The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: OBAMA IS A LIZARD on January 10, 2018, 06:10:14 PM
-
From what I've seen, most evidence us "Globalists" attempt to provide is discarded. For example, pictures of the curve, pictures from space, and a lot of highly proven scientific theories are thrown out the window.
So to this I kindly ask, what would It take to convince you the earth is round?
-
From what I've seen, most evidence us "Globalists" attempt to provide is discarded. For example, pictures of the curve, pictures from space, and a lot of highly proven scientific theories are thrown out the window.
So to this I kindly ask, what would It take to convince you the earth is round?
I personally adopted the term "globe-tard." Seeing as you can still be a "globalist" - think Alex Jones, not Samuel Birley Rowbotham - on a flat earth, irrespective of the actual shape of the earth, it seems like a misnomer to call us "globalists."
I mean, for example. I could be living on a flat earth, but also subscribe to the notion that we should move towards a unified, global society. I'm a flat-tard, but I'm also a "globalist" in that scenario.
Conversely, I could be living on a round earth, but also reject the notion that we should move towards a unified, global society. I reject "globalism," but I'm... a "globalist?"
See what I mean? Anyway. Language is fun.
-
I think a Flat Earther would need to see the curve with their own eyes. Its very likely they will say that their helmet/window is lensing the light to make it look round. If so, its impossible to convince a Flat Earther the Earth is Round.
-
From what I've seen, most evidence us "Globalists" attempt to provide is discarded. For example, pictures of the curve, pictures from space, and a lot of highly proven scientific theories are thrown out the window.
So to this I kindly ask, what would It take to convince you the earth is round?
The fact that nobody has fallen off
-
From what I've seen, most evidence us "Globalists" attempt to provide is discarded. For example, pictures of the curve, pictures from space, and a lot of highly proven scientific theories are thrown out the window.
So to this I kindly ask, what would It take to convince you the earth is round?
The fact that nobody has fallen off
Have a few days off to review the rules.
-
This may me a little costy. But I'm pretty sure you can do this: Try sending a weather balloon up to the highest altitude you can (do it higher than 40,000 feet) and stream video feed from a camera.
-
This may me a little costy. But I'm pretty sure you can do this: Try sending a weather balloon up to the highest altitude you can (do it higher than 40,000 feet) and stream video feed from a camera.
They've got this one covered actually.
https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs
Almost commendable. It's another "Heads we win, tails you lose" argument from the Flat Earthers
FE: "Look out your window. It looks flat. That's evidence of a flat earth"
RE: "That is just the scale of the earth, you can't perceive the curve at ground level but if you get high enough you can. Look at this photo/video"
FE: "That's from a space agency. FAKE!"
RE: "OK. This one is not fake, this is from some hobbyist who sent up a weather balloon and you can see from the images on the ground there is no lens distortion"
FE: "Curvature results from the fact that at the edge of the atmosphere we are looking down at the illuminated circular area of the sun's light."
RE: "What? You literally just said that the first image was fake! Now you're saying you DO expect to see a curve?"
It's quite hard to argue with people who think like that. Some people sign up here and are genuinely interested in the arguments. Those people probably can be persuaded with logic and reason that FE theory is bunk. To answer your original question though, others are so entrenched that I don't think it matters what you throw at them, they will always find a way to deflect or deny or ignore the things which prove them wrong. If you understand a bit about confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance then you'll see it at work a lot on here.
-
us "Globalists"
I personally adopted the term "globe-tard." Seeing as you can still be a "globalist"
You're looking for globularists. It still carries a negative connotation among some FE'ers, but it's largely regarded as a neutral term.
-
If I could get a on flight high over Antarctica and clearly see the terrain, and know that for sure we are going in a straight line.
If you could take me from point a to point b, directly in a straight line over the south pole that would convince me.
On a globe that's easily done. On a flat earth, those 2 points should be the farthest apart two points on earth.
-
You can buy a flight on Qantas 63 from Sydney to Johannesburg, it doesn't go over the pole itself, but you can see Antarctica and the travel time contradicts the unipolar flat Earth model.
Here is someone's edited video of such a trip.
https://youtu.be/UaIiw0uKE-s
-
If you've got the money you can go to the South Pole itself.
https://www.discover-the-world.co.uk/destinations/antarctica-holidays/south-pole-adventure
-
You can buy a flight on Qantas 63 from Sydney to Johannesburg, it doesn't go over the pole itself, but you can see Antarctica and the travel time contradicts the unipolar flat Earth model.
Here is someone's edited video of such a trip.
https://youtu.be/UaIiw0uKE-s
But to them that's not true, they'll dismiss it as fake, not give a logical explanation. Maybe say it's CGI or part of some random glacier. They honestly will just keep dismissing all information you throw at them, even if it's right in front of their eyes.
-
But to them that's not true, they'll dismiss it as fake, not give a logical explanation. Maybe say it's CGI or part of some random glacier. They honestly will just keep dismissing all information you throw at them, even if it's right in front of their eyes.
I appreciate this video. This is on the right track towards the experiments that would be convincing. If we can get point A and B to be directly in a straight line across the south pole. Make sure it's repeatable, documented, peer reviewed. Totally agree with this approach, so let's keep flying, and keep finding videos like this. Thanks.
-
But to them that's not true, they'll dismiss it as fake, not give a logical explanation. Maybe say it's CGI or part of some random glacier. They honestly will just keep dismissing all information you throw at them, even if it's right in front of their eyes.
I appreciate this video. This is on the right track towards the experiments that would be convincing. If we can get point A and B to be directly in a straight line across the south pole. Make sure it's repeatable, documented, peer reviewed. Totally agree with this approach, so let's keep flying, and keep finding videos like this. Thanks.
The airlines don't fly such a route. Two main reasons, the most important simply being the fact that route isn't a direct route for very much traffic. The second is safety reasons, as if the plane was to go down over Antarctica, it would be quite problematic for both rescue parties and passengers.
I will however go look and see, I thought there were some flights logged and more over the pole, but it's been a while. We have a somewhat surprising amount of foot traffic. But air traffic is minimal.
-
Aircraft can fly over the pole if they equip with survival gear, I believe.
A chartered flight from Tahiti to Johannesburg would be very close to directly over the pole, and is a simple matter of money away from happening.
-
This may me a little costy. But I'm pretty sure you can do this: Try sending a weather balloon up to the highest altitude you can (do it higher than 40,000 feet) and stream video feed from a camera.
They've got this one covered actually.
https://wiki.tfes.org/High_Altitude_Photographs
Almost commendable. It's another "Heads we win, tails you lose" argument from the Flat Earthers
FE: "Look out your window. It looks flat. That's evidence of a flat earth"
RE: "That is just the scale of the earth, you can't perceive the curve at ground level but if you get high enough you can. Look at this photo/video"
FE: "That's from a space agency. FAKE!"
RE: "OK. This one is not fake, this is from some hobbyist who sent up a weather balloon and you can see from the images on the ground there is no lens distortion"
FE: "Curvature results from the fact that at the edge of the atmosphere we are looking down at the illuminated circular area of the sun's light."
RE: "What? You literally just said that the first image was fake! Now you're saying you DO expect to see a curve?"
It's quite hard to argue with people who think like that. Some people sign up here and are genuinely interested in the arguments. Those people probably can be persuaded with logic and reason that FE theory is bunk. To answer your original question though, others are so entrenched that I don't think it matters what you throw at them, they will always find a way to deflect or deny or ignore the things which prove them wrong. If you understand a bit about confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance then you'll see it at work a lot on here.
I would just like to present the fact that flat-earthers ignored this post.
-
But to them that's not true, they'll dismiss it as fake, not give a logical explanation. Maybe say it's CGI or part of some random glacier. They honestly will just keep dismissing all information you throw at them, even if it's right in front of their eyes.
I appreciate this video. This is on the right track towards the experiments that would be convincing. If we can get point A and B to be directly in a straight line across the south pole. Make sure it's repeatable, documented, peer reviewed. Totally agree with this approach, so let's keep flying, and keep finding videos like this. Thanks.
The airlines don't fly such a route. Two main reasons, the most important simply being the fact that route isn't a direct route for very much traffic. The second is safety reasons, as if the plane was to go down over Antarctica, it would be quite problematic for both rescue parties and passengers.
I will however go look and see, I thought there were some flights logged and more over the pole, but it's been a while. We have a somewhat surprising amount of foot traffic. But air traffic is minimal.
http://www.royalaviationmuseum.com/2596/first-flight-over-antarctica/
-
But to them that's not true, they'll dismiss it as fake, not give a logical explanation. Maybe say it's CGI or part of some random glacier. They honestly will just keep dismissing all information you throw at them, even if it's right in front of their eyes.
I appreciate this video. This is on the right track towards the experiments that would be convincing. If we can get point A and B to be directly in a straight line across the south pole. Make sure it's repeatable, documented, peer reviewed. Totally agree with this approach, so let's keep flying, and keep finding videos like this. Thanks.
The airlines don't fly such a route. Two main reasons, the most important simply being the fact that route isn't a direct route for very much traffic. The second is safety reasons, as if the plane was to go down over Antarctica, it would be quite problematic for both rescue parties and passengers.
I will however go look and see, I thought there were some flights logged and more over the pole, but it's been a while. We have a somewhat surprising amount of foot traffic. But air traffic is minimal.
Also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route?wprov=sfti1
-
This may me a little costy. But I'm pretty sure you can do this: Try sending a weather balloon up to the highest altitude you can (do it higher than 40,000 feet) and stream video feed from a camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4
-
This may me a little costy. But I'm pretty sure you can do this: Try sending a weather balloon up to the highest altitude you can (do it higher than 40,000 feet) and stream video feed from a camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAcp3BFBYw4
Not only does your video not have any relevant information, nor explanation, posting a video without even a cursory explanation isn't all that useful. All I see is the spin stopping. Why? Who knows, I don't know the design of the rocket. Maybe the spinning stopped because it finally fired some manner of stabilization once it was out of atmo. It certainly didn't explode or anything similar to what you might expect when hitting an object described as 'the dome'.
-
When it stops look at the side video cameras and tell me what shape is the land the cameras reflect?
Looks flat like a pancake to me.
Listen to the sound as it almost gets to the end.
The rockets starts to change sounds like it is under water or something.
Strange alright.
If someone wants to track flight paths that's super easy.
https://www.flightradar24.com/6.9,-288.63/2
If you click on a plane it will give you a number.
They are coded. If you put in the code into google search you will find another air traffic control sight that will give you just that plane you singled out and you can watch the whole flight from start to finish.
I used this site to find out that commercial airliners are spraying chem trails as well.
I see a chemi being sprayed I run into the house and look at the web site and them track done the code and find out what plane it is.
To say you don't fly over Antarctica because no one will come and rescue a crashed plane is off the charts wacky.
If a plane goes down in the middle of the Pacific ocean and everyone survives do you really think you have a chance of being rescued?
Maybe if you crashed right beside a coast guard ship there is a chance. But my money is on everyone dies.
-
To say you don't fly over Antarctica because no one will come and rescue a crashed plane is off the charts wacky.
Says the man talking about chemtrails...
If a plane goes down in the middle of the Pacific ocean and everyone survives do you really think you have a chance of being rescued?
Maybe if you crashed right beside a coast guard ship there is a chance. But my money is on everyone dies.
True, but with some routes there is no choice but to go over an ocean.
There is literally a research base at the south pole. You can visit it if you have the money (quite a lot, admittedly).
-
When it stops look at the side video cameras and tell me what shape is the land the cameras reflect?
Looks flat like a pancake to me.
Listen to the sound as it almost gets to the end.
The rockets starts to change sounds like it is under water or something.
Strange alright.
I mean, we have no idea on the viewing angle of that camera, nor indeed anything about it. If we presented the exact same thing to you guys, but it showed a curve, you would simply cry foul. At least show some standard of evidence to what you're posting.
You mean the sound of the rocket changes as the atmosphere gets thinner? Why does this surprise you? Why would you expect it NOT to? Less air is going to have odd effects on sound. That's just fact. Of course it's going to sound strange, we don't exactly walk around in near airless environments much.
-
The rocket pictured in that video was setting, or attempting to set, a height record for an amateur rocket. I believe it attained 73 miles. You can work out the distance to the horizon, compared with that distance at lesser heights, if you want. Or others can work it out for you.
Was it "high enough to see the curve"? I don't know. But there's plenty of other proof of it from 50+ years of orbital spaceflight....
-
To say you don't fly over Antarctica because no one will come and rescue a crashed plane is off the charts wacky.
Says the man talking about chemtrails...
If a plane goes down in the middle of the Pacific ocean and everyone survives do you really think you have a chance of being rescued?
Maybe if you crashed right beside a coast guard ship there is a chance. But my money is on everyone dies.
True, but with some routes there is no choice but to go over an ocean.
There is literally a research base at the south pole. You can visit it if you have the money (quite a lot, admittedly).
If you don't believe in chem trails then why does Harvard University have a course they teach all about Geoengineering?
https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/
Track 1: Advancing Science and Technology
Harvard's Solar Geoengineering Research Program will develop methods that might reduce the risks and improve the efficacy of solar geoengineering when compared to the injection of sulfates into the stratosphere, which has been the standard proposal since the 1970s. Specific examples include:
Develop novel solid aerosols that might:
reduce or even reverse ozone loss by neutralizing stratospheric chlorine,
have optical properties that greatly reduce stratospheric heating compared to sulfate aerosol.
Develop methods to accurately estimate the radiative forcing from solar geoengineering using existing observing systems and, where appropriate, perform conceptual development of new observing systems.
Develop field experiments that could enable in situ tests of chemistry and aerosol dynamics.
So you mean to say airliners will spend thousands of extra dollars on fuel so they can fly a route not over water because rescuing them in the event of a crash would be easier?
And then they don't fly over Antarctica because its to hard to rescue a crashed plane?
Which one is it? Do they prefer flying over water or land?
-
They prefer the shortest route.
Which if you look at flight paths projected on to a map are curved.
Because we live on a globe.
-
They prefer the shortest route.
Which if you look at flight paths projected on to a map are curved.
Because we live on a globe.
Found these two sets of rules they are obliged to follow.
VFR and IFR. VFR stands for Visual Flight Rules and IFR means Instrument Flight Rules.
Depending on the weather conditions a pilot may opt for one set of rules or the other.
One can google them if they are interested .
-
I was admittedly being somewhat simplistic. There are other factors. But they generally go as directly as they can because it's all about efficiency.