1321

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 13, 2020, 12:44:42 PM »

You have got to offer more on this statement.

Why? The video of the clouds of smoke, steam, exhaust product and AIR being driven AWAY from the engine at high speed are not self-evident in the video? 

(T - Do you see the airflow being dragged from above the engine, and down the side?)

Why wouldn't it?

What reason is there for it to do this, if the air below is actively resisting the exhaust flow?

Why do YOU think there is airflow from above the engine in such vast quantity, at such speed?

1322

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Stars

« on: February 13, 2020, 12:03:57 PM »

You explain how you have northern hemisphere constellations in both clips

Please show us which ones you mean.

In case the next question is "how do I ..."

Screen capture from video, image edit software to label them, upload to Imgur or similar, link here

1323

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 13, 2020, 12:01:21 PM »

Where is the controlled repeatable scientific experiment that proves a rocket engine will work in a vacuum ? That's all you have to show me .

Why is there an obligation to show this?   Why does the 63-year history of spaceflight not count? The amateur videos that show rocket plumes on orbital craft? Photographers capturing the ISS and other satellites in transit across Moon and Sun? Organisations like the SGF monitoring satellites around Earth and Moon by laser ranging?

I made the point elsewhere that other scientific endeavours can only be tested by the process of making them do their appointed task. You can only prove the full-size ship floats by launching it onto the sea. You can only prove the full-size aircraft goes supersonic by flying it.  You can test medicines for humans in the lab as much as you like, but the only way to "show they work" is by trial on real humans.

The way to see that rockets work in space is to launch and operate them outwith our atmosphere.

By the efforts of early pioneers, and the 63-year history that followed, we know that rockets work in space. The only alternatives are to show that all of this 63-year effort has been faked, or that "space is fake" (a line that is seen far more than it should, especially on YouTube) 

1324

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 13, 2020, 09:31:43 AM »

Yup, it's the old switcheroony.

T asks about X
S shows Y

T asks about A and B
S shows C

The title of the thread, Storm - "discuss if you dare". Simple politeness, I would have thought, dictates that since I asked first ....

1325

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 13, 2020, 01:14:33 AM »

Storm

One single shot that tells us that the seas are Not Flat. Shall I tell you why, or are you going to ignore it and post something else entirely different in an effort to derail the narrative?

1326

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 13, 2020, 12:37:34 AM »

So, I ask Storm to clarify base assumptions, to find common ground to work from, based on observations, and;

Here's a picture of a mountain. Explain that.
and
Here's some flowers, explain sunlight vs. moonlight


Classic unfocused gish-gallop.

1327

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 13, 2020, 12:17:12 AM »

So, you're not going to deal with what I said/asked, and you're going to log-jump to something TOTALLY different, is that it?

Gish-gallop all over. 

What height was the photo taken from? All discussion is meaningless without that.

1328

Flat Earth Community / Re: A quick poll

« on: February 12, 2020, 10:21:36 PM »

I am also very disappointed in the results, already, which actually confirm my immediate suspicions.

At this time, there are only 16 votes and already there is a significant favor of Flat Earth nay-sayers. That is ridiculous for a Forum with the title Flat Earth Society and indicates corruption, in my humble opinion.

It's not paranoia if they're REALLY out to get you...

I will be launching a Blog or other website very soon for Flat Earthers ONLY.

Good Luck with policing the entry requirements on that.

There is a dire need for a safe-haven for believers and burgeoning believers to be able to share their ideas and nurture their growing suspicions in the Flat Earth topic.

There's a dire need for them not to hide away in echo-chambers 

Nobody would attend a church that was completely full of unbelieving skeptics. The majority of skeptics and outright nay-sayers on all Flat Earth Forums online proves that true believers are being systematically run off of these sites and relentlessly belittled for their beliefs and undeniable observations from empirical experiments in their physical world.

If your observations are "undeniable", then you should be able and willing to stand up for them, not hide away with your "attaboy" fan club. Going by your remarks in the other thread, you appear ready to quit here after 4 posts and barely 6 hours. You really don't sound all that convinced.

You can't hide the Truth, and, by God, you'll never silence it.

...and what IS this "Truth" ?

1329

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 12, 2020, 10:12:53 PM »

I'll comment once more on this particular exchange because I don't see any constructive progress taking place, here.

It's been less than 6 hours since your first post ....

1330

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 12, 2020, 10:04:19 PM »

I'll comment once more on this particular exchange because I don't see any constructive progress taking place, here.

No need to be snippy. What were you expecting? That everyone would roll over and agree with you? Before you had posted four times? Really?

Tumeni, I can't see how any of the images or videos you've posted refute anything that I stated in my original post at all.
(Reply #43)

I introduced the ship scenario. You said "if the ship was ON the horizon", to which I said it was not. These examples are not a refutation of what you said, they are to establish a starting point, to establish what YOU think of as "on the horizon". If you want to stop here, that's fine, but don't take a high and mighty "nobody here is making any constructive progress" attitood.....

1. I was referring to looking at objects in the distance with 'the naked eye.'

I looked at the example I'm referring to with my naked eye, and saw exactly what I captured with my telephoto lens. I saw it through my binoculars, too.... same thing seen in all cases

2. I'm not even sure we're in agreement about what, exactly, eye-level means.

Which is why I'm trying to establish what you mean by it.

To be honest, most of those images contribute to proving 'my' point about horizon and eye-level.

How do they do that?

If somebody can't go out and try the examples I described and make the same observations that I, and 'many' others, have, that's perfectly fine.

If you can't even look at the examples which I have gathered, why should I or we "go out" and try your examples?

1331

Flat Earth Community / Re: Request for questions: Steven Smith/KISS radio

« on: February 12, 2020, 09:45:18 PM »

I got the impression this was an excerpt from an earlier, longer interview, there were basically two questions;

Tom : How long do you think it will be before we have contact with aliens, or do you think we've already had contact?

Daisy (not really a question, but...)   : this is a big one - a lot of my life decisions are based on this; "ancient aliens came down from space, and built the pyramids.

Does anyone want or need to know the answers?

1332

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 12, 2020, 09:08:41 PM »

If I stand onshore at 100m, and look out to sea, at a ship of 58m height above its waterline, then where is "eye level"?  Is it at 100m? That would place it 42m above the ship, wouldn't it? So I should see the horizon above the highest point of the ship, almost at double the height of the ship?

Actually, no.

The whole point is that you would see that ship, 'IF' it were on the horizon, at YOUR eye-level, regardless of whether you were at 100m or 1000m.

Storm; which, if any, of these ships is "on" the horizon?

1 -



2 -



3 -



4 - (choice of 4)

1333

Flat Earth Community / Re: A quick poll

« on: February 12, 2020, 07:03:16 PM »

I need to change my vote. The double negatives caught me out as I did it whilst trying to find that astronaut interview on KISS ...

1334

Flat Earth Community / Re: Request for questions: Steven Smith/KISS radio

« on: February 12, 2020, 07:01:45 PM »

Two questions from the presenters to SS at 2h38m approx through 2h40m15s. No apparent fielding of questions from elsewhere.  Transcript to follow, but it's hardly worth it.

1335

Flat Earth Community / Re: Request for questions: Steven Smith/KISS radio

« on: February 12, 2020, 06:33:36 PM »

This is what I get for being an analogue traditionalist, and expecting a "radio" station to broadcast one programme at a time...

Oh, well; 4 hours of breakfast with Tom and Daisy. Here goes ...

1336

Flat Earth Community / Re: Request for questions: Steven Smith/KISS radio

« on: February 12, 2020, 06:08:15 PM »

They seem to have a recording up from the KISS Breakfast on the 6th: https://planetradio.co.uk/kiss/shows/kiss-breakfast-with-tom-daisy/

Unfortunately it requires someone who lives in the UK for access. It also appears that these recordings get deleted after about 6 days, and this one is up for deletion today.

Who lives in the UK?

Me.

I've just skipped through every 30s skip point of the show, and it is, as described "Non-Stop Old Skool & Anthems" aka a big load of dingo's kidneys, interspersed with adverts.

If there's a Q&A with an astronaut, it lasts less than 30s and is somewhere inbetween the points I scanned, so I'd suggest it ain't there.....

Above and beyond the call of duty, I calls it.

1337

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 12, 2020, 04:50:18 PM »

The whole point is that you would see that ship, 'IF' it were on the horizon, at YOUR eye-level, regardless of whether you were at 100m or 1000m. That is because you are on a 'PLANE'. Not a spherical 'planet'.

.... but it wasn't "on" the horizon. It was far, far nearer.

If you were on a sphere, the horizon line would appear to drop, or appear lower in YOUR view, as your altitude increased. This is NOT what happens.

Yes, it is. 

No matter how high you are in the sky, the horizon ALWAYS, without fail, appears at YOUR eye-level.

No, it does not. Ready with examples if or when you want to see them.

This is a fact that has been observed for thousands of years and taught to every art student that has ever learned how to recreate horizon line or line of delineation in a drawing or painting. It is ALWAYS, without fail, PERFECTLY FLAT and extending into infinity. Everything in your perspective moves toward that line from all angles as its distance increases until it appears to shrink and disappear from view.

Yes, but you - the observer - are not obliged to look directly along those lines. You can look up, down, left or right. Again, examples ready for if or when you want to see them.

1338

Flat Earth Theory / Re: I think you're wrong. Discuss if you dare

« on: February 12, 2020, 04:24:35 PM »

The horizon is always at eye-level no matter how you orient your body or where you are in space; on/near the ground or high in the sky. This fact, alone, is one of the rock-solid proofs of Flat Earth.

If I stand onshore at 100m, and look out to sea, at a ship of 58m height above its waterline, then where is "eye level"?  Is it at 100m? That would place it 42m above the ship, wouldn't it? So I should see the horizon above the highest point of the ship, almost at double the height of the ship? 

1339

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Are plane tickets real?

« on: February 12, 2020, 11:57:12 AM »

I read some of the threads and I think y’all take this “prove it” thing too far. For example, I have never actually been to Europe, therefor I don’t know it actually exists. If you showed me pictures of it ....

I concur. This is observed a lot on YouTube, where globe sceptics routinely respond with "Have you verified this PERSONALLY" or in similar terms, but it's just cherry-picking one thing in life to hang the question on.

If the sceptic truly wants to "question everything" (another line which appears frequently) then they would never get anything done in their day, for they'd never get beyond questioning their breakfast, and anything which preceded it.

1340

Flat Earth Community / Re: More fake moon landing proof.

« on: February 12, 2020, 11:41:04 AM »

Amateur observes exit burn which takes SpaceX's Falcon Heavy test payload out of Earth orbit.



"Could have been .... " is the likely protest from disbelievers.

It happened at exactly the time that SpaceX had predicted in advance, in exactly the right part of the sky and of the world according to the flight plan - what else could it be?