101

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earthers: Is the Van Allen radiation belt real?

« on: December 30, 2015, 02:16:44 AM »

   
Do you think the University of Iowa part of the conspiracy?

Students and instructors at universities are easily conned into performing uncompensated theoretical research, which NASA parades around to the public and Congress as evidence of legitimacy. It's a money saver. It means NASA doesn't have to do it themselves and associates them with a good name.

It's not just  University of Iowa,  it's many many more universities,  not just in North America, but around the world. 
So you really do believe they are all being conned by NASA.     Well,  not just NASA,  but every other Space Agency as well.   

Incredible.

102

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earthers: Is the Van Allen radiation belt real?

« on: December 29, 2015, 03:11:17 AM »

So the prediction and discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts  both preceded the founding of NASA.   
Explorer 1 was Launched in January 31 1958,  ( as part of the International Geophysical Year 1957)   NASA wasn't founded until later that year, July 29 1958,

Doesn't seem like a part of the NASA conspiracy if that's the case.

Do you think the University of Iowa part of the conspiracy?

103

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earthers: Is the Van Allen radiation belt real?

« on: December 29, 2015, 02:04:31 AM »

It is important to understand that the "discoveries" NASA makes are things which astronomers of the past long predicted under a Round Earth model.

The unanswered question is, ... 

If the Van Allen Belts don't exist,  what purpose does it serve the conspiracy to make them up?

The radiation belts were predicted long before NASA even existed, as a consequence of the magnetic fields. It serves NASA to confirm the existence of such things because it fits the model astronomers already believe. It makes it all more believable.

Not quite true,   James Van Allen  ( University of Iowa,  )  predicted them,  and designed the probes that detected the radiation belts in 1958,   the same year that NASA was founded.

So for your hypothesis to be true, all the associated scientific evidence and experimental data must have been faked.   

In a more general sense what scientific evidence,  if any,  does flat earth theory permit?  Is the University of Iowa in on the conspiracy as well?

104

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earthers: Is the Van Allen radiation belt real?

« on: December 28, 2015, 02:38:56 PM »

It is important to understand that the "discoveries" NASA makes are things which astronomers of the past long predicted under a Round Earth model.

The unanswered question is, ... 

If the Van Allen Belts don't exist,  what purpose does it serve the conspiracy to make them up?   

105

Flat Earth Community / Re: Do any flat earthers take me seriously?

« on: December 22, 2015, 01:56:13 AM »

Wow,  talk about ironic... 

Some guy comes up with an utterly ridiculous idea,  totally unsupported by all the physical evidence,  defends it vigorously against attacks by skeptical unbelievers, and maintains that everyone except him has been brainwashed by a massive global conspiracy...

Is anyone else seeing some parallels here... 

Personally,  I have exorcised all my computers with holy water,  and sure enough it killed the spirits,  what better proof do you need.

Oh, one more thing,  be sure to brand anyone who disagrees or presents evidence to the contrary as a paid Government shill. 

106

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 20, 2015, 07:35:31 AM »

Thanks in anticipation to anyone out there reading this.......because, I reason, surely there must be some rock solid proof of the existence of a satellite especially by the people that put them out there.....?!

The rock solid proof is that co-ordinates transmitted by the GPS satellites themselves shows they are in orbit.   Try pointing your Satellite TV dish in some other direction and see what happens.   You can use multiple dishes to triangulate the satellite positions.

As far as pictures of satellites from space,  there have been numerous shuttle missions to repair and overhaul satellites,  but I guess you think those are all somehow faked. 

Here's a 1992 mission to repair Intelsat VI     there are plenty of others.

107

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 14, 2015, 02:22:14 AM »

Thanks Sandokhan,  interesting reading as always,  but I'm confused as to why you think the moon could not cause the solar eclipse.

The photographs taken in Antarctica by Fred Bruenjes, during the November 2003 total solar eclipse show us that the Moon COULD NOT POSSIBLY cause the solar eclipse.

His detailed trip report is here.
http://www.moonglow.net/eclipse/2003nov23/

108

Flat Earth Community / Re: Thousands of Apollo 11 Moon Photos

« on: October 10, 2015, 06:53:25 AM »

It's the reseau plate holder frame for the Hasselblad camera,  the reseau plate provides the fiducial marks,  the little cross hairs you see on the image. 

You can read more detail here.   http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html

 

109

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Thoughts on Southern Lights?

« on: October 10, 2015, 03:12:25 AM »

Aurora Australis a few nights ago as seen from Tasmania.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10153177231478450.1073742003.266724958449&type=3

110

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 10, 2015, 01:11:29 AM »

It is very easy to debunk the fake "Earth" from space photographs.

So,  how, exactly did you debunk the millions of full disk images taken over the last 40 years?   

Let's suppose your physics is correct,  how does that debunk the photographic evidence.

111

Flat Earth Theory / Re: EVIDENCE

« on: October 09, 2015, 11:52:18 AM »

They really don't have much if space research is discounted.

Satellites have  never been discounted by flat earth theorists,  and it's easy to prove they are where they say they are.  GPS systems are a good example,  The American, European and Russian GPS systems all rely on the earth being a globe. 

Satellite TV  transmitter locations can be easily triangulated,  and guess what they are all in geostationary orbits over the equator.

Weather satellites transmit real time weather data that can be received and decoded by anybody.   

Game over.  The evidence cannot be refuted.

112

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Himawari-8

« on: October 09, 2015, 11:47:30 AM »

The only thing new about Himawari 8 is that it's high resolution full colour with fast update times,  geostationary weather satellites are nothing new,  they have been in orbit since the 1970's  taking full disk images of the earth from multiple positions every day,  day in day out for decades.   

The Russians also have geostationary satellites that have high resolution full colour imaging.  But they seem to like weird false colour infra red images,  maybe it's better for weather predictions in infra red.

http://eng.ntsomz.ru/electro
http://eng.ntsomz.ru/electro/el_03042014

Then there's the European and Indian versions,  not to forget little old NASA struggling to keep up.   

113

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible

« on: October 06, 2015, 10:41:16 PM »

A globe.

You no longer have that option: the faint young sun and the comets' tail paradoxes tell us that the age of the heliocentrical planetary system is much younger than previously thought.

I will follow up those links and see where it leads,  I always enjoy reading your posts, and let us see where the discussion leads.

But,  before embarking on the discussion of whether or not a conspiracy exists,  it should be recognized at the outset, that it it not logically possible to disprove conspiracy,  since any evidence of disproof can be considered part of the conspiracy.

So,  since, theoretically, conspiracy can never be disproved, only ever proved, is it any wonder that conspiracy theories tend to multiply and persist.

In the case of the flat earth conspiracy,  we face the same conundrum. 

Argument from personal incredulity,  might be invalid most of the time,  maybe this is one time it really is a valid argument.

114

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Scope of Conspiracy Seems Implausible

« on: October 06, 2015, 11:04:28 AM »

A secret between two or three or a hundred people for a year or two is easily kept.
Thousands of people over the course of hundreds of years? I can't believe that is even possible.

It's not possible,  because there is no conspiracy to hide the shape of the earth.  It is what it is.  A globe.   There are those who choose to believe it's flat, and good luck to them,  everyone is entitled to their own version of reality.

Where it get's interesting, is the convoluted thought processes required to maintain the belief in flat earth, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 

Conspiracies are real enough,  but flat earth isn't a real one.

115

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is the Advantage of a Globe Theory?

« on: September 29, 2015, 06:07:44 AM »

You and I have butt heads before about being in the Navy and not believing in a round Earth. Do you realize the fire control radar, on the Sea Sparrow GMLS, has a surface line of sight out past 30 nautical miles with a 2 degree pencil beam? In fact, It can actually track almost double that range, but you didn't hear that from me. That certainly would not be possible on a round Earth. I myself actually worked on a guided missile launching system that it's radar had a surface range of over 20+ nautical miles and that was back in the early 70's. You can believe the Earth is round all you want, but out to sea it is definitely flat as it can be.

Here's a question for Yendor, the guided missile expert,  why do Exocet missiles fly so low?   
Can that fire control radar detect an Exocet flying at 1-2M 1000kph+ at 20+ nautical miles out?

116

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?

« on: September 25, 2015, 07:29:45 AM »

The other barrier to mass tourism to Antarctica,  apart from the sheer inhospitability of the place,  is distance.   

Here is a map of great circle distances to various places around Antarctica.    To travel to the South Pole from Hobart you firstly have a 3443 Km ocean voyage, or flight to get to Casey Station,  then you have a further  2647 km to go to get to the South Pole.   There are no roads,  just thousands of km of ice and blizzards.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/149172/circle_distances.pdf

The other thing people don't seem to realise is the size of Antarctica. At 14.2 million square km,  It's twice the size of Australia,  and roughly the size of the United States and Mexico combined,   the  hike to the South Pole from Casey Station would be about same distance as walking from Dallas Texas to New York,  but with no roads,  just ice, and blizzards,   no people.

117

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?

« on: September 24, 2015, 09:21:47 AM »

What I find odd is the fact that there aren't tons and tons of people trying to cross the antarctic. Many people are up for a challenge as can be seen by the large numbers of people attempting to climb mount Everest. Why are there not the same numbers of people attempting to cross the antarctic. You would think there would be some sort of "pride prize" for people who climb mount Everest and cross the antarctic. You show me one guy here with a story, or an other guy there, to me there just isn't enough people trying it. And add that to the fact that all tourism to the South Pole emanates from South America. Nah my red flag is up on this one. Something weird is going on. Show me a guy who enters antarctica from the australian side and goes south and only south and makes it to Amundsen-Scott base where the official south pole is and I will be more convinced.

The only way you will ever be convinced is to go there yourself.   The only weird thing going on is in your mind. 

I suspect you have no real concept of how hostile the Antarctic environment really is,  think of six months without seeing the sun,  howling blizzards,  temperatures so cold you would die in minutes.  The lowest temperature recorded at Vostok station was -89.2C  or -128.6F,  the annual average temperature of the Antarctic interior is -57C.    And you wonder why people aren't queuing up en-masse to go there....  I think I know why.

Here are some webcams that the Australian Antarctic Division maintains.   
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/webcams

118

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?

« on: September 23, 2015, 04:13:09 PM »

Here is another transcript of an interview with Jon Johnason,  he makes it quite clear that no-one needs permission to overfly over the South Pole.
 
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s1009424.htm

119

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Has anyone ever flown a plane across Antarctica?

« on: September 23, 2015, 01:38:16 PM »

So yes the pilot could be a shill.

I can see you didn't read the article,  the pilot wasn't authorised for the flight,  he kept his plans to fly to the pole a secret, and upset the people at McMurdo who refused to provide him the fuel for his return flight,  he ended up broke.  ABC South Australia did an interview with him.  The officials at McMurdo offered to send him home on a routine flight and send his plane by ship, and then bill him for it.  He refused,  and Polly Vacher,  lent him 400 liters of avgas to be able to fly back to NZ.   http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/content/2003/s1089290.htm

Others have flown uninvited to the South Pole,   Dick Smith did it in 1988,  he flew a helicopter from North Pole to South Pole.  They interviewed him about the Johannsen flight.   Here is a excerpt from the transcript.  Very critical of those McMurdo Officals with a stick up their arse.

ALISON CALDWELL: But isn't it the case, though, that if the Americans decide to sell Jon Johanson some fuel, that any adventurer might just decide I am going to try and fly to the Antarctic because if I run out of fuel, I'll get some from the Americans?

DICK SMITH: Well, see they can't stop anyone from flying there. It's international territory and they end up with a duty of care. If they put a base, if they put a hotel on the South Col of Everest, they'd constantly have climbers knocking on their door saying can you help me and they'd have to because it's called a duty of care.

Now the Americans have built these huge bases in Antarctica for nothing other than political reasons and then they're astonished when adventurers, which will always go to Antarctica, they have since Mawson's and Shackleton's time, that adventurers occasional ask for help.

Well, it's just part of being there. If you want the political kudos of having a huge base mounted at the South Pole, you'll end up with adventurers calling in from time to time. Bad luck. Take the base away if you don't want it to happen.

In general the Antarctic Treaty prohibits military and commercial activity.  It's not "locked down" as such.

120

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Pros and Cons for a flat Earth

« on: September 23, 2015, 06:18:16 AM »

What makes you think they are not equivalent? The Ancient Babylonians were Flat Earthers and could predict cosmic events to precision.

I'm not sure that's a relevant connection.   After all you can make predictions of eclipses and other cosmic events without referring to the shape of the earth. 

The Babylonians didn't have GPS, Satellite TV,  weather satellites.  Scientific Research Stations at the South Pole.  They hadn't even seen the southern skies,  and, If they did,  I'm pretty sure the Babylonians would have concluded the earth was a globe,  as the Greeks did.

Many modern FE'ers support the bi-polar model, so criticisms about stars in the south and Antarctic bases are moot.

NASA's fraudulence is well documented. If the Babylonians had access to all of the sketchy and questionable errors in NASA's media, they would conclude that NASA is a fake, too.

Round Earth astronomy is hokey and appalling. Today if you go onto NASA's Lunar Eclipse website, the method given for finding when the next eclipse will occur involves looking at the Ancient Babylonian Saros Cycle, a method created by Flat Earthers. Pathetic.

I was hoping you'd bring the bi-polar model into the discussion,  I've yet to hear how a flat earth can have two poles of rotation.   Geometrically it makes no sense to me. 

The other unanswered question for the bipolar model, is where is the edge?   I did read Sandokhan's post with pictures of solar eclipses in Antarctica,  but that's not the edge.    The edge must surround the flat earth, and therefore be reachable by sailing in just about any direction,  yet no-one has ever found it?

We can discuss NASA another day.