1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 11, 2016, 08:12:14 PM »

ROFLMAO! It amuses me so that they are "composites" while we have highly advanced telescopes like the "Hubble" and gigapixel cameras while all NASA can get are stupid photoshop composites -- WITH MIND YOU TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayers money-- while they try to explain EVERYTHING suspicious away with technical nerdy shit, and all you Round Earthers are buying every bit of it.

Now I'm not labelling myself as a Flat Earther, as some stuff does not add up yet even in the flat earth theory... but clearly, some shit is not right. And it's so funny that you all refuse to accept the facts and side along with them so that you can continue your beauty sleep.

Concerning the collection of earth images, I would say to ignore the 1997 and 2012 photos, for reasons I don't care to get into right now.  The rest can be explained as being taken with different filters by different cameras.  Your best bet is the 2015 photo, which was taken by the DSCOVR spacecraft.  We get multiple images of the earth each day from that satellite.  See here for more info.

Ok so I did research this, and took your explanation into account.

Now explain for me this, the ELA analysis in for the Blue Marble 2015 that you think is legit.

I just took a random photo off of epic.gsfc.nasa.gov the site where it has daily photos from the DSCOVR telescope as you advocated.

You know, it would be nice if you would mention what you did to the images, because you're the only one that can see a problem. 


I don't intend to watch the video you posted, now or ever.  If you can't find a somewhat intelligent source of information, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously. 


You really are a dumbass if you think a photo is fake because it's a composite.  That is all I have to say on that matter. 


People like you don't deserve to live in a world you can't appreciate, or at all.

lol at that insult. You mad bro? And you think you deserve to live following the herd like a good little sheep you are?

My intention wasn't for You to watch the video, but I'll explain it anyway. The video would tell you what FE side of the story is, if a so called 6 Billion Dollar spaceship LOOKS like a homeless shelter built by sticky tape, aluminium foil and plastic blow dryers, that doesn't ring any alarm bells to you RE at all because of some technical nasa explanation. Debunked by the fact that it DOESNT even make a mark on the moon, along with many other technical faults.  You guys do not even believe your eyes and are blinded by your indoctrination in school.

Not that you would want to face the truth anyway, cause it hurts. sheep.

I've already explained it in my post that the modification to the image is ELA. If you didn't know ELA , it means  error level analysis, if you really know about anything NASA you should know about ELA because your shit sure does have a lot of error in them.

http://fotoforensics.com/faq.php
 

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 11, 2016, 07:19:38 PM »

ROFLMAO! It amuses me so that they are "composites" while we have highly advanced telescopes like the "Hubble" and gigapixel cameras while all NASA can get are stupid photoshop composites -- WITH MIND YOU TENS OF BILLIONS of taxpayers money-- while they try to explain EVERYTHING suspicious away with technical nerdy shit, and all you Round Earthers are buying every bit of it.

Now I'm not labelling myself as a Flat Earther, as some stuff does not add up yet even in the flat earth theory...and I will remain neutral in the argument - neither believing in round nor flat earth. But clearly, some shit is not right. And it's so funny that you all RE refuse to accept the facts and side along with them so that you can continue your beauty sleep.

Now do me a favour and explain this one as well:

Concerning the collection of earth images, I would say to ignore the 1997 and 2012 photos, for reasons I don't care to get into right now.  The rest can be explained as being taken with different filters by different cameras.  Your best bet is the 2015 photo, which was taken by the DSCOVR spacecraft.  We get multiple images of the earth each day from that satellite.  See here for more info.

Ok so I did research this, and took your explanation into account.

Now explain for me this, the ELA analysis in for the Blue Marble 2015 that you think is legit.

I just took a random photo off of epic.gsfc.nasa.gov the site where it has daily photos from the DSCOVR telescope as you advocated.




1. Doesn't look like anything odd about this photo featuring a lot of contrasty clouds. The photo looks like it's even in contast between the foreground and background so therefore the ELA looks even too.






2.  How about a stratosphere image where clouds are the Foreground? Nothing glitchy in those clouds as far as I'm aware.





3. A daily photo from the DSCOVR telescope. Oh look. I'm different because I'm a NASA space photo
Hint: Look at the faded and smaller clouds in the background. They are ALSO highlighted by ELA. Coincidence huh?




Or just maybe, Alladin came out of his lamp and waved his wand at the photo!  Look, I can do it too!





PS. Here's the Blue Marble 2015 from Wikipedia. Nice ELA
Maybe it's legit after all... and a real one! Or could they have spent a lot of time/money trying to cover their tracks?

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 08, 2016, 11:17:58 AM »

Maybe you need a lesson in jpeg compression algorithms before jumping to conclusions that makes you look like a rookie. Take it as an advice from an experienced developer.

My cat is also an experienced developer. What makes you so special sir?

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 08, 2016, 11:15:08 AM »

I tested this more. It turns out it might be mostly the lighting that's affecting the jpg mismatch.

If I turned the lighting just on the moon up, the jpg artifacts seem to match up much better. However this just begs the question -- why were the lighting so different? The NASA image has the lighting of the moon really high up, like a football stadium while the JAXA one is very dimly lit.



Btw I'll just leave this here too.

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 08, 2016, 08:55:33 AM »

These pictures are not posted as "evidence" of anything! No-one in NASA or the media is trying to prove anything to you - they know not nor care! If you think that you have a massively overblown sense of your own importance.

Sometimes I think that all these self-made expert image forensic examiners are not quite as expert as they think they are!

Sigh. I really hate to revisit this and waste my time but okay.

Look, even a monkey can tell that it's a composite image and it's of course modified. Yes my point wasn't that. I only said that because I wanted to see RAW images not modified ones, and I wasn't even pointing at this particular image for that point because we all know it's several different images placed together. It was the JPG Artifacts MISMATCH on that that piqued my interest.

For comparison sake, I did a curves on one of the top ones in that site and I found them to not have this same problem.



Compare the larger images and see for yourself. You aren't blind.

http://i.imgur.com/zmyK0Ec.png  VS http://i.imgur.com/lV4kF9b.png

The colour hue / saturation / brightness  (HSB) values of the jpg compression of the first one is definitely out of place.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 08, 2016, 08:45:12 AM »

What does it matter if it's a youtube video? I dont get it? It could be an article, doesn't matter if the evidence it provides is legit. You can watch the video and then find the real disney movie, and see for yourself if that's true or not. And it's exactly what I did...

I just linked you to a brief introductory video on the subject. There are many more with HORDES of evidence of them adding subliminal satanic symbols, gestures, and sexualized subliminals etc. But really it's not my task to educate you on this since it's hard to wake people up and I refuse to do it to someone I don't know well in person.

It doesn't matter that it's a youtube video. But by the same token, it also doesn't matter if it's on mainstream TV, radio, or in a newspaper. The problem isn't that you take the Youtube video into consideration. The problem is that you automatically dismiss some observations while allowing others to influence you. This will lead to false conclusions no matter how well you research those observations that you allow.

I can echo your last statement: It's nto my task to educate you on what the facts are. What I wish to do is show you is how I think your way of looking at the world may be biased.

This is right. There are many disinformation in the internet and disinformation agents spreading false information. That's where you need to research and see for yourself, and above all follow what your heart says about it. However regarding what I showed you, there's not really any reason of a conspiracy disinfo when the evidence is raw, and right there in front of your eyes... For instance you can even go to court with the video as proof and tell Disney to remove the penis on the church priest on a children's movie.

Just like there is no reason to assume the moon landings were fake when there is footage, videos, construction documents etc. right in front of your eyes. Just as there is no reason to doubt Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK when he was convicted in a cout of law. My point being, you have a double standard. In the case of the subliminal messages, you make an observation ("this video has a penis in it") and conclude that this is evidence for the theory presented. In the case of the pictures I linked, you make an observation and conclude that it must be faked.

You showed me a basket of photos. If that basket has a rotten egg, the whole basket starts to seem like it's not legit. If I found pee in the egg box of a dozen eggs, I would start to question the rest as well.

And question them you did. But you forget to note that you did check and found nothing obviously wrong about the rest of the eggs in the basket. So, in staying with your metaphor, you find a rotten egg in a box of otherwise good eggs, and then throw out all the eggs regardless.

But it's well deserved. For space photos that have full-size earths, imo RAW is the only way because of their history of course. That's just their fault for so much tampering...

Staying with the eggs metaphor from above again: you should note that if you do that and throw out the good eggs with the bad, it's not the eggs that loose and get what they deserved. It's you who looses, because you have just denied yourself a source of perfectly good nutrition.
Stepping away from the metaphor again: You deny yourself sources of information, and that isn't good for someone who seeks the truth.

Your point earlier was that you didn't have to test it, rather just look at it to know if it was genuine. Now you're changing your point haha okay then. Tests are infinite and you should assume every photo is genuine instead of being fake lol

If that was the point that got across to you, I must be very bad at explaining. That wasn't the point, let me try to explain again: What I said was that every observation is, a data point that you need to take into account. How you explain those datapoints is the second step. Noting that there is a picture is making an observation. Stating the picture is fake is a conclusion, and explanation for how this observation came about. The mistake to avoid is to confuse step one with step two. To throw out datapoints as "fake" and then come up with an explanation that only encompasses the remaining data. You need an explanation for all the observations, that includes the ones which you consider fake. If you do conclude that the pictures were fake, your theory must include an explanation for why these observations are considered fake and other are considered genuine and how that ultimately supports your final conclusion. What you cannot do is have two completely unconnected theories where one states "everything I see is suspect and must be considered fake" and the other says "my theory is supported by these things which are true because I saw them".

Again, I'm really not here to convince people on the internet to believe in anything, so you can believe anything you want, and keep listening to your gov / media , etc. Not my loss haha but don't think you can convince me otherwise that your beliefs are more correct without opening your eyes first.

Neither am I. I just think that your eyes are closed as well and trying to teach you how to open them. If you are unwilling to take what I say into consideration because I have come to different conclusions than you, then I cannot help that.

First let me tell you that in my case of video proof, I can find an old disney show and see that they actually used those nasty subliminals. And of course you can find testimonies of people who have watched the exact show.

However, in your case, how about I go to the moon and see for myself? How do I verify the proof?  By looking at "photos" from the moon, that mind you isn't even straight from the camera and retains the original Metadata information? You see it's not first-hand evidence. In my case I can get the first hand evidence because it's readily available.

The only way you can debunk my evidence of them hiding sexual symbols is IF my sources of old disney movies containing the symbols are fake. Which could be ludicrous because you can of course find them everywhere and people have indeed watched them.

The other point you were talking about the eggs argument haha. Okay but my point all along was that nasa have made a crap load of fake earth composites before so how in the hell do you not look at them from the perspective of a skeptical view rather than to think they are real at first glance? 

If that was the point that got across to you, I must be very bad at explaining. That wasn't the point, let me try to explain again: What I said was that every observation is, a data point that you need to take into account. How you explain those datapoints is the second step. Noting that there is a picture is making an observation. Stating the picture is fake is a conclusion, and explanation for how this observation came about. The mistake to avoid is to confuse step one with step two. To throw out datapoints as "fake" and then come up with an explanation that only encompasses the remaining data. You need an explanation for all the observations, that includes the ones which you consider fake. If you do conclude that the pictures were fake, your theory must include an explanation for why these observations are considered fake and other are considered genuine and how that ultimately supports your final conclusion. What you cannot do is have two completely unconnected theories where one states "everything I see is suspect and must be considered fake" and the other says "my theory is supported by these things which are true because I saw them".

I guess you misunderstood me then, I'm not that quick to call them fakes, just keeping a skeptical eye based on their history. I simply said they were keyword - Modified -  which of course they were since the JPG compression.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 07, 2016, 11:05:26 PM »

So, you don't trust "the media on TV", but you do trust Youtube videos? You specifically believe a video that states that frames that allude to sex, or have the word "sex" written in them are "highly sexualized" and "corrupt the world's children"? How exactly does that work?

What does it matter if it's a youtube video? I dont get it? It could be an article, doesn't matter if the evidence it provides is legit. You can watch the video and then find the real disney movie, and see for yourself if that's true or not. And it's exactly what I did...

I just linked you to a brief introductory video on the subject. There are many more with HORDES of evidence of them adding subliminal satanic symbols, gestures, and sexualized subliminals etc. But really it's not my task to educate you on this since it's hard to wake people up and I refuse to do it to someone I don't know well in person.

It's a familiar phenomenon: "I don't believe any media, except these people on youtube". Maybe it's the youtube videos that are controlled and brainwashing you? Maybe the government is secretly controlling all the conspiracy theorists? How does your approach allow you to discern truth from falsehood?

This is right. There are many disinformation in the internet and disinformation agents spreading false information. That's where you need to research and see for yourself, and above all follow what your heart says about it. However regarding what I showed you, there's not really any reason of a conspiracy disinfo when the evidence is raw, and right there in front of your eyes... For instance you can even go to court with the video as proof and tell Disney to remove the penis on the church priest on a children's movie.

Funny, it was hard to fault most of the images there but I turned up the curves on this one in photoshop and Bam. Guess Japan wasn't as good as NASA at forgeries yet.

So the fact that you tried and failed to find a fault in the majority of the pictures is now supposed to be proof that they are all faked? That's a curious leap of logic.

You showed me a basket of photos. If that basket has a rotten egg, the whole basket starts to seem like it's not legit. If I found pee in the egg box of a dozen eggs, I would start to question the rest as well.

So yeah, I guess I won't really trust photos unless they are RAW format straight from the camera and therefore untampered with. These photos are of course modified and even saved at a 79% quality of jpeg compression (for the first photo in the website).

Which means you are excluding an entire category of observations with no argument other than that it suits your preconceived ideas.

But it's well deserved. For space photos that have full-size earths, imo RAW is the only way because of their history of course. That's just their fault for so much tampering...

It's not as easy as that, there are tests you can do. I ran these photos thru different websites testing the legitimacy of the photograph and obviously they were modified and not the original taken by the camera. Which just makes them moot really for me. If you re-save an image as evidence that's a red flag, but the next bigger red flag is how the JPG compression edges don't match up even after a simple test.

Which would then be a new observation I have to take into account. But I cannot possibly ever do all the tests. There is always an alternative theory, the number of possible tests is infinite. Your simple test only indicated fault in a single image. So why do we assume forgery when the observations don't support that assumption? Isn't that the opposite of looking for the truth?

Your point earlier was that you didn't have to test it, rather just look at it to know if it was genuine. Now you're changing your point haha okay then. Tests are infinite and you should assume every photo is genuine instead of being fake lol

Again, I'm really not here to convince people on the internet to believe in anything, so you can believe anything you want, and keep listening to your gov / media , etc. Not my loss haha but don't think you can convince me otherwise that your beliefs are more correct without opening your eyes first.

You're obviously here because the idea of the flat earth intrigued you enough to see what the fuss is about. Try to stop focusing on the defense of your preconceptions and open your mind to other possibilities.

Second this^

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 07, 2016, 04:09:18 PM »

It takes a constant vigilance and an almost a detrimental amount of distrust to not become complacent and accept things as they're poured into the trough for consumption. Sure, you can read a lot of information on the internet, but the real struggle for knowledge happens way before that. It's psychological conditioning: it's distracting us with bright flashy things, it's preying on the public's willingness to trust those that have never given them a reason to do so, it's manipulation on all levels from very young ages. The best brain washing is the kind you don't even realize happened.

He doesn't even know about the brainwashing that's taking place in 1st world countries so I don't think your reply would sink in.

Are you refering to people in Third World countries in Africa or Asia, or under censoring regimes like Russia or China? Because if people are in the dark in Europe or the US, it's predominantly out of their own volition, and the only mind control is the mind control they allow.

Not believing anyting you see in the media is just as flawed as believing everything. The way to gather information is by consulting different sources. The problem with conspiracy theories is that most of them are not based on rational analysis, and as such attract believers which aren't quite rational themselves.

Yeah I don't think you know what's really going on in the world right now haha. Perhaps learn about Subliminal messages that are being programmed into today's children's shows.   

Don't get me started on the media haha. You're right in that you should consult different sources, but I would really never trust the media on TV for example. (Again see other videos about the subject) Conspiracy theories are mostly based on rational ideas and a heap of evidence to support them or there simply won't be this much debate over them. It's not my task to change your mind so I won't say anymore regarding this.

There's a bunch of pictures on this site:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2380085/Earth-aliens-eye-view-How-planet-looks-different-perspective-far-far-away.html

Funny, it was hard to fault most of the images there but I turned up the curves on this one in photoshop and Bam. Guess Japan wasn't as good as NASA at forgeries yet.





larger image link: http://i.imgur.com/zmyK0Ec.png

The amount of error in the edges in terms of JPEG compression do not match up as you can see, while they should be the same. Obviously not.

So yeah, I guess I won't really trust photos unless they are RAW format straight from the camera and therefore untampered with. These photos are of course modified and even saved at a 79% quality of jpeg compression (for the first photo in the website).

I observe that my mind tells me that the page tells me the photo is genuine.

Lol.

It doesn't actually matter if I think the photo is fake or genuine. For one, you only asked me about the photo existing, and it does. Secondly, that the photo exists is an observation in it's own right. This observation is, on it's face, evidence for the photo being genuine. Unless I have additional observations that suggests the photo is faked, the simplest theory that explains the evidence is that the photo is genuine.

It's not as easy as that, there are tests you can do. I ran these photos thru different websites testing the legitimacy of the photograph and obviously they were modified and not the original taken by the camera. Which just makes them moot really for me. If you re-save an image as evidence that's a red flag, but the next bigger red flag is how the JPG compression edges don't match up even after a simple test.

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 07, 2016, 11:39:34 AM »

Good points, well I think that while the predictions based from the scientific method might be "a good guess" like you say -- whatever theory you present, it's almost always that the FlatEarthers will find a fault in it. For instance, imagine if you were a famous physicist, try to explain the round earth using physics. They will use my argument I presented earlier regarding Einstein etc; Or the classic one regarding the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. They will say that there has been wear and tear etc. Hence I still feel that Seeing is believing and if ordinary people went out of space like with Virgin Galactic we will really get our answer. Hopefully soon.

Many FE don't believe science because of my points as well. But that's also partially due to how our world is run right now. The elites won't tell you everything they know and seek to hide the truth on many occasions to keep us dumbed down. Knowledge is power. However regarding FE, I won't believe it now obviously until there is a legitimate map to indicate it. Or if there is an alternative theory to this map, please welcome to share it with me. Because there is no way that the flight makes any sense on this most accurate map Flat Earthers have put together after many decades... It starts to make more sense on a Round earth than even on a flat atlas surface (picture 2) as I showed on my original post.

I get that you think the "elites" keep power for themselves (they most certainly do), but do you also realize just how much knowledge is freely available? I mean you can go right now and read the philosophers of the enlightenment, I recommend Hume and then Kant. You can find out how science works by yourself from that, and will be much better equipped to tell truth from falsehoods. Also there is the so called "methods of rationality", which show common misconceptions and how to test your beliefs. There's a lot of resources out there, no-one has to just believe what they are told.

That's not to say I still do not believe NASA fully as there is so much evidence of forgeries in terms of what they do. AFAIK not even one full-size earth photo wasn't photoshopped. 

Well there is the photo taken from the moon. That's not a composite image, but of course also not very detailed. Getting a camera big enough to make a full size image of the earth into space would be rather hard, wouldn't it? Why the effort, to convince like 20 people on an internet forum?

There is truth in the world yes, but my point wasn't for myself. The point is, many people in the world are kept in the dark and they would be subject to the mind control in the world right now. And they won't want to open their eyes and think conspiracy people are lunatics, watch news every day and take everything they see in media for granted. Slowly but surely more and more are waking up though.

Regarding your philosophy thing I guess I'm always more of a believer of Zen than any scientific philosophies. My fav philosopher is Alan Watts. However they are interesting and I did search them up a bit. The Hume philosophy seems too inhumane for me.

Link me to the photo you talked about please. I'm sure there's a lot of moon photos having the Earth. The problem is, they have faked and PS'ed photos before... so what makes you think it's not a photoshop?

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 06, 2016, 06:17:29 PM »

Hmm, it seems we have both misunderstood each other then. I do fully agree that empirical knowledge (such as is gained from science) is never final or monolithic, truth changes with every new observation. It's just that while the knowledge changes, the method stays the same. And a change in knowledge also doesn't invalidate past knowledge, so long as it had been gained via the scientific method. The theories that used to be all-encompassing have just turned partial, but they're not wrong. Newtonian physics are still accurate for certain circumstances, they just aren't the most universal theory anymore.

Actually, the truth doesn't ever change. A truth is something like: The Sun exists. (though if you get into some advanced whacked out theories that are floating around, that could just be a matter of opinion as well)

Our interpretation and understanding of what the Sun actually is evolves over time through observation and experimentation. Knowledge is the practically the documentation of that process. Of course new methods of observation and measurement inevitably arise, and the old "knowledge" is either scrapped, revised, or retrofitted.

One problem, of course, is there will obviously be a generational gap between what was taught to those prior and what modern opinion is. Another problem is knowledge being mistaken for truth. While being taught something throughout your life through schools, universities, charismatic individuals etc, you have no reason to question the validity of what you're being taught. In fact, you are actively conditioned, consciously and subconsciously, to conform and accept rather than to question or debate.

Anyone who ever has made a radical, breakthrough discovery wasn't a conformist. Einstein, whom so many worship, apparently was a terrible student. What I observe here, however, is an absolute shaming of those who go against the grain, and against the status quo, if you will, of modern science. I often see the psychological disorder known as confirmation bias incorrectly thrown around here, but maybe a lot of those same amateur psychologists should learn about another phenomenon, known as conformity bias, as well.

Conformity bias is a tendency to behave similarly to the others in a group, even if doing so goes against your own judgment.

Blue Origin had another successful test a few days ago:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/apr/02/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-third-rocket-landing

Good news I guess, does this mean I will get same minute delivery one day through Amazon?

Exactly. That's why I'm here in the first place. I'm here to give the flat earth theory a fair shot and I'm not giving up on it just yet. (even tho I don't believe it fully after this thread)

Just like Steve Jobs said -- the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.

I question everything about the world and try my hardest to be different and challenge existing systems implemented in the world. I.e. are they REALLY the way to go?

Will never ever change.

11

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 06, 2016, 06:02:02 PM »

I'm sure you know there's a time in Western history when people believed in only one galaxy - our own, and never thought of any others. And "scientists" would base their theories on that. Now in the present age, do we even know if there's a multi-universe, and whether we should base our theories on 1 universe, or more? How about different dimensions, and exploration thereof? The fact is we haven't unlocked all there is to know and we seem primitive as a species at this point.

Another case is how before Einstein invented e=mc2, other scientists would have used other equations which weren't accurate. But hold on, who's to say that his equation is the final and 100% working? Now there is String Theory to compete against that idea, and even if so, do you honestly think that it will be 100% accurate and there won't be the next idea that's even better?

That's the point I was trying to make. I'm sure there are MANY examples of failed scientific theories that you can just google yourself. I'll stress again, I don't mean it's a grand conspiracy, it's just that people are on their high horse advocating what they learned in Universities sometimes but it's just based off theories that might not even be final. I mentioned Nikola Tesla because he summarized my point which you still don't understand...

Hmm, it seems we have both misunderstood each other then. I do fully agree that empirical knowledge (such as is gained from science) is never final or monolithic, truth changes with every new observation. It's just that while the knowledge changes, the method stays the same. And a change in knowledge also doesn't invalidate past knowledge, so long as it had been gained via the scientific method. The theories that used to be all-encompassing have just turned partial, but they're not wrong. Newtonian physics are still accurate for certain circumstances, they just aren't the most universal theory anymore.

If you look at science from the perspective of philosophy, it's obvious that it's knowledge can never be complete. But scientists aren't generally philosophers, so one cannot exactly blame them for not always realizing this. People say absurd things like "the universe runs on math", not because they are stupid or ignorant but because they look at the world only through the lens of empirical reality, but don't consider how that reality is formed in the first place. Nothing empirical will ever be 100% accurate, but it will still be the best guess and it will still work for predictions, which is all that is required.

Anyways, where does the FE fit in any of this? Many FE theorists don't even believe in science in the first place, and the limits of the scientific method certainly don't support the conclusion that the earth may be flat.

Another example from my own personal experience of this is my gf's dad telling me to not be vegetarian just because he studied nutrition in university 30 years ago and he thinks being vegetarian isn't good for the baby, and for my health either. So then where did the high population of india who are mostly vegetarians come from? and why do vegetarians live longer statistically?

PS. His answer is that he doesn't trust the internet.

I feel you. I get this discussion a lot from my parents as well. They always ate meat and they turned out alright, and experimenting is dangerous and this is very good meat etc. etc.

Good points, well I think that while the predictions based from the scientific method might be "a good guess" like you say -- whatever theory you present, it's almost always that the FlatEarthers will find a fault in it. For instance, imagine if you were a famous physicist, try to explain the round earth using physics. They will use my argument I presented earlier regarding Einstein etc; Or the classic one regarding the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. They will say that there has been wear and tear etc. Hence I still feel that Seeing is believing and if ordinary people went out of space like with Virgin Galactic we will really get our answer. Hopefully soon.

Many FE don't believe science because of my points as well. But that's also partially due to how our world is run right now. The elites won't tell you everything they know and seek to hide the truth on many occasions to keep us dumbed down. Knowledge is power. However regarding FE, I won't believe it now obviously until there is a legitimate map to indicate it. Or if there is an alternative theory to this map, please welcome to share it with me. Because there is no way that the flight makes any sense on this most accurate map Flat Earthers have put together after many decades... It starts to make more sense on a Round earth than even on a flat atlas surface (picture 2) as I showed on my original post.

That's not to say I still do not believe NASA fully as there is so much evidence of forgeries in terms of what they do. AFAIK not even one full-size earth photo wasn't photoshopped. 

Btw your parents seem nice compared to him, he is from the military, so you know how strict they are. I'm just lucky I can get away eating fish when I'm with him :/

12

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 06, 2016, 02:40:50 PM »

Most of the time, all you learn are theories that have no real application in the world.

I disagree. Care to give me some examples?

And even if it's "proven" to work, it might be proven based off another theory which is utter bull and speculation. A lot of people taught in universities think they know it all but they are spoon fed by government without them trying the theories for themselves and take it as fact. At the end of the day, science isn't final and is always evolving to something new/different.

I agree that it's utter bull and speculation to assume that there are secret theories behind every other known scientific theory and that it's the secret theories that do the predictions. Or was that not what you meant? I cannot quite make the connection between your first and second sentence here.
What is your basis for people in universities thinking they "know it all". How could the government be sure no-one tried the theory? What about all the actual engineers who use the theories in their everyday jobs? Are they all in on the conspiracy so they get the "true" theory?

And science itself is final. There is no alternative to the scientific method. The body of knowledge it generates is indeed always evolving.

As Nikola tesla once said - "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Tesla said it, so it must be true. I am sure there are problems with the scientific community where theories are speculated just to publish something. But on the whole, prediction still pan out, so obviously the structures do have some relation to reality.

Which is why I said perhaps the best job for it is an Astronaut so you can see for yourself if it's real. After all seeing is believing, rather than using "science" to calculate.

There is a weird tendency here to value direct observation above everything else. How is it that all photos, videos, witness reports etc. can easily be dismissed as fake, but seeing it once with your eyes would be absolute proof?

I'm sure you know there's a time in Western history when people believed in only one galaxy - our own, and never thought of any others. And "scientists" would base their theories on that. Now in the present age, do we even know if there's a multi-universe, and whether we should base our theories on 1 universe, or more? How about different dimensions, and exploration thereof? The fact is we haven't unlocked all there is to know and we seem primitive as a species at this point.

Another case is how before Einstein invented e=mc2, other scientists would have used other equations which weren't accurate. But hold on, who's to say that his equation is the final and 100% working? Now there is String Theory to compete against that idea, and even if so, do you honestly think that it will be 100% accurate and there won't be the next idea that's even better?

That's the point I was trying to make. I'm sure there are MANY examples of failed scientific theories that you can just google yourself. I'll stress again, I don't mean it's a grand conspiracy, it's just that people are on their high horse advocating what they learned in Universities sometimes but it's just based off theories that might not even be final. I mentioned Nikola Tesla because he summarized my point which you still don't understand...

Another example from my own personal experience of this is my gf's dad telling me to not be vegetarian just because he studied nutrition in university 30 years ago and he thinks being vegetarian isn't good for the baby, and for my health either. So then where did the high population of india who are mostly vegetarians come from? and why do vegetarians live longer statistically?

PS. His answer is that he doesn't trust the internet.

13

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 05, 2016, 06:45:55 PM »

Don't people put what they learned in school, or any other education program, to effective use in the real world all the time? People didn't start believing in the scientific method because they were convinced it was metaphysically sound (which it is), they believe it because it works. The prediction pans out, science affords us a limited look at the future. We use this literally every day in out lives.

Most of the time, all you learn are theories that have no real application in the world. And even if it's "proven" to work, it might be proven based off another theory which is utter bull and speculation. A lot of people taught in universities think they know it all but they are spoon fed by government without them trying the theories for themselves and take it as fact. At the end of the day, science isn't final and is always evolving to something new/different.

As Nikola tesla once said - "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality."

Which is why I said perhaps the best job for it is an Astronaut so you can see for yourself if it's real. After all seeing is believing, rather than using "science" to calculate.

14

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 05, 2016, 03:14:53 AM »

Been over a million times:

There is no flat earth map.

AEP isn't accurate for latitude.

So, what IS the shape of the earth?
ALL the arguments I have seen from you have been against the Heliocentric Globe.
Then you effectively claim that the earth is not flat, because if "There is no flat earth map", the earth is not flat!

So just what do you believe. You claim to be an earth shape agnostic, all of you arguments have been against the Globe!
You don't like gravitation, but the Globe must have gravitation to "work".
A Geocentric Globe model is simply not tenable! You simply cannot have the whole universe rotation around the earth - it doesn't.
What is left?
You seem like a "religious agnostic" who is always arguing against the existence of any Deity - in my book that equals an atheist!

What about a little consistence in your position?

I'm definitely not an atheist, I have an entire thread in the philosophy and religion forum about how creation pertains to flat earth theory. I'll regret telling you about it because I'm sure you'll go in there itching to knock down every point I've made.

My whole goal is to knock down assumption, propaganda and bias, and then see what's left of any theory. I've approached relativity, gravity, evolution, origin of life, and obviously earth's shape with the same methodology.

I've yet to determine what I believe the shape of the Earth to be. It would probably take personal experience for me to ever know 100% sure, without a doubt. Even if it's a video or a photo that is believed to be 99.9% proof, there's still that .1% chance. It's the arrogance of the lot of you, who go off second hand information, that really gets under my skin. None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists... Apologies if any of you do have those credentials, but most of you are just google and wikipedia.

I'm pretty much with you on that. But just this part sounds naive - "None of you are cartographers, none of you are astrophysicists, none of you are meteorologists or evolutionary biologists". What you learn in school is useless to the argument because of government control, it needs to be put into effective use in the real world, so for instance an Astronaut would be the better profession to see for yourself. Then again, they say all Astronauts took an oath to !lluminat!

PS. Whatever happened to Virgin Galactic? I haven't stayed in touch and want to know when they are going to send people up into space, those people should know the truth.

15

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 04, 2016, 03:37:25 PM »

Been over a million times:

There is no flat earth map.

AEP isn't accurate for latitude.

Well that's good to know, however really discredits the youtubers advocating the Flat earth flight path theories since the flat map is really just for looks. And simultaneously lets the global earth off the hook on the flight paths for this particular experiment.

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 04, 2016, 02:41:05 PM »

Thanks all for clearing that up a bit.

I used a different method than "Google earth" and used an Air Distance calculator website http://www.distancefromto.net/ and the findings are MUCH more similar to the hours from NZ website.

If this data is true -- and I believe the formula is based off the Global Earth due to "Great circle distance" -- how would it be possible for the Flat Earth??? This just proves the Globe earth apparently..

— The red line on the map indicates the Great Circle Distance.
— The black line is the Rhumb line between the two points.

The great-circle or orthodromic distance is the shortest distance between two points on the surface of a sphere, measured along the surface of the sphere (as opposed to a straight line through the sphere's interior).

I am working on a tablet now and can't easily do that, but I have Sydney to Santiago (similar route, flown by QANTAS) on the Globe and a similar Azimuthal Projection - the Gleason's Map. Here are the routes on the Gleason's MAP and Google Earth:

Nice data, so what's your conclusion on your case?

17

Flat Earth Theory / My Flight Path Experiment Findings on the Flat VS Globe Earth. Explain Why?

« on: April 04, 2016, 09:34:58 AM »

Hi all,

I've been getting into this flat earth thing after viewing the !lluminat! card which of course have predicted other things. So ofc this is very interesting to me.

I find the curvature argument hard to fault and I don't believe in NASA at all so I do see the validity in some of the points presented. So I told a friend and his point was that maybe you can use flights to measure it.

Being a designer, I put this to the test, measuring it in a design program and this is the result of my experiment. I used the website http://flightbookings.airnewzealand.co.nz and booked a flight from Auckland (NZ) to Buenos Aires (Argentina) and then one from Auckland to Shanghai.

So apparently, the flat earth model for this flight path does not add up as well as the globe one. Can anyone elaborate as to why?

Thanks & peace.



http://imgur.com/CqbNLnw