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 - Bikini Polaris

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: November 16, 2019, 10:12:38 PM »
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:

Pretty obvious proof: during sunset shadows climbs buildings from below to above, and since the Sun behaves as a lamp, you must have bending light rays.

And also, the possibility that light bends is not surprising at all.
All lengthening shadows is proof of is that the angle of the light changes over time. That could be explained by a close sun and EA but it is not the only possible explanation and thus not in itself proof of that.

There are many theories about the Sun's distance, Rowbotham showed one with actual evidence. What do you have instead?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: November 13, 2019, 09:32:44 PM »
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:

Pretty obvious proof: during sunset shadows climbs buildings from below to above, and since the Sun behaves as a lamp, you must have bending light rays.

And also, the possibility that light bends is not surprising at all.

Flat Earth Theory / Fixed illumination of the Moon explaination?
« on: October 11, 2019, 08:03:39 AM »
In the flat earth models where the Sun is hovering over the earth the Moon is presumed to be lit because it is about at the same height of the Sun, but how do these models explain the fact that during the night the illumination does not change as the Sun moves?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: When rockets launch....
« on: July 23, 2019, 08:23:56 AM »
When the Space Shuttle program used to be active, it would launch and then the Orbiter would return a few days or a few weeks later.

If Flat Earthers believe that space travel is not possible / is a hoax, where does a Flat Earther believe that the Orbiter goes for the few days or weeks after it launches before it then re-appears and glides in for a landing? Does the shuttle launch/ glide to a secret undisclosed location without radar detection/ and then NASA somehow launches it again in secret or a clone of it so that it can re-appear and land?

I would be curious to get feedback from a Flat Earth believer on how they believe this hoax to work.

Has someone replied to this?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Clarifications on UA
« on: July 17, 2019, 10:13:22 PM »
I'm somehow curious about the Power Source causing UA.

That source should be quite stable through the whole Earth, otherwise if there was a slight instability we could start flipping like a coin?

Also, that source would be knowledgable of how mass is moved on the surface, so to change the power accordingly on the new location. In saying so I imagine a disk flying through space with a rocket, and stuff over it in a sort of stable way.

And it has been running since a lot of time, that will be a huge energy consumption, probably superior to REs estimates of the Big Bang. Where does that energy continuosly come from?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: How to make a FE map, step one.
« on: July 17, 2019, 11:28:20 AM »
Before even starting to discuss distances which will be heavily disputed (with each individual accepting the distances which support their own model while rejecting distances which weaken their own model) why don't we just start with the continents and their locations. For example North America is North of South America. China and Russia are in Asia. Etc.

I do like iamcpc's approach. Maybe a more fruitful topic would be "How to make FEs come together and agree on some point of references for a map"? But for that I'd hope that FEs would really like to be a united community, even though I often find they prefer to point fingers at each other and split at atomic levels.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Lunar eclipses...
« on: July 05, 2019, 07:51:59 AM »
What makes you think that the Nibiru community aren't using coronagraphs to try and find Nibiru?

Many more on YouTube


Please be sure to go back and refresh yourself with Pete's article on the Home Page entitled: "It's true, I saw it on the Internet".

Posting videos from YouTube tend to fall in this category.


Tom you have an incredible capability for understanding how the Moon rotates in the RE model and, at the same time, to propose youtube videos where some smoke making shapes is a hint of existence of something.

Flat Earth Community / Re: I'd like to consult you about something
« on: June 25, 2019, 08:15:48 AM »
<<<<<<I can give you an example to help you understand why a cube looks like a circle from a distance.
All you have to do is look at a distant cube from a mountaintop,or somewhere else. in proportion to the size of the cube I gave you.
If what you see is not a circle, or it may not be as big as the sun or moon you see on the ground.then I am happy to admit that I am wrong and you are right.

The cube has length, width and height of 51, or 49.Look at it at a distance of 42,000.According to this ratio.

Proponent I think it isn't so difficult to reproduce what you're saying at home (or in your garden). If you could also do a small showcase of the perspective of shadows, it would be really really great. REs are boring people and lazy asses, so unfortunately it's up to you to put forward the experiments. But those being good, I'm sure they'll be included in the wiki.

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette
« on: June 17, 2019, 10:10:18 PM »
A second netiquette point would be to warn new REs of the futility of asking for non-contradictory explainations.
It's a fair thing to ask though? If your answers are contradicting your other answers then why would you even give one of the answers in the first place? either one or none are correct, don't contradict yourself if you wanna be taken seriously. For example you have tomB calling out and mocking people for saying mirages exist in a round earth and thus our round earth is an illusion then in his next breath saying earth can only be flat with illusions and mirages, Tom contradicts himself constantly and he's the one writing the FE wiki most of the time. Why shouldn't people ask for non-contradicting answers? There is zero point in giving a contradicting answer.

The scientific unfairness is pointless when contradictions abound in FET and they don't care. Empirically, it's a waste of opportunity to ask something else. What if FET is not a scientific endeavour but a psychological trick? What's the REs path of least resistance? I'm just trying to find an empirical ground, because right now the asymmetry of information is in huge favor of FEs.

Flat Earth Projects / Re: Compiling Objections
« on: June 16, 2019, 10:48:20 PM »
Nice idea. Here's what comes up to my mind:

- Clouds lit from below at sunset
- Shadows climb buildings during sunset.
- Mountains cast shadows from below under the clouds at sunset.
- Sun getting red at sunset, that is predicted in RE by inclination of Sun rays w.r.t. atmosphere scattering
- Reflection of the Sun on the sea has an edge on the horizon.
- In some pictures it is possible to see that sun rays are parallel. Example, shadows of clouds are as big as the clouds.
- The horizon is a crisp clear line, as if ocean is frontally curving down. On flat earth there should be a brownish band of confused far landscape.
- Equinox has the Sun coming straight in the sky, no way it's hovering around us.

- Spherical geometry of distance (maybe it's already there, but afaik this is the most uncontroversial one, that FEs dodge simply by refusing to take... distances.)
- Horizon dipping with altitude, that can be checked simply using a bottle of water on a plane.
- Pictures of distant mountain tops, where tops of background mountains are much lower than what perspective would predict.
- Travelling East on the Equator going in a perfect straight line
- Visibility of Polaris, its altitude being your latitude
- Radio transmissions cannot go very far

- Foucalt's Pendulum/Laser gyroscope expertiment
- Pontchartrain pictures
- Gravity varying with altitude

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette
« on: June 16, 2019, 10:05:47 AM »
A second netiquette point would be to warn new REs of the futility of asking for non-contradictory explainations.

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette
« on: June 15, 2019, 10:54:50 AM »
I agree with that. Amusingly, this what REs think of FEs.
I fail to see:
A) How this can be amusing...

II) Any FE adherents glad handedly slapping each other on the back, saying, "...attaboy!"

It's funny simply because REs lack the ability to adapt that FEs have. For any good argument REs come up with, FEs adapt and thrive. Then a new equilibrium is found and REs fail to improve.

The attempts of REs here are so fruitless that I wonder how they can stand their waste of time.

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette
« on: June 11, 2019, 12:04:10 AM »
I would be ok with a section of the forum that Confirmed flat earthers could post and discuss in but is read-only to everyone else. I usually just sit back and read through threads anyway but if FE'ers feel they need a place they can discuss without non flat earthers giving them a hard time, I'd still like to be able to read it.

The OP is about what we REs could do to engage interesting discussions with FEs.

Indeed, this is why I think the ball needs to be in RE's court here. We get an excessive amount of threads from regulars who just discuss among themselves about how round they think the Earth is, and how much they agree with one another.

I agree with that. Amusingly, this what REs think of FEs.

May be, first we need to know the color of the soil, before we try to discuss about it.
How many of the actual subscribers on this forum are FEs and REs?

That's maybe overly optimistic, and also I don't think this forum should care about people believing in shapes different from flatness.

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette
« on: June 09, 2019, 10:57:36 AM »
I'm quite surprised that we're having this discussion.

Can't you see how fruitless is the current approach and, at the same time, how surprising it is, for REs, that it doesn't really work?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Friendly Discussions to Build Consensus
« on: June 08, 2019, 11:54:58 AM »
REs should first make a step towards building a consensus themselves. FEs are scared of posting in the forum for being attacked, and REs are quite aggressive and insisting. Probably REs should create a flatearth-discussion etiquette?
Sounds great. I don't know what happened to totallackey, but perhaps you're willing to participate instead.

I'm asking for 1-to-1 representation for friendly discussions only.

Trying to dress as a (missing) FE: I don't like the arrogance of REs and overall I wish we wouldn't have to discuss with them. By some accident, or convenience, you were lured into a false view of the world. Why should I waste my time with you? What's the benefit of showing the falsity of a round earth? As all bubbles, it will eventually pop, but until then I just want to be informed and explore real truth. If what you see as truth is different from my view, let our paths diverge (in a friendly way), because consensus is already here in the fact that I can live with my ideas and you with your ideas.

Flat Earth Community / Re: ISS Open For Business
« on: June 08, 2019, 09:43:38 AM »
What if the FE community all pooled together and sent up someone "trustworthy"?

Their movement is based on distrust and there's not a single or at least an accepted main stream flat earth. The opposite happens, FEs call "controlled opposition" other FEs. Imo what you're saying could never happen.

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette
« on: June 08, 2019, 12:40:44 AM »
I'm sure they're sick of the repetition of threads from fly-by RE people on here, I am too. More threads started by FE people would mix things up a bit.

Oh yeah.

and I continue to hope that this temporary wave of RE shitposters will either get bored and leave or start doing something useful.

REs and FEs look like coming from different planets (pun intended :) ), it really looks like the two groups are talking different languages and the outcome is what you're saying: boredom.

Or, you could try a middle ground approach where FE'ers have an area where they can discuss freely but RE'ers can still watch.  You know, like the FE Believers board on the other site.

I don't like this, because then REs2FEs discussion would still be fruitless.

I have come to the conclusion that average FE don't want to debate it.

This would make useless any forum, I guess.

but one thing that would reduce the smoke of REs is just improve Wiki with more logical and scientific explanations. 

This is something that could be the number one, and only, allowed discussion approach for REs. Everything else denied (no insisiting about sunsets, no pressing with other questions), just push for "more details". After all, if a FE isn't willing to make its idea clear, what else can work?

The mistake Bikini Polaris makes is holding that idea that the FEs have any wish to participate in that type of debate.
There are certainly some FEs on here who enjoy debating for debate's sake, but I've not encountered any who are open to the idea that these discussions could ever change their opinion about the shape of the Earth.

This is a critically important point. Still, it is possible that discussing with the few of them willing to discuss, would reveal important details on the FE mindset. If REs would agree on what works and what doesn't (and if your read Pete posts, nothing now is really working).

I am pro scientific truth all the way.  I don't care if that will be against 99% of the population.  It would be fantastic if everyone in here would be seeking the truth, not polarized, not induced by what other people think or wrote.  Except, of course, if this is not the intention of this place.  .

Consider the possibility that you're using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Consider the premise of being a FE, clearly that's something weird from a RE p.o.v., they aren't trying to discredit science, just to convince themselves of a beautiful fairy tale.


I think here REs are agreeing that the current approach is fruitless. If we're so keen on science we may conclude with a p-value less than 0.05 that we're wasting our time because we're not finding the right approach. FEs just want to close themselves into a sauna and breath conspiracies? Well fine. Will there be a backdoor or not? This is what matters. Btw, I do like and I'd expand the proposal by spherical: if someone states the earth is flat and create a wiki, the right approach would be to elicit logical details. I don't think FEs could ignore that (maybe), because that's what FEs would do too (again, maybe).

Flat Earth Community / Re: REs netiquette
« on: June 07, 2019, 09:42:06 AM »
Over on the other site they have a "Flat Earth Believers" forum where only approved FEr's or FE 'supporters' are allowed to post. Coincidentally there's a discussion right now about using that area for more FE2FE discussions/debates. Which, in theory, it already is. However, it's not really being used in that manner I guess due to a low number of participants. I'm not sure how it would play out anyway. One example to look to is maybe Dubay's site. Only FEr's are allowed to post. Participation as a whole seems to be spotty at best there.

Ouch, I missed those. I'll have a look, but yes, there's the possibility of a non-sense in this topic. At that point maybe everything gets useless I guess?

What do you propose?

Basically anything that would lead FEs to one of these two outcomes:
- FE doubting flat earth
- FE showing signs of not being distinguishable from a fake FE/prank
as these are the only two reasonable outcomes.

Somehow I don't think the REs attempts here are accomplishing any of those two. It's mainly pointless that REs explain to each others how the Earth is round. It's pointless to show complicated diagrams of how the RE model is. It's pointless to revisit 400 years of epistemology and methodological doubt just because FEs wish somehow to be right. They're pointless because they are confirmations of how Science works, not the "Zetetic" method.

FEs thrive on knowing their own priorities and not revealing those to the world. Discovering what they value most is the first step. So I'm pretty sure that hulls disappearing first over the horizon for them is a trivial objection, they already have the auotmatic answer. But maybe something else isn't. So, at first, I would try to not follow what they want to stress, as it's probably a controversial topic they thrive on.

But it's mainly a brainstorming here.

Flat Earth Community / REs netiquette
« on: June 06, 2019, 08:10:43 PM »
Motivated by my previous observation that in this forum there isn't much FE2FE discussion, I wonder if REs shouldn't look for some rules to follow, in order to allow FEs to reach at least a certain amount of freedom here. Moreover, it would help the quality of the debate, which often amounts to a yes vs no fight.

Advantages for REs
- They could concentrate better on what arguments actually can make it
- Less redundancy in arguments
- Hopefully get to see more FEs around
- More sharing of previous experiences

Disadvantages for REs
- it's unpleasant to be told what to do
- feeling that "Science" must bow and be sacrificed

I have some rules in mind, but I largely prefer to hear others REs proposals :)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Crisp clear horizon line
« on: June 05, 2019, 09:24:43 PM »
Does anyone want to comment about my observation on May 13 that the transmission lines seem to curve around a round earth? Any explanations, or did was this put in the too-hard-basket?

That's a great picture, one of the best works showing RE imo, but I don't think FEs would reply to that but for saying it could be fake. Since FEs and "Zetetics" are sooooo skeptical and they base themselves only on easy observations, my hope is to find a very easy , but "impossible", observation that is true in whatever conditions. I believe that the clear definition of the horizon is one of those:

- acknowledged by Rowbotham
- impossible for a truly flat earth
- literally everywhere in FE "proofs"

I can see two evolutions of this topic:

- how the horizon looks on other landscapes such as plains
- what colour should the horizon line be

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >