1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon Landing?
« on: May 27, 2018, 03:36:03 AM »The fact we haven't been back in 50 years should prove the hoax.I went to the Bahama's 30 years ago and haven't been back. Does that mean the Bahama's don't exist?
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.
The fact we haven't been back in 50 years should prove the hoax.I went to the Bahama's 30 years ago and haven't been back. Does that mean the Bahama's don't exist?
The other night I saw a notification by our local news station that the international space station would be passing overhead and would be visible between 6:56pm and 6:59 pm. It was a bright yellow dot that passed overhead at a very fast speed.
From a flat earth perspective, what else would this be if it's not the ISS?
A balloon of some sort. What makes you think it's a heavier-than-air object?
Yes, I read the last paragraph. But must have mistaken your point of view. Thought you were coming from a FE belief standpoint, trying to undermine CHL's arguments.
Dude. Did you even read my last paragraph? The one you quoted? It's pretty clear from that I am not a flat earther.
My complaints about the video are a level of straw man argument and the smug, condescending tone.
That doesn't mean that everything in those videos is wrong, a lot is right.
I don't doubt that FE'ers would take offense at the tone, but he makes many valid points. I'm curious specifically which of his arguments you believe aren't actually FE beliefs.Just in the first video he says
"The conspiracy dates back to antiquity but is all due to NASA and the UN"
Actually the "conspiracy" is about faking space travel, not the shape of the earth:
https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
So NASA aren't trying to fool you into thinking the earth is round, they think it's round too, they're just faking space travel.
He says that FE is all based on God creating a flat earth with a dome and the entire argument boils down to "But meh Holy Book".
But he then goes on to admit there is some debate amonst flat earthers about whether there is an edge. SOME Flat Earthers do indeed believe what they believe because of a certain (wrong, IMO) interpretation of Scripture, but many on this site do not. Honestly, I don't know what their basis is, seems to be wrapped up in other conspiracy theories.
He states that the FE Map is as shown on the UN Logo - actually there is no agreed map although that is admittedly the one commonly shown.
He states that the UN would stop them exploring Antarctica with patrols the southern seas. Some FErs do seem to believe that there is something actively stopping exploration of Antarctica but it is not a universal FE belief. That is not mentioned here and there is a suggestion of a bi-polar model:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Antarctica
One of the problems with refuding FE is there isn't a coherent flat earth model. There is so much disagreement within the community about their own model it's quite hard knowing what to refute. But in that video series he does make claims for FE Belief which are either wrong or not universally believed within the FE community.
Maybe now would be a good time to invite any flat earthers here to view these four videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMooNFtFJk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ0EKJWyl_g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rmXP4Q2ZpI
Maybe everyone else here has already seen them but I just discovered them. They are the best, most well developed refutations of FET I've seen, though they are more than a bit condescending (and somewhat humorous, to boot). They deal with the subject at hand in great depth, as well as related subjects. If a flat earther thinks he can refute the math or the geometry, I would invite them to give it a shot.
I actually find these videos quite annoying. Aside from the condescending tone, a lot of it is straw man stuff.
He's arguing at times against a position that the FES don't actually take, but there are some good points in there.
Yes, and it's hard to take the "show me the evidence" demand seriously from people that claim a mystery shadow object is responsible for eclipses
water doesnt bend on the small scale but yet on the big scale its bending 360 degrees.
I find it odd that the US Government generally and NASA specifically get all the blame for the alleged conspiracy when round Earth knowledge predates both. Like most FE belief, they just need a hook to support an idea, even if it can't hold any weight.
So are we talking about the US government, because just in case you didn't know, there are other countries and governments outside of the US, including my own that has been around a few centuries more than the US one
Roger
If the government can trick the entire world into believing that the world is flatWhat? I thought the paranoid conspiracy theory was that they fooled us into thinking the Earth was round. So confused.
Once again, please give an example of what you would accept as evidence that time and date.com is correct? I don't expect any serious answer since you know acknowledging them as correct will never help your FE case, so you want to maintain a case that allows you to ignore their data.
I'm not asking for any impossible level of evidence. We don't reject all evidence we have not seen ourselves. Don't you see us quoting links in our discussions?
We just need basic evidence for these claims you say prove your model. What do you have against the need for providing basic evidence for your clains?
Its your responsibility to provide the evidence for your own claims. Please stop trying to weasle out of providing basic evidence for the claims asserted.
So you will invent some excuse to ignore them or you will require some sort of experimental basis that can't be performed.I guess it was option A.
My "supposed" observation? Are you saying that I lied?
I used timeanddate.com to check sunset times every day of my last trip to the beach. Was accurate every time. There you go.
But seriously, how do you envision this evidence? Suppose forum users validate the predicted times against actual times on a given weekday for 6 weeks and found it was correct. Would you then accept that the sites predictions were accurate? If not, please outline an experimental basis on which you would accept it.
Any sort of real evidence for the specific claims in the OP would be nice. As it is we have no evidence.
Your comments about your own supposed observation where timeanddate was accurate or approxinate is irrelevant. We have no idea what kinds of tables or methods are used to come up with those calulations, whether it is using one universal method, multiple methods, or whether it is using any elements that are experience or pattern based. When we emailed timeanddate with a request to show their methods they refused and cited proprietary data.
I used timeanddate.com to check sunset times every day of my last trip to the beach. Was accurate every time. There you go.I used timeanddate.com, and as no one has ever made the case that times of sunrise/sunset are inaccurate.
I believe I had requested actual evidence. Pointing out that we have no evidence to the true or falseness of a theory is not evidence that it is true.
What is your source for that comment Tom?
Any such analysis of new engines is comparing to past planes and past cruise speeds as a baseline.
Please read the Wiki. We do accept what is seen by amateur high altitude balloonistsGlad to hear that Tom. I created a thread on that subject (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7422.msg130507). What I found interesting was that early in the two hour amateur high altitude balloon video, the full moon can been seen reflecting sunlight when the sun can not be seen. Then at altitude, the sun rises earlier than the expected time for the launch site. Both of these make perfect sense on a round Earth, and I don't see how they would be possible on a flat Earth.
Please elaborate. I have not seen any reference that the FE altitude of the sun varies, so I think it is fairly constant. Are you saying that moon just goes straight up and down, or that it's polar orbit is inclined relative to the plane of the sun's orbit and the flat Earth's surface? Meaning that half of the orbit is below the sun's altitude and half above.Is this trying to say the moon's orbit is significantly inclined to that of the sun's orbit (around the pole), or perhaps at a right angle to it?
It is saying that the phases are a result of the changing altitude difference between the sun and the moon.
QuoteThe full moon appears when the moon is higher, and is farther above the Earth? This would imply that the full moon is much smaller than the new moon. Is this what you observe?
See this article.
QuoteDuring the days around the full moon (say -1 day to +1 day), while it is highest/furthest from the Earth, the sun would would make a few orbits around the North Pole. Therefore we should see a full or near full moon when the sun is both on the same side and the opposite side of the Earth over the course of the day. Is this what you observe?
I don't see what you are trying to say.
Then once again, can someone provide a simple diagram? If education is your goal, it would make the concept easier for everyone to understand. Personally, I think this description is so far removed from reality that you can't make a diagram that would hold up to the slightest amount of analysis. But that's just my opinion.QuoteIs there another source for this diagram that I have missed?
The idea seems pretty straight forward to me.