/Undersea_Cables - Doesn't look too exact to me. The segment runs for the Transatlantic cable required many miles of extra cable.

in 1855 did they have a decent understanding of how deep the oceans were? (I don't know for sure but it seems a few decades prior to knowing).

And yes we know the exact length of the cables , even though the first cable to be put down which was so long ago required a bit more than the estimates they still knew even then how much cable they used. And now we know how deep the oceans are. This is quite an interesting topic though regardless of the outcome of this thread.

91

Flat Earth Theory / Submarine cable distances

« on: May 11, 2020, 04:24:02 PM »

Hey, every now and then I notice FE'ers point out that we use cables and antenna rather than satellites for some things that a lot of the world tend to ignorantly think is satellite based. I've also seen FE'ers point out that oceans are much harder for people to measure. This had me wondering something else, we have a fair amount of information on the submarine cables used for things like internet. We have exact lengths for these cables and they are made and laid out by regular workers so there's nothing being hidden there (because that would mean those regular workers would either be too incompetent to do their job or 'in on the conspiracy').

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/

So given that we have this information, how would these cables that go across vast oceans in the northern and southern hemisphere be exact lengths if the world is not the exact shape we think it is? If we assume the disk  where Antarctica is spanning around the outer edge then this cable for example would be much longer;

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/oman-australia-cable-oac

and this cable much shorter;

https://www.submarinecablemap.com/#/submarine-cable/tata-tgn-atlantic

So I guess I'm just curious how this can be explained if the map is assumed to be a completely different shape to the globe, because these cables seem to confirm to the vast distances.

92

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Asteroid and planetoid collisions and ther orbit?

« on: May 11, 2020, 12:21:21 PM »

Yes, it's already been said that scripture isn't a data from observations and experimentations and has no place in this topic. I'd be happy with debating religion in the correct place but this isn't it.

93

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 11, 2020, 12:14:42 PM »

The issue is no matter what evidence I come up with it won’t get through to you. Think about it, what evidence could convince you?

Thing is you've been given perfectly plausible explanations for things here (multiple times in some cases) and it seems that's just not what you want to hear. After I went through those timestamps in the videos I asked if you could provide something that is not possible to refute and you've seemingly ignored that? You seem fixated on the astronauts not seeing/seeing stars thing and both myself and JSS have given an answer to that, an answer you can test as well so you don't even need to take our word for it.

94

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: May 11, 2020, 01:04:13 AM »

It's been said before, but worth saying again.

NASA has an entire history of great achievements.

Viking probes? The Grand Tour? Close up pictures of the outer planets?

The Space Shuttle? That was pretty great, I remember watching those as a kid.

Mars landers? We put robots with fecking lasers on Mars.

We stuck a camera on a giant rocket and sent it to Pluto.

We slammed a probe into Jupiter on purpose. (Lets not talk about the Mars one, oops.)

We have a probe orbiting the sun at close range.

The Hubble?

The James Webb? (Hopefully soon, if it doesn't blow up or get stuck unfolding.)

NASA has done an amazing amount of work.

NASA has a bunch of cartoonist and magicians on their staff. And of course writers like you all to come and flood sites with rubbish.

You probably wouldn't be able to use your computer to spout this kind of nonsensical ramblings if it weren't for tech made by NASA.

95

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 10, 2020, 06:04:08 PM »

You say you've watched all the footage in these videos before, I sincerely doubt it, but let's say you have, don't watch the whole videos but focus only on the timestamps I have mentioned. I agree that in most such videos there is a lot of confirmation bias (just like there is confirmation bias on your side), however the specific examples I pinpointed are pretty hard to explain away. Why don't you watch the specific ones I mentioned and try to explain them?

In the first video between 11:27 and 11:47, only the man is fading out, not the whole scenery. In the third video (green screen fail), if you take the time to watch and listen to it all, the flags in the background move in a continuous way before, during and after the person is fading in, which shows that the background is a green screen.

In the first video at 00:30 what is he grabbing? At 03:10, how the hell can you explain how she's being pulled up without a harness or wires? At 08:55 how could she be moving that way on her own in zero-G?

How do you explain away the bubbles? What are they? Why are they always moving in the same general direction?

There is something flying up there that we can see, in itself that doesn't show there is anyone in it. Yes people have spoken to the "astronauts" live, that doesn't prove they are actually up there. How the hell do you explain that the two "astronauts" Mike Massimino and Don Pettit claim that they can see many stars, planets, moons and the Magellanic clouds during the day? Seriously look at them and listen to what they say (first video from 29:40 to 32:50, watch the whole segment)

You sincerely doubt I've watched them? What makes you say this? If it's because I disagree with you then, well I guess I doubt you've watched them either. What you're doing here is assuming the worst of me with no reason other than I have a different opinion to yours which quite honestly makes me not want to bother with you, but I'll try anyway. To answer your questions, yes, even though I've seen the videos before I actually did go to each of your timestamps to make sure I knew what it was you were trying to say. So to go to your timestamps and your points, here we go!

1. 29:40 to 32:50 You point out that you think they were lying about being able to see the stars. One was on the ISS and the other was on the surface of the moon. The moon is bright during it's daytime and the reflective light makes it really hard to see the dim starlights, the same can be observed here on earth in a big city at night with street lights etc, you probably won't see stars so easily. The other were seemingly on the ISS, so long as they're looking away from the earth they likely won't have that problem... Since they won't have anything bright obscuring their vision.

2. 11:27 to 11:47 same video, yea that's just a fade out, if the camera perfectly still and they fade between takes then you get a 'vanishing guy' effect. As for 3:10 on the second video, lol yea obviously that is cgi, I don't think they were trying to hide that. It was to make the pre-recorded video fun for kids I guess? Then the next video down, just fading between takes again. The flags are barely moving and the fade distance is pretty wide, unless the fade between takes is a harsh line you probably won't notice. Try this yourself in a frontroom with a camera or something.

3. 00:10, then 03:07, then 08:55. When the guy spins, the other guys just trying to steady him without looking. there is no wire, there is nothing else that he seems to be grabbing other than just trying to steady the guy. Here test this yourself, without looking, try to grab an object out of your vision. Did you grab it easily first time or did you grab some air sometimes? 03:07, her cuff caught on her top. 8:55 shes ;looking at a camera, maybe she wants to stay in line with that? maybe she had a sense of "up" because the whole room and everything around her isn't randomly rotated and positioned, take a look at the laptops for example. if she were being held up on a harness why would she even need to worry about pointing her head up anyway?

As for the idea that movies and tv shows simulate zero-g with wires, take a look at the extremely long video of exploring the ISS and tell me where are all the wires and harnesses as he moves through the structure? Where are all the different camera angle changes? It's all recorded in a single take on one camera because there's no need for tricks.

And as for the last video about "augmented reality". No man, that's a lossy compressed video glitch. Shit happens. Have you seen the millions of youtube videos recorded on terrible cameras compressed to to hell? Imagine that, but live wireless video feed from an extremely fast moving object in the sky. Video glitches are going to happen.

Now here's my challenge to you. If NASA are so absolutely awful at video editing and constantly messup up their greenscreens and tripping on their harness wires or whatever else, can you show me any video of the ISS or the moon landings where you can see an acual wire? Like really see it, not your imagination running wild and telling you it's there, an honest to god mess up that shows a wire. I'll even take a green screen mess up like you see in weather reports on the news where they may have a slightly obvious lighting difference or coloured haze outlining them (the colour of the greenscreen). Anything that cannot be explained otherwise?

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Solution Simulations

« on: May 10, 2020, 03:10:48 AM »

The author does not call it a proof of the stability for the n-body problems and I see no reason to assume that it is.

While I don't particularly care much for the N-body topic I find it pretty funny that you would say this, since you like to cherrypick from scientific papers/research where the authors don't call it proof of a flat earth but you're happy to take that research and use it as evidence of a flat earth. It seems you have a very high standard for anything that will prove your points wrong and an extremely low standard for any snippet of information that sounds like it proves your points right.  I would suggest in the future maybe never cite any scientific paper to use as flat earth evidence if the author doesn't specificially say the research shows a flat earth, otherwise you'd be quite the hypocrite. Maybe you could also start by going through the flat earth's iki and removing anything based on your standards you've shown here (which is most of it).

97

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Solution Simulations

« on: May 10, 2020, 02:20:15 AM »

You guys are citing gravity learning resources for children.

Yea it's pretty crazy that we have to resort to showing you childrens resources. In other news, toddlers are just learning 1+1=2 but this super simple stuff isn't wrong just because it's early education material.

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 3 Body Solution Simulations

« on: May 10, 2020, 12:46:35 AM »

I found this one a while back where you can even change the path of the bodies mid sim and watch in realtime as it changes;

https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/html/gravity-and-orbits/latest/gravity-and-orbits_en.html

I actually linked this to Tom and his answer wwas something along the lines of "it' doesn't count cause it's educational" which is funny cause that was the whole point in showing him .

99

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: May 09, 2020, 06:37:29 PM »

And the effects of radiation are not generally immediately apparent.
My understanding is that they did have some shielding and they chose a trajectory which attempted to minimise the exposure.

When the guys die around 80-90 it seems the effects of radiation aren't apparent at all.
It would be a nice story if they chose a trajectory to minimise the exposure, but then how do you explain that Alan Bean (supposedly the fourth astronaut to walk on the Moon) doesn't even know where the Van Allen belts are and believed they are beyond the moon? (see the documentary at 1:11:55). Surely he would have been trained to know where they are if he did go through them and if they had to navigate to minimise the exposure.

The amount of radiation the Apollo astronauts were exposed to was being monitored. Had it been a lethal dose I wonder whether they would have carried out subsequent missions but Apollo 8 went to the moon and back so I guess those guys were the guinea pigs in that regard.
These guys knew there were risks attached to these missions

Then how do you explain that the pictures supposedly taken on the moon show zero radiation exposure whereas a mere X-ray scan produces graining on pictures? (see 2:29:30 to 2:30:40)

Given that this is the LEM’s ascent engine tested on Earth (video @ 1:26:36), why is there no visible flame under it when it takes off from the moon?

I imagine the fact that one is operating in an atmosphere and the other in a vacuum is a factor here. If you check out the video, you can clearly see the effects of the engine starting as stuff is blown by the rocket. But if it was all special effects wouldn't they have added a flame if one "should" be there?

In the documentary this is addressed also, tests of rocket engines in vacuum do show a flame.
It's a pretty weak argument to say that "if it was fake wouldn't they have taken care of everything so that it appears not fake?". If there was no evidence it was fake then you would say there is no evidence. The point is there is evidence it is fake, but they still managed to fool billions of people so their fake was very well done, but not perfect as the evidence shows. You're assuming they did go and from that assumption you're dismissing all the evidence, instead of looking at the evidence objectively. There are damning contradictions in the official story which can't be ignored. You're not seeing your own confirmation bias.

Because the rocket is operating in a vacuum. There may have been a bit of vibration but otherwise if there's no air to pass the sound through you're not going to hear anything. Don't forget the rocket was designed to fire on the moon so only had to lift a 6th of the weight you'd get on earth of a relatively small craft - compared to the Saturn V rockets.

This is addressed in the documentary at 1:27:00. The cabin is pressurized and the engine is right in the middle of it.

Tracking the craft up to what point?

All the way to the surface

https://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/

So lines on a piece of paper is proof that they did go to the moon? While video evidence of astronauts being pulled up by an external force or lunar pictures showing zero graining while they supposedly went through the Van Allen belts isn't proof that they didn't? And if you watch the whole documentary there is plenty more evidence of fakery.

You can bet the Russians were tracking them too, they've never called the US out on the lie.
And at least 2 craft have been able to take good enough quality photos that we can see the Apollo landing sites, one of those being from China. Why are they verifying the US landed on the moon?

If you agree that there is compelling evidence that they didn't go, then indeed the question becomes why are the other space agencies not calling them out on it? If the evidence that they didn't go can't be explained away, then this has to be explained. And the answer is one people don't want to hear, it's one I didn't want to believe until recently, because it seems too big to be true, but consider it with an open mind : all the space agencies are in on it. We will leave the "why" for later, and for now just look at the evidence that they spread lies together.

The ISS is an international collaborative project between five space agencies : NASA, Roscosmos, JAXA, ESA and CSA. We get plenty of footage from within and outside the ISS, which is supposedly orbiting Earth. And in that footage there is plenty of evidence that : 1. They lie. 2. CGI trickery is used. 3. The crew are suspended by wires/harnesses or subjected to forces that aren't supposed to be there.

1. In the following video two "astronauts" supposed to be in the ISS clearly lie about being able to see stars, planets and moons during the day. If you claim that they can, other "astronauts" have claimed that all there is is a deep black. This is an obvious contradiction in the official story. A self-contradicting story cannot be true. Watch from 29:40 to 32:50



As other evidence, you may have heard that in order to train for spacewalks, the ISS crew train underwater at the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory, on an immersed full-scale replica of the ISS. And you know what's interesting? In many spacewalk videos, where they are supposed to be in space, bubbles can be seen moving upwards. See same video above from 24:00 to 25:30. You can find many more examples. In a given shot all bubbles seem to move in the same general direction, just like they would underwater here on Earth. On top of the fact that there aren't supposed to be bubbles appearing like that in space. In absence of an explanation for the existence of these bubbles moving in that way, this is evidence that they lie and fake footage on a grand scale (on top of the evidence found in the moon landing videos and elsewhere).


2. As evidence that the space agencies routinely use CGI in ISS footage, watch same video from 11:27 to 11:47

Then this one at 3:10



Then this one :



There are many other examples.


3. As evidence that the crew are suspended by wires/harnesses, watch the following video at 00:10, then 03:07, then 08:55 :



Again there are many other examples.


In many movies zero-gravity is simulated with wires, such as in Gravity or Ender's Game. In the TV series The Big Bang Theory there is an episode where the interior of the ISS and zero-G are simulated. The technology exists to make the wires invisible, even in real-time. In a live performance David Copperfield is seen suspended in the air and even flying, with no wires visible.

So there is evidence that the space agencies lie, evidence that they fake footage, evidence that the ISS crew are suspended by wires, and evidence that the wires can be made invisible.

Objects seen to be suspended as if in zero-G can be simulated too, for instance through augmented reality technology. There is evidence of that as well, see the following video from 11:05 to 13:40 for instance :




As to why they do it, I'll leave that for another post.

All of these things have been refuted before. The eyes see what it wants to see. I've watched over all of the footage in these videos before and not much much to my surprise, I've never once seen a harness or a wire. I've seen some transitioning between takes which is normal for non-live footage, fades in, fades out etc. You see fade transitions all the time in many videos but it's not proof that the whole video is faked, it's just proof that someone is splicing the footage... No one cares about that. Show me a harness or wire and not just videos of people saying "hey look see! they moved in a way that IMO looks like they'd have a wire on". this is purely opinion and pretty obvious confirmation bias. Also regarding the "bubbles" in space, they're not bubbles, you can look this stuff up. Everything can be explained easily enough if you haven't already made up your mind.

Take a look at the facts... anyone can see the ISS is up there, anyone can listen in to radio transmissions, people have spoken to the astronauts on board the ISS live. Anyone with a telescope and a smart phone can track the ISS and see it. There's a shit ton of footage and none of that footage shows any wires or harnesses holding people up on the ISS. The only "evidence" is people claiming things that aren't bubbles are bubbles and that people are being held up by wires that simply aren't there.

100

Flat Earth Community / Re: If NASA faked the moon landing, why doesn’t it fake any more great achievements?

« on: May 09, 2020, 01:04:33 AM »

Isn't the Hubble fake and all those really groovy pics?

No.