2801

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Meteorites and the dome

« on: November 05, 2018, 09:07:22 AM »

I could not find anything in the wiki about this, so I'm curious; how does FET explain the existence of meteorites and the event of meteor showers?

From my observation, a meteor, as it enters our atmosphere/plane explodes with tremendous force and burns up into nothing.

What is going on with the dome as this happens? Do meteorites come from above the dome and poke holes in it just before they plunge into earth, or do they somehow form underneith the dome and plummit downwards suddenly for some unknown reason?

Is there another explanation?

So far I've seen\read, mostly the latter, from underneath the dome:

What is seen streaking across the skies:
- Bolts of electricity, kind of like lightning, but different
- Military munitions/experiments
- 'Fireworks' dropped form planes
- Pieces of the dome itself

Craters caused by:
- Bolts of electricity, kind of like lightning, but not
- Underground gaseous explosions creating sink holes
- Pieces of the dome itself

Meteorites:
- Fake, like how moon rocks are fake
- Pieces of the dome itself

2802

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Australia & Chile FET how far apart?

« on: November 04, 2018, 08:55:34 PM »

Note that edby is a Round Earther and does not appear to base his numbers in anything other than his own impression of how things "should" be. It is unlikely that any FE'er will speak with too much certainty about long distances at such an early stage of the theory's development.

I'm not sure I follow this. Is it that in RET, long distances are known, traveled everyday but in FET, though traveled everyday, long distances are not known due to the theory's infancy?

2803

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Angular Speed of Sun Slows near the Horizon

« on: November 04, 2018, 07:30:11 AM »

This where I'm confused. Perhaps a really basic question and I'm just not getting it: In FET, does refraction work differently than in RET?

2804

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video

« on: November 04, 2018, 07:22:22 AM »

There are many things pointed out in those videos that you have not explained, rabinoz. Why are you refusing to explain what is happening in those videos? Your ranting gives the impression that you are in denial over the matter.

I would say, speaking for myself, 'bored' is the more appropriate reason why as not to go through the litany of the salient 'points' of these videos. I mean fine, 'wire-work' used in movies, CGI, all over the place. We have 'deep fakes' now, people's faces put on to others, can't tell the difference. There are audio/video delays, then there aren't, fine, smoking gun, fake. Bubbles, great, whatever. Augmented reality, neutral buoyancy tanks, the list goes on and on. Bored.

The OP is asking for us to 'debunk this stupid video'. So I think it's up to those who feel the video is fake to debunk it. So far, we've got nothing and I am personally bored with the efforts put forth - So trite and too easily refuted/ignored by 'believers' such as myself and has been done a thousand times before. Up the game, at least for shear entertainment factor.

Come up with something salacious, edible; One credible, known, unassailable eyewitness to the fraud that is the ISS, space travel, whathaveyou. All this other stuff is just as subjective as my subjective reasons against them.

2805

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antipodal journeys

« on: November 04, 2018, 01:00:02 AM »

After pondering the title of this thread for a bit, I can't help but to wonder if the concept of antipodes even applies in the context of a flat earth map.  What exactly does it mean to have opposite points on a flat earth?

Well, quite. It would be a pretty meaningless concept. But the fact that you can get flights from London to New Zealand via multiple routes is pretty much the point. On a flat earth there is only one shortest line between points A and B. On a globe if the points are antipodal then there are multiple shortest lines and you can put those lines through any point C on the globe.
When I've got more time I'll have a look at flight times between antipodal points via different "C" points and do some comparisons.
In theory they should be reasonably consistent and that wouldn't make any sense on a flat earth.

Yep, that's exactly the point I was trying to make, thank you. And it doesn't matter what the actual map looks like either, so hopefully we avoid arguments about whether we should be looking at unipolar, bipolar etc. or the "we're working on it" map. So long as it's flat then these flights make no sense. If it's a globe, then they do.

Agreed. I would say at this point, FET doesn't have an explanation as to how travel as described and happens everyday can occur. 

2806

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video

« on: November 04, 2018, 12:51:17 AM »

As you can see, Globies ignore the evidence against their beloved toy, “ISS”. No amount of enormous evidence proving ISS is fake is going to make a Globie say to a flat earther, “you are correct.”  They can’t have their fantasy toy taken away.

Proof NASA Fakes Being in Space.

I don't get the point of this one. There are sometimes delays and sometimes not. When I watch the news sometimes a correspondent from Baghdad has a delay and another from Beirut doesn't, for example, split screen, back to the NYC anchor.

Seems like a lame argument.

2807

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antipodal journeys

« on: November 03, 2018, 07:49:22 AM »

Maybe you should submit your queries to a repeating-Mercator Flat Earth group. We use none of those models.

Perhaps.

Perhaps maybe you should just try to answer a question honestly.

Mercator methods are un-zetetic, because they forfeit basic calculus to find their answers. Perhaps that is why you do not like them.

So rather than shine the lampshade-Sun onto models you don't believe in, would it not be more productive to emphasize the models you do champion?

I invite you.

Draw the lines of the images presented in this thread on any of the maps or models we present and you will see your error.

The two main FE "models" use as a placeholder AE Globe Projection maps as FET does not have a map, as we all know. The mono-pole, AE Globe Projection centered on the North Pole and the bi-polar, AE Lambert Globe Projection centered on 0° N 0° E.

The Mercator Globe Projection, is probably the more widely used version when it comes all forms of goods and people transport because of it's simplicity; all verticals point N & S, all horizontals point E & W.

Rhumb Line navigation is fine for short haul navigation.
Great Circle is what is used for long haul navigation, e.g. an ocean passage.

Both can be plotted on either an AE or Mercator map. The routes and distances are the same.

B/c Tom prefers the AE Globe Projection view, here's an example of a Rhumb Line vs a Great Circle on a North Pole centered one (same as the FE mono-pole model). You'll notice the Great Circle route, even that far north, is better than the Rhumb Line route and that's why airlines fly the Great Circle path.



Fast forward 150 years from Rowbotham's contention in ENAG regarding the superiority of Rhumb Line navigation, it just doesn't apply to modern, even less than modern, long haul transport.

2808

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video

« on: November 02, 2018, 09:17:49 PM »

Here' the running tally so far:

It's the VomCom
It's wires
It's neutral buoyancy water tanks
It's 'aug-u-mented' reality with contact lenses
It's various other forms of CGI, green screens and the like
It's elecro-magnetic levitation buried in a Nevada bunker

Did I miss any others?

2809

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Re: Help Me debunk this stupid video

« on: November 02, 2018, 07:24:45 PM »

You Globies will never admit your ISS fantasy toy is fake even with tons of evidence.  You openly ignore the evidence and make ignorant replies in hopes it will just go away as any other would who is also brainwashed.
The important thing is, those seeking the truth here can see other intelligent people are brainwashed with the lies of NASA too.

This is EXACTLY how NASA fakes everything.

I call into question someone’s scientific stance that begins with the premise, “I’ve been praying about it and the Lord finally revealed to me…”

Telemetrics isn’t an augmented reality company, they provide robotic camera control systems.

Ok, so the astronauts have to be wearing augmented reality contact lenses. We’re not quite there yet. You still need the big goggles we have today.

I’m not saying ISS footage is real, though I believe it be, however, augmented reality tech does not debunk the footage. Try again.

(Aside, funny, Curious, here's what I was writing when you posted your response, "As well, I almost punched the screen after the 30th time he mispronounced “augmented” by saying “aug-u-mented”.")

2810

Flat Earth Community / Re: FE Conference Denver

« on: November 02, 2018, 05:36:28 PM »

One of the vendors listed for the conference uses the TFES logo for their shop and advert.

https://www.etsy.com/shop/flatearthshop?section_id=22388520

You may have authorized it. Don't know.

2811

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antipodal journeys

« on: November 02, 2018, 07:38:54 AM »

Maybe you should submit your queries to a repeating-Mercator Flat Earth group. We use none of those models.

I guess a couple of more things:

- I wasn't aware this was the Azimuthal Equidistant Flat Earth Society.
- You yourself have stated many times that there is no Flat Earth map.
- And FE really doesn't have a "model". The two main contenders are the mono-pole and the bipolar. But as you stated the other day, in FET, the layout of the continents is unknown.

Given the above, why do you have an issue with one projection over the other? FE doesn't have a map, AE, Mercator or otherwise and all the maps we do have are Globe projections. The mercator projection is especially well suited for Rhumb Line plotting for short distances. As well the mercator projection is the most widely used map for the bulk of all sea, air, and land transport and has been for a couple 100 years. And seems to do quite a good job.

So I don't think you really have a point to make. Regardless of map projection or model, you just simply have a problem arguing against widely used great circle navigation versus Rowbotham's "all the world's navigation is wrong as everyone should actually be using rhumb lines" notion.

2812

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antipodal journeys

« on: November 02, 2018, 01:27:45 AM »

Paint the red route on the AE map.

Which AE map?

I am gauging from your response that you have seen your error. We need not discuss the matter further.

A few things:

1) As you know, an AE map is a globe projection that can be centered on any point on earth.
2) You have previously stated, you don't subscribe to the FE mono-pole "model", but to the bi-polar "model". Hence my question. But I presume you mean one centered on the north pole. As in the FE mono-pole model.
3) Since all AE maps are globe projections, there is no such thing as an FE map as you have stated yourself many times. So using an FE earth map is moot, b/c one doesn't exist.

Moving on.

Comparing rhumb line to great circle navigation, using JFK to Heathrow, rhumb line is 219km more than a great circle.

Comparing rhumb line to great circle navigation, using Cape Town to Sydney, rhumb line is 1240km more than a great circle.

2813

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antipodal journeys

« on: November 01, 2018, 10:58:57 PM »

Paint the red route on the AE map.

Which AE map?

2814

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antipodal journeys

« on: November 01, 2018, 09:51:34 PM »

There is a chapter on Great Circle Sailing in Earth Not a Globe.

The problem with Rowbotham's chapter is that his presumption is that pretty much all forms of transport are and have been navigating incorrectly for centuries. As in Great Circles versus Rhumb Lines. A flight from JFK to Heathrow follows a great circle, not a rhumb line. And I highly suspect shipping and airliners of the world would prefer the shortest route for myriad reasons, most notably cost versus profit.

Here's what a simplistic view of a typical flight path looks like on a great circle versus a rhumb line, seems counter-intuitive if the world was flat:

2815

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.

« on: November 01, 2018, 01:01:40 AM »

I'm confused.  How can the republicans take the house and senate when they already have the house and senate?

They don't.  Dems are obstructing and using their minority powers to stop all republican bills and actions . Its unprecidented.

Not quite. Trump's first 500 days:

According to GovTrack, Trump has signed 176 bills since his inauguration. That’s about on par with Barack Obama at this point in his presidency (174), and slightly behind George W. Bush (187). But both Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush far surpassed those numbers in the pieces of legislation signed in their first 100 days, 262 and 309 bills, respectively.

So?  This has nothing to do with the attacks on our country by out of control liberals.

The 'so' is you stated that the Dems are stopping all Republican bills and that it's unprecedented - Wrong on both counts. A) That's hard to do when you're the minority power in Congress. And B) Yours is a patently untrue statement.

I guess we'll find out Tuesday night which party controls Congress. In the mean time, you might want to stick to the facts.

2816

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.

« on: October 31, 2018, 08:31:17 PM »

I'm confused.  How can the republicans take the house and senate when they already have the house and senate?

They don't.  Dems are obstructing and using their minority powers to stop all republican bills and actions . Its unprecidented.

Not quite. Trump's first 500 days:

According to GovTrack, Trump has signed 176 bills since his inauguration. That’s about on par with Barack Obama at this point in his presidency (174), and slightly behind George W. Bush (187). But both Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush far surpassed those numbers in the pieces of legislation signed in their first 100 days, 262 and 309 bills, respectively.

2817

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.

« on: October 31, 2018, 09:22:46 AM »

The links are literally in the picture.

Understood.

Again, where did you get the graphic from, what is the source of it?

I pulled up http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

And looked at the whole data-set. There is a race column. But there is no way to extrapolate "Shooters of Arab ancestry..." out of the "White" set as mentioned in the infographic.

I pulled up www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-23.pdf, one of the sources listed in the infographic.

It's titled, "The Arab Population: 2000", issued in 2003. How is that relevant to an infographic that spans 34 years?

2818

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Republicans take the house and senate.

« on: October 31, 2018, 08:14:54 AM »

For interest here are the actual stats by race and accompanying sources.

Where exactly did this come from?

For one, the sources listed on the infographic are from 2001 and 2003 as applied to seemingly a 1982 to 2016 database.
For two, there is a Mother Jones Mass Shooting Database. But nowhere could I find a representation such as this. 

Going forward, it might be better to be crystal clear on your sourcing when you claim anything as "the actual stats by race and accompanying sources".

2819

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angle of Sunrise/Sunset

« on: October 31, 2018, 06:49:01 AM »

These seems to the only options in a flight drom Hololulu to Brisbane on this map

What map? No one has studied the matter.

You will need to study every possible continental combination, and address every possibility from jet streams to magnetic declination, to provide a valid assessment.

Therein lies the crux of the matter.  Those flights exist.  I myself flew back and forth from Los Angeles to Melbourne twice this year over the Pacific. We never flew over land. The flight lasted 14 hours heading SW and returning NE. I know we were flying those directions as we were chasing the setting sun and then nearing Australia with the rising sun chasing us.  That map is impossible, indefensible, it has more problems then the other flat earth maps.  You still have never had an answer for the path of moon and sun or how a near moon and sun have the same phases for the entire world to see.  How does the sun travel twice as far along the Tropic of Capricorn then Tropic of Cancer yet its velocity remains the same?  How does the verifiable ISS or whatever it is fly above us at incredible verifiable speeds in its serpentine path only possible on a globe?  The issues of the stars above us are even less explained on the bipolar map as the latitudes on the bipolar map don’t work with star navigation.  The list goes on and on.  At some point, blind faith to Rowbotham’s book isn’t enough and your flat earth has to answer real world observations.

What map are you talking about? There is no bipolar map. There is a bipolar model. No map has been studied. Until you have assessed every single possibility you have not successfully criticized anything.

Correct, there is no map. Apparently, there is no bipolar model either. There's basically nothing to criticize. What semblance of a notion it may be doesn't know where the land masses are, can't predict nor pattern humanity's everyday observations of the sun, or moon for that matter, with any specificity. Not even loosely. So yeah, it's hard to successfully criticize a model that doesn't exist.

2820

Flat Earth Community / Re: TFES Wiki and Christianism

« on: October 31, 2018, 02:46:59 AM »

Rowbotham is a scientist, you see. The greatest scientist who has ever lived.

Hardly, unless we consider ‘bible-science’ a science.

Another example, he devotes paragraphs in Chapter XV on how the Great Flood, as described in the Scriptures, can only be explained by a planar earth. Furthering the notion that supposed earth rotundity is contrary to that biblical event being able to occur. He’s working his way backward from the Bible into FET.

And there’s so much more in the same vain, the “Heaven and Hell” bits, for example. It goes on.

The point is, you can’t separate his interpretation of the Bible from his FET. They are intrinsically bound as he lays out in Chapter 15. Why you keep trying to squirm away from this fact, I’m not sure. I’m guessing that you fear Rowbotham’s notions would be considered “bible-science”, which they are. ENAG is predicated on Rowbotham’s interpretation of the Scriptures (Old & New Testament) as being that if you don’t accept the Bible’s teachings as literally, not ‘possibly', true, then you are denying the word of God. He cites Scripture verse 72 times all as evidence to back up the previous 14 chapters. Rowbotham, along with every other quote previously mentioned, makes all of this abundantly clear yet again:

"Not a shadow of doubt remains that this earth is the only material world created; that the Sacred Scriptures contain, in addition to religious and moral doctrines, a true and consistent philosophy; that they were written for the good of mankind by the direct dictation of God Himself; and that all their teachings and promises may be relied on as truthful, beneficent, and conducive to the greatest enjoyment here and to perfect happiness hereafter. Whoever holds the contrary conclusion is the victim of an arrogant and false astronomy; of an equally false and presumptuous geology; and a suicidal method of reasoning--a logic which never demands a proof of its premises, and which, therefore, leads to deductions and opinions which are contrary to nature, to fact, and human experience, and to the direct teachings of God's Word; and, therefore, contrary to the deepest and most lasting interests of humanity.”

As well, Rowbotham’s seemingly unpublished work to follow ENAG was “The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ Zetetically Considered”.



His cohorts, Hampden & Carpenter, as well as successors, Lady Blount and the Zetetic Society, make it more clear that theirs is “bible-science”. But Rowbotham certainly does quite well in doing so with ENAG.