41

Flat Earth Community / Re: Believe

« on: March 30, 2016, 01:38:54 AM »

The Great Round Earth Conspiiracy

This goes for all similar  government and civilian occupations.

With great power comes great responsibility. Being in the military requires a lot of work on all human levels, and thus a specific character. There are very few jobs that have transparency of all levels, or handle all data. Though, if you *really* wanted, you could say, look at a brochure or even the recruitment site of each country/branch's websites at all the jobs. I'm not going to go too far into that train of thought, but obviously certain jobs have 'higher transparency' than others; but they either require clearance, rank, or a lot of work in general so you have to balance many different types of knowledge and essentially organize references.

Obviously a good place to start would be airport jobs, IFR/VFR, anything involving boats/ships, lighthouses, radar, landscaping... well, almost anything that requires extensive knowledge/use of geography.

Update Roundy beat me to it, but strange place to ask this :s

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: A Simple Experiment for Simple Minds

« on: March 29, 2016, 04:32:58 AM »

I welcome the challenge, but I think you're in the same boat I'm in, in not understanding the FE theory. Here is a link to Parallax's book.

I've heard this argument already, and generally it's the perspective argument that will come in reply; the sun is small and closer, not 93,000,000 miles away. As with your lamp/hand analogy, when a little light has a surface area to cover which makes it's own radius shamefully small... well, it reaches the vanishing point relatively fast ~and keeps going beyond it. I may not have completely understood your analogy, but this explains what you seem to be asking. With your analogy you'd have to take the lamp out of the house and go several miles away to account for the 'day time' in the other houses.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars

« on: March 29, 2016, 02:13:29 AM »

NASA isn't out to prove their pictures are real - there's no need. It's safe to say nearly 100% of the general public [of any country] wouldn't bother questioning it; whether they believe it (or even care) or not ~and regardless of how relatively easy it were to prove/disprove it.

main issue is, why are NASA pictures showing no stars, if commercial videos show them.

In the NASA pictures that show no stars, what is the main subject of the picture?  In the commercial videos that show them, what is the main subject of the video?

Very good point, my argument lacks integrity there. Still, I am steadily gaining curiosity about field of view, especially from a video game design standpoint ~the higher you go past a certain point, the smaller your FOV becomes ~not larger, as NASA's [composite] photographs assume. Obviously there is [supposedly] a difference between virtual and actual reality, but I wonder, with high altitude balloons.

I finally took my time to watch the video, i noticed the surface feature of the Moon is not visible, meanwhile most NASA pictures do show surface/atmosphere features of the planets/moons. Most ground picture of the full Moon showing surface feature also doesn't show stars.

Thanks for watching, and I totally missed that point. He says the Sun is 5 hours behind the moon in that video... so why if the moon so acking bright? Blindingly bright? Great observation. I must have been blind to miss that.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars

« on: March 27, 2016, 07:19:16 PM »

I'm not really seeing anything major in that video.  Horizon pretty much consists of clouds, nothing really demonstrates the moon is as close as claimed, and it's so bright because the exposure is so high (which is why the stars are visible).

I mentioned there's not much point reading what the uploader said, assertions don't mean anything to me either, I agree; I was excited exclusively over finding a commercial Night Launch of a balloon. As I admitted, I don't fully understand what it could mean yet; main issue is, why are NASA pictures showing no stars, if commercial videos show them.

I've found a few more videos now, here's one with a meteor shower; point is there aren't many, or at least hard for me to find. It is *very* niche, and a somewhat expensive hobby if the camera breaks or is lost each time.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars

« on: March 27, 2016, 06:28:13 AM »

UPDATE I finally FOUND ONE IT HAS STARS

EDIT I say, without understanding the implications, this IS A MAJOR IMPORTANT VIDEO



Finally found one. Hell of a Spring Break, getting into FE and all.

Also sorry for large font, just edited post because this is the single most significant piece of research I've found in my entire life ~at least so it feels... so far. Probably means nothing, ultimately, but this is something that has been driving me nuts. Feel free to ignore the music and text of the video, just the night time launch is enough (why doesn't nasa or anyone have this?)

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Horizon

« on: March 27, 2016, 05:55:27 AM »

Thanks Giants Orbiting, for that remarkably long winded journey to a non conclusion.

Just posting to say this is as far as I've read in this topic, trying to catch up here but I got a lot of work to do.

Also, I see GO has changed his avatar so I am trying to keep track of his posts as his 1st three are great; there may be no conclusion, but his 'calibration' technique may prove invaluable to me later. That's all I got for now.

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars

« on: March 27, 2016, 04:30:56 AM »

Evidence!

There are a few compelling arguments, some presented by NASA themselves, that they use composite images. As far as evidence... who knows. As far as I know right now, it's the same as religion; just a matter of opinion if it's real or not. As there is a virtual monopoly on images of the Earth from space, it makes the argument all the more compelling, though.

Anyway I kinda saw the way this topic would go from a mile off, but thanks guys for keeping my topic alive. Related to 'no stars', doesn't it seem that the higher you go, the shorter your field of view becomes? Almost like in a video game? If you extrapolate that to the inevitable... the world would be completely 'gone' past a certain point, making it impossible to replicate the 'composite' photos.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: No Stars

« on: March 26, 2016, 07:21:27 PM »

Camera exposure settings.

Ugh can't believe I forgot this. Thank you, I knew my points were incomplete, but that should be the most obvious.
Still, would be nice to find (or make) a go-pro at night video. Closest I've found are a few eclipse videos.
Edit Also forgot to mention the 'shadow' of each planet (globe model), which represents 'night time'; it's only from within this that starlight gets enough relative 'exposure' to show up.

49

Flat Earth Theory / No Stars

« on: March 26, 2016, 06:53:05 PM »

^{You can skip this; I searched, "No stars" and "any stars" is mentioned several times, but usually only in passing. I think I saw one of FE A-hole's videos 'touch on it', but it didn't go 'deep enough' (bad puns aren't against the rules, are they?). Re-watching the videos from one of my posts (the (1) url is wrong there, I lost the right video for it though), I confirmed my suspicions:}

Where are all the stars? The obvious answer; Hollywood! All the NASA pics obviously have no stars, but I've been watching amateur 'near-space' go-pro and balloon videos, and none of them show any stars either. I may be wrong here, and obviously nearly every single video of this type is done during day time. I have only found one video (at about 2:20, when the balloon pops) which *might* show a star, but considering it's spot on the horizon, it may be a 'planet' such as Venus (aka the 'morning star').

Just curious, has this apparent 'anomaly' been addressed by the FE world in any great detail yet? I haven't found much on the topic [in my mere 3-weeks of interest in FE], but I assume it has to do with a few obvious variables;

1) day time (but then why are all NASA pictures, portraying a planet starless? NASA has deep space pictures of stars, but all pictures of ALL planets ~are starless?)
2) atmospheric lensing, optical illusion ~but wouldn't this mean that the stars themselves are illusions, say, reflecting off a dome?
3) fading perspective ~I don't know the term for this, Line of Sight? How things fade where horizons meet at great distances (as seen in this picture, or in some of the 'near space go-pro' videos) ~but fading when you get closer to their apparent position?
4) Light/Photons - back to points 1-3, I assume there is theory that the light from the sun is interfering no matter how 'high' you go; it is like an 'invisible curtain' all around you, blocking out the 'starlight'. Has anyone launched a go-pro to near-space at night?

Anyway that's where I'm coming from. I don't know a lot, other than what I've observed, as in Zetetic Tradition. If anyone has any insight or corrections for me, I'm game. Here are some video examples: example 1, example 2, example 3, example 4, example 5, example 6, example 7 (with major city locations) ~see the trend of day-time?

50

Flat Earth Community / Re: Believe

« on: March 25, 2016, 02:28:26 AM »

The search for Truth need not conflict with any belief. Each belief may highlight a different path, is all.

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polar Orbits

« on: March 21, 2016, 02:27:19 AM »

I exceeded login time typing this, so sorry if this posts twice.

Why would they?  They are not out to prove the shape of the Earth or spaceflight is possible and does happen.  Most people accept it does happen.

You can find videos, but their main reason they had cameras recording was not to offer evidence of space flight but to monitor things and have something to review if something went wrong.

Then of course you can watch the live stream from the ISS.

The problem just like the shape of the Earth is no one is out to prove it to a small group of people. 

I will also point out that the videos exist, but are not accepted as evidence and considered faked by people who think space travel cannot happen.  So why bother making vids or pictures that will be dismissed anyway?

Yes, I have viewed a few over the years (many more recently since getting into FE), but obviously all of these videos tend to end at about the same altitude (I assume at the point of reaching the rocket phase during which the cameras are shed). I mean, I've always taken space travel at face value; the deepest I've ever gone is to look into moon landing hoaxes (half-halfheartedly; had no reason to look too far) before FE. However, the altitude most of these (NON-CGI) videos seem to end at, seems to be precisely the altitude which go-proers (1, 2, 3, 4; search 'go pro near space' for several more balloon/rocket videos) have demonstrated to be as high as commercial rockets/balloons can go. Now, I'm not big into accusing NASA (and the like) of CGI, but when they make it this easy... Many of those go-proers aren't even Flat Earthers, just doing it for fun, or whatever their own motivations are; a lot of competition to go higher than the previous one.

Anyway I'm not really arguing that point, just realized I could have been more specific about the videos 'not being available'; I meant, there's only 'initial-lift-off-to-a-certain-altitude' videos or 'what-can-be-written-off-as-CGI' videos, and no real videos showing complete transition between the two. Now, I may be wrong here, but I have searched for say... rendezvous with the ISS, but most of that is about a computer program or video game where simulations of it are happening. But, thank you for providing those videos, and I will continue to look for more as I can; I want to find the 'proof' as much as anyone.

52

Flat Earth Theory / thanks for breaking my google earth

« on: March 21, 2016, 12:49:07 AM »

thanks for breaking my google earth... the line just disappears. Can someone with more knowledge of GEarth try this? Mine is derped (actually it just crashed now). Also you can't trust 2d maps that represent the globe; the distance can be skewed.

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tilting of satellite dishes?

« on: March 20, 2016, 11:24:11 PM »

Well now that it's gone this far off topic...

Mind you I think Eric Dubay is almost "persona non grata" with The Flat Earth Society and possibly TFES. Some of his "proofs" are decidedly childish!

Ugh. ED has chosen to classify himself as independent on this very forum, for reasons of FES lineage (in which he makes a fairly sound argument; although funnily enough the board he linked seems to have been taken down for violating the ToS). Rap Stars typically are considered "persona non grata" by the music industry; though the industry wouldn't exist without them! I haven't read his book yet either; though in his case it's only out of bias of it's conspiratorial name. Still if it's a YewTube personality, I tend to prefer Flat Water's (video from 4:14-10:00) explanations of the FE model.

RE: decidedly childish:

To quote Parallax's himself (in what I 'speculate' is regarding theories such as gravity);

"Speculative men, by the force of genius may invent systems that will perhaps be greatly admired for a time; these, however, are phantoms which the force of truth will sooner or later dispel; and while we are pleased with the deceit, true philosophy with all the arts and improvements that depend upon it, suffer"

Such practical deceit is what I 'speculate' paved the way for 'the space conspiracy' in the FE model; which brings me back to my last point; the tilts, in triangulating the 'tilts', couldn't you find where they are pointing, and thus get a good estimate of the distance (or rather, is it legal to move them around yourself)? Flat Water (and many others) explain a point (4:30 in his above mentioned video) where rockets cannot pass.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tilting of satellite dishes?

« on: March 20, 2016, 09:01:11 PM »

Hey, why be "Humbled!" and no need for apologies! Besides I would be the last person to want you banished (and the least able to!).
In case you hadn't picked it up by now I don't go along with any of the stuff in "Earth Not a Globe" or in "One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe". In my opinion the latter contains some of the most ridiculous "proofs" you could ever see.

My only point was that it would be a good idea if you knew a bit about the "Flat Earth Hypothesis", so that you might realise that there is a big difference between that and the "Heliocentric Globe".

Sorry if I sounded too critical!

Indeed! ~to my obliviousness to FE model. I came here a mere few weeks after finally delving into FE; I am completely ignorant of it, and came here exclusively to 'feel the burn'; walking on thin ice, expecting (if not welcoming) the worst. Re-reading my aforequoted post, I could feel myself trying on the emperor's new clothes there; don't ask questions you don't already know the answer to. I have been re-simulating [what *little* I know of] each model before each of my posts; which is proving, as both you and I already implied, to be insufficient (in at least one model).

A couple of "proofs"!

Funnily enough I literally just read that first one, which currently resides on the author's wikipedia page.

Oh, I will still be monitoring the threads I have posted in (as well as the new posts and a few others I don't currently have enough info to post in), but I understand I have a bit of reading to do for now. I didn't even know who [laid the foundation for] the FES until just now, nor who was the author of [the first iteration of] the 'hundred proofs'. I thought Eric Dubay wrote it. 

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tilting of satellite dishes?

« on: March 20, 2016, 08:11:43 PM »

I do think you need to study up on "FE theory" before making anymore pronouncements. You could start with things like:

Earth Not a Globe

Thomas Winship

One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe by William Carpenter

When you have done that marathon, if you have not yet been cured of flat earth ideas, you can start looking up question on "the Wiki" yourself.

Then you might see that there is a bih difference between "The Flat Earth" and "The Heliocentric Globe" - quite different animals!

Humbled! Consider me banished from posting on this site for now. I wasn't even aware there were already 2 editions of the Earth Not a Globe Book already in existence. That's obviously where I'm going to start for now as I've already taken a great interest in the workshop there. Thank you and my apologies!

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polar Orbits

« on: March 20, 2016, 07:54:20 PM »

Thanks for replies, I think I see how each (directional at least) FE model 'satellite' works now:

Equatorial (or any related to latitude) = flying in circles above FE.
Geostationary = 'not moving' at all in relation to Earth = just a balloon sitting there above FE.
Polar (or any related to longitude) = flying in highly eccentric (like a stretched rubber band) orbits above FE.

So, there are a lot of replies relating to the middle one, geostationary; however my main question remains relatively unaddressed; why is there emphasis that Polar is the odd man out? On a globe, both latitude and longitudinal orbits should have similar 360 degree motion, just in intersecting direction. I  still don't see why, I mean I even did some more research, and I was wrong; there are indeed both arctic and antarctic bases, such as the remnants of the old DEW Line and the notorious 'only entrance' to Antarctica. Even John Oliver lampshaded this in one of his videos (the 'don't come to AA' one).

Anyway sorry if I'm drifting off topic, just anything related to Antarctica has fascinated me for years since before I got interested in FE; now I just have a new context from which to be interested in - that's why there was such a fuss about the BKS initially, even then Polar Orbits were considered implausible, for reasons I've never quite been able to comprehend.

If you research further you will learn why the vast majority of pictures of Earth were composites.  Changed somewhat recently with DSCOVR and Himawari-8.

RE: composite pics conspiracy: I am somewhat familiar with this (quite compelling) argument (especially when NASA openly admits to it). Why is there no footage of any rocket launches into space? Not even SpaceX tried this, though the publicized it 'returning'. Understandably there isn't much footage from say, battleships, ACC, or submarines either, but still. It's well beyond the point of a national security concern now, if it isn't a conspiracy, and there's nothing to hide by declassifying the space race.

The Iridium satellites are used for satellite phone services and a satellite hands the service over to another Iridium satellite when before it goes out of range.

GPS satellite each orbit the earth twice a day and have an inclination of 55° and so do not cover polar regions well.

RE: Iridium satellites: they claim to have plenty of spare IS's up there as well, as many as 5 per group; also the wiki states that the very first ever satellite collision was of this class; which reminds me of another (more recent) point, about the recent Chinese attack on their own 'satellite' - if satellites are real, I guess NASA now will have to update all the known space debris? That sounds like a lot of work, and should cause a lot of problems for say, as you mention, the Iridium network - it's been over a month since this 'supposed attack', but none of the networks have gone down? I assume it was at a different altitude and orbital path, but debris is relatively uncontrolled in an explosion? Also, explosions in space?

I forgot space travel was a conspiracy in FE model, but is there any speculation about what is 'beneath' the FE?

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Polar Orbits

« on: March 20, 2016, 02:25:58 AM »

Already figured out one thing as soon as I posted; I'm assuming my wiki quote means, that there aren't any bases in the North/South to detect them.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Polar Orbits

« on: March 20, 2016, 02:22:22 AM »

This is something I mentioned in passing already, but to make it official; how do Polar Orbits work in the Flat Earth Model? Alternatively, couldn't something in polar orbit easily prove flatness/rotundity? Are polar orbits even possible in FE model? The wikipedia page is quite suspiciously sparse, though funnily enough it is by far the largest wikipedia article for Inclination classifications.

I also don't understand the phrase on the wikipedia page "The disadvantage to this orbit is that no one spot on the Earth's surface can be sensed continuously from a satellite in a polar orbit." Wouldn't that be the same case with all other types of orbits? On a globe, all orbits pass to the 'other side of the globe', right? Why is there specific emphasis here? X and Y axis shouldn't mean anything on globe orbits, right? IE Equatorial orbits would just be flying in circles above the FE, where Polar orbits would have to go 'under' the FE; is that possible? What is under the FE?

Anyway I'm at an impasse on this one.

59

Flat Earth Theory / Re: gravity

« on: March 20, 2016, 01:55:10 AM »

Why is this topic still going? The first response answered the question.

Hello. This is all very interesting. However, I can't quite wrap my head around the mechanism that causes the "pretty small" planets explained in the wiki to orbit around the Sun if there is no gravity.

I think the illustration here is what you're looking for. iirc the FE model doesn't acknowledge the apparent force we call gravity as being a real thing (and the OP confirms this). But of course, the model the wiki offers in place of [the Earth's] gravity is the acceleration explanation. Specifically, I don't understand how it works as it approaches c; if the acceleration slowed, wouldn't the 'apparent force' of gravity disappear? Of course, the more obvious problem is that if the Flat Earth were traveling almost c and say, we launched a rocket from Earth, wouldn't the rocket be going almost c plus the rocket's velocity (possibly faster than c), to be inevitably overcome again by the continual acceleration of the Flat Earth? Of course everything else in the FE model seems to stay in a fixed location with the acceleration, so there would never be any proof of the actual speed at which the Earth is moving; it could literally be going faster than c already, but it would be impossible to tell.

On the other hand, if we launched a rocket and sent it 'bellow/behind' the Flat Earth, would the Flat Earth continue to accelerate away from the rocket? However, iirc it is impossible to leave the FE, but can't find any such statement on the wiki. Thank you you just gave me the idea for my next topic.

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The dimensions of the Earth will not fit on a Flat Surface

« on: March 19, 2016, 06:29:44 PM »

This is how this topic makes me feel; like I'm starting my Spring Break off with Insanity.

Going [further] off topic now. I have a "collection of Flat Earth Talking Points" index I'm making (already posted an alpha, but it needs a lot of work); would you be on board with me including this 10k vs 40k piece? I can cross reference this post if you want (in my alpha version, I already mentioned Geodetic Surveying once, but not Al-Biruni). Even if the distances are disproved, it still qualifies, as FETP is an index.

Edit: walked away and thought about it a bit. It obviously all comes down to the actual equator circumference, seeing as the Kilometer by definition was BORN by measuring from the North pole to the Equator. Going all the way back to one of the first major Geodetic missions, I haven't found one that actually circumnavigated the equator; most seem to make mathematical inferences from scientific observations instead.