41

Flat Earth Theory / View Distance On A Plane?

« on: August 26, 2015, 01:38:03 AM »

What's the average maximum view distance of a man looking at another man - the distance at which he is no longer seeable?

I downloaded a copy of The American Practical Nagigator, by Bowtich. The old version from around circa 1940 had a chart for "view distance" at sea, and it wasn't indoctrinated with ball earth philosophy - it gave you true view distances that, although practical and applicable, would not be possible on a ball. But the 2002 version I downloaded doesn't have that chart, instead it has a "Geographic Range" table - and the entire book is full of faulty ball earth religious teachings crap.

So unless someone here has an old version of the book...

What's agreed upon to he the maximum view distance on a flat plane?

—

42

Flat Earth Media / Nothing to see here. Move along.

« on: August 23, 2015, 07:00:49 AM »

x

43

Flat Earth Theory / (Altered Post) 4/23/16

« on: August 21, 2015, 07:48:29 PM »

Message to the hater, and lover of lies.

Satan USES those who's heart is like his own. He uses them to beat their brothers. They can often be close friends and family members.

It's no wonder why you can't not stand the magazine quotes about apostates being right among us - even though it is right from the source.

The ONLY people who HATE truthful information are those whom the truth exposes.

Those guided by truth and love have nothing to fear.

Change before it's too late.

44

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Horizon

« on: August 21, 2015, 10:44:07 AM »

After you do that, go the the ocean with a telescope and watch a ship "go over the horizon." Once the ship is totally gone "over the horizon" zoom in with your telescope and try to explain why the ship is still there, and not over the horizon.

Perhaps you could show us proof of this.  I have yet to see anything showing this.

A video that clearly shows a ship or object in the process of 'sinking' beyond the horizon (disappearing because the camera resolution isn't enough to make it out doesn't count), and then rising back up to full unobstructed height as magnification is further increased, would suffice.

Nice selection of music. "You just don't get it, just don't get it, just don't get it. . . You're just so pathetic!"



Watch to the end where it zooms all the way out and the ship is COMPLETELY gone from the naked eye POV.

This illustrates that it does't and won't matter to you if someone here were to post a video, you'll just deny it and. . . Despite the fact that you KNOW proof exists, you will say the same old thing again. You people never change. You're like a damned broken record.

You just don't get it, and aren't intelligent enough to see the plainly obvious.

P.S. Don't bother showing that video that claims to debunk this. It was already shown in another video that the person faked the video (because you people can never make points without lying) by lowering his perspective to cause the waves to cover the ship. . . Which, by the way, that is the reason why ships appear to disappear over the horizon. The ship goes farther and farther away until it's a small dot, then it's out of our view—but the waves in our foreground do not get smaller because they aren't moving away from us. Therefor the high waves obscure our vision of the tiny ship.



See Scene 2:52

Notice the entire city skyline is gone when looking with the naked eye; but it miraculously comes back into view when you zoom in. Well it's not really magic, it's REALITY!




And don't give us any of that "superior mirage" crap. That's just shit you guys made up to cover over what we're witnessing. If you try to apply relativity and gravity to explain away what we see, I'll just blow Einstein and relativity out of the water (no pun intended) with Lene Hau's discoveries, Aether experiments, and the truth about Einstein and how he never accomplished anything - he wasn't even on the Manhattan Project team - he's just a name they used to push shit pseudo-science off to make their bumpkis theories work.

I don't know why you Shills seem to think that by following every logical point with a post saying the same old counter-arguments is going to somehow lead readers away from drawing to the proper conclusion. Are you all THAT DAFT? ...Oh yeah I forget, you guys actually get paid to keep this shit up.

What do we learn from all this? a) That ships don't go "over" the horizon; b) that you can still see distant objects as long as weather conditions permit; c) and depending on the power of your telescope; d) and that Shills are liars who are full of shit. . . ; e) but they get paid well for betraying humanity; f) oh yeah, that because their consciences are completely dead, they have no problems sleeping at night; g) BONUS: "Do not be misled, God is not one to be mocked, For whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap."




—

45

Flat Earth Theory / You wouldn't believe it anyway. . .

« on: August 20, 2015, 12:57:59 PM »

(edited)

. . . because when it comes right down to it, you already stated your conclusion before doing any research, and then you set off to find just enough evidence to support your preconception. You'll be forced to come to terms with the truth; though sadly for you it will be a humiliation at this point.

46

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What would it take?

« on: August 19, 2015, 05:03:56 PM »

IRAS sky survey data sets and documentation:

http://irsa.ipac.caltech.edu/Missions/iras.html

Sorry, insufficient and incomplete data. As expected, they only give us just enough to keep us in the dark.


Regarding The Black Sun, Rahu, Nibiru, the 2nd Moon, 3753 Cruithne:

"The Washington Post published an interview with JPL scientists (Jet Propulsion Laboratory). Gerald Neugebauer, IRAS chief scientist said: "All I can say is that we know what it is." NASA observes Nibiru SPT from his new telescope located at the South Pole, all governments know this….” —Cosmoecóloga, 14/9/11

http://cosmoecologos.blogspot.com/2011/09/el-planeta-x-nibiru.html

So the IRAS scan gave them a good idea of what the "dark star" is; but they have no intention of letting us in on any of the details - which is why I know that link above is crap. This is why I said we would need all their data, and be able to duplicate their experiments, and then some.


—

47

Flat Earth Community / Re: Which space missions do you consider to be legitimate?

« on: August 19, 2015, 07:11:14 AM »

Is it not funny that the flat earth theory jumps a whopping 600% in people searching it. As that happens all of sudden a deep space climate observatory takes a pic of the earth from the other side of the moon with some fancy camera HUMM

Don't flatter yourselves, the FES is not on NASA'a radar.

I have to agree with you on that one. NASA does't concern itself with anything having to do with earth space or science.


—

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What would it take?

« on: August 19, 2015, 06:44:28 AM »

What will it take to make us believe RE?

Here is my input.


1) Allow citizens to go to Antarctica with full access and zero restrictions - including no restrictions on documenting equipment - and a live video feed. In addition, let citizens explore the North Pole unrestricted.


2) Give us full access to all NASA's documents with no restrictions; no matter the "national security" which is a term that can be used to censor evidence against them—all that is needed is a background check of each person proving them to be a loyal American citizen—you trust us, we will trust you; you don't trust us, we don't have to trust you - simple as that. All released documents must be uncensored (no blacked out words). Included in the documents must be all their test results from the IRAS probe. If they have told us the truth, they have NOTHING to fear from what we'll learn.


3) Give us full funding to do all the experiments we want. It's fair that if controlled independent organizations have been allowed to get full funding, then those holding a different opinion should be allowed full funding. WE will duplicate all their experiments and tests, and make up whatever tests we devise. If RE is true, they have NOTING to fear from what we'll learn.

3b) One experiment we'll perform is to send rockets straight up. If they don't hit the barrier (firmament), then RE if off to a great start. We will mount true-view cameras that face straight downward to the earth with a view below the rocket. And people from around the world will be allowed to bring their cameras to be mounted on the rocket - in fact cameras will be the entire payload - this way no one can say it was controlled by us, because people from around the world sent their cameras up. Every lens must be 55mm-65mm or higher (not fish-eye and GoPro), and each camera will be tested for accuracy before launch. As the rocked leaves earth, we will SEE if the earth turns into an unmistakable globe. Any sabotage of our rockets and equipment will be taken as evidence against RE and their proponents—but of course why would they do that when they have nothing to fear, because they're right.

3b) We will also send up another IRAS probe to duplicate their tests and verify their results. If they told the truth, they have nothing to fear from what we learn.


4) The scientific community needs to START being truthful.

Lene Hau proved in 1999 that light is not a constant, and a total of three independent scientific teams have discovered the same thing. The scientists have gone on the record stating that light is not a constant, and that relativity would only work in a vacuum. Because recent evidence states that the space above earth is full of plasma being held together by a glass-like container, this also means that the notion of space being a vacuum is a philosophy that has since proven untrue. Because the "space" above earth is filled with plasma, relativity can not work there because scientists stated that relativity would only work in a vacuum. Because the air on earth is filled with particles, gasses, moisture, energy, etc, relativity can not work on earth - because light changes properties (changes speed and bends) in fluids and gasses. Therefor the scientific community must recant relativity and all sciences based upon it - including gravity which does not work without relativity - gravity must be stricken from textbooks and the word must automatically be broadcast and verified all over the world media (news networks) every single day until we say to stop - just like they have no problem doing with 9/11 and everything else they love to shove down our throats day after day. "What goes up must come down" does not require gravity; it requires density. Once they RIGHTFULLY remove the pseudo-science of gravity, let's see how RE fares. If the earth is round, then they have nothing to fear from being honest.


5) Many projections of earth have been made; but we all know that none of them are perfectly accurate. It is ludicrous to say that it is impossible to make an accurate map. Simply: a) make an accurate representation the shape of earth; b) map earth's true land proportions over the shape. The total lack of accurate projections after thousands of years of map-making, cartography, and modern science, looks very suspicious. In the year 2015 we should all have a 100% accurate map; but we don't—You would THINK they were hiding something from us. Give us the real map and stop giving us fake projections that lie and we won't rightfully call them liars. Better yet, just let us make an accurate map according to what we find in our experiments. We will put together the largest team of independent cartographers ever assembled in the world to verify our results.


6) If RE is found BY US to be true - not just something someone told us to believe - then we will believe. But if RE does't pass our tests and scrutiny, then NASA must be automatically dismantled, and all those who supported the lie are to be held accountable at our discretion of the punishment—I believe all NASA personal and supporting scientists, as well as all the internet shills, should be sent into "space" in rockets—if they haven't lied to us about going into space, they of course they have absolutely nothing to fear—sweet justice! WE will then take over the science division. Our first act will be to abolish the term "science" because of the disgrace brought upon it. The new name we choose will come to be synonymous with truth and nature. . . totally unlike "science."



—

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Show me proof of a flat earth.

« on: August 19, 2015, 05:56:03 AM »

"So then, you believe in a round earth only because an organization founded by Nazi war criminals showed you an image of one." —Tom Bishop

"That's not my only reason..." —Alchemist21

LOL!

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Horizon

« on: August 19, 2015, 05:25:38 AM »

The horizon is always a distinct line where earth - or sea - meet the sky. It is never blurred except in rare occasions when there might be haze, mist, fog, darkness or some other condition to cause the horizon to not be distinct. The horizon is most distinctly defined on open seas in the middle of the ocean on a clear day.

DECEIVE MUCH?


Stating that the horizon is crisp and clear is not proof of RE, and you know it. You people use half-truths to make your lies appear reasonable. "The Devil is in that lack of details", in the things that aren't said, the things that are purposely withheld. Half truths are half lies.



Photo #1

The water horizon is crisp; but what's that in the background? Why it's land. "LAND AHOY!" Isn't that interesting that the waterline is crisp and seems to end before the land - and the land is hazy. If the earth was a ball, the curve of the water would block our view of the land.

http://www.mlewallpapers.com/image/16x9-Widescreen-1/view/St-Lucia-Horizon-I-321.jpg



Photo #2

Waterline is crips; land is hazy. Again this proves that the waterline can be crisp while being able to see beyond it.

http://images.forwallpaper.com/files/images/b/b984/b984965a/106188/sea-ocean-water-sky-horizon.jpg



Photo #3 & 4

As I STATED above, when you raise the perspective, it allows you to SEE FARTHER, because when you are close to sea-level the waves themselves rise into your view - not permitting you to see past the waves. As a kayaker I know that even on lakes the waves can get several feet high on windy days—it's really fun I must add!

Below we can see that when we take a photo from high up, we can see farther, and the crisp horizon becomes blurry because we can see farther.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/large/36665053.jpg

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1288/1308812562_5a099e6d7d_z.jpg



Mountain of Water

Well I think we've debunked your debunkery, and debunked RE, and proven you're deceiving people, because on a BALL you would not be able to see the land past the mountain of water in the middle.

See the following for the MOUNTAIN of water evidence:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3211.0


—

51

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Horizon

« on: August 18, 2015, 05:57:49 PM »

Why should you be able to see further the higher you are in FE?

Pick a point in the distance that you can see standing on the ground in FE. Now scale an imaginary ladder that extends as far as you like into the sky. The distance to that point is greater from the tall ladder than it is from the surface. You are viewing along the hypotenuse of a triangle. The length of your elevated viewing distance is the square root of the surface distance squared plus the height above the surface squared which is greater than the surface distance.

So altitude should cause you to lose sight of things in the distance in FE. The higher you climb the less far you should be able to see if FE were true. The fact you get to see farther the higher you go falsifies FE.

But these kinds of arguments are not what real FEers (if there are any) need. Hypothetical real FEers would need interaction with people from a different profession.

Untrue, untrue, untrue.


a) Go to a parking lot, lay right on the tarmac with your stomach on the ground, take a picture of how far you can see. Not very far.

b) Next, stand up and take a picture and see how far you can see. You will be able to see farther.

c) Stand on a ladder or another high object, you will see even farther—you will even be able to see over objects that were in your way while standing.

It's true that your maximum view distance never changes; but your chances of seeing the maximum distance increases with height.

One reason you can see farther is simply because your perspective has changed. Another reason is that while you're on the ground, objects on the ground can obstruct your view. In the case of ocean water you have WAVES rising into your field of view. When looking out into the ocean the water could even be relatively calm where you're standing, but it could be windy with high waves in the distance. Those waves will obstruct your view as the vanishing point converges.

As to your claim that "So altitude should cause you to lose sight of things in the distance in FE. The higher you climb the less far you should be able to see if FE were true. The fact you get to see farther the higher you go falsifies FE."

You're acting as though being on a flat earth changes the laws of perspective and view distance. If what you say is true, then the same would hold true with RE.

In addition, because on a round earth you would have to look DOWN at the curve, your distance would actually be less on a ball than on a plane where you don't have the earth getting in the way of your view. On a round earth you would get to a height where it's impossible to see any farther, because you would be looking at the edge of the curve—whereas on a plane there would be nothing getting in the way of you seeing farther.

You really like to pray on ignorance don't you. Unfortunately for you there aren't many ignorant FErs here—which leaves only you.


—

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Horizon

« on: August 18, 2015, 05:44:53 PM »

In addition, your perspective drawing of the flat earth is all wrong. You won't get results with inaccuracy.

PERSPECTIVE dictates that parallel lines appear to converge at the vanishing point.


Example 1
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IYP57bPbcXY/TkL880UHHMI/AAAAAAAAAAk/X6vl821lMBA/s1600/onepointB.jpg


Example 2




Example 3




So your illustration does't follow the rules of perspective. It shows two perfectly parallel lines: a) the water, b) eye-level - then it shows a sudden ending suspended in mid-air—whereas in reality the two lines will converge into one point.


—

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Horizon

« on: August 18, 2015, 05:28:41 PM »

I can stand on a tall mountain, and on a clear day, the outline of distant mountains will be pretty crisp - especially when looking through binoculars.

Most importantly in this case, do you know how close the photographer was to the water when taking the photo?

Judging by the photo itself, I'd say he was pretty darn near water level. That close to the water your view distance would be severely limited by the water itself - as it's well known that you can see farther at greater height; and you can not see far at all when close to ground-level (or water-level).

Therefor if the person is close to water level, it makes sense that he would't be able to see very far at all, and hence the waterline would be crisp.

Now go get a photo of a large sea vessel taken at a great distance, and then explain why on a ball earth the horizon is so incredibly blurry . . . Now your argument is working against you.

After you do that, go the the ocean with a powerful telescope and watch a ship "go over the horizon." Once the ship is totally gone "over the horizon" zoom in with your telescope and try to explain why the ship is still there, and not over the horizon. Our view distance is only limited by a) how far we can see (the vanishing point), b) obstacles or lack thereof, and c) atmospheric weather conditions (haze).


—

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question About Star Constellations

« on: August 18, 2015, 05:17:34 PM »

A starting point ...
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2635.msg66165#msg66165

There is a logic to that hypothesis. But is there more recent documentation of stars on these separate paths?

Like I see photos of the looping paths of some of the "planets," but is there photo evidence to support the idea that individual stars and constellations go on individual paths.

I know that Job says that individual constellations are pulled along as with ropes, so there is scriptural evidence. But all I see as physical documentation is in old books.


—

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What keeps the sun & moon from falling?

« on: August 18, 2015, 07:41:20 AM »

the sun and moon are attached to the rotating glass dome over earth.

I don't feel we should speculate and draw to definite conclusions when we don't know for sure. I feel this is one of the larger mistakes flat-earthers use. It's exactly what the ball-earthers do, and we shouldn't copy their unscientific methods—besides, they will be sure to condemn us for using their own unscientific tactics—"you can't fight fire with fire."



Skip to scene 6:22 in the video below (although admittedly you'll want to see the whole thing, lol).




HOW does he make the balls float in air?

First off, you can see by the light that the balls are not solid glass. They're hollow and likely made of lightweight polymer (you can see the difference between Jyoti's spheres and videos by Michael Moschen who does the glass ball scene for David Bowie in the movie Labyrinth). Jyoti's spheres are also most-likely weighted at the bottom by being thicker there, causing them to seek their center of balance rather then rolling off his head.

But back to the "levitation."

Look up "invisible string." It's what magicians use to make things appear to levitate. It's a string that is so super-fine that you can't see it unless you're VERY close, or if the light hits it just right—which is why magicians choose their lighting carefully and prefer dark settings. The dark clothing of magicians also does a good job of hiding the invisible thread (remember that at night the sky is very dark and things are far away, and in the day it's too bright to see detail).

Notice as the camera conveniently goes around the back of him he takes the ball off his head. This is when he grabs the string and pulls it over his head. Now the invisible string drapes over his head - which is why his head is always over the small ball. The larger ball however is held in the [traditional] way by wearing a bracelet of invisible string and cradling the ball in it. This is why he must use the lightweight polymer balls, as solid glass would be too heavy for the light-weight string—this is why most magicians stick to levitating things like bottle caps, dollar bills, tennis balls, crumpled paper, and playing cards - all of them are very lightweight.

What we learn from this is that just because we can not SEE the strings, does not mean they are not there, or that it is magic or "fairy dust" as one shill here likes to put it.

In the Bible book of Job God explains to Job that the constellations are moved along by ropes (or string).

. . .The solution to the dilemma.

All constellations and heavenly bodies are held in place by a combination of density and unseeable "strings" - and perhaps other similar things we haven't yet discovered.

Is this unfathomable and unrealistic? Well, SCIENCE tells us that there are invisible black holes they've never seen; a mysterious invisible force called gravity (may the force be with you); an unseeable energy or something called "dark matter", that because it has no matter it obviously doesn't really "matter"; they tell us there are aliens even though not one has been documented; that we magically sprouted from monkeys and ROCKS when it rained millions of years ago when no man was there to witness the claims, and despite the lack of missing links; they tell us to believe in a vast endless universe despite admitting "we can't fly above earth orbit" and recently admitting that there's a glass-like plasma shield that is "impenetrable" (the "firmament" by precise definition); and don't forget their theoretical "STRING theory" which has proven so unreliable that most scientists have abandoned the entire concept; and the list goes on and on.

Which is less believable and akin to FAIRY DUST, all that unwitnessed and unconfirmed crap above?  . . .or that there are strings we can't see with the naked eye, when we know for sure that even lowly street magicians use such a mechanism.

We rest our case.


—

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question About Star Constellations

« on: August 17, 2015, 10:31:27 PM »

Thank you for the information Thork. I'm reading over the material.


—

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question About Star Constellations

« on: August 17, 2015, 10:15:20 PM »

Hey look, it's Jura-Glenlivet, the shill I was talking about who can't shut up.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What keeps the sun & moon from falling?

« on: August 17, 2015, 10:14:14 PM »

Well I have read the Wiki, and it's faith and pixie dust.

And the same goes for gravity.

Oh, except that gravity has already been proven to be a fraud. Just google "scientists slow down light."

The scientists admit that: a) light is not a constant, b) light not being a constant challenges Einstein's theory, c) that E=Mc2 would only work in a vacuum.

On that last point, earth is not a vacuum - period. Hence it is impossible for relativity to work on earth - period. Light is also naturally alterable within gas and fluid, as science bears out. And because our entire atmosphere is full of gasses, molecules, fluid, dust particles, clouds, energy, etcetera, the entire atmosphere is primed to naturally alter light waves.

Furthermore, around our earth is a plasma shield - yes, despite the lies NASA tells us, outside of earth it is filled with gas. And we all know that scientists consider gas and liquid to be the same. Another interesting thing about plasma is it requires a container to hold its shape; otherwise it just flies apart. ENTERS THE FIRMAMENT! This is the dome scientists have found - of course they alter the distance of the dome to fit their theories. but it's there nine the less. Because plasma would fly apart without a container, the dome we call the firmament IS that container that is necessary.

http://www.ibtimes.com/invisible-plasma-shield-which-protects-earth-radiation-discovered-7200-miles-above-1730214



In addition, NASA can not send people outside of this dome - as NASA has themselves admitted: "Right now we only can FLY in earth orbit, THAT’S THE FARTHEST WE CAN GO. This new system is going to allow us to go beyond, and hopefully take humans into the solar system to explore... THE MOON."  —NASA Astronaut Terry Virts. "As we get farther away from earth, we pass through the Van Allen Belts, an area of dangerous radiation. Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, onboard computers, or other electronics on Orion . . . We must solve these challenges BEFORE we send PEOPLE through this region of space."  —NASA’s Kelly Smith



So HOW is the sun, moon, and stars staying up there?

Well maybe because the firmament is FILLED with plasma, and plasma is like a gas or liquid, the sun moon and stars are suspended held in there. On earth things work by the principle of Aether, and what is dense sinks, whereas what is less dense rises. If you fill a balloon with helium and leave it in your house for a few days, the density of the ballon comes to be the same density as the air around it, and instead of floating up or falling down, the balloon floats in the middle of the room. The very same thing is observed in submarines where you can take in just enough air and water to make the overall density (buoyancy) of the sub the same as the water at any given depth, allowing the sub to float at one water depth.

If the sun moon and stars are "floating" inside the Upper-Aether made up of plasma, it's likely or plausible that they have the right density to stay at a set height within the gas/fluid without falling.

So as the shill said: the sun and moon probably stay up by faith or pixy dust. . . Actually, relativity/gravity is an outright fraud, and is the equivalent of pixy dust and blind faith. In it's absence (R.I.P.), that brings us back to the good old science that was around loooong before Einstein. . . Aether! It's scientific, and it works, and it's not a LIE.



—

59

Flat Earth Theory / Question About Star Constellations

« on: August 17, 2015, 09:44:19 PM »

Before I pose my question I would like to say to the paid shills who hang out here all day and night - like it's their job.

I ALREADY KNOW THE BALL EARTH ARGUMENT! I've lived with it my whole life, so I don't care to rehash what I already know.

Therefor I do not NEED or WANT - YOUR input.

And just so you will SHUT UP! here is your view. So please SHUT UP! Thank you.

http://astronomy.nju.edu.cn/~lixd/GA/AT4/AT401/HTML/AT40103.htm



Now that that's out of the way, I'm posing my question to Flat-Earthers to explain to me THE FLAT EARTH VIEW (please refer back to the above statement if you are a ball-earther and can't keep your bloody mouth shut)..



Question:

In the winter, from what I read, there appears to be one set of constellations; but in the summer there is a completely different set of constellations. The only thing I have to confirm whether this is true or not is a) science textbooks; b) the Stallarium program, which has NASA's approval.

Note: I'm not talking about how the stars are different below, at, and above the equator. I'm talking about the star constellations changing in one location.

Has anyone done conclusive research on this subject who can guide me to the right FLAT EARTH research?

Thank you.


—

60

Flat Earth Theory / Re: YouTube LIARS Caught In the Act

« on: August 14, 2015, 05:14:19 AM »

After your liars are revealed as liars - You fall back on the only thing you can. . .

Attempt to make us DOUBT ourselves and one another.

Doubt is the greatest weapon ever devised, because it is the only one that can cause a man to destroy himself.

But you see, I'm immune to it.

And there are other like me.

But you see, here's the problem with your tactic, and the reason your speech doesn't work on us. . .

You're liars.


—