21

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Ice wall - the empirical evidence

« on: March 21, 2018, 12:30:31 PM »

The bipolar model was proposed in 1918 upon discovery of the South Magnetic Pole. Its history and workings are documented in our literature. Feel free to check it out.

Why did it take some long for FEH to figure out there was a south magnetic pole? The Chinese discovered magnetic fields 2000 years ago. It was known that magnets have a north and south pole as early as 1269. This info was available to Rowbotham in the 1800s.

The ancient Chinese only knew that the magnetic field lines ran North to South. They didn't have much information about the nature of the South.

Rowbotham knew about magnets, but it  did not follow that the southern magnetic field lines intersected at a point on the earth's surface. On a Flat Earth Monopole model the magnetic field lines would look like this.

A flat earth monopole model, right. This means that any one holding a compass south of the equator say in Chile will have a different heading from any one holding a compass in say Sydney. The fact that people in those 2 cities look in the same direction any time thy look south, see the same stars (more or less) any time they look south, have the heavens rotate around the same south celestial pole totally destroys a flat earth and not just the mono pole bs.

Respond to that, Tom.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Communication with the ISS by amateurs.

« on: March 17, 2018, 05:56:13 AM »

And how much do you think NASA invested in the SpaceX Falcon Heavy vs this Ham Radio demonstration?

Well, since SpaceX launched and landed their rockets from and on NASA property, I would have guessed that SpaceX were paying NASA a fee for the privilege...

Do you have any empirical data regarding who paid whom ...?

This is flat earthism. Emperical evidence is not needed. There has been enough of that to put paid to any flat earth ideology but it is all ignored in favour of the conspiracy.

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Sun and Moon Orbit

« on: March 11, 2018, 04:02:38 PM »

Saw the moon again just now (4:40 AM) and it's still "pointing" below the horizon. How is it that Tom always seems to see the moon "pointing" above the horizon yet I always see it "pointing" below the horizon? Must be some hitherto unknown property of "perspective".

By the time I abandoned that thread, Tom had demanded a diagram/an illustration from every one who had an opinion on his opinion (and gotten them by the way) while refusing to provide a diagram/an illustration to explain his own point all the while insisting  opposing opinions didn't understand his position, didn't understand what he meant by the moon pointing up/down. Has anything changed since then?

But then seeing as this thread started mid February and this is almost mid March and not a single flat earther has responded, I doubt there are any real flat earthers on this site.

24

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: China's 9.5 ton space station, Tiangong-1, will come falling from space.

« on: March 09, 2018, 09:14:30 AM »

Great analysis Pete. I saw it on the internet so it cannot be true.

By the way, isn't that the spacecraft they "lost"? Must have been hidden behind the dome

25

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Zetetic method VS. hoaxes.

« on: March 06, 2018, 03:32:28 PM »

Rowbotham was a charlatan who was out to make a buck and a name for himself (by which he could make some more). If he was alive today, he would have a youtube account spouting the same false information with links to buy his book, t-shirts and the like.

I agree with you. It is amazing how they claim zetetic methods in defence of their beliefs and at the same time regurgitate the same discredited nonsense from youtubers as their "research"

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: comets & solar system

« on: March 03, 2018, 06:01:31 PM »

I believe they say it's all lies as NASA always lies. Which I find wierd seeing that they also claim NASA admits the earth is flat because of a paper that includes the following "This report details the development of the linear model of a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying over a flat, nonrotating earth". I would expect that since NASA always lies, that statement should be a lie as well and not an admittance of the true shape of the earth. But hey, who am I to understand flat earth logic.

Also, the fact that the Shoemakers and David Levy discovered the comet from an observatory owned and operwted by Caltech (not NASA) and observations were conducted by various professional bodies around the globe should make a difference but we know flat  earthers call all scientist paid NASA shills even those that made their discoveries before the discovery of the continent of America talk less of the creation of the US.

27

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is the Earth not round

« on: February 25, 2018, 07:40:14 PM »

I went through all 4 pages of this debate and I realised that

1. Tom Bishop has asked for diagrams from REs to explain their position. He has been given a plethora of those

2. REs have asked Tom Bishop for illustrations so as to understand what he is going on about in order to give him a reply. Tom Bishop has given none, has made no indication he will give any or that for some technical reason related to the site or his ability to create diagrams, he cannot.

3. REs have given answers based on their understandings of what Tom Bishop is asking and Tom Bishop has not accepted any of those as they have not answered the question he is asking even though that is because no one seems to understand what Tom is asking as he has failed to illustrate to make that clear.

I believe this is because Tom knows his position is not tenable and needs to make it as vague as posibke in order to keep the illusion that RE cannot explain a point he is apparently making.

Meanwhile, all evidence and means of aquiring said evidence for one's self is immediately discounted by someone who claims to believe only what he can observe himself. So in order not to have his beliefs sheken or threatened he has chosen not to observe at all.

Am I right so far?

My own piece of evidence. Take a tennis ball and hold it up against the sky at the moon visible at twilight and tell me if the effect of the sun on said tennis ball isn't the same as that seen on the moon.

And hell no, I am not going to illustrate that.

28

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How a conspiracy theory can go awry and cloud rational thinking

« on: February 20, 2018, 10:06:33 AM »

There is a new desire by some in the flat earth community to imply that there is no conspiracy. This is probably because they want to make it seem flat earthism can exist on it's own merit. But when you shout down any proof of a round earth, when you deny any and all photographic evidence, scientific evidence, observational evidence, when you claim flight times in the southern hemisphere are faked, what else is that? All these acts of fakery cannot be isolated.

29

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Understanding the Psychology (or Mindset) of a Flat Earther

« on: February 12, 2018, 09:57:01 AM »

I think that the Flat Earthers can be separated into two types:

1. Those who....standing. This is a result of a lack of a true understanding of the basics of science.

I wonder if I could be said to disagree with you. Where will you place the flat earther who just trolls? The one who knows the earth isn't flat but will argue continuously that it is? The one who knows he has no point but will throw up statements taken out of context, will quote mine to confirm bais or will out-right lie? There is a fellow on the other site who says he knows space flight is real, he knows pictures taken from space are real but he still believes in a flat earth because he believes in the holographic projection universe theory.

The statement Pete put on the home page of this site about seeing things on TV smacks to me like the statement of a con man trying to maintain his con after he has been busted. Quote mining Steve Woz to make it seem like he also doubts the launch of the falcon heavy.

I think there are only 2 types of flat earthers.
1. The one who doesn't know enough, thinks he knows enough, elevates his opinions to fact and backs up his thinking with misunderstanding simple facts including religious writings.

2. The troll, the conman, the snake-oil salesman.

30

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Ice Wall Must Be Very Tall

« on: February 10, 2018, 12:15:59 PM »

First off, what is the evidence that the ice wall exists? I think we should start from there. We can by that evidence infer or discover how tall it is and how wide the base is.

What is the evidence that the ice wall exists?

And while we are at that, what is the evidence of the dome? Does the dome start at the ice wall, after the ice wall, on the ice wall, is a part of the ice wall?

31

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Still don't understand why anyone would want to hide a flat Earth if it was flat

« on: February 10, 2018, 09:59:14 AM »

I will agree that NASA is faking much if not all space and moon footages...not seeing a flat Earth connection but they are hiding something for sure. I am suspecting people cannot survive going through that radiation belt so they fake anything involving people being there and to such far away places.

Why will you say NASA fakes most if not all space footage?

For the Van Allen belts, you do realise that they generally go around the belts or spend as short a time going through them. Over the course of the lunar missions, astronauts were exposed to doses lower than the yearly 5 rem average experienced by workers with the Atomic Energy Commission who regularly deal with radioactive materials. The only way to discount this is to say NASA is part of a conspiracy. Now since you accept the earth is spherical, what conspiracy makes NASA falsify this and other aspects of space flight.

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Railroads, tunnels, canals.... bridges?

« on: February 09, 2018, 03:38:11 PM »

From what I'm reading, all you've done is stated that the towers are 41.275mm apart on the Varrazano-Narrows bridge and 36mm apart on the Humber bridge. You didn't link a design document detailing that the engineers did this on purpose, nor did you verify that their supposed difference isn't just due to one of the towers happening to lean slightly in one direction. Considering the height of the towers on the Varrazano-Narrows bridge, a different of 41.275mm would only require a 1.95e-4 variation (as if both the towers were level and exactly 90 degrees with the ground), that is, one of the towers could lean 1e-8 degrees in a single direction and achieve a lean causing an increase of 41.275mm at the top versus the bottom. You're telling me that those towers are undoubtedly 90 degrees vertical to the ground? I highly doubt that.

This kind of proof would require that you not only measure the top of the towers accurately (who measured that, may I ask?) but also that you verify the distance difference of the towers is not just due to one happening to lean 0.00000001 degrees in a direction it isn't supposed to.

Cue the standard flat earth response - "you have no proof that this is very true and I doubt it therefore your evidence is false".

It's amazing the hoops flat earthers require round earthers to jump through before their evidence can be accepted while on their own presenting far less or nothing at all to support their claims.
The wiki says "Surveyors' operations in the construction of railroads, tunnels, or canals are conducted without the slightest "allowance" being made for "curvature," although it is taught that this so-called allowance is absolutely necessary! This is a cutting proof that Earth is not a globe.”
Yet no supporting documents to show this. No surveying hand books. No design drawings. Nothing. Then when a round earther mentions a specific case with specific numbers it is discounted outright because

You didn't link a design document detailing that the engineers did this on purpose, nor did you verify that their supposed difference isn't just due to one of the towers happening to lean slightly in one direction.

33

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Still don't understand why anyone would want to hide a flat Earth if it was flat

« on: February 09, 2018, 02:28:58 PM »

The most primal reason for this belief is religious. When you really get down to it, Flat Earthers will say the Bible says the earth is flat ( I personally haven't seen that in my Bible but hey, reasons). The more "enlightened, scientific ones" will claim otherwise. They will say it has nothing to do with religion. But every now and then they'll blame the evil satanist free masonic NASA and evil satanist free masonic Scientists for the deception.

The claim is that a round earth orbiting a yellow dwarf star in some none-descript part of an unimportant galaxy in a gargantuan universe is an argument used to deny God.

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: One way to easily disprove Flat Earth theory with modern technologies

« on: February 08, 2018, 11:07:41 AM »

Mac, organised religion is also a part of the conspiracy. The Pope and the Vatican are supposedly satanic free masons. I don't know the explana6for the Saudis and Arabs, but I'm sure there is one.

Flat Earthers alone know and hold the obvious truth and they don't have the resources to buy ballistic missiles or any sort of rocket for that matter to conduct a test as you have suggested. I don't know if the can launch a go pro off New Zealand either but I won't hold my breath.

Point is flat earthism is a belief. It also requires a conspiracy to ignore the mountains of evidence stacked against it. Conducting experiments that would or should result in clear results will not be done. Heck something as simple as conducting Erathos experiment but with 3 points has never been done by the flat earth community as it would clearly show the sun isn't anywhere near 3000 miles

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Car in Space

« on: February 07, 2018, 11:26:20 AM »

I've been reading this forum for a while now, but I came here today to ask exactly the same question.

This launch was viewed by thousands of people. A skyscraper sized rocket definately took off, there's no faking that. The internet is flooded today with people sharing their stories and pictures of seeing the rocket in various stages of flight - I've even seen pictures of the night sky with the 2nd stage burn showing up like a comet, in exactly the time and place where it should be. Furthermore, thousands of people saw two of the rocket cores land softly on their pads, ready for reuse.

The live stream video syncs perfectly with all ground-based observations, and shows the rocket flying up out of the atmosphere and releasing Elon Musk's beautiful cherry red Tesla Roadster, which can still be seen now drifting further and further away from a distinctly spherical earth.

Surely this about wraps it up for the so called Flat Earth Theory?

Unfortunately, it won't.

There has been sufficient proof given for the shape of the earth that has been continuously ignored, discounted or claimed to be fake by flat earth believers. One more nail won't make a difference.

Primarily because I expect this bit of proof to be called fake.

36

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The South Pole

« on: February 05, 2018, 05:16:57 PM »

They ask you to trust your eyes but they don't really mean that. What flat earth research really is all about is reading, watching and listening to what other flat earthers preach and accepting it unequivocally.

If you took a whole bunch of flat earthers to the Antarctic, they'll say stuff like "we didn't go far enough into the lands before the ice wall to actually reach the ice wall". Or "we were taken to a very cold island before the ice wall" or even "it's all cgi".

In the event that a group of flat earthers admit to being wrong, the rest of the bunch will just shout them down for being sell outs, for being bought by NASA (go figure).

The truth is that on this site and the other one, enough evidence has been presented to show without a doubt that this earth is definitely not flat, these pieces of evidence are consistently discounted as fake, part of the conspiracy or they are just plain ignored.

I'll say it again, flat earthism is a belief. Nothing more.

37

Flat Earth Theory / Re: So I just want to have a civil conversation.

« on: February 03, 2018, 07:03:25 AM »

hallo

I am new to this

I cannot tell you about the things that I know as a child as a teenager as an adult
as me right now.

...for?.. you know exactly the same things as I do.

what does concern me is the new information that I have.

that we have been educated by the USA and NASA about the 'cosmos'...and about exactly where we are at.

I have no other evidence about Planet Earth and about the Solar System and the Sun and the Universe...!

...as what these two organisations insist is correct.

...and the fact that they are both easily considered unreliable and seeking their own purpose?

...proven fake to the point of stupid

I think that this may be the single most self liberating and self satisfying accomplishment

of all time

I wasn't educated by the US government and NASA. Infact, like the bulk of the planet's population, my country makes an effort to restrict American influence. We get just as much russian, Chinese and Indian influences and these countries are not NASA!

I was also taught basic geography in junior high. I was taught how to deduce by myself the shape of the earth. Simple things like the existence of a horizon, possible only if on a very large sphere. The circular shape of the earth's shadow on the moon during an eclipse. The direction of rotation of huricanes and typhoons depending on their position relative to the equator, simple things like that. Maths, Physics. Basic knowledge of these helped. I wasn't TOLD. I observed. Observations made it clear.

Best part, I didn't have so-called you tube experts yapping about some conspiracy that is patently impossible and blaming NASA and Governments that always lie. In a country like mine were succesive governments almost always detest the previous governments, there is no way such a conspiracy is maintainable government after government.

So I don't believe the earth is round. I KNOW it is.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How come "sun sink" and not "sun shrink?"

« on: February 01, 2018, 07:08:41 PM »

Walking home one evening, looking up at the setting sun, I realised that the sun presents a round face to me all day everyday everywhere. The sun presents a round face to everyone everywhere. How does this work with a spotlight sun? Showing a circle in all directions is characteristic of a sphere.

More, at sunset, the sun even looks larger than it does when up in the sky. That doesn't help the sun-moving-away perspective lines.

39

Flat Earth Community / Re: Oregon FE meetup Sat 27 Jan

« on: February 01, 2018, 06:32:10 PM »

Just checking, but did anyone here go to the event? How was it?

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do planets orbit the sun?

« on: February 01, 2018, 06:28:25 PM »

In addition, the planets in such a system, similar to a geocentric system will have some very exotic orbital paths through the year. I believe this was one of the reasons why the heliocentric model won out over the geocentric.