61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problem with Empiricism

« on: March 26, 2018, 04:40:17 PM »

It is also true in order for something to become truth, it must be shown. So if you want to convince me you need to show me.

Well no, that isn't true. The truth is the truth. Truth is absolute, it doesn't depend on your opinion or what you have observed. The earth has a certain shape. You can determine that based on observations (as discussed, observing a flat horizon is not enough information to definitively determine it) but the shape of it is not dependant on your opinion. If the only way to convince you is to show you then train to be an astronaut or send up a balloon.

Actually, he has a good point. If you want to be shown, some brief online shopping will get you a high altitude balloon and wireless camcorder for as low as $166(133.36€). Oh, but you'd better watch out, the atmosphere is probably being paid off by NASA.

On a side note, if you want to be 'shown', maybe stop instinctively discrediting every ounce of proof you are presented via video, photo, mathematical, etc. methods? If you're rejecting the dissenting logic because it disagrees, you're not an empiricist.

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Planar Warming

« on: March 08, 2018, 05:35:28 PM »

Okay, anyone willing to respond without invoking conspiracy? There's some basic science at work here. You can see it. Last summer it got so warm down in Arizona that plastic mailboxes melted. Plastic melts at at 100-255 degrees Celsius (212-491 degrees if your country is stupid) depending on the type of plastic. A minimum of 100 degrees Celsius. The air was nearly boiling! That isn't just any ordinary weather, It's climate change. So please, answer the question. Still excited to hear a response.

By the way, I'm not making that up. Here you go.
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/its-so-hot-in-arizona-that-street-signs-and-mailboxes-are-melting/70002032

63

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: March 07, 2018, 05:32:07 PM »

J-Man, just... ...stop. I get it, you like your book, most people do, but what does that have to do with this conversation? Because your wonderful god wrote an old book about how he's great, satellites don't exist?

Think about it like this: Let's say I absolutely love the Godzilla movies. I've got the movies, I've watched them all, I love this colossal lizard.
Does that mean Japan was actually smashed to bits by a dinosaur? Of course not.

Plug in other nouns for that, however: Let's say I absolutely love god. I've got the scriptures, I've read them all, I love my creator.
Does that mean He actually made everything including the 'dome'? Of course not.

And suddenly the second one is crazy to think about. Don't use the bible as proof, my dude. You're doing yourself a disservice by tying your arguments to nonexistent evidence. Now please, get back on topic on how satellites are a lie, thanks. You've already gotten yourself some good jumping off points. Proof for ground based GPS? Proof for those weather balloons? Proof of compartmentalizing? Proof of the Tesla not being up there? Proof of any kind that isn't cherry-picked Bible quotes? That'd be great.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problem with Empiricism

« on: March 07, 2018, 02:28:26 PM »

Okay, okay, fair enough Pete. You've go me there. However, is it really empirical to smooth out rough patches in the theory with things that rely on our senses not showing us what is really there? The vanishing point, for example where it is claimed humans have a fixed visual limit, despite being able to see farther from higher? Or the 'spotlight sun' that allegedly makes the earth look round? How about said sun somehow setting via 'perspective' when a receding light source would just shrink until it passed beyond the human limit? Sounds like rationalizing. Such as the convoluted mirrors and celestial cog work and all that bizarre nonsense apparently going on in the night sky. Personally, looks like inventing odd solutions to equally odd problems.

65

Flat Earth Theory / Planar Warming

« on: March 06, 2018, 02:39:25 PM »

So, humans are pumping CO₂, methane, etc. into the atmosphere at an increasing rate. That much is indisputable. 98% of scientists agree, we've known since the 1880s, it's raising our temperature. But how would this work on a flat domed earth? Would it? Since oxygen-rich air is less dense than carbon dioxide, would we not push our own atmosphere into the above area where the sun and moon are? Also, the warming is much more severe in the northern hemisphere as opposed to the southern. Not to mention, if the Ice Wall is colossal and thick and monstrous, then how is Antarctica melting and shrinking? In the RE model, we expect a large sea rise from the lost ice, but if the flat earth's wall is true, then surely there would be enough frozen water to drown the whole world. Excited to hear about what the FErs think.

66

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Proof the moon landings happened.

« on: March 06, 2018, 02:15:52 PM »

Any and all science or evidence aside, and there are mountains of evidence that the landing happened. The single greatest proof that the moon landings happened, specifically Apollo 11, lies with the Soviet Union. It's 1969, tensions are high, the US and the Soviet Union are engaged in a stiff Space Race. The Soviets put the first satellite in space, even the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, my hero. These 2 achievements were huge, the US was losing the race, however, they could still win. How you ask? Put the first man on the moon. The moon was the holy grail, whoever put a man on the moon effectively won the Space Race. Fast forward to July 20th 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are walking on the moon, Michael Collins is in Lunar orbit manning the Columbia module. The entire world is watching....an unprecedented 600,000,000 people, Soviets included, watched as human beings set foot on the moon, a massive victory for the United States, and a terrible embarrassment for the Soviet Union. Apollo 11 won the US the Space Race, the Soviet Union spent a tremendous amount of money on it's space program, which eventually contributed to the state's collapse in 1992. My biggest problem with the conspiracy theory is that the Soviet Union had satellites in both Earth and Lunar orbits, they could track Apollo 11 from Cape Canaveral all the way to the landing in the Sea of Tranquility. If Apollo 11 took place in a movie studio, the Soviets would know, so why didn't they call bullshit on the US? Exposing the conspiracy would be a devastating (understatement) blow to the US, no man, woman or child would ever trust the US government again, it'd be a colossal defeat, the Soviets would be able to take the Space Race Golden Trophy from Nixon and take it back to the Kremlin, drinking vodka and eating caviar all night long. Why were they silent if it actually were a hoax? Why wouldn't the Soviets say a word? The only reason the Soviet's wouldn't speak up is because there was no reason to, the US put 2 men on the moon that day and they knew it. *mic drop*

Another proponent of the "Cold War," narrative, believer in children assuming the position of safety under their desks in case of nuclear attack...LOLOLOLOL!!!

Come on, dude...get REAL!

The Cold War was a big fraud!

Both the US and Russia are totalitarian regimes and all the people in charge care about is maintaining control over the people.

How many people beside yourself do you personally know trust the government when it comes to honest and transparent reporting?

Well, not to mention it couldn't have been faked, as there are retro-reflectors on the surface of the moon. How would those get there without humans
shooting a rocket up into space and placing them? Do you think they just grew out of the ground?

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

I think we're done here.

67

Flat Earth Theory / Problem with Empiricism

« on: March 06, 2018, 03:21:35 AM »

So, i have been reading through these forums for quite a while, it was fascinating, keep up the good work. However, I have noticed a little discrepancy, particularly with the reliance on empiricism. Its based on what one observes with ones senses, correct? One teeny tiny little problem. Our senses can lie. Optical illusions exist. Nose blindness, hallucinations, you get the idea. Compounding this, several Flat Earth Theory astronomical phenomena are explained away with said illusions and incorrect observations. Tom Bishop's wonderful, magical, all-purpose-theory-hole-sealant, 'perspective' for example. Anyone care to explain?