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 - DuncanDoenitz

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15  Next >
Yes, I admit to some embarrassment about posting on an FE forum. 

Anywho, I worked with pilots on a daily basis; not sure where your experience is drawn from.  Good to know you hold them in such high esteem though, as most astronaut pilots are former fighter pilots, 

@ Dual1ty; can I just throw in a critique on the video in Reply #8; the one that "... no one has even attempted to debunk yet"? 

First of all, the credentials of the F-16 pilot.  Yes, if he's an F-16 pilot you would expect him to have appropriate intelligence and education.  I am a retired aircraft engineer/mechanic.  So far as my personal abilities as such are concerned, I would say I did a reasonable job (well I would, wouldn't I)?  Do I remember everything I was taught?  Did I even understand everything I was taught?  Others may differ in their views, but along the way I met some real aces, better trained, more experienced and a broader range of knowledge.  I also met some real duffers; could barely read and understand the manual.  But we were all qualified Engineers.  RonJ, as we know is a Navigator and Engineer.  Is he competent in that job?  Undoubtedly, as he is qualified in that role.  But I bet there are better, and I bet there are worse; a spectrum.  I don't know your career choice, but if you have a field of expertise perhaps you can relate to this. 

The F-16 is one of the most mass produced aircraft currently in service; well over 4000 built, and entered service (in Europe) around 1983.  40 years.  A typical squadron would have 2 or 3 pilots per aircraft, flying the aircraft for perhaps 10 years.  Eight or ten pilots per aircraft, lets call it 40,000 F-16 pilots worldwide; some aces, some not the sharpest knife in the kitchen drawer.  A spectrum.  And this one thinks the world is flat. 

Speed.  Much is made of the 1500mph and "250 miles in 10 minutes".  Horsepoop.  The maximum speed of the F-16 is less than 1400mph, but lets call that within a range of tolerence.  What's important is that the only way an F-16 goes that speed is with a clean aeroplane, no missiles, no external fuel tanks, and for short distances, and not to interecept a bomber.  If he's travelling 250 miles at Mach 2, there better be a friendly airfield at 249 miles.  Interestingly, the accompanying video (which is largely pointless stock footage btw, as you know) does show the USAF Thunderbirds Flight Demonstration Team, with a shot of the cockpit showing us that he's doing 400 kias at 24000', around 430 knots true airspeed, or 500mph.  So 250 miles in around half an hour.  For the pilot, or producer, to suggest otherwise is at least disingenuous. 

The radar.  Our guy assesses that at a range of 80 miles the width of scanstop-to-stop is 138 miles and that should give a hump of 12,700' in the middle of the screen.  Wrong; since the scope either side of the centreline is 69 miles, this would give a real-world hump of just over 3000' on the boresight; less than a mile, at eighty miles.  Insignificant, as any BVR weapon will be targetted by its radar position, not its apparent altitude.  The final line is a cracker, that the radar will get them killed "unless the manufacture has accounted for curvature"!  And?  Is there any evidence that curvature has not been accounted for?  Is that all that's in the drawer? 

Navigating the curvature.  Let me give you an analogy in azimuth.  It took me about 3 minutes on Google Maps to find a highway in Seskatchewan, SK-15, running due west from the town of Nokomis to just short of Broderick, around 80 miles, and its absolutely due west.  So imagine you're driving to Broderick.  Do you set your compass and drive due west from your origin?  No, you drive 2-feet to left of the white line and you arrive in Broderick.  Its absolutely the same with maintaining altitude.  Here we are in the 3rd decade of the 21st Century, and all aircraft maintain altitude, not by GPS, not by radar, not by attitude indication, but by referencing the air pressure.  Doesn't matter if you're on autopilot or flying by hand; pressure increases; the plane needs to fly up.  Pressure decrease; plane needs to fly down.  The pressure of the air is directly related to its height above sea level, and any movement of the aircraft up or down due to curvature is absolutely imperceptable against the other forces, turbulance and changes of mass and CofG as fuel is consumed.  That any pilot can be unaware of this, and state as much, is frankly incredible. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: September 07, 2023, 08:10:13 AM »
The oldest and best proof of the Earth's flatness can be seen by looking out your window.

And the oldest and best proof of Jimmy Saville's benevolence is to watch his TV shows. 

The idea that a subject can be fully explained by observing it through a 42-inch-diagonal portal is absurd. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?
« on: September 02, 2023, 11:42:25 AM »
Exactly.  The focal plane ("sensor") is flat; thanks for the unnecessary diagram. 

If you are serious about this, you really need to study optics, opthalmics and camera theory.  Come back and tell us about the roundness of a pin-hole camera for instance, or where is the single point of the human eye through which all the light rays pass (Hint; its not the middle of the oblate spheroid). 

And I don't mean "look something up on You-Tube", I mean actually study the subjects you are "teaching" us about. 

edit; does anyone actually study anything these days?

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?
« on: September 02, 2023, 09:51:45 AM »
Yes, round eyes. 

The irony, however, is that every image on this thread was not taken by a round eye-ball, but by a camera. 

A flat, focal plane, camera. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nothing To See Here (Maui)
« on: September 01, 2023, 11:42:29 AM »
Honeycomb and snowflakes in perfect symmetry.  Sine waves.  Remarkable. 

So your latest theory is that the mysterious "They" (Some government?  Thrush?  I don't know, not fully explained) have used the principles alluded to in this video to transform the power of a hurricane and burn some cars.  For some reason.  Why not just have the hurricane wreck the cars in the first place? 

Cui bono? 

Figure it out?  Sorry, need more to go on. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?
« on: August 30, 2023, 03:06:14 PM »
"It's nonsense because I don't like those facts".

Keep digging lol.

But they aren't facts, are they?  It's just random, unattributed slides from a "write-your-own-science" site on the internet. 


(Obviously, because a post isn't complete without disparaging your antagonists). 

Flat Earth Community / Re: What are you doing here?
« on: August 30, 2023, 02:03:43 PM »
What I just said in my previous comment is 100% fact, by the way. And it 100% debunks the globe.

ONLY globe ZEALOTS will deny it and/or try to misrepresent it.

So, if you are someone who maybe believes in the globe but is not a globe zealot and you are reading this - just think for yourself, look at what I have presented from Google Drive and look at the facts.

This will help you understand it better:

"It's true because I say it is". 

What, exactly, is the relevance or provenance of the Google Drive stuff?  Who wrote it?  Who reviewed it?  It's nonsense.  For instance, in the second clip, the diagram illustrates rays of vision crossing in the middle of the orb of the eye.  They don't; they cross in the lens. 

And what is the relevance of "the curvature of the eye", when reviewing photographs. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: August 23, 2023, 03:40:26 PM »

How do you know that it crashed on the Moon? Did you get your binos out and saw it?

You have the most cringe-worthy arguments for beliving in heliocentrism.

You're missing my point.  On the basis that no lay-person can observe it, why announce it?  Did it crash?  Did it exist?  Just like you, I've no evidence either way.

The only agencies with the wherewithall to detect its actual presence (or absence) would be the equivalents of Roscosmos in other countries and similar alliances; NASA, EASA, CNSA, etc.  Just like India is experiencing at the moment, a successful mission of this magnitude and complexity is a source of immense kudos and national prestige, both for the home-audience and abroad. 

What is the logic behind Russia mounting this mission (or fake-mission) in the first place, televising its faked-launch, reporting its progress and ultimately announcing its abject failure?  Why not anounce its successful completion?  NASA is never going to snitch, when they are in the same business. 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: NASA’s Latest Moon Actors
« on: August 23, 2023, 02:39:52 PM »
I think more credit is due to Roscosmos.  They're losing a war, Rouble is collapsing, and their only friends on the disc are Belarus, Iran and North Korea. 

Obvious thing to restore credibility to your regime is to fake your spacecraft obliterating itself on the moon. 

ps. "... idiots like you"?  Is that going to stand? 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE radius (UAFE estimate)
« on: August 17, 2023, 01:12:58 PM »

You think that Auckland to Santiago de Chile was the most difficult route I had to deal with over the years? No, it was Juneau to Santiago de Chile:

Interesting that you find these routes "difficult".  You didn't actually answer Bob's question about flying Aukland-Santiago did you? 

The reference you provided refers to a flight time Santiago-Sydney, and quotes a flight time of "18 hours .... perfectly compatible with my map".  I guess any flight time would be compatible, since the map does not actually include a scale of distances. 

Historical data on FlightRadar24 suggests that the flight times between the city-pairs Sydney/Santiago are typically 12.5 hours eastbound and 14 hours westbound (against the prevailing wind). 

Getting back to Bob's question, LAN801 is being operated today by Boeing Dreamliner CC-BGR; it left Santiago 7.51 hrs ago, and estimates landing Aukland in 4.09 hrs; exactly 12 hours.  Not only that, but the reciprocal flight, LAN800 is also currently airborne, reg CC-BGA, and estimates a flight time eastbound of 10.5 hours. 

Does all this fit your map? 

.......which is one of the (main) reasons that the Arctic is one of the most restricted areas on Earth.

You keep throwing this out there and expecting people to believe that it's true.  Can you provide any evidence whatever of some World-army or Secret Service keeping people out?  Under who's jurisdiction?  The (unspecified) "government"? 

Alternatively, I contend that "The Islet of Rockall is the Northern True Pole".  Its surrounded by ocean, there are no tourist visits, and I don't know anyone who's been there or even seen it.  Prove me wrong. 

Whilst all credit is due to M. Riboni for his participation in this race, I haven't seen anything to elaborate on his duties, particularly with regard to navigation.  He certainly wasn't the skipper (Pierre Fehlmann) so may have been anywhere between Second-in-Command and sailor.  It is also never stated how many, or which, legs he crewed out of 6. 

I haven't counted them all but under "Whitbread/Volvo Ocean Race Participants" Wikipedia lists over a hundred individuals beginning with the letter "R".  That suggest the total number of participants since 1972 to be around one or two thousand.  Of course, Earth Shape opinions of the others have not You-Tubed. 

Assuming you can read, Bob doesn't need to make a video.  Look at the top left corner of each page of his pdf.  There is a symbol like a V.  The left arm is vertical, indicating True North (Grid North, or map North, if you will).  The other arm points to the right, and is marked "26deg E".  That indicates to chart users that the local declination of Magnetic North is 26 deg right of True North. 

Every single map and chart intended for the purposes of navigation has the local declination marked on it, either as the V-simbol on the Invercargill Airfield Chart, or often as a compass rose on nautical charts.  Airfield charts have a short lifespan and are frequently replaced, but navigational maps are expected to be in use for several years so normally include, not only the declination at publication, but the expected annual progression. 

In the case of Invercargill, for instance, if you flew a heading of North on your aircraft compass, without applying this adjustment, you would actually be flying North-North-East.  Perhaps more importantly, if you flew at low altitude compass-West after departing Invercargill you might expect to be over the sea, but you would actually be flying NNW, into a mountain range. 

Its not just for aircraft; its the same for ships, and every boy-scout map-reader knows it. 

That's an interesting map of the Magnetic Pole btw.  Seems to be illustrating a journey across the arctic via Seattle, Nome, Spitzbergen and Paris.  Do you have a source? 

You may also find this interesting;

The first team of novices to reach the magnetic north pole did so in 1996, led by David Hempleman-Adams. It included the first British woman Sue Stockdale and first Swedish woman to reach the Pole.[20][21][22] The team also successfully tracked the location of the Magnetic North Pole on behalf of the University of Ottawa, and certified its location by magnetometer and theodolite at 78°35′42″N 104°11′54″W.[23][24],N%20110%C2%B048%E2%80%B2W.

Does that count as exploration?  That was on behalf of the University of Ottawa.  Not the "government".  Ottawa. 


How nice of them to care if a flat-earther gets eaten by a polar bear. The government really has our best interest at heart. It's... it's beautiful. :'(

Why is any of this a problem for a modern army in 2023 again? The armies are at the Arctic because of Putin or Trump or the Arctic Boogeyman, so they are not there to explore anything. When are they going to explore? Especially that area I highlighted? Below the ice?

Or just take a flight from Helsinki to Tokyo, and look out the window.

Nice coping mechanism.

I'm sorry, I should have been clearer.  Tours, anywhere, are supervised by tour guides.  Been to Israel?  Or Whalewatching?  Or Yosemite?  Or Chornobyl?  Tour guides gather together a group of tourist, make sure they are suitably attired, equipped and have appropriate mobility and fitness.  They count the tourists, shove them on suitable transport, explain what they are looking at, and try to stop them wandering off into the West Bank, over a cliff, fall out of the boat or whatever.  Then they take the tourists back to the hotel and count them again.  In the arctic they make sure you don't freeze to death, fall down a crevace, or suffer the polar bear thing.  Tour guides. 

Not "the government".  Not an army. 

Tour guides. 

And I'm sorry, I don't see your problem with aircraft windows. 


You're missing the point, which is that exploration of the Arctic (Sea) is not allowed. Why? All expeditions to the Arctic (Sea) are small expeditions to specific points through predetermined routes, which are all approved by government beforehand. Meaning that there is no actual exploration of that area. I want to know what's here:

Supposedly it's just a bunch of ice there and water below the ice, but I don't buy it. Why has the ice been replaced with CGI water on Google Earth?

This is total crap.  Who is this "government"?  The World Government?  The arctic can be approached directly by air, or seasonally on foot/sled/cat,  from Russia, United States, Canada, Greenland and Norway, or just go by boat from the surrounding oceans.  There is no land, just open sea and ice under no nation's jurisdiction.  The expeditions are small because of the dangers from extreme weather, difficult (ice) terrain and presence of predators (unless that is also denied).  These expeditions are closely controlled so that visitors don't fall through the ice, get eaten by polar bears or succumb to the weather but, if you want to mount your own expedition, just go for it.  Frankly, the only group of individuals who would find it insurmountable are the Amish. 

Or just take a flight from Helsinki to Tokyo, and look out the window. 


It is an arbitrary fixed point like I already said. If you look at the old Mercator NP map, the geographic NP in that map is nowhere near where they say it is now, and no one goes to the old location.

What, are you going to say that Mercator shouldn't be trusted? That's not what I was taught in school.

If your teachers really told you to trust Mercator, you were very badly served.  Of course you shouldn't trust him; he lived in the 16th Century ffs and his map is a function of the knowledge base of the period.  No-one had been to the North Pole, and his Polar Map is based on knowledge, rumour, guesswork and invention.  Land masses and whirlpools that don't exist, for instance. 

The true value of Gerardus Mercator is purely on his publication of the projection method which carries his name (and is still in use today) and as a historical reference of 16th Century knowledge. 

If I may ask; why East in particular? 

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Nuclear Bombs Do Not Exist
« on: July 07, 2023, 10:33:52 AM »
And, actually, people do live in Chornobyl. 

The Soviet authorities established 2 zones centred on the reactor; at 10 km radius, and at 30 km radius. 

Prior to the Russian invasion, these zones and checkpoints continued to be maintained, administered and monitored by Ukraine.  The 10 km zone has the most severe contamination and was declared uninhabitable, due to the backround radiation and the multitude of hotspots.  The 10 km zone includes the now abandoned city of Pripyat, 3 km from the reactor, which is where the famous derelict apartments, hotels and funfair are located.  Prior to Feb 2022 it could be visited by tourists (like me, 2021).  Day-trippers are obliged to wear a dosimeter which is monitored at the end of your visit; tour guides, workers and security personnel are more rigidly monitored, and all vehicles are decontaminated on departure.

The town of Chornobyl is actually about 15 km from the reactor, hence inside the 30-zone, but outside the 10-zone.  It continues to house security and maintenance personnel.  Although it is permanently occupied, personnel work on a shift-basis of a few weeks on site, alternating with a similar period elsewhere.  The workers are there to maintain the infrastructure, but mainly to continue processing fuel rods from the other, decomisssioned, reactors. 

Since the Incident, the residual ground based radiation gradually percolated down into the soil, so presented a reducing hazard when walking or driving on concrete. 

Then, of course, Russia drove its tank batallions across the terrain, and put everything back to 1986. 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 15  Next >