2501

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 29, 2018, 10:42:10 AM »

I'm saying that if the earth was round, as the plane was flying it should have dipped to account for the curvature of the earth, thereby making the spirit level move. It doesn't, it stays motionless, thereby proving

How would you expect the spirit level to move, thus indicating your 'dip'? What result did you expect?

1) the plane did not dip due to the lack of a curvature
2) the earth is flat, because it can't move on a flat level surface

What is 'it'? The spirit level? The plane?

The spirit level aligns itself perpendicular to a radial line drawn between centre of Earth and surface.

Again, if you had a viewpoint outwith the Earth's surface, and you looked at the flight from a position out in space, you would see an angular difference between start and end levels. But you're not. You, and the observer in the plane, looking at the spirit level, have a start point, an end point, and an infinite number of points inbetween, at all of which the spirit level naturally aligns itself.

2502

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 29, 2018, 09:10:29 AM »

however there's no evidence to suggest that gravity pulls the planet into a ball.

Really? You don't think that a force, pulling matter toward it, will eventually cause that mass to broadly form into a sphere?

Gravity therefore would have to come from the centre to pull the edges, but instead it's all across the planet, therefore cannot possibly pull the earth into a ball.

Which 'edges'?

If it did, the spirit level d marble took on the plane would have moved, yet move it did not.

A spirit level naturally finds the line which is perpendicular to the line of gravitational force. This will vary during his flight, and his spirit level will naturally adjust to his location.

Are you suggesting the spirit level at his destination should have read differently from that at his starting point?

2503

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Question for round earthers

« on: March 29, 2018, 09:03:18 AM »

Of course. What I am saying is that as they are underneath the ball, they are upside down.

Only if you align yourself, head at North, feet at South, with the vertical axis of the Earth, and view the situation from a place off the Earth, out in space.

If you align yourself differently, your definitions of upside down and right way up become different.

2504

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 28, 2018, 11:22:12 PM »

The documentary is launching in one hour, 

Over 8  hours to go according to countdown on the website; I type this at 00.24 UTC/GMT

2505

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Moon Landing.

« on: March 28, 2018, 08:46:15 PM »

It's cgi clear as day. Doesn't even look real, has a clear cig look about it.

How do you determine this, and prove it beyond all reasonable doubt?

2506

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Moon Landing.

« on: March 28, 2018, 08:44:27 PM »

I use 'CGI' loosely, its 'CGI' in its most primitive form.

Why is it that contradictory Team Hoaxers never argue with each other?

You say NASA had CGI to fake Moon pics. Others say that the Command Module computer lacked the power to carry out the mission. So they had computing power for one, but not the other?

2507

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and Moon Landing.

« on: March 28, 2018, 08:42:32 PM »

There is lots of footage on YouTube to demonstrate the fakery.

Disagree

The way the astronauts bounce as if they are on wires for one.

Yet there's no actual PROOF of any wires...

The pathetic lunar landing module that looks like it was wrapped in tin foil.

Why does putting an outer layer of foil on something cast doubt upon its integrity? (see below)

"And how is it that they can get a little tv camera to broadcast images, from the moon, in 1969, uninterrupted, back to earth? Yet today, in 2018 if it gets a bit cloudy outside my Sky TV loses its satellite signal?"

You have a small dish. NASA used big dishes to receive what Apollo was transmitting. The method of transmission differed, too.

Why was it (the flag) blowing?

It wasn't

Why can people not look through a powerful telescope and see a flag?

Because it's beyond the capability of optics at the moment

Lunar Module

Here's the pressure vessel viewed toward the top of the vehicle, showing the docking hatch which connected to the Command Module, and the rectangular window for viewing the docking aid. The windows and hatch used for entry and exit on the Moon are hidden, and are to the top of the assembly.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-05.jpg

Here's the view from the rear once most/all of the ancillary 'stuff' has been bolted onto the side of the pressure vessel. This includes various tanks, and the electrical/system panel (to the left in this photo). The CM hatch is to the top, and lunar hatch hidden to the right.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/misc/apmisc-LM-noID-16.jpg

As you can see, we have pictures noID-05 and noID-16 here - change the URL manually in your browser bar, and you can see a host of others, from 02 to nn.

02 shows the intermediate stage of foil wrap
03 shows a tech working on the rear section, with CM hatch to the top
04 shows the descent stage
05 is referenced above
06 shows the descent stage from below
07 shows the ascent and descent stages together
08 shows both stages from the side, lunar hatch to the right
09 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to front right
10 shows ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front, and some ancillaries attached
11 shows ascent stage from below with lunar hatch front left
12 shows ascent and descent stage with some ancillaries
13 shows 'naked' ascent and descent stages
14 shows descent stage
15 shows descent stage
16 is referenced above
17 shows transport of LM
18 shows rear of ascent stage with ancillaries, especially the electrical panel
19 shows the ascent stage with lunar hatch to the front
20 shows ascent stage from rear left with ancillaries
21 shows descent stage
22 shows transport of LM
23 shows ascent stage with ancillaries, lunar hatch front right
24 shows the fairing to go around the LM on the Saturn V
25 shows an almost-complete ascent stage, lunar hatch to the left
26 shows the pressure vessel atop the descent stage skeleton
27 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the rear
28 shows almost-complete ascent and descent stage from the side, lunar hatch to the left

etc
etc

2508

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

« on: March 27, 2018, 08:47:01 AM »

I see words, not demonstration.

How should someone 'demonstrate' something within these forums? What format of demonstration would you find acceptable?

2509

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 27, 2018, 08:42:27 AM »

Isn't it strange that the forthcoming documentary purports to relate to "convex earth", yet not a single flat-earther has stepped forward to say, unequivocally; "It can't be convex if it's flat" .....?

Aren't the two mutually exclusive?

2510

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

« on: March 26, 2018, 07:07:47 PM »

He could do his next launch from the top of Ben Nevis. Checkmate, round earthers.

Er ... why?

1875 + 4413 = 6288 ft, still barely one-fifth the height of Everest.

2511

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

« on: March 26, 2018, 03:24:47 PM »

OK, so he got it up to ... 1,875 feet.

To put that in context, the highest mountain in Scotland is Ben Nevis, at 4,413 feet.  He's barely got to half the height of this small mountain.

Everest is 29,000 feet.

Why all the fuss? It's scarcely epic stuff, and if FE could be proved from 1,875 feet, then FEers would be proudly proclaiming this from the top of Ben Nevis ... but they're not.

2512

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 26, 2018, 11:34:17 AM »

You know, for a documentary that hasn't even been published or broadcast yet, there's a whole lot of Team Hoaxers over on YouTube happy to sing its praises already....

2513

Flat Earth Community / Re: The people of the flat earth society

« on: March 25, 2018, 03:21:54 PM »

The reason that the heliocentric model and a globe earth became the standard is because it passed all the tests.

Really?
Michelson - Morley Null Result
Airy's Failure.
Sagnac Experiment.

When an experiment fails in the Heliocentric model then its time to hit the blackboard.

50+ years of orbital space flight - success.

2514

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Evidence from beacons

« on: March 24, 2018, 12:28:06 PM »

I think that your experiment however would be impossible on an imaginary Round Earth. Because wouldn't the earth block the radio signals?

I think that would depend on the type of radio signal used. Short wave, long wave, microwave, etc. have different properties and directionality characteristics

2515

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problem with Empiricism

« on: March 24, 2018, 10:24:50 AM »

Defining Parameters: WGS 84 identifies four defining parameters. These are the semi-major
axis of the WGS 84 ellipsoid, the flattening factor of the Earth, the nominal mean angular
velocity of the Earth, and the geocentric gravitational constant as specified below.

Even they talk about the flatness of the earth.

Assuming you mean the bold statement, what do you take this statement to mean?

2516

Flat Earth Community / Re: The people of the flat earth society

« on: March 24, 2018, 10:21:03 AM »

... I ordered a copy of Earth Not a Globe, immediately read it cover to cover, and became fascinated with Samuel Birley Rowbotham's ability and courage to question the unquestionable. Even in the mid 1800's the shape of the earth was taught to be a certainty.

But wouldn't you agree that humankind has moved on since then, in a host of different ways, one of which is - Orbital Space Flight ....? 

Do you really think if Rowbotham were alive today, he would repeat what he did in the 1800s?


I began arguing against the globe on the forums, and, over time, generally came to the conclusion that an alternative earth form, even if it doesn't reflect the standard FET model, is possible. It is difficult to debunk the idea that the earth is not a globe, or to demonstrate that the earth is a globe. And because it is so difficult, it has only encouraged me to discover what the truth actually is.

None of this paragraph indicates any real certainty on your part. You 'argue against' but do not prove. You 'come to a conclusion', but don't show a proof.

Why is it 'difficult' for you to 'demonstrate that the earth is a globe'?  Humankind has orbited it multiple times, manned and unmanned. We've photographed it from various viewpoints, also manned and unmanned. Independent agencies monitor the manned and unmanned craft on a daily basis. etc etc

2517

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problem with Empiricism

« on: March 23, 2018, 10:53:45 AM »

Here you go: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_329.html
Even better: https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

To which I add

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/SearchPhotos/ShowQueryResults-CoolIris.pl?results=EarthDisc

(from the Whole Earth category within this - https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Collections/Historical/)

Humankind has amassed over 50 years of orbital spaceflight. You cannot have an orbit without an orb, globe or sphere around which you travel.  I'm happy to cite links to one or two of these if asked, but itemising them all individually is far too onerous a task at the moment.

In terms of those who have verified the presence of these orbital craft independently of the space agencies, I cite four parties;

The Space Geodesy Facility
The International Laser Ranging Service
Plane Wave Media
Me.

I've observed the ISS on more than one occasion, sometimes twice in one evening. There's no doubt it is an orbital craft. Nothing else explains its behaviour.

In terms of one of the most recent instances of an orbital craft;

2518

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 22, 2018, 11:02:02 PM »

I generally did believe NASA and Co to be telling the truth. But when I saw some of the bubbles in space videos and sneaker prints on the moon pictures, then I didn't believe NASA as much.

Who's in the category of "and Co"?  The other space agencies? Anyone else?

2519

Flat Earth Community / Re: Convex Earth Documentary

« on: March 21, 2018, 11:49:21 PM »

Do you have something against an organization trying to explain mysterious phenomena that people in Brazil will often attribute to ufology?

No, but I do find something odd about an organisation that claims to be a group of scientists, but is very cagey about stating who those scientists are, where they gained their qualifications that made them scientists, what work they've done in the past and where it was done and published, etc etc.

Go to any pukka scientific organisation and this will be readily apparent, but at this one. Zip. Nada. Nought.

2520

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax

« on: March 21, 2018, 10:33:54 PM »

Now back to satellites and there being no way they can circle above a FE with a dome.

That's not the same as "Sats can't exist", which you were quoted saying above. 

If your FE and dome doesn't exist, your first statement disappears in a puff of logic.

I can show you three separate sources, none of which are space agencies, who independently confirm the presence of satellites by at least two different methods. 

Wanna see?