1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Water spinning phenomenon

« on: February 15, 2019, 06:28:49 PM »

Check this out:

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: pictures from all space crafts

« on: February 15, 2019, 06:25:44 PM »

Please read the wiki
https://wiki.tfes.org/

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: True Horizon Level

« on: May 11, 2018, 05:57:12 PM »

Here is whats on the wiki:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The existence of A does not disprove the existence of B

« on: February 07, 2018, 05:19:51 PM »

Okay, fair enough. I just went through the wiki and didn't find anything for points 1 and 2. They do have bits for 3 and 4, I'm thinking of the Bedford canal experiment et al and the motive of the conspiracy.

I too would like to see more threads started by people not called Tom Bishop; not anything against Tom's threads, just saying that he's the only regular I've seen do it.

Yea, Tom seems to be the only one that makes posts against the RE, also #3 is very broad, its really just a starting point that the FE'ers could go anywhere with and the main point I was trying to make with #4 is "why hasn't anyone who works for NASA or the government never come out and said something."

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The existence of A does not disprove the existence of B

« on: February 07, 2018, 04:37:05 PM »

The other site has more activity along those lines.

Also, our hosts are always quick to direct posts like these toward the wiki. I think it's fair to consider the wiki as the starting point for all the arguments you describe.

I don't believe you have read the post.

There is nothing on the wiki explaining the arguments in the way I brought them up.

6

Flat Earth Theory / The existence of A does not disprove the existence of B

« on: February 07, 2018, 04:11:17 PM »

Hi,

I have been relatively active on the FES for around 2 months now and have noticed a common trend. In the Flat Earth Debate section, most debates follow a common pattern.
1. A RE'er proposes some type of statement and proof
2. A FE'er response to that statement with some type of proof
3. Repeat.

I know what your thinking:
"Well you idiot origamiboy, that's how all debates go"

And your right, but there is something different about debates here: RE'ers almost always propose the argument first. FE'ers usually never make arguments against the RE model and usually are just responding to threads debunking the FE.

Which brings me to my next point:
When the FE'ers responded to a statement they don't explain why the RE statement cant exist, they mostly just explain why the FE answer CAN exist. The existence of A does not disprove the existence of B. In order to really convince (smart) people that the earth if flat, you need to bring up reasons why it isn't round. I have some good places where you could start your debunking:

1. Why cant satellites exist

2. How are NASA's photos and live streams faked

3. Why does the RE model not work (Any reason is great)

4. Why does the government dump billions of dollars, fake hundreds of photos, and videos just to make us believe the earth is flat, and if the "RE prank" is so huge why hasn't anyone who works for NASA or the government never come out and said something.


I think in order for the FE'ers to prove to us that the earth is flat, this is a good place to start.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS?

« on: February 06, 2018, 05:45:10 PM »

My apologies. I didn't look at the dates. I had actually looked thru this thread right after I started my own about GPS lol.

I thought some more about this argument, and I don't think Tom was saying that it is absolutely eLORAN that is responsible for GPS, just that there is a way for GPS to work without satellites.

Tom has not described an alternative system in any detail though.

We have already killed tom's eloran argument, I'm just waiting for him or someone else to bring up another point for us to debunk

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How come "sun sink" and not "sun shrink?"

« on: February 06, 2018, 04:47:17 PM »

post

Change your avatar. See rule 8.

Rule 8 is about alts, this is my main account and the avatar is a joke, im obviously not trying to impersonate pete

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How come "sun sink" and not "sun shrink?"

« on: February 06, 2018, 03:19:34 PM »

Until you choose to debate like an equal, all I'm willing to do is refer you to the Wiki, which documents the (effectively) three questions you're asking here. I suspect some others feel similarly.

1.  Who is talking here?  A representative of a place where the FE'ers machine gun any chance of an equal debate.  Stop being a hypocrite!
2.  That isn't making a debate unfair, that is just debating well.  That's how you debate, you bring up evidence that shows you're right, then challenge others to prove it wrong.  It is a fine example of good debating.

Yes, most debates are very one-sided, with one side having the upper hand. Hardly and debates are "equal". In fact, look at any post in the flat earth debate, they are almost all debating against the flat earth, not for it.

de·bate
noun
1.
a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.

"opposing arguments are put forward"
If the other side of the debate cannot debunk the arguments put forward, then the debate winner is very clear.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS?

« on: February 06, 2018, 03:11:58 PM »

Also, check this out, this is really cool:
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/2003-allochrt.pdf

These are most the American frequencies nicely organized. I don't want to get to off topic, but as you can see there are tons of different frequencies dedicated to satellites. Why would they go through the trouble making up tons of satellites, and dedicating frequencies to them when the common day person would never even look at charts like this. If it was faked, It must of taking tons of effort to make up, create documentation, and organize all these fake satellites. Who's getting paid to do this? Why has absolutely no one official come out and said that the government is pulling an elaborate prank on everyone? Why would they go through the trouble doing daily broadcasts from the ISS, it must be extremely expansive to fund all that. If I was faking the round earth, I'd probably not spend thousands of dollars every day to fake an ISS broadcast.

Sorry if this is off topic, It may need a thread of its own.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS?

« on: February 06, 2018, 02:45:14 PM »

LORAN uses 3-8 MEGA-hz, and GPS uses 1.2 to 1.5 GIGA-hz

these are way too different to be cross-compatible.

Here is the data sheet for the IC I used:
https://cdn-shop.adafruit.com/datasheets/GlobalTop-FGPMMOPA6H-Datasheet-V0A.pdf

in all 37 pages it does not mention loran once.

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS?

« on: February 06, 2018, 02:01:57 PM »

Bishop Tom, your eLORAN theory is nice, but it does not explain satellite phones. These phones communicate with large satellites, orbiting around 20000 miles above the earth, and provide reception pretty much everywhere, even the north and south poles. One of the satellites that manage calls on these phones is called Iridium(you can do some research on it if you would like). These phones are commonly used when cell towers are knocked out and work perfectly as described. eLORAN has nothing to do with satellite phones so it cannot be used as an excuse.

The topic was about GPS, not satellite phones.

You aren't going to get anywhere with this debate since it's such a technical area.

I think a better question for those pushing the eLORAN system is

    1. What was the system being used prior to the eLORAN system, and
    2. Why would they make up the need for satellites when a land based system would be available? I'm looking at private companies here since land based infrastructure is much cheeper than orbital sats.

If you read the dates, that was posted months ago, and it has separated off into many different threads.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS?

« on: February 06, 2018, 01:17:48 PM »

Lessee now - as I recall Loran used LF (Low Frequency) signals in the 100 to 200 khz range. GPS uses UHF (Ultra high frequency) signals in the 1,000 MHZ range. The likelihood of a receiver designed for one receiving (or rather passing) signals broadcast by the other is right down there at zero.

In terms of their frequencies the two are as alike as are pogo sticks and butterscotch.

Yes, receivers are designed for a specific purpose. If they were not so precise, they would pick up signals from things they don't care about, and it would cause major electrical noise.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS cannot work without satellites.

« on: February 05, 2018, 06:07:50 PM »

You can make all the excuses you want to debunk GPS but in no way can you justify satellite phones without satellites. Sailers commonly use these far out in the middle of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans where eLORAN would not even reach, and even if it did it wouldn't matter since eLORAN is one way, and the eLORAN towers don't have receivers. Please note that one of the biggest satellites that manage most of the calls is called the Iridium. Iridium is NOT owned by NASA and is owned by a private company called SpaceX. You cannot just say satellite phones don't work because they do. Read the reviews on Amazon, most of them are good. If they did not work there would be great outrage and SpaceX would likely get sued.

SpaceX does not own Iridium. SpaceX only launches the satellites. Iridium is its own company and manages the network.

Does not matter who launched it, the fact is it works, and you cant make a "oh it works cus radar" excuse. I suggest you do some research in radar and GPS before blurting out "radar is GPS". Do this: go online, find the schematic and topography of a GPS IC and the same with a radar receiver. Look at the similarities and differences. You will see that they are not cross compatible. If you are ready to make the claim "radar is gps" they you better be ready to show a crap ton of evidence and an in-depth comparison of GPS and RADAR ICs.

I only corrected your false statement. You were wrong about who owns the company. I'm sorry that I think facts are important. Here's another fact: I never made the claim that radar is GPS. I never said any of the things you are accusing me of. I suggest YOU do some research into whatever the hell you're talking about, cause right now you look like you don't have a clue.

I dont mean to get angry, but you are not very good at context clues. The fact of who launched/owns iridium is not important, as stated in my last reply. I was not saying you claim GPS was radar, I thought that was pretty obvious. I was talking to the other person that made the ridiculous claim

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS cannot work without satellites.

« on: February 05, 2018, 01:15:20 PM »

You can make all the excuses you want to debunk GPS but in no way can you justify satellite phones without satellites. Sailers commonly use these far out in the middle of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans where eLORAN would not even reach, and even if it did it wouldn't matter since eLORAN is one way, and the eLORAN towers don't have receivers. Please note that one of the biggest satellites that manage most of the calls is called the Iridium. Iridium is NOT owned by NASA and is owned by a private company called SpaceX. You cannot just say satellite phones don't work because they do. Read the reviews on Amazon, most of them are good. If they did not work there would be great outrage and SpaceX would likely get sued.

SpaceX does not own Iridium. SpaceX only launches the satellites. Iridium is its own company and manages the network.

Does not matter who launched it, the fact is it works, and you cant make a "oh it works cus radar" excuse. I suggest you do some research in radar and GPS before blurting out "radar is GPS". Do this: go online, find the schematic and topography of a GPS IC and the same with a radar receiver. Look at the similarities and differences. You will see that they are not cross compatible. If you are ready to make the claim "radar is gps" they you better be ready to show a crap ton of evidence and an in-depth comparison of GPS and RADAR ICs.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: GPS cannot work without satellites.

« on: February 02, 2018, 01:26:20 PM »

You can make all the excuses you want to debunk GPS but in no way can you justify satellite phones without satellites. Sailers commonly use these far out in the middle of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans where eLORAN would not even reach, and even if it did it wouldn't matter since eLORAN is one way, and the eLORAN towers don't have receivers. Please note that one of the biggest satellites that manage most of the calls is called the Iridium. Iridium is NOT owned by NASA and is owned by a private company called SpaceX. You cannot just say satellite phones don't work because they do. Read the reviews on Amazon, most of them are good. If they did not work there would be great outrage and SpaceX would likely get sued.

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Humanity Star satellite

« on: January 29, 2018, 07:31:22 PM »

I came across this story and it got me thinking about FEH and satellites.

Quick background:
The Humanity Star is "disco ball" satellite that was launched into orbit by Rocket Lab. (Yet another private launch firm) It is an art project to unite humanity or something along those lines.



You can view the tracker here: https://www.thehumanitystar.com/

How this relates to FEH is that there is an easily identifiable object orbiting the globe with a real-time online tracker. I say easily identifiable because it is supposedly very bright and has an irregular flashing as it spins. Anyone on this site can use the tracker and, if the timing is right, can go outside and view it as it travels around the Earth. There are a couple of videos of it already posted to youtube. If you watch the orbital path, you can see it is in a polar orbit.

This raises a few questions. Some say satellites are balloons, but if you watch its path, you can see it is traveling far to fast to be a balloon. It is in a polar orbit, which makes no sense on a flat globe. Further, it has no propulsion system, so it isn't able to provide any course correction. (and will deorbit later this year)

What do FEers make of this? Is it even possible?

This is a sticky point for the FE'ers. I may be wrong but I believe their theory is that they are just airplanes that are solar powered, or just fake in general. Another satellite that reflects sunlight is the satellite iridium. This is the same satellite that manages all call from Iridium satellite phones. These reflections are called iridium flares and there are tons of tools online that allow you to track in see them. Also the Iridium is owned by a private company called spaceX, NOT nasa. FE'ers have some explaining.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 26, 2018, 06:31:12 PM »

Usually Tom will answer everything. At some point you won't accept something he says or some evidence he points to. He may give further examples. You won't accept them either. Where is he going to go from there? He's showed you his reasons, you don't agree ... that's the end of the debate. He told you everything he could, he told you why he thinks what he thinks and you didn't accept it. What are you hoping to acheive? Are you expecting to be the person who convinces Tom the world is round? Or are you expecting Tom to convince you that it is flat? There is no winner. It is an exchange of ideas and once those ideas are exchanged, the thread is done and Tom will leave it.

That would be fine if it were true. Tom hardly ever gives a straight answer with evidence to back it up. Look at my GPS thread, for example, I asked basically asked what allowed me to get a signal in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico and he said eLORAN. I then brought up satellite phones and have still not gotten a response.

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: You Can Neither Demonstrate Nor Defend Flat Earth Without Invoking Conspiracy

« on: January 26, 2018, 02:22:34 PM »

I've been reading around on the forum a bit, and I've noticed a common trend.

The senior Flat Earthers cherry pick what they respond to.  The creator of this topic puts in a lot of effort to thoroughly address everything Tom posts and is genuinely wanting to advance the discussion.  Yet Tom posts very short vague replies which don't address the majority of the topic creator's points, and obviously has no interest in furthering the discussion evident by the lack of replies for 8 days now.

Pete Svarrior rather than contribute to the topic, decides to focus in on the barely relevant car part of the analogy while dismissing later examples that directly show that a shape may not actually be what it appears to the eye

Completely agree. This is why I've stopped posting on this website recently. One of my favorite topics is satellites. It's sorta funny because you know you've won the argument when they stop responding.  Look at any of my satellite threads, all forgotten. And there's a pattern, we RE'ers bring up some irrefutable evidence and the Fe'ers just stop responding. The only real debate I've had so for about satellites with Fe'ers is when Tom said it was managed by an old WWII system of navigation called ELoran. I then brought up satellite phones and they stopped responding, I made a separate thread for satellite phones, and junker moved it to angry rated for some reason unrelated to the actual post. I made a thread called satellite phones v2, I and some other RE'ers brought up some more irrefutable evidence and they stopped responding. After a few weeks, I got annoyed and bumped the thread and got banned for 3 days. And what you said about them cherry picking and giving vague answers is soo true. I've seen a post where they fill 2-3 paragraphs with evidence and Tom literally makes a 1 sentence response barely commenting on 1 point made in the thread. And Pete spends most of his time in the lower fora making jokes in one of his threads. When I first went to this website I wanted to debate, but I've learned that you don't debate on this website, you just bring up points and get no complete responses.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Satellite Phones V2

« on: January 12, 2018, 07:49:40 PM »

Ha. you gotta love that not a single FEer has commented on this topic... Still waiting