The Earth Is Flat, Proof In Model - [FARCE]

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Well Del, thanks for answering our question, you seem patient enough to explain it but I don't think I will be able to perscribe to it unless I actually fly up to space.

In your theory, how did we sent spaceships to mars? or is that all a farce along with the moon landing etc?

Come on. Its such an insult to those who put in 1000's of hours of real flight time to become astronauts. To just ignore what they have to say because they just falling to the conspiracy theory of, well they must be lying, otherwise the theory wont work.

Its highly unsubstantiated, no proof, all whimsical theories like this that give skunkworks a bad name here on ATS.

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by IchiNiSan
reply to post by _Del_

 

no the mapis only to show a few direct flight routes, you can check out the flight duration byyourself. And answer and explain my questions why it take shorter to Argentina with a direct flight from Australia than to UK.

A combination of time dilation and planes travelling faster could account for this under flat earth theory.

So this is your best explanation why the DIRECT FLIGHT from Sydney to Buenos Aires is half the time flying from Sydney to London? Please look up your own model and map

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Well Del, thanks for answering our question, you seem patient enough to explain it but I don't think I will be able to perscribe to it unless I actually fly up to space.

In your theory, how did we sent spaceships to mars? or is that all a farce along with the moon landing etc?

In flat earth theory you don't have sustained space flight. And Mars would be very small. What would be the point?

Originally posted by bknapple
Come on. Its such an insult to those who put in 1000's of hours of real flight time to become astronauts. To just ignore what they have to say because they just falling to the conspiracy theory of, well they must be lying, otherwise the theory wont work.

There are thousands more people who put in flight hours and don't claim to have visited space. How many astronauts have there been? Not that many comparably. Not everyone is in on the conspiracy: how many people really need to know? not that many.

Originally posted by IchiNiSan

Originally posted by _Del_

A combination of time dilation and planes travelling faster could account for this under flat earth theory.

So this is your best explanation why the DIRECT FLIGHT from Sydney to Buenos Aires is half the time flying from Sydney to London? Please look up your own model and map

Do you understand time dilation? Or aircraft flying those routes fly faster than those on other routes because of winds prononced by the spinning disc. There are competing theories.

I think somewhere in this thread it was said that NASA is faking all that it does with outer-space science projects - missions to other planets, mapping the universe etc. If NASA is tricking us - then what about the public companies that send satellites into space every other day?

Also - www.msnbc.msn.com...

So even the public is in on this conspiracy????????

Originally posted by andre18
I think somewhere in this thread it was said that NASA is faking all that it does with outer-space science projects - missions to other planets, mapping the universe etc. If NASA is tricking us

- then what about the public companies that send satellites into space every other day?

Also - www.msnbc.msn.com...

So even the public is in on this conspiracy????????

Burt Rutan is a crafty guy. You should see the things he's built.
www.scaled.com...

Obviously there is a market for his aircraft. What better way to boost company stock than CLAIM to visit space?
There are rumours he also owns stock in the Bavarian Globe Makers Guild. But that is pure speculation.

What do we have here?

Dare one suggest that the OP is taking the p*** out of those gullible conspiracy theorists who use a similarly deluded process to argue 'We never went to the Moon' or 'A cruise missile hit The Pentagon on 9/11' etc. etc. despite all evidence to the contrary?

Obviously, the Apollo program sent 21 astronauts to The Moon, six of whom landed and walked there. Obviously, Flight 77 struck The Pentagon on 9/11. Obviously, the OP knows The Earth is spherical. Etc. etc. etc. Hundreds of other examples could be chosen.

'Farce'? You bet.

Thanks for the laugh, mate.

hmmm, this looks almost possible, keep up the research!

sodom
"hmmm, this looks almost possible, keep up the research! "
he he, hohohoh, LOL....
this was sarcastic? sure or...lol hoho

nice one OP, happy 420 ,( better late than never...)

sodom

kan ik hier or only english

ok, so the main problem with your theory is that nasa is lying and fakeing all of there pictures of a round earth. the main question is, what benefit does nasa have for us believing in a round earth? None that I can think of, also with your model it would be shorter to take most flights over the artic wich isnt the case. and the sun is constantly circing the artic, why would it be much colder.

waar is diene kerel, diene zei , use your native language , i do understand

en ja , jullie pc als je daar anders tegen praat , kun je ermee doen wat je wilt !

ik weet dat dit je bereikt !

in english language , if you translate this , you have a good laugh !

Originally posted by tylerc25211
ok, so the main problem with your theory is that nasa is lying and fakeing all of there pictures of a round earth. the main question is, what benefit does nasa have for us believing in a round earth? None that I can think of, also with your model it would be shorter to take most flights over the artic wich isnt the case. and the sun is constantly circing the artic, why would it be much colder.

NASA has a huge budget. Which is cheaper to produce faked pictures or space craft that travel millions of miles to other planets? Where does the rest of that money go? Sounds like motive. Also the Bavarian Globe Makers Guild uses their wealth to exert influence and/or control over several governments and government agencies.
Perhaps you aren't are of the great circle route? It shorter to fly over the poles, but there are logistical reasons for not doing so.
The sun is much smaller than you assume, and it's orbit expands and contracts with the seasons. Most of the light and heat of the sun is radiated under the sun itself, which is never above the pole or rim.

that makes no sence at all, if the sun is above you (not directly but the point of axis) why would we precieve it as being below the planet or even below us. This theory seems to manipulate the way we precieve the planet based on what you are trying to explain and makes little sence. Also, if space flight is impossible based on this model what are all the satalites doing in space relaying signals around the globe? ive seen satelites in space on a clear nite so there is no debunking this.

Originally posted by tylerc25211
that makes no sence at all, if the sun is above you (not directly but the point of axis) why would we precieve it as being below the planet or even below us. This theory seems to manipulate the way we precieve the planet based on what you are trying to explain and makes little sence. Also, if space flight is impossible based on this model what are all the satalites doing in space relaying signals around the globe? ive seen satelites in space on a clear nite so there is no debunking this.

Why would you perceive an airplane traveling below the horizon? It's the same principle. Satellites have been covered multiple times in the thread.

the reason airplanes are below the horison is because the earth is round, the reason we even have a horizon is because its round. Im saying that the sun up in space (much higher than a plane) would NOT be precieved below the horizon in the artic if we went by this flat earth model (where the sun is circiling the artic). If we went by this the sun would constantly be seen and the artic would be much warmer. It just makes little to no sence, If something is above you (the sun) you should be able to see it. Im sorry the round earth just makes perfect sence to me. And also, what about planets, in your theory does every planet in our solar system have its own sun? And what was the responce to the satelite question i am unable to find it.

Originally posted by tylerc25211
the reason airplanes are below the horison is because the earth is round, the reason we even have a horizon is because its round. Im saying that the sun up in space (much higher than a plane) would NOT be precieved below the horizon in the artic if we went by this flat earth model (where the sun is circiling the artic). If we went by this the sun would constantly be seen and the artic would be much warmer. It just makes little to no sence, If something is above you (the sun) you should be able to see it. Im sorry the round earth just makes perfect sence to me. And also, what about planets, in your theory does every planet in our solar system have its own sun? And what was the responce to the satelite question i am unable to find it.

You're not making any sense. It's perspective, I'm sure you're aware of it. A long flat building appears to diminish to the horizon. I'm sure we've all seen this many times. You're not suggesting all buildings are really round, are you? Everything diminishes toward the horizon.
The sun is not constantly seen in the artic. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. The orbit of the sun and moon are not centered on the pole.
i42.photobucket.com...
Notice the sun and moon are not drawn to scale. They are actually much smaller, but this should demonstrate the effect. The model for seasons has been presented in the thread as well. Please do your applicable research next time.
The planets revolve around the sun. Why would they have their own sun? Actually, technically Earth is the only Planet. The other heavenly bodies are globes or globets. We should maintain the orgin of the word planum or planus -- flat.
Short version of satellites: "Satellites" are high altitude planes or blimps which maintain station to relay signals back to earth.

Del, I've always wondered about the etymology of "Plane-t" what else can you say about plane-ts and stars? What do you think the planets and stars are really? Are the Sun, Moon, and Stars physical?

Originally posted by _Del_

Originally posted by hackbart
Before i start wasting my time with the most illogical and crude nonsense i've ever come across, providing you hundreds of flaws in your simple minded theory, i have a question for you:

How can earth cast a shadow on the moon, if it's a flat disc with the sun and moon hovering above it?

The earth never casts a shadow on the moon. Unless the finger of God or something similarly bright were to appear behind the cylindrical earth. Seems pretty unlikely.

Why did i know you wouldn't find a logical explaination for this?

You can stop now with your pseudo critical thinking crap.

edit:

[edit on 21-4-2008 by hackbart]