It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I am in utter disbelief that this 'Flat-Earth' nonsense has gained some attention

page: 31
50
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: solargeddon

I think flat earth is gaining traction because less people are getting an education and relying more on people on YouTube.

(Spheroid is easier to type than oblate spheroid lol)




posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlatBastard
a reply to: TerryDon79




I find it more amusing to see them get worked up because they can't explain things such as Polaris or certain flights


You mean how you throw insults my way but I am not allowed to return the favor?


I've not thrown a single insult at you. I've made generalisation that may or may not include you based on what you may or may not think.

Nice deflection away from explaining Polaris (the flat earth eater)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

Lets not forget that Youtuber and The2ofusr1 are saying his claim is true that the earth doesnt rotate....WHAT?!!!

These are clearly the two most prophetic movies of the twentieth century.....





posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: FlatBastard

youve apparently never worked in aviation or the military.......

All flights and indeed all missile systems have to account for curvature of the earth to land on target.......wop wop....

Try again.....



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: FlatBastard
a reply to: TerryDon79

I wasn't refering to high altitude observations Terry, and you know it. How high do you have to be to see teh curvature, btw?


EXACTLY!

All the "information" you get from your FE sites are based on observations from the ground. Try climbing Mount Everest and having a look.

But it doesn't matter. I've never seen Mount Everest, so that doesn't exist.


So you don't know how high you have to go to see curvature. But you just said I didn't look high enough. Guess that was BS then.

So where do you get your information. Did you do all kinds of experiments and observations for yourself or did you simply go to all teh ball Earth sites and schools.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlatBastard

I said, make no sense on ball Earth. The logical fallacy was that your experience represents all possibilities. and I will show you examples.

You keep saying it ... still waiting on those examples.



The atmosphere alone would prevent it, and we would deal with perspective and viewing angle. Curvature would not be needed.

Did you even think that through.

Yes, and all you did is lie. You should be able to see with a telescope FAR FAR FAR beyond the 'curvature' ... you can't, because curvature is real.




Says who, this has already been explained, and proven. The perspective horizon is further away than where the curvature horizon should actually be. Conclusion, there is no curvature.

I did not lie about anything. Some flights don't make sense on ball Earth.

Still waiting on those examples. Why won't you post all these flights that make no sense ... oh .. because they are all possible.

Oh and I think you are confusing refraction, which can push what you can see a bit further out due to a mirage effect .. with there being no curvature. No curvature you should be able to see 10x, 100x further .. you can't.
edit on 30-12-2016 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: FlatBastard

I've seen the curvature. I've been high enough (altitude wise). But you won't believe me because "you've not seen it, so it's not true".

I guess Donald Trump doesn't exist. I've never seen him.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask





All flights and indeed all missile systems have to account for curvature of the earth to land on target.......wop wop....


Flights have to account for curvature to land on target, in what way exactly do you mean?

And in what way do missiles do this?



edit on 12/30/2016 by FlatBastard because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: FlatBastard

I've seen the curvature. I've been high enough (altitude wise). But you won't believe me because "you've not seen it, so it's not true".

I guess Donald Trump doesn't exist. I've never seen him.


You personally saw the curvature?

So what altitude was it?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlatBastard

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: FlatBastard

I've seen the curvature. I've been high enough (altitude wise). But you won't believe me because "you've not seen it, so it's not true".

I guess Donald Trump doesn't exist. I've never seen him.


You personally saw the curvature?

So what altitude was it?


About that high. That's in feet btw, not meters.

Found anything on your precious FE sites about Polaris yet?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Oh and I think you are confusing refraction, which can push what you can see a bit further out due to a mirage effect .. with there being no curvature. No curvature you should be able to see 10x, 100x further .. you can't.


I just told you this has already been demonstrated, in this thread, with calculations that took refraction into account. I just posted an example. Sofar you have all ignored this for days.
edit on 12/30/2016 by FlatBastard because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Actually the second picture...is that W.A.L.L.E ?

Because that is pretty prophetic, as E.M Forster wrote a short story called "The Machine Stops" great story, was written way before the age of the couch potato, predicting the sedimentary lifestyle when life is aitomated.

Have no idea what the first pic is, so I will defer to your analysis for that one.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlatBastard
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Oh and I think you are confusing refraction, which can push what you can see a bit further out due to a mirage effect .. with there being no curvature. No curvature you should be able to see 10x, 100x further .. you can't.


I just told this has already been demonstrated, in this thread, with calculations that took refraction into account. I just posted an example. Sofar you have all ignored this for days.


And you have ignored the beast that obliterates the FE nonesense.

Polaris

Hey! I've never seen Alaska. They dont exist either.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: solargeddon

First pic is from idiocracy.

Great film and sums up FE believers to a T.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

And you are calling me a liar. You obviously haven't seen it and you can't give me the altitude from which you supposedly are able to see it.

Your BS claim has been debunked.

All you can do is murmle Polaris but it is just a light in the sky. Circumstantial stuff.
edit on 12/30/2016 by FlatBastard because: (no reason given)


(post by FlatBastard removed for a manners violation)

posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: FlatBastard

So you now know what I have or haven't seen? LOL

So you DO ignore Polaris. I guess that's all you can do when it makes you FE nonsense EXPLODE.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlatBastard
a reply to: TerryDon79

Terry, you suck at this, you know that right.


The ONLY thing you've been right about is.....um.....nope, can't think of anything.

Care to explain a little thing called Polaris?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

So at what altitude can you see the curvature. I admit that I don't have a satisfactory answer now, the thing is you obviously have the answer to my question, since you claim to have seen it yourself. Why would you not simply answer the question.

What altitude?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: FlatBastard

We are 31 pages in, you will have to post it again. The fact you think Sydney-Santiago COULD be possible on a flat earth and there are current flights that make no sense on a Sphere Earth and you will name them .. but refuse to name them .. makes me think you saying trust me is not enough.

Polaris .. the Moon .. FE is quite simply impossible.






top topics



 
50
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join