741

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Korabl-Sputnik I aka "Sputnik IV"

« on: October 03, 2017, 02:54:04 AM »

The Soviets launched a rocket carrying the satellite Korabl-Sputnik I (K-S1) in Baikonur, Kazakhstan in May 1960, a mission planned to last for 4 days.
The reentry rockets failed, causing it to descend in an uncontrolled reentry.
K-S1 eventually crash landed in Manitowoc, Wisconsin in September 1962, nearly 6000 miles away.

How is it that a launch in 1960 in Baikonur (45N,63E) caused a Soviet satellite (K-S1) to crash in 1962 in Manitowoc (44N,87W) if we've never been to space?

If you do a little research you will find both the US via operation Fishbowl had numerous nuclear assaults on the dome in 1962 with the Russians, who has no less than 78 confirmed for that year. Within a couples nights of Sept 4th 1962 ie Manitowoc Wisc., Russia admits to releasing upwards of 0-80KT bombs. Maybe one of their balloons got away? What goes up..

Both Governments were claiming to be knocking satellites out of the sky but I believe it would just be Nuke debris that was coming down which gave them a good excuse to "don't touch, radioactive"

Operation Fishbowl aside, people witnessed both the launch in Baikonur in 1960, as well as the (non-radioactive) satellite crash in Wisconsin 2 years later in 1962.

Operation Fishbowl was performed in the Pacific ocean, thousands of miles away from Wisconsin, so unless the earth had rotated Wisconsin in the path of the debris falling in the Pacific, I don't see how even a rocket launched from Hawaii (really the Johnston Atoll) exploding at high altitudes would send a 20 pound piece of (non-radioactive) debris to Manitowoc, Wisconsin roughly 5000 miles away. Not to mention the Russian markings on the debris.

You don't know where Russia launched their balloons from. Not all carried radioactive explosives. They could have been launch off submarines and caught the jet stream outta control. These were tests, they all don't go perfect. Laika was a toasty critter.

742

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Cold War Space Race

« on: October 03, 2017, 02:49:07 AM »

July 20, 1969 America landed a man on the moon. This event essentially ended the "Space Race" between the USSR and USA.

The Soviets had previously accomplished 5 distinct space travel milestones:
1 First man-made object in space (Sputnik 1)
2 First living creature in space (Sputnik 2 with Laika the dog)
3 First man in space (Vostok 1 with Yuri Gagarin)
4 First woman in space (Vostok 6 with Valentina Tereshkova)
5 First space walk in space (Voskhod 2 with Alexei Leonov)

Why would the Soviets allow America to claim their moon landing milestone with a "faked" landing?

Even if you claim the 5 milestones aren't real, the question still remains, why would USSR allow US to steal their space thunder?

How is it that one side didn't call the other out saying they hadn't gone to space?

The Cold War was all about making the other side look bad. There was no cooperation between the two nations. It was called a Cold War for a reason.

They both walked up to the dome and touched it, then blasted it with nukes. Once they realized they and they alone knew the secret, they were in control of this small wasteland and could suck us all dry for the benefit of their few. They do and have for a long time.

Giz musta missed the part about 38% don't cook in a clean environment and 50% ain't got $500. I'll bet he even went out and bought a KIA on the 8 year plan and said , what a ride, it's so cherry baby. Red of course.

743

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Korabl-Sputnik I aka "Sputnik IV"

« on: October 03, 2017, 02:44:26 AM »

The Soviets launched a rocket carrying the satellite Korabl-Sputnik I (K-S1) in Baikonur, Kazakhstan in May 1960, a mission planned to last for 4 days.
The reentry rockets failed, causing it to descend in an uncontrolled reentry.
K-S1 eventually crash landed in Manitowoc, Wisconsin in September 1962, nearly 6000 miles away.

How is it that a launch in 1960 in Baikonur (45N,63E) caused a Soviet satellite (K-S1) to crash in 1962 in Manitowoc (44N,87W) if we've never been to space?

If you do a little research you will find both the US via operation Fishbowl had numerous nuclear assaults on the dome in 1962 with the Russians, who has no less than 78 confirmed for that year. Within a couples nights of Sept 4th 1962 ie Manitowoc Wisc., Russia admits to releasing upwards of 0-80KT bombs. Maybe one of their balloons got away? What goes up..

Both Governments were claiming to be knocking satellites out of the sky but I believe it would just be Nuke debris that was coming down which gave them a good excuse to "don't touch, radioactive"

You are showing substantial ignorance on this topic. There is no dome. The US and Soviet Union tested nukes in space for sure. It wasn't to assault some magical dome. What would the purpose of that be? The tests were conducted to determine the effects of nuclear detonations in space, particularly on US ICBMs. The US was worried at the time that the Soviets could take out our warheads in space. Facts, such pesky things.

Come on stink lets get real here. Japan we dropped 15 kilotons, Russia was blasting the dome with 20,000 kilotons, that we know of 20 mt. TSAR lite up 50 MT.

ICBM's didn't stand a chance with anything like those going off.

744

Flat Earth Community / Re: Best argument

« on: October 03, 2017, 02:18:47 AM »

Hi

I am new to the whole idea of a flat earth and stumbled across the theory thinking people claiming flat earth were mostly just extreme conspiracy theorists (no offence) but was curious to discover that there seems to be a lot of serious people with well rounded arguments and lots of research.

I have an open mind and am not a sceptic, although am naturally sceptical. I am coming from a lifetime of believing the globe earth model though.

I would like to hear peoples single best argument for a flat earth.......

Hello one shot, I hope stinker or his alt comes by soon but in the meantime I think the best evidence for FLAT EARTH is all the lies NASA has to use to trick the sheeple. Here we can watch blatant fakery in the International Space Station live feed which was taped here for a good darn giggle.

What is your fascination with me? Oh wait, I am pretty fascinating. Also, why do you think I have an alt? I don't. Junker, if you are able to vouch that I have one and only one account, I would appreciate it.

Have you been to a movie in the last 10-15 years? Hollywood can make some exceptionally realistic movies. If NASA wanted to fake it, you would never know.

Stink glad you're back. So you're saying this video which was live feed has no fakery in it?

745

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Star tracks in the southern hemisphere

« on: October 03, 2017, 01:41:13 AM »

And in the flat-earth model, star trails would look like this.  (but they don't)

Less than 1% of the entire world believe in Flat EArth, this website is named after those peeps but you have this driving force with a couple others to convert us? Or is it that we bring such goodness to the topics like this "stars", you get all scared we might convert some who have been tricked.

Now what was the silly question? Oh yeah star trails, they look bitchen huh?

GOD did it.....

I thought the FE models with the dome showed why they look the way they do with perspective. Did we all miss that video with the diagram, plates and lights flashing? Shall I pull it up for you?

746

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Korabl-Sputnik I aka "Sputnik IV"

« on: October 03, 2017, 01:36:46 AM »

The Soviets launched a rocket carrying the satellite Korabl-Sputnik I (K-S1) in Baikonur, Kazakhstan in May 1960, a mission planned to last for 4 days.
The reentry rockets failed, causing it to descend in an uncontrolled reentry.
K-S1 eventually crash landed in Manitowoc, Wisconsin in September 1962, nearly 6000 miles away.

How is it that a launch in 1960 in Baikonur (45N,63E) caused a Soviet satellite (K-S1) to crash in 1962 in Manitowoc (44N,87W) if we've never been to space?

If you do a little research you will find both the US via operation Fishbowl had numerous nuclear assaults on the dome in 1962 with the Russians, who has no less than 78 confirmed for that year. Within a couples nights of Sept 4th 1962 ie Manitowoc Wisc., Russia admits to releasing upwards of 0-80KT bombs. Maybe one of their balloons got away? What goes up..

Both Governments were claiming to be knocking satellites out of the sky but I believe it would just be Nuke debris that was coming down which gave them a good excuse to "don't touch, radioactive"

747

Flat Earth Community / Re: Best argument

« on: October 02, 2017, 11:22:28 PM »

Hi

I am new to the whole idea of a flat earth and stumbled across the theory thinking people claiming flat earth were mostly just extreme conspiracy theorists (no offence) but was curious to discover that there seems to be a lot of serious people with well rounded arguments and lots of research.

I have an open mind and am not a sceptic, although am naturally sceptical. I am coming from a lifetime of believing the globe earth model though.

I would like to hear peoples single best argument for a flat earth.......

Hello one shot, I hope stinker or his alt comes by soon but in the meantime I think the best evidence for FLAT EARTH is all the lies NASA has to use to trick the sheeple. Here we can watch blatant fakery in the International Space Station live feed which was taped here for a good darn giggle.

748

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 02, 2017, 08:45:12 PM »

LOL. But no ejection option like unsportsman like conduct.

I try not to directly engage J-man. At best he's a troll, at worst he actually believes whole heartedly what he's saying. Either way there's no discussion with him when everything boils down to "God did it" or "Satan did it" in his apparent worldview. Also, apologies to Junker for how off-track this thread has gotten. Lemme see where we were...

Hmm, not very far. My best guess for a way to explain tides on a FE would be it's own weird sort of momentum. The moon pulling at the water as it passes above creates a mirror effect on the opposite side in some way similar to how it works on a RE. Seems alright on the surface like so much of FE at least.

Wait what? You're allowed to post some ridiculous theory off the top of your head but I give a 2,000 & 1,000 year old, (one being from scientist in a book) fact and mine is dismissed. Laughable, but RE folks are laughable huh....More Kool-aid and Chemtrails please

749

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 02, 2017, 08:21:22 PM »

Thanks Qeek for the confirmation that there is no video of the replication of water sticking to a spinning ball. If there had been you would have posted it. Why don't you do a CGI 3d one since it's your field? Fake it, like NASA

750

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 02, 2017, 06:03:01 PM »

Lets see you replicate a globe with 1/4 inch of water on it that sticks while you spin it. We'll wait....begin


Thank you all, especially qeek for confirming you can't replicate it, not here, not in outer space. It's all BS water sticking to a ball.

Breathe deep God, the tides work great like old faithful.

751

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 02, 2017, 03:46:54 PM »

The earth gives off it's liquids with reliability. Can this type of clockwork create oceanic tides? Of course.

From nps.gov Yellowstone site

The average interval between eruptions of Old Faithful Geyser changes; as of October 2015, the usual interval is 94 minutes ± 10 minutes, with intervals ranging from 51 to 120 minutes. Old Faithful can vary in height from 106 to more than 180 feet, averaging 130 feet. Eruptions normally last between 1½ to 5 minutes and expel from 3,700 to 8,400 gallons of water.

You think you can predict tides from something like that?

Typical FE response. I found something about water. I've answered the questions about tides. Yeah me! No need to think about it any more.

Lets see you replicate a globe with 1/4 inch of water on it that sticks while you spin it. We'll wait....begin

752

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 02, 2017, 01:42:53 PM »

The earth gives off it's liquids with reliability. Can this type of clockwork create oceanic tides? Of course.

753

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 01, 2017, 09:00:47 PM »

More OT god talk

Look, either you have something relevant to the question to say or you're wasting everyone's time.
Everyday my municipality predicts the timing of the tides. And they are right. That alone disproves everything you've been blabbing about so far, so either provide an explanation or go pester someone else in the debate forum. Where's junker when he's needed? 

I think you're stuck in the hot down under. You don't even open your mind to let refreshing thoughts enter. You're stuck on the CERN quest of finding or acting like the GOD particle. You can't get there without acceptance.

Let me give you a quote from a document:
"A document dated 1056 A.D. describes a similarly constructed table for the Chhien Thang river in China. What the producers of such tables
could not do was explain why tides should occur in the first place. The thought occurred to both European and Oriental thinkers
that the Earth itself might be alternately inhaling and exhaling sea water."

So you see Mr. RE'er no GOD just science men (thinkers) placing an answer to a question. Guys with brains.

https://www.siam.org/pdf/news/621.pdf

So when I give you an answer the way I did in my first post, you should understand I am a "thinker" "a man of God" which gives you truth and knowledge if only you want it.

Oh and Junker has not power over me. None, zip, I abide by the rules of my creator.

754

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy

« on: October 01, 2017, 06:43:04 PM »

Did the people here actually graduate elementary school or something?

Your going to be suspended with this type of low content.

Look this is the same 4-5 peeps that talk to themselves here with crazy hypothesis. They get a good little paycheck from the soon to be leader down under.

There are maps made throughout history, pick one and go sailing.

755

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 01, 2017, 06:32:09 PM »

God doesn't explain everything to us, or need to, our bodies for example are so complex in their daily working that the medical community is still baffled and amazed at the brilliant design.

Moses probably knew the timing of the low tides as land appeared in the red sea only to swallow the chasing soldiers as the tide rose again. God lowered the DEEP or ocean floors and raised the mountains to disperse and place the global flood waters in a way we have our continents of today.

Maybe one needs to think of the DEEP as GOD's body. The very deep ocean floors his chest that inhale and exhale twice a day giving this living earth it's high and low tides. Maybe tides are nothing more than our reminder of his brilliant design as he cradles us in his bosom? He controls all life breathing dependably day in and day out for eternity.

I don't understand why you're here. It sounds like asking questions is pointless because God did everything and doesn't have to explain himself to us.

That's great, except He DID explain lots to us, because we are able to calculate, with phenomenal precision:
- The timing of the tides
- The timing of eclipses, both solar and lunar, CENTURIES in advance

And that's leaving out anything that you might think is a fairy tale like GPS satellites.

If God Did It and That Settles It, why are you even in here talking to us losers? Why is there a forum? Why ask questions at all?
Why isn't the Wiki just "God did it, stop asking questions."?

Because it's a battle of good and evil. I'm choppin a few demonic heads here and there. Glad I'm under your skin.

You go ahead and use the "oh the moon pulls the water off both sides of the earth" spinning ball nonsense for tides.

In all of recorded time only twice in history, once in 1960 and once in 2012 did a submersible reach the bottom of the ocean. Even military subs only go 1/10 as deep. So yes you tell me how God explained it to you or let you see? Come again? I'm listening

Who asks questions here on this forum? The roundies not the God fearing FE'ers, we know the score.

756

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 01, 2017, 03:58:34 PM »

God does it

Thanks for the contribution. It's a possibility.
There's a catch, though. My municipality has a service predicting the tides (it's important around here) and it's very precise. It's not a church though, so I don't think they are in contact with the almighty. Do you happen to know *how* God does it?

most likely the same way he creates an electrical current in your body that surrounds your heart causing it to contract (pump) 2.5 BILLION times in your life. Did your crew figure that one out?

I don't know, I can check with a cardiologist, if you want. What does this have to do with the OP?

Because you ridicule the creator and expect someone not of God to understand. You can't even understand the basic principle of life, the body and how it works, yet you think YOU should be given the answer as to how something divine works.

Not only did God do it, he did everything. I know it's tough to swallow but your the one asking the questions because your clueless. Get it?

757

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 01, 2017, 01:26:06 PM »

God does it

Thanks for the contribution. It's a possibility.
There's a catch, though. My municipality has a service predicting the tides (it's important around here) and it's very precise. It's not a church though, so I don't think they are in contact with the almighty. Do you happen to know *how* God does it?

most likely the same way he creates an electrical current in your body that surrounds your heart causing it to contract (pump) 2.5 BILLION times in your life. Did your crew figure that one out?

758

Flat Earth Theory / Re: High tide(s)

« on: October 01, 2017, 01:03:24 PM »

Apologies in advance for asking a question that has already been posed, but from a search in the upper fora I couldn't find a detailed answer. Threads kinda went all over the place.

What is the FE model for how tides work?

Today in my area the high tide was shortly before 10:00 AM, and the second high was shortly past 9:00 PM. The second was the less intense of the two. I can give other details if needed.

The wiki has this to say:

Celestial Gravitation is a part of some Flat Earth models which involve an attraction by all objects of mass on earth to the heavenly bodies. This is not the same as Gravity, since Celestial Gravitation does not imply an attraction between objects of mass on Earth. Celestial Gravitation accounts for tides and other gravimetric anomalies across the Earth's plane.

Which beside being a statement rife with problems of various nature has zero explanatory power.

I would love for some FEr to expand a bit on the concept, maybe explain what is causing the timing I gave, and I'm preemptively asking 3Dgeek et al to please NOT chime in to explain how tides work in a RE model (I don't know in detail and don't care), or how they think the FES thinks they work. This is a honest question which I'd like to see answered and not an invitation for a debate / derailing / general crapshooting

Thanks, cheers

God doesn't explain everything to us, or need to, our bodies for example are so complex in their daily working that the medical community is still baffled and amazed at the brilliant design.

Moses probably knew the timing of the low tides as land appeared in the red sea only to swallow the chasing soldiers as the tide rose again. God lowered the DEEP or ocean floors and raised the mountains to disperse and place the global flood waters in a way we have our continents of today.

Maybe one needs to think of the DEEP as GOD's body. The very deep ocean floors his chest that inhale and exhale twice a day giving this living earth it's high and low tides. Maybe tides are nothing more than our reminder of his brilliant design as he cradles us in his bosom? He controls all life breathing dependably day in and day out for eternity.

759

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: September 30, 2017, 07:30:19 PM »

Defying Gravity is all CGI

That rhymes.


Satellites don't defy gravity and hover over the earth motionless, it's all an illusion and people buy it. TV signals can be delivered off towers or bounced off the dome.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'll add to this post. Forget satellites, they are dreams. When you go buy expensive GPS systems for say construction one thing is always prevalent and that is this REMOTE station that runs on POWER at your job site or in the remote woods MUST be able to talk to the BASE station to get accurate positions. The satellite links is ridiculous, earth moving, 4 satellites moving and some chipset is going to give you a very accurate position from moving parts...hah dreams of my father

No it's called remote antenna position, home base and repeaters or towers. Done and done simple, no defying density

And navigation in the middle of an ocean?

And tv dish angles prove satellites.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog160/node/1926

Dude you're so gullible. Read the provided link. Surveyors used "Fixed" positions and now wait for it...........

The "STARS"

Dem things GOD put up there to GPS ones self. Go Figure.

OMG Dish Network is looking at a moving satellite to give me grainy reception....duh

GPS receiver in my phone is showing 17 satellites, where are they?   A TV satellite is stationary relative to earth.  As you know.

Actually I don't know..Is someone at NASA or the ISS astronuts holding the satellite via a string?

760

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How does FE think that GPS works?

« on: September 30, 2017, 07:24:44 PM »

Defying Gravity is all CGI

That rhymes.


Satellites don't defy gravity and hover over the earth motionless, it's all an illusion and people buy it. TV signals can be delivered off towers or bounced off the dome.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'll add to this post. Forget satellites, they are dreams. When you go buy expensive GPS systems for say construction one thing is always prevalent and that is this REMOTE station that runs on POWER at your job site or in the remote woods MUST be able to talk to the BASE station to get accurate positions. The satellite links is ridiculous, earth moving, 4 satellites moving and some chipset is going to give you a very accurate position from moving parts...hah dreams of my father

No it's called remote antenna position, home base and repeaters or towers. Done and done simple, no defying density

And navigation in the middle of an ocean?

And tv dish angles prove satellites.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog160/node/1926

Dude you're so gullible. Read the provided link. Surveyors used "Fixed" positions and now wait for it...........

The "STARS"

Dem things GOD put up there to GPS ones self. Go Figure.

OMG Dish Network is looking at a moving satellite to give me grainy reception....duh I'm changing my avatar just for you son, enjoy the Victory