9221

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Bishop Experiment Debate

« on: February 02, 2016, 06:10:00 PM »

Yes, we are aware. The Wiki does not entirely follow the progression of the threads the content is based on. A corrected addendum was provided after the experiment was posted. It was found that ~23 miles should produce noticeable curvature as well.

An additional test was made in the same area, over a smaller portion of the bay, showing that the Monterey Bay is flat:

9222

Flat Earth Community / Re: Idea for a new proof

« on: February 02, 2016, 02:53:38 PM »

This is all very natural and is part of the Flat Earth proponent's evolution to the more advanced bi-polar models of the earth.

The reason for the misconception with the classic mono-pole model is because FET's foundational work, Earth Not a Globe, was written at a time before the south pole was discovered. This is described in The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918) at around page 30.

9223

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Solar and lunar eclipse

« on: February 02, 2016, 02:23:05 PM »

Well, I've been thinking for a while and i don't understand some things:

Solar eclipses, if all the celestial objects we observe are above the disc at the same distance from it how is it possible that solar eclipses occur, if everything in the sky is in a single plain then nothing can get between the earth and the Sun so solar eclipses should never take place.

Who said it was a single plane?

9224

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Just my opinion

« on: February 01, 2016, 10:06:33 AM »

Except for unmasking the conspiracy, what benefits would it have???

It would have the benefit of the knowledge of truth.

9225

Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Earth App for Android and iOS

« on: February 01, 2016, 09:20:14 AM »

How is the curvature calculated?

9226

Flat Earth Media / Re: Star Circles

« on: February 01, 2016, 09:19:35 AM »

I think it looks good, and accurately conveys the idea.

9227

Flat Earth Community / Gullibility of the public

« on: February 01, 2016, 08:20:43 AM »

http://hoaxes.org/af_database/permalink/planetary_alignment_decreases_gravity

During an interview on BBC Radio 2, on the morning of April 1, 1976, the British astronomer Patrick Moore announced that an extraordinary astronomical event was about to occur. At exactly 9:47 am, the planet Pluto would pass directly behind Jupiter, in relation to the Earth. This rare alignment would mean that the combined gravitational force of the two planets would exert a stronger tidal pull, temporarily counteracting the Earth's own gravity and making people weigh less. Moore called this the Jovian-Plutonian Gravitational Effect.

Moore told listeners that they could experience the phenomenon by jumping in the air at the precise moment the alignment occurred. If they did so, he promised, they would experience a strange floating sensation.

At 9:47, Moore declared, "Jump now!" A minute passed, and then the BBC switchboard lit up with dozens of people calling in to report that the experiment had worked!

Is it a wonder the general public will believe anything they are told?

9228

Flat Earth Community / Re: Suggestion for experiment: Lake Pontchartrain

« on: February 01, 2016, 05:56:28 AM »

My opinion is that this laser experiment is really the same water convexity experiment which has been conducted time and time again since the days of Rowbotham. It ridiculous that you ask us to "prove it again" for more concrete evidence immediately after seeing such videotaped evidence of a proof, considering that we have a library with many such observations and claims.

9229

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth is more confusing than a round one.

« on: February 01, 2016, 05:40:51 AM »

Mathematical proofs can be made for many concepts, such as .9999... = 1, for instance. Depending on how terms are precisely defined, pi is indeed 4. Mathis argues that his interpretation should me more correct than the traditional one.

Mathis argues that his interpretation should me more correct than the traditional one.
Yes he might and 99.99% (I exaggerate - about 50% of people couldn't care less) of people would say that makes him just a bit way out!

but hey, everyone to his opinion.

You really do spout nonsense!  So the circumference of a circle is 4xdiameter! 

And as soon as I get time I will prove that I can be just as ridiculous,
and prove that on the flat earth pi is actually not 3.14159265358979.... (Aforgot the rest - old age) but 2.0000000.

Anyone who knows anything about math knows that it is possible to make a mathematical proof for many things. There are proofs that pi is transcendental, that pi is irrational, pi is rational, and so on.

The proof that pi = 4 is indeed sound, depending on how some math concepts are interpreted. It really comes down to how the words diameter and circumference are precisely defined, what they really mean, and whether they are comparable concepts, which Mathis discusses in his paper.

9230

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth is more confusing than a round one.

« on: February 01, 2016, 04:37:21 AM »

I think I will believe poor old Cavendish and the hundreds of other experiments.  This paper has a list of measurements up to 2010: https://xenophilius.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/gravitational-constant-variations-in-gravitational-constant-g/.

Cavendish	1798	6.74x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2
Current value	combined to 2004	6.6742x10-11 m3Kg-1s-2

Poor maligned Cavendish did not do so badly!

Also, from your link:

The new values using the best laboratory equipment to-date disagreed wildly to the point that many are doubting about the constancy of this parameter and some are even postulating entirely new forces to explain these gravitational anomalies.

9231

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat earth is more confusing than a round one.

« on: February 01, 2016, 04:36:02 AM »

Mathematical proofs can be made for many concepts, such as .9999... = 1, for instance. Depending on how terms are precisely defined, pi is indeed 4. Mathis argues that his interpretation should me more correct than the traditional one.

9232

Flat Earth Community / Re: How do we know the Earth is spherical?

« on: February 01, 2016, 04:28:24 AM »

The point the poster above is making is that if we have a legitimate space program which has sent many space ships out into space, many which have escaped earth orbit to explore the solar system, why are there so few pictures of the earth as a whole?

It doesn't make sense. That would be one of the obvious things to take when you're putting billions of dollars into a space probe with cameras on it.

9233

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why No Standard Flat Earth map?

« on: February 01, 2016, 03:36:00 AM »

Oh, come I am hardly suggesting you use 300 year old maps.  It is now 2016 and the world has progressed since Rowbotham!
Of course you would pick up-to-date data - pre NASA if you must, but even by 1900 maps at least had good shapes for the continents.
Mind you, maps of Australia of 150 years ago are far closer to the shape of Australia I know than ANY FE map I have seen yet!

I fail to see how a movement that many (maybe not you, yourself) seem to think will "sweep the world" in the near future can be taken seriously with no accurate flat earth map for navigators, etc, to use.

See this link: http://www.wired.com/2014/04/maps-california-island/

For over 300 years, from the early 1500's to the mid 1800's, cartographers depicted California as an island off the coast of the United States in various maps of many countries.

What makes you think that between the mid 1800's and 1900 everyone in the world decided to stop plagiarizing and actually conduct an accurate exploration of the earth?

9234

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why No Standard Flat Earth map?

« on: February 01, 2016, 02:37:05 AM »

Before 1900 most of the earth's coastlines were accurately mapped, ie the lat-long of enough locations was determined to enable accurate maps to be drawn of the continents. In addition to this surveyors accurately mapped the interiors of many countries.

You put too much faith in map mapers and explorers. It is conveniently forgotten that for over 300 years RE maps depicted California as an island off the coast of the United States, despite being one of the most important frontiers and discoveries in the world at that time.

9235

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Coriolis effect in FET

« on: February 01, 2016, 01:43:32 AM »

Actually, the bi-polar model was first advocated in the book The Sea-Earth Globe and and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions, (Zetetes, 1918) which touches on the movement of the sun, celestial bodies, and some other features on page 30.

http://library.tfes.org/library/Sea-Earth%20Globe.pdf

9236

Flat Earth Community / Re: Shills, trolls and psyops.

« on: February 01, 2016, 01:31:01 AM »

This is why we should open membership. Being a member of the Flat Earth Society would soon become the thing to do if you are a flat earth supporter. Certainly, one would want to be part of the Flat Earth Society if they believe in a flat earth, right? It would attract these users to this forum and we can connect and deliberate with these artists.

9237

Flat Earth Community / Re: Conspiracies... how long can they really last?

« on: January 31, 2016, 05:31:14 AM »

nixon did try to stop them, and he failed.  miserably.  and even if he had succeeded, it wouldn't have mattered since he didn't intervene until after the material had already been released to the public.  this is exactly the point that the folks on my side are making: the government can't erase memory, and it can't literally control everyone in the media.

this is exactly the example you say doesn't exist.  the press got a leak of top secret documents, ran them, and the government was powerless to stop them.

Actually, the New York Times was handled with kid gloves. See this link:

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/rethinking-the-pentagon-papers

At first, however, the reaction of the Nixon administration was actually almost indifferent. Attorney General John Mitchell read the Times the morning the initial story ran, but did not bother summoning his internal security deputy, Robert Mardian, back from a trip to California. When Nixon picked up the paper, the item that caught his attention was the front-page, left-hand-column photograph of his daughter Tricia's wedding in the Rose Garden; the story on the right by Neil Sheehan seemed to escape his attention. White House audio tapes from that day indicate that Nixon had either not read the story or had failed to appreciate its importance.

Nixon's attitude changed only that afternoon, when the subject came up in a phone conversation with deputy national security advisor Alexander Haig. Reviewing Vietnam casualty figures, Nixon prodded his aide with a revealing question: "Nothing else of interest in the world today?" Haig then proceeded to tell Nixon about the leak, calling it "a devastating — uh, security breach, of — of the greatest magnitude of anything I've seen." But an hour later, talking with Secretary of State William Rogers, Nixon preferred to talk about Tricia's wedding before bringing up the leak, noting that the disclosed documents, from what he could tell, were likely to be far more embarrassing to his predecessors than they were to him. "And it's — uh, it's ver — it's hard on Johnson; it's hard on Kennedy; it's hard on [former U.S. ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot] Lodge," Nixon was recorded as saying. Later in the afternoon, in a telephone conversation, national security advisor Henry Kissinger suggested to Nixon that the impact of the leak would, at least in some respects, be benign or perhaps even beneficial: "In public opinion, it actually, if anything, will help us a little bit, because this is a gold mine of showing how the previous administration got us in there," and "it just shows massive mismanagement of how we got there, and it [unclear] pins it all on Kennedy and Johnson...they have nothing from our administration, so actually — I've read this stuff — we come out pretty well in it."

But if the breach was not deemed politically damaging, both Kissinger and Nixon did express alarm about its foreign-policy ramifications. "It hurts us with Hanoi," said Kissinger, "because it just shows how far our demoralization has gone." Contemplating this point, Nixon grew livid, declaring: "It's — it's treasonable, there's no question — it's actionable, I'm absolutely certain that this violates all sorts of security laws." Still, at least initially, Nixon was opposed to taking action against the newspaper. The following evening, he told his chief domestic advisor, John Ehrlichman: "Hell, I wouldn't prosecute the Times. My view is to prosecute the goddamn pricks that gave it to 'em."

But a mere six minutes later, in a fateful telephone conversation with Attorney General Mitchell, Nixon reversed course. "On consideration, we had only two choices," Nixon would later write in his memoirs. "We could do nothing, or we could move for an injunction that would prevent the New York Times from continuing publication. Policy argued for moving against the Times; politics argued against it." In his own memoirs, Henry Kissinger likewise emphasized the statesmanship of the president's approach, writing that Nixon had "rejected a partisan response. He took the view that the failure to resist such massive, and illegal, disclosures of classified information would open the floodgates, undermining the processes of government and the confidence of other nations." This was not, Kissinger adds, an abstract notion: "We were at that very moment on the eve of my secret trip to Beijing." China would inevitably have regarded the breach as a mark of American untrustworthiness.

9238

Flat Earth Community / Re: Conspiracies... how long can they really last?

« on: January 31, 2016, 02:00:48 AM »

A leaked Top Secret document won't get very far on the internet. The US Government has the full force of the law, the compliance of media, of ISPs, of foreign nations, and near limitless finances to shut things down. What makes you think they couldn't keep something a secret if they really wanted to?

You mean like Edward Snowden  or Wikileaks.    Remember US Government is not the only force at play here,  there are other foreign governments with cyber warfare capabilities.

The only reason Snowden secrets are allowed in the press is because the NSA was breaking the law and we have a very liberal government in power who doesn't like them. The NSA was loudly complaining that the Obama Administration basically turned their back on them after the leaks happened.

If the government wanted to, they could go after the journalists. I can assure you, if anything like Nuclear Secrets were published those news agencies would have been shut down immediately.

9239

Flat Earth Community / Re: Conspiracies... how long can they really last?

« on: January 31, 2016, 01:04:46 AM »

the rosenbergs

I did a Google search for US Atomic Bomb secrets and couldn't find anything. The US Government seems to be doing a good job of keeping them secret from the public, regardless if one secret was transferred from one party to another at some point.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were mercilessly executed for what they did. They were parents of two small children. The consequence for leaking a US secret is the ultimate one: Death.

9240

Flat Earth Community / Re: Conspiracies... how long can they really last?

« on: January 31, 2016, 12:53:02 AM »

the pentagon papers

Nixon could have acted. He simply did not want to.

From the Pentagon Papers wikipedia page:

"President Nixon's first reaction to the publication was that, since the study embarrassed the Johnson and Kennedy administrations rather than his, he should do nothing."