321

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: April 08, 2021, 07:38:18 PM »

So your interpretation of history then is that a Skyhawk of the Argentine armed forces didn't actually (for instance) attack the British RFA Sir Galahad, killing many of the troops on board?  The link is to the Wikipedia page on one of the survivors, Simon Weston:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Weston

I don't know your age, nationality or political affiliations, but I do know that I, and some of the posters on this thread, remember these events happening, and know some of the personnel involved. 

322

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: April 08, 2021, 01:31:33 PM »

As a former member of the UK's Royal Air Force, I'm sure my former comrades, and indeed their Argentinian adversaries, will be pleased to know that the Falklands War "only lasted a couple of months and not many sorties were flown".  I'm surprised by your breadth of knowledge on this subject, but you may want to note that Chile was not a belligerent. 

With regard to yesterday's LAN-Chile flight, which horse are you backing; either that it wasn't in Chile, or that it didn't go to Australia? 

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/cc-bbi 

323

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: April 07, 2021, 08:46:17 PM »

I do not see your pictures, for one.

Can't help you there. They show up for me, in several different browsers, whether I'm logged in or not. Anybody else advise on this one?

If you're interested, it's pretty easy to replicate. Just take a look at the UK and Argentina / the Falklands on google earth (or similar) and measure the distances discussed. Then cut the UK out of the FET monopole map, rotate through 90 degrees and lie it next to the Falklands, observing how big it is compared to the gap.

Two, it doesn't matter what the supposed distances are.

You are concerned with very specific theatre of operations which only need to be within 50 - 100 miles of accuracy.

That whole "needs to be pinpoint accuracy!" crap goes out the window when you are talking about bombs and war.

Maintenance of lives is not a concern when it comes the history of war (unless you are king and it's your life).

Of course it matters. 50-100 miles is an awful long way if you're flying a jet that is low on fuel. Reports from the conflict suggest that the Argentinian pilots typically only had a minute or two of spare fuel, which equates to around 15-20 miles at the most. Furthermore, if you read my post again, you'll see that the difference appears to be far, far greater than 50-100 miles. I said:

Are you seriously suggesting that a journey the pilots thought was 3-400nm each way was in fact more like 1000nm?

The notion that pilots on both sides of the conflict, and indeed the ships and submarines as well, were all using maps that had the location of the Falklands misplaced by hundreds of nautical miles is completely and utterly ludicrous.

You can also take a step back from discussing military conflict and just look at the shape of the southern part of southern america compared to a conventional map or globe - the difference is enormous. At the same latitude as the Falklands, the south american continental mainland, across Chile and Argentina, is around 250nm. The FET monopole map shows it as being wider east-west than the UK is north-south. So that map is suggesting that the people of Chile and Argentina live in countries that are twice as wide as they think they are. Does that sound credible to you? That means every journey on an east-west axis is supposedly out by a factor of two. Pop to the shops 10 minutes down the road, and it takes 20. That kind of thing.

I am not making any suggestion the distances are that far out of range.

I am stating the concern is simply theatre of operations.

You are writing about a group of islands off a coast of a continent.

I think it might be you have no idea how to interpret a map.

And as I wrote, life is not a concern to warmongers.

Ok; so lets suppose the warmongers are content with sacrificing their aircrews in one-off suicide missions.  Civil airlines are generally a little more considerate of their passengers.  Pop across to the other side of South America for a moment and, whilst I have been reading this, I've also been tracking LAN-Chile flight LAN 9578 (aircraft Registration CC-BBI if you want to look it up) which is just touching down in Sidney after leaving Santiago this morning.  It took a little over 14 hours.  Google Maps shows a global-distance of just over 7000 miles; ie, around 500 mph.  Seems about right for a 787.  Its notional maximum range, incidentally, is 7355 miles. 

The Monopole Map suggest that the distance from Santiago, Chile, to Sidney, Australia, is about 4-times the North-South size of South America, around 18,000 miles.  Lets round it down to 14,000 miles to keep it simple.  Any thoughts on how it could travel twice its maximum range, at supersonic speed of 1000 mph?  (Remember this is a 2-way service, so today's "anomalous" tailwind would be tomorrow's headwind).

324

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: April 05, 2021, 03:21:13 PM »

To again try to get this back on track 

@stevecanuck, - you could add to your OP that RET also explains how WW2 carrier battles were fought as depicted by all sailors and airmen (both US and Japanese), i.e., by the use of plotting boards which would not work south of the equator on a FET monopole map.

As described in detail in my one original contribution to the overall FET/RET debate:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16428.0

Yeah, right...

One, the plotting boards were flat.

Two, the plotting boards were flat.

Elaborate on how many carrier battles were fought south of the equator in WW2.

Just off the cuff, how about the Battle of the Coral Sea, May 1942. 

And further to Bob's; the Battle of the Falkland Islands during World War 1, in December 1914.  A British fleet was hunting a German Naval squadron in the South Atlantic.  In the era before radar, satellites and radio aids, the British fleet not only had to find the Germans based on reports from merchant vessels, but when using high speed the capital ships typically needed to bunker (take on coal) every 3 days.  To do this, they had to rendezvous at sea with coal-carrying auxiliaries.  They could obviously only do this if they knew where they were. 

And yes, the plotting boards were flat.  Almost as flat as a computer screen. 

325

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Line

« on: April 04, 2021, 10:53:18 PM »

I can see a bend quite clearly on the great circle mapper.

At every reference to this project (and feel free to google away to prove me wrong), there are multiple mentions of a linear city and there isn't a single mention of great circles anywhere. This city is being built with the knowledge that earth isn't a ball.

   True...this debate has been over for years. The earth has been proven to be flat many times over. Only thing keeping globe earth spinning is the blindness of sci-fi lovers and mason lucifarian lies through out the internet. As they the masons own all msm and internet. It's truly a mason world. As they literally even own the minds of most people.
The exalt wireless test though for one is 100% proof of flat earth. Though many nasa mason shills flood the internet with deception with the help of Google to keep Satans lie pumping. They put up silly equations with even sillier artwork to prove exalt had line of sight. Which they do agree must be found to make this test a success. Its hillarious really that many blindly still defend Satan's lie as with just common sense and simple research proves this test could only have been done on a flat earth.
Exalt wireless test at 146miles.
All one needs to do it look up these simple facts and use the demons globe earth curvature calculator to figure it out.
The test was done from Cyprus to Lebanon.
The highest point in Cyprus is 6404ft. in Lebanon 10131ft. These highest points are closer too or over 300miles apart. But for sake of globe earthers lets call it 146miles and use no tilting away from eachother of the mountains or towers.
So with 146miles on the globe equaling 14213.5 ft till the horizon line from point A to point B. Using 2 towers at 2000ft in length with again no tilt at all. Just going straight up from points A & B with the horizon line drawn coming up from the center. While calling the highest points in each nation 146miles. Thats only 8404ft high in Cyprus and 12131 in Lebanon to the top of the towers.
Even with no tilt away and giving the highest point's of each nation half the distance they truly are. The highest tower is still over 2000ft short of seeing over the horizon line.
Don't need to be a rocket scientist to do this figuring. A kindergarten could figure this out. 😆 yet here we are years later watching glober earthers hate and ridicule the truth. For they won't let go of the lie they love dearly. Thier hopes of going to Mars have come crashing down. All thier love and hope for a star wars/star trek future has been destroyed.
Though many hate God or pretend there is no God. Which the globe lie helps them pretend as they feel they won't be judged in the end. As if Gods a liar and masons lies the truth. If they accept the truth they will then have to stop all the sinning they so enjoyed and or be better people. But its more fun for them to just pretend to be wise and copy n paste what mason lies they know as if educated themselves. Using equations they themselves can't understand or people use others finely worded arguments as thier own. When truly they never tested a thing. They're just out to hate for thier own enjoyment. Again to feel wise but are truly fools. As all masons are as well.

Even without transmitter towers, Qurnat as Sawda (Lebanon) is 3088 metres high.  Mount Olympus (Cyprus) is 1952 metres high.  Personally I think that's line-of-sight on the globe, but I'll let you do the math again. 

When you do, please notice that they are 300 km apart, not miles.  And for the record, I'm not a Devil worshipper. 

Or any kind of worshipper, actually. 

326

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: April 01, 2021, 05:47:14 PM »

At this point, they won't feel weightless any more - they weigh precisely the same as they do on the ground, or indeed sat on an airliner in level, unaccellerating flight.

This is also untrue.  Their mass will be the same but not their weight.  If a parachutist were to take a scale with them and put it under their feet while they are at terminal velocity the scale would not measure the same weight as it does on the ground.  It's no different than a scale in water.  Wind resistance acts the same way as water's buoyant force.

Sorry WTF, but Bob is spot on. 

Your analogy with floating in the water is different; you, and the water you displace, have identical mass so are accelerated by gravity at the same rate.  Neither can move vertically, of course, because the body of water is supported by the seabed, bottom of the pool, or whatever. 

When the parachutist leaves contact with the aircraft, he is instantaneously weightless, but immediately begins accelerating vertically.  As his vertical speed increases, he becomes subject to the upward force of aerodynamic drag, which is related to his size, his drag-coefficient (his shape), air density, and his velocity-squared.  He continues accelerating, and his weight continues increasing, until the aerodynamic drag equals the force of gravity; terminal velocity. 

Float in a pool and you perceive no force acting on you.  Compare this with sticking your arm out the window of a moving car.  Feel the difference?

327

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: March 31, 2021, 08:03:28 AM »

So the Shuttle used to orbit the planet, and there was no deception?

328

Flat Earth Theory / Re: About the conspiracy

« on: March 30, 2021, 10:38:12 PM »

Do what? So the astronauts and space tourists who have been to the ISS just think they're orbiting a globe earth when they aren't really?

Something along those lines, yes.

. 

Now we're getting somewhere. 

So the (lets say) Space Shuttle crew ascend in the lift to board the Shuttle, which they have just seen from the launch pad.  They are familiar with the look, sound and smell of the craft from their many training sessions, and they've probably personalised it for the flight (packet of mints in the seat pocket, that kind of thing) so they've not been somehow diverted into some kind of simulator.  They can see the ground and the sky through the windshield and windows.  It launches, they feel the acceleration.  As it climbs, it pitches over onto its back and they can see the ground and ocean falling away.  The flight crew are test pilots, so they correlate the flight instrument displays with what their senses are telling them about acceleration, speed, altitude and attitude; they will smell a rat if things don't correlate.  The sky darkens, ground based features and clouds grow smaller.  Engines stop and they experience weightlessness; for several days.  As they orbit, the planet rotates beneath them, and within a few orbits they have observed the entirety of Earth from pole to pole.  At the end of the mission they decelerate, re-enter, transition to airborne flight and land. 

At exactly what point, and how, dose the deception occur?

329

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?

« on: March 27, 2021, 02:23:32 PM »

NASA announced this morning that a "possibility" of the Earth being struck by the asteroid Apophis in 2068 has now been dismissed following a most recent analysis of its current position and orbit: 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-analysis-earth-is-safe-from-asteroid-apophis-for-100-plus-years

In fact, they predict that there is no possibility of this particular asteroid hitting Earth for at least 100 years.  That's a relief. 

Would it be Tom's position that he concurs, on the basis that there is no previous evidence of this asteroid striking Earth?  How would FE predict an unprecedented event? 

330

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: March 23, 2021, 02:55:56 PM »

Or indeed using a video sequence, which you have just done to demonstrate the hologram on our 2D screens. 

331

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 22, 2021, 11:28:59 PM »

Does your research involve field trips, interviewing witnesses and so forth?  Or is it mainly google/YouTube based?

I do not conduct interviews, no.  I do, of course, study the anecdotes collected by other researchers.

I don't go on field trips with the express purpose of seeing ufos (though I frequently look up!).  In general, there is no reason to - they are too ephemeral (and are clandestine surveillance craft, besides).

So, mainly the internet then.  That's fine.  Lots of good stuff on the internet. 


Imagine, if you will, that Earth sends Mike Tyson, Kim Jong Un and Uma Thurman as emissaries to the home of the Grays (I know, its weird, but stay with me.  Its a McGuffin).  The average Gray-in-the-street is likely to think they represent 3 different species.  He/she has never visited Earth, as that kind of travel is the province (as on Earth) of a technically qualified and trained elite.  He/she obviously recognises the overall anthropoid form, but individual features of the visitors are diverse; dark/light skin, differences in overall stature, hair, sexual features and, of course, differing eye colour and shape.  Three different races.  Probably at least one of them scary (Uma Thurman would be my guess). 

The TV show Star Trek appeared in the 1960's and was in many ways groundbreaking in its depiction of the unified nations and races of Earth collaborating as part of a Confederation.  The famous prime-time-first interracial kiss, and so forth.  The stories developed, spinoffs appeared and by the mid 90's the Star Trek canon introduced us to the concept of a black character from the planet Vulcan, in the shape of Ensign Tuvok.  Familiar Vulcan brain, Vulcan ears, but now he's black.  Quite why Vulcan humanoids would have evolved in a parallel way to those on Earth I don't think was fully explained, but it did at least serve to increase the diversity in roles available to ethnic actors, and, as art follows society, illustrated the broadening acceptance of diversity in the population. 

I'm personally unconvinced by the prospect of Grays in reality but my point is, as a cultural icon in the collective consciousness, should Jack's 90's "Gray" just be seen as an ethnic variation of the same old "alien" species. 

And don't forget that none of the popular images are the product of witnesses or scientists, they are all drawn by graphic artists. 

332

Flat Earth Community / Re: Questions for flat earth

« on: March 22, 2021, 12:18:20 AM »

Does your research involve field trips, interviewing witnesses and so forth?  Or is it mainly google/YouTube based?

333

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: March 21, 2021, 02:14:08 PM »

I tripped on the stairs last week.  I'm 67.  Just thought I'd put it out there. 

"I am Spartacus"!

334

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is there no standard map of the earth?

« on: March 01, 2021, 12:15:11 AM »

You need to learn how flights work. Airliners use filed flight plans and radar communication with air traffic control. The filed flight plans are based off of years of historic data collection. Nothing here proves the shape of the earth.
[/quote].

We seem to have an oxymoron here; flight plans are based off years of historic data collection (i.e. the distance and vector relationships between all the world's airports), but this tells us nothing about the shape of the world?  Some would argue that this tells us everything about its shape. 

And maybe we need to look again at the role of Air Traffic Control.  The safe navigation of an aircraft is entirely the responsibility of its captain.  He (she) decides the destination and is responsible for ensuring sufficient fuel and adequate means of navigation.  He is assisted in safely making the journey by ATC. 

In this last week, a Boeing of Icelandair carried a group of scientists between Munich and the Norwegian blue-ice Troll airstrip in Antarctica, and return.  It's unlikely that Icelandair has done this before, but they did it by knowing the relative positions of Munich and Troll.  And don't expect much intervention from ATC, as much of the South Atlantic is beyond the range of VHF radio and radar. 
 

335

Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth

« on: February 19, 2021, 12:22:46 AM »

Journeybeyondrail.com.au. 

The Company quotes a distance of 4352 km from Sydney (East coast) to Perth (West coast) via Adelaide on its Indian Pacific rail service.  One imagines that they know how much track they laid. 

I don't know if locomotives have odometers, but they definitely have speedometers and clocks, and have some resistance to anomalous winds. 

And as for which Flat Map is to be debunked, I think we should wait for nominations from the many that are available.

336

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 02:40:39 PM »

Like I said you say you can see the world like this:

You have optical powers shared by no other humans. Extraordinary.

That's what the polar projection assumes, yes.

You can see points over 180 degrees around you. If you can't see such a space vertically because your upper brow is in the way all you need to do is rotate your head. Vertical FOV is fairly high as well.

The argument was that a wide field of view must necessarily produces distortion. Since we can see a very high field of view with human vision, this argument about FOV and distortion is incorrect.

Any lens with a vocal length less than infinity produces a distorted image, and the human eye is a false comparison.  From the moment we open our eyes, our heads start writing software to convert the distorted retinal image into something representing reality, and we can't unlearn that anymore than we can un-learn breathing or pooping. 

And although we may have visual perception over something like 180 degrees, our acuity measures less than 10 degrees.  Hold a newspaper at arms length to your side; you can tell that something is there, but you'll need to turn you head a few degrees to identify it as a newspaper, and look directly at it to read the headline.  I

337

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Vendée Globe

« on: December 15, 2020, 07:42:51 PM »

The formula for speed is Speed = Distance / Time

If the distance is in question, then the speed is also in question.

The situation is fluids traveling within fluids. The winds and water are in motion. On board airplane airspeed indicators are similarly unreliable, and are not used for navigation. The local area of the airplane might be in motion faster than a larger area around that airplane, which might itself be in motion.

This is a joke, right?  Apart from their vital use at the lower end of the range, around stalling speed, this is the main reason for having an airspeed indicator.  I don't know when or where you did your own pilot training, but when I was taking lessons (in 1973) the first piece of kit I had buy was something called a "computer", which was a type of circular sliderule, where you would factor in your airspeed, intended course, and wind velocity and it worked out the heading you needed to steer.  En route, similar inputs would tell you how far you had travelled.  This is why commercial aircraft and large military aircraft carried navigators.  The windspeeds are forecast by meteorological agencies, and verified by shore stations and weather balloons. 

The advent of more advanced terrestrial navaids in the 50s, and GPS in the 90s has reduced dependence on dead reckoning, and consequently reduced crewing requirements, but its still a vital part of crew training.  Its also how Amy Johnson, Jim Molinson, Alan Cobham and thousands of other civilian pioneers and military pilots managed to find their way around the South Pacific in the 30s and 40s.

And I'd be very surprised if the Vendee sailors aren't comparing at least 3 different forms of navigation. 

(Incidentally, leading boat currently has a windspeed of 23 kts, to the rear of the peloton its around 8 kts.  Scary stuff). 

338

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 14, 2020, 10:18:40 AM »

You criticize the debate yet you yourself have contributed nothing. Why don't you enlighten us as to how a rocket can propel itself in the vacuum of space without violating Newton's 1st?

I can't explain rocket theory to you with any more eloquence than the other correspondents. 

And at least half of a debate consists of listening.  And understanding. 

339

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 13, 2020, 09:48:52 PM »

I got to say I'm a bit disappointed.  What could be an interesting thread on the relative arguments FE/RE, has degenerated over the last few pages and weeks into a futile attempt to help a correspondent understand basic (generally unchallenged?) physics regarding Newton's Laws and the nature of vacuum. 

More disappointing is that there are a couple of heavy-hitters on the FE side who's understanding of these concepts is respected, but who's input has so far been confined to debating the timeline of Tweets about an album cover and the personal integrity of a retired member of the Canadian Space Agency.   

Any contribution on gas law and Newtonian physics Gents?

340

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does the Earth rest on a solid foundation or does it float in space?

« on: December 11, 2020, 09:18:21 PM »

...the Earth is not stationary but travelling upwards at by now immense speed, since it is claimed Earth is accelerating upwards at 9.8 ms^-2. Apparently everything else we see - sun, moon and stars - is also accelerating at the same rate with the Earth. This is called Universal Acceleration and is this site’s explanation of what the rest of the world calls gravity.

If everything is accelerating at the same speed and direction then this 'acceleration' would not be discernible, just like when you are traveling in an airplane at 400 mph along with the plates, napkins, and chairs.  There is no sense of motion, thus there would be no 'force' and you would still have to explain gravity.    BTW, 'up' would have no meaning. 

You may be confusing "acceleration" and "velocity".  Humans have no means of detecting velocity (although we sometimes think we can, from clues such as perception of relative movement, engine noise, wind on our face etc).  We can, however detect acceleration, using our sense of feeling, sense of self and our inner-ear thingies.  When the aeroplane, passengers, chairs and napkins are all travelling at 400 mph then, yes, there is no perception of velocity.  When the First Officer bounces the thing onto the runway, however, that is an acceleration of the aeroplane, and all the passengers, chairs and plates feel it. 

The FE concept is that UA is accelerating the Earth, and celestial objects at 9.8 m/s/s but not (for some reason) people, animals, buildings, chairs and napkins.  So the FE concept of what we Globies call gravity, is that everything on the planet is being pushed up by the earth and that is the effect we feel as gravity. 

And as Longtitube said, don't think that everyone who posts on this site is a Flattie; its a forum.