1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why space launches?

« on: August 20, 2017, 01:23:07 AM »

StinkyOne, every human has been brainwashed throughout life and will be to death. And the workers of private companies, who launch satellites into space, are no exception!
I think loosely for now, that reptilian/insectoid shapeshifters have infiltrated society to such a big extent: you might be having sex with a woman/man, and she/he could be a non-human being!
Their lying is multi-layered to protect themselves from disclosure as much as possible. Every of these beings knows human psychology more than any smartest human psychologist on earth would do. They know a lot about us, they study us tremendously, and they know how to exploit us smartly for their purposes:
* very advanced social engineering.
* advanced body language
* etc
You might be having reptilians in your family with whom you grew up. I do have 2-3 of them, as i think and as i notice similar to reptiles behavior in them. Or i just made myself believe in that, i'm not sure...

Some companies disguise cell towers as trees, or is it government agencies?
BUT of course, these are just my crazy assumptions, i might be wrong! Correct me, but don't just call me stupid or crazy.

Reptilians/Insectoids, huh.  Your description of them reads like a parody. 


Reptiles and insects evolved here, on Earth.  Neither of them have any ability to shape-shift, and neither of them could get as large as humans and still stand on their hind legs. 
You're saying that they can transform to human forms and be completely imperceptible (or nearly so, since you and the people you follow can distinguish them).  What about having a birth certificate?  What about getting blood drawn?  Wouldn't medical personnel be able to tell that they aren't human? 
And you're saying that not only do they blend in with human society perfectly, but they also control every aspect of it.  How?  Why?  This is all very ridiculous. 
I won't call you crazy, as per your request, but have you ever actually thought critically about what you're claiming?


As for disguising cell towers as trees, they do this to be less disruptive to people and wildlife.  They don't put that much effort into it, and it's easy to tell them from a real tree, but they stick out less.  I don't see what that has to do with anything, though. 

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Beautiful recent hi-res image of Earth from the moon

« on: May 09, 2016, 01:06:52 AM »

See how much fun this is? We could be doing this for the original picture, but you STILL haven't provided actual reasons why you think it is faked.

I was not talking about the original picture, I was addressing the nonsensical idea that something which appears to be an obvious fake should not be regarded as fake.

Did you really have to measure the vertex angles and polygon count, etc. before reaching the conclusion the GTA picture was fake, or could you, you know, figure it out right away just by looking at it?

The point is that "just looking at it" isn't enough to prove a point.  Every aspect of the image of the moon can be explained cohesively without resorting to CGI, and it is up to you to explain why this might not be the case. 

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Great NASA Conspiracy

« on: May 04, 2016, 12:14:02 AM »

Maybe they're just entirely too entangled in the web of lies at this point? Maybe the Apollo missions were faked under the assumption that the earth was a sphere and they never could really confirm or deny this prior to the missions? I'd say the reason why they can't recant at this point is that they are entirely in too deep and have already spent trillions of our dollars on space exploration.

Just a possibility as to why.

Eh, in RE you don't even have to reach low orbit to see the curvature of the Earth. Its unlikely given the accepted facts of RE that it would've taken the moon mission's failure to discover it.

But I could still see it as a plausible, albeit unlikely scenario.

Whats drawn me to this whole thing in the first place is the fact that almost all phenomena that points to the earth being a sphere can be explained in other ways. I don't believe it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the earth is the sphere were told.

That curvature we see from up really high could very well be the terminator line of where the sun would have its radius of shine.

Other ways?  Sure!  Better ways?  Hell no! 
There's no way the curvature could be caused by the earth's terminator.  They are completely separate. 
If you think we haven't proven the earth's shape beyond a reasonable doubt, you haven't done your research.  Look at how we can model satellite orbits using Kepler elements, and then calculate their ephemeris.  It's very math-intensive, so there are websites that can do it for you, but you can also do it yourself.  All orbits can be explained by gravity, and none can be explained if the earth is flat. 

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why does Australia need huge radio telescopes like "the dish" ?

« on: April 30, 2016, 03:33:19 PM »

The NASA cover up seems to get more epic the more you dig. If you look at it that way. I don't see how that is possible considering the amount of people that are involved.But that's only my opinion.

And it is an opinion that also matches reality.  There's no way they could sustain a cover-up when most of the people they employ don't even belong to them. 

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are there other known or visible flat planets with domes?

« on: April 30, 2016, 12:35:42 AM »

Such a view could also suggest it is concave, or even a semisphere dome being observed. I'm not claiming it is, but the view doesn't preclude those explanations - as I said, you only ever see one side (certainly a marvellously impossible coincidence that an orbiting globe would rotate in such a way.

Not a coincidence.  In fact, it proves the nature of tides.  The moon is tidally locked with the earth, and the earth is becoming tidally locked with the moon, due to tidal forces caused by gravity gradients.
Tidal forces are also the cause of Saturn's rings.  I'll explain why later, if you decide not to research it yourself. 

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: April 27, 2016, 11:55:25 PM »

There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.

For example, for many years we have held that the stars are generally just above the altitude of the sun.

FYI, this is the debate section of the forum. You completely dismissed the evidence given in the original post. That's fine. But you seem to completely dodge giving any reason WHY you dismissed this evidence. And you seem to be avoiding giving out any details of your counter-theory. This isn't very conducive to debate. If anything, this is an indication that you don't have a viable counter-theory.

What evidence in the original post? A small diagram isn't evidence. That doesn't tell us how perspective behaves at large distances.

I asked for a name of the scientist who studied perspective and was met with silence. I asked what evidence there was that perspective works in the way the ancient greeks described and I got silence. There is no evidence for me to refute.

Do you have any evidence that perspective doesn't work like that, besides the fact that you really, really want the earth to be flat?  If you want to upset a well-established mathematical convention, the burden of proof is on you. 

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: How we see the sun as setting while it has moving away?

« on: April 27, 2016, 11:49:32 PM »

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.

Aren't we lucky then that we had radiosondes

The first true radiosonde that sent precise encoded telemetry from weather sensors was invented in France by Robert Bureau. Bureau coined the name "radiosonde" and flew the first instrument on January 7, 1929.

From Wikipedia Radiosonde History

You might get a bit of education in this area by reading up a bit. Start with elemantary stuff like: Windows to the Universe, Weather Balloons

These relayed information back about the upper atmosphere, and I do believe that they found that the atmospheric pressure is very low up there. A fact that has been verified by sounding rockets, high flying aircraft and manned balloons.

Since the refractive index of air at Standard Temperature and Pressure is only 1.000277 (and rapidly falls with altitude), you can forget about any magical refraction appering to lower the sun. Besides it is in the wrong direction, it makes the sun appear very slightly higher (up to about 30' of arc).

Your whole attitude seems to be "we don't know these things, so we assume they explains the holes in our theory". Well they do not!

High atmosphere != space.

Should we also assume that earth gets infinitely hotter the deeper we go because we've found that mines get hotter with depth?

Of course not, because the earth isn't infinitely deep.  Unless, of course, the earth is flat and doesn't have a known thickness, in which case that's a question you should be asking yourself. 

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: How we see the sun as setting while it has moving away?

« on: April 27, 2016, 09:28:10 PM »

Light will only bend like that if it passes to a higher refractive index.

Are you saying that we are all living under water or encased in glass?

Unfortunately, we do not have a reliable space agency to tell us what is in space.

We do.  We have plenty of reliable space agencies.  I've told you multiple times, with so many people checking the facts, there's no way they couldn't be reliable.  But if you admit that, you're admitting that your pent-up biases and precious flat earth fantasy are wrong.  And of course, you're much too prideful and/or deluded to do such a thing. 

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does a Full Moon appear Full for everyone?

« on: April 27, 2016, 06:37:49 PM »

Mind you, tonight in the southern hemisphere, the moon was illuminated from the lower right side leaving the upper left in shadow. 
Not sure how this is possible if the sun and Moon are at the same altitude.
More bendy light or the mystical shadow object?!?

They're not at the same altitude.

Excuse me?

It was determined via triangulation that the celestial bodies are about the same height as the sun. We have documentation of our method of triangulation, but it is mostly in specific regards to the sun. It was found that the celestial bodies behave similarly, and so they were lumped into the same altitude of the sun. For specifics of the triangulation method, look for the article on the Sun's Distance on the Wiki on the front page.

What evidence is there that the moon is 250,000 miles from the earth?

There is no contradiction. All of the celestial bodies being about the same height != all are at the same height.

For example, for many years we have held that the stars are generally just above the altitude of the sun.

You know, we have our own method of measuring the distance to other stars.  It's called stellar parallax.  Perhaps you'd like to explain how your triangulation works?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How is it raining?

« on: April 27, 2016, 01:34:05 PM »

Nothing gets past you, Intikam. 

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are all flat earth believers convinced of a designer or intelligent design?

« on: April 26, 2016, 02:52:16 AM »

I explored this question over in a thread in Philosophy, Religion and Politics:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4719.0

Much to my own consternation, it appears that Intelligent Design seems to viewed more of a crackpot theory than the flat earth theory itself, by RE and FE proponents alike. It seems there is some kind of fallacious belief that through the very same scientific community that has staked its entire existence on Heliocentrism and refers to those who are backwards thinking as literally "flat-earthers" you will somehow be able to prove the Earth is not a round ball flying through space around the Sun.

Right.  You literally have to create a whole new type of science in order to keep thinking the earth is flat.  And they did; it's called Zeteticism. 

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occam's Razor and FET

« on: April 25, 2016, 04:26:51 PM »

no-one has been able to tell me exactly what "Zeteticism" is or how it works.

Have you tried Googling it?

• https://wiki.tfes.org/Zeteticism
• http://rationaltheory.wikia.com/wiki/Zetetic_Method
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zetetic
• http://praiseandlove.net/science-and-philosophy/flat-earth-theory/
• http://zeteticism.blogspot.co.uk/

Was that really so hard? Or are you saying that people have told you multiple times, and you simply didn't like it - because reasons?

Those FET adherents that are not outright trolls don't believe in the scientific method - and by extension Occam's razor - because reasons.

*sigh* - It's in the bloody OP.

http://wiki.tfes.org/Occam's_Razor

I think it says a lot about your "theory" that you have to invent an entire alternative to science for your model to even have a chance.  Thank god Zeteticism isn't the accepted methodology, or we would be whining about the horizon all the time instead of building satellites. 

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: The horizon

« on: April 25, 2016, 04:20:32 PM »

The distance to the horizon is determined by the height of the observer.Since the distance is usually only a few  miiles, ships usually disappear in thiis manner rather than "fading away in the distance." As has been pointed out, the distance to the horizon can be estimated from the height of the observer. Lookouts in the crow's nest use this in reporting distances. Navy Manuals have charts showing distances for  various heights. The person in a rowboat at sea level can only see about 3 miles to the horizon. A person in the crow's nest , 100 feet high, can see about 12  miles. This is a well known fact and just one of many facts proving  curvature of the earth and that the earth is a sphere or a globe.

Why don't you understand that the viewing distance to the horizon would increase with height on a round or a flat earth? No things don't "fade away" into the distance unless it is a particularly hazy day. They shrink down to indistinguishable size according to the laws of perspectives. The reason you see waves over the bottom of the ship is because you are seeing waves in the foreground that appear larger because they are closer to you then the ones under the boat several miles away. You can cover a sky scraper with your thumb from the right distance. You can fit the Eiffel tower between your fingers from the right point of view.

But if perspective is the only factor involved, objects will only meet the horizon at infinite distance.  We know it can't just be waves obscuring distant objects because we know the theoretical horizon, and distant objects sink below it. 

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Debate

« on: April 25, 2016, 04:10:55 PM »

"The truth is elusive; the facts are not."  Not a true statement.   Evidence is not always trustworthy as it can be misinterpreted or manufactured.   The facts are often in question.   Which is why we have lawyers and courts and which is why lawyers have the great power they have.  Scientists don't have power.   They are cheap and always subservient.  Kaiku, Tyson, Nye, Dawkins, Hawking, et al amount to being hucksters.

Subservient to whom?  In general, the only thing they're "subservient" to is knowledge, i.e. increasing our understanding of the universe.  If you're anti-science, you're pro-ignorance. 

15

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Debate

« on: April 25, 2016, 02:30:49 PM »

An interesting observation. The mentality of some of our more... passionate "debunkers" has always intrigued me.

I think lawyers are smarter than scientists.  I base this on the fact that lawyers more than any of the rest of us know how to use language.  Lawyers run things and scientists are servants.  Lawyers understand that, in terms of human affairs, the truth is illusive; what people can be convinced of is more important than what is actually true.  Science very easily can slip into sophistry and it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes.

The truth is elusive; the facts are not.  It's a fact that the earth is round, whether or not the people on this site choose to realize that. 


Lawyers know the law, but they manipulate it and use it to manipulate others for the benefit of their clients and themselves.  On the other hand, scientists are seeking to discover more about the world.  Engineers use the work from scientists to create innovative machines and systems.  I'm here because I won't stand to see hardworking scientists and engineers slurred and accused of lying by people with no knowledge of physics, science, math, or logic. 

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: Zero witnesses

« on: April 25, 2016, 05:29:07 AM »

I have seen evidence of the roundness from the old "ships passing beyond the horizon" and the design of the heights of radar antennas and crow's nests  to "see" the farthest distance.....All because of the curvature of the earth because the earth is the globe that it is.

And the only evidence that I have seen for a flat earth is from someone in Kansas looking out his window and thinking that the earth was flat was because that was all that he could see from his window........But I have known some people in the Navy from Kansas who have had the good fortune to have had some Sea Duty and know otherwise.

I'm from Kansas myself.  Good for dust devils out west, not good for estimating curvature. 

17

Flat Earth Community / Re: Zero witnesses

« on: April 25, 2016, 01:59:46 AM »

Zero eye witness accounts of flatness, yet countless eye witness accounts of roundness.

Why does this disparity exist?

I've seen the flatness. Whether from a tall building or an airplane, it is flat as can be. Try again.

And I've seen the roundness from pictures of the earth from space.  I can also infer the roundness because gravity is the only explanation for how satellites move.  Buildings and airplanes are not nearly high enough, but heroin will get you close 

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Should we build a huge tower on some flat plains to get good quality photos.

« on: April 24, 2016, 04:18:57 PM »

Hello again.

I had an idea which may work. We should start a Kickstarter plan to build a huge tall tower on flat plains in Australia or America where it is flat for many hundred kilometres/miles. Not obscured by trees or mountains with good light and weather.

We could measure a distance out from the tower and test with photographic evidence whether it disappears over the horizon or whether it could be seen with binoculars or a telescope.
We could put a huge light source on it so it could be seen in the distance.
 
I think a lot of people on both sides would put in for it.

Would that prove anything on either  side of the argument?

Thank you

Why would we do that when we have cell towers, just to prove something we've known for centuries?  The fact that satellite paths can only be explained by orbits is more than enough for me. 

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question about the Gravity of the FE

« on: April 21, 2016, 03:23:32 PM »

My brain hurts trying to follow this illustration

Universal Acceleration seems like ridiculous band-aid.

There is another reason things go down and up, but I don't think it's a property endowed by virtue of mass.

How does Earth, which is basically God knows how many layers of different elements, fluid, solids, etc, have an exact center? How do we know this center is more dense than the surface? Why would things move exactly perpendicular time and time again, instead of when near a mountain, somewhat towards it.

Density explains which things go up or down, but not why. I am completely dissatisfied with Newtonian or "Einstein" hypothetical Gravity.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66529.msg1774510#msg1774510


We know about the solid and liquid core because of how tremor waves from earthquakes are refracted by them, causing bands at a certain distances from the epicenter where no tremors are detected.  We also know about the inside of the earth because we use our seismographs to triangulate anomalies in the mantle.  That field is known as seismic tomography. 

20

Flat Earth Community / Re: Genuine question

« on: April 21, 2016, 07:46:41 AM »

I have stated many times before that these must be taken in context, as well if it is metaphorical or not. I have explained this, however will not again, as I have learned people don't read long post.

Also there are sections in Job speaking of earth being a sphere held up by nothing, place in Isaiah and a few others. Simple fact the Bible didn't really care. Plus translation is always an issue especially the Hebrew text, I have spent years studying it and it's the most ass backwards(literally and figuratively) sound it out language, leaves much room for error.

Simple fact if it would have been important, Christ would have said "Verily I say to you, If any should say the world is a spinning ball, rebuke them for the truth is not in them" OR " Verily I say go you, when 1988 years pass from now and the flat earth society is erected, my Name will be involved. I say to you now, the truth is not with them". Neither of these exist.

Of course, it is all metaphorical. There really is no historical context to the bible, things didn't literally happen. Staffs weren't turned into snakes in Egypt... the Red Sea didn't part. However, it is understood that the authors, through divine inspiration, describe the World as flat, stationary and fixed in the universe.

The reason why it DOES matter, and IS important, is that we're being conditioned to accept present day cosmogony-- that a big bang occurred, life emerged through primordial soup, humankind evolved from a fish and then an ape-- as incontrovertible truth. We're being conditioned to accept that humanity itself, and each and every one of us, is the product of a happy accident, on a spinning ball, in a expanding universe full of spinning balls. We're being taught that we are insignificant amalgamations of dust on an insignificant amalgamation of dust, and that our existence itself is a strictly material, fleeting thing.

I don't believe you prescribe to that. Science has long been tending towards obfuscation, rather than enlightenment. There are metaphysical aspects of our existence that science has yet to be able to understand, or blatantly unwilling to understand. Science pretends to be a study of our natural world and our physical universe, but at all turns it seeks to remove God from the equation. Creation of our universe as an obvious example, origin of life as another. The accepted dogma of the big bang and evolution are faith-based pseudoscience at best, out right manipulation at worst.

Anything that confirms or pushes the agenda that life is nothing more than coincidental, meaningless, and strictly materialistic is to be examined and taken with a grain of salt. The fact that it is being taught as fact to our children is obvious evidence of a malevolent apparatus in control of our world. Our fears and prejudices are used against us, and we are distracted by shiny flashy material things with the implication what life is about. We are being divided in each and every way imaginable, causing hatred between neighbors. A wedge is constantly being driven between us and God, and in effect the truth of our existence.

A Godless society is easier to prey upon and manipulate. The adage resonates with me, "if you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything."

This I can 100 percent absolutely agree with you. Every stage of our history God has tried to be deleted. Oppression has always been attempted, with holding of knowledge, freedom of thought and "dumbing" down. There has always been groups that have tried this, succeeded to an extend, yet thanks to the fact a few voices trying to take over could eventually be stopped it could never 100 percent florish. Thanks to just the sheer mechanics of the few versus the many, the law of averages would always prevail.

However, now thanks to technology, one voice has the power to reach all. It has given those whom wish us the worst the power to succeed, and they are marvellously. It has been happening for generations, however it's the fact they begin their attack basically as soon as we escape the womb.

Preventing freedom of thought, expression, knowledge, originality equals slavery and our demise. This is known by the ones whom are truly in power, the people whom control the governments that are nothing but shadows and rumors. Removal of God is always the first step, the governments and people in power step in to insert themselves as the new god. Look how the majority view science and government as god. Everything said is "fact" and there is no questioning it. Freedom of thought is lost, creativity, critical thinking and the entire sense of self is gone...you are just part of the machine.

This is no secret and has been attempted since the beginning of humans time. Yet this is the only time in history I could think they have an actual chance to accomplish and  sustain it this time.

Whose side are you on, babyhighspeed?  There are no shadow people controlling the governments.  Sure, they can be infuriating and boring  and inefficient, but that only serves to prove how mundane they are.  There is no conspiracy.  Especially not one concerning NASA.