1
Flat Earth Community / Re: Where are the earth pictures?
« on: August 02, 2017, 12:43:37 PM »"chipsullivan, are you sure that russian space agencies being sincere too?"
Yes, thanks for double checking.
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.
"chipsullivan, are you sure that russian space agencies being sincere too?"
Yes, thanks for double checking.
2
Flat Earth Community / Re: Where are the earth pictures?
« on: August 01, 2017, 11:35:05 PM »
"I have not seen 1 not 1 real picture of earth from out of space, explain that to me?"
Okay, here's the explanation, you suck at finding photos on the internet. Clear enough?
It took me a bit more than 4 minutes to come up with this: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/application/weather/elektro/earth_disk1_1.jpg
Russian space agency, Roscosmos, not NASA.
"... there isn't 1 real picture of the earth, planets, the moon, or the sun; absolutely nothing."
That's pretty extreme. Are you literally claiming that no one, in all of history, has ever taken a picture of the moon? I must augment my previous statement, you suck at understanding simple, everyday occurrences that no one else has any trouble with.
Okay, here's the explanation, you suck at finding photos on the internet. Clear enough?
It took me a bit more than 4 minutes to come up with this: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/application/weather/elektro/earth_disk1_1.jpg
Russian space agency, Roscosmos, not NASA.
"... there isn't 1 real picture of the earth, planets, the moon, or the sun; absolutely nothing."
That's pretty extreme. Are you literally claiming that no one, in all of history, has ever taken a picture of the moon? I must augment my previous statement, you suck at understanding simple, everyday occurrences that no one else has any trouble with.
3
Flat Earth Community / Re: RECORD SUN/MOON TRIAL!
« on: August 01, 2017, 11:14:09 PM »
I challenge you, OP, to explain why your exercise is relevant.
4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Moon
« on: August 01, 2017, 01:48:36 AM »
Speaking of the moon, it makes a nice backdrop for the International Space Station. https://www.space.com/29889-space-station-crosses-moon-photo.html
5
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Wall
« on: July 27, 2017, 12:00:39 AM »Pictures... Let me get that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=ice+wall+antarctica&tbm=isch
Umm, try some reality instead. https://www.google.com/search?q=antarctic+shoreline&tbm=isch&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiowqfxk6jVAhULgLwKHWrADw0Q_AUIDCgD&biw=1600&bih=703&dpr=1
6
Flat Earth Community / Re: Distance Experiment Idea?
« on: July 26, 2017, 09:48:29 PM »
You should all stop letting Tom troll you. I have and I'm better off for it.
For the OP, your question presumes that there is an Antarctic ice wall. I'm not saying that you're promoting that as fact, just pointing out that it's in there. The wall is an FE fantasy. In this video shot by a tourist (whom I trust is not lying about the location) the shoreline of Antarctica is shown to be rocky. This is most clear around 0:40-0:45 where humans can be seen in the background giving a sense of scale and disproving the existence of any "wall". The uploader has dozens of videos from his trip to the planet's southernmost continent, and an obvious affinity for penguins.
For the OP, your question presumes that there is an Antarctic ice wall. I'm not saying that you're promoting that as fact, just pointing out that it's in there. The wall is an FE fantasy. In this video shot by a tourist (whom I trust is not lying about the location) the shoreline of Antarctica is shown to be rocky. This is most clear around 0:40-0:45 where humans can be seen in the background giving a sense of scale and disproving the existence of any "wall". The uploader has dozens of videos from his trip to the planet's southernmost continent, and an obvious affinity for penguins.
7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Final Nail in the Coffin for the FLAT EARTH
« on: July 21, 2017, 01:12:53 PM »
What you claim in not a projection, is literally known by that very name.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_equidistant_projection
8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« on: July 20, 2017, 06:04:09 PM »Apologies, that was poorly phrased.
What I meant to ask was why the section entitled "Evidence for the Conspiracy" starts with Apollo. If the Mercury and Gemini programs preceded Apollo, then surely there should be evidence from those two programs as well?
Sure, there is evidence from those programs as well. We have mostly just been adding things as they come up in discussion.
This evidence is equal in veracity to that in Earth Not a Globe. Well chosen.
9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: NASA Conspiracy History
« on: July 20, 2017, 05:36:40 PM »
A hypothetical parallel discussion between two persons, A & B.
A: Mount Everest isn't real.
B: That's silly, of course it's real.
A: I've never seen it, have you?
B: Well no. But other people have and they've written books, taken photographs and recorded videos while climbing it. I've seen some of those.
A: They're all lying, the photos are fake and the videos are produced in movie studios.
B: What?! That's nuts. It's on every fricken map of Asia.
A: The mapmakers are in on it too. They're all trying to hide the truth from us.
B: Okay, you're a looney. We're done here.
A: You haven't proven that I'm wrong so I win the debate.
A: Mount Everest isn't real.
B: That's silly, of course it's real.
A: I've never seen it, have you?
B: Well no. But other people have and they've written books, taken photographs and recorded videos while climbing it. I've seen some of those.
A: They're all lying, the photos are fake and the videos are produced in movie studios.
B: What?! That's nuts. It's on every fricken map of Asia.
A: The mapmakers are in on it too. They're all trying to hide the truth from us.
B: Okay, you're a looney. We're done here.
A: You haven't proven that I'm wrong so I win the debate.
10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 18, 2017, 09:39:32 PM »
Tom is just a troll. This is shown by his repeated reference to a single source for information and his refusal to acknowledge any evidence that proves his position wrong. His source, Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe, is antiquated, mistake-filled and obsolete, like many medical books from the same era. It does provide evidence of the Earth being flat, but that evidence is flawed, and Tom knows this. He is not a stupid man and he surely recognizes that modern science provides unequivocal proof that the Earth is a nearly perfect rotating sphere. But like most other trolls, he is being disingenuous and thus should be ignored.
11
Flat Earth Theory / Only FE answers, please
« on: July 18, 2017, 10:36:02 AM »
I am still trying to find answers from someone more knowledgeable than myself about some specifics within the FE model. My last attempt at having these questions addressed devolved into debate and was moved out of the Q&A section by a moderator.
So please, if you can, answer the questions below. Don't try to redefine them or deflect and obfuscate the subject matter with additional questions about them or my understanding. And also please don't direct me toward an outside resource where I can research the matter. They are simple questions, just answer them in your own words. I believe this is what this section of the Forum is for.
This assumes that everyone agrees that there is a big, bright thing in the sky during the daytime, the one it hurts to look straight at, and that we call it the "Sun".
In the Flat Earth model:
What is the Sun's composition?
What are its mass and dimensions?
How far is it from Earth?
Who made the measurements, from where, and what instruments and procedures did they use?
And most importantly, did anyone else check their work?
Thanks.
So please, if you can, answer the questions below. Don't try to redefine them or deflect and obfuscate the subject matter with additional questions about them or my understanding. And also please don't direct me toward an outside resource where I can research the matter. They are simple questions, just answer them in your own words. I believe this is what this section of the Forum is for.
This assumes that everyone agrees that there is a big, bright thing in the sky during the daytime, the one it hurts to look straight at, and that we call it the "Sun".
In the Flat Earth model:
What is the Sun's composition?
What are its mass and dimensions?
How far is it from Earth?
Who made the measurements, from where, and what instruments and procedures did they use?
And most importantly, did anyone else check their work?
Thanks.
12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 17, 2017, 12:26:04 AM »What makes you think that anyone would know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it? Controlled experimentation is required. Until that time, although the motions are visible to us, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown.
I did not suggest that anyone could know the mechanism of the sun just by looking at it, Tom. I asked specific questions about the flat Earth model. Not one of those questions has been answered. You could take the bold step forward and speak for your movement by simply replying, "We don't know."
The mechanism underlying the motions of the sun, planets, asteroids, comets, etc. is well known. It is gravity as defined by Newton’s laws of motion.
13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see across?
« on: July 16, 2017, 12:41:37 PM »
Tom may want to go back to arguing what he knows: passages from a 19th century book. Clearly, trying to cite data from the work of modern-day respected science agencies is not his forte.
14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is the Sun?
« on: July 15, 2017, 04:36:11 PM »I'm very sorry to disappoint you, but the truth is that this theory doesn't enjoy of enough scientifical proof, theoretical coherency and common sense. There are too many lack and unanswered question that make of all this points a mere conspiracy without a kind of support by reason. It's good thing to follow a continuous cycle of researching, because it is typical of Man, but like someone here already said "not always what you see is true, and what you claim according to your sight might be misunderstood"
You lost me at scentifical. So, no answers leads to really only one conclusion. Flat Earth is more of a faith than an empirically based system of belief.
15
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see across?
« on: July 13, 2017, 03:59:43 AM »I believe it. But I'm wondering why Tom believes it and states it as fact. Just because "they" say so?
The NOAA studies the area between the edge of space and the bottom of the ocean and says that the atmosphere extends to about 62 miles above the surface of the earth. They have employed high altitude dirigibles and planes with scientific tools to study air pressure and other facets of the atmosphere. I have no reason to doubt the studies. If you feel that the NOAA is engaging in shady activities, manipulating photographs, faking missions, or that their information is questionable in any way let us know.
NOAA is legit. They don't use just dirigibles and planes, but satellites in orbit too. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/earth-pictures-noaa-weather-goes-16-space-science/ These photos clearly show the shape of the planet Earth. Do you doubt that?
16
Flat Earth Theory / Re: The International Space Station .. too much evidence of a Globed Earth to ignore
« on: July 13, 2017, 03:16:22 AM »
I would qualify the third video as proof of the ISS's existence AND the round nature of the planet.
17
Flat Earth Theory / What is the Sun?
« on: July 12, 2017, 07:57:22 PM »I'm trying to explain the FE model to a friend and she raised a few questions I couldn't answer, which made me think of a few more.
In the Flat Earth model:
What is the Sun's composition?
What are its mass and dimensions?
How far is it from Earth?
Who made the measurements, from where, and what instrumentation and procedures did they use?
And most importantly, did anyone else check their work?
Thanks!
18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: All planets are circular.
« on: July 07, 2017, 09:45:15 PM »He is incorrect in who the quote is from, but it WAS from someone influence by Rowbatham's work. It's from "A Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe" which you helpfully have on your wiki. The noted statement is point number 4 as seen on this page. https://wiki.tfes.org/A_hundred_proofs_the_Earth_is_not_a_globe Published in 1885, 100 years past the invention of the theodolite. William born in 1830, ~40 years after it's invention.The human eye at night sees planets in our solar system as round, sphere like object, we can all agree on. How is this planet we live on any different and why?
The earth is not a planet.
Are you willing to back that up with any proof?
Yes. See: Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Here's a quote from Mr. Rowbotham, "There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
Cairo, Egypt, at the mouth of the Nile has an elevation 75 ft above sea level. Khartoum, Sudan, also directly on the Nile is 1000 miles south has an elevation 1247 ft. About halfway between them is the Nile city of Aswan, Egypt, elevation 646 ft. The modern theodolite (a surveying tool) was invented in 1787, 29 years before Rowbotham's birth. He has no excuse for the inaccuracy of his statement. This gross error in his understanding of such simple geography absolutely disqualifies him from any serious participation in a discussion of the shape of the planet.
Sources: Google and Wikipedia.
Show me where he said that.
My mistake. I erroneously conflated the mentor and protegé. That said, the horribly inaccurate statement about the Nile river reveals much about the mindset of both.
19
Flat Earth Theory / Re: All planets are circular.
« on: July 07, 2017, 09:39:58 PM »
No one was talking about William Carpenter. Why are you trying to use the words that one man said to discredit the words that another man said?
My mistake. I erroneously conflated the mentor and protegé. That said, the statement about the Nile river reveals much about the mindset of both.
My mistake. I erroneously conflated the mentor and protegé. That said, the statement about the Nile river reveals much about the mindset of both.
20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: All planets are circular.
« on: July 07, 2017, 02:36:51 AM »The human eye at night sees planets in our solar system as round, sphere like object, we can all agree on. How is this planet we live on any different and why?
The earth is not a planet.
Are you willing to back that up with any proof?
Yes. See: Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham
Here's a quote from Mr. Rowbotham, "There are rivers that flow for hundreds of miles towards the level of the sea without falling more than a few feet — notably, the Nile, which, in a thousand miles, falls but a foot. A level expanse of this extent is quite incompatible with the idea of the Earth's convexity. It is, therefore, a reasonable proof that Earth is not a globe."
Cairo, Egypt, at the mouth of the Nile has an elevation 75 ft above sea level. Khartoum, Sudan, also directly on the Nile is 1000 miles south has an elevation 1247 ft. About halfway between them is the Nile city of Aswan, Egypt, elevation 646 ft. The modern theodolite (a surveying tool) was invented in 1787, 29 years before Rowbotham's birth. He has no excuse for the inaccuracy of his statement. This gross error in his understanding of such simple geography absolutely disqualifies him from any serious participation in a discussion of the shape of the planet.
Sources: Google and Wikipedia.