1

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: "Behind the Curve" experiments [looking for flat earther responses]

« on: March 22, 2019, 10:09:52 PM »

The two experiments I'm referring to are a gyroscope that affirmed a 15 degree rotation of the earth, and the other experiment was a laser over water that clearly showed the water level was not flat but had a curvature.

1. The Ring Laser Gyroscopes double purpose as a type of seismometer and the earth rotation claims resort to detection of microseismic patterns in the background: https://wiki.tfes.org/Ring_Laser_Gyroscope

Yes, I read the word salad of a Wiki regarding the Ring Laser Gyroscopes (RLG).

Should be very simple to prove your assertion. Just suspend the RLG from an apparatus that dampens the magic 15-degree per hour microseismic patterns - essentially suspending it in the air - and it should show zero rotation.

Cheers
Mick

2

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: August 03, 2018, 09:24:44 AM »

saw NO satellites,

Because space is really big - even if you evenly spread all satellites on the surface of the earth each would have around 138,000km2 to itself. now think about the massive extra area created by the orbital heights of the satellites, with many over 35,000km up, it would be more surprising to see one than not.

NO ISS

It's like saying you shot a rocket from New York to LA and didn't see a school bus in Sydney, Australia. Why would you expect to see it unless it was aimed at it?

No Space Debris

There was some spotted.

NO oblate spheroid.

Why would you expect to see a difference of about 3%?

NO spinning earth

Take a beach ball and attach it to something that rotates it once every 24hrs and then tell me how impressive the spinning looks

NO escape veolocity

Not sure what this looks like? Can you explain a little bit further?

NO speeds of 20kmph

See previous remark/question

NO stars

Go out tonight and take a nice clear picture of a bright object in the sky (such as the moon) and show me how many stars end up in the picture. To show you the stars the other video/images would have had to have been massively overexposed.

Just stationary blackness.

What did you expect? Sounds like you expected satellites shooting past, stars, galaxies, space junk all over the place, the earth looking like a fast spinning ball extensively bulging at the equator, and some kind of massive sign reading "you have exceeded escape velocity.


I actually feel sorry for you. I hope it's not too late to repeat 3rd grade.


Cheers

Mick

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Navigating By Stars - How Is It Possible?

« on: June 22, 2018, 09:47:29 AM »

I really want to know how this works. Please.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Navigating By Stars - How Is It Possible?

« on: June 13, 2018, 08:59:38 AM »

Hello,
Just wondering how navigating by stars works in a flat earth model. I'll give one example (as per attached image):

I can be in Auckland, New Zealand and someone else in Perth, Australia. When we both look at the Southern Cross (Crux), at the same time, and do the following we can both find south:

1) Draw a line from the top of the cross through the bottom and extend it out.

2) Draw a line between the two pointers (Alpha and Beta Centauri) and extend a line from the centre straight out at right-angels.

3) Find the point where the two lines intersect and then drop a line down to the horizon.

Given that we are 5000km apart, how can this be possible that we both end up pointing south on a flat earth model?


Cheers

Mick

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hemispherical star differences?

« on: February 15, 2018, 02:22:56 AM »

Alright, what holds the star disc up? I'm pretty sure there's no pole in the middle of the northern hemisphere.

Magic I think. You will never get any proper answers here because there are no explanations about why we wee different stars, rotating around their own poles in the north and south.

The only logical explanation is that the world is a globe.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Hemispherical star differences?

« on: February 08, 2018, 07:24:21 AM »

I am curious, if a person in the northern hemisphere can observe Polaris, why can't a person in the southern hemisphere do the same if the Earth is flat?

I was sceptical about the flat earth model because of the stars too.....then I saw this video and I'm converted. If you watch this stellar explanation and still think the earth is round then there's something wrong with you

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth rocket launch this weekend

« on: November 24, 2017, 08:44:13 AM »

How am I the first to mention this? A flat Earth beleiver and self taught rocket maker is launching himself in a homemade rocket this weekend. Says he is expecting to reach 1800 feet of altitude. Don't think there will be much science coming from a flight that low, but he is working his way up to space.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Mad-Mike-Hughes-Rocket-Over-Amboy-458823163.html

I can't read French, so maybe your article says the same thing, but an article in the Sydney Morning Herald suggests very strongly that the guy doesn't even really believe in flat earth. He's just using the lunacy to promote the attempt and raise funds from believers. Do flat earthers feel used?

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/a-man-is-about-to-launch-himself-in-his-homemade-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat-20171122-gzqrgr.html

Hughes only recently converted to flat-Eartherism, after struggling for months to raise funds for his follow-up flight over the Mojave.
It was originally scheduled for early 2016 in a Kickstarter campaign - "From Garage to Outer Space!" - that mentioned nothing about illuminati astronauts, and was themed after a NASCAR event.

"We want to do this and basically thumb our noses at all these billionaires trying to do this," Hughes said, standing in his Apple Valley, California, living room, which he had plastered with drawings of his rockets.

"They have not put a man in space yet," Hughes said. "There are 20 different space agencies here in America, and I'm the last person that's put a man in a rocket and launched it."
 
He compared himself to Evel Knievel, as he promised to launch himself from a California racetrack - the first step on his steam-powered leap toward space.

The Kickstarter [link in article] raised $US310 of its $US150,000 goal.

Hughes made other pitches, including a plan to fly over Texas in a "SkyLimo." But he complained to Ars Technica last year about the difficulty of funding his dreams on a chauffeur's meager salary.

A year later, he called into a flat-earth community web show to announce he had become a recent convert.

"We were kind of looking for a new sponsors for this. And I'm a believer in the flat Earth," Hughes said. "I researched it for several months."

The host sounded impressed. Hughes had actually flown in a rocket, he noted, whereas astronauts were merely paid actors performing in front of a CGI globe.

"John Glenn and Neil Armstrong are Freemasons," Hughes agreed. "Once you understand that, you understand the roots of the deception."

The host talked of "Elon Musk's fake reality," and Hughes talked of "anti-Christ, Illuminati stuff." After half an hour of this, the host told his 300-some listeners to back Hughes' exploration of space.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia to South America takes 15 hrs?

« on: November 23, 2017, 08:16:11 AM »

On a flat earth the US would have to be roughly a third of the distance between those two points at 15 hrs duration as going across the US takes 5hrs. 5/15 = 1/3....

I'm heartbroken. I was beginning to fall in love with this theory. Please someone tell the internet lied. I just googled to find the one way time and found that.

All someone from either of those places needs to do is to take a vaca to the other to confirm or disprove the theory no?

Don't be disappointed, the flights you speak of (non-stop) don't really exist, they are hocus pocus. This video will show you the truth, the planes used are not even capable of these distances without refueling. But nice try.....No cigar

What an absolute load of rubbish that video is.

I've flown direct from Sydney to both Santiago and Johannesburg. Both flights were on a 747-400. I was awake the entire time on both flights. Neither flew over land (other than Australia). Neither stopped and refuelled.

I suppose in the flat earth delusional world I am either lying or I was somehow duped. If the latter, what happened? Did they slip some gas into the air-conditioning and put us all instantly to sleep, like a 60's Bond movie, while the plane landed and refuelled? Was it something else?

FE theory - if you can even call it a 'theory' - is so easy to debunk in the southern hemisphere a 1st grade student could do it.

Cheers
Mick

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Antarctic 24-hour sun cycle

« on: September 09, 2017, 07:59:30 AM »

I think you need to look into the definition of "Hypothesis". The whole point is to discuss and debate them among your peers before proving them. If you had to prove every hypothesis before discussing or advocating for it, you'd get nowhere very fast.

...Oh wait... you've had over a decade to nail this stuff down, and have gone literally backwards - with new competing hypothesis that didn't even exist then, and you are no closer to understanding literally any of the big questions you had ten years ago. Your approach clearly isn't working. How long are you going to continue spinning your wheels? Another decade? Two more?

Hell, you haven't even improved on Rowbotham's "steam holds the oceans up" 1860 superstitious, pseudoscientific bullshit. The more you keep referring to him as the gold standard, the more stuck in the past and unable to progress you become.

The only reason no one can poke holes in FE hypotheses, is because as soon as a hole is poked, intellectually dishonest people like you reactively blurt, "I never said I believed in that!". Jesus man, grow a pair, pick a hypothesis, and defend it. When holes are poked, acknowledge it and revise. Rinse, rather, repeat.

FEC (Flat Earth Conjecture) is not supposed to be an infallible religion. ...Right? So why do all of your discussion threads sound like someone is threatening your religion?

The only reason you personally won't advocate for a specific map, is because you're an intellectual coward. I truly don't mean that as a personal attack, and obviously it's just my own Zetetic observations and explanation for them. You seem like a nice guy. But a truly, intellectually contemptible coward. You seem terrified of an imagined "fall from grace" you believe will happen if you have to admit a single error on something - something which I have never seen you do.

No intellectually honest person is never wrong.

Not only are you guys literally looking for a messiah, you guys seem to be trying to act like one, or at least like priests. Infallible. The only way to be infallible, is to never say anything of substance - which you never do. Never advocate something that could have a hole poked in it. How much longer are you going to be alive to promote this? Haven't you already squandered - what, 1/3 of your remaining healthy working years, doing little more than distancing yourself from any and all hypotheses that have even one inescapable hole poked in it? Wouldn't you rather spend the remaining 2/3 of that time actually advancing the understanding of the true nature of the world? By taking risks, admitting errors when you're proven wrong, discarding hypotheses that don't work, and advancing the state of understanding? I mean, the world is counting on you guys to reveal the truth, right? Counting on you. Given those stakes, why are you fucking this up so badly?

Why don't you guys call a big conference with working committees (ideally in Australia), and hammer out a draft of tentative working hypotheses to the most fundamental questions hounding you guys - that various FAQs and wikis are all over the map (no pun intended) on, and you guys constantly, openly discredit your own Wiki. I suggest working subcommittes or subconferences titled:

• The universe: "Ice wall/single pole", "No ice wall/antarctica as a continent/double-poles", or "Double-rimmed ice wall with Atlantis in the outer waters"?
• The plane: Infinite, or finite?
• Dome: Exists or not?
• The LAX-SYD cornundrum: Let's lick this!
• The moon: Looks the same from different locations at the same time, or different?
• Solar eclipses: How do they work?
• Lunar eclipses: ...etc.
• Man-made satellites: Real? Balloons? Don't exist?
• Celestial Gears: How do they work, and how'd they get there?
• The Firmament: What is it?
• Tides and eclipses: Let's figure out how to predict them using the math of our own underlying laws and mechanics! That will shut those RE assholes up once and for all!
• Celestial software: Let's fork the open-source Stellarium to be driven by our own laws of nature and celestial mechanics, open for all to study, test, and critique! Just like RE Stellarium! That will seriously win converts.
• Other galaxies: Do they exist?
• Our sun: What powers it?
• The moon: Self-lit or not?
• Other stars: What powers them?
• Extraterrestrial life: Even theoretically possible?
• Meteorites: what are they?
• Gravity, UA, or fuck it and keep punting?
• Rowbotham: Hey, why don't we eject this supernatural shit-show 19th-century snake-oil salesman from our vocabulary once and for all, to save some face, allow our hypotheses to change and improve, and attract fresh recruits?

I could go on as many others have. This is not a list of criticisms. It's things you obviously need to fix or at least agree on, and move forward with testing. It's time to commit to hypotheses that might be proven wrong or require change, or that you may not even be sure how to test or is even testable. (You can always discard those after exhausting ideas.) It's not a sign of weakness. It's a sign of strength. You can't set the world's experts to conducting experiments to confirm or falsify your hypotheses, and test your predictions - if you have no consistent hypotheses at all.

It's a sign of weakness to continue treating it like some kind of infallible dogmatic truth you just haven't quite nailed the details of down yet.

Finally, you should assemble a permanent working committee tasked with rigorously, openly, and scientifically testing every conjecture in the FE model - with rigorous controls and statistical methods - from biggest to smallest (e.g. disappearing ships), or until it runs out of money. If even just to win new recruits. Surely with the FE belief exploding, you can start a successful GoFundMe campaign. Surely they are willing to put their flat money where their flat beliefs are?

Good luck.

This goes down as one of the best posts I have ever read on any flat earth forum. I note it was duly ignored by Tom.

Overall, it just amazes me that they accept just about anything as evidence for the flat earth model, yet for something as simple as timeanddate.com they will only accept the result if each sunrise/set prediction is verified. Then if we managed to get thousands of people to post verifications they would claim not to believe them and demand video evidence. Then if the videos were supplied it would be claimed that the videos had been doctored somehow. When it comes down to it you may as well be arguing with the Pope about whether God exists - you are simply never going to convince them.

On this forum and the other one, each thread seems to go the same way +/- a few steps:

• Someone sane posts a query regarding one of the many holes in FET
• A flat earth believer (FEB) will say "that is explained in the FAQ"
• The sane person will point out the inadequacies of the FAQ
• A FEB or two will post attempts to explain away the said holes in their theory
• Sane people will poke holes in the FEBs' explanations
• Some back and forward for a few posts
• A FEB will then attack the grammar of someone's post in a attempt to derail the debate
• A FEB will post some pseudointellectual drivel that has nothing to do with anything being discussed in an attempt to confuse and derail the debate
• Another FEB will attempt to falsely attribute something totally irrelevant to another poster and try to derail the debate using straw-man tactics
• Yet another FEB will highlight a small error in another post and attempt to focus the entire debate on that one narrow part of the problem
• A sane person will finally bring the debate back on track and highlight the holes in the FEBs' explanations up to this point
• FEBs state they don't believe in any of the evidence they have been provided with and desert the thread completely

You could take Tom up to the ISS and he would claim he was drugged, that false images were placed on the memory card in his camera and/or implanted in his brain. Evidence means nothing to round earth deniers and it never will. I believe:

• For some it borders on is religion
• Some have just painted themselves into a corner and stubbornly refuse to give up
• Some have invested so much time and energy into the debate that to admit defeat would create too much dissonance for them
• Some are just the ultimate trollers who sit back and laugh at the fools who believe them and at all of us wasting our time and energy trying to debate them.
  

Which one is Tom?