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 - Spycrab

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Neutrinos
« on: May 24, 2018, 04:06:26 PM »
I hate to be the burster of bubbles here, but couldn't the neutrinos just curve up when inside the earth? How can we confirm they travel straight through matter, specifically the earth's insides whatever they may be?

2
Flat Earth Projects / Re: Obvious Truth III
« on: May 19, 2018, 04:40:01 AM »
The Bible. And you can't argue with that.
Okay great. Can you be a bit more specific? I sincerely doubt the entire bible is about the earth's flatness, or the movement would've surfaced eons ago.

3
Flat Earth Projects / Obvious Truth III
« on: May 14, 2018, 04:38:24 PM »
As has been established, for those who did not read up on the previous two, the wiki page "The Place of the Conspiracy" that goes as such:
-The flat earth is an obvious truth
-Any evidence against an obvious truth is fabricated
-Any evidence against the flat earth is fabricated

had peaked my interest. I queried about what lead one to believe it is an 'obvious truth', and Pete informed moi that it was indeed stolen from the other FE wiki.
If this is not what one believes, might I ask, what is the Flat Earth belief based on?
What is the base fact that all flat earthers agree on that makes it seem real? (or at least real-er than the round earth)
A distrust of the government?
An eye for photoshop and seeing discrepancies most of us miss?
Blind faith in Rowbotham?
It looking flat?
I'm stumped.

4
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Unofficial Debate Guidelines
« on: May 14, 2018, 04:25:28 PM »
Spycrab has not posted in that thread, so I'll take your word for him objecting elsewhere.
I have voiced my complaints on "Debate Rule 6".
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9627.0

5
I pretty much agree, but FE people will need to make a bit more effort.
This is a fantastic example of the misunderstanding we ought to deal with. This is not a personal support forum for RE'ers who are looking for a clash. It is extremely unlikely that you will ever see "more effort" on that front, simply because this has never been the purpose of this community.
What do you see as the purpose of this community? What is the point of these boards?
You're the one who seeks publicity, you seek to gain attention.
Here's a newsflash: Almost everyone in the world is a "round earther".
So most people who hear about you guys and looks here is going to think "What the hell is this nonsense?"
Some of those people, like me, will sign up and start posting and because we think it's nonsense we'll say it's nonsense.

Now, some people will sign up and post things like "lol, earth is round, ur stupid". Those people should be banned immediately (not warned). If I was a mod here I wouldn't bother with people like that. There are ways of stopping that, making it so new users have to be manually approved if you get repeat offenders or making it so new users can only post on certain sections of the board and promote them to full membership once they've shown they're not idiots. (I'm assuming this is all possible, the boards I've moderated provide this sort of functionality).

Other people, like me, are interested in debating the issues, explaining why (in our opinion) the earth is round and showing why (in our opinion) the flat earth ideas don't stand up to scrutiny.
I guess the problem is if the balance between FE and RE posters is wrong then you're going to get too many of me and not enough of you.

From experience you can't force a board to be something it isn't. Boards are simply a reflection of the people who post. If you want more FE content then more FE people need to post. If you think that the sheer number of RE people is putting them off then fine, ban RE people from posting.
It's a good start, but we need to tack on a little more.
Another effort that would straighten out some problems around here, is some sort of quick-access list of what indeed is accepted around here. What people actually collectively believe, what the current FE model is, the current explainations for common RE queries, all that. If we can get everyone on the same page, it'll stop the <thing no flat earther actually believes>  nonsense. Maybe get a (some) dedicated moderator(s) to scrub through the wikis and clean it up. If everyone understands , it'll mitigate the misconceptions.

6
Well it's a matter of phrasing. It can swing both ways. e.g.

Is the earth stationary and unmoving with an invisible dome and tyrannical secret government lying to the masses about the earth's shape in a desperate attempt to get money from taxpayers by making them think it is for a space program, constantly fabricating photos to keep up the illusion, compounded by multiple illusions and a bizarre set of rules for perspective, or is the earth round and life goes on as normal?

Is the earth a speck in the infinite cosmos spinning around a burning ball of plasma that is one of an infinite number that are all in turn spinning around impossibly large galaxies, that there are also an infinite number of, and 95% of all that is invisible, but still has mass, and the earth is indeed a sphere but it is too big to see the roundness, and the sun doesn't orbit us, it just looks like it does, or is the earth flat like it looks like it is?

7
Flat Earth Theory / The Cost of the Conspiracy
« on: May 11, 2018, 09:50:17 PM »
This came to mind recently. How can a space travel conspiracy make profits off of faked space travel (funded by the government, presumably) when the cost in men and money are staggering for such an 'obvious' lie.
There's an endpoint to how much the government can afford, even if they all are working together. (Sidenote: if they are all secretly together, why is America 3 trillion in debt? hey can't balance a damn budget, do you really think they're capable of pulling everything else off? Plus 21 billion of that is to china, if they're in cahoots, it makes no sense.)
Firstly, manpower. A lot have people have died, namely during the space race, and the 'height of the conspiracy'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents
Surely with several witnesses and detailed descriptions of most of those pertaining to launch failure, (and records of those in the cosmos, whether or not you'll accept them) they couldn't all be faked for the conspiracy, surely. if they wanted to seem successful, wouldn't they want to, you know, not kill their people doing the thing that they said they can do well?
Also, money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program
The space shuttle program alone cost 209 billion, and our toys have only gotten fancier and more expensive.
If the government is swindling taxpayers out of that much money, you've got to wonder, how? And more importantly why?
From what I've heard so far, the motivators were greed and looking powerful.
That's a hefty pricetag for illusions.
Edit: Also, how exactly does one keep all that flagrant spending under wraps in a company of NASA's size, not to mention every space program everywhere?

8
Not to mention that orbiting is fundementally being in freefall.
You're falling towards the center because of gravity, but there's no friction in space, so inertia and velocity keep you traveling faster than you can fall, so you repeatedly 'miss' the thing you orbit around.
When in orbit, folks still experience gravity, but they fall as fast as the spacecraft they are inside of, so they experience "zero g".
Aeroplanes can preform that same action, but they do it inside the atmosphere, so it is flight.
They do not skid through space with nothing to slow them down, they push off the air and propel themselves forward, as you have acknowledged.
However, satellites have no propulsion. Once they're put up there, there's nothing to stop the leftover momentum from the rocket, so they stay in orbit.
It's an understandable misconception.

9
I took boy scouts many moons ago, and from what I can tell, the only difference is the girl scouts sell those cookies.

Also it's my 100th post!

10
Flat Earth Media / Re: ODD TV Flat Earth Presentation
« on: May 08, 2018, 01:22:24 PM »
You are claiming that there is permanent mirage that always makes the earth look exactly flat?
The pot called. It said you're a black kettle.
You do realize you talk a big game about the wonders of perspective
that just so happens to be a permanent mirage that makes the earth look flat.
A permanent mirage that bends the sun's light to make it set
A permanent mirage that limits how far we can see
A permanent mirage that keeps the sun the same size.
Or maybe the atmosphere's being paid off by nasa.

11
I would point you to the fact that Nixon, on camera; "rang" the astronauts on the moon. And yet I can't get a signal in my shed? Yeah definetly makes sense... On a serious note though; what does makes sense is that is Government lied to us in one respect - then they would happily do it again in that same field. Shall I continue; oh sheeped one?
Well yeah, but that's a poor example. The towers that give you your cell phone connection is an entirely different technology to what they used to talk to the astronauts. It was hardly even a phone call. More like a 2-way radio.
Quote
On July 20, 1969, President Nixon spoke with crew members Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin via telephone-radio transmission.
https://www.archives.gov/presidential-libraries/events/centennials/nixon/exhibit/nixon-online-exhibit-calls.html

12
Well, we're talking about photoshop, keyword being photo. You have to have something to edit.
Presumably what we're actually looking for is CGI, as according to y'all, said photos were never taken and indeed fabricated from scratch.
thing is though, 2D CGI was only around in the dwindling years of the space race, 1973, and proper 3D CGI wan't used until after the conflict ended in 1976.
On a side note, it looked like garbage. Ever seen the show Reboot? First CGI animated TV show. It's not realistic at all.
Unless of course you want to add more convoluted extra steps to the conspiratorial workings of NASA and crew, with them secretly creating incredible technology several years before its time and keeping it a secret from the whole world.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Obvious Truth Part 2
« on: May 07, 2018, 04:52:11 PM »
So, this sunk, unanswered in the debate thread, and I realized it's more a singular question, so it belongs here anyway.
In the flat earth wiki, the earth's flatness is regarded as an obvious truth and any evidence against it is fabricated.
On what is this based?
If the truth is so obvious, what revelatory evidence is behind it?
Being a cornerstone of FE belief, it must be very convincing.
Care to enlighten me on this subject?

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain the Himawari-8
« on: May 07, 2018, 01:38:12 PM »
The confusion is understandable, there's a small amount of editing to outline the continents so it's not 12 hours of darkness.
But yeah, this being assembled in 10 minutes with that degree of accuracy is absurd.

15
Also Pickel, how do you know space agencies just embezzle money, outside of space travel being impossble?
Can you provide an account of them doing so?
Can you link to someone who can?
It's almost like this impossibly convoluted network of conspiricy and secrets and fraud which would involve impossible costs in money* and human and animal life for nothing**, is far less plausible than just going to space.

*
Quote
By the end of Apollo in 1972, the U.S. had spent about $25 billion on the program, Siddiqi said — well over $100 billion in today's dollars.
https://www.space.com/11336-space-race-united-states-soviets-spaceflight-50years.html

**https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents




16
The moon landing would've been physically impossible to fake
CGI wasn't invented until 1976, the moon landing happened in 1969.
The shadows in the photos are parallel, which doesn't happen with studio/earth lighting.
There are retroreflectors on the moon*
Dang, it's almost like we actually went there, and it wasn't a hoax.

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

17
Understood. Carry on.

18

Do the maths.

Now you know that's not going to happen. If this particular poster (the holocaust denier) were able to do the maths, an entire belief system would fall apart.

OK, I shall do them. Let's say ...

Lowest orbit - 180km
Highest orbit - 6950km

(These were the limits of the SpaceX Tesla orbit)

Volume of a sphere, based on each of these, and Earth radius 6971;

(6371+180)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 1,177,039,894,339  cubic km
(6371+6950)cubed * 4/3 * 3.14 = 9,896,437,120,007

Difference = volume available to sats = 8,719,397,225,669


Number of satellites = almost 3000, so space on average per satellite = 9,763,852,461,509 / 3000 =


2,906,465,742 cubic km each

And so this will go down as another huge win for flat Earth theory where the globalists had no answer.
Now hang on, friend.
how exactly does this mean an FE win? 2 billion cubic kilometers apart on average, plus them being difficult to see against the darkness of space, plus the overpowering reflected glow of the earth, makes for a difficult photo. If you're saying that's an absurd measurement, you do realize how large the earth is, right? Not only that, but we're operating on a sphere up to 6.9 thousand kilometers higher than that. It's a large area.

19
Still not obvious. I scrubbed through your link, and it's a poorly written confusing mess. All I could glean from it is that they're just restating what you're saying. If it's so obvious, then it should be easy to explain better than you did.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Obvious Truth...?
« on: May 03, 2018, 03:24:30 PM »
In the flat earth wiki, the earth's flatness is regarded as an obvious truth and any evidence against it is fabricated.
On what is this based?
If the truth is so obvious, what revelatory evidence is behind it?
Being a cornerstone of FE belief, it must be very convincing.
Care to enlighten me on this subject?

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >