Show Posts

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.

Messages - stack

Pages: < Back  1 ... 136 137 [138] 139 140 141  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: IR Video from FL300 -> 500 mile visibility?
« on: September 06, 2018, 09:31:57 PM »
Just poking around on the google terrain map:

Probably means nothing, just scratching my head with this one.

Also, it would be great to know which flight and on what day he shot this enroute from LAX to MCO. I looked up about a dozen historical LAX to MCO flights, Delta, American, JetBlue and United and all the flight paths great circle north of PHX about 50 miles south of Mt Humphreys, not south of PHX as shown in the video. ( But again, not evidence of anything, just curiosity.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 06, 2018, 05:38:01 PM »
Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?
Yes, NASA borrowing our methodology from us does not preclude us from still utilising it.

Wait, I’m confused. The JPL DE200 and LE200 solar and lunar ephemerides used as part of NASA’s eclipse prediction methodology are derived from FET?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Other confirmations of general relativity
« on: September 06, 2018, 07:24:56 AM »
At one point, as a test of credibility, a few skeptics in the LIGO administration put in some fake signal data into the LIGO data and, rather than determining that it was an anomaly or that there was no observable event, the LIGO scientists observed the area of the sky it was coming from went to work making up an elaborate story, doing "science" with it, like in the paper Markjo presented.

...a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality. They did just that in the early morning hours of 16 September 2010. Automated data analyses alerted us to an extraordinary event within eight minutes of data collection, and within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from. Since it came from the direction of the Canis Major constellation, this event picked up the nickname of the "Big Dog Event". For months we worked on vetting this candidate gravitational wave detection, extracting parameters that described the source, and even wrote a paper. Finally, at the next collaboration meeting, after all the work had been cataloged and we voted unanimously to publish the paper the next day. However, it was revealed immediately after the vote to be an injection and that our estimated parameters for the simulated source were accurate. Again, there was no detection, but we learned a great deal about our abilities to know when we detected a gravitational wave and that we can do science with the data. This became particularly useful starting in September 2015."

How do you "do science" and write a paper with data that was faked, on a section of the sky it did not come from, with stars and stellar events that did not produce it?

If you can do that, rather than identifying the issue, that sends your credibility down the drain.

This tells us that the underlying science and theories are really just a load of baloney. It is not real science.

I can’t make up my mind whether you are willfully being deceitful in your ‘interpretations’, just mistaken, or perhaps just sloppy. But you basically neutered the thrust of the paper you cited and bent it to your will by leaving some key phrases, sentences and paragraphs out.

You start with the quote, “…a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data…” In order to bolster your claim that, "How do you "do science" and write a paper with data that was faked…”

When in actuality, if you had included the beginning of the sentence and the previous paragraph, it all makes clear sense. You left out all of this:

"How do we know our data analyses are not missing them? And, when we do detect one, how do we know that the science we have extracted from the signal is reliable?

The answer is to do a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality.”

From the abstract:
"The cases reported in this study provide a snap-shot of the status of parameter estimation in preparation for the operation of advanced detectors.” i.e., the intent of the study.

i.e., real science

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 05, 2018, 10:41:36 PM »
The globe cannot predict the eclipse. NASA is using the ancient pattern-based Saros Cycle that was developed by a civilization who believed that the earth is flat.

As they say, “Location, location, location.”

Simple question: Can FET predict the precise viewable characteristics and location of an eclipse anywhere on earth with the pinpoint accuracy that NASA can?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 05, 2018, 06:21:07 AM »
He is providing NASA's eclipse bulletins with his Saros Cycle stuff. It's not coming from some other source.

Apparently your statement is false.

From the link you posted, I looked up Espenak’s earliest NASA eclipse bulletin: Annular Solar Eclipse of 1994 May 10 (NASA RP 1301)

In it, it states the methodology used, specifically "The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200"

Algorithms for the eclipse predictions were developed Espenak primarily from the Explanatory Supplement [1974] with additional algorithms from Meeus, Grosjean and Vanderleen [1966]. The solar and lunar ephemerides were generated from the JPL DE200 and LE200, respectively. All eclipse calculations were made using a value for the Moon's radius of k=0.2722810 for umbral contacts, and k=0.2725076 [adopted IAU value] for penumbral contacts. Center of mass coordinates were used except where noted. An extrapolated value for Delta_T of 59.5 seconds was used to convert the predictions from Terrestrial Dynamical Time to Universal Time.

The primary source for geographic coordinates used in the local circumstances tables is The New International Atlas (Rand McNally, 1991). Elevations for major cites were taken from Climates of the World (U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 1972).

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the space mission failed?
« on: September 04, 2018, 09:13:49 AM »
To be fair, going vertically is quite a lot trickier than going horizontally - otherwise space tourism would be much more of a thing right now.
But we do have the technology to go into space and I haven’t seen a coherent argument why we wouldn’t have.

Agreed. I think the point is what in FET makes, for example, the existence of the ISS, 250 miles up, an impossibility?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 04, 2018, 09:07:32 AM »
The author freely uses statistical terms in his work. Terms such as "mean deflections," etc. It is very easy to lie with statistics. These guys don't get paid by saying that modern science is wrong. That causes you to not be funded.

Who are you to assume what the author's motivations are? And just about everything can be manipulated, doesn't mean that it is. What kind of an argument is that?

Just listen to the logic you are proposing. You are asserting that Einstein can predict the starlight deflection, but cannot literally predict anything else in the universe, the universe needing to be filled with dark matter and dark energy to fill in any and all gaps.

I never made that assertion. I'm asserting that Einstein made the starlight deflection prediction and 100 years later, it still holds, period. You brought up dark matter and such, I never mentioned that.

What a weak argument. Throw it away and start over. The physics of the universe isn't about the deflection of starlight around the sun.

Ummm, you brought up the whole "deflection of starlight" issue to begin with. And no one was talking about the entirety of the physical universe.

That's a humor website. What are the credentials of those people who call his work "comical attempts"?

Yeah, you cited this guy, definitely a gentleman and a scholar. Good job.

Just a smattering of his excellent investigative work (Check out the rest here:

NEW PAPER, added 8/20/16, The Lizzie Borden Axe Murders Never Happened. Another major hoax from Massachusetts.

NEW PAPER, added 7/19/16, The Society of Friends looks like another Jewish Front. We look at George Fox, founder of the Quakers.

NEW PAPER, added 5/5/16, The French Revolution. A backwards continuation of my Napoleon paper, with more appearances of the House of Vasa. Also some news about Louis XVI.

NEW PAPER, added 4/18/16, Was Napoleon Jewish? Plus many other things that will shock and confound you, including more on Laplace.

NEW PAPER, added 1/8/16, Steve Jobs: Bold, Brilliant, Brutal. . . Fake. We find that everyone involved in the Apple project is not who you were told.

NEW PAPER, added 11/19/17, Bill Gates: Jewish Aristocrat. Where we link Gates to everyone else you have ever heard of, and show Microsoft is one more front of the MATRIX.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the space mission failed?
« on: September 04, 2018, 08:38:03 AM »
So the original post asks a good question. Whatever the shape of the earth why wouldn’t we have the technology to go into space? Rockets demonstrably work, I have witnessed a space shuttle launch. Why couldn’t the technology exist to get us into space?

I wonder too. In the wiki regarding the Moon it states: "It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth." You can fly coast to coast in the States, about 3000 miles, in around 6 hours. Hell, Quantas just started a route non-stop from San Francisco to Melbourne and that's pushing 8000 miles. So what really in FET is preventing humans from going 3000 miles vertically?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 04, 2018, 08:22:52 AM »
Astronomers search for an alternative, because General Relativity can't explain basic movement and behavior of the universe. It is a failure.

Here's a recent non-failure:

Gravitational Starlight Deflection Measurements during the 21 August 2017 Total Solar Eclipse


The final result was a deflection coefficient L = 1.752 arcsec, compared to the theoretical value of L = 1.751 arcsec, with an uncertainty of only 3%."

"Corrections for atmospheric refraction were still needed, but those were easily calculated from local weather measurements. Hence, this particular trial had fewer obstacles to reach high accuracy.”

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 04, 2018, 06:55:54 AM »
In the last two articles on Medium we read that his bending starlight predictions were NOT correct. The Eddington result was pretty questionable and Einstein's theory was observed to be false on several other occasions.

A) Medium is not known for being a scientific journal.
B) The author you reference is a former naval navigator, not a theoretical physicist and none of his 'works' have been peer reviewed.
C) And yes, Eddington's results were questioned by some.

However, unlike what the author makes up in his medium articles, the subsequent eclipse tests, in 1922, 1953 and 1973 each confirmed with greater accuracy Einstein's predictions.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 04, 2018, 04:51:52 AM »
You were lied to. Einstein specifically lost the Nobel Prize for Relativity because his theories were NOT successful.

This statement is sort of bending the argument to your will. If anything, as the Nobel committee stated with their caveat to Einstein's Nobel award, "without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future". In other words, the committee felt relativity was untested at the time. NOT that his theories were unsuccessful.

See these articles:

No doubt: Einstein’s General Theory Of Relativity Was Wrong

Astronomical Data of 1919 -1973 Eclipse Prove Einstein’s Prediction Doesn’t Work

As well, this author seems to be pretty liberal with the facts and is full of conjecture and is definitely not a physicist.

This regarding the 1919 Eclipse experiment as well as subsequent experiments further cementing Einstein was correct and actually, his theories quite successful - From the APS:

"Not everyone immediately accepted the results. Some astronomers accused Eddington of manipulating his data because he threw out values obtained from the Brazilian team’s warped telescopes, which gave results closer to the Newtonian value. Others questioned whether his images were of sufficient quality to make a definitive conclusion. Astronomers at Lick Observatory in California repeated the measurement during the 1922 eclipse, and got similar results, as did the teams who made measurements during the solar eclipses of 1953 and 1973. Each new result was better than the last. By the 1960s, most physicists accepted that Einstein’s prediction of how much light would be deflected was the correct one.”

Yes - I'm slowly finding this to be a much more interesting and worthwhile endeavour than FET itself. FET yields itself well into the "question absolutely everything" mindset, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough. Perhaps a more general movement is needed.

That is why Rowbotham and Lady Blount called their societies the Zetetic Society and the Universal Zetetic Society rather than the Flat Earth Society.

From Schadewald’s book:
"The founding meeting of the Universal Zetetic Society was apparently held on Wednesday, September 21, 1892, at John Williams’s Southwark home. [ref. 4.2]  It’s not clear who besides Williams attended, though probably most of those selected to the UZS Committee were there.  The founders decided on a name, a motto, an object, and a set of rules as follows:


For God and His truth, as found in Nature and taught in His Word.


The propagation of knowledge relating to Natural Cosmogony in confirmation of the Holy Scriptures, based upon practical investigation."

Definitely seems larger in scope than the subset of a flat earth.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 03, 2018, 07:42:37 PM »
I was really hoping some of you would actually try to defend your positions but it looks like I’m going to be bored by the conversation.

My experience as to the way it works around here (and rightfully so) is that you need to express your concerns/desire for explanations for each issue individually. Case in point, Universal Acceleration. There are many threads with dozens of pages devoted to the exploration of such. Just search on ‘Universal Acceleration’, for example, and you’ll see what I mean. Same goes for the other topics. Or, start your own topic, but best to address a single issue at a time.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions for Flat Earth Model(s)
« on: September 03, 2018, 07:32:18 AM »
Search the wiki and the forums, you'll find tons of stuff. To get you started:

- What is a satellite?
- If they aren’t real, then what are we seeing?
- If they’re balloons; How high are they? How do they attain such speed? Where are they launched and landed? How do they overcome wind currents? What propels them? Why can I see an obviously non-balloon shape in my telescope?

Anyway, here are a few threads I picked out from my search for "satellites". They don't directly address your question, but they do explain the FES's general views on satellites and their existence (n.b. I am not trying to make this an exhaustive list, just providing a starting point):

- Is the sun flat?
- How large and how far away is the sun?
- If the law of perspective pushed by flat earthers is true, and the earth is indeed flat,  why does the sun not grow from dawn to noon and shrink from noon to dusk? The moon also? They should appear to shrink and grow and shrink again as the day goes by, and significantly at that, depending on their sizes and their distance away from the earth!
- If “perspective” is true and the earth is flat, then why can’t we bring the sun or moon back into view with binoculars or a telescope?
- What are solar and lunar eclipses?

- What are the planets?
- Why do they move in relation to the stars?
- How does the FE Model explain the obviously spherical shape of these planets? (Rotation, rings, moons, solar eclipses from the moons, etc.)

- What do the governments of the world gain from covering up the flat earth?
- How do they keep it a secret?

- What is gravity?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 03, 2018, 05:02:59 AM »
I left a comment on the JTolen Media video asking for more data on the Salton Sea shot. No response yet. So being a lazy Sunday, I reviewed all of the Cell towers around the Salton Sea. Here’s what I found:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Long Pipe Perspective Experiment
« on: September 03, 2018, 04:49:25 AM »

Curious only if we're all walking around looking through a pipe strapped to our faces. I fail to see how this represents any real world observation of the sun dropping below the horizon.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: What Would You Do?
« on: September 03, 2018, 03:45:38 AM »
Well ... I think mainstream science will readily accept that gravity decreases with distance; otherwise, we might see tidal effects based on the orbit of Jupiter or Saturn.

So is it the "discontinuous" aspect that you predict?  If so, could you elaborate? If you don't expect it to drop at a linear, predictable rate, do you think it varies at random?
No, it decreases discontinuously rather than in a smooth curve. I don't know how you got randomness from that. It decreases in sharp, sudden jumps (though those jumps are fairly close together at lower altitudes). For example, if you had a ludicrously sensitive gravimeter and could measure the change from, say, the basement of your house to the roof, you'd find that the rate was more or less constant throughout your house except for one spike at, say, the top of your stairs where it closes basically the whole distance from the basement value to the roof value.

What causes the spikes and what do the spikes indicate?

Also, your claims about "anyone with common sense" are irrelevant. We already know that there are numerous individuals vehemently demanding an explanation for this - you pretending not to know this is not a counter-argument.

When the thrust of an article (I use that term ‘article’ very loosely in this case) is predicated on something like, "In a Reddit post, captioned…” one should know right quick that they're not in for any sort of Woodward and Bernstein-esque investigative journalism or anything that should be deemed ‘journalism’, for that matter. The onus is on the reader to determine whether something should be trusted or not.

As for those vehemently making demands, they are obviously ignorant and/or have never had a window seat on a plane. Seems like it’s their personal problem and not an indictment of all journalistic endeavors and certainly these rags shouldn’t be considered the bellwether for the decline of critical thinking in the media. We’ve got plenty of proof of that regarding far more important issues elsewhere. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 01, 2018, 09:31:44 AM »
As far as we know, JTolan just picked out a picture of one of those towers because a lot of those towers don't even have street view images. I checked. Street view is absent in the areas around many of those towers.

JTolan clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet. The tower you selected was not 130 feet. It was 200 feet. And there are no matching mountains or hills in the background. He clearly got that number of 130 feet from somewhere for the tower he is talking about.

Ok, fair enough. He picked a random street view picture of a tower on the Salton Sea that resembles a different tower on the Salton Sea that he actually shot just to show what towers look like. Check. Then he "clearly writes that the tower was 130 feet" on top of the image of a random tower on the Salton Sea that is not the tower he was an example of what 130 feet looks like. Check.

Curious note that he wrote 130 feet as the height of the tower and the RE curvature calculator puts that exact tower & land I referenced, 17 miles away, at 130 feet hidden.

Btw, I looked at all of the towers around the Salton Sea. The shortest one was 187', with exception of one that was 124'. This one:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat vs. Sphere Challenge (Group Effort)
« on: September 01, 2018, 08:43:42 AM »
If you go to that location and turn around away from the sea, there are no hills or mountains in the background. We will have to wait and see that JTolan says. There are a whole bunch of towers that look like that in the area and around the sea.

It's definitely the correct tower, according to the image J Tolen showed as his target. The reference image matches exactly to the location image I provided, lone palm tree, white buildings and all. There are mountains back there looking the other way, but again, the x factor; where exactly did he shoot from 17 miles away?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 136 137 [138] 139 140 141  Next >