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 - Mark_1984

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >
1
NASA recently released all the unedited photos taken from the Apollo programs.  They are on the web somewhere.

This begs the question, if it’s all fake, why did they go to the effort of creating thousands of photos, which all have to bear up to scrutiny and continuity.

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map
« on: May 30, 2018, 04:53:16 AM »
The projections have already been done of course. 
The Mercator projection.  Bearings are preserved, but distances are distorted.    E.g.  Greenland looks much bigger than it really is.
The Gnomic projection.  Where great circle routes appear as straight lines.  E.g.  Draw a line from Japan to the UK and it goes over the artic.
There are others, but those 2 are the main ones used.

These maps all work, as I myself have used them navigating on commercial ships.  No Youtube, no unproved internet sites, just personal experience.  We know how fast the ship goes.  We measure the distance off a map, and we arrive at the expected time.

If the earth was truly flat, surely somebody would have mapped it accurately by now, and there would be no need for these various projections.  In fact, these projections wouldn't work as they wouldn't be possible.  A flat planet can be represented on a flat piece of paper perfectly accurately.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map
« on: May 28, 2018, 05:30:09 PM »
I'm sorry, but Youtube is no longer acceptable as an argument or reason.  They don't have empirical evidence that is peer reviewed behind them.

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Electromagnetic Accelerator
« on: May 28, 2018, 05:58:06 AM »
So, if the light is curving (interesting theory!) then it must be curving round the sphere, giving the illusion that the sphere is flat.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map
« on: May 28, 2018, 05:50:41 AM »
That's the first converted flat farther I've heard of :o

So Tom, back to the original question.  Why don't you do what this chap did, and use the mountain of available data in the form of flight times, distances, aircraft speeds (Oh yes, the aircraft designers AND the pilots do know what speed a plane flys at) and produce your own flat earth map? 
There's a well known equation, speed = distance/time or distance = speed * time.  I'm sure you're not going to argue the validity of that equation?

Concerned about the effect of wind?  Well, take the east/west flights and the west/east flights and work out the average.  That'll give you an answer which is not 100% accurate, but near enough to prove/disprove your flat earth map. 

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: New here. How do you explain this?
« on: November 20, 2017, 05:06:34 PM »
You could always defect to one of the countries not involved in the conspiracy, then blow your whistle.  I'm sure North Korea would be overjoyed at the opportunity to show everybody how they were being fooled by their governments.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellites
« on: November 20, 2017, 04:43:37 PM »
All FE'ers should go look at the ISS through binoculars one evening and ask themselves how something so profoundly un-aerodynamic could be possibly be moving at the speed it clearly moves.

Or maybe you just don't want to see it?   Like my granddaughter sticking her fingers into her ears and singing "La-la-la-la-laaa...not listening" when we tell her it's bedtime.

Ah, this would be the same sort of situation where I repeated asked Tom to stick his head out of his window and check the validity of dateandtime.org for himself by watching the time of sunset.  I don't think he ever responded to that suggestion.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment
« on: November 20, 2017, 04:40:27 PM »
That would indeed be a typical diversionary tactic.  However, I'm curious to hear from Tom what the scientific explanation for the variance of the different outcomes is ?

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment
« on: November 20, 2017, 03:59:02 PM »
As 3D says, we don't have permission to edit the Wiki, and to be honest, I'm not sure I could resist temptation if I was given permission.

Back to the topic in hand.  It was a wager certainly, but from there, your information is not quite correct.  Hampden disputed the result, but there was a referee who confirmed Wallace's result and declared him the winner.  Hampden later published a leaflet saying that Wallace cheated.  Hamden was then jailed for libel, as well as death threats against Wallace. 

Wallace didn't get off scott free though, he was ordered to repay the money as the same court ruled that the wager had been invalid because Hampden retracted the bet.  Wallace was criticized by his peers for "his 'injudicious' involvement in a bet to 'decide' the most fundamental and established of scientific facts.  (info from the real Wiki, references are available there)

However, what's more to the point is that Wallace repeated the experiment under slightly different conditions.  I.e.  He used three poles, and observed that the middle pole was raised compared to the ones at the end, thus proving the earth is in fact round. 

So, my question is why do you believe Rowbotham and disregard Wallace ?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment
« on: November 20, 2017, 02:56:26 PM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ?

Because you haven't written the article yet?

Hey Junker, where’s Tom’s low content warning ?

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bedford Levels experiment
« on: November 20, 2017, 07:01:10 AM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

It was a wager for a year's pay and both men walked away from the experiment claiming that they had won.

So why isn’t it discussed in the Wiki ? 

12
Flat Earth Theory / Bedford Levels experiment
« on: November 20, 2017, 04:26:14 AM »
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

Why is it that the FEW doesn’t refer to Alfred Russel Wallace who repeated the experiment and demonstrated that the Earth is round, and that Rowbotham’s method was flawed.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is and isn't proof
« on: November 20, 2017, 04:18:21 AM »
Might be easier to start with something simple like secondary school maths...... on second thoughts......

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Conspiracy - why NASA?
« on: November 19, 2017, 04:57:44 PM »
Only three times ?  You’re just not trying !  Come on put some more effort in !

Seriously, is it 20% of the population trying to hide a flat earth from the other 80%, or 0.01% trying to wind up the other 99.99% ?

15
That sounds fascinating, but could you rewrite the question in English rather than social studies jargon ?
I may be able to help, as a devout flat earth believer, but I have doubts.  I've tried challenging my peers, but the results have been less than satisfactory.  As for the cost, when they read this, I risk being exiled from the round earth community as a 'spy in the camp' and from the flat earth community as a doubter.  However, the real cost is nothing as this forum is free to join.

16
Flat Earth Community / Re: Anyone for a public discussion?
« on: November 19, 2017, 02:48:36 PM »
That's been fun to watch !!  I can safely predict you won't have anybody accept your invitation.  They know when they are outgunned, hence the very few flat earth believers here. 

My three body prediction.  Tom would say occultations are caused by magic parallax and you should prove it otherwise, and then pretend to ignore all your proofs.
ScaryGary will find some big words and string them into a sentence which sounds impressive but is completely meaningless.
J-man will say it was aliens, and god will smite you if you say otherwise.

17
Therefore Gary, you are part who of the conspiracy to discredit the flat earth community, otherwise, by your own admission, you wouldn’t be here.

I’m sure Mrs Warren is getting lots of material for her study on conspiracy theorists!

This is hardly the flat earth community

Which begs the question, why are you here ?

18
Therefore Gary, you are part who of the conspiracy to discredit the flat earth community, otherwise, by your own admission, you wouldn’t be here.

I’m sure Mrs Warren is getting lots of material for her study on conspiracy theorists! 

19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Speed of light
« on: November 19, 2017, 12:39:30 PM »
At the risk of making myself look dumb (considering the company, that’s a small risk LOL !) if we consider the earth to be made of massless particles, we would be travelling at the speed of light, coz that’s what photons do. Therefore at a constant velocity, therefore UA could not exist. (I think I’ve finally got down to their level of science, almost !)

20
Hats off to Dither for his honest answers.  Sociology is a fascinating subject. 

To be honest, I’m not sure why J-man answered a nonjudgmental question so aggressively, but I’m sure his answer is probably just as useful to Mrs Warren as the others.  I hope he finds that annoying, and I’m not usually a vindictive person.

I’d love to hear to outcome of Mrs Warren’s research if she chose to share it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7  Next >