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.

 

a point by point demolition of the flat earth claims

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 02:42 AM
link   
Hmmm.

Seismology.

So the only way it works like it does, is there is some force under the flat Earth that intercepts all of the S and P waves and re-routes and delays them to make it appear the Earth is spherical. The Earth is perpetrating a conspiracy!




posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
Hmmm.

Seismology.

So the only way it works like it does, is there is some force under the flat Earth that intercepts all of the S and P waves and re-routes and delays them to make it appear the Earth is spherical. The Earth is perpetrating a conspiracy!


I dont know what it is..but I can assure you FE believers have an excuse ready to explain seismology.



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Pop4life

1. Has science ever been wrong about an idea or theory pertaining to the earth and universe?


yes - but irrelevant to this thread

just to humour you - the spheroid model has been " wrong " on several key occassions

Eratosthenes opined that the earth was a perfect sphere - and as on one pre space age could measyre the globe with sufficient accuracy to falsify this claim - it stood [ all subsequent science ypto the 1960s meaured the earth with increasing precision - but the difference in polar and equitorial diameters was smaller than the error margin ]

the space race demonstrated the eccentricity and the oblate spheroid model was accepted

now in the 21st century - laser mapping has revealed that the maximum global circumferance is not at the equator .

so yes - the spehroid model has had to change to accommodate more precise measurements - but all the updates have done is include data that could not be previously measured with the accuracy required

there is zero room for the flat earth delusion


2. Do GoPro cameras bend or curve the image/video it takes?


yes - but irrelevant to this thread


3. Can anyone really setup an expedition to the Antarctica Continent? (If so show me, because i have tried)


yes - there have been countless antactic expeditions - i have grave doubts you tried very hard

google " antarctic expedition " - simples

big hint : wikki list


4. Has anyone ever traveled across the entire Antarctica Continent?


yes : there are many - but notable are : Sir Ranulph Fiennes , Felicity Aston .

the problem is that flat earthers then move the goal posts and claim that they ` just went round the edge `

whats your response going to be ?




5. Explain please and thank you. What makes you so sure that there is not any faulty ideas or errors in the heliocentric model?


the fact that it is testable , repeatable and verifiable - and accounts for every obervational dataset shows that it is sufficiently robust that the flat earth delusion is imposible - again see response to point one


6. Why have we not been to the moon again?


irrelevant to this thread - i am sensing a theme here - are you just JAQing off ???


. To be honest nasa has been looking like a bunch of fools as of late. With all of the half truths and hidden information (lies).


citations required


So its only natural to doubt someone who lies. Am i wrong?


i have demonstrated that all flat earth claims are lies - so we musrt doubt them - am i wrong ?


There are so many theories and models of the earth and solar systems.


yes - there is the scitentic theory of the eaths form - which is testable repeatable and verifiable and accounts for all observations - and a gaggle of batcrap delusions about flat earths and other idiocy pulled out of idiots arses


Most act like there are no errors in the present day models and ideas.


not scientists


Most act like there are no errors in the present day models and ideas.


try applying this logic to flat earth delusions


Though there are faults in many of those things. (Pluto comes to mind)


no faults with pluto - IF you understand what pluto is - the current classification of " planet statuus " ans what else is out there in trans neptunian space


So until we as a race reach the technology for space travel. I am not counting out the flat earth theory.


then you have not read the OP of this thread

edit on 22-3-2016 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 03:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Pop4life

just answer me one question - why did you insist on shoehorning NASA into this thread

i did not use any data or observations that relied on any 3rd party in my OP or the follow-ups to it

NASA - is an irrelevancy when it comes to refuteing the flat earth delusion

all NASA has done for earth sciences in regard of the eaths dimensions // shape is provide increasingly accurate measurements - and datasets that could only be collected from orbit

but this data is not unique to NASA - every other space agency co-oberates the improved data

i am now at a stage where - if a flat earth claimant brings up NASA - its a sign they have no real argument



posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: charlyv
Hmmm.

Seismology.

So the only way it works like it does, is there is some force under the flat Earth that intercepts all of the S and P waves and re-routes and delays them to make it appear the Earth is spherical. The Earth is perpetrating a conspiracy!


I dont know what it is..but I can assure you FE believers have an excuse ready to explain seismology.


I would really like to read their explaination, but bet we won't.. it will be left out there and overlooked because like many other facts of science, it in not really refutable. Better yet, you do not have to go out into space to prove it.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

i has seen this bat crap before - and once sat down to do a rebuttal of the ` 200 points ` - an easier task than it sounds as so many are simply dupes

but having started - i hit an impasse of laughing my ass off

i will let " eric " tell it in his " own " plaigerised words [ as many of these " points " come from an origional pamphley published in the late 19th century - that only had 100

but :


56) The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution!


58) The Royal Belgian Geographical Society in their “Expedition Antarctique Belge,” recorded that during the most severe part of the Antarctic winter, from 71 degrees South latitude onwards, the sun sets on May 17th and is not seen above the horizon again until July 21st! This is completely at odds with the ball-Earth theory, but easily explained by the flat-Earth model. The Midnight Sun is seen from high altitudes in extreme Northern latitudes during Arctic summer because the Sun, at its inner-most cycle, is circling tightly enough around the polar center that it remains visible above the horizon for someone at such a vantage point. Likewise, in extreme Southern latitudes during Arctic summer, the Sun completely disappears from view for over 2 months because there at the Northern Tropic, at the inner-most arc of its boomerang journey, the Sun is circling the Northern center too tightly to be seen from the Southern circumference.



the idiot manages to contradict itself in 2 points - so game over



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

new WORLD order. The answer is right in front of your face, the world (aka the Earth) is the one behind the whole thing.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

You know that even with all that research the naysayers will still say fake.

I mean its not like we have some floating object above the earth that we can tap into and look down onto the earth through it just by going to google maps and clicking on satellite mode. Maybe when the day comes where something like that exists, maybe then.. No. No it wont change anything.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: totallackey

thankyou for that eloquent demonstration that you have not infact read the OP of this thread

further :


Neil says it is an oblate spheroid, shaped more like a pear. See any photos from NASA that are shaped like a pear?


please tell us what the eccintricity of the equitorial and polar diameters are and why you believe that this should be discernable in a photograph


I did read the OP, thank you. According to posted measures, it is estimated the eccintricy is approximately 30 - 40 km, which it would need to be to be maintain the imperceptibility in the photoshopped composites presented to us as proof of a spheroid shape.

So the real point now becomes maintenance and propogation of photoshopped composites presented to the public as real photographs, which of course, they are not.
edit on 23-3-2016 by totallackey because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: totallackey

lets actually address the point ATS member " nonspecific " actually made shall we :


we see what we believe (or have been led to believe) take an easy jet ride without your filters. the glass windows on planes are curved, so you can't go by what you see. if aeroplane glass windows are concave, then the image you see outside of the window is distorted.


that quote from a unidentified " farcebook aquaintance of " nomsepecific " is what you cropped

why did you activly avoid addressing this ???????

my inclination would be :

because the flat earth delusion of " airliners have concave windows - to distort the view " falls apart when you actually look out one while the plane is still sat at the terminal .

so much for you honesty , integrity and scientific literacy


I actively avoided addressing the point of windows of an airplane because it is not necessary to the true point. The true point is NO curvature of the Earth can be ascertained at commercial airline altitude. Anyone who claims they can see the Earth's curvature at that level of altitude is a lying asshat according to the math.

So much for your honesty, integrity, and scientific literacy.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: kushness

Well according to the flat earther's everything we know about gravity is wrong so satellites can't exist and NASA is in on it by providing fake data. Ignore the part that people other than NASA have satellites, to the flat earthers space=NASA



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: totallackey

actually - why dont you actually explain your alledged " chicago skyline " pic ?

pertinany questions include [ but are not limited to ] :

is navy pier visible in this aledged image - if not why not ?

how many days / year can this pic be replicated - and why ?

the science of inversions - both superiour and inferior is well documented and understood

and actually falsifies the flat earth " argument " as the existance of such inversions is dependant on local weather conditions

if the flat earth claim was true - chicago should be visible at any distance from the shores of mitchigan , in the absence of mist , fog , pollution , precipitation or low cloud


I am aware of inversions; however, I assure you, this is not the case. The Chicago Skyline is visible a vast majority of the time from my vantage point and, according to the math, should not be visible at all. Period. End of sentence. End of argument.

As far as your final point, that is just wrong. The human eye has its limits, just like everything else. And Lake Michigan is more like an ocean in terms of swells and waves. These can also act as viewing obstructions.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape

i will let " eric " tell it in his " own " plaigerised words [ as many of these " points " come from an origional pamphley published in the late 19th century - that only had 100

but :

56) The “Midnight Sun” is an Arctic phenomenon occurring annually during the summer solstice where for several days straight an observer significantly far enough north can watch the Sun traveling circles over-head, rising and falling in the sky throughout the day, but never fully setting for upwards of 72+ hours! If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles. Any other vantage point from 89 degrees latitude downwards could never, regardless of any tilt or inclination, see the Sun for 24 hours straight. To see the Sun for an entire revolution on a spinning globe at a point other than the poles, you would have to be looking through miles and miles of land and sea for part of the revolution!


This one makes no sense to me, because if I take my spherical globe, tilted at 23.5 degrees, and shine a light on it, there is a large region near the Arctic (below the 89 degree latitude) that can stay lit the entire time that I spin the globe.

Does this "Eric" person offer up any reason or proof for his assertion that no place below the 89th parallel should be able to have a 24-hour day if the Earth were a spheroid? I can show his assertion is false with a globe and a flashlight; what evidence does he have that it is true?


BY THE WAY...
My Avatar is completely coincidental regarding this thread; it has nothing to do with a flat Earth. My screen name is a reference to the Grateful Dead song of the same name, and the avatar is in reference to the idea that the lyrics of "just a box of rain...wind and water" is supposed to be the Earth on which we all live.

edit on 3/23/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: totallackey

Neil says it is an oblate spheroid, shaped more like a pear. See any photos from NASA that are shaped like a pear?


Even DeGrasse Tyson says that the pear-shaped Earth is NOT something that can be noticed just by looking at the Earth.

The difference in the width of the earth at its widest point compared to the pole-to-pole "height" of the earth is about 44km (28 miles). That's a 28 mile difference over the Earth's 8000 mile diameter. That would make the height 99.7% of the width.

That tiny bulge is not something you are going to notice by looking at the Earth or its shadow. You won't be able to "see" that pear-shape in pictures of the Earth. It's something that is discerned just through precise measurement.

To illustrate how tiny the difference is look at this graphic. This shape on the left is a perfect circle (or as perfect as the graphic software I used would allow ;-). The shape on the right is a slightly imperfect circle, with the height 99.7% that of the width, and the widest part being below the horizontal center, in the lower hemisphere, similar to the measured dimension of the "pear-shaped" Earth:


Can anyone really see a difference?

EDIT:
I changed the graphic to be side-by-side rather than top-and-bottom to fit better on the webpage.


edit on 3/23/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

If it's supposed to be your proof of something then post the photo.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I can see the difference!!!!

(Runs and hides)



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: totallackey

Neil says it is an oblate spheroid, shaped more like a pear. See any photos from NASA that are shaped like a pear?


Even DeGrasse Tyson says that the pear-shaped Earth is NOT something that can be noticed just by looking at the Earth.

The difference in the width of the earth at its widest point compared to the pole-to-pole "height" of the earth is about 44km (28 miles). That's a 28 mile difference over the Earth's 8000 mile diameter. That would make the height 99.7% of the width.

That tiny bulge is not something you are going to notice by looking at the Earth or its shadow. You won't be able to "see" that pear-shape in pictures of the Earth. It's something that is discerned just through precise measurement.

To illustrate how tiny the difference is look at this graphic. This shape on the left is a perfect circle (or as perfect as the graphic software I used would allow ;-). The shape on the right is a slightly imperfect circle, with the height 99.7% that of the width, and the widest part being below the horizontal center, in the lower hemisphere, similar to the measured dimension of the "pear-shaped" Earth:


Can anyone really see a difference?

EDIT:
I changed the graphic to be side-by-side rather than top-and-bottom to fit better on the webpage.



No. I do not see much of a difference, even in this small size rendering you posted here. Neither would anyone else if they were being honest. Yet, you know because the images are your construct. So go ahead and construct me something resembling a pear and we will go from there...Show me how I can mistake a pear...

There was no need for Neil to be an asshat and introduce the word PEAR either, was there?

The images from NASA and all other space agencies are CONSTRUCTS/COMPOSITES/PHOTOSHOPPED CRAP...And the asshats are caught in their own words...



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: totallackey

Oh that's great!

So you can show us all the science of how the world is flat?

I look forward to it.



posted on Mar, 23 2016 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: totallackey

If it's supposed to be your proof of something then post the photo.


I am going to get a couple of more with differing weather conditions on different days and post them all here unedited within 2 weeks. That way we will all see the results.



posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 11:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: totallackey

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: totallackey

Neil says it is an oblate spheroid, shaped more like a pear. See any photos from NASA that are shaped like a pear?


Even DeGrasse Tyson says that the pear-shaped Earth is NOT something that can be noticed just by looking at the Earth.

The difference in the width of the earth at its widest point compared to the pole-to-pole "height" of the earth is about 44km (28 miles). That's a 28 mile difference over the Earth's 8000 mile diameter. That would make the height 99.7% of the width.

That tiny bulge is not something you are going to notice by looking at the Earth or its shadow. You won't be able to "see" that pear-shape in pictures of the Earth. It's something that is discerned just through precise measurement.

To illustrate how tiny the difference is look at this graphic. This shape on the left is a perfect circle (or as perfect as the graphic software I used would allow ;-). The shape on the right is a slightly imperfect circle, with the height 99.7% that of the width, and the widest part being below the horizontal center, in the lower hemisphere, similar to the measured dimension of the "pear-shaped" Earth:


Can anyone really see a difference?

EDIT:
I changed the graphic to be side-by-side rather than top-and-bottom to fit better on the webpage.



No. I do not see much of a difference, even in this small size rendering you posted here. Neither would anyone else if they were being honest. Yet, you know because the images are your construct. So go ahead and construct me something resembling a pear and we will go from there...Show me how I can mistake a pear...

There was no need for Neil to be an asshat and introduce the word PEAR either, was there?

The images from NASA and all other space agencies are CONSTRUCTS/COMPOSITES/PHOTOSHOPPED CRAP...And the asshats are caught in their own words...

Why is he an asshat for using a word that describes Earth? Pear shaped, bigger on the bottom, like the Earth. Neil said the difference is too small to see with the naked eye. If there is a problem it is on your end.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join