1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain meteors

« on: March 05, 2020, 09:01:53 PM »

It's not out of the realm of possibility that they are parts of the moon. Since the moon is closer to earth than the sun, it could be little chunks breaking off and falling to earth.

2

Flat Earth Media / Re: Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth

« on: March 05, 2020, 03:18:07 PM »

Stack, you can't say he accounted for refraction, and then in the same sentence claim there was no evidence he did. I am glad you bestowed his proper title tho.

However, he as he referred to refraction, he decided it wasn't to be taken into account. He used scientific instruments and had someone else record statistics, then he compared them with that person and they were identical. The fact he took it into account shows he knew what he was dealing with, but results otherwise made him decide that refraction wasn't relevant.

Dr Rowbotham actually accounted for refraction, but there is no corroborating information that he actually did.

Are we to take your written statement he did account for refraction as corroborating information that he did, or are we to take your statement as simply an indication you have no clue what you are writing?

No, you are to take into account that Dr Rowbotham took refraction into account but deemed it irrelevant and not something that would influence the Bedford level experiment.

3

Flat Earth Media / Re: Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth

« on: March 05, 2020, 12:19:48 AM »

Dr Rowbotham actually accounted for refraction, by pointing out that refraction only exists when the medium which surrounds the observer is different to that which the object is placed. He used two barometers, two thermometers and two hygrometers, all reading the same. He then had the readings taken at different points at different times, and concluded that refraction played no part in the observation.

Im summing that up in less detail than he included but if you study Dr Rowbothams work you should be able to understand that he was aware of refraction, but using proven methods was able to count it out because it simply wasn't necessary.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Depth

« on: March 05, 2020, 12:10:34 AM »

Well we don't know, it could be 80 miles, or 200 miles. It's obviously thick, but any answers would just be theories.

5

Flat Earth Community / Re: Death of Mike Hughes

« on: March 02, 2020, 12:57:32 PM »

Yes, publically he was a flat earth believer, however behind the scenes there is a lot of evidence to suggest he wasn't, and just slapped the sticker on because then he gets media attention. He was suing Mark Sargent, Patricia Steere, openly told Globebusters at a flat earth conference (allegedly) that he didn't believe it and was just using people. Now he's dead these lawsuits are too, which means people can say he was suing them without any repercussions. You can believe them or not, that's upto you of course, but it was rumoured for a long time he was never a flat earther and was just using it for publicity and donations.

6

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets

« on: February 29, 2020, 12:16:15 AM »

No, it was a spec of paint apparently. I was talking about how it's hard to believe that something that size, orbiting a planet with over 100,000 pieces of space junk, along with plenty of rocks that are in space, not one of those things has hit it?

Why are you stating in one sentence what DID hit it, then in the next wondering why "not one" thing has hit it?

I'm not saying it did hit it. I'm saying it allegedly hit it. I have already said the iss isn't up there. What I find impossible to believe is that a random spec of paint just happened to be floating in space, yet it somehow eludes space debris.

7

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets

« on: February 28, 2020, 07:27:48 PM »

Battleships aren't moving at 17,000 mph though. Common sense would say if something is moving as fast as that, with windows, and it hits a rock flying towards it, it's going to smash a massive hole in that window, right?

You haven't established the speed differential between the two was the 17k full speed of the ISS, nor the direction of the rogue object. It may well have been travelling at 15k in the same direction, yielding only a 2k speed differential. May have been less than this.

Have we established it was a rock?

No, it was a spec of paint apparently. I was talking about how it's hard to believe that something that size, orbiting a planet with over 100,000 pieces of space junk, along with plenty of rocks that are in space, not one of those things has hit it?

And even if a the difference was only 2k, I think a rock at that speed is going to, at the very least, shatter a window.

8

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets

« on: February 28, 2020, 07:10:44 PM »

Battleships aren't moving at 17,000 mph though. Common sense would say if something is moving as fast as that, with windows, and it hits a rock flying towards it, it's going to smash a massive hole in that window, right?

9

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets

« on: February 28, 2020, 06:51:14 PM »

I was saying 17,000 mph because that was the speed the article that was uploaded says the iss was moving. I find it hard to believe that something moving at that speed hasn't hit a little rock, considering space is full of the stuff.

10

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets

« on: February 28, 2020, 06:12:49 PM »

I didn't leap on it in desperation at all. As a round earther, who has been here a long time, it seems you are desperately trying to convince yourself rather than other people.

And so you expect me to believe that a random blob of paint just happened to be in space and hit the window causing a crack? LOL the fact is, with all the debris it up there, and random rocks (meteor, pebble, orange sized, take your pick) up there, not ONE of those has hit the iss? And yes, if something is flying at 17,000 mph and hits a rock, in a vacuum, it's going to blow the iss to pieces. No ifs or buts, that rock is going to rip one hell of a hole in it. But no, it seems the single biggest danger the iss has to face while travelling 17,000 mph is not defunct /active satellites, rocks or general space junk. Nope, it's specs of paint. Fake news. Try harder.

11

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets

« on: February 28, 2020, 04:39:03 PM »

So basically what I'm hearing is one person saying the iss gets hit, and another saying it basically doesn't because there's so much space between everything.

The photo Tim Peake snapped has to be fake. Something moving at 17,000mph (according to a link posted here), in a vacuum, would pretty much be destroyed if something hit it. But no. What we apparently have is the equivalent of a pebble hitting a windscreen, and leaving a little crack. But a space version. Of something moving faster than any vehicle on earth. I'm fairly sure that picture is NOT conclusive proof from an actornaut, who snaps a picture of a cracked window against a blue screen, hence why we see cgi.

12

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets

« on: February 28, 2020, 03:07:23 PM »

The second is a crude photograph that has already been posted. More likely is that people uploading these are nasa informers. It's not nasa installing cgi on people's telescopes, it's fake news.

And this is the trouble with arguing with people on the internet who are entrenched in their position.
You asked for evidence, it has been presented so you just hand wave it away and declare it fake without a scrap of evidence.

No. I asked for proof, and what was presented was crude images.

I also pointed out, to you as it happens, that the article you cited says the iss is moving at 17,000 mph. So assuming that is true, and you did somehow see it through a telescope, it would be moving so fast it would be out of view almost instantly. Which means you would have to keep moving your telescope.

And while we are at it, boffins keep saying we have about 100,000 pieces of space junk in orbit. So if the iss is travelling at 17,000 mph, how in the hell has it not so much as clipped one of these things?

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets

« on: February 28, 2020, 02:45:05 PM »

The second is a crude photograph that has already been posted. More likely is that people uploading these are nasa informers. It's not nasa installing cgi on people's telescopes, it's fake news.

14

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets

« on: February 28, 2020, 02:24:30 PM »

Would you be able to share some of these alleged photographs?

Sure, once you come up with a plausible explanation for how NASA could know in advance which photographer was going to take a photo, and install CGI in his telescope or camera ...

It matters not that the one AATW cited is/was "a pixellated mess". Pixellation is no proof of fakery.

So you don't have them. And when have I said nasa have installed cgi in someone's telescope?

15

Flat Earth Media / Re: Flat Earth on UK Morning TV

« on: February 28, 2020, 02:11:02 PM »

This seems more like a post set up to bash Phillip Schofield more than anything.

Anyway, Mark Sargent only had a set time limit to talk. He keeps getting questions, so it's a little difficult to answer questions that require a detailed answer in such a short time before he has to answer another one.

16

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets

« on: February 28, 2020, 02:06:58 PM »

if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi. I'm sure you'll agree nasas budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created.

Shuttles (NASA STS missions) have not docked at the ISS for 9 years or so. But when they did, astrophotographers on the ground were there to use their high-powered telescopes to photograph the event(s).

How would NASA manage to install CGI on every photographer's telescope?

Would you be able to share some of these alleged photographs?

And all around the world, that alleged photo doesn't really count. It's a black and white, pixellated mess. Also there's a massive contradiction in that article saying the iss isn't hard to see yet then mentions the fact it's travelling at 17,000 mph. It it's going that speed, then if you did look at it with a crude telescope (as that article implies), it would very, very quickly move out of your shot.

17

Flat Earth Media / Re: Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth

« on: February 28, 2020, 12:49:54 PM »

Well yes he did need to use all those flags, which is why he points out the drop that should occur at each one. He was covering all bases, rather than having simply two flags out.

.. but do you agree that a true parallel can be drawn/described with two?

I agree that it wasn't necessary to have all those flags (even tho he had his reasons), and the experiment could have been done with two flags.

18

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA and Rockets

« on: February 28, 2020, 12:13:48 PM »

How have I been fooled?  Did my family and friends lie to me?  Have I been living a fantasy? How does that play into your flat earth model?

No, I wouldn't say that your family and friends are lying to you. On the contrary, they most likely have been deceived as have you. So when you inputted all those calculations and got the angle correct and so on, you were calculating for a Globe. As such your calculations would have been correct. However, since the earth is a flat plane, what I suspect has happened is that your calculations and such have been adjusted behind your back, by the people at the top, and then false information has been fed into your system. Therefore what you think is happening is quite the the opposite, and if you watch shuttles Dock at the iss, then that's just cgi. I'm sure you'll agree nasas budget allows for very, very, very realistic cgi to be created.

19

Flat Earth Media / Re: Frozen Lake Proves Flat Earth

« on: February 28, 2020, 11:27:42 AM »

Well yes he did need to use all those flags, which is why he points out the drop that should occur at each one. He was covering all bases, rather than having simply two flags out.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?

« on: February 27, 2020, 09:56:16 PM »

Well I wasn't meaning literally everyone, but the majority believe in the ice wall. The evidence is there really, as are the photos.