Recent Posts

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing
« Last post by rooster on Today at 01:57:25 PM »
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Arctic Flights
« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on Today at 10:22:02 AM »
Have to disagree.  The most important thing a flying school teaches is thinking for yourself.  Why do you think they ever sent you solo if they didn't believe you can think independently? 

I sorry, I still don't see your point.  You've said you used to be a pilot, but you still haven't told us anything about your personal navigational experience. 
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Arctic Flights
« Last post by Swanlinnet on Today at 06:23:20 AM »
Hello ...well .... whilst the C.A.A. do not 'teach' people to fly aircraft at least in its theoretical examinations it is also true they do not 'teach' people to think for themselves either.  Sorry if my contribution was a tad ambiguous ....but my point I think was explained in the post .   
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« Last post by Shane on Today at 03:28:49 AM »
hello yes i am an STUIPD eagles fan ha ha

LOL! i got you good.

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Official Sports Thread
« Last post by garygreen on Today at 01:33:08 AM »
hello yes i am an STUIPD eagles fan ha ha

LOL! i got you good.
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Who makes these images?
« Last post by Pete Svarrior on January 30, 2023, 10:01:42 PM »
I remembered reading about the pre-positioning of the sample tubes before Christmas, but it took me till last night for me to be bothered to track down the BBC's report.
I see the Socratic method has failed me. Let's try a more direct approach: Please read the thread up until its current state before posting in it. Do not respond to month-old messages unless you're certain the points you want to make haven't already been raised.

Right before you jumped in, we were discussing the fact that information of this "lightsaber", photos and all, was available years before the photos were published. You would have known this if you had simply bothered to follow the discussion.

in case anyone accidentally leaves any light-sabers around the film set?
"Film set"? Okay, you have no idea what's being discussed here at all, do you?
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« Last post by AllAroundTheWorld on January 30, 2023, 08:40:25 PM »
You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own.
And your logical error is the classic conspiracy theorist tactic of operating in the sceptical context.  You do this with all the evidence which indicates that atomic weapons are a thing, that they've been used twice in anger in living memory and that there have been loads of atomic tests since, all of which have radioactive signatures you wouldn't find in conventional bombs. Then there's the fact that the Hiroshima bomb was the equivalent of 16,000 tons of TNT, not quite sure how the Enola Gay could have transported that. None of the evidence is good enough for you. You dismiss it all.

But you do this selectively.  The stuff you want to believe - that Hiroshima was "just firebombing", you claim things like that without providing any evidence. And then you do a load of wild speculation that if nuclear weapons were a thing then <bad things> would happen. But that is just you speculating, it's not evidence of anything.

So no, you can't prove nuclear weapons don't exist any more than anyone can prove they do - not to the standard you demand. But some evidence for your claims would be nice.

You can use this tactic to believe - or disbelieve - anything you like.

"Kangaroos don't exist."
"Here's a photo of one."
"That's fake."
"OK, here's a video of one"
"I've been to Australia and seen some"
"You're mistaken or lying"
"OK, now we're at the zoo. Look, there's a kangaroo".
"Pah, that's just an animatronic fake".

And so on. You can do this about anything. If you have any good evidence for any of your claims then present it, otherwise it's just you making wild claims to back up your narrative.
Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« Last post by BillO on January 30, 2023, 08:14:46 PM »
All you know is that someone exploded something and now there is radiation. That isn't evidence of a nuclear bomb and you know it.
We know more than that.  We know the extent and profile of the radiation released.  Sure, there were radioactive substances released as a result of the nuclear detonations, but not much.  Compared to the amount of fissionable material involved in the Chernobyl meltdown there is a relatively small amount in an atomic bomb.  A bomb only requires about 10lbs.  A small fraction of what was available in the reactor.  The difference is the huge amount of and type of radiation released and in a very short period of time.  Don't believe the "propaganda" as you call it.  Do some study into the physics.

As to "propaganda", what are the odds that Japan (and the rest of the enemies of the US) would support the US's supposed propaganda about nuclear bombs after they just demolished two major Japanese cities?  Just a bit of a stretch.  But I digress.  It's not an argument, just a little comic relief

Go back and read your OP.   "It's Fake!" is all it says.  No evidence whatsoever.  Typical flat earth "theory" there.

You're right Bill, I can't prove it doesn't exist, but the idea that I need to do so is your logical fault, not my own. I can't prove a variety of nonsense statements, such as whether or not Santa and the tooth fairy exist. However, I don't think this really helps your case. Backing you all the way up to "you can't prove me wrong" shows how little you have to stand on in the first place.
Well, to be honest, if that is what I was basing my argument on, you would have me.  However, it's not.  I am basing it on the completely different fingerprint a nuclear detonation leaves when compared to any other release of nuclear radiation.  As I think I stated before, there is nothing like it.  Not even remotely.  You can come by months or even years later and easily tell whether there was a bomb, a reactor meltdown or a lady scientist walking around with radium in her pockets.

Anyway Rushy.  I'll give you the last word.  I'm not going to change your mind on this.  Only you can do that, and it would not be that hard for you to delve into the science behind it.
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Arctic Flights
« Last post by DuncanDoenitz on January 30, 2023, 08:10:07 PM »
Interesting sub-thread Swanlinnet; don't know if the mods will be happy with it here, but, hey-ho. 

As a "person who used to be a pilot", you will know that the FAA, CAA and other National Aviation Authorities (under the auspices of the ICAO and Chicago Convention) don't actually teach anyone to fly, although they do regulate such activities.  Its difficult to address your submission about the relevance of the Earth's roundness without knowing more about your knowledge base.  Yes, the training is broad and intense but, if I remember correctly (1970's for goodness sake!), its not something I remember being taught, or needing, when studying for a PPL, but I think it would certainly have been important if I was to consider long-range navigation, or a commercial licence. 

What category of licence did you hold, commercial or private, local or long-haul?  Have you ever flown a sector more than a couple of hundred miles?  I'd be surprised if you had not learnt, for instance, the need for Great Circle navigation over long distances. 
Flat Earth Investigations / Flight Training
« Last post by Swanlinnet on January 30, 2023, 06:51:36 PM »

Hello  ...Have seen posts here on this forum about the relevance of aircraft in relation to the apparent convexity of the earths' shape. In other words, it seems that certain posts in this forum have been quick to appeal to the C.A.A. and F.A.A. flight training and flight headings which aircraft follow and, unless I am interpreting the posts wrong, it seems the suggestion is that the earth must be round because pilots know that from their flight training.

As a person who used to be a pilot I can say that the training in particular the theoretical part of the work is broad and intense. And I recall here that I did not encounter neither in theory or during a flight ever having to summon knowledge on the earths' apparent roundness and encountered little, if any, talk about its relevance among other pilots.

There is something called 'magnetic variation' which all pilots recognise. This is a difference in the readings' of true north and magnetic north on the compass which all pilots acknowledge and adjust. But as far as recognising  'the ground' and ' the sea' as convex...and making some kind of allowance in the flight plan.... I can honestly say that is something I had never heard mentioned even once.