1

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?

« on: January 01, 2023, 03:23:01 AM »

And, as typical of FE'ers, that explanation (no matter how reasonable) must be hand waved away.

Hand-waved? Not at all. It's just strange that a magical lightsaber showed up in these very legitimate photos, and its existence was only retconned in after people pointed out that it looked strange.

As mentioned, it may not be that these magical lightsabers "showed up" in these photos...it may be that these objects were accidentally laying around the studio set when NASA were faking these Mars photos and so these objects ended up in the pictures; NASA editing department likely missed this and forgot to remove the objects from the studio set.

2

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?

« on: December 31, 2022, 04:04:21 PM »

It's also a good thing it didn't accidentally find an ancient Sith lightsaber on Korriban. That really wouldn't fit the narrative.

https://twitter.com/MarsMissionImgs/status/1608980805199753216

Meh.  Lightsaber, sample tube.  Same difference.
https://www.space.com/nasa-mars-perseverance-rover-sample-tubes-lightsabers

Looks like the NASA editing department forgot again to remove shiny objects from their filming studio landscapes, which are of course dead giveaways and evidence for a space travel conspiracy / Mars rover conspiracy.

   

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: December 30, 2022, 09:05:48 PM »

Okay I agree that curvature of the horizon from left to right is not visible from the surface of the earth.
What I am wondering is what sort of curvature would you expect to see... would it be in a north south direction? An east west direction?

If you expect to see curvature what happens when you are in the middle of the ocean (or somewhere else where you could see the horizon in all directions) and turn around 360 degrees? Would you expect to see the horizon at a lower level when you have turned 180 degrees and then rise up again as you complete your 360 degree rotation?

Just wondering what the flat earth believers expect to see when they look at the horizon and declare "It's flat, no curvature there". But especially what would you expect to see if you could turn around 360 degrees and see the horizon in all directions. Isn't a flat horizon as you rotate around 360 degrees what you would expect to see if the earth is a sphere?

Because the flat horizon is the major point which seems to persuade people that the earth is flat. But it seems illogical to me that people would expect to see a curve down to either side when eg viewing a picture of the horizon.
Yet in reality there is curvature, but just not side to side as we look toward the horizon, instead the earth curves away from you - in every direction - as you look toward the horizon and rotate 360 degrees. And the fact that you could climb the crows nest of a ship and see further is irrefutable - after all isn't that why they had crows nests in the first place? "Land Ahoy!" So that they could see further over the horizon to see other ships coming or land in the distance. And also the curvature over the horizon is the reason lighthouses are built very tall?

If you were in the middle of the ocean,  you would be  in the middle of a circle.
The distance to the horizon is the same in all directions.
If you were in a lifeboat just above the level of the sea, the distance to the horizon would be about 2 1/2 or 3 miles and you would be in the middle of a  circle with a diameter of about 5 or 6 miles.
If you were in a crow's rest on s ship , 100 feet above the sea. you would be in a circle about 25 miles in diameter.
Certain radar antennas are also placed on the highest masts so that they can "see" the greatest distance.
The curvature of the earth must also be taken into account for the maximum spacing of certain microwave relay statiions.
But flat earth says that you would never see the horizon no matter how low or high you were, but you would only see "a blur which fades away at some indefinite distance."
This is just one of many of the most glaring and most obvious fallacies of flat earth fallacies.

I've seen so many photos of horizons both here and on YouTube ... with the claim "Looks flat to me ... no curvature there"
I just can't understand how anyone would expect to see the earth curve from left to right in a photo of the horizon.
It's just completely illogical to think it would curve downwards from one side to the other.
Why can't people understand that the curvature is away from the viewer in every direction?
Am I expecting too much of peoples' intelligence?
If it curved from left to right then we would be living on a cylinder ... but of course if you rotated yourself 180 degrees the horizon would then appear straight and curve away from you.

I'd really like to see a flat earther's response to this ... anyone out there

Just to correct you. If you stood as a very small person on a ball maybe the size of a house you would see curves all round you not just on front of you. The whole ball curves away from you in all directions no matter where you stand on it. Take a tennis ball in your hand and put a little black spot on it anywhere. Now move the ball so the spot is at the top (north) of the ball. And note how it curves away from that spot in every direction including 'sown the sides'; not just 'ahead' of you like you suggest happens on the sea shore.

I think that what the Op might also be framing up or challenging is the notion that "if it looks flat than it must be flat." The size of the Earth is so large that using "it looks flat, therefore it must be flat" as a rationale way to make a confident conclusion about the shape of the Earth is likely misleading.

The online example I have seen is that if one were shrunk down to be the size of an atom and placed onto say the surface of a basketball or a football, to that small observer the shape might look flat to them; when in reality the shape is actually a sphere.

             

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are all FE models discs?

« on: December 30, 2022, 05:07:31 PM »

I've been digging through the proposed FE maps recently, and have noticed that every single map I've seen is a circle.

It's hard to comment on what you have and haven't seen. However, while many maps of the Earth are circular, most come with a prominent proviso: we're only covering the extent of the known Earth. There are exceptions to that, too, with some more extreme wings of the movement trying to expand past that (though that seems to be done based on nothing but the authors' imagination).

So, most maps with Antarctica acting as a rim around the known Earth are drawn as circles for simplicity, and you're overthinking is massively.

That said, I'm surprised that your years of wiki-binging didn't lead you to Rowbotham's or Ferguson's maps, both of which are square in shape.

I should've specified; I've been looking through the forums at the threads for years. I only recently started digging through the wiki. My bad!

As Pete stated, there is a wealth of information in TFES regarding the possible shape of the flat earth, including being a circle or a square.

Taking this a step further, there are other flat earth theories which propose the flat earth plane as being infinite, where other lands and oceans exist beyond that which we currently have knowledge of.

5

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17

« on: November 29, 2022, 12:18:34 AM »

I kinda like some of the more technical documentaries like America's Secret Space Heroes or Moon Machines that go into a fair bit of detail on some of the engineering challenges that went into the various systems, like the command module, the lunar module and the space suits.  It gives you a better appreciation of the scale of the effort that The Conspiracy^TM had to go to in order to create such a convincing series of fake missions.

Periscope Films on YouTube has some of the best and most comprehensive documentaries on topics ranging from skunk-works X-Planes to the NASA Apollo program.

One of my favorites is the documentary of how they built the Kennedy Space Center from start to finish.

If you haven't seen Periscope films yet than it's well worth it.

6

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17

« on: November 28, 2022, 01:52:25 AM »

Hilarious conversation. We know it never happened. Just like building 7 collapsing in it's own footprint due to office fires or the most secure building in the world had no cameras working.

Yo Ho, Yo Ho, a Pirates life for you.

Have you met the different alien species yet or got a looksie at their warp speed engines in Black Holes? Take pics !

As is always the case, you never bring the goods in terms of providing evidence.

Instead, your musings always reflect the ramblings of a dim-witted, bible-thumping conspiracy theorist.... and nothing more.

7

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17

« on: November 27, 2022, 08:40:14 PM »

My father had done some consultation work for NASA with respect to the development of the TESS satellite (Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite).

When it launched in the spring of 2018, we received VIP passes to go see the launch from the VIP Kennedy Space Center viewing area. On the way to the area, the ground shuttle took us on a tour of the launch complex facility, including the tracks where the large caterpillar movers travel.

It was an experience I will never forget, including the loud rumble and crackle of the SpaceX rocket that took TESS into it's large orbit.

My personal opinion with most Moon hoax believers is that what they are denying isn't necessarily the existence of space travel or perhaps even the Moon landing; I believe most use the denial as a sort of coping mechanism, an in-road to, or avenue to demonstrating their animosity towards or distrust towards anything relating to sources of authority or government agencies.         

8

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Apollo 17

« on: November 27, 2022, 04:31:52 PM »

Just incredible how many god damn photos there are from these missions readily available on the internet. All high resolution and beautiful. Even if you think it’s fake, you gotta give them some credit.
You just keep scrolling and scrolling and the pictures keep going.

The link: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html

My grandfather (father's side) was born in 1893 and was a late bloomer in terms of when he got married and had kids. I can only imagine the excitement he experienced throughout his years in terms of innovations in flight; from first powered flight, to WWI piston powered aircraft, to WWII warbirds and civilian aircraft, to the jet age and stealth technology, and to the first Moon landing.

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: Why can't I always see the sun if the sun is always above the earth?

« on: November 27, 2022, 01:58:13 AM »

I mean, no matter how far the Sun from where I stand on Earth, the ray should always catch me, right? Unless, the sun moves below the Earth.

This is the only thing that prevents me from completely agree with the theory.

As TFES theory of EA (electromagnetic acceleration) profers the bending of light which would help explain why one can't always see the small spotlight Sun (with Sunrise and Sunsets) no matter where they stand on a flat earth.... there is still the open and unresolved question as to why/how the Sun projects it's bendy light onto the Earth's surface in a non-uniform pattern (as depicted by TFES animation model)? What causes this non-uniformity of bendy light?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What do you think about this map?

« on: November 26, 2022, 08:11:46 PM »

Space, as we are told, is a vast expanse of boring nothingness.

Whoever taught you about space needs to be slapped! Sure there's a lot of boring nothingness out there, as far as we know, but scattered around are billions of planets and stars and comets and black holes and supernovae, colliding galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars, each having the potential to have orbiting planets, which could share similarities with Earth, or harbours other life forms which are unimaginable to us.

We have 7 other planets in our own solar system, that are both very similar and wildly different to our own. Mars once had a giant ocean, and polar ice caps but lost most of its lighter  elements over time.

Looking up at the stars at night is one of the most awe-inspiring things I do on a regular basis, and that feeling only grows as new discoveries are made.

What's boring about this:

We have nothing but probability figures that there are planets that are earth-like, could sustain living beings or are currently habitable/habitated. We can't even visit Mars, let alone our nearest extra-terrestrial neighbours. In that sense I find it boring. Even if I believed in space the way I used to, nothing exciting would ever happen in my lifetime. Even a lot of the fantasy space movies are incredibly boring, with the exception of maybe Interstellar amongst others. The idea of the planet with the huge waves for example was quite interesting I have to say. Why can't NASA come up with stuff like this? Shake the story up a bit please, NASA!

There are far more exciting places left unexplored on Earth that we should be looking into.

In contrast, the flat-earth map above no matter how inaccurate, sparks a wonderment in me. Thoughts of vast landmasses maybe 10,000-100,000km away beyond a barrier that we either can't pass or are not allowed to pass. Even the prospects of civilizations that know we exist but we know nothing about them! What if the Antarctic Treaty or the barrier out of this world is enforced by the beings of Gemina, Aten or Thoth civilizations?

Even the mystery of what lies below polaris gets me excited. I've read about giants of the north that like to keep to themselves. Funnily enough, I used to take 3-4 trips per year to Stockholm for work in the last few years. I was sitting in the airport waiting for a flight home when two people passed quickly, a man and a woman - they were huge! They looked at least 7ft tall and were slouching as if they were trying to hide it. And I'm well aware of how tall Scandinavians are in general but this was something out of the ordinary. I just remember their disproportionately large jawlines too as they scampered through the terminal trying not to attract too much attention. I often fantasize that they were giants of the north coming to explore distant lands! Exciting stuff.

Can you clarify your comments further as follows:

"We can't even visit Mars"?
        - To date, humans have landed probes on Mars that have helped humanity to see the wonderment of that planet's surface with Rovers that scout the land and conduct various experiments on the Mars' surface and soil.

"Even if I believed in space the way I used to, nothing exciting would ever happen in my lifetime."
        - On the flip side, even if you believed in the wonderment of different maps and lands beyond, I don't think nothing exciting would ever happen in your lifetime as well.

"why can't NASA come up with stuff like this? Shake the story up a bit please, NASA!".
        - It's not NASA's job to create fantasy so that wonderment can be provided to you. If NASA did come up with fantasy stuff as your are suggesting would they not then be accused of being a bunch of liars and faking things?

"I've read about giants of the north that like to keep to themselves. Funnily enough, I used to take 3-4 trips per year to Stockholm for work in the last few years. I was sitting in the airport waiting for a flight home when two people passed quickly, a man and a woman - they were huge! They looked at least 7ft tall and were slouching as if they were trying to hide it. And I'm well aware of how tall Scandinavians are in general but this was something out of the ordinary. I just remember their disproportionately large jawlines too as they scampered through the terminal trying not to attract too much attention. I often fantasize that they were giants of the north coming to explore distant lands!"
        - There are also really really short humans that exist among us, that have dwarfism. But, I wouldn't go so far as to believe that they were hobbits from another distant land.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Wiki on aviation

« on: November 24, 2022, 12:46:44 AM »

I told my software engineer friend about FE. He told me he was the programmer who wrote the routing software for the Canadian Air Traffic Control System. The US uses airways, set routes like interstates. The Canadians wanted to route their planes straight from departure airport straight to the destination for each airplane (routing around collisions, of course). He wrote the program that figured out the distance and direction. He said he used the spherical geometry equations straight out if a textbook and they worked perfectly. Obviously, they did much qa, and the system has been in use for decades, many planes arrive where they intended to go daily. If the earth was flat, the equations would be wrong and the pilots would not find an airport where the software sent them. The longer the route, the more the difference.

You can do this yourself, actually. Do the spherical trig math to calculate the distance between two cities, for Tom Bishop, make that two cities on the same land mass, perhaps Beijing and Madrid. For some reason, Tom Bishop thinks gps doesn't work over water. The RE 3d trig answer will match google maps, airline schedule, time/speed/distance of airliner flight, lat/long per wikipedia, etc, and no evidence at all for the FE distance calculation, whatever that might be.

Find a discrepancy between any RE info sources or the math calculations and prove FE! I will be your disciple. And I will make a lot better video than the one you just posted. His production values, scripting, delivery, etc is just bad regardless of the truth of his content. FYI, this maybe shouldn't matter, but it does. People are more likely to believe well made videos, at least most people. Perhaps FEs perceive truth in amateurish, clearly non-expert videos.

Its fine saying that software was written for plane flights. Yet its so weird that on an out journey a plane can take longer than expected to get there and on the in journey it gets back quicker than expected. of course we blame tail winds or head winds for this. Isn't it remotely possible that the estimated distances were miscalculated and relying on a round earth? It never ceases to amaze me how frequently many people get off a flight an hour before they were due to land. Its actually quite worrying given the consequences of a plane taking off and no one knowing when it will eventually land.

Pre-COVID I used to fly long haul flights from Chicago to Hong Kong and back. And from Chicago to Europe and back for business. I am always amazed at how precise some of these flights come in to landing to their planned arrival times, sometimes within minutes. For 14-16 hour or 7-8 hour long haul flights it's pretty impressive.   

I think that saying "no one knowing when it will eventually land" is a bit of a stretch and an exaggeration. A plane might land a little late or a little early (and a Captain will generally make such an announcement if there is an expected delay or an early arrival). But, it's not like people on an airplane suddenly panic and don't generally know when their plane will eventually land.

Sometimes when I plan a trip in my car with GPS as an aid, I might be a little late or early to my destination (perhaps due to a rain shower, fog, or other unexpected poor weather), but I generally know that I will eventually arrive and it's not worrying to me.

 

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 21, 2022, 06:36:19 PM »

Nice image. But thats all it is. A cartoon.

... which depicts, represents, or illustrates, the textbook scientific explanation/description of our globe Earth and how gravity fits in with it.

Taking issue with the illustration BECAUSE it's an illustration, and not ... something else other than a 'cartoon', is not, in itself, a disproof of the science.

No  -but an illustration is not proof of anything.

The summary of your original post was that:

"there is something that does not seem quite right; and trying to visualize it from a Round Earth perspective"
-- The purpose and intent of all of the above is to try to help you visualize it from a Round Earth perspective, as per your inquiry.


"people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?"
-- Again, people aren't "hanging upside down" from the globe in the southern hemisphere; gravity pulls us towards the center of our globe earth no matter your location. This is a statement that I see many Flat Earthers make; something like how is it possible that when I am in the northern hemisphere that airplanes are flying upside down in the southern hemisphere.
-- The Nile is simply flowing towards the path of least resistance due to gravity; it's not defying gravity. The Nile doesn't know or care that humans have arbitrarily labelled a globe map the northern hemisphere or the southern hemisphere. We as humans could have easily labelled the southern hemisphere the northern hemisphere; you would then be asking why does the Mississippi river seem to defy gravity because it's flowing north while the Nile was then flowing south.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 20, 2022, 11:29:29 PM »

That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)

Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.

If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?

If you dug such a trench in Sydney and it fell gradually 10 feet over (as an example) 6,000 miles to say Norway I understand what you say but I cannot imagine it It would be beyond ridiculous. Mainly because your  trench would have to be constructed on a perfectly level surface. But that will never happen. You will go through mountain ranges, and jungles and various other forms of topography. But if you believe the earth is a globe then maybe you have to believe that. However of course it would work if the earth was flat.

I think that you are getting hung up on a mistaken notion that land masses in the southern hemisphere of our globe earth are lower in height than land masses in the northern hemisphere and so therefore water must flow from "north" to "south" and anything other than that would be hard to imagine.     Rivers don't know what humans have labeled "northern" or "southern" on globe maps; rivers simply flow in the direction or path of least resistance due to gravity.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 20, 2022, 09:22:12 PM »

That's if you believe in gravity of course. And essentially it is just a word to describe a theory and that theory is dependent on many other theories.
The north/south height thing. Its the perception of viewing the so called globe from a top/bottom perspective. The global earthers may think there is no top or bottom but in reality it must have a right way up. It spins (allegedly) west to east. Not north to south so therefore it will always be either north or south side 'up'.
Therefore we have some semblance of a 'top' and its either the south or the north. 'We' have chosen to depict on a 50/50 chance basis the north pole at the top.
And my observations are that if there really is a top how do rivers 'flow' upwards. No matter how high above sea level its source is in relation to its mouth. If we have a global earth then they would flow more south than north. Does that make any further sense or have I muddied it even more? :-)

Rivers aren't flowing upwards....they are flowing downhill.

If I dug a 10 foot long trench where one end was oriented towards our globe earth north pole and the other end was oriented towards our globe earth south pole, and the gradient of the 10 foot long trench was such that it sloped towards or was deeper at the north pole end, would it be unreasonable for you to believe that the water would flow towards the "north" if poured at the "southern" end?
 

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 20, 2022, 08:39:22 PM »

Yes I appreciate what you say. But lets for one moment visualise a land mass from Australia to the Mediterranean sea. I know this defies science but it would look so 'wrong' if a river flowed from Sydney to the Med. Does that make a little more sense as i feel this might require further consideration?

If the source of the river at Sydney was at a higher elevation than the end of the river in the Med, then yes, it would flow that way.

But it is not likely that the source will be higher on a globe earth - if we use the globe (north to south0 as height). height is a figure commonly used as 'above sea level'. I get what you say but can you picture it? A river flowing 4 or 5000 miles in a northerly direction? It only happens with 2 main rivers but the fact it does does make one think.

Gravitation force is the same all the way around our globe earth, no matter if you are in the northern or southern hemisphere. Gravity behaves the same no matter your location.

Can you clarify the assumption you are using of "north and south as height"?   

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rivers that cross the equator

« on: November 20, 2022, 07:53:52 PM »

I hope this post is in the right section. My sincere apologies if not.
Something struck me recently and am sure this must have been debated in the past. But the Congo and the Nile both cross the equator (the Congo twice). And generally speaking (at face value) there is something that does not seem quite right with this. And trying to visualise it from a round earth perspective just doesn't seem logical. If we imagine  people hanging upside down from the globe in the southern hemisphere how can the Nile defy 'gravity' and flow in an upwards direction?
Have I missed something here or does this in fact lend itself further to the flat earth theory?

The flow of rivers will generally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill, because of gravity. The Nile isn't defying gravity, it's flowing downhill or in the direction of the path of least resistance.

I think your misconception might be that you see the relationship between the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere in the same way that you see the relationship between up and down -- to someone living in the southern hemisphere, people living in the northern hemisphere would be "hanging upside down".       
 

17

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 17, 2022, 03:37:37 AM »

As I said, it just doesn't feel like Rushy is arguing in good faith here, especially when he says he is asserting "there's no evidence of something, you're the one saying you have evidence of it (that you obviously cannot provide)." in a thread in which he has been presented a load of evidence and called it all fake without providing any evidence of that.

It is the few nuclear power militaries who have the evidence. You do not have any evidence yourself and are arguing based on nothing more than your belief.

Tom.... your above statement applies to TFES Wiki, specifically "The Conspiracy" section. The Conspiracy section is an example of something which is not based on evidence but is based on a belief.

18

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 15, 2022, 10:59:08 PM »

Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?

Can you prove they're not just burning clean coal?

Why are you referencing clean coal / how do you know clean coal exists?

Can you prove it doesn't?

Clean coal doesn't exist. It never has.

"Clean coal" was a term developed by government agencies to help further line the pockets of big oil and the inside government agencies that work with them.

You have been told and convinced about clean coal and its various benefits.

19

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 14, 2022, 11:46:30 PM »

Do you believe nuclear power plants are real?

Can you prove they're not just burning clean coal?

Why are you referencing clean coal / how do you know clean coal exists?

20

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist

« on: October 08, 2022, 08:48:12 PM »

"At least one crate of it" also implies there could just be one crate if it.

with that in mind, your IQ is at least 40.

Sure Pete. Whatever you say.