41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is TFE the right model?

« on: January 29, 2018, 05:35:23 AM »

We have not been "shown to be wrong". It is only wrong if you preconditon certain rationalizations so much as "if this is true and if that is true then Flat Earth is impossible". No direct evidence has been presented to show that the earth is round. It is all rationalization.

The only arguments in favor of a globe we have seen involve numerous assumptions that need to be true for the conclusion to have merit. It seems impossible for you guys to provide direct evidence for a direct conclusion.

There is proof. There is direct evidence. Evidence that will be accepted in any court of law on the globe. There is pictorial evidence. There is eye witness evidence. You choose to brush these evidences away with claims of "lies". "Conspiracy" "CGI" with no proof to any of those claims.

Flat earthism is a belief. Nothing more. A belief that requires you to ignore anything that threatens that belief.

Or just plain trolling online.

42

Flat Earth Media / Re: Rounds are always asking for new maps

« on: January 07, 2018, 02:50:18 PM »

Drawing a map of the "flat earth" should also be a very simple thing. We know the distances between many many places on the earth. Simply put a number of them on a sheet with the measured distances between them.  Viola. You've got a map. It's so easy I don't know why it hasn't been done.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Edge

« on: December 25, 2017, 03:53:06 PM »

NASA just wants some fame. So they used Death Valley in Nevada at Night. And, there is no wind in space. Want proof, here!

http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/098/overrides/flag-waving-moon-landing_9803_160x120.jpg

https://img.haikudeck.com/mg/9ED922C2-B307-4DE8-9F41-E6E16399685B.jpg

Look at these.

First off, the thread is about the edge, not NASA on the moon. Try keep on topic.

Secondly, this is actually due to the design of the flag and its holder. It was created to have rigid, extendable support pieces on the top and bottom so that the flag would look taut. However, when the astronauts were setting the flag up, the bottom rod was jammed, and would not fully extend. Then, as they were twisting the pole into the ground, the motion caused the ripples we see.

44

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is the dome around earth even real?

« on: December 25, 2017, 07:14:57 AM »

The only time aircraft have smashed into walls are when they crash into terrain they didn't see. Mountains, cliffs and the like.

That rocket didn't hit anything anywhere up. It deployed a de-spinning device. If it had hit a "dome" it would have been smashed to bits and not continue recording video much after it supposedly hit the "dome"

Most of those videos about how light behaves around stars and the sun are mostly poorly focused shots. Properly focusing the telescope or camera would show what these bodies really look like.

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Rotational force and some questions about flat earth.

« on: December 22, 2017, 04:42:17 PM »

So what I’m hearing is that there is gravity.

There is a force of attraction between any 2 bodies. The force is dependent on the mass of both bodies and the distance between both bodies. This force of attraction has been calculated and measured multiple times over multiple centuries ever since Newton got bonked on the head by that apple. (Note, his getting hit on the head is actually a myth).

Now there are a number of theories as to why that force exists and to my knowledge, right now, no one knows why it happens.

That force of attraction is called gravity. It is not an invention of NASA or the illuminati. We feel gravity on our earth mostly as an attractive force towards the center of the earth. The earth feels an attractive force towards each and every single item on it's surface. But compared to everything on our dear planet, the size of the earth is humongous and gargantuan (just wanted to get that word in) and so we feel drawn more towards the earth than the earth feels drawn towards us. That force of attraction can be and has been measured.

So, yes. There is gravity. Not universal acceleration (which should tear a flat earth to bits) and not denspressure (which can't explain why things go "down" and not "left" or "right")

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with Governmental Cover-up

« on: December 18, 2017, 12:34:34 PM »

They [airliners] would also have to be constantly climbing to keep from being caught by the earth while it is accelerating at 9.8 m/s.

Here's another scenario I have not seen addressed as yet. The earth accelerates upward. Do all objects associated with the earth, or in the vicinity of the earth, accelerate similarly? The sun, moon and planets which circle above the earth remain in place (save for the curious vertical variations in their orbits required to explain seasons, eclipses, etc.), relative to the earth, causing one to infer that they are under the influence of the same "unknown force".

Well, it's generally accepted by the Round Earthers here that UA is not the breaking point of this site's FE model(s).

1. Airplanes really do continuously "climb". They don't float.
2. Air is being accelerated just like we are because it and we are pressed against the earth.
3. There's no discernible difference for us between gravity and UA
4. As for celestial objects, it's not a real stretch to believe that UA affects them or doesn't affect them. I don't think anybody has gone so far as to create a model for how they actually move.

As ludicrous as UA seems, it doesn't break any rules. What are more egregious are things like:

1. The sun, moon, stars, ships, mountains, and buildings do not really appear to rise and set at the horizon. They simply fade or shrink.
2. The distances between any four trapezoidal remote world points are not known (admitting they are known would prove they cannot geometrically be represented on a flat figure).
3. Mountains can cast shadows on the underside of clouds from a sun 3000 miles above it all.
4. The time and location of equinox sunset all over the world are not known.

I think UA breaks the rules. Literally. Gravitational differences have been measured and it is agreed that there are differences in acceleration due to gravity measured, for eample, at the poles and the equator. These differences, if applied to UA would tear our flat planet apart. Ergo, UA is not possible.


Wait. Flat planet. Is that a valid phrase?

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does being a "Flat Earther" involve more than this?

« on: October 27, 2017, 07:55:54 PM »

I have more to add. Flat earth research seems to be limited to youtube videos, twitter and forums like this.

Welcome, first time poster. You're completely wrong.

Thanks for the welcome.

Kindly direct to the resolution of my wrong impressions.

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does being a "Flat Earther" involve more than this?

« on: October 27, 2017, 04:28:01 PM »

I have more to add. Flat earth research seems to be limited to youtube videos, twitter and forums like this. Basically, just over the internet. A few go out and make these videos, demonstrating experiments of sorts. But mostly, its about reading what a few have said and repeating those statements.

What happened to real research? Going out to try those experiments loud round earthers are always talking about so as to show them up? What happened to crowd funding a flight from Sydney to Santiago to show it really is a lie? What happened to trying to circumnavigate around the South Pole and crashing into the icewall or getting pictures of the guards posted there from a distance? What happened to writing research papers and having them peer reviewed by fellow flat earthers then publishing in flat earther magazines?

What happened to actually proving the earth is flat?