#### SteelyBob

• 479
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #80 on: May 26, 2021, 06:48:27 PM »
I am certainly not stating the distance couldn't be worked out using two points.

You are not paying attention.

I am stating the two points being arbitrary would be close, but it was not used to fire those missiles which you love to use.

Like I wrote earlier, a much more likely scenario  would have been actual distances obtained by close up surveillance of the land, performed by live people.

But the two points aren't themselves arbitrary. They are measured from the same arbitrary datum. As the formula you yourself provided clearly shows, it matters not where that datum is, because the x and y pairs are subtracted from each other to find an x/y pair of differences, which are then squared, summed and rooted to find the hypotenuse - the distance between them. Are you suggesting that your formula would return a different result if I moved the origin for the same pair of points? Because that's basic maths, and if you're struggling with that, then we aren't going to get anywhere.

You and Tom have both acknowledged that people navigated for years using celestial nav to obtain their positions - expressed as a lat/long. You yourself described lat/long as an 'x/y coordinate system' - not strictly true, given that it's an angular system, but never mind. You said you could calculate distances between two points using your formula, but now you seem to have rolled back on that citing some very odd excuse about the arbitrary nature of longitudes - odd because of course that would also apply to the monopole FE map. Where is the zero longitude line on that?

You are refusing to engage in any discussion about how one might convert lat/long into some form of coordinate on the monopole FE map. You are refusing to discuss which FE map you believe to be correct, or what its dimensions are. This stuff should be bread and butter for an FE enthusiast, surely?

Instead, all you do is dodge questions and say everything is lies. Fine by me - I don't suppose I'll ever persuade you to change - I'm just making sure nobody else coming here is persuaded by your arguments, and your total failure to answer questions or engage in any meaningful debate is plain to see, which does rather undermine your position. Entirely up to you how you proceed.

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 199
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #81 on: May 26, 2021, 08:49:27 PM »

Essentially, being with you requires the thought the latitude/longitude system in place is based on a globe, when it isn't.

So, no.

I will never be "with you."

Because that is a flat out lie.

It's arbitrary, as you just admitted.

All coordinate systems are to some extent arbitrary. You can have any origin you wish. As long as the coordinates all reference the same system, distances between pairs of coordinates will give the same result.

You yourself said you could work it out with your formula, but now you're saying you can't because the system is wrong. But all those mariners through the ages, diligently recording their lat/long based on celestial and solar observations (as per Tom's statement)...were they wrong, then?

And what, exactly, is the lat/long system we should be using then? What system do you suppose our Iraqi Scud aimers were using?

And which FE model are you using?

And how big is the FE?
I am certainly not stating the distance couldn't be worked out using two points.

You are not paying attention.

I am stating the two points being arbitrary would be close, but it was not used to fire those missiles which you love to use.

Like I wrote earlier, a much more likely scenario  would have been actual distances obtained by close up surveillance of the land, performed by live people.

I think what you actually said earlier was that they could drive a car to measure the distance.    Do you think that the Iraqi army drove to Tehran before launching their Scuds, or that Hamas drove from Gaza to Tel Aviv?  What other ways might live people on the ground survey the land?

Regarding the measurement between two points on Earth, the arbitrary nature of points-of-origin and what-not; why don't you nominate 2 points, around two thousand miles apart, and tell us the exact distance.  You get extra points for showing us your calculations.

#### jimster

• 160
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #82 on: May 27, 2021, 12:37:04 AM »
Everyone, this is hilarious, you gotta read this quote from a link Tom Bishop posted saying that Kepler still used epicycles:

"Kepler accounted for the second class of deviation by his perspicuous laws of planetary motion. It is this fact that has generally been credited with the destruction of epicycles as a mechanical device."

I was going to repost the link, but too much trouble and it was a conventional science article from I think 1940 and waste of your time to read it unless you want a intro to astronomy circa 1940.  Tom Bishop likes his science quotes old.

Tom Bishop, it is true there are still deviations from a perfect ellipse, but these are not epicycles, they are the calculable gravitational impact of planet's moons, nearby planets, wobble, decelleration, probably more, see a real astronomer for an accurate list. Epicycles had no known physical phenomena, just a fudge factor that made the apparent motion calculable at least pretty close, the error appraoches 0 as the number of epicycles approaches infinty, I would think.

RE the original questions do ICBMs exist and are they aimed RE or FE? I think I know the answer. A person can look at the web of facts and experts and analyze the plausibility using consistency with knwon facts and proof by contradiction to rule out wrong answers. Or one can ignore contradictions, misunderstand science, start with your conclusion and form a group willing to accept any ridiculous explanation for their treasured narrative.

Occam's razor: the simple explanation for the facts I know is that ICBMs exist and the people who aim and test them know the true shape of the earth.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8919
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #83 on: May 27, 2021, 07:22:24 AM »
Everyone, this is hilarious, you gotta read this quote from a link Tom Bishop posted saying that Kepler still used epicycles:

"Kepler accounted for the second class of deviation by his perspicuous laws of planetary motion. It is this fact that has generally been credited with the destruction of epicycles as a mechanical device.

And sitting atop and below that quote are explanations on why that "generally credited" idea is wrong.

Quote
I was going to repost the link, but too much trouble and it was a conventional science article from I think 1940 and waste of your time to read it unless you want a intro to astronomy circa 1940.  Tom Bishop likes his science quotes old.

You were literally citing the work of a scientist born in 1571.

Too bad that Kepler used epicycles, contradictory to your claim. There is an image of his system with epicycles there in that link. - https://ia802909.us.archive.org/18/items/the-foundations-of-astrodynamics/The%20Foundations%20of%20Astrodynamics.pdf

Quote
Occam's razor: the simple explanation for the facts I know is that ICBMs exist and the people who aim and test them know the true shape of the earth.

I have a hard time understanding this sentence.

You know the simple explanation for the facts that ICBMs exist? How is that?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2021, 07:14:38 PM by Tom Bishop »

#### SteelyBob

• 479
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #84 on: May 27, 2021, 07:56:05 AM »
Tom, can you help Action80 with the fiendish 'finding the distance between two lat/longs' challenge? He's still struggling.

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 199
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #85 on: May 27, 2021, 08:15:15 AM »
From the late 1940s the UK had a strategic nuclear capability in the form of manned aircraft carrying free-fall atomic and hydrogen weapons.  This mirrored similar forces in perceived-allied and opposing nations (United States, USSR, France, later China).  The policy was/is known as deterrence.  The final iteration of this in Britain's case in the 1960s were the Vulcan and Victor bombers of the Royal Air Force carrying a short-range supersonic nuclear missile called Blue Steel.

In 1969, responsibility for Britain's nuclear deterrence was passed from the RAF to the Royal Navy, in the form of long range SLBMs to be launched by submarines; initially Polaris, currently Trident, with a range of around 7,500 miles.  Blue Steel was retired, but the Vulcan and Victor continued in service for another 15 to 20 years in other roles.  Britain retained a short-range tactical nuclear capability using free-fall bombs carried by Jaguars and Tornadoes until the late 1990s, when this was also retired.

Among the 5 major nuclear-strategic powers, Britain is currently alone in having all its nuclear eggs in the ICBM/SLBM basket.  The USA and Russia have land-based ICBM, submarine SLBMs, and manned aircraft.  France has SLBMs and manned aircraft.

Is it likely that the UK would have surrendered its nuclear deterrence to a fictional technology?  Remember that the other powers are aware of the "pretense".

Why would Kim Jong Un be chasing a mythological technology to threaten the US?

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 199
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #86 on: May 27, 2021, 08:16:19 AM »
Tom, can you help Action80 with the fiendish 'finding the distance between two lat/longs' challenge? He's still struggling.

I think Tom is happy to let Action80 muddy the waters.

#### Action80

• 939
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #87 on: May 27, 2021, 10:28:47 AM »

As if a web picture demonstrates actual reality.

Jesus.
That's hilarious, a "web picture". It's a radar depiction of the route of a flight from LA to London. You can look at many, many more great circle flights and routes here (and every other flight tracking service - They all, strangely, show the same thing): https://www.flightradar24.com/-0.88,-60.28/3

Funny how those long haul non-stop flights just don't blast straight from point to point. Funny how these great circle routes look longer to the layperson. Strange that the airlines would take a visually longer route than necessary, burning more fuel, longer durations, less flights, all meaning less profit. So very strange indeed.

Oh wait, maybe you have a flat earth map that would explain this phenomenon. Can you post your flat earth map? The one you perhaps use.
Your claiming now that you didn't get the screenshot from the web.

Cool story bro.

Everyone knows your claim is total BS and everyone knows you want to throw all of this OFF TOPIC BS into the mix because you got nothing worthwhile to offer.

If you have any evidence to offer in regard to the actual existence of ICBM's let us know, okay.

Bye now.

#### Action80

• 939
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #88 on: May 27, 2021, 10:30:03 AM »
Tom, can you help Action80 with the fiendish 'finding the distance between two lat/longs' challenge? He's still struggling.
I am not struggling with it at all.

I told you how to do it.

#### Action80

• 939
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #89 on: May 27, 2021, 10:32:35 AM »
From the late 1940s the UK had a strategic nuclear capability in the form of manned aircraft carrying free-fall atomic and hydrogen weapons.  This mirrored similar forces in perceived-allied and opposing nations (United States, USSR, France, later China).  The policy was/is known as deterrence.  The final iteration of this in Britain's case in the 1960s were the Vulcan and Victor bombers of the Royal Air Force carrying a short-range supersonic nuclear missile called Blue Steel.

In 1969, responsibility for Britain's nuclear deterrence was passed from the RAF to the Royal Navy, in the form of long range SLBMs to be launched by submarines; initially Polaris, currently Trident, with a range of around 7,500 miles.  Blue Steel was retired, but the Vulcan and Victor continued in service for another 15 to 20 years in other roles.  Britain retained a short-range tactical nuclear capability using free-fall bombs carried by Jaguars and Tornadoes until the late 1990s, when this was also retired.

Among the 5 major nuclear-strategic powers, Britain is currently alone in having all its nuclear eggs in the ICBM/SLBM basket.  The USA and Russia have land-based ICBM, submarine SLBMs, and manned aircraft.  France has SLBMs and manned aircraft.

Is it likely that the UK would have surrendered its nuclear deterrence to a fictional technology?  Remember that the other powers are aware of the "pretense".

Why would Kim Jong Un be chasing a mythological technology to threaten the US?
Why do you believe any of the crap put out by the HIGHLY RELIABLE propogandists?

Pitiful..

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 199
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #90 on: May 27, 2021, 12:13:48 PM »
I was part of it; I was in the Royal Air Force.

#### SteelyBob

• 479
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #91 on: May 27, 2021, 12:33:49 PM »

I am not struggling with it at all.

I told you how to do it.

No, you didn't. You wheeled out a formula for working out the distance between cartesian coordinates and then, when I pointed out that you can't plug lat/long into that because they are measured in degrees, you went off down some weird rabbit hole about the arbitrary nature of origins, oblivious to the fact that pretty much all coordinate systems are in some way arbitrary, and it doesn't effect the distance between points. I'd be quite happy to do the maths for you, as you quite clearly can't do it yourself, but to do that I'd need you tell me a fair bit more about what size and layout you think the earth actually is - this is your model, not mine. If you can't put your support behind a map, and tell me its dimensions, we can't work out distances, can we?

Unless you want people reading this to assume that you're talking nonsense, I strongly suggest you in some way engage with the debate and put up some actual answers. Which FE map are you backing? Monopole? Something else? And how big is the map? Give us some usable dimension, like a radius, or a distance per degree of latitude, for example.

#### RonJ

• 1606
• ACTA NON VERBA
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #92 on: May 27, 2021, 04:32:40 PM »
Great circle navigation is just a bunch of fiction.

No way to demonstrate it is actually performed.
Bye now.
How about if I testified based upon daily personal experience that "Great circle navigation is used every day aboard long haul cargo ships".  This is either true, or I'm a liar.  Assuming that you will accuse me of lying then how could you demonstrate that?  Have you ever been on the bridge of a cargo ship when the course to the next port was being planned?  To call me a liar then you must have been and in that particular instance a great circle route was not planned for some particular reason.  Have you witnessed more than 10 instances when a great circle course wasn't planned on a voyage of more than 5000 miles?   Now assuming that happened have you been on multiple ships, multiple times, operated by different companies?  Did they all refrain from planning great circle courses?  If that's true then it would be interesting to know just which companies those were.  Shipping is a competitive industry and knowing what the competition is doing would be an advantage.  I am, however, going to speculate that you have never actually been on the bridge of a ship, or on a long haul run of any kind, and are just trolling by throwing out inciteful rhetoric without actual knowledge. You degrade the flat earth theory every time you do that and that makes you look foolish.
Bye now.
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

#### Action80

• 939
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #93 on: May 27, 2021, 05:26:29 PM »
I was part of it; I was in the Royal Air Force.
Being in the service then, you would certainly have access to the actual launch codes.

Or, you would be just as "in the know," as the rest of the regular saps who simply follow the party line.

I'm guessing #2.

#### Action80

• 939
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #94 on: May 27, 2021, 05:29:47 PM »

I am not struggling with it at all.

I told you how to do it.

No, you didn't. You wheeled out a formula for working out the distance between cartesian coordinates and then, when I pointed out that you can't plug lat/long into that because they are measured in degrees, you went off down some weird rabbit hole about the arbitrary nature of origins, oblivious to the fact that pretty much all coordinate systems are in some way arbitrary, and it doesn't effect the distance between points. I'd be quite happy to do the maths for you, as you quite clearly can't do it yourself, but to do that I'd need you tell me a fair bit more about what size and layout you think the earth actually is - this is your model, not mine. If you can't put your support behind a map, and tell me its dimensions, we can't work out distances, can we?

Unless you want people reading this to assume that you're talking nonsense, I strongly suggest you in some way engage with the debate and put up some actual answers. Which FE map are you backing? Monopole? Something else? And how big is the map? Give us some usable dimension, like a radius, or a distance per degree of latitude, for example.
It has nothing to do with what kind of points you offer up and you know damn well it doesn't.

Despite your objections, you know damn well it has to do with no defined 0/0.

Without a defined 0/0, the actual distance of each grid set forth by intersecting lines of lat/long, or x/y, or whatever you choose to call them, cannot be officially defined, and hence why you all struggle so mightily with issues of distance when it comes to interpreting whole world maps.

Further, when it comes to mapping specific areas, such as what you have offered up, that is a depicted as FLAT on a flat piece of paper.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2021, 05:33:54 PM by Action80 »

#### Action80

• 939
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #95 on: May 27, 2021, 05:31:12 PM »
Great circle navigation is just a bunch of fiction.

No way to demonstrate it is actually performed.
Bye now.
How about if I testified based upon daily personal experience that "Great circle navigation is used every day aboard long haul cargo ships".  This is either true, or I'm a liar.  Assuming that you will accuse me of lying then how could you demonstrate that?  Have you ever been on the bridge of a cargo ship when the course to the next port was being planned?  To call me a liar then you must have been and in that particular instance a great circle route was not planned for some particular reason.  Have you witnessed more than 10 instances when a great circle course wasn't planned on a voyage of more than 5000 miles?   Now assuming that happened have you been on multiple ships, multiple times, operated by different companies?  Did they all refrain from planning great circle courses?  If that's true then it would be interesting to know just which companies those were.  Shipping is a competitive industry and knowing what the competition is doing would be an advantage.  I am, however, going to speculate that you have never actually been on the bridge of a ship, or on a long haul run of any kind, and are just trolling by throwing out inciteful rhetoric without actual knowledge. You degrade the flat earth theory every time you do that and that makes you look foolish.
Bye now.
I am accusing you of making an affirmative statement about something you have no independent way to demonstrate it to be true.

Not really a liar, per say.

Just a parroter of a common lie.

#### jimster

• 160
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #96 on: May 27, 2021, 05:47:35 PM »
Action80:

I believe what you call "HIGHLY RELIABLE propagandists" because they are HIGHLY RELIABLE.

I got on an airplane in Sydney AUS and flew to LA USA. The trip time, airliner speed and travel time matched the schedule, my phone gps matched lat/long, google maps distance matches, distance on globe with piece of string, everything matches. It is all HIGHLY RELIABLE. An ocean of things is reliable.

You never answered any of my questions. On FE, if I fly a plane from Tierra Del Fuego and keep the southern cross at 90 degrees from one side, where do I go?

On RE, you would make a circle around the south pole, gps, gyrocompass would all match, it is HIGHLY RELIABLE. You would track the latitude line you were on. Without going there, I can diagram and explain it, and that is all I am asking for from you. Even if it doesn't exist, the geometry still is consistent with itself.

Please lay out on a FE map what happens when a plane takes off from Tierra Del Fuego and keeps the southern cross 90 degrees off one side for 8000 miles. Do you have a HIGHLY RELIABLE map on which you can plot a HIGHLY RELIABLE course?

Please no picking nits on the question or denial because no personal experience. I am asking you for a consistent model of how it could be, not to prove it in person. The question is clear and simple, either you have the geometry or you don't, but somehow, I expect your answer will not be either "here is a diagram" or "I have no idea, no reasonable answer". Answer, please, don't waste time with evasion techniques.

#### DuncanDoenitz

• 199
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #97 on: May 27, 2021, 06:20:26 PM »

Why do you believe any of the crap put out by the HIGHLY RELIABLE propogandists?

Pitiful..

I took the trouble to read this reply again, and it says at lot more than the simple words on the page.  "Why would I believe ..... propagandists".  Your assumption is that we have all gained our knowledge second hand, or been duped in some way by "the system".

Like you, I've no idea who the people on this Forum are; their nationality, age, education or political views.  I'm not claiming to be among the brightest buttons in the box but I get the impression that, like me, some of the correspondents here got themselves educated, got a job, and learned how to do something that the world needs in order to survive.  We met similar people at work and exchanged views on how we thought the world worked.  We traveled the world.  Some of us worked in foreign countries, or with colleagues who came to our workplace from overseas and found that our education and backgrounds often coincided.  We validated our education and training by going places, doing things, actually doing the job, and found that it worked.

Its equally evident that some people didn't.

Like everyone, we receive our share of propaganda and fake-news, but our experience has enabled us sort the wheat from the chaff, in most cases.  The Internet is certainly an Information Superhighway, shame its not a Wisdom Superhighway.

Let me put the question back to you; why do you believe any of the crap put out by the propagandists?  Who do you think are propagandists?

If I told you that I was personally a propagandist, would you believe me?

To paraphrase a well known internet sage;

"I won, you lost, I'm done here".

Bye now.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2021, 06:33:37 PM by DuncanDoenitz »

#### RonJ

• 1606
• ACTA NON VERBA
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #98 on: May 27, 2021, 06:22:29 PM »
Great circle navigation is just a bunch of fiction.

No way to demonstrate it is actually performed.
Bye now.
How about if I testified based upon daily personal experience that "Great circle navigation is used every day aboard long haul cargo ships".  This is either true, or I'm a liar.  Assuming that you will accuse me of lying then how could you demonstrate that?  Have you ever been on the bridge of a cargo ship when the course to the next port was being planned?  To call me a liar then you must have been and in that particular instance a great circle route was not planned for some particular reason.  Have you witnessed more than 10 instances when a great circle course wasn't planned on a voyage of more than 5000 miles?   Now assuming that happened have you been on multiple ships, multiple times, operated by different companies?  Did they all refrain from planning great circle courses?  If that's true then it would be interesting to know just which companies those were.  Shipping is a competitive industry and knowing what the competition is doing would be an advantage.  I am, however, going to speculate that you have never actually been on the bridge of a ship, or on a long haul run of any kind, and are just trolling by throwing out inciteful rhetoric without actual knowledge. You degrade the flat earth theory every time you do that and that makes you look foolish.
Bye now.
I am accusing you of making an affirmative statement about something you have no independent way to demonstrate it to be true.

Not really a liar, per say.

Just a parroter of a common lie.
My affirmative statement can be verified by YOU, if you choose to take up the challenge.  Which other independent verification method would you believe?  I'm not parroting anything.  If I got aboard a ship as a passenger and went up to the bridge as a visitor and a ship's officer said "Yea, we will be taking a great circle route from China to the USA", and then I repeated that on here, you could say, 'parrot'.   That's not the case here, I was one of the ship's officers.  That fact would mean that my 'affirmative statement' was from personal experience and I would have to be lying if my ship didn't actually navigate a great circle course on a routine basis.  Again, I'm saying that ships I worked aboard as an officer, routinely use great circle routes between ports every time they could, it's the shortest distance.  Liar or not?

That brings up another question:  what is your independent way of verifying your affirmative statement "Great circle navigation is just a bunch of fiction"?

« Last Edit: May 27, 2021, 07:22:01 PM by RonJ »
You can lead flat earthers to the curve but you can't make them think!

#### SteelyBob

• 479
##### Re: FE and ICBMs
« Reply #99 on: May 27, 2021, 06:26:56 PM »

It has nothing to do with what kind of points you offer up and you know damn well it doesn't.

Despite your objections, you know damn well it has to do with no defined 0/0.

Without a defined 0/0, the actual distance of each grid set forth by intersecting lines of lat/long, or x/y, or whatever you choose to call them, cannot be officially defined, and hence why you all struggle so mightily with issues of distance when it comes to interpreting whole world maps.

Further, when it comes to mapping specific areas, such as what you have offered up, that is a depicted as FLAT on a flat piece of paper.

Which FE map are you backing, and what are its dimensions?

Why do you refuse to answer such a basic question?