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 - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46  Next >
1
What do you mean that there is no evidence? A trashy looking space ship is the evidence.

You have provided zero compelling evidence that this space ship is actually made of state-of-the-art space-age tin foil, tape, and cardboard paper, or whatever you guys are mumbling about.

You guys are literally arguing "it only looks that way...", which is a failing argument that admits that it does look trashy.

"It only looks and seems that way" is your entire Round Earth Theory.

A trashy looking space ship is your evidence? Are you the arbiter of trashiness and space worthiness thereof? What credentials do you have to make such determinations without evidence? And conversely, if it were sleek and to your aesthetic pleasings, would it then be considered evidence of actually being used to land on the moon?

The wiki states:

"Upon close inspection one might notice that the Lunar Lander, a supposed six billion dollar hallmark of American engineering, is in truth made out of cardboard paper, a few old curtain rods, a roll of roofing paper, some floodlight holders, gold foil, and lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all together on the hostile environment of the moon's surface."

The burden of proof is on FE that the lander is, in truth, made out of things you mentioned:
- cardboard paper
- a few old curtain rods
- a roll of roofing paper
- some floodlight holders
- gold foil
- scotch tape

And it's laughable that you use quotes from users of the old forum as some sort of testimonial evidence to support the baseless claims. C'mon, get real. Would you accept this type of a wiki entry, just straight up assertions with no evidence, if it was anti your belief system? I think not. TFES can do better. Here it is not. You should really clean up things like this if you want to be taken seriously. It's embarrassing.

2
Interesting thread, but you guys have provided zero evidence for us to consider and discuss on this matter. Are we supposed to discuss what you "think"? Try to come up with actual content to consider.

How ironic coming from you. Evidence has been provided, to the contrary, it's the wiki article lacking evidence. In fact, the only evidence provided is a photograph of the lunar module, and we all know what the FAQ says about photographs. Here's a quick refresher.
Quote
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered.
How hypocritical of the wiki then to include an article that wholly relies on a photograph.

Even better is the "expert testimony" at the bottom. That drivel is nothing more than opinions from people on the internet, since when does opinion equal evidence? Are all those people master photo analyzers, can they magically see what things are made out of or what they are in that lunar lander photo?

Or is, "Looks like it, so it must be it," good enough evidence to conclude the lunar lander is nothing but a prop?

Wow, I've never looked at the lunar lander wiki page until now. Hilarious that the expert testimony is from theflatearthsociety.org members:

Tom (we all know Tom)
Mizzle - Last post 2012
Dutchy - Still kicking around over there
Cheryl Wiesbaden - Personal favorite. Almost seems legit with a name and such. Last post 2009

This whole wiki page is a sham. Why even bother having it? It's a picture. With an opinion: "... is in truth made out of cardboard paper, a few old curtain rods, a roll of roofing paper, some floodlight holders, gold foil, and lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all together on the hostile environment of the moon's surface."

No evidence. Not even remotely informative.

Then followed by quotes from society members? Seriously?

Add some actual evidence, ditch the lame opinion or retire it. It laughably makes the wiki look laughable.

3
It's a simple geometric question. Explain why the Moon goes from East to West in front of the Sun rather than from West to East with the explanation given:

It's a simple geometric question. What's the problem?

According to Tumeni/whoever, we can subtract the speed of the moon from the rotation of the earth and see that the moon's shadow is traveling from West to East at 1200 mph across the continental US.

In which case, we get a scene like this:



Yet the Moon does not cross in front of the Sun from West to East. It crosses in front of the Sun from East to West.

See the Aug 2017 Solar Eclipse in question: https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2017-august-21

The first video shows that the Moon travels from East to West across the Sun, not West to East.

There is a geometric issue with this explanation.

From what vantage point? Where is the observer? On the earth looking up? On the moon looking at the earth? On the sun looking at the moon? And then what are you trying to figure out from there? Which way the umbra should travel? Prepare a very specific question which you seem to find paradoxical. Thus far, it's unclear where you're tripped up.

4
The Moon travels from East to West across the face of the Sun, not West to East. See the first video in the timeanddate.com link.

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2017-august-21

So what's your question?

I am asking you to please explain the scenario with your model.

What and which scenario? You've been all over the place with this. Be specific with your question. I still don't see one.

5
The Moon travels from East to West across the face of the Sun, not West to East. See the first video in the timeanddate.com link.

https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2017-august-21

So what's your question?

6
It's a simple geometric question. What's the problem?

According to Tumeni/whoever, we can subtract the speed of the moon from the rotation of the earth and see that the moon's shadow is traveling from West to East at 1200 mph across the continental US.

In which case, we get a scene like this:



Yet the Moon does not cross in front of the Sun from West to East. It crosses in front of the Sun from East to West.

See the Aug 2017 Solar Eclipse in question: https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2017-august-21

There is a geometric issue with this explanation.

What's your question exactly?

7
That link does not have anything about which direction the moon passes in front of the sun. If you can't quote from your source to demonstrate your argument then you have none.

Didn't know you had a problem with the direction of which way the moon passes in front of the sun. Seems like you may have answered your own question. Why don't you state exactly what your issue is and we'll take it from there. You keep on moving not only questions around but actual celestial bodies. Of which you have no knowledge of anyway. As previously admitted by you. So carry on, maybe we'll get somewhere.

8
You have not explained it at all. You are running away from it. If you don't have answers then don't post and quietly admit defeat by silence.

I already provided something for you to refute. Just saying something has not been explained to your satisfaction is what is considered running away. Quit trolling. It's not very becoming and is very desperate. You've taken a beating lately, so perhaps understand your desperation. Carry on.

9
Tumeni, you subtract the speed of the earth's rotation from the speed of the moon around the earth to say that the moon's shadow is traveling over the earth faster than the Earth's rotation. And that this shadow is traveling from West to East at a speed of about 1200mph to make the eclipse path from the west coast of the US to the east coast.

How can this be the case when observers see the moon passing in front of the Sun from East to West, not West to East?

See: https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2017-august-21

The Moon starts in a Eastern direction on the Sun and ends in a Western direction on the Sun.

If the Moon was passing by overhead West to East at 1200 miles per hour to make an eclipse path from West to East on the Earth's surface, then one is inclined to think that we should see it start from the West on the Sun.

Read:

https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html

Then dispute.

I'm wasting time trying to find you yet another nice visual that shows how a shadow works. And you simply deny them all for reasons that only fall into a troll bucket.

I could tease out, cherry pick from the article, which you often do. But why bother. It answers all of your "questions". Answers which have already been pointed out to you, you are trying to make into a 'paradox', one that doesn't exist. Nice try.

That article doesn't say anything about these topics we are discussing. I want to know how the geometry of your model works in comparison to what we observe.

If you guys can't explain it then you should abandon the thread.

It's already been explained, exhibited, and demonstrated ad nausea. If you claim to not get it, then that is a personal failing.

10
Guys, he's suckered you. He knows exactly how it works. He acts confused to make you guys jump around trying to answer his question while he continues to act like he doesn't get it.

Get serious here. When have you EVER heard a flat Earther talk about the speed of the Earth's rotation as a rotational speed? They ALWAYS quote it by the linear speed. And yet, here we have Tom who begins with a given linear speed and converts that into a rotational speed to compare it to the speed of the Earth. And we're supposed to believe that this is anything other than absolutely on purpose? Get real.

Tom will never concede that you have explained the situation. No matter what. This is not the behavior of a genuine truth seeker. Tom is doing an act. I could only guess why, but I'm quite convinced he does it on purpose.

I couldn't agree more. He's merely trying to pretend how a 'shadow' doesn't work. Much like the dozen plus pages a half a dozen of us spent trying to make him go outside for 1 minute with a piece of string and a tennis ball to zetetically see how the 'moon terminator illusion' works. He's trolling, that's all. Pay no mind.

11
Tumeni, you subtract the speed of the earth's rotation from the speed of the moon around the earth to say that the moon's shadow is traveling over the earth faster than the Earth's rotation. And that this shadow is traveling from West to East at a speed of about 1200mph to make the eclipse path from the west coast of the US to the east coast.

How can this be the case when observers see the moon passing in front of the Sun from East to West, not West to East?

See: https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2017-august-21

The Moon starts in a Eastern direction on the Sun and ends in a Western direction on the Sun.

If the Moon was passing by overhead West to East at 1200 miles per hour to make an eclipse path from West to East on the Earth's surface, then one is inclined to think that we should see it start from the West on the Sun.

Read:

https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html

Then dispute.

I'm wasting time trying to find you yet another nice visual that shows how a shadow works. And you simply deny them all for reasons that only fall into a troll bucket.

I could tease out, cherry pick from the article, which you often do. But why bother. It answers all of your "questions". Answers which have already been pointed out to you, you are trying to make into a 'paradox', one that doesn't exist. Nice try.

12
Was there ever any definitive closing of the reunification talks? Seemed like a good idea on paper, one official FE Society.
Eh, there wasn't an official "closing", but an end can be identified somewhat clearly. Mistakes were made on all sides. I'll focus on my own, because I know those best.

The original talks were between Parsifal, Daniel, Wilmore and me. We kept our side updated via the thread junker linked, and tried to represent what our userbase said to the best of our ability. One mistake I've made was to suggest that John's role in any unified society should be greatly reduced - I found it difficult to reason with him (I think we both got much better at that now, but it doesn't change history), and, at the time, he frequently complained that he's only involved in forum administration because no one else is available. That one is entirely on me.

At the time, this was reluctantly accepted, and we actually started planning a proper implementation - clear lines were drawn as to which parts of which societies would be incorporated into the newly-unified one, and what would be discarded. Shortly after, Daniel went into complete radio silence, and after a long time of him being AWOL, John took on a much more direct leadership position. He didn't seem to care much for prior talks and agreements, and that's his right. Daniel hasn't been active in years, and it's only natural that someone would de facto take his place.

So, with old talks having met an abrupt end, and with new agreements looking unlikely, we did the only thing we could - we looked at the parts of our society that were weak (i.e. parts that the other society was meant to supplant) and improved them to the best of our ability. Understandably, this means that support for reunification from our regulars also started to wane, since the perceived benefits diminished. At this point, neither side seems to support a reunification effort (even if it does look good on paper), and letting each group do their own thing seems like the only viable outcome.

Another interesting short saga is when Dubay stopped by and laid out his demands for coming on board here. I can't find it now, but I remember reading the thread and he was basically asking for everyone's first born. Pretty hilarious.
Ugh. That was nasty. When Eric first appeared on the scene some of us were quite enthusiastic, while others were much more reserved. Eventually, Eric wrote a blog post declaring the Flat Earth Society (singular, and mixing up the two groups at will) "controlled opposition".

The second thread I've linked is the one you're most likely thinking about. Here is Eric's first post in the discussion, in which he asks that we hand everything over to him. Unsurprisingly, the idea of handing our entire website to a first-time poster was not popular...

Thanks for the explainer. Sometimes the people and politics are more interesting than the underlying cause. Suffice to say, fast forward to today, it seems that that both societies function quite well and harmoniously in the same space, so to speak. There's room for both. And well done for both societies making that a reality.

As for the Dubay thing, yeah, what a tool. He commandeered the International Flat Earth Society, disparaged the existing societies completely confusing them with Leo's Canadian stuff. Sh*t show all around.

13
Interesting, but you just posted a video of a penumbra randomly moving around. The matter is not explained. I would suggest creating a diagram to explain the paradox, keeping the straight-line geometry of the sun-earth-moon system during solar eclipse.

Umm, what's random about it?  And what's funny about your statement is that you've invented a paradox where none exists. A paradox for 1, as it were.

Draw a diagram, keeping a straight-line path between the sun, moon and earth. It doesn't work.

If the best you can do is a NASA animation with odd geometry, then I am afraid there is nothing to discuss with you. You need to explain this.

You obviously didn't read the article I posted. If you really want to paint yourself into the corner of why eclipses blow up flat earth theory, so be it. You see, RE can predict the exact path of an eclipse for any point on earth down to the meter. Part of that pinpoint accurate location prediction is the fact that the earth is a sphere. Now let that soak in a smidge and go back to the article I posted. It's short.

14
Interesting, but you just posted a video of a penumbra randomly moving around. The matter is not explained. I would suggest creating a diagram to explain the paradox, keeping the straight-line geometry of the sun-earth-moon system during solar eclipse.

Umm, what's random about it?  And what's funny about your statement is that you've invented a paradox where none exists. A paradox for 1, as it were.

15
If the Earth is static in your image...
The earth isn't static.  It's rotating at 1000 mph.

If the Moon is rotating faster or slower than the Earth's surface, there is an issue either way.

Not following, but in any case: Here's an animation for the 2016 Solar eclipse very similar to the one I posted for the 2017 eclipse. Earth day (1 rotation) = 24ish hours. It takes the moon 27ish days to orbit the earth. The umbra moves west to east slightly outpacing the speed of earth's rotation. Which way does any shadow move as the sun is moving west? East. What about it has you so confused?



Here's an even deeper explanation if you require it:

https://www.space.com/36388-total-solar-eclipse-2017-duration.html

16
Here's another animation I found useful:


17
I don't see the round earth rotating into a sun. I see the light of the sun setting into a flat earth. If we are honest, that is about all we see.

This is the best, most comprehensive, and only FE explanation of a sunset yet, basically: Everyday it gets dark.

Fortunately RE has an actual explanation that is predictive and can tell us where and when for any observer on the planet such an occurrence will take place. And RE also doesn't simply refer to lightness and darkness, but also to the orb in the sky that produces the light you mention. Rather odd for FE to leave that bit out of the explanation.

18
You are proposing multiple illusions.

Incorrect.

You are claiming that the earth is rotating, when we visibly see the sun moving.

Technically, no I'm not.

You are claiming that the earth is a sphere with a far away sun dropping behind it, when we clearly see that the earth is flat.

Technically, no I'm not. I could just as easily be claiming that the earth is flat, the sun is close but that it drops below the plane for 12 hours a day.  All I know is that it's dropping behind something. It sure isn't moving away from me, shrinking and disappearing into a vanishing point dot because that's not what we observe 365 days a year.

You are claiming that we are seeing the sun go below the horizon, when we visibly see it go into the horizon.

It's going somewhere where it hides itself for 12 hours then pops up behind me. I don't know what go into the horizon is even supposed to mean. Is it trapped under ground for 12 hours each day for each observer?

You are claiming that light travels in straight lines over long distances -- a complete imagination, without evidence, and contradicts our experience that straight lines do not exist in nature and that elements in motion are always perturbed.

Neither here nor there. The sun magically disappears for 12 hours 7/365. FE doesn't know where our sun goes. RE does.

All of it is either illusion or unjustified to get your argument that no illusion is occuring.

When FE figures out how something as ever-present and simple as a sunset works on a planar earth, kudos to the movement. In the mean time, FE has no idea how what can be observed every day by everyone on the planet can be explained. RE does know how and no illusions required like "atmoplane projections", made up "laws of perspective", magic magnification.

19
Nice try. But where did the sun go? Why does it rise up at my back approximately 12 hours later.
Sure both sides claim some sort of refraction. The sunset can be seen a minute or so longer than it should due to refraction. But what about the other 11 hours & 58 minutes?
Try harder.

The size of your earth is based on the sun, so you are just begging the question with your argument that it is only a small illusion.

What does that even mean? You're not making any sense.

I see no illusion at all in a setting sun. It disappears completely. It doesn't recede and get smaller and then 'blink', disappear into some perspective vanishing point. It slowly sinks, maintaining its size, disappearing bottom up until its gone. For some 12 hours from me. The process reverses from behind me the next morning. It's really quite simple and requires no illusions, no "atmoplane projections" no made up "laws of perspective", no magic magnification. It's quite a pure thing in fact. And it happens like clockwork every day for all 8 billion of us to observe if we so choose.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Total Eclipse July 02 2019
« on: May 16, 2019, 05:04:11 AM »
Seemingly the wiki and FE cannot demonstrate how the Total Solar Eclipse of July 2nd 2019 is predicted specifically under FE map and conditions. So I guess that's that.

Austrian astronomer Theodor von Oppolzer worked it out using a FE map and the Saros Cycle. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Solar_Eclipse

The paths make perfect arcs, unlike the Round Earth model.

Are you that desperate to disingenuously claim that Theodor von Oppolzer worked it out using an FE map?

What about the other hemisphere of the FE Map he worked out? It's called a globe.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 46  Next >