Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Theorist

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
Folks, you just draw it and measure it. Its not really so much maths as drawing it accurately then reading numbers off a ruler. :p

2
There is absolutely zero (0, nil, none) evidence that any of the 60s/70s moon footage was taken in a plane. The fact that is even a question just shows what lengths FEF believers will go to in order to discredit mankind's achievements.

It being mankind's greatest "achievement" is precisely why the dire lack of videos showing them panning all the way around is fantastically dubious. NASA has this covered, they claim to have "lost" 700-900 boxes of tapes of moon landings. That's not tapes folks, thats boxes of tapes.

This doesn't help the round Earth argument either.

3
The four most popular flat Earth supporters making videos on YouTube - Eric Dubay, Mark Sargent, Matt Boylan and Jeranism, all never acknowledge or address this: All of these guys are claiming the "drop" in elevation between two points on the ocean is the curve height, when the curve height is four times less than that figure.

I'm not good enough at maths to know if it is "always four times difference" but it seems to always be around that, from manually drawing and measuring it in millimeters.

I feel like I have been given the runaround by these guys honestly!

You'd never see someone like Tom Bishop overlooking this fact, it is basic math.

For example 8 inches per mile x 10 miles x 10 miles = 800 inches aka 66.7 feet. The flat Earthers will then claim the hump of water is that height, when it isn't! The hump over 10 miles would actually be 25% of that figure, so 16.7 feet.

These guys are all scammers/conmen. Confidence tricksters, doing a long con selling books and getting donations. I think Sargent might even be going on CNN or something, just lol.

I just came running back here once I realized this. Of course I got banned on Dubay's forum lol, who wasn't.

Bottom line:

The drop height is being touted around as though it were the curve height.



To quote Jeranism:

"I'm not that bright, but I'm not that stupid either".

These guys are all tarnishing the credibility of the flat Earth model.  :(



4
Its the lack of any cameras panning around 180 degrees that really shows its staged I think. This is apparently a statistical impossibility. The other thing is, if they were really on the moon it is one of the first things they would do having finally conquered space and got a man landed, its supposedly the greatest achievement ever and so on.

Stop believing life should be like a movie. Just because the moon landing was not filmed in the style of the Matrix does not prove it is false.

It would have statistically happened though and never has = red flag.





Can you show your calculation of that statistical probability please?

Over thousands of hours of footage you don't need to collect any data on why the camera never does a half circle, or approximate half circle.

We already know there's thousands of hours of footage in space where it never happens once.

Throw a dice 50,000 times... did you get a six?
There you go then.

You show me proof that it is statistically possible to randomly film stuff in that way over thousands of hours all without ever turning the camera in an approximate half circle.

There isn't even a debate that can be had about this. Please stop shilling.  :P

5
Its the lack of any cameras panning around 180 degrees that really shows its staged I think. This is apparently a statistical impossibility. The other thing is, if they were really on the moon it is one of the first things they would do having finally conquered space and got a man landed, its supposedly the greatest achievement ever and so on.

Stop believing life should be like a movie. Just because the moon landing was not filmed in the style of the Matrix does not prove it is false.

It would have statistically happened though and never has = red flag.




6
It probably means build a picture of a mountain. Maybe all the Antarctic mountains are just holograms.  :o

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How many people really know the truth ?
« on: April 02, 2015, 06:54:43 PM »
I don't need to go there, it was in the documentary: "Antarctica A Year On Ice"

At Antarctica facing a camera North, the sun doesn't go past the front of the camera (or in a "sideways on" fashion if not facing North) like it would in a flat earth model, instead in the documentary it goes 360 degrees around the camera - which is impossible on a flat earth, because the sun would be overlapping the ice shelf by thousands of miles.

Granted, I have no clue which way the camera was facing in the documentary, but this doesn't affect whether the sun would pass "across" you (FET) or go around you 360 degrees (RET).

For the sun to be going 360 degrees around AND us being on a flat disc, we would be living in some sort of figure of 8.

Or, face the camera South... now you should never see the sun in front of you on a flat earth, it is above the horizon every day for four months so its not like there's no time to check it.

You can see the sun going past the camera when the camera is facing South, oops!

Flat earth busted, that easily.  ::)


8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How many people really know the truth ?
« on: April 02, 2015, 03:28:39 AM »
I think I can prove it is round:

For 4 months in the year at Antarctica, the sun never goes below the horizon and it goes "around you" in a circle each day.

If you stand at any part of the Antarctic coastline (aka the ice wall in FET) and face North, visualize it - it is impossible for the sun to be in the South from you, ever! If it was in the South, this would mean the sun breached the firmament - by a long way.

In the FET this means the sun can only ever "pass by" in front of you.

No one can debunk this and the earth is again round.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Here's my take on what gravity is...
« on: April 01, 2015, 12:23:49 AM »
What if 1D + 2D = 3D?

It seems that way.  :o

1D is a straight line falling down, we call "gravity". It is a spacial dimension, with no width or length, "only" infinite depth. It can't be stopped and the 2D plane we live on is simply falling at an accelerating rate of 1G "through" the first dimension.

Adding an infinite 2D plane to the straight 1D "line" creates then, the possibility of 3D.

Perhaps 3D is simply 1D "forcing 2D open" slightly?!

Then we live in that 3D space, the flat Earth, the dome... but it all has to be upside down if it is falling.

Nothing accelerates upwards like was always the theory here. You can prove 1D by just dropping a coin, its that simple.

We call this first dimension... gravity.  :-B

So then to recap we are on the underside of a "falling" 2D ceiling - thinking down is up and up is down.

The 2D plane is infinite and cannot tilt, so you don't have to worry about oceans spilling out.  :)

The 1D plane cannot move anywhere either, except in one infinitely accelerating direction.

Its nice to know the whole "dome" (upside down in this model) isn't going to hit anything, it would appear impossible or it is on some infinite loop. An infinite loop - without changing direction. That's hard to fathom.

Now I even think the large dinosaurs could have died out because of gravity increasing. The oceans still have huge animals, but not on land, they died out! Maybe there was a slight shift in gravity and these animals just couldn't take it.


10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Falsification of RET
« on: April 01, 2015, 12:08:35 AM »
I can explain gravity but it has to incorporate a flat earth.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2582.msg64585

11
Its the lack of any cameras panning around 180 degrees that really shows its staged I think. This is apparently a statistical impossibility. The other thing is, if they were really on the moon it is one of the first things they would do having finally conquered space and got a man landed, its supposedly the greatest achievement ever and so on.

12
Flat Earth Community / Re: Confused, please help.
« on: March 31, 2015, 08:14:25 PM »
Burp. OK cheers Vauxhall. I'm avoiding the shills at the moment. The only guy I trust on here is Tom Bishop, I remember reading threads back in 2008 and he was kicking RE'ers arses I know that. They never had anything, he always slapped them down lol.

13
Because those weightless bits of footage were taken in a vomit comet?

I can't see how they would be able to patch together all those short segments but OK, I can believe it. They had Stanley Kubrick helping let's not forget.

Its hard to tell because NASA has billions of dollars and could easily make it seem like one longer segment, it would take an absurd amount of doing, but I can't rule it out.


14
Flat Earth Media / Re: flat Earth "clues" ...... the movie!
« on: March 31, 2015, 08:05:45 PM »
I am listening to all his interviews now, some great discussions.

When the fact that earth is flat is kept a secret is stifles all investigation.

Listening to his interviews gets you thinking.

He says this is the only thing they even debunk to school children and about the only theory most "conspiracy theorists" won't touch, all very convenient isn't it.


15
Flat Earth Theory / Here's my take on what gravity is...
« on: March 31, 2015, 07:10:53 PM »
Gravity... here's my take on it:

We are stuck to an "upside down flat ceiling" that is falling at a rate of 1G.

If gravity is 1D, then a flat plane (that relies on 1D being there) is falling through the first dimension (accelerating because 1D doesn't have wind resistance, wind requires volume aka 3D) and thus it is just one direction, forever.

Add a flat plane to that first dimension and we have another dimension including the flat plane the earth is on (assuming FET) then add one more dimension and we have volume or, 3D.

All higher dimensions absolutely rely on the lower dimensions (or dimension) to exist.

The first dimension cannot be changed, destroyed, or stopped. It accelerates at 1G forever, maybe time doesn't exist there, I don't see how it could.

This explains how we can have a "gravity atmosphere" AND a small pocket of the dome up top (down bottom in reality) where weightlessness is possible, the sun exists there (its a lot hotter up there than down here), moon, stars, planets all swirling around what looks like "above" the earth to us, but we are upside down stuck to it! UPSIDE DOWN FOLKS. Try to get your head around that if you can.

So the first dimension is making everything fall and accelerate falling... you might wonder what is on the "tip" of this falling mass... maybe the firmament, but I don't know. I can only guess extreme heat but in a way that it appears mostly dark. Where this "tip" gets thicker it gets cooler, there inside the tip you have the first recognizable 3D environment - a very hot zero gravity pocket containing the sun that circles around, then the atmosphere, then the sea/land.

I can't find any holes in this theory, that all three dimensions are interlocked, all rely on others except the first.

Now we would be stuck with "Well who put the first dimension there then?" and on it goes.  :D Its not really a question you can ask as a question. I mean its just there OK, don't ask that question! "God" only comes in when you observe the third dimension anyway or at a push maybe the second.

You also have to have a flat earth for all of this to be possible.  ;) On a round earth... no chance - which is another clue if this all adds up.

So then its as if "life" is contained inside a small pocket of 3D space that is cooled enough. I can't explain how we stick to the "ceiling" and at the same time the zero gravity pocket/tip remains at zero gravity, I can't work out stuff like that.

This would also explain the notion of "hell" because if we're falling down stuck to an upside down ceiling, what we call "below" in reality is what I called "extreme heat". Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

It only leaves the question of what is "above" us? (underground). Well, its hot again I know that. As above, so below? Ludicrous heat above, ludicrous heat below, a small pocket of 3D along it... welcome to flat earth.  :-*

Before anyone says "All the blood would rush to your head" nope, you have the same gravity you have now.

We just adapted to think upside down is the right way up is all. Isn't it true we see everything upside down or something anyway, I remember them saying our eyes have to invert everything so we aren't looking at everything upside down. Think about it. Look at all the stuff that becomes explainable due to what I am proposing.

No maths needed either, I hate maths and could never do it.



Why can't this just be a 2D plane falling through a 1D point?

Come on let's brainstorm, a child can see this is how gravity works. :p



16
I'll start a new topic.

17
Maybe gravity is just a vital 1D component of the whole 3D world, after all it has only one "line" to it really. No depth, no length, only height.

It might be mysterious but let's cut to the chase, its only about one thing, what we call "down".

If anything I think we are "falling upwards". This makes it possible for the dimension to both exist and be infinite. The going upwards motion stops it falling too far, the falling stops it going upwards too far. Sounds like perpetual motion, right?

Thats because it is.

If gravity is a dimension, the dimension makes different object densities make them go "down" harder or softer, we just put a label to that and call it the "weight" of things.

Language has been abused to make it hard to understand things.  ???

Now add another dimension to that and you have 2D aka the flat earth/plane of existence. I think the 3rd dimension isn't what we think it is, I dunno man, its like the dimension that makes volume possible, right? Well you've had to take 1D (downwards) and add another (a flat plane) to give 2D and then all volume/life is contained in the next dimension up, but the kicker is 3D needs 2D and 1D, 2D needs 1D and 1D needs nothing and exists infinitely everywhere and can't ever go away.

God damn it just gimme the Nobel Prize right now.  ;D

If 1D were removed from 2D, the 2D plane would vanish. If 1D were removed from 3D, volume and the flat plane would vanish. If 2D were removed from 3D, only 1D would be left. You can't remove 1D aka gravity.

"Gravity always wins" - Thom Yorke


18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Falsification of RET
« on: March 31, 2015, 12:40:58 AM »
Even if the weighing was accurate, that means a force is pulling you down and pushing you up?

That is nearly impossible to consider.

How can a sphere make anything stick to it if it is spinning? I can't believe it lol.

No one can explain the mechanism that causes gravity thus you can't explain how a ball would make stuff stick to it. So you're suggesting if the "globe" stopped we would float away? I can't see it so, can that actually be proven? If not we probably shouldn't assume. 

19
Mute, play.  ;D

Saddam I knew you used a body double sigh, cheeky get.  :P

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS
« on: March 31, 2015, 12:26:04 AM »
4 pages and no one mentions the G word?

Perhaps there's a pocket of zero gravity at the top of the dome.

Look how many layers there are to the Earth, all the entire thing is from underground upwards is thin layers. There's not much of just one element.

Is it really impossible for the "sky" to be comprised of part gravity and part non-gravity? This could explain every last thing in the FET as far as how do they have satellites and how do they have NASA footage from 1969 showing them floating around in a craft.

Excuse me if all of this was covered already somewhere, tsk.


Pages: [1] 2  Next >