21

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Socra-Please! He was made from Play-Dough

« on: April 13, 2019, 03:33:52 PM »

Out of curiosity, does it matter to you (this is a genuine question, I'd really like to know - to understand - if you don't mind sharing)?

Anyone who reads this, does any of it matter to you one way or the other?  If so, in what way does it matter?  And if it doesn't matter could you let me know why?

I'm not asking because I want to convince anyone or argue back, I'd really just like to learn how others feel about things like this.  Thanks.

Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me whether Socrates existed or not. It's a bit of like that whole Shakespeare authorship thing, why does it matter if he existed at all, like crudblud said, his existence doesn't affect the value of his works, we already know they're important and they're all out there, so why should it matter whose name we put on top of it? Is some zombie Greek gonna come out of the grave and demand credit for what he wrote that was credited to a nonexistent Socrates? The only way I see it having an effect is if we incorporate historical context on Socrates' life in analyzing his works and stuff. But even then, we have nothing else to go on, we can engage in speculation all day but it's not going to tell us something important, so what if Socrates never existed, it doesn't invalidate what he said, his name is a technicality in the face of the enormous value of his works.

22

Flat Earth Theory / Re: FE Sun and Moon Trajectories

« on: April 08, 2019, 08:29:54 PM »

I don’t know much about this EA. Can you give me the quick and dirty on it so I don’t have to wade through the awful wikis? What’s your technical assessment of it?

Essentially light slowly bends towards the perpendicular (and maybe horizontal). This allows the light from the sun to appear to be hitting you along a horizontal when setting (as seen everyday) AND it sets up everyone seeing the same face of the moon no matter where you are. Plus it sets up why the moon is full when it's away from the sun, and new when it's closer. I'll see if I can find a visual or two that I've seen around when I've got a bit more time later.

So basically, it applies the curvature of the earth to light to match RE observations better while keeping the earth flat?

23

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon transparency.

« on: April 05, 2019, 12:58:37 PM »

how about you try addressing my questions this time instead of ignoring them.

Why? I don't find the subject to be a debatable matter.

No matter how much you guys claim that the scientists were wrong, or that it can be explained by some proposed physical effect, those were simply the reported results of emperical scientific investigation. They are claims of astonomers and scientists, not Rowbotham. I am sure that they imagined some things to explain it at the time too.

Not debatable? Did everyone hear that? The great flat earth zetetic Dr. Tom Bishop finds the matter not debatable. I guess someone should just lock the thread then.

For one, I never claimed the scientists were wrong, I'm merely questioning the experimental procedure, you have all these sources saying moonlight cools, and and all these scientists used mirrors, but how did they control the experiment? Did they compare the results to the mirror and thermometer out on a moonless night? Did they compare results to that on a cloudy night? You're just showing results, expecting the scientists to be infallible in their procedure because of your confirmation bias. Where'd your sceptical context get off to now Bishop? Maybe if you look out your window you'll find it.

From your own source on Tyndall's experiment https://books.google.com/books?id=3w5LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA200&dq=concentrated+moonlight+cold&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidtuOshoXhAhUirlkKHU3NAL8Q6AEISzAG#v=onepage&q&f=false it says it was "perfectly hopeless to obtain  trustworthy results on this delicate question in the atmosphere of London." yet you present him as a source confirming cold moonlight. Can you read Tom?

Have a look at what you said right after that.

Some scientists have reported no change, others have reported moonlight to cool, even "to more than eight degrees", and it appears that there are a couple who have reported it to increase in temperature by amounts of around two hundred thousandths part of a degree.

That's one wild variation of results, yet from that pack you see concrete proof of cold moonlight Mr. Confirmation Bias. You say the matter is undebatable yet your scientists that you presents have contradictory or inconclusive results.

Lastly, your own source says the cause of "cold moonlight" in the Harrison source:

The clearer the sky the more freely the earth's heat passes away into space, and consequently the colder we feel. So that while the moon warms us she cools us.

So what have learned today? Tom Bishop doesn't even read his own sources.

24

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon transparency.

« on: April 04, 2019, 07:00:24 PM »

moonlight copypasta

We already went through this on page 2 of "Why just Rowbotham?" https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14004.20 , how about you try addressing my questions this time instead of ignoring them.

Tom, a few questions, if you would please.

For one, the experiments presented aren't very zetetic, they all focus on seeing if moonlight produces heat, instead of just observing the results from their equipment. They all expected moonlight to have a measurable effect instead of testing their equipment with other conditions, like a moonless night, a night with clouds, etc. Indeed, the only experiment to test having the equipment not face the moon was Tyndall, and he admitted himself London's atmospheric conditions weren't suitable for such a delicate test.

Second, you yourself said the results have a lot of variation, some say no change, some say cool, and you mention some who measured a temp. increase. Hardly results to make a solid conclusion out of. You don't just say "Well, more of them said cooling, so that must be it!" It doesn't work like that. You have to show the results are statistically significant.

Third, where's the explanation of the results? You're also bashing RE about how we can't explain gravity, going so far to add in some snarky remarks on the UA wiki about gravitons, so what's the explanation of this cold light from the moon allegedly? No backsies now, you can't turn heel and say "We can observe the effects without having to explain them."

Fourth, what about the currency of these experiments? They're all from the 19th century, are there any recent results from any scientific (or zetetic) experiments, and you can't just pull a "Truth doesn't have an expiration date," because the variation of results complicates that in point two, and there is better equipment to re conduct their experiments.

Fifth Tom, did you notice you contradicted yourself? In the snippet about Harrison, it says this

The clearer the sky the more freely the earth's heat passes away into space, and consequently the colder we feel. So that while the moon warms us she cools us.

That's radiative cooling! Did you just not read through it, or were you too zealous in trying to prove us wrong?

25

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Elon Musk

« on: April 03, 2019, 09:06:28 PM »

I'm still waiting for vacuum tube trains and underground motorways. 

3 hour flights across the Atlantic.

Didn't the Concorde do this before it was decommissioned? I thought it did.

26

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Convince me

« on: March 27, 2019, 02:12:21 PM »

I have no idea what #4 is about, do you?

You've never heard of point 4 before?
It's basically this image.

It's often presented as a proof against flat earth by showing curvature. I think there a few threads here somewhere discussing and debating it.

27

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 26, 2019, 11:36:07 PM »

I think the Kennedy's would disagree.

Disagree with what?

Why are you asking yourself a question?

I think he messed up quoting honk.

28

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Thoughts on this online document.

« on: March 24, 2019, 10:35:08 PM »

I've found this   https://imgur.com/a/PblIlgX   document online. Spoke to a friend and they said it's nothing. Just interested if I'm reading too much into it.

Well for starters, how about telling us what you think about it? Do you think this is proof that the Antarctic bases are faked because it says "NASA" and "Top Secret" on it?

Second, how do we know the document wasn't faked, for all we know, someone could've just found an old typewriter, typed it out, and wrote over it with pen "Top Secret."

Third, what exactly is the context? We know it's about funding some equipment and stuff but what is the media group for? Was there some kind of planned expedition? Who is Walter? And what were the NASA operations that on the document were said to be submitted on a later application?

Overall, rather weak effort to put more stuff under the umbrella of the Conspiracy and a rather weak OP.

29

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: March 22, 2019, 07:46:41 PM »

If you think Earth and universe models don't matter in politics or social engineering, you're just dumb, to be frank, or are a shill. Either way, not worth spending much time on.

Hah! I was wondering how long it would take you to say I was a shill! Just saying, based on your statement, I guess that means everyone here but you, flat earther and round earther, is a shill, because, I quote "There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort. There is a Space Travel Conspiracy." Right from the tfes wiki, https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy

30

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: March 22, 2019, 07:37:24 PM »

'Do you think we live in a Hollywood movie?'   'You actually think disinformation exists?'

The UK was caught putting on entire call center-like operations of shills posting on internet forums, and such work could easily be contracted out, and repeatedly has been shown to be for political campaigns, ballot items, etc. You couldn't be more naïve, or look more uneducated, and you're not convincing/fooling anyone.

You're forgetting one essential fact: this is a flat earth forum. Why would any government have any interest in that? No one stands to benefit from posting
stuff here. The shape of the earth doesn't directly affect your life, politics does to some extent.

For some reason, I feel like you'd be the kind of person to take this shitpost seriously.  https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13757.msg184956#msg184956

31

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Where is eye level in this photo?

« on: March 22, 2019, 07:16:18 PM »

There are a few, probably insurmountable problems with this right off the bat, including but not limited to:

1) If FE were true, any subversive truth is going to be swarmed with disinfo and disinfo agents, so taking one's word on an internet forum is out the window.

Lol, are you implying there is an organized effort to subvert FE? And some users are disinfo agents? Do you think we live in a Hollywood movie or something?

32

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)

« on: March 22, 2019, 05:05:26 PM »

Thanks for repeating what you have already said, extremely helpful. All of us here already know the method of travel, what we want to know is how it's possible on a flat plane with only one set of continents without turning around. Stack presented you with a map with copies of the continents and you said that wasn't it, so what is it?

This map only has one set of continents:

https://www.bing.com/maps Demonstrates this.

1. Zoom all the way out.
2. Center your map on the United States. (the center of the map will indicate where you are at on your path to the west)
3. Move the map to the west using your mouse or by swiping.
4. Because the center indicates where you are you never reach the edge.

Also, about your demonstration, have you ever thought about fucking zooming out? Maybe if you did that you would have seen that you moved to a copy of the continent in your demo.

What is the difference between zooming out and fucking zooming out? I'm going to assume they are both the same and the "fucking" was just a waste of your time and energy typing it and a waste of my time and energy reading it.


Zoom out here:
https://www.bing.com/maps

I don't see a copy of the continents

so then what happens in the real world when on the online map you cross from into a copy of the continents?

https://www.bing.com/maps does not have copies of the continents.

If we add in electromagnetic acceleration bending light, the space/time density conversation, we could possibly be travelling in the manner that he refers and we just don't know it.

this regular and intelligible sequence of destinations when traveling west. This happens regardless of  electromagnetic acceleration, refracted light, or any sort of space/time density conversion. It happens for those that believe the earth is flat. It happens for those that believe the earth is round. It happens for those that believe the earth is fake and we are living in the matrix.

 west coast > pacific ocean > asia >europe > Atlantic ocean > east coast > west coast

Again i'm not sending you a link to some obscure websites. I'm sending you links to accurate maps of the earth used and developed by used by hundreds of millions of people by billion dollar corporations.

So you still refuse to tell us what happens in the real world when you reach one edge and magically appear on the other edge with one set of continents?

Looking at Bing maps, you can't even zoom out all the way, so how can you be sure there is only one set? Look at yahoo maps or mapquest and zoom out all the way, you can see multiple copies. They all basically do the same thing, infinite horizontal scrolling, when you scroll to the left and reach the edge of one tile of a set of continent, it moves on to the next tile, with a copy of the continents on it, all bing maps does is make sure you can't zoom out enough to see that happen. But maybe you can if you try some of the stuff in the links below (haven't tried it yet, but will later)

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11051927/how-to-show-the-full-map-and-prevent-scrolling-in-bing-maps-api

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19511637/how-to-disable-horizontal-infinite-scrolling-in-bing-map-control

https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/sqlserver/en-US/b8ff0bba-7d5c-456d-819d-0d4c9f961fd0/bingmaps-javascripthtml-how-to-disable-infinite-horizontal-scrolling?forum=bingmapswindows8

33

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)

« on: March 22, 2019, 02:19:12 PM »

- Starting at the blue circle (SF), flying due west, on the flat map, you go off the image on the left.

I've already demonstrated the path of travel when going west from the west coast of the united states many times on thread. read this post:
I have diagrammed, in detail, what happens when you travel west from the west coast of the united states and travel west until you arrive back at your destination:

https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=14046.msg187564#msg187564

Lastly, is there anything else in the world that functions the way you are describing that we can look at as sort of a guide?

Yes. Well known, well used, verified accurate maps of the earth used by millions and millions of people each year


maps.yahoo.com
https://www.mapquest.com/
suncalc.net
https://www.timeanddate.com/time/map/
https://www.openstreetmap.org/
https://www.bing.com/maps

You can't just say that it makes sense because the map says so. It has to fit into the concept of your world. And illumination by the sun is different for a plane compared to a globe. You cannot say "It makes sense because I say it makes sense.", you need to analyse whether it makes sense...

I really don't know how to respond to this. I guess the best responses I can think of are "I agree" or "OK"

Thanks for repeating what you have already said, extremely helpful. All of us here already know the method of travel, what we want to know is how it's possible on a flat plane with only one set of continents without turning around. Stack presented you with a map with copies of the continents and you said that wasn't it, so what is it? Also, about your demonstration, have you ever thought about fucking zooming out? Maybe if you did that you would have seen that you moved to a copy of the continent in your demo. That's how those online maps do it, zoom out on yahoo maps for example, you'll get the same thing. Yet you continue incessantly saying that there is a flat plane with only the continents and no copies, so then what happens in the real world when on the online map you cross from into a copy of the continents?

34

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)

« on: March 21, 2019, 09:14:40 PM »

Thanks for diagramming. Using MapQuest as well, do you believe the below adequately represents the journey west from SF and returning back to SF on your infinite flat plane?

No. I don't believe that is correct.That diagram shows more than one Africa, Asia, Australia etc. I believe there is only one of each of the continents with a regular and intelligible sequence of destinations when traveling in a straight line in any particular direction which will repeat an infinite number of times as long as you continue to travel in that direction.

How exactly does that work? Is there some magic portal at a certain longitude or something? It's rather confusing, you travel one direction on a flat plane without turning around, and then suddenly you're on the other side of said plane.

35

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Need clarification (time zones)

« on: March 21, 2019, 01:28:01 PM »

The problem with the infinite repeating model is the repeating part. Are there multiples of the same continent, country, city? Multiple repeating versions of me? I never could wrap my head around this model.

In the repeating flat plane model: you started on the west coast of America and travel west. You cross the pacific ocean then hit Asia. You cross Asia into Europe. You leave the shores of Europe to cross the Atlantic ocean and hit the east coast of America. Cross America and you are back to the west coast of America. Is this the same West coast of America that you started at or a different one? You could repeat this trip an infinite number of times. Are there an infinite number of western america coastlines to depart from and arrive to?


In the round earth model: you started on the west coast of America and travel west. You cross the pacific ocean then hit Asia. You cross Asia into Europe. You leave the shores of Europe to cross the Atlantic ocean and hit the east coast of America. Cross America and you are back to the west coast of America. Is this the same West coast of America that you started at or a different one? You could repeat this trip an infinite number of times. Are there an infinite number of western america coastlines to depart from and arrive to?


Do you notice how they are literally the EXACT same? If you believe the earth is round how could this model be in any way confusing to you?

Hold up, is your repeating flat plane model just pacman? I am very confused, if it's a flat plane, then how do you keep on going west or east and end up at your original location? You have to turn around at some point. Are you implying there's infinite versions of the continents or something? Is it some kind of mobius strip thing? Please draw a picture, your comparison is really confusing.

36

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Flat Earth - Why Now?

« on: March 19, 2019, 02:35:24 PM »

FE is gaining popularity because truth eventually prevails.

Lol, so popularity of a theory is directly linked to how true it is? Spontaneous generation was a popular theory for thousands of years, by your logic it was totally true.

37

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antarctic 24-hours Polar Day video

« on: March 18, 2019, 10:58:27 PM »

First off, I never said it was faked, I said it could have been filmed in the Arctic. As for the timestamp on raw footage, all they would have to do is to have set the camera to the appropriate Antarctica time zone prior to filming. I'm not ruling out that it's real, but my doubts are not without basis.

So Progress Station is not in the Antarctic? So what about the other Antarctic stations, like the Chinese one that came to its aid when a fire broke out? Are those other stations fake, is the NSF a conspiracy? Are the Chinese in on it as well? What about the person who died?
https://antarcticsun.usap.gov/features/contenthandler.cfm?id=1557

Even if you don't believe that, what about google maps? It shows Progress station on it's satellite mode, unless they're part of the conspiracy too?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/69%C2%B023'00.0%22S+76%C2%B023'00.0%22E/@-69.3793334,76.3854419,1080m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d-69.3833333!4d76.3833333

Or the Australian government? Their Antarctic division of the DOEE has visited Progress and other nearby stations. http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/davis/this-week-at-davis/2017/this-week-at-davis-27-january-2017/visiting-the-neighbours-zhongshan,-bharati-and-progress-stations  Is that trip faked? If so, what about Bharati station, search it up and compare it to the photo here.

Hey look! More visits: http://www.antarctica.gov.au/living-and-working/stations/davis/this-week-at-davis/2012/this-week-at-davis-17-february-2012/4 Now what? Is Australia's own station faked? Are the people they met all in on it? These are real people who've been, you can find that out on your own.

Here are some photos of the Akademic Fedorov going to Progress Station, you can explore the others and find some more, like offloading oil barrels to the station.   http://aq.geoview.info/akademik_fedorov_go_to_progress_station,56874967p
There are a lot of photos here, and you can explore through the others if you want, are they all in the Arctic?

More on the Akademic though, if Progress is in the Arctic as you claim, why would it go to Antarctica to stop there? Don't you think anyone would notice the nonexistent Progress personnel being picked up, is the crew of the Akademic in on the conspiracy? And if personnel are supposedly being picked up, wouldn't they have to be dropped off?

http://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/wmocms/s3fs-public/ckeditor/files/The_63rd_national_Antarctic_expedition_starts.pdf?UhbruqJl1rxPXlTibAlKQL4.AFS2D1b0

http://www.waponline.it/the-64th-russian-antarctic-expedition/

Last of all, where's your evidence it's in the Arctic? "I doubt it!" is not evidence.

38

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why is every other planet round?

« on: March 18, 2019, 10:36:57 PM »

Or did it?  Maybe we made a mistake.  After all, no theory is perfect at first.  FE theory has stated that other planets have been observed to be round but how can we be so sure?  Maybe they’re flat, just like earth.  More experiments are required.

We can be sure because if the planets were flat discs, we'd see them as ellipses as they revolved around and over the Earth since we we aren't directly under them.

39

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Antarctic 24-hours Polar Day video

« on: March 18, 2019, 09:47:04 PM »

I think this is a fair point: how can it be verified this is Antarctica and not a northern region/island? I checked the channel and didn't see any proof that seemed beyond doubt.

The Moon is Arizona and Mars is Devon Island Canada, so swapping places is definitely in their playbook. And I do believe that when it comes to deceptions this fundamental, we are dealing with a worldwide deception where all sides agree to agree.

If you think the timelapse is faked then ask the guy who runs the channel to send over the raw data.

This was the video description: "1.63 TB of memory on HDD, 753 623 photos (every 30 seconds at night, every minute during the day), 389 days of recording, hundreds of hours of processing, many people involved in this case, even more fans, many successful accidents.
Enjoy watching."

40

Flat Earth Theory / Re: studying sun using zetetic

« on: March 17, 2019, 09:23:22 PM »

Don't you guys know that zetetic conclusion just means "The earth is flat, thus whatever conclusion fits my model"

And don't forget, that someone in the next experiment, they came to the conclusion that when you drop a ball, you can feel the earth pushing up your feet.