1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: July 06, 2024, 04:35:34 AM »

When Joe Biden became President (or in his earlier days in the Senate) I wonder if NASA or Elon Musk ever disclosed to him that space travel was fake.

If he was made aware, I wonder if during any of his upcoming rambling speeches he'll accidentally spill the beans. That could be a huge story and a big break in the case since no space agency employee over the past 55+ years has yet come forward.

2

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Posts to dig deeper into "The Conspiracy" moved to Complete Nonsense.

« on: June 24, 2024, 01:31:06 PM »

What forum did you post the question(s) in?

I am not one to factually state absolutely why your post(s) were moved to CN, but I will venture a guess:

You probably placed both posts in the FEI forum, when the questions you posed have absolutely nothing to do with flat earth or its workings.

In addition, you are asking someone to testify concerning the possible motives another person(s) has for fabricating stories.

No one can truly know why someone chooses to lie.

The posts were placed in the Flat Earth Theory (FET) forum because the posts were questions pertaining to the Flat Earth Society theory of space travel being a Conspiracy or a hoax.

The Conspiracy section in this FES wiki details out basic motives and reasons why agency's (like NASA) are lying and are fabricating space travel. So, I was simply asking deeper dive questions regarding this conspiracy theory. 
 

3

Suggestions & Concerns / Posts to dig deeper into "The Conspiracy" moved to Complete Nonsense.

« on: June 24, 2024, 12:52:16 AM »

In the FES Wiki there is an entire section dedicated to The Conspiracy (Space Travel)

In early June and more recently, I asked questions to try and dig deeper into how Flat Earth believers explain how details of The Conspiracy work or the logic behind.

One of them being why Boeing / NASA would fake vent leak issues in space, thruster valve locking issues in space, and most recently a postponement and return back to Earth from space if their motive is to further America's millitaristic dominance of space. Faking such major quality issues / design issues can hardly be seen as furthering America's millitaristic dominance in space.   

The postings were sincere and I really wanted to understand from Flat Earthers their logic on this but postings were moved to Complete Nonsense. Am still a little new to this site and wanted to know if questions about the deeper aspects of The Conspiracy are generally censored or off limits in terms of inquiry.

4

Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Earth Conspiracy Love Song

« on: June 22, 2024, 02:37:11 AM »

Well, I'm not sure why you think the author of the video is lying about who the character is intended to be. The main character is also wearing a (unofficial) Flat Earth Society shirt that is fairly well known among the Flat Earth shirts.

https://www.amazon.com/Flat-Earth-Society-T-Shirt/dp/B07BYYC6HS



It's also the Flat Earth Society shirt featured on "Flat Earth: To The Edge and Back"

Tom -- the above is a very ironic post coming from you. Need I remind you of what the FES says about Photographic Evidence?

5

Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Earth Conspiracy Love Song

« on: June 22, 2024, 02:13:22 AM »

The video creator Garbage Musicals said it was a Flat Earth Society member. Do you have any evidence that the creator of the video is lying about who they intended the characters to be?

That's great. But, I'm only pointing out that the video doesn't say anything or specifically call out the FES. It only mentions and suggests a Flat Earther with Conspiracy theory type beliefs and a Jet Propulsion Physicist falling in love.

I think that you were kind of hoping that it would be kind of neat if the FES was specifically called out in the video as a nod to FES. I'm just pointing out that it was not.

The title of the video also doesn't say "FES."

6

Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Earth Conspiracy Love Song

« on: June 22, 2024, 01:55:38 AM »

FES was mentioned in this video description: "What do you get when a Flat Earth Society member and a Jet Propulsion Physicist fall in love? A MUSICAL, of course! Watch all the way through to see if these star crossed lovers can find common ground and put aside their massive differences."

Just a correction to your above statement: FES (Flat Earth Society) was not mentioned in the video. It wasn't about a Flat Earth Society member and a Jet Propulsion Physicist falling in love. What was mentioned and what it's about is a Flat Earther with a Conspiracy type paranoid mindset and a Jet Propulsion Physicist falling in love.

       

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: The Final Experiment

« on: June 01, 2024, 04:21:52 PM »

I think this is the right place for this.
Are you aware of The Final Experiment?

https://www.the-final-experiment.com/

The aim is to send one globe earther and one flat earther to Antarctica to observe the 24 hour sun - which would be an issue for the monopole model. Or, if it doesn't occur would be an issue for the globe.

They have invited high profile people from both sides to participate - I didn't actually see anyone from here on the list, I think they're mostly going for YouTubers.
They say they're going to provide the funding for one person from each side, but others can join at their own expense - it was something like $30,000, so not cheap.

Any thoughts on this? Would any of you have liked to be invited or would be interested in going? Do you think this is a good experiment? If you observed the 24 hour sun in Antarctica would that change your mind about FE or would it just steer you towards a different FE model like the bi-polar one?

Have you not learned anything?

Do you really think that an observational experiment in Antarctica (24 hours sunlight) is going to end up moving the needle or changing anyone's mind either way (for those that are globe earth believers vs. those that are flat earth believers?)

The TFES wiki already provides a possible explanation for 24 hours sunlight in Antarctica via possible light patterns as demonstrated by the YouTube video showing the desktop experiment. If 24 hours is reported back, this may likely be (one of) the possible explanations you will receive.
 

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New idea on observing Sigma Octantis from multiple locations

« on: April 19, 2024, 10:32:42 PM »

As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.

And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.

So, I am offering you a chance to fix the errors in your argumentation. It's possible that you have a point there somewhere, but that you've obfuscated it with your inadequate presentation.

Do not simply repeat your incomplete argument - I've read it the first time. Instead, fill the gaps and make yourself clear.

We may be crossing wires and apologize if it's coming across as trying to obfuscate.

I have been referring to the Model Setup as being "highly inaccurate".
I noticed that you are questioning me about the Depiction as being "highly inaccurate".

It could very well be that light patterns do behave as Depicted in the YouTube video. Regardless, I was only referring to the need for a better model setup, where Earth's atmosphere is not represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and the Sun was more accurately represented in scale as per FET.
 
In my own example, it could very well be that rocket engines perform and "push" in a vacuum. I would also be referring to the need for a better model setup, if someone were to try and represent the vacuum of space using air (i.e. launching a model rocket in their backyard).

This site has been better than most all of the nonsense Facebook sites I've seen where debate doesn't even seem to occur; I don't want to get kicked off of TFES. Am only trying to understand and have good spirited debate. 

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New idea on observing Sigma Octantis from multiple locations

« on: April 19, 2024, 07:13:25 AM »

The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.

What makes you believe the FE representation would be "highly inaccurate"? What discrepancies from FE have you observed in Tom's proposed representation? Please be specific - statements like "it's wrong because it's inaccurate" are not very helpful here.

In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model.

Ah, right...

Please let me remind you that the FET subforum is not intended for newcomers with no understanding of the model. If you're not ready to post here yet, please exercise some self-restraint and let the rest of us discuss in peace.

As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane. My question to Tom was what would his prediction be regarding light patterns if the Earth's atmosphere was not incorrectly represented as a solid piece of magnifying glass (because the Earth's atmosphere is not solid glass) and the spotlight Sun was not incorrectly represented as 1:1 scale the size of the flat Earth plane (because FET does not have the local Sun this large in scale).

In terms of my comment about there not being a unified FE model, I am only referencing what is stated in the FES Wiki. The Wiki states "here is a picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, Flat Earth. Other maps representing various Flat Earth models can be found on our Flat Earth Maps page." The Layout of Continents section further goes on to describe the main point of contention among Flat Earthers regarding the several theories concerning the nature and extent of Antarctica. Images of various different Flat Earth geographic models are then shown. This leads me to conclude that there is not a unifying FE model. 
       

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New idea on observing Sigma Octantis from multiple locations

« on: April 19, 2024, 12:05:36 AM »

Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.

In what way, exactly, would the two be alike? Please detail the necessary aspects of both RET and FET to underline your argument.

The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.

In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model. Some FE models have firmament domes and some models do not; some FE models are represented as an infinite plane and other models are not; some FE models are represented as mono-pole and other models are not; some models are represented with Antarctica being a ring of ice around the perimeter of the flat earth plane with the North Pole in the center, while other models are not, etc.       
                         

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New idea on observing Sigma Octantis from multiple locations

« on: April 18, 2024, 06:13:31 AM »

It does not matter that the model is made out of glass or if it is made out of mathematical equations for how the light behaves. It's a model - a representation of a scheme. If it were a mathematical equation, would you be asking where the equations are in the universe? That would obviously be very silly to do that. Hence, it does not matter if it is made of glass or not.

Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New idea on observing Sigma Octantis from multiple locations

« on: April 14, 2024, 07:24:04 PM »

Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?

In this question of "more accurately represented" you are making assumptions about how the light from the celestial bodies behave. This is the very thing in question. Hence, no scheme can be discarded because of what you are assuming in your head.

"More accurately represented" simply means not using solid magnifying glass to simulate our atmosphere and updating the scale of the small spotlight Sun to be consistent with FET and not be a large spotlight Sun that is 1:1 scale to the flat Earth plane.

If there is an opportunity to have a better model... than such opportunities to pursue and use a better model should be done. I think you and I would both agree on this.

In terms of how light from celestial bodies behaves, I haven't made any assumptions... my question to you was: if the model was updated to be consistent with a small spotlight Sun (as per FET) and an atmosphere that is not made of solid magnifying glass material (as you and I both agree on) than what would be your prediction in terms of light patterns?
       

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New idea on observing Sigma Octantis from multiple locations

« on: April 14, 2024, 06:53:19 PM »

It's a model which seems to fit the patterns of light. A model is a proposed possible construct which explains occurrences, which may exist as a purely mathematical scheme, or a physical example as above. No one is proposing that the atmosphere is made of glass. There could be a number of mechanisms for this that are not glass. If you can find where I stated that the atmosphere was made of glass, please point it out.

Desktop and physical models are used all the time, to demonstrate that a pattern of phenomena exists with a consistent mechanism. The task here is to show that this model does not explain it. Pointing out that the atmosphere is not made of glass is not sufficient for this, as the behavior of light through the heavens and atmolayer are unknown variables for our purposes. No one has studied large area light paths in a controlled setting (except for arguably Samuel Rowbotham). The interest here is that there is a configuration of light bending that can explain this. You should attack this by showing that this configuration of light bending does not explain it.

Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?

Do you think the updated model would show the same patterns of light?
   

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New idea on observing Sigma Octantis from multiple locations

« on: April 14, 2024, 05:45:13 PM »

The above YouTube video re-posted by Tom (and within the Wiki) is a highly inaccurate model to reference as any kind of mechanism or basis for atmospheric phenomena:

- The model uses a solid glass dome magnifying lens; Earth's atmosphere does not consist of solid magnifying glass material.

- The local spotlight Sun is being represented by a flashlight whose diameter is about 1:1 scale the size of the Earth. If the flat Earth plane is let's say 8,000 miles in diameter and the size of the local Sun is 30 miles in diameter, than the scale of the small spotlight Sun to the flat Earth plane should be 1:266.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The search for the Colombians comes to an end...

« on: April 12, 2024, 01:49:05 AM »

A great tragedy has occurred as the true killers of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman will now go scot-free.

I'm a little confused about what this is meant to imply. Having already been acquitted once, O. J. was already guaranteed to never face criminal punishment for his murders no matter how long he lived. The only tragedy here is that O. J. didn't die a long time ago.

Also, everyone has the right to a vigorous and effective legal defense, even the obviously guilty. Blame the police and prosecution for bungling the case, blame the jury for arguably making a dumb decision, but don't blame the defense for being good at their jobs.

I think Action80 is just saying that O.J. Simpson died without ever facing ANY consequences of what he did. I believe he did lose a civil trial and was found guilty which is kind of a consolation but didn't really put O.J. behind bars.

O.J. used to say something along the lines of how he was going to dedicate his life to finding the true killer(s). He really never lived up to that, instead playing golf the rest of his years.

It's true that O.J. had a right to a legal defense but in this case I think we all know who the killer was. He truly was a POS.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Flat Earth Theory Inquiry - flat earth model of how the Apr. 8 eclipse worked

« on: April 11, 2024, 11:55:57 PM »

Based on this past Monday's eclipse, I wanted to inquire about a flat earth model that could show how that particular Apr. 8 eclipse worked.

- In the TFES animation model, the Sun and Moon rotate above the flat earth plane in a circular clock-wise motion (sun "rising" east and setting in the "west" / moon moving in the same circular "east" to "west" general path).

- But, the narrow path of the Apr. 8 total eclipse took an opposite direction (southwest to northeast) path over the United States.

Is there a flat earth animation model that shows how the Sun and Moon moving in a Clockwise ("east" to "west") direction produces an eclipse whose path moves in a southwest (Texas) to northeast (Maine) direction over the US?

17

Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7

« on: February 23, 2024, 11:30:37 PM »

The video concerns his report, so I am the one sticking to the video. You are the one who is not. You are the one introducing wild conspiratorial conjecture which will no longer be tolerated.

He didn't say that explosives were not used to bring the building down because the report he released points to the evidence released by FEMA.

It appears that what was said in the Angry Ranting section turns out to be correct... that I am debating our lowest tier debate poster and a large rock while sadly losing an uphill battle against conspiracy theory circular logic.

You have my permission to have the last word.



 

18

Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7

« on: February 23, 2024, 08:25:17 PM »

From A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center-7:

"• Columns 79, 80, and 81 did not fail at the lower floors of the building, as asserted by
NIST. In order to allow for the observed collapse of the east penthouse approximately 7
seconds prior to the collapse of the rest of the structure, these columns needed to have
failed at the upper floors of the building all the way to the penthouse. Yet there were no
documented fires above Floor 30. Therefore, fire did not cause the collapse of Columns
79, 80, and 81 nor the collapse of the east penthouse (Section 4.3).
•The hypothetical failure of Columns 79, 80, and 81 — the three easternmost core
columns — would not trigger a horizontal progression of core column failures. Therefore,
the hypotheses of NIST, Arup/Nordenson, and Weidlinger that the buckling of Column
79 could trigger a progressive collapse of the entire building are invalid, and the collapse
of Columns 79, 80, and 81 high in the building was a separate and distinct event (Section
4.5).

"According to Appendix C of FEMA’s May 2002 report, a steel member recovered from
WTC 7 was found to have experienced corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and
sulfidation at 1,000°C, resulting in the formation of a liquid eutectic (see Figure 1..
Researchers have hypothesized that the presence of thermate, which is a form of thermite
incendiary that includes sulfur, would explain the sulfidation and formation of a liquid
eutectic (Jones, 2006 and 2007)."

Why don't you stick to the video.
 

19

Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7

« on: February 23, 2024, 08:24:40 PM »

The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:

1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?   

The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
             

Where did Dr. Hulsey state in his interview that explosive charges were utilized?

Where does he say that they weren't utilized?

Wait a minute. You are claiming they were utilized?

Why don't you stick to the video.

I am not claiming they were utilized.

I am claiming that he didn't say that they were not utilized.

20

Science & Alternative Science / Re: New Report on WTC 7

« on: February 23, 2024, 07:56:03 PM »

The following are 3 initial Questions about the models presented by Dr. Leroy Hulsey:

1. In his simulation model, where were each of the individual demo/detonations placed in terms of what floor and on what beam or column?
2. From question 1, what were the total number of demo/detonations in his model?
3. An observation made and seen (from video content of WTC 7 collapsing) is that the building fell on it's own footprint; in a very similar manner some say to that of building demolitions. During building demolitions (specially with tall buildings) observers and video content show many many visible and individual pops and puffs of smoke coming from each individual demo/detonation. Does the number of demo/detonation devices in Dr. Hulsey's model = the number of pops reported by witnesses = many number of reported/observed puffs of smoke from each detonation?   

The following is one additional question (not directly related to Dr. Hulsey's report) that I would be curious to get your take on:
4. If you believe this to be a conspiracy (an inside job) where WTC 7 was brought down by demo, why would the demo have been set up to have the building fall on it's own footprint vs. falling off center or to the side? Did the government forget to tell the demo company to setup the detonations in such locations as to have WTC 7 fall off center to better hide the truth? Did the government forget to do this in the same manner that NASA keeps forgetting to put stars in their background shots of space?
             

Where did Dr. Hulsey state in his interview that explosive charges were utilized?

Where does he say that they weren't utilized?