Flat Earth Support? Or is just another Faked Globe Video?

the 'line' is clearly a humongous spacecfraft;


files.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I thought flat earthers were a myth

i too thought the same but came to realize that they're rather trolls. worse yet, i never came across any troll who infuriates me like the flat earthers do. i have a long, flat stick carved from oakwood which is twice effective on the next day when soaked in water overnight and i want to hit the flat earther gentlemen with it so they taste the flatness to their trolling bone.

its a big Flat disk.
you will only Ever see one side!
but earth seems to spin.

originally posted by: network dude
why did they make the moon round, but the earth flat?

Crafty bastards!

originally posted by: buddha
its a big Flat disk.
you will only Ever see one side!

a big flat disc resting on the back of a turtle.

FTFY

After giving a lecture on the solar system, William James, the American psychologist and philosopher, was approached by an elderly lady. "We don't live on a ball rotating around the sun", she claimed firmly. "We live on a crust of earth on the back of a giant turtle".

James was a kindly man, "If you theory is correct madam, what does the turtle stand on?", he asked patiently. "The first turtle stands on the back of a second, far larger turtle of course!" she snorted". "But what does this second turtle stand on?" pressed the philosopher.

"It's no use, Mr. James", crowed the old lady triumphantly, "it's turtles all the way down!"

on topic though, if it was known that the earth was spherical long before the existence of things like nasa and sattelites and pictures of earth taken from space, how can those things be used as an argument against it?

the ancient greek mathematician aristarchus of samos was the first to predicted that the earth orbited the sun 1,800 years before copernicus published de revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543.

you can't claim "nasa conspiracy!" and completely ignore the validity of proven mathematics and physics.

like jamsession says,

i ... came to realize that they're rather trolls.

trolls indeed.

a reply to: spygeek

Held up by elephants.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: spygeek

Held up by elephants.

Now hold on just a cotton-pickin' minute! I thought the elephants were on top of the turtles? My whole life is a lie...

a reply to: admirethedistance
What's with the false color image?

I took this shot myself, so I know it's real!

originally posted by: jamsession

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
I thought flat earthers were a myth

i too thought the same but came to realize that they're rather trolls. worse yet, i never came across any troll who infuriates me like the flat earthers do. i have a long, flat stick carved from oakwood which is twice effective on the next day when soaked in water overnight and i want to hit the flat earther gentlemen with it so they taste the flatness to their trolling bone.

And I would hit you back.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

Laughed my ass off...Priceless!

ETA: You can clearly see the masking at 12 oclock.

You can go to the live ISS feed and look at Earth, and then notice it rotating, for yourself: www.ustream.tv...

a reply to: jamsession

Yes, the vast majority of the FES (flat earth society) are trolls, but sometimes even trolls have a relevant point to make, if you can peer through the obvious absurdism.

originally posted by: Vasteel
Hi all, we were discussing FE on another thread and I presented ways to test the theory that do not rely on NASA or any government. These points were never addressed by FE supporters so is it OK to bring them up again here?

1 - Lunar eclipses. For the earth to cast a shadow on the moon the earth needs to be between the moon and sun. The standard FE model has the moon and sun both 'above' the disc, so lunar eclipses should never happen, if the moon goes 'behind' the disc then the eclipse would not be viewable anyway. All lunar eclipses are explainable and predicable using the globe model.

2 - The FE model has a way for what we normally think of as northern hemisphere countries to have longer days than nights (and an arctic midnight sun), but not the southern. Can some ATSers in a southern hemisphere country confirm or refute that the day is longer than the night in your summers?

3 - ATSers in northerm hemisphere could confirm that the stars appear to rotate anti-clockwise around the pole star, ATSers in the southern hemisphere could confirm that they rotate clockwise around the south celestial pole. Videos can be made and shared (not by me I don't know how to do that lol).

4 - Who saw the transits of venus in 2012 and 2004? For that to happen venus has to eclipse the sun, FE model doesn't provide a way for this to happen. Globe does.

5 - We could check the ISS tracking data isn't made up by having different ATSers confirm it passing overhead, then mark the time and places of sightings on both a globe and an FE map just to see what each path looks like.

6 - We go on an expedition to the south pole (lol joke).

7 - Another member mentioned the Volvo Ocea boat race. Try plotting the route on a flat earth map and you'll see that there would be no way to complete the race in the times that people do it. (I think leg 5 of the route was the clincher)

is it OK to bring them up again here? --- It's perfectly fine with me. I love to hear other people's thought processes and how they would test it themselves. It was a few weeks ago, and I saw that there was a lack of scientific research in this area, that people were just taking other's word for it. I then realized that I was doing the same for my opinion. I had what I could see (but that's hard to prove), and I hadn't done any tests that are peer reviewable and reproduceable. I have designed that test, and just need to carry it out (probably after the weekend).

1) Lunar eclipse - First off there is no "standard FE model", that is just one of the ones that are suggested. I do not suscribe to a model, because I do not know the truth. I also have MAJOR problems with our solar system model, but that is never questioned. As for the round shadow on the moon, this could easily be produced by light under a flat disc. In no way does it PROVE that the Earth is a sphere (like other "scientists" propose. Anyone who says this proves, is making assumptions.

2) I have seen several FE models that explain the longer and shorter days, but if we do not fully know the lie, how can we be expected to know the full truth. Again I point to NASA. If it is their word mainly that proves Globe Earth, and their word is slandered, where is our real world proof? Here is where I do not look for theory.

3) - hypothetical situation so that is tough to prove. I must admit that there are several problems that I have with most of the FE theories. There have been some theories proposed that I don't sucscribe to, such as that things are done in the sky with holograms, and this is why they are chemtrailing, or that the entire sky is a projection. I personally don't know, but know that the math of a Globe Earth does not add up, NASAs pictures don't add up, and airplanes don't add up, the rotation of the Earth doesn't add up. Think of this, it's spinning so much faster at the equator... well, our continents are on this layer of magma and they drift.... but with this model, they would be pushed to the equator. That is simple physics, but the Globe Model seems to deny physics at every turn, and yet is not questioned. Airplanes flying against the 1000 mph rotation, they say it's because the atmosphere rotates. BUT, the atmosphere would have to rotate FASTER to keep up with the surface. That is simple physics and movement around a central point, yet it does not add up. So, yes you can find flaws in some theories.... BUT how can we find flaws in what the supposed truth is? Flaws in the Globe Earth? The truth shouldn't have flaws.

4) That there's no way for transit of venus on FE model is an assumption on your part. I have seen the proposals of the distance of the sun from the Earth, but that is all assumptions. You can't judge anything off assumptions, because we don't know the truth of FE. If our sun and the planets revolve around us, surely another planet could orbit us and go between us and the sun? I don't suscribe to the sun being as close as some say... but who really knows the truth? Are you going to trust NASA? If you say yes, I would like you to message me, and I will show you why I don't trust NASA at all, not one bit.

5) ISS tracking data shows nothing. It simply shows that there is an object up there reflecting light. This does not show that there are astronauts in there. One large theory about the radiation belts is that you would not be able to stay in space for extended periods. Do you know how many Americans have died in space, out of all the space walks, moon missions, and such? NONE. 3 Russians died in space because of decompression when their airlock didn't lock with ISS correctly. And some americans died reentry and launch.... BUT none in space? All that radiation, micrometeroites, that crappy technology, defects, mistakes, errors, and no deaths... HMMM... sounds too perfecct for me, especially for our technology of 60s and 70s.

6) South Pole... lol that would be fun. But I do have a simple south pole test of my own. Rather than trying to traverese, you try to sail around it (in an icebreaker or something). Well. Let's say you go south of South America and you sail west. All that you would have to measure is the direction that you have to sail your ship. If you are generally turning to the right, its FE, if you turn to the left it's Globe Earth. Also the left turn should be much quicker than the constantly turning right trip. This seems like the easiest and surest way to verify (to me).

7) in response to that, the sailing crew that took over a year to "circle" Antarctica points twoards the FE model. The Volvo race idea is interesting, and I will check it out.

I am serious in saying that I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you for approaching this in a mature way.

............Flat earthers? Really? Oh wait, this is in the Skunk Works, its correct place. Never mind!

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

5) ISS tracking data shows nothing. It simply shows that there is an object up there reflecting light.

Can you reconcile the path with a FE ''model''?

What light is it reflecting? Why is it reflecting that light when the land and sky beneath it are dark?

Amazingly, a 'spotlight' Sun circling above a flat Earth can't explain this.

This thread. I knew the futility of clicking it before I did it. But FFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU.

Did someone unfreeze a caveman or something?

a reply to: pilgrimOmega

No the real humor here is that the same people arguing for a round earth in this thread believe everything they 'see' is real. That is the sad yet humorous reality.

And is humorous that they expect me to defend parts of other people's theories....Like I ever said the sun was a spotlight over the Earth. Just shows people don't know what scientific critique is, and you only critique that person's assertions.

a reply to: awareness10

No the real humor here is that the same people arguing for a round earth in this thread believe everything they 'see' is real.

And you know that for a fact?

No, the real humor is those who actually believe what youtube tells them over actual science.

But maybe that's just my sense of humor...

a reply to: ThreeDeuce

And is humorous that they expect me to defend parts of other people's theories.

Baby steps, as your having a hard enough time with the flat Earth discussion as it is.

Like I ever said the sun was a spotlight over the Earth. Just shows people don't know what scientific critique is, and you only critique that person's assertions.

Well that would be pretty noticeable as it would never set, or rise if it was a spotlight...

First thing you need to do is provide actual science for one to critique it...so all that is left is the person's assertions.

Uhm, ThreeDeuce, what is your conter to this proof for a round earth:

(a) take two people, give them each a stick. Lets say this stick should be 3 feet long, it doesn't really matter.
(b) Give them each a mobile phone.
(c) put one in a plane and have him going either north or south, for a medium to long distance.
(d) Both stick their sticks in the ground, at a right angle.
(e) Player one calls player two the moment when he sees that the shadow of his stick is of minimal lenght. Measures the shadows length. Player two does so, too.
(f) compare lengths. Detect difference.

(z) measure distance to sun via solstice days and angles.

If you are making assumptions about the deviation of light in the boundary layer between two mediums (air/vacuum, cold/hot air, etc.), please use science by proving your point with a different experiment using this effect, so it can be affirmed. Same for other effects you might mention.

Science works by pretending that the own argument is wrong, and trying to prove that. Only if that is impossible, the argument is strong.