Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Smokified

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 16, 2017, 06:51:01 PM »
Not to mention also the absurdity of FE when compared to horizon and distances to the horizon.....Of the absurdity of FE....Period !

Please try to stay on topic. Not every single thread needs you complaining about the horizon or reminding everyone you were in the navy.

Stop derailing threads with your low content threats.  Not every single thread needs you complaining about how people choose to communicate.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE what are meteors
« on: August 16, 2017, 06:42:14 PM »
and direct observations
Smokified, have you ever questioned these observations, and do they even exist?

To question something, you need to have some sort of tangible evidence in mind to suggest that the observations are false.  Questioning things simply to question them does not make you smart, it in fact makes you an idiot trying to appear smart.

What motive would there be to make up anything about meteors?

Do you ever spend any time at all questioning your own bullshit?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using airline flight data.
« on: August 15, 2017, 02:28:54 AM »
They are based on the assumption that the earth is a globe. The earth is not a globe.

You claim that the earth is not a globe because it was written in a book and because nobody you know that says otherwise has actually been in space to observe it for themselves.

Then you go on to claim that the earth is flat (with certainty), although you yourself have not witnessed it and there are 100s of thousands, if not millions, of publications explaining that the earth is in fact a globe and how that conclusion was derived.

The globe map of earth can be tested and proven to be correct 100% of the time without deviation.  This alone destroys any hope you have of actually proving the earth is flat.

Flat Earth Community / Re: North pole Sunlight.
« on: August 15, 2017, 02:21:03 AM »
When the Northern Hemiplane is in summer, the sun is over the Northern Hemiplane. Why do you believe that it is over the Southern Hemiplane when it is summer in the North?

Can you link to any form of Flat Earth lore discusses this load of malarkey, or is this just something you made up?

It's common knowledge.

I see. Then I suppose that we have nothing further to discuss, since truth is based on popular authority.

lol...nice cop out, once again.  Aren't you a little too old to be acting like a little child?

Popular authority has nothing at all to do with this.  We are talking about direct observations...ones that you can make for yourself.

Be honest, do you know you are dodging these conversations and actually believing people are buying it, or do you really have no idea what you are doing here?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: In FE what are meteors
« on: August 15, 2017, 01:49:53 AM »
I haven't found a good explanation on FE wiki either. It could be ufo fleets, orbs, some beings flying/falling. The least possible is hypothesis i retranslate.

Could it just be rocks falling through the atmosphere as science and direct observations have concluded?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: need more information
« on: August 15, 2017, 01:49:09 AM »
Like others, I too blew off FET as someone's joke...but after learning that there are those actual believers, I decided to start investigating the theory. I read through the FAQ page, but before I can get into any kind of discussion, I really need more information...

First, how thick is the earth?

There is an image of the flat earth on the FAQ page. In this image, I'm confused as latitude and longitude lines are really only applicable in a round earth theory.
With the FET theory, it correctly shows Australia as being approximately as wide as it is from Spain to the east end of Russia. In a round earth theory, Australia is much smaller.
In the FET, it should take someone the same amount of time to walk across Australia as it would to walk from Spain to the east side of Russia. Is this true?

The sun is stated as a rotating sphere but the light shown is directional. What kind of experiment can I conduct to recreate this effect?

If the sun is rotating above the earth, why does it appear to meet the horizon during dawn and dusk? What kind of experiment can I conduct to recreate this effect?

I live close enough to Cape Canaveral to see rocket launches. With the space shuttle launches, where did they go, and why did it take so long for them to return?

If gravity does not exist as explained by the Universal Acceleration theory, how do the tides occur?

Technically, if global warming were to melt the ice ridge at the edges of the FET world, it could possibly drain the oceans rather than raise them. Is this true?

Just out of curiosity, why would every known object above the earth be spherical, and the earth be the only object that is flat?

Thanks in advance for any information...

The answer to all of your questions is exactly the same: The Earth is not flat.

Flat Earth Community / Re: A misunderstanding
« on: August 15, 2017, 01:44:29 AM »
Rekt, are you sure that the moon is not an artificial object(s) flying around the earth, like lantern or a hologram, projected around by? Maybe all of these facts about the moon, like the dust and radiation, are "shifted" from something else, i.e. the facts about moon belong to something else, for example, outside of our planet system!
The gain of shifting the facts of one thing to another is to lie efficiently - to lie and to tell the truth. It's like giving a little truth before forcing to swallow a lot of lies. The bad example would be: sugaring poop just to make it more pleasant for swallowing.

I find it utterly amazing that, not only do you believe this bullshit you come up with, but you actually expect other people to believe it as well.

If the moon was a projection, there would need to be some kind of projector strong enough to cover the whole planet.  If this projector were located on the planet, it wouldn't be hard to find.  If this projector was projecting from outside of the supposed dome, that would prove there is space beyond the dome.

Once again, there are literally endless facts to support the moon being a celestial object orbiting the earth.  There are literally zero facts to suggest otherwise.  Dismissing facts to try and support your skepticism is the opposite of intelligence.

What you just tried to say is the equivalent of saying "I don't understand it and am too dumb to try, so I will just make something up".  Notice how you are not dumb for not understanding, but you are dumb for not trying. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: FES Think Tank - Week 1 Poll
« on: August 15, 2017, 01:28:35 AM »
We can just confine this to Flat Earth Debate or perhaps Flat Earth General. The other forums can remain open discussion.

I also think it is a good idea to consolidate the conversations you will just run away from.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Launch at night...
« on: August 06, 2017, 03:10:57 AM »
May I suggest that you perform the experiment yourself?  Weather balloons are available for reasonable prices, and with a fairly inexpensive camera under it you could do the whole thing for under $200 too.

May I ask why you are so afraid to perform experiments?  Every response from the flat earth crew on this site is a clear and obvious deflection.  It is amazing that you actually believe you are in a position of intellectual superiority simply based on your defiance of facts.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Chemtrails
« on: August 06, 2017, 01:16:00 AM »
Chemtrails are the  often white or greyish vapour trails left by aeroplanes in the sky. 

They are not "chemtrails", they are vapor trails caused by air flowing over and under the plane's wings which causes rapid condensation.

If you're a creationist, round earth theory could be part of Satan's plot to eliminate God from man's consciousness.

That's me  ;D

This was an excellent summation from someone who doesn't believe in FET.
Smokified should take down some notes.

Explain how a round earth and "eliminating god" are even remotely correlated.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: August 04, 2017, 02:39:32 AM »
You guys don't post evidence. Just look at all of the requests for sun observation data you have been unable to provide, despite that we are being constantly told that such data is mountainous. Even in this thread the "evidence" that was posted was just a flight prediction, not a log, which was supposed to combat a map which does not exist. You guys aren't doing a very good job.

Uhm....actually these guys post a lot of evidence.  You just either choose not to respond or to deflect the conversation into something completely irrelevant. There is also the fact that you simply refuse to acknowledge any data that clearly proves your silly little fake world wrong.

You can use the satellite images and the scale provided by Google Earth, and then travel those distances to verify the accuracy.  Pretty simple. 

The reason a map of the flat earth doesn't exist is because the earth is not flat.  Also very simple.

Flat Earth Community / Re: RECORD SUN/MOON TRIAL!
« on: August 04, 2017, 02:33:27 AM »
Jura-Glenlivet, that's a start-off! But though it can be more efficient.

Why don't you simply go buy a $50 telescope and look at the moon.  Do some simple math to determine the distance, and observe how it moves in the sky.  That simple exercise alone will prove that the earth is not flat...if you are not absolutely nuts.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Where are the earth pictures?
« on: August 03, 2017, 02:53:22 AM »
chipsullivan, are you sure that russian space agencies being sincere too?

The picture you've given is just a CGI rendering, obviously!

I've found two big channels dedicated to debunking Roscosmos/NASA/ISS:
TMStudio, Макс Беляев

Watch one of the videos in the search results.
Wikipedia has a nice reference to start off for searching of space agencies hoax videos.

What information do you have to prove these images are "cgi rendering"?

Also, if you have a specific organization that is "dedicated" to proving something, usually that thing they are trying to prove is false.  Reality doesn't require that kind of effort to prove.

And before you try to claim NASA is trying to prove the earth is round, I will answer that for you preemptively:

No..they are not.  They don't have to prove the earth is round because it is, and their mission is not to prove anything, but to study and gather information.  Information that you yourself can also gather and study.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain this to me
« on: August 03, 2017, 02:43:09 AM »
I must be missing something. I can't find where I claimed that my assertion of a "rough approximation" is "untestable." It is almost like JoeTheToe made up some category on his own, which my claim still didn't fall under. Did you actually read the thread before posting?

If it can be tested, it can be either proven or disproven through said testing.  There is no need for approximation...unless of course you need to find some excuse to contradict the clearly obvious test results.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain this to me
« on: August 03, 2017, 02:36:14 AM »
It can be rationally explained in that it's a rough approximation.

Why would you rely on a rough approximation when all of the real existing information explains this perfectly?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 19, 2017, 03:15:58 AM »
The size is all that's relevant. A sea can still be a lake. The words are largely interchangeable so long as it's landlocked. It's a matter of size. Which is all you had to say. Or was that so difficult? There's no question in my mind that it was the size of the body of water that was of relevance in that chapter, so calling it a sea or a lake is wholly irrelevant when it's easy to look and see the size. This is easily explained on my end as bias from growing up near them, and knowing they are all huge and not thinking anyone could think different. So that's on me. But all you had to do was state you were putting for 'sea' instead of lake to assist others in recognizing this was a vast body of water. You still seem to dislike explaining yourself. It's like pulling teeth.

Lake Michigan being a sea also means that the waves are a lot larger. The environment is fundamentally different than a small lake. Again, read the chapter Perspective on the Sea in Earth Not a Globe for further information. I'm not going to retype the chapter everytime someone asks. It's a book that is meant to be read. I'm not Cliff Notes.

You mean here? Where they lay out two formulas they are using for future eclipse predictions, based on research from and theories constructed in 1988 and 1983? That use models of where the sun and moon exist in 3D space to create accurate predictions that account for changes happening in said orbits?
Still stepping around the sinking ship though hmm?

That is not the method used for predicting the lunar eclipse, that is the method used for finding solar and lunar coordinates. The sun travels pretty much the same path across the sky every year and a basic hypothetical model that can predict near about where it will be tomorrow is possible.

However, the lunar eclipse is a three-body problem, and all geometric models attempting to predict the motions of the earth, moon and sun, to come up with a valid model have failed utterly. Galileo Galilei and Amerigo Vespucci were the first to recognize the three-body problem, which has remained unsolved for over five hundred years (except for some simplified scenarios), and is a rather embarrassing stain on classical physics. See: Three-Body Problem on Wikipedia

Which as I mentioned in another thread, are frequently not properly documented, and often have errors readily apparent in the video itself. Lastly though, simple visual experiments aren't exactly enough when the biggest problems are with sun and moon rise/set, and the phases of the moon. Like, it's great you've managed to see a laser light across a 4 mile bay. But I bet this room looks the same size all the way across to you as well doesn't it? Vision is inherently flawed because of how our minds have grown to perceive the world. Geological surveying has tools and methods to account for a round Earth for just that reason.

If you have an issue with any particular experiment you should probably give a proper criticism so that the author can refine his or her methods or provide any information you feel may be undocumented.

If even the slightest shred of what you are saying has any remote truth to it, why is it that we can predict where exactly planets and stars are going to be 100s of years from now?

How is it that we know the exact date and time of the upcoming solar eclipse?

Why are you fighting a battle you know has no cause and you have already lost?

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Wall
« on: July 19, 2017, 03:12:56 AM »
If you do a google-search on this image - about the first 200 hits are from Flat Earth sites (many from this one) that trumpet this as definite proof of the great ice wall.

The picture is proof of an ice wall at the Antarctic coast. How is it not?

This post proves to me you are a troll.  Since he said "it's actually a photograph of a  gigantic iceberg called "B15A" that blocked McMurdo Sound sometime in 2000 and floated around for years as it only slowly broke apart." I can only imagine you are toying with him.

Glaciers, ice fronts, ice shelves, are all part of the Antarctic coast. If you go to Antarctica you will see a lot of ice walls. Walls of ice inhibit almost all of the coastline.

As they do on the coast of Greenland and many points north.   Antarctica is cold, ice forms, glaciers slide towards the sea and ice walls are apparent.  It proves nothing.

Many seem to be coming here questioning the existence of ice walls at Antarctica. They most certainly exist. The question should not be about the existence of ice walls on the Antarctic coast, the question should be about the length of the Antarctic coast. The physical features at the coast exist in both Round Earth and Flat Earth models. It is the length that is in question.

...that and the fact that your photo on the Wiki is a "fake".  It's not a picture of the coast of Antarctica *or* the Ice Wall (if those are different things) - it's a photo of an iceberg.

Just saying - for a group who routinely accuse people of making fake photos - let those who live in glass houses not cast stones!

I'm not saying that there are no gigantic ice cliffs along the coast of Antarctica - I'm quite sure there are - I'm just saying that this isn't a photograph of one - and you should go fix your Wiki.

Of course there are also some very gentle beaches - places where intrepid explorers wishing to travel beyond the Ice Wall could easily gain access...even those without helicopters capable of reaching the dizzying altitude of 150 feet!

That would really depend whether Iceberg B-15A was run aground on November 15th, 2000, the date the picture was taken according to the exif data. If it was run aground or touching the coast in any manner then it can be classified as the coast of Antarctica. According to the wikipedia page the Iceberg B-15 started cracking/calving in 2000, but B-15A isn't mentioned as drifting away until November 2003. The high altitude picture you provided was taken in 2006.

Since it appears that the Iceberg was still touching Antarctica at the time the picture was taken, the picture stays.

How does any of what you said refute the fact that this floating iceberg is not even remotely an indication of some kind of "huge" 150 foot wall keeping us from finding out the earth is flat?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 19, 2017, 03:09:20 AM »
What am I supposed to explain? I was given a flight prediction for a flight time which might occur, not a flight record, and two proposed hypothetical map possibilities for a Flat Earth which is currently being investigated. The argument made seems a little weak,.

What is still being investigated?  There are plenty of flight records that show that you are completely 100% wrong.

There is not a flat earth map that makes sense because the earth is not flat.  How much more obvious does it need to be?

Currently being investigated....are you serious?  Wow.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >