The flat earth conspiracy

a reply to: lSkrewloosel

That's easy: stars and planets are not objects at all, but rather -- hole in the cape of a galactic superman. God put them there because they:

1) block most of the light of heaven, because you haven't earned it yet

2) trick you into thinking he doesn't exist.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: AstralAvenger
a reply to: TerryDon79

You have been debunked. The SC is not located due South, since it moves across the sky.

I never said due south. I said approximately South. Nice try though.

Still, it was nice of you to debunk flat earth.

Well that southern cross video was interesting, because I guess it shows there is no star or constellation in the south that can guide you due south, such as there is with the north star Polaris.

Perhaps the land down under is too wide for that.

originally posted by: AstralAvenger
a reply to: D8Tee

If the earth were flat, I'd be able to see unlimited distances,

Nope, there is a vanishing point due to perspective, and you don't have infite vision in the first place because of the atmosphere, dust, water vapor etc.

Entry level stuff.

Tell me why then the 'vanishing point due to perspective' does not apply to the moon please.

I can see the moon drop over the horizon and it's a lot further away than a ocean liner that disappears from view when you watch it.

How far is the moon away from the earth in your model?

a reply to: InachMarbank

Perhaps the land down under is too wide for that.

Just as wide as the land on top.

But they do have strange stars. And animals.

a reply to: D8Tee

as you can probally guess - i is not a flat earth cultist , but :

How far is the moon away from the earth in your model?

is a very good question for exposing flat earther dishonesty .

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: InachMarbank

Perhaps the land down under is too wide for that.

Just as wide as the land on top.

But they do have strange stars. And animals.

Did you catch the YouTube video of Neil deGrasse Tyson early in this thread? He said the earth is wider in the south and pear shaped...

Is this not so?

Perhaps you can answer the reason for this inverse phenomenon...

The tides generally get higher the further north you go.

The winds generally get stronger the further south you go.

Do you know why this is so?

a reply to: InachMarbank

Is this not so?

Did you not see my earlier post?

The tides generally get higher the further north you go.

False.

The winds generally get stronger the further south you go.

Also false.

Do you know why this is so?

It isn't.

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

amusing response.


anything science related?

a reply to: lSkrewloosel

its not even amusing [ my opinion ] - its typical of the drivel anti science cultists spew

they come up with an " explaination " - that doesnt actually explain anything - and is contradicted by multiple observations

in this instance the " cape " of thier imaginary " friend " mas magic mobile " holes " to allow the retrograte portions of orbits to be observed

the different holes move at different speeds - just to ensure that the " planets " appear to conform to the heliocentric model

you couldnt make this up as credible satire - but some folks actually believe it - for real

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: InachMarbank

Is this not so?

Did you not see my earlier post?

The tides generally get higher the further north you go.

False.

The winds generally get stronger the further south you go.

Also false.

Do you know why this is so?

It isn't.

I must have missed your earlier post regarding that Tyson pear shaped comment.

If you compare Pacific tides in
San Francisco
Seattle
Anchorage
you will see they get higher the further north you go up North America.
I saw that on charts from the NOAA.
Doesn't this suggest tides get higher further north?

If you compare cross country flight times between USA and Australia, you will see Australian flights travel at a slower land speed. Must be because its always windier across Australia than USA, right?
Also, Antarctica has been measured as the windiest continent in the world, right?

a reply to: InachMarbank

I saw that on charts from the NOAA.

Cool. Can you post a link? Does it include the southern hemisphere? The western Pacific?

Doesn't this suggest tides get higher further north?

I would say that it would depend more upon bathymetry than latitude. The Bay of Fundy is well south of Anchorage, and yet, it has the highest tides on the planet.

If you compare cross country flight times between USA and Australia, you will see Australian flights travel at a slower land speed

Can you provide a source for this claim?

Ding Dong!

I been thinking about this alternative geography more and coming up with...

Antarctica is twice the diameter of the equator...
~ 50,000 miles in circumference...
~ 15,800 miles in diameter...
~ relatively flat (though mountainous)...
~ Is the bottom of a round bell shape...

^^^

~ above equator is top of bell...
~ below equator are sides of bell...
~ bottom of bell is relatively flat Antarctica...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: InachMarbank

I saw that on charts from the NOAA.

Cool. Can you post a link? Does it include the southern hemisphere?

Doesn't this suggest tides get higher further north?

I would say that it would depend more upon bathymetry than latitude. The Bay of Fundy is well south of Anchorage, and yet, it has the highest tides on the planet.

If you compare cross country flight times between USA and Australia, you will see Australian flights travel at a slower land speed

Can you provide a source for this claim?

Oh hey... Ya I will check back tomorrow from my home computer where I can pull up the research better.

Cheers.

a reply to: InachMarbank

Antarctica is twice the diameter of the equator...

Are you measuring each bay and stuff? Cuz, you know, fractals.

Even considering that, I still don't believe you.

originally posted by: Brian4real
I definitely do not. Ive listened to many arguments for the flat earth, and some had valid points, but no one has been able to point to a believable motive for its concealment.
Im still open to hear it if someone has one...

^^THIS
Same here, I have heard the earth being flat theory many times and to them I say the same thing, tell me the reason why they are concealing this and I'll believe you.

a reply to: AnneFlemings

Really?

Some one comes up with a motive, and you're all on board for the flat Earth.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AnneFlemings

Really?

Some one comes up with a motive, and you're all on board for the flat Earth.

It's an anti globalist agenda dressed up as something else for profit.

They literally funnel money out of youtube, they know what they're doing.

Top 15 flat earth channels could buy a plane, and have made over 5 million dollars. And this is a small part of their group abusing the rev scam.

While it's pretty neat idea anyone can get rich filming a lake and babbling about conspiracies, it's ruinng youtube as their videos becoming completely ad driven.

a reply to: InachMarbank

the results of the :

vandee globe

volvo ocean

contradict your " alt - geography "

edit to add :

as does the scheduled airliner services :

johnanasburg RSA > perth AUS

sydney AUS >> santiago CL

a reply to: AnneFlemings

i am more inclined to go with the physical evidence - all of which says spheroid model

the analysis of the motive " why " is secondary - and should only come AFTER and IF the flat earth claim has been demonstrated

and as it has not - discussing motive = mental mastrubation [ my opinion ]

and for folks information - YES i have personally conducted multiple and repeated experiments that demonstrate the spheroid model

due to the limitations of my skills - and more important - the limitations of the equipment i have access too - i cannot verify the oblateness of the earth personally - and take it " on faith " that there really is a 60 km difference in polar and equitorial diameter - because it is both intuative and repeated by independant sources with no adjenda

originally posted by: DocScurlock1774
a reply to: dfnj2015

the earth is a sphere cause nasa says so. if you disagree your a crazy person.

"it is photo shopped...but it has to be." -nasa

I have a very big question to Flat Earthers....
And that is...

"SO %*!@ING WHAT IF IT'S TRUE?"

how are is either perspective going to alter your lives in ANY COHERENT FASHION?

..,aaaare YOU gonna try to get to the "MOON" and report back about your experience?
Are you going to traverse the international date line and report back about the simulation resetting your position back to the beginning? How would you even record such data?
The phones you are reading this on are using satellites that you need to prove are actually doing WHAT?, as opposed to orbiting the earth...and how would you prove this?
By having the lengths and means to launch your OWN test satellites with flat earth simulation software on-board??

I mean come now.
The vast majority (and I'm assuming ALL) FLAT EARTHERS are not professionally at the scientific level of "astronaut" or "quantum physicist Phd" ...in order to valiantly test these prospects to liberate the world from some "Dark City" type reality...
So it's just supposition... It's just hyperbole...
Its just really blaaa blaa blaa that IN REALITY...EVENTUALLY..MAKES ZERO IMPACT ON THE STATUS QUO.

I MEAN...

WHAT would you finally proving it to yourselves actually positively produce?

NONE of you have the wherewithal to test it's actuality in reality. No access to high technology. No access to higher levels of society to make its truth be known...

Whether or not you live on a superficial simulated plane, or an "actual" (whatever THAT means) "Sphere"...
Still will never change the experience you're having RIGHT NOW.

so why even bicker about it?

Unless it's within someone's benefit to see a certain amount of you believe this, while its not true....
I can't see the importance of the seemingly enthusiastic DRIVE to shove its concept into the minds of those who would easily recieve it.....

Imho...lol