Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tumeni

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63  Next >
I was talking about the ones you claim/suggest were silenced before you learned of them. I thought that was clear from the quote. Without learning of them, you don't actually know if there were any.

So you only have two that you can name. Y/N

Any others are pure speculation. Y/N

How many were silenced before I was able to learn of them? I don't know.

How do you know that ANY were "silenced", then?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Curvature investigation
« on: September 30, 2019, 11:08:10 AM »
Looking out from onshore, at one or more ships or boats, the observer can only be, at any one time, in one of three states;

A. Below the highest point of the boat or ship
B. Level with that point
C. Above that point.

For an observation from below the highest point of the ship, then regardless of whether the water is flat or curved, the sightline will always meet the sky, since it will always be an upward sightline, away from the water.

For an observation where the observer is level with the top of the ship, the sightline will, again, meet the sky, not the water, whether flat or curved.

The situation where we actually see the difference is where the observer is above the highest point of the boat or ship. There can only be three possible "views" of a ship on the sea, when an observer is above the upper structure of the ship.  Let's call them Type 1, 2 and 3

Type 1 - you can only see water behind the ship. The upper structure of the ship is below the horizon.

Type 2 - the waterline of the ship is below the horizon, but the upper structure is above it.

Type 3 - the waterline is at the horizon, and the upper structure is above it.

I don't think there's any other options, unless you invent a flying ship.

You can either -  see the various types where they are at various distances from your observation point, or -  you can (try to) persuade a chosen ship to remain at anchor, while you climb or descend.   

You can see all three in scenario A (fixed observer height, various ship distances) in YouTuber Chang.'s video here -

Title "Flat Earth Observations", uploaded 11 Sep 2019. Channel "Chang."

Type 1 is at 3m34s, Type 2 is at 3m10s, and a selection of Type 3s in the first 3 minutes or so. All 3 types are shown after the 4 minute mark.

Here's Type 1, 2 and 3 drawn freehand, along the top of this graphic.

I can illustrate a side view of Type 1 on a flat sea, with sightline (green line). Can anyone illustrate a side view of Type 2 or 3, assuming a flat sea? Can anyone fill in the question marks?

I can illustrate all three, and how the sightlines work with them, on a globe, and these are shown along the bottom row of the graphic.

Can anyone fill in the question marks with the appropriate diagrams for a theoretical Flat Sea Type 2 and Type 3?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« on: September 26, 2019, 06:11:04 PM »
The point is blindingly obvious to those who can see .
OK, well humour me.
What is your point?

Yes, humour us both, and spell it out. What is your point?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Curvature investigation
« on: September 19, 2019, 06:45:34 AM »
Not an explanation, but a method for investigation;

Find a coastal location with a hill or two, somewhere you can climb to be above any passing ships, but still be within a few km of the shore.

Observe ships. Note your sightlines to those ships, or photograph them, particularly noting any where their masts or superstructures appear above the horizon, where you see sky behind and beyond.

Geometry dictates that if you are looking from a location above the ship, your sightline through the top of the ship, IF the seas are flat, must meet the sea beyond. It cannot miss it. Your sightline will be a descending sightline, in relation to the presumed flat plane below

Plug your heights and distances into any right-triangle calculator to calculate the point at which the sightline should meet the sea

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: September 18, 2019, 05:51:58 PM »
Why is it so difficult to admit that nasa never did a trial launching of an unmanned lunar module , from its launchpad table , away from the surface of the moon ?

I don't see any need to "admit" to it, any more than I need to admit that there were no trial runs in other risky human endeavours.

Land speed records, water speed records, air speed records - all got there by incrementally getting nearer and nearer the goal, until someone stepped out beyond that.

I don't see this any different. NASA was under a budget, and under a timescale to complete the human landing before 31 Dec 1969, directed by their President. They did the incremental stuff, and designed the process of leaving the lunar surface with due care and attention to detail.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Post Your Favorite NASA ISS Fails
« on: September 18, 2019, 05:40:57 PM »
The RE response to this one seems to be "Hairspray doesn't prove that it's fakery."

My response is - hairspray doesn't work on jewellery.

With any of the videos of the female ISS crew, watch the necklaces. That's all you need do. Discussion about hairspray becomes moot after this.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: September 06, 2019, 04:51:31 PM »
It was incredibly easy to get men to the moon and even easier to bring them back . Did nasa ever do a trial run - launching a rocket from the moon to rendezvous with an orbiting spacecraft ?

Yes. Trial runs got progressively nearer to the actual Apollo 11 experience in Apollo 1 through 10, the last of which descended to within a few miles of the surface, then returned to dock with the CM. All Apollo 11 had to do in addition to this was land and take off. 

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: September 06, 2019, 04:48:52 PM »
Of course, there's an alternative explanation for why NASA is being rapidly scaled down, and why they make less and less big news. Retiring it to obscurity is probably the best move at this point.

It may not be "big news", but it's news that matters for sections of the scientific community. Have a browse at NASA's Technical Reports Server someday.

And bear in mind what the first A in NASA stands for....

Flat Earth Community / Re: Moon Landing 50th Anniversary.
« on: September 06, 2019, 04:45:20 PM »
50 years ago it was easy to get to the moon - now we can't get out of low earth orbit.

We can, but nobody is putting up the money to do so with manned missions. Most everyone has other priorities.

"Not trying to" is different from "can't" ...

The goal is to attach a small camera to the outside of a solid state fuel rocket 3 miles into the air that will allow me to see that the earth is indeed flat.

You can verify or deny this from the ground, from as little as 200m above sea level, by carrying out your own observational experiments. Shall I tell you how?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Van Allen Radiation Belt
« on: July 08, 2019, 07:22:40 AM »
6. One of the articles said Allen Radiation Belt is 100 billion times more effective then hiroshima. No human can go beyond low earth orbit.

To suggest that we're limited to LEO BECAUSE of the VABs is to admit the Earth as a sphere. An orbit is a path around a sphere or globe. Once someone admits that LEO is a "thing", then they have, by implication, admitted Earth as a globe or sphere as a thing.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 08, 2019, 07:18:22 AM »
You could repeat Norwood's method of the 1600s, and take a 'chain' of known length. Walk between the two cities you select, stretching the chain, one length at a time, counting the number of chains between the two cities, and making allowances for gradient as you go.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 04, 2019, 09:09:14 AM »
What makes you think that the Nibiru community aren't using coronagraphs to try and find Nibiru?

So you agree that they have not actually found it, then?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 03, 2019, 05:25:46 PM »
....  usually stays hidden due to the sun's effect on the sky.

What "effect" would that be?

Why does that effect only occur outwith times of solar eclipse?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 03, 2019, 02:51:34 PM »
RE also asserts that there is an object near the sun that is casting a shadow.

Where is it asserted, and by whom, that there is an object (other than Earth) doing this?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Extent of the "Conspiracy"
« on: July 01, 2019, 06:41:32 AM »
Maybe America took the lead and stood firmly about certain opinions and most other countries kinda just went along.

America was in the process of being colonised in the 1600s. Folk like Norwood, in the UK, were already taking steps to measure the circumference of the globe.

Who would be likely to have "stood firm" in America at this time?

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something
« on: June 26, 2019, 05:37:41 AM »
My sole purpose in coming to this site is to provide people who are trying to verify the world situation for themselves with some information that I can paraphrase to help them achieve their goals faster.

What reason(s) can you provide for people to use your paraphrased information? All you have attracted here is bewilderment at what you're trying to say, or disagreement with what you say.

What qualifications do you have to set yourself up as a reference source?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Is Boston Dynamics fake?
« on: June 25, 2019, 02:40:10 PM »
Well, what a coincidence. Boston Dynamics prepares to launch first commercial dog ...
Jesus, have we descended to the level of copy-pasting links to automatically generated youtube "news" stories with a text-to-speech "newsreader"?

No, the nice bot lady saying it's totally happening does not make it sound likely.

Is this moderation or personal contribution?

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something
« on: June 25, 2019, 07:05:04 AM »
Yes, it's obviously different from what you know.

So what evidence do you have that might support what you say?

Of course I know this, but I still choose to relay it to you.

You know... what?

They look too far away, which causes them to look round.

They "look round" because they ARE round. When you look at them with the naked eye, when you look at them with binoculars or telescopes, when someone sends a remote spacecraft to orbit or land, when someone sends a manned craft, or places a satellite within viewing range...

There's nothing wrong with you not accepting it. I'm just Posting it to you. It doesn't matter if you make any comments.But others may do the research.

Research into WHAT?  Exactly what research have YOU done into square planets?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63  Next >