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 - Kokorikos

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >
A Russian missile cruiser magically exploded all on its own. At least, that's what Russia would prefer you believe instead of it getting hit by a missile.

It is still unconfirmed if it was hit or if it was caused by a fire on board.
I think that both alternatives are embarrassing for Russia.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Sydney to Santiago Flight path
« on: April 11, 2022, 05:08:05 AM »
Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM:

In regards to compass directions as seen on these flights, it seems that these flights make more sense on a Monopole model.

Max Igan reports that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience regarding directions is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.

On an RE the flight should leave Chile from the South West and arrive from the North West:

On a Flat Earth Monopole Model the flight would leave Chile from the North West and approach Australia from the South West:

I don't think the plane is necessarily taking a straight line directly over the US, or always makes straight line paths in FE models, but we can clearly see that the compass directions experienced align more with the Monopole Model.

The excuse for this is "magnetic declination", but is is quite curious that it happens to agree with the Monopole model in both areas.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the FE monopole map that you posted wouldn't the plane approach Australia from the North East rather than the South West? That's what the black line on your map shows.

A map is by definition flat, that doesn't mean it's intended to represent a flat earth.

Even if this map did represent a flat earth it still is not a north-centric map. I think that it has no relation to any of the FE models proposed in this site, but please correct me if I am wrong.

That relies on the assumption that long-distance trade is a much more recent invention than it really is.

It depends on how you define long-distance trade.

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Current Events
« on: October 04, 2021, 07:44:16 AM »
Climate change.
We do talk about it, but we do not do anything about it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.
« on: September 22, 2021, 06:30:00 PM »
OK if this is how these plates were formed then how were the other small ones created?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.
« on: September 22, 2021, 04:18:14 AM »
Why do you single out these three plates and do not consider other plates of similar sizes such as the Arabian and the Indian ones?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.
« on: September 19, 2021, 08:59:33 PM »
What else, if not the Sun and Moon, could have formed tectonic plates in these places?

I think that you need to explain this a bit as at first glance it really does not seem to make any sense.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.
« on: September 06, 2021, 01:35:09 PM »
I recently learned that there's a huge magnetic void around South America (see towards the bottom). 

The "South Atlantic Anomaly".  Some think that the moon hit the Earth in the early days of formation and left a big chunk beneath the Earth surface which blocks convection currents of Lava which causes a lack of electricity generation and a weak spot in the Earth's magnetic field. Maybe this is why Mexico is named after "Moon".

Well Mexico is in North America nowhere near this anomaly so this is not very likely.

Also your link does not support the theory that the moon hit the Earth in the early days of formation. It rather supports the "mainstream" view on how the Moon was created.

Finally, this must have happened billions of years ago. So how could such an event have affected the people that first named Mexico?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Something odd about magnets
« on: August 30, 2021, 09:46:50 AM »
So just to check if I understood what you wrote, if the Earth was originally a globe then under UA it would remain one as all the atoms would be pushed upwards by UA with an equal force. And if it started as a flat plane then it would continue to be one for the same reason. Is this correct?

I cannot answer about havn, but I can assure you that I am simply trying to understand what it proposed by FE.
I am not an expert on it and cannot remember all the details in the wiki and more importantly I do not understand all that is proposed in there. It is very likely that on occasion I will ask something that is already covered in the wiki/forums, but please consider this as an unintentional mistake.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Something odd about magnets
« on: August 30, 2021, 05:30:42 AM »
You also argued that this is analogous to water on the Earth's surface. You know, one of those things which aren't directly subjected to UA. This is where your appalling understanding really shines through. "If UA affects the Sun, then it should act like water on the Earth" as an argument boils down to "something affected by UA should be indistinguishable from something expressly unaffected by it". Or, in terms of propositional logic: true is false.

Water is not directly subjected to UA, but it is subjected indirectly by Earth pushing it upwards. This is why it is "flat". If the Earth consisted only of water then the ocean would still be flat because of UA (assuming that UA could affect water in this scenario).
So if UA applies to the Sun then it should also be flat unless it is a solid object or a liquid/gas in a container as hvanmunster suggested.

In any case this is a debate so I do not understand why one needs to be replying in an aggressive manner.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New Moon orbit on FE
« on: August 20, 2021, 08:05:42 PM »
In this map the South Pole is at the center of the Earth's disk.
Does this mean that in this version the North Pole is at the outer ring?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: New model of the Universe.
« on: August 16, 2021, 07:12:42 AM »
What do you mean when you say that the sun has thorns?
And how do the armadillos and the hedgehogs confirm your model of the universe?
What is so significant about these two animals in particular?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Branson to go only 55 miles up !
« on: July 14, 2021, 01:31:32 PM »
I am pretty sure that the people that paid to be onboard this flight knew exactly where they were going.
And I am pretty sure that none of them consider themselves to be astronauts.

Saying they went to space is just a marketing ploy.
The flight was still an impressive feat of engineering, though.

Quora versus Cornell.

I do not think that it conflicts the information in the other links that were posted.

However, I cannot verify if what is mentioned in the link is correct as I do not have the necessary knowledge.
I only posted it as it is on topic and it offers some additional information.

I found this:

It basically says that it is difficult (but not impossible) to see the stars during daytime while on the moon.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing
« on: July 05, 2021, 05:56:23 PM »
Or it could just be that they did not like speaking to the press.
So you begin a rigorous recruitment process from the air force to find the absolute best of the best ... and you pick 3 guys who don't like communicating?

Have another go.

Why would liking to speak to the press be one of the skills needed to become an astronaut?
In any case, saying that looking at their faces is enough to determine that they did not go to the moon is not exactly the best argument against the Moon landings.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: VFX Artists React to the Moon Landing
« on: July 05, 2021, 04:01:53 PM »
You only have to look at the Apollo 11 conference to see that not one of the team had been to the moon.

Or it could just be that they did not like speaking to the press.

It shows that the galaxies are not as envisioned. They don't behave as they should in many different ways. Compared to the conventional belief of Galaxies, they are cartoons. This is not generally publicized, the problems are often ignored or only murmured about, and it takes a lot of research to just dig it out.

Come back in a few years and you will find similar articles on the Sun and Planets too. It is being put together piece by piece. The entire sky is a fantasy cartoon.

It also shows that when scientists find new evidence that debunk their theories they try to find new theories that match to the new evidence. Also, the issues described in the wiki article were put forward by the scientists themselves so I do not see how one can say that they are not "generally publicized".

Saying that the sky is a fantasy cartoon is so extraordinary as a claim that very strong evidence is needed to support it.

The galaxies are cartoons -

My understanding is that the wiki article lists some of the problems of the galaxies in order to challenge the predictive power of the Newtonian and Einsteinian theories.
It offers nothing on what galaxies actually are.

Pages: [1] 2 3  Next >