Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2016, 07:17:10 PM »
What you are doing here is called trolling.

You were completely defeated on each and every thread you participated in.

I have told you before, you live in a delusional world, of your own making.

My proofs are complete and very sound: they include, among other things, the Biefeld-Brown effect.

You think you are up to it to debate this with me here? It takes less than 30 seconds to debunk any of your drivel.

Ack. Could you concentrate and not use your condescending tone, as per usual? It's not enough that you regard yourself as the source of truth. This is not what credibility means. Imagine that people need to be taught the workings of your model; Your model needs to be reviewed by other like-minded people. As in, peer-review. Thus far, nobody has testamented to the credibility of your model. It's ok to be cocky if you are right on the money, but at this point, nothing suggest you are.

Your whole model is based on a theory that crumbled more than 100 years ago. Without this, your whole model is bogus. Don't you see the problem here? It's not enough that you celebrate yourself, someone, preferably a community of like-minded people, must attribute your theory credit before ANYONE can consider it of importance or relevance.

On that notion alone, but not exclusively(!), you won zero debates so far. As said, the burden of proof is on you, and so far, you have none. How could anyone then consider this to be a FAQ?

I do agree that the current FAQ is full of flaws, even though an admin previously stated that it's deliberate to establish the fundaments for discussions.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2016, 07:23:57 PM »
This is the kind of hapless, superficial, catastrophic messages you posted so far on this website:

The Michelson-Morley experiment refused this (an experiment often cited by FE models) and special relativity has been validated through experiments over and over again since then.

I told you twice before: you live in a delusional world; not only you lost each and every one of your debates, but I won each and every one of them, hands down.


Total debunking of the failed theory of relativity:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2715.msg80203#msg80203


In particular...

The Michelson-Morley catastrophe:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040612113918/ca.geocities.com/rayredbourne/docs/b.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20080705084812/http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter5.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20101128012239/http://spinbitz.net/anpheon.org/html/AnpheonIntro2003.htm (history revisited section, one of the very best works on the unimaginable errors of the MM experiment)


Then you were silenced completely by the Tunguska explosion subject:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3899.msg81388#msg81388


Exasperated with your meaningless trolling, one of the moderators told you:

No, you simply dislike the answers you received. You seem to think that an unsubstantiated one-liner counts as disproof, and you're welcome to think so, but that doesn't change much.

You are in no position to pass judgements on anybody here: you have a wikipedia level, superficial knowledge of science.

I, on the other hand, have defeated hundreds of RE over the past eight years, most of them more knowledgeable than you are,
« Last Edit: January 26, 2016, 07:25:56 PM by sandokhan »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7125
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2016, 07:37:49 PM »
Wait... You said your readers love your proofs and hate the faq. 
Then you say your only supporter is yourself?  By mere fact that you dismiss evidence that isn't your own?
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2016, 07:37:59 PM »
I told you twice before: you live in a delusional world; not only you lost each and every one of your debates, but I won each and every one of them, hands down.

This feeling of internet superiority belongs to simpletons and people lacking social skill: I'll let you ride that train all by yourself.

Then you were silenced completely by the Tunguska explosion subject:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3899.msg81388#msg81388

I wasn't silenced. As I've told you before, your copy/paste/report on the Tunguska event doesn't bring anything new to the table that hasn't been disproved before. I simply stopped replying to that particular thread (because you mention the Tunguska event everywhere you can) because I got sick and tired of repeating myself. You don't win a debate by repeating falsums.

I, on the other hand, have defeated hundreds of RE over the past eight years, most of them more knowledgeable than you are,

A wise man once said "Assumptions will kill you" - Now, a bit overexaggerated, you're assuming more than normal standards allow you to. As to why you do this could of course be explained better by someone who understands psychology better than I do, but people tend to resort to these attacks when they defend their ego rather than admitting they're wrong.

As I've said countless of times now: So far, you are a nobody. There's nobody giving your model credit, and so far, it doesn't prove anything. This is exactly why 99% of the professional community still relies on peer-reviewed, reproducable, accredited models and facts.

Let say, for the sake of argument, that you're right. Surely, someone will testify to this in a heartbeat. And I don't need your neighbour. Bring someone with scientific and practical leverage, then we'll talk.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2016, 07:47:51 PM »
dave... I challenged you to find a single thread where the official faq has been used to explain anything as it pertains to gravity, radio waves, solar orbit.

Don't worry, you won't find any.

I challenge you to find a single thread where I debated, where it wasn't a total and complete win for the FE.

My FAQ works, yours does not.

This is what we are talking about here: there is no such thing as an UA accelerator.



Your statement on the Michelson-Morley experiment says everything about you: as I have told you, you shouldn't be allowed to post in the upper forums, as you lack the basic knowledge to hold your own for more than 30 seconds with me.

In each of the links provided, in which you participated, you were beaten badly: to think otherwise, is a sure sign of the delusional world you live in.

Only a simpleton can bring to the table of FE debates the Michelson-Morley experiment: for your knowledge, it has been debunked thoroughly a long time ago.

I have published a formula sought after by the greatest mathematicians for the past two hundred years (my global natural logarithm formula): you on the other hand, cannot go past the wikipedia level in any of your messages, a sure sign of mediocrity.

Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2016, 07:54:00 PM »
dave... I challenged you to find a single thread where the official faq has been used to explain anything as it pertains to gravity, radio waves, solar orbit.

Don't worry, you won't find any.

I challenge you to find a single thread where I debated, where it wasn't a total and complete win for the FE.

My FAQ works, yours does not.

This is what we are talking about here: there is no such thing as an UA accelerator.



Your statement on the Michelson-Morley experiment says everything about you: as I have told you, you shouldn't be allowed to post in the upper forums, as you lack the basic knowledge to hold your own for more than 30 seconds with me.

In each of the links provided, in which you participated, you were beaten badly: to think otherwise, is a sure sign of the delusional world you live in.

Only a simpleton can bring to the table of FE debates the Michelson-Morley experiment: for your knowledge, it has been debunked thoroughly a long time ago.

I have published a formula sought after by the greatest mathematicians for the past two hundred years (my global natural logarithm formula): you on the other hand, cannot go past the wikipedia level in any of your messages, a sure sign of mediocrity.

Haha, wow. Megalomania at large here. If "I have published a formula sought after by the greatest mathematicians for the past two hundred years" were true (a comment that I've laughed a bit about in previous posts), howcome nobody picked up on this? Why haven't the gathered scientific community published anything about it, which they're so eager to do?
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Thork

Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2016, 08:05:31 PM »
My FAQ works, yours does not.
Opinion is divided on the subject ...


Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2016, 08:08:47 PM »
In the official history of mathematics, Euler tried to find such a formula.

He could not.

In the 19th century, Gauss and Jacobi tried the same thing.

It could not be provided.

Ramanujan, the greatest mathematician the world has ever known, also wanted to find such a formula.


But I could.

Here is my global logarithm formula, obtained without calculus:



My formula was discovered in 1998, and and I was able to sum the continued logarithm function in 2014:




I was also able to sum the extended arctangent formula:



ARCTAN v =  2n x ((2- {2+ [2+ (2+ 2{1/(1+ v2)}1/2)1/2]...1/2}))1/2 (n+1 parentheses to be evaluated)


My challenge to any UAFE: find a single thread where the official faq was used to explain anything pertaining to gravity, radio waves, solar orbit.

It turned into a complete disaster each and every time.

My AFET successfully explained the ring laser gyroscopes, beam neutrinos, venus angular size and much more: a sure sign of success, where none of you were to be found: certainly it should be included in the wiki.



« Last Edit: January 26, 2016, 08:11:09 PM by sandokhan »

Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2016, 08:41:24 PM »
Im still baffled about why you want this on TFES wiki, if your formula is what it claims to be.

I'm affiliated with people with proper qualifications. I will personally see to it that this gets confirmed/distributed.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2016, 09:14:46 PM »
Then use those special affiliations to become more knowledgeable in your overall presentation.

Remember, you have to go way past wikipedia to understand what is going on, especially in debates re: relativity vs. ether physics.

Learn to develop your intuition, that special quality that allows you to make those extraordinary connections, that most people do not see, or do not have access to.


If my faq will not be included in the wiki, then you (everybody here) must come up with an improved version, one that does address the radio waves concerns, the gravitational anomalies, and a better solar orbit description.

Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #30 on: January 26, 2016, 09:37:20 PM »
Then use those special affiliations to become more knowledgeable in your overall presentation.

Remember, you have to go way past wikipedia to understand what is going on, especially in debates re: relativity vs. ether physics.

Learn to develop your intuition, that special quality that allows you to make those extraordinary connections, that most people do not see, or do not have access to.


If my faq will not be included in the wiki, then you (everybody here) must come up with an improved version, one that does address the radio waves concerns, the gravitational anomalies, and a better solar orbit description.

Stop lecturing me. Assumptions like this doesn't suit a grown man. You know nothing about me. Chances are that my practical experience in the field you so bluntly imply you excel in, reaches much, much deeper than the level your piedestal ego puts you on. You might actually say something you'll come to regret.
Ignored by Intikam since 2016.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #31 on: January 26, 2016, 09:56:42 PM »
S&C isn't for petty arguments. Keep it civil or I will move this thread.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10178
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #32 on: January 27, 2016, 06:59:18 AM »
Sandokhan, I am not opposed to you having a section on the Wiki, but I think you really need to put significant work into simplifying these ideas for the layman.

*

Offline Venus

  • *
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #33 on: April 06, 2016, 12:11:10 PM »
My AFET is totally tested in countless debates: how many times do you think I engaged in discussions re: the sun's orbit/high altitude jumps?

No one has ever been able to debunk my AFET, rest assured.

In fact, here is the 20 page thread on the solar orbit:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1488698#msg1488698 (PAGES 6-8)




Here you will find the ISS solar transit photos/videos:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg81131#msg81131

(Watch the ISS solar/lunar videos and convince yourself that F. Baumgartner could not have jumped from an altitude higher than 12-14 km)

Moreover, we have had ample discussions on how altitude is erroneously measured (amateur rockets/balloons):

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3838.msg80887#msg80887


You see, my AFET is the ONLY flat earth theory that has been thoroughly tested in debates: it won each and every time.


I have some questions about your map which I would like you to answer please.
I have flown from Sydney or Melbourne directly to Los Angeles on numerous occasions. The return journey is either direct to Melbourne or via Auckland.
The nonstop journey from Melbourne to LA takes around 14:15 hours
The non stop return trip from LAX to Melbourne is around 15:45

Could you please explain why ...
1. I have never seen land below the plane when I have done these trips, yet according to your map I would need to fly across Australia, across the Indian Ocean, across India, The Middle East, Europe, The Arctic and then fly across USA. If your map is correct, why don't we see land when travelling to LAX from the East Coast of Australia
2. How could this flight be completed in the time taken if your map was correct?
3. On the return trip the flights by United Airlines/Qantas/Air New Zealand often stop in Auckland New Zealand. These trips take about 20 hours including a 3 hour layover in Auckland, ie they take about 17 hours flying time. To fly from Auckland to Melbourne is usually around 3:30 hours. How could this be possible if your map is accurate, because according to your map New Zealand is on the opposite side of Australia from America??

Thank you
Because I live on the 'bottom' of a spinning spherical earth ...
*I cannot see Polaris, but I can see the Southern Cross
*When I look at the stars they appear to rotate clockwise, not anti-clockwise
*I see the moon 'upside down'
I've travelled to the Northern Hemisphere numerous times ... and seen how different the stars and the moon are 'up' there!
Come on down and check it out FE believers... !!

Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #34 on: April 06, 2016, 03:54:54 PM »
Which map are you referring to? The unipolar map, the UAFE/official map is not my cup of tea.

If you are referring to the bipolar map, then your questions are welcome.



1. I have never seen land below the plane when I have done these trips, yet according to your map I would need to fly across Australia, across the Indian Ocean, across India, The Middle East, Europe, The Arctic and then fly across USA. If your map is correct, why don't we see land when travelling to LAX from the East Coast of Australia

Take a look at the map itself: you are flying over the Pacific Ocean, perhaps somewhat close to the outer boundary/edge, all the way to LAX.

Not over the land.

2. How could this flight be completed in the time taken if your map was correct?


I debated any and all flight paths with this map, including Santiago de Chile - Juneau; everything was fine with the time flights. What exactly are you referring to?

3. On the return trip the flights by United Airlines/Qantas/Air New Zealand often stop in Auckland New Zealand. These trips take about 20 hours including a 3 hour layover in Auckland, ie they take about 17 hours flying time. To fly from Auckland to Melbourne is usually around 3:30 hours. How could this be possible if your map is accurate, because according to your map New Zealand is on the opposite side of Australia from America??

New Zealand is not on the "opposite" side from America: a flight path from LAX to Auckland will take place over the Pacific Ocean, a curve matching the corresponding arc of the outer boundary/edge of the world.

Do not have any doubts that the surface of the Earth is flat, here is the Tunguska file for you:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4315.msg85691#msg85691

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

Let me ask YOU a question now.

How do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a sphere, without an attractive law of gravity?
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 04:04:19 PM by sandokhan »

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7125
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #35 on: April 06, 2016, 04:42:09 PM »
.
How do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a sphere, without an attractive law of gravity?

Aetheric pressure.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Venus

  • *
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #36 on: April 10, 2016, 12:59:01 PM »
Which map are you referring to? The unipolar map, the UAFE/official map is not my cup of tea.

If you are referring to the bipolar map, then your questions are welcome.



1. I have never seen land below the plane when I have done these trips, yet according to your map I would need to fly across Australia, across the Indian Ocean, across India, The Middle East, Europe, The Arctic and then fly across USA. If your map is correct, why don't we see land when travelling to LAX from the East Coast of Australia

Take a look at the map itself: you are flying over the Pacific Ocean, perhaps somewhat close to the outer boundary/edge, all the way to LAX.

Not over the land.

2. How could this flight be completed in the time taken if your map was correct?


I debated any and all flight paths with this map, including Santiago de Chile - Juneau; everything was fine with the time flights. What exactly are you referring to?

3. On the return trip the flights by United Airlines/Qantas/Air New Zealand often stop in Auckland New Zealand. These trips take about 20 hours including a 3 hour layover in Auckland, ie they take about 17 hours flying time. To fly from Auckland to Melbourne is usually around 3:30 hours. How could this be possible if your map is accurate, because according to your map New Zealand is on the opposite side of Australia from America??

New Zealand is not on the "opposite" side from America: a flight path from LAX to Auckland will take place over the Pacific Ocean, a curve matching the corresponding arc of the outer boundary/edge of the world.

Do not have any doubts that the surface of the Earth is flat, here is the Tunguska file for you:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4315.msg85691#msg85691

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.

Let me ask YOU a question now.

How do four trillion billion liters of water stay glued next to the surface of a sphere, without an attractive law of gravity?

Yes I am referring to your "bipolar" map - the one you reposted above.
So I presume you are saying that rather than fly a direct route the Melbourne to LAX flights go around all of the land masses and stay above the ocean on your bipolar map? Why would airlines fly a longer route than necessary? It would take more fuel and more time !! The obvious route according to your map would be a direct line from Melbourne to Los Angeles ie the route as I stated
I said "according to your map New Zealand is on the opposite side of Australia from America"
America looks strange and Australia is distorted also, meaning all distances shown for travel within Australia or America must be wrong !!

The oceans stay fixed to earth because of gravity, a theory which explains all of the observations made, is capable of making predictions which can be tested - oh but you don't believe in gravity do you ?? (Since when did Science become a belief or an opinion?)

You don't have any scale on your map, could you please provide some way that I can calculate distances from a printout of your map?

How do you explain time zones on your map?
Why can't the FEers can't even agree on a map?

I would explain the light seen in England as the asteroid burning up in the atmosphere in the Tunguska event.

Here are some questions for you ... how can the flat earth model explain ...
Why I can't see Polaris from Australia?
Why can't people in the Northern Hemisphere see the Southern Cross?
Why I see a different view of the moon than those in the Northern Hemisphere?
Why stars appear to rotate in a clockwise direction when I view the night sky from Australia? (They appear to rotate anti-clockwise to those in the Northern Hemisphere.
Because I live on the 'bottom' of a spinning spherical earth ...
*I cannot see Polaris, but I can see the Southern Cross
*When I look at the stars they appear to rotate clockwise, not anti-clockwise
*I see the moon 'upside down'
I've travelled to the Northern Hemisphere numerous times ... and seen how different the stars and the moon are 'up' there!
Come on down and check it out FE believers... !!

Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #37 on: April 10, 2016, 01:22:37 PM »
Each and every one of your questions has been answered many times before.


http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66237.msg1771301#msg1771301 (star trails, Polaris)


FOUR experiments which contradict the imaginary law of "attractive" gravitation:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66170.msg1767225#msg1767225

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66170.msg1767237#msg1767237


Double forces of attractive gravitation paradox:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1723400#msg1723400

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1724215#msg1724215


You haven't done your homework at all on the Tunguska event.

The event at Tunguska COULD NOT have been caused by a meteorite, comet or asteroid:

In 1983, astronomer Zdenek Sekanina published a paper criticizing the comet hypothesis. He pointed out that a body composed of cometary material, travelling through the atmosphere along such a shallow trajectory, ought to have disintegrated, whereas the Tunguska body apparently remained intact into the lower atmosphere.

The chief difficulty in the asteroid hypothesis is that a stony object should have produced a large crater where it struck the ground, but no such crater has been found.

Fesenkov (1962) claims, "According to all evidence, this meteorite moved around the Sun in a retrograde direction, which is impossible for typical meteorites...." Fesenkov notes that meteorites rarely hit the earth in the morning, because the morning side faces forward in the planet's orbit. Usually the meteorite overtakes the earth from behind, on the evening side.


JULY 1, 1908 LETTER SENT TO THE LONDON TIMES

http://www.nuforc.org/GNTungus.html

“TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.”

“Sir,--I should be interested in hearing whether others of your readers observed the strange light in the sky which was seen here last night by my sister and myself. I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.  It was in the northeast and of a bright flame-colour like the light of sunrise or sunset.  The sky, for some distance above the light, which appeared to be on the horizon, was blue as in the daytime, with bands of light cloud of a pinkish colour floating across it at intervals.  Only the brightest stars could be seen in any part of the sky, though it was an almost cloudless night.  It was possible to read large print indoors, and the hands of the clock in my room were quite distinct.  An hour later, at about 1:30 a.m., the room was quite light, as if it had been day; the light in the sky was then more dispersed and was a fainter yellow.  The whole effect was that of a night in Norway at about this time of year.  I am in the habit of watching the sky, and have noticed the amount of light indoors at different hours of the night several times in the last fortnight.  I have never at any time seen anything the least like this in England, and it would be interesting if any one would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.

Yours faithfully,
Katharine Stephen.
Godmanchester, Huntingdon, July 1.”


Let us remember that the first newspaper report about the explosion itself ONLY appeared on July 2, 1908 in the Sibir periodical.


A report from Berlin in the New York Times of July 3 stated: 'Remarkable lights were observed in the northern heavens on Tuesday and Wednesday nights, the bright diffused white and yellow illumination continuing through the night until it disappeared at dawn...'

On July 5, (1908) a New York Times story from Britain was entitled: 'Like Dawn at Midnight.' '...The northern sky at midnight became light blue, as if the dawn were breaking...people believed that a big fire was raging in the north of London...shortly after midnight, it was possible to read large print indoors...it would be interesting if anyone would explain the cause of so unusual a sight.'


The letter sent by Mrs. Katharine Stephen is absolutely genuine as it includes details NOBODY else knew at the time: not only the precise timing of the explosion itself (7:15 - 7:17 local time, 0:15 - 0:17 London time), BUT ALSO THE DURATION OF THE TRAJECTORY OF THE OBJECT, right before the explosion, a fact uncovered decades later only by the painstaking research of Dr. Felix Zigel, an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation:


The same opinion was reached by Felix Zigel, who as an aerodynamics professor at the Moscow Institute of Aviation has been involved in the training of many Soviet cosmonauts. His latest study of all the eyewitness and physical data convinced him that "before the blast the Tunguska body described in the atmosphere a tremendous arc of about 375 miles in extent (in azimuth)" - that is, it "carried out a maneuver." No natural object is capable of such a feat.



Manotskov decided that the 1908 object, on the other hand, had a far slower entry speed and that, nearing the earth, it reduced its speed to "0.7 kilometers per second, or 2,400 kilometers per hour" - less than half a mile per second.

375 miles = 600 km, or 15 minutes of flight time, given the speed exemplified above

I do not know when it first appeared; we saw it between 12 o’clock (midnight) and 12:15 a.m.


LeMaire maintains the "accident-explanation is untenable" because "the flaming object was being expertly navigated" using Lake Baikal as a reference point. Indeed, Lake Baikal is an ideal aerial navigation reference point being 400 miles long and about 35 miles wide. LeMaire's description of the course of the Tunguska object lends credence to the thought of expert navigation:

The body approached from the south, but when about 140 miles from the explosion point, while over Kezhma, it abruptly changed course to the east. Two hundred and fifty miles later, while above Preobrazhenka, it reversed its heading toward the west. It exploded above the taiga at 60º55' N, 101º57' E (LeMaire 1980).




The fight path of the cosmic object, as reconstructed from eyewitness testimony and ballistic wave evidence. Felix Zigel and other space experts agree that, prior to exploding, the object changed from an eastward to a westward direction over the Stony Tunguska region. The arc at the bottom of the map indicates the scope of the area where witnesses either saw the fiery object or heard the blast.


The information acquired by the Florensky and Zolotov expeditions about the ballistic shock effect on the trees provides a strong basis, in some scientists' view, for a reconstruction of an alteration in the object's line of flight. In the terminal phase of its descent, according to the most recent speculations, the object appears to have approached on an eastward course, then changed course westward over the region before exploding. The ballistic wave evidence, in fact, indicates that some type of flight correction was performed in the atmosphere.

UFOs/Jet aircrafts/V2 rockets were invented by the Vril society, only after 1936.

If the light from the Sun could not reach London due to curvature and/or any light reflection phenomena, then certainly NO LIGHT from an explosion which occurred at some 7 km altitude in the atmosphere could have been seen at all, at the same time, on a spherical earth.


Do not forget that each and every major airline was founded by high ranking members of diverse secret societies who had every reason to hide the truth about the true shape of the Earth, from the rest of the population.

The other UAFE/FE have lost each and every debate they were part of, their maps were shown to be wrong. My map, the global Piri Reis map, is the only one that fulfills the role of a true FE map.

Time zones?

You first have to understand how the Sun orbits above the flat earth:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4037.0



*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7125
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Advanced/Alternative Flat Earth Frequently Asked Questions
« Reply #38 on: April 10, 2016, 04:30:21 PM »
May I suggest you debate specifics in the FE sections?  This is about approval or rejection of sandokhan's alternate wiki.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.