Guide to the FLAT EARTH

“Defensiveness is usually someone silently screaming that they need you to value and respect them in disguise. When you look for deeper meanings behind someone’s pain you can then begin to heal not only yourself, but others.”
― Shannon L. Alder
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

a reply to: IHearYouListening
No need to explain why you became defensive.

Anything on topic?

Do you have photos of the Southern Cross taken from beyond 25 degrees N latitude?

Do you have video, from the Southern hemisphere, of Polaris virtually still in the frame while stars rotate in the sky around it?

Do you have any refutation to the info I presented in these two posts?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Do you understand the relevance of these questions?

m.youtube.com...

This current thread is dis info at its finest (or not so)

This thread (below) will highlight the object that is causing the dis info:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I took up the subject of Hyper dimensional physics with Eric Dubay and He did not have a clue.That subject cannot be explained by the flat Earth.Why do we see sun spots at 19.5 degrees? Have volcanoes on Earth and Mars at the same latitude..storms on Jupiter and so on.A very interesting and real subject worth checking out!

www.vortexmaps.com...

originally posted by: anotherdaytoday
I admit the flat earth theory sounds kinda B.S. but the thing is, none of us can actually disprove the Flat-Earth-Theory on his own. That's fact. Sad but true.

Even the spacestation flyby's can be faked. Any 3d modelling application of your choice and Adobe After effects provide all the tools you need. Record the earth with a fish-eye lense, and add the 3d space station in overlay mode

You do of course realize that you can see the space station in its' orbit as it passes overhead, with the naked eye, right?

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

This shows that a space station is out there. But not that this space station actually circumvents a spherical earth. I recall that the flat earth theory described that space station only flies in circles by a specific radius on the top / middle of the earth disc. This would produce similar flyby videos. The whole idea is very thought provoking, but the arguments are not stupid. Maybe with the daily flight and ship traffic it can be disproven...

a reply to: anotherdaytoday

I recall that the flat earth theory described that space station only flies in circles by a specific radius on the top / middle of the earth disc.

So they may say, but is that idea plausible?

Anyone interested can look into this for themselves. Here's a good place to start www.isstracker.com...

Can the orbital path even be transposed as a circle onto a FE (flat Earth) map? If it even could, would that map be to scale consistent with known distances and travel times between points around the world?

originally posted by: anotherdaytoday
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

This shows that a space station is out there. But not that this space station actually circumvents a spherical earth. I recall that the flat earth theory described that space station only flies in circles by a specific radius on the top / middle of the earth disc. This would produce similar flyby videos. The whole idea is very thought provoking, but the arguments are not stupid. Maybe with the daily flight and ship traffic it can be disproven...

If it weren't orbiting a sphere and its' position being maintained primarily by gravity and orbital mechanics, it would require enormous amounts of fuel in order to continually be flying in a circular pattern. Where are these fuel tanks, and the constant launches that would be required in order to keep refilling these tanks?

If nothing else you can launch a camera on a balloon and see for yourself is not flat. It's f'ing unbelievable anyone in this day and age still entertains this crap.

a reply to: AgentSmith

I'm sensing some hostility....

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Well yes you are, it's absolutely ridiculous. Anyone that doesn't spend their time sat in a basement knows it's crap. The thing is you can check yourself, it's not medieval times anymore which is where this way of thinking belongs. It's seriously disturbing that people are capable of believing this sort of thing.

a reply to: AgentSmith

Sir, did you actually watch the "DogCam" video on this thread? Clearly no curvature. the only videos that show curvature are those in which implement a Fisheye Lens.

A fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic or hemispherical image.[1][2] Fisheye lenses achieve extremely wide angles of view by forgoing producing images with straight lines of perspective (rectilinear images), opting instead for a special mapping (for example: equisolid angle), which gives images a characteristic convex non-rectilinear appearance.

hmmm, to create a hemispherical Picture

Take a Fisheye lens in your basement and take a picture of it, your basement is now a hemisherical reality.

a reply to: TheDon

And to finish off, since this a flat earth thread we have this.

Can any of you show the orbital path of the ISS as a "circle" on this convoluted POS 'map'?

How about an estimate of the distance between Santiago, Chile and Sydney, Australia?

A quick check shows the real world stated distance from Santiago to Sydney as about 11,300 km. Santiago to Anchorage about 12,600 km. Fit that into your FE map.

#wakethef@@@up

originally posted by: clarktron
a reply to: AgentSmith

Sir, did you actually watch the "DogCam" video on this thread? Clearly no curvature. the only videos that show curvature are those in which implement a Fisheye Lens.

A fisheye lens is an ultra wide-angle lens that produces strong visual distortion intended to create a wide panoramic or hemispherical image.[1][2] Fisheye lenses achieve extremely wide angles of view by forgoing producing images with straight lines of perspective (rectilinear images), opting instead for a special mapping (for example: equisolid angle), which gives images a characteristic convex non-rectilinear appearance.

hmmm, to create a hemispherical Picture

Take a Fisheye lens in your basement and take a picture of it, your basement is now a hemisherical reality.

WTF are you on about? The curvature from videos where a fish eye len is used greatly exaggerate the curvature. No one in their right mind would suggest the level you see in those is an accurate representation at that altitude. You can see the curvature though at that altitude with a standard lens - it's just more subtle as you would expect!

[snipped]

a reply to: clarktron

There is no possibility of this "theory", having any credibity whatsoever. Anyone with access to the ocean, an airplane, a balloon, a tall building, or even a large hill can easily and thoroughly disprove this "theory".

originally posted by: clarktron
a reply to: AgentSmith

Arrogant, pompous, self righteous response. Have you anything to add besides bragging about how brilliant you and your piers are? It is obvious from your post's on this thread that you are an extremely intellectual, intelligent being. Oh, wait. The only thing you have done here is bash, belittle, & berate members and their creative ideas.

Thinking I may be going a bit overboard I wanted to see what you have brought to this forum. Your words from a thread on 9/11 - People think their open minded, but they always point the fingure at one source when in reality it is more likely to be a combination of culprits spread across the spectrum with no connection in some cases and enough in others to create confusion and disorder in trying to find the answer while enabling the guilt parties to carry on as before.

That was indeed arrogant, however it sounds as though you do question authority. I think you are upset with the possibility of this theory having credibility. This would pull the rug out from under your ESA selfie of the Rosetta mission(Which IMO is more ludicrous than FE theory). Great, now I have sunk to your level of troll. I feel kind of dirty, and need to take a shower.

Oh yes you are correct, I am arrogant and pompous. Sorry about that. But I love creative ideas, even I can be philosophical and question reality, but I also know where to draw a line.
I'm not upset about what you call a 'theory' (it's barely a hypothesis by the way) having any credibility. It's a joke and while is a great idea for a fictional artform it has no basis in reality I'm afraid.

I can assure you my anger has nothing to do with any of my beliefs being challenged and to be fair it has nothing to do with people in this thread directly, I should have been less hasty in my posting and probably not posted at all. My anger is at the system that has failed some of you where you are able to entertain these ideas beyond a philosophical level and actually think you have have some scientific grounding. Clearly it is critical that the standard of education is increased dramatically and outreach is improved.

In your defense, one of the topics brought up at EGU was the inclusion of alternate controversial theories in serious debates rather that just ignoring them. this was already done in a Dutch debate on Climate change which some people disagreed with, others thought it was the right thing. Thinking about it rationally I too think this is right I guess as if you have nothing to fear what's the issue.
Apologies for insulting members of this thread when it should have been aimed at educators failing at their jobs. The existance of 'Debates' such as this only prove that serious improvements need to be made.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Lazarus Short

Thanks for the link, as if I didn't know what a picture was, but I do. You posted a picture, which may, or may not, represent reality.

Kind of funny how before I posted the link that you say you didn't need you claimed it was NOT a picture.

Just for the record, I don't really care if the Earth is round or flat. Its true form may be neither...

Well, would you care to discuss it? That's what we do here. If not then there's no need for your post.

You can't supply a plausible answer to my previous questions to you, so now you "don't care"? Is that about right?

ETA: Try to understand this one thing. You jumped in (which of course is fine, public forum for group discussion) to correct me on two points. You admitted you were wrong on the first point (respect to ya) and if you can't produce a plausible explanation for the illuminated vs the dark areas of the planet in a flat Earth scenario, then you were wrong on both counts. How happy SHOULD I be with you at the moment?

A spherical shape explains the light/dark areas.

Yada, yada, yada. There you go, splitting hairs, misrepresenting what I have said, even (I think) putting words in my mouth. I have seen your ilk here before, and your grim "Hall Monitor" avatar tells me volumes. I think you are one of the Self-Appointed Gate Keeper types. Laz is an iconoclast and an overturner of pedestals. If there is an "Ignore" list, you are going on it, sir.

a reply to: Lazarus Short

So you can't argue the topic. Shocker.

Can any of you?

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Lazarus Short

So you can't argue the topic. Shocker.

Can any of you?

Try arguing the subject, and not the opponent. Oh, you came here for an argument? I note that in your time here, you intrude on many threads, but have only authored one of your own.

In answer to your question, Laz does not champion a flat or a round Earth. I just point out things here and there, as you may have noticed if you could get past your bullying mindset.

Sadly, I can't find an "Ignore" option. We're going to have to agree to disagree for a long time...

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Lazarus Short

So you can't argue the topic. Shocker.

Can any of you?

BTW, why does the Flat Earth seem to be such a line in the sand for you?