81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse

« on: February 01, 2017, 01:52:19 PM »

Not only that but the motions of the Sun, moon and Earth are not precisely periodic, nor even perfectly calculable very far into the future. This is probable the reason the Mayan prediction was a day out.

Why not? Doesn't the heliocentric model have the answer for everything? Isn't it known fact, sound science, absolute truth? It should be able to predict every motion in the solar system because it is the perfect representation of reality, right?

And the Flat Earth model's calculations are always perfect too?

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: August 21, 2017 Solar Eclipse

« on: February 01, 2017, 01:51:38 PM »

Has the FES been making any predictions or just using the data that is being generated by the spherical scientists?

The data would be precisely identical. What would be the point of hiring someone (and where would we get the funding?) to replicate someone else's work? There's plenty of more useful things we could be doing.

That's what all flat earthers such as you do. When you can't do something, you just say "What's the point anyway?"

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude

« on: February 01, 2017, 01:50:20 PM »

An excerpt from the Wiki:
"Latitude
To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky."

Have any of those who subscribe to the FE theory tested this?    I did yesterday.   I'm at North  44* 05'.   The sun at its high point was 28 degrees elevation (62* from zenith)  using the inclinometer on my Brunton compass.   Using the spherical earth theory and considering the earth's axis tilt (solar declination)  I calculated 44* 12'.  This was using the formula that has been used for centuries.  That's pretty close to my GPS and map position.   The flat earth formula described above put me at 62* North which is clearly incorrect.

What is the explanation?

"your math is wrong and you'e lying" -Every flat earther who sees this thread. They don't have a way of calculating position. Just another hole in the flat earth theory. It's sad how something supposedly based on "common sense" over science is so misled in so many areas. For example, the Bishop experiment is one of their biggest proofs and it uses incorrect math and positioning.

84

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:

« on: February 01, 2017, 01:46:51 PM »

Give me evidence that the cold war isn't real.

You are asking for evidence for something that "isn't," ?

Are you familiar with the term, "PROPOGANDA?"

Describe the role in which it is used and its effects on gullible masses.

Do you seriously expect me to just discount Vietnam, Korea, the nuclear program, the Soviet Union, buildup in Europe, strategic bomber forces, and air raid drills as all just being "Propaganda?" (Which you spelled wrong). You can't deny 2 major wars and the huge amount of strategic arms produced. Are you going to say that the Berlin Airlift was a fake? Ask anyone who lived in West Germany, or East Germany, for that, what they think about the cold war being "Propaganda".

85

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The "Conspiracy"

« on: February 01, 2017, 01:29:25 AM »

1. What are Russia and China's reasons for "faking" space travel?
2. How do you account for the fact that 536 people from 38 countries are running around the world, doing interviews etc. Are all of these other countries in on the conspiracy too?
3. We have the technology, why do flat earthers continue to deny we have conquered space?

1. The same reasons that the U.S.A. has, presumably -- that whole concept of militaristic dominance through the illusion of space travel and control.

2. That sounds about right.

3. Your reasoning rests upon the premise that we have conquered space and have the technology to do so, which is totally absurd and completely false.

If space doesn't exist, then how does faking exploration of it expand military power exactly?

Who says space doesn't exist? You've constructed a very weak strawman here.

But if space exists and is there why can't we go there?

86

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing Conspiracies Put to Rest

« on: February 01, 2017, 01:06:17 AM »

Again, in my original post, I explain that the forces of space aren't actually that bad. Around 1 atmosphere of pressure difference, a balloon can handle that. The acceleration experienced is minimal. The common vision of spaceships as streamlined and solid are just that, visions. The Space Shuttle only looked so solid as it had to enter the atmosphere. Anything that doesn't go into the atmosphere doesn't need much.

Why are you trying to use a balloon as a comparison?

What happens to a balloon in a vacuum?

The common vision of spaceships remains ever locked as a dream in some yokel's mind, eager to foist that crap on any ole bloke who will accept...

It's a bad one, but the LM is much more solid than a baloon.

87

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:

« on: January 31, 2017, 11:07:21 PM »

I am now 100% convinced this is bait. Come back with a real argument. You're saying that all news and memories of the cold war were just the two governments in cahoots?

It is not bait.

The Cold War story, and every other "They are the enemy," was the bait.

Always has been, always will be.

Two former allies now at each others' throat!

OMG! What to do!?!?!

The people in office have one job and that is to peddle fear and superstition on the masses to keep them in line.

ORANGE ALERT!!!

You suck that stuff up like it is real!

Give me evidence that the cold war isn't real.

88

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:

« on: January 30, 2017, 07:05:26 PM »

"How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?"

LMFAO!!!

Another in the long line of OS believers!!!

Hey, totalitarians of a feather stick together...

This guy buys into the COLD WAR!!!

LMFAO!!!

I'm not sure if this is satire, but if it isn't, then you are LITERALLY retarded. You CANNOT, in ANY capacity, deny that the cold war happened. If you do, your position is a futile one.

I am not denying the fact propaganda pushed the nonsense Cold War, but if you believe all the world rulers are not in on robbing and stealing from the masses and are not truly in cahoots then you are behaving like a symp.

Don't come one here peddling a bull shit line about the Cold War was for real.

It certainly was reported and there were certainly real persons, but as far as actual threats from each other?

No.

It was as real as Monday Night Raw or an NBA basketball game.

You really, truly do need to get a clue dude.

I am now 100% convinced this is bait. Come back with a real argument. You're saying that all news and memories of the cold war were just the two governments in cahoots?

89

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing Conspiracies Put to Rest

« on: January 30, 2017, 07:04:07 PM »

The Lunar Lander was indeed of rigorous enough construction to withstand the vacuum of space and the radiation emitted by the Sun [/sarcasm].

"Fire photon torpedoes, Mr. Sulu! Raise shields!"

LOL!!!

Thanks for clearing up that your denial of the cold war in my other post was complete satire.

And thank you for cementing the fact your inability to render written material and accurately elucidate tenor/tone/meaning.

Dude, if you believe the LM went to the moon, I can't help you.

Again, in my original post, I explain that the forces of space aren't actually that bad. Around 1 atmosphere of pressure difference, a balloon can handle that. The acceleration experienced is minimal. The common vision of spaceships as streamlined and solid are just that, visions. The Space Shuttle only looked so solid as it had to enter the atmosphere. Anything that doesn't go into the atmosphere doesn't need much.

90

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA admits that they cannot send crafts through the Van Allen belts

« on: January 30, 2017, 03:50:30 PM »

Why do we even know about the Van Allen belts? Scientists told us.

How do we know it was possible for the Apollo missions to travel through them? Some of those same scientists told us.

On what basis are we clinging to one, and trying to use it to refute the other?

That's the biggest fallacy of these flat earthers. They use science to try and dispute science, such as in this case. Van Allen himself, the one who discovered these, thought Apollo spacecraft could get through it.

91

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The "Conspiracy"

« on: January 30, 2017, 02:43:28 PM »

1. What are Russia and China's reasons for "faking" space travel?
2. How do you account for the fact that 536 people from 38 countries are running around the world, doing interviews etc. Are all of these other countries in on the conspiracy too?
3. We have the technology, why do flat earthers continue to deny we have conquered space?

1. The same reasons that the U.S.A. has, presumably -- that whole concept of militaristic dominance through the illusion of space travel and control.

2. That sounds about right.

3. Your reasoning rests upon the premise that we have conquered space and have the technology to do so, which is totally absurd and completely false.

If space doesn't exist, then how does faking exploration of it expand military power exactly?

92

Flat Earth Community / Re: Today is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger Disaster...

« on: January 30, 2017, 02:38:45 PM »

How do other flat Earthers feel about this incident?

They don't think about it. They don't want to live in a world where either people are killed in pursuit of an unreachable goal, or in a world where the government kills people to keep up their space conspiracy.

93

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing Conspiracies Put to Rest

« on: January 30, 2017, 02:37:38 PM »

The Lunar Lander was indeed of rigorous enough construction to withstand the vacuum of space and the radiation emitted by the Sun [/sarcasm].

"Fire photon torpedoes, Mr. Sulu! Raise shields!"

LOL!!!

Thanks for clearing up that your denial of the cold war in my other post was complete satire.

94

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:

« on: January 30, 2017, 02:34:17 PM »

"How did America fake NASA's space missions when the USSR hated them and would detect and discredit fakes?"

LMFAO!!!

Another in the long line of OS believers!!!

Hey, totalitarians of a feather stick together...

This guy buys into the COLD WAR!!!

LMFAO!!!

I'm not sure if this is satire, but if it isn't, then you are LITERALLY retarded. You CANNOT, in ANY capacity, deny that the cold war happened. If you do, your position is a futile one.

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Answer these:

« on: January 28, 2017, 06:56:15 PM »

Please explain the mechanism of a satellites "orbiting" the Flat Earth. What holds them up? 

The sun and the moon are held up in a circular system, so satellites likely attach themselves, at least in some capacity, to that same system. Mind you, satellites are much smaller, too.

Orbit is caused by the craft going so fast that it falls towards the earth but misses every time

96

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA admits that they cannot send crafts through the Van Allen belts

« on: January 28, 2017, 03:18:29 AM »

I posted this on .org, but I'll cross post it here just to see what kind of responses crop up.



Skip to about 3 mins in if the link doens't automatically do it for you.

Some people believe that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax because astronauts would have been instantly killed in the Van Allen radiation belts. Now, we have proof that shows this is correct.

Straight from a NASA employee's own mouth; "we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space."

Uh, couldn't they just use the technology that shielded the Apollo astronauts during their flight? If not, why? Is it because the moon landing never actually happened and the Apollo mission is just an American folktale? The answer is starting to look like a resounding YES.

Apparently NASA now believes that traveling through the belts will kill the passengers of any craft without proper shielding (which they admit that they do not have in the video), yet they claim to have done just that back in 1969. How does that make any sense? I suspect the employee in the video will be fired for revealing NASA secrets, but I am grateful for his slip up as it certainly does explain a lot.

Van Allen himself says the Apollo missions would have made it.

97

Science & Alternative Science / Re: nukes are NONSENSE!

« on: January 28, 2017, 02:53:42 AM »

mister bickles, it is common courtesy to at least make a comment about some of the points in the video

the whole theory of nuclear explosions is like ZPG/over-unity but with much less credibility...i.e: you get more energy outputted than inputted

the other thing i should'v mentioned is that most of the post-WWII nuke tests used up the huge stock-pile of TNT that was left over from WWII;

what else?

oh, yeh.....
the video footage analysis.....not 100% sure abt this because, let's face it, VCRs first appeared in the early 1980s.....so.....there would'v been plenty of time for people to analyse the footage of nukes.....but....then again.....you didn't have the i/net until over 20yrs l8r......so........   

then...you have the bit of that nuclear scientist actually eating some r/active waste.....

the whole thing's just another big, fat LIE.....   

Tell that to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: If the Earth is flat, why is the ISS observable with binoculars?

« on: January 28, 2017, 02:50:07 AM »

Evidence? Hard-to-find Bugs Bunny calls that evidence?

I chuckled. Now, I want you guys to think about this one-- something I know can be really difficult, but I want you to give it a shot.   

Think about where people live. Homes, huts, bungalows, RVs, trailers, apartments, motels, condos, hotels, and the list goes on and on. What do these places all have in common? They: a) are located on the ground, which is where we live. b) serve genuine functions, such as providing running water and heating or, simply, protection from the elements. c) are located near other shelters and places of residence, oftentimes. d) are located near resources such as fresh water supplies, lots of food, etc.

People don't live in planes, hot air balloons, jets, helicopters, gliders, or anything like that. Why? Because they: a) are located in the air, which we can't continuously live in. b) will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to serve genuine functions and provide protection from the elements (over longer periods of time, a few hours on a flight is fine). c) are isolated forms of "shelter", meaning you won't have any neighbors or community. d) are isolated from important resources such as food and water. Plus, you have to land and re-fuel at some point, and somebody has to keep an eye on the controls, and so much more.

So, taking this all into consideration, do you find a tin can circling above the earth-- supposedly permanently-- flying around all by its lonesome, with no close proximity to any form of resources (whether human or food or whatever) and an extremely questionable, highly unlikely ability to provide functions and shelter, a suitable place for anybody to live? Furthermore, do you find my assertion that people don't live there more crazy than your guys' assertion that people do live there?

What you don't realize is how there are frequent cargo missions to it, it does not have engines or fuel, that's what ORBIT means, and it is shipped air and such on those cargo missions. There are several people on it, for community, and they have exercise machines to keep fit. They switch their time between exercise and science experiments and rest to keep them active and not insane.

99

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing Conspiracies Put to Rest

« on: January 27, 2017, 10:18:00 PM »

It is not well written. The entirety of the entry is written with a smug, condescending tone, with cherry picked rebuttals.

The reason I bring up the fact it was a Wikipedia article is to bring up how ridiculous it is to assume people familiar with the conspiracy haven't seen it already... like it's some kind of new smoking gun revelation.

Again, you fail to acknowledge my point about the lander.

There is no wide shot video of the lander ever actually LANDING. I'm talking about on just Earth. Without bursting into a ball of fire.

The Lunar Lander never went to earth, only from it. The Command Module, which stayed in orbit around the moon, along with the Service Module, which was fuel and life support for the Command module, was what was used to return to earth from the moon, and the Command Module was what re-entered

100

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing Conspiracies Put to Rest

« on: January 27, 2017, 08:05:26 PM »

It is not well written. The entirety of the entry is written with a smug, condescending tone, with cherry picked rebuttals.

The reason I bring up the fact it was a Wikipedia article is to bring up how ridiculous it is to assume people familiar with the conspiracy haven't seen it already... like it's some kind of new smoking gun revelation.

Again, you fail to acknowledge my point about the lander.