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.

 

The Flat Earth theory, With Interviews from believers

page: 16
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeroyBrown
I think it's quite sad the amount of people here who are being so ignorant, whether the earth is round or flat doesn't excuse the outright ignorance these people choose to show in the form of mocking, it's people like this who ruin threads because there's so much crap that anyone who has anything to actually add is put off. Shouldn't there be a trolling forum for these people to get their anger out.

Star & flag for a well presented thread by the way.
edit on 12/9/2012 by LeroyBrown because: (no reason given)


The word "ignorance" is not just some general catch-all phrase to call people who are acting in a way you perceive as negative.

Ignorance is lacking knowledge of something. Insulting or mocking someone or something is not Ignorant. Rude, mean, uncalled for, etc? Yes, maybe. But it's not being Ignorant.

Here is another word: "Irony" It's ironic you are calling others ignorant when you display your own ignorance about what the word even means, as you are using it in a context in which it makes zero sense.




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by gravitor
Excellent thread OP.
Our senses are short distance survival senses, they are fooled by illusions at much greater distances.
Most people will REPEAT like parrots that which they are indoctrinated to believe.
If that belief is challenged they attack whoever has challenged what they believe.
That has occured right through this thread.
I do not consider that this planet is moving one fraction of an inch at all, what is creating the illusions are switching flows just as the picture on Your screen is operating.
Great thread, if You can think outside of the box You have accepted to be kept within.


Believing that this planet is moving doesn't impact the planet being round.

Close to being as ridiculous though. So what, you think the Earth is the center of the universe? The sun rotates around the Earth? Or the sun doesn't exists and it's just god with a big flashlight sitting on some clouds?

I feel like we are entering the dark ages again.... and being led there by people who think they are somehow intelligent and open minded simply because they challenge commonly known facts. Doing so doesn't make you smart, it doesn't make you special, and it doesn't make you right.

I await for the day that someone with these out-there theories are able to actually predict something or produce a piece of technology with their own personal beliefs on how physics works. Because all the technology you use, the computer or cell phone you are using, the internet that's connecting you, the car that's driving you around, the GPS that's leading you, the TV you watch, the radio you listen you, the signals that direct and power those items, all made by people who follow the "satus quo" and their stuff actually works. If the commonly accepted norms of science allow real world things to be produced that means they work. If they didn't, the technology based on them wouldn't work.

By no means am I saying we know everything, or even close to it. But we do know certain things, the continuing function of every day items proves this.



You may be correct, with Your post it does seem as though We are entering the dark ages.
gravitor



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin


I can receive a satellite image from any number of satellites orbiting the planet and only a very small percentage are satellites controlled/deployed by NASA. The satellite image is received and decrypted at my home with a handheld scanner, antenna and a simple discriminator circuit.

How could I receive signals/data from satellites if what your saying is true?

In a flat earth scenario..... How would geostationary satellites be possible? I know that geostationary satellites exist and where they are (I'm sure every foxtel user with a satellite dish would agree) and can prove this by receiving data from them.

BTW, you might want to check out my post on page three.

edit on 12/9/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)


Great example of how ignorance leads to more ignorance!

You are evidently reasonably about satellites. You have a certain skill set and knowledge base that allows you to discern things that other people, like those denying satellites and a round Earth, can not.

Your knowledge of these things leads you to knowledge of the shape of the Earth.

Other people's ignorance of such things, leads to their ignorance of the shape of the earth.

Knowledge begets knowledge and ignorance begets ignorance. Star for your sir!

(and just to specify, in case I wasn't being clear enough, I'm not calling YOU ignorant, I'm saying you're knowledgeable, therefore gain more knowledge. The others are the ignint ones. Intentional misspelling for effect)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by hoppy1
In response to the edge of the world. The edge is antarctica, picture the earth as a table top and holding a flashlight above it. The sun moves in a circle above it. The center of the circle is North Pole, the edge of the circle is the South pole. The sun is more of directed beam of light similar to a flashlight. Daylight is the lit area, it is night time in the areas not lit.


Except, the landmass of Earth isn't that large. If the land was all laid out flat, and there was a beam of light powerful enough to produce daylight in one area, there would be side spill that would illuminate the dark areas. We would quite literally see a beam of light shining down from the sky far off in the distance. Like when you are in a dark room with a powerful enough flashlight, you can literally see the beam of the flashlight, like a lightsaber if you will.

In addition, people have gone "past" Antarctica and guess what? They didn't fall off the end of the Earth. The simple continued onto the other side. A feat only possible on a globe.

I mean really, this is some pretty basic stuff here. I can't see how a healthy mind could ignore such an incredible amount of logical errors with the idea of a flat Earth.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by hoppy1

Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by hoppy1
 


My beliefs about the moon landing in no way figure into this argument. I have a telescope and have viewed several planets and am very comfortable with the theory that planets are basically spheroid at the macro level. I personally have opinions as to the nature of the universe at the sub-Planck level but my opinions do not affect the nature of the universe, either.
edit on 12-9-2012 by elfie because: (no reason given)

If you believe NASA lied about the moon landing, you can believe the are lying about a lot of things.
I believe the stars are nothing more than what they appear to be, small specks of light.


Why must you be told what to think by NASA? You can't use your head and just think about the whole thing? Use some simply concepts to figure out the Earth is a globe? Research the multitudes of instances of people traveling around the Earth in ways which would be impossible if the Earth were flat?

You do realize that people were able to figure out that the Earth was round far, far before the person who thought of NASA was even a little spermy in his fathers sack? Why does this have to boil down to NASA?

You realize there are countries other than the USA that exist on Earth (or are other countries all lies too?) Russia isn't a part of NASA and they all know the Earth is round. China isn't a part of NASA and they all know the Earth is round. I could keep going but I think you get the idea....

Basically what I'm saying is the legitimacy of NASA has absolutely no bearing on the shape of the Earth. There are TONS of PRIVATE satellites in orbit around the Earth. Did you not know that? Did you think every Satellite and every image of the earth taken from space was all coming from NASA? Because that's far from the truth.

So where are these random specs of light coming from?

Do you think the Atomic Bomb doesn't exist? Do you think Nuclear power plants don't exist? The sun isn't a big nuclear furnace?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by gravitor
 



You may be correct, with Your post it does seem as though We are entering the dark ages.

Fortunately we have you here to enlighten us.

Have you or can you explain why Polaris is not visible to the Southern Hemisphere?

TIA



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


i'm shocked to see this thread still going on


you have done admirable service in the cause of good sense, but take some time out and have a nice cuppa, and some biscuits - you have more than earned them, and there will always be more loons out later



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by hoppy1
For all you guys who say there is no evidence, it is not true. Read the documents I linked previously. I have also proved flatness myself. I took a strong laser 500mw out on a boat. At night I was going to shine it and see how far I could see it from. It was windy out and I could not do the experiments I had planned. So we were sitting there in the boat close to shore and protected from the wind. I was just shining the laser around seeing what it could do. Then I noticed lighted channel marker buoys, and looked on the nautical charts. I could see the buoy that was 5 miles away. I checked this out (5 miles) on google earth also. The next day I went back to look at the buoy, it is 81/2' above the water level. My head was 2 feet above the water level. The drop over 5 miles on round earth should be 16', therefore the buoy could not have been seen by me, if the earth is a sphere.
The drop that there has to be if the earth is a sphere is greater than many expect.


That is hardly proof of flatness. If you take that as proof of the Earth being flat, then you should have no problem taking the millions of times more evidence of roundness.

Assuming this actually happened, and assuming you were actually correct in your distance, assuming you were actually correct with the buoys identity, assuming you were actually correct with the buoys location, you said yourself you were on extremely windy seas. Extremely windy seas means high swells. Which means you, or the buoy, or you AND the buoy could have EASILY risen high enough to be visible to each other.

Also, why was your head only 2 feet above water level? Were you on a submarine with your head popping out of the hatch?

If the Earth is flat, I should be able to get on a high mountain near the ocean, get a telescope, and see the continent on the other side of the Ocean, yes? Such a feat has not once ever happened. Hmm.... I wonder why.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by hoppy1
Have you ever thought about the tides? 2high tides at the same on opposite sides of the earth. NASA says they are caused primarily by gravity from the moon. That could make sense for 1high tide, but not for 2 in 24 hours.


It makes perfect sense if you take any time to actually understand the material.

Like I said before: Ignorance begets ignorance.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by gravitor


YOU are ASSUMING.
You are assuming that only those who are capable of expressing their knowledge in written excellence are capable of recieving higher knowledge....You assume wrongly.
Can a native of this planet who has never even seen the written word explain the knowledge He or She has far in advance of what You have been indoctrinated with?
No they cannot, but it means nothing in terms of what knowledge they actually know.
Please try to stop been boxed in by such reliance on wordsmiths.
I am highly dyslexic, and only this computer allows Me to be able to try and explain something that is not presently in the conciouscness field of this planet.
But there are those who can access higher knowledge from larger conciouscness fields, it helps though to be less indoctrinated , thus My dyslexia is a blessing.
gravitor


BAM!

And there it is!

I bow to thee oh mighty dyslexic god of man!

This is exactly what I'm taking people. This guy isn't claiming he did any research or test to determine the flatness of the Earth. He isn't even claiming he just read a very convincing article which he understood the material well. He is just so much more enlightened then all of us small minded folk that he can just grab ideas out of thin air! Quite literally. He just sat there with his eyes closed or something, and because he is so special he just has knowledge flow into his brain. That's impressive, no doubt.

To the people defending the flat Earth supporters, are you reading this? What do you have to say? You say we are being closed minded because we use logic and demonstrable tests to figure things out, where as this guy literally pulls it out of his butt and we are supposed to accept this?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by jeantherapy
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 


I feel like if the Earth were a flat plane, and you flew in an aircraft in the same direction indefinitely (if you had unlimited fuel) you should pass over the huge black void that would constitute the underside. Yet, like you've mentioned, nobody has ever been able to produce a shred of tangible evidence displaying this.


Well evidently, or at least the claim from one of these flat Earthers (they can't even all agree with each other, mind you) is that Antarctica is the end of the world. You go past Antarctica and you.... I don't know... fall of the edge? Or hit some wall so high you can't fly over it? (That strangely is not visible to anybody)

Yet many people have gone there and encountered no such wall.

I mean, if I honestly believed the world was flat and had an edge, I'd work for decades to get enough money, to mount an expedition, and I'd find the edge of the Earth and be successful as the FIRST and ONLY person EVER to prove the Earth is flat! I'd have evidence that there is indeed an edge to the Earth. Funny nobody has ever done this. Especially in today's world, it really wouldn't be terribly expensive or difficult to find this edge of the Earth if it in fact existed.

The more clever flat Earthers are at least smart enough to just claim the Earth is on a infinite plane, so you'll never find the edge. A convenient cop-out for sure. But this brings its own set of problems. If the Earth is on an infinite plane then we have infinite land mass! No more overcrowding! This flat Earth can support trillions upon trillions of people because the Earth never ends. Funny nobody was ever able to travel past the currently known continents to find this infinite landmass. Sounds like it would be very lucrative.

And if this infinite plane isn't infinite land but "something else" then we would still be able to find the barrier point between the "something else" and the known continents and ocean.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by hoppy1
 


Regarding your question about tides:

Why are there two tides each day


the moon's gravitational force pulls on water in the oceans so that there are "bulges" in the ocean on both sides of the planet. The moon pulls water toward it, and this causes the bulge toward the moon. The bulge on the side of the Earth opposite the moon is caused by the moon "pulling the Earth away" from the water on that side. If you are on the coast and the moon is directly overhead, you should experience a high tide. If the moon is directly overhead on the opposite side of the planet, you should also experience a high tide.

During the day, the Earth rotates 180 degrees in 12 hours. The moon, meanwhile, rotates 6 degrees around the earth in 12 hours. The twin bulges and the moon's rotation mean that any given coastal city experiences a high tide every 12 hours and 25 minutes or so.


I actually didn't know the right answer to that question and your question made me want to research it. Now I know why and it's a pretty basic, simple answer. There's math involved and more complicated answers out there but that pretty much explains it. See how easy that was?
edit on 13-9-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-9-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: fixing broken tags



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by gravitor
You cannot SEE any of this with your limited survival senses, but the bees and birds and fishes know all about this matrix, we have FORGOTTEN, or better described as We have been persuaded to forget.
Control of the masses is far simpler when they are basically blind to the true nature of universe.

Your EGO will fight to repel what I am trying to convey, ridicule is the first used attack, followed by outright abuse.
This universe is fantastic, and We should be part of it, not locked down on the surface of this planet.
You choose which pill to take????
gravitor


OK, so what about the various tribal peoples who have never been subjected to whatever type of mind control, brainwashing, or whatever else your talking about? Why can't they see these things?

What about people in the Roman day, for instance, or the dark ages, they surely didn't have TV or radio witch which to brainwash people, how did the elites or whoever else is perpetrating this able to stop people from seeing all this magical wizardry that you are somehow able to see? Were they just not as special as you?

You talk of ego, it seems yours dwarfs ours. We simply claim to use logic and testing to figure out the truth, something anybody is capable of doing. Where as you claim to have magical powers that us normies aren't special enough to possess. Your just way more advanced and powerful than us mere mortals. Who's the egotist now?

And what's this talk of the Universe? I thought the stars were just random specs of light, and the moon and sun are just big flashlights? Who's perpetrating all this trickery getting all us fools to think things like the sun, moon, and starts actually exist? If none of the things in the cosmos that we think exist are real, what's out there? I'm asking questions as to learn as evidently you know much more than us peons. Please enlighten us, or are we not worthy?



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by PurpleChiten


ROFLMAO!!!!
You don't even know who Fibonacci is!!! LMAO "the ratio of fibonacci of 55/34" ROFLMAO!!!

I am a Mathematician and a Physicist, I DO know who Fibonacci is. I'm quite familiar with his work, the sequence and with the Golden Ratio. YOU, however, are not. You thought maybe that would be a "big fancy word" to throw at people to throw them off track, but you really stepped in it this time lil darlin.
You probably don't even realize that Fibonacci was a person, you probably thought that was some "big fancy science word" that you'd throw out to try to make people think you knew what you were talking about!


I seriously doubt you have any concept of who Fibonacci even is. Heck, I'd even bet 112358 to one, you have no idea
(some people will actually get that pun, you aren't one of those people). You have no concept of what phi is, you have no concept of the Golden Ratio, you know absolutely NOTHING yet you are trying to play it off as though you do... that's just downright SAD!

You are repeating something somebody told you because you thought it sounded "smart" when it's not smart, not true and has been debunked time and time again. Very straightfoward explanations are given to you, having absolutely nothing to do with NASA or any other governmental agency, yet you ignore those and cling to a fairy tale as though it is the gospel truth.



Instant classic!


I find it hilarious how all these "above all you peons" types tell us how science is bogus, yet they use all sorts of scientific ideas, but use them badly and out of context.

Nobody who calls bullchit on the sciences has ever been able to come up with an alternative way of explaining the world around us. They make up the "end game" as it were, they plainly explain how things are (according to them) put provide no means by which they attained this knowledge. Only little scraps of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo that holds no relevance to those who actually know about the things of which they speak.

It would be like me, a non-religious person, saying how the bible is false, god doesn't exists, so on and so fourth, and then using badly researched and contextualized biblical content to prove my point. Sheer sillyness.

BTW, I just want to say in general, to no specific person, I apologize for posting so much in this thread. I'm not at all trying to troll or clog anything up, but (unlike many people) when a thread interests me, even if it's a really long thread (like this one) I'll read the whole thing, from page one. Which means there is a LOT of content that I wish to reply to. Because of ATS's character restriction for each post, when I wish to quote someone and reply to them it's far easier and makes more sense to simply reply to each post in a separate post. This way it's clear who I'm talking to, and I don't run out of character space.

I just wanted to say that, as I think I've made like 10+ posts in a row, and don't want anyone accusing me of trying to troll this thread or posting too much or something like that.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
You, know, there is not one aerial photo proving a flat earth but hundreds proving a spherical earth. PICS OR IT DIDN"T HAPPEN.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemonkeydishwasher
reply to post by PurpleChiten
 


heh

Words interpreted literally without a point of referential knowledge will always lead One astray.

This, however, does not circumvent the fact that we are entrapped within a 2D world, an illusion of three dimensions.



The Church just likes to screw with the minds of their flock.

If this were a true 3D world, we would operate in triplets, rather than a binary formation.

(photon) wave is to particle as (electron) one is to zero
...as bagpipes are to modem noises.

heh


Huh.... funny you mention the church, because they were the ones that perpetuated this flat Earth nonsense in the first place. Round Earthers were blasphemers. Which is why foolish folk always say "scientists don't know anything, they just recently realized the Earth was round" when in fact people knew the Earth was round for a loooong time, but the good ol' church was the one that wanted to drill the flat Earth crap into people's minds. Much like their idea that the sun revolved around the Earth, hell the whole universe revolved around the Earth.

Even the church isn't so stupid nowadays to try and hang onto this outdated malarkey.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hoppy1

I believe the moon is a self luminated object, as the sun is. I have no explanation for moon phases.

I believe those earth shots are fake. There is a youtube video of the astronauts faking earth shots from space. Can't link now from phone.


Lol, this is too easy....

So if the Moon is a self-illuminated object, why isn't it a full moon all the time? The Moon just happens to decide to stop emitting light at the exact same time, and in the exact same shape as the Earth blocking the sunlight from hitting the Moon and reflecting back onto Earth?

I mean, I know you don't believe that the moon orbits the Earth, which orbits the sun, and that the moon gives off it's own light. But don't you find it funny how IF the moon DID orbit the Earth, which DID orbit the sun, which DID illuminate the moon, how it all works out PERFECTLY that the Earth would theoretically block out the sun's light from hitting the moon, giving us that nice crescent shaped moon?

Funny how that works.... I mean how it all works perfectly for how we say it works, but you just don't have any explanation whatsoever for why the moon appears as it does if your idea is correct. Hmmmm.... I mean really your mind doesn't put that together and say "hey, those guy's idea about how this stuff works makes perfect sense, because the moon appears just like they say it will, based on the mechanics they claim are true, but I don't believe it, yet I have zero explanation at all for the moon's appearance"

Hmmmmmm........



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 





I mean, if I honestly believed the world was flat and had an edge, I'd work for decades to get enough money, to mount an expedition, and I'd find the edge of the Earth and be successful as the FIRST and ONLY person EVER to prove the Earth is flat! I'd have evidence that there is indeed an edge to the Earth. Funny nobody has ever done this. Especially in today's world, it really wouldn't be terribly expensive or difficult to find this edge of the Earth if it in fact existed.


I know, right?

The excuses I've seen in this thread is that it's so deadly no one could ever possibly survive such an expedition. There's a couple of different scenarios here that would still work. Is there no one who believes in the FE idea who is willing to risk their life to better humanity or to prove this? We have remote cameras (whether you believe in satellites or not, they still work) that can transmit images instantly, so even if the explorer taking the photos perishes, the photos would survive. Not one single FE believer out there interested in a kamakaze jump off the edge of the earth for the sake of mankind?

A second scenario is to go to where it's not so deadly yet and send a remote vehicle. NASA put one on Mars, so the edge of the earth shouldn't be too hard to get to. Even if you don't believe they put one on mars, in this case you wouldn't have to leave the planet so there's no excuse.

Government surrounding the place you say? Well, I'm sure you could get at least close enough with a decent telescope and take some pictures of this gang, right? Area 51 has to be one of the most guarded places on the planet yet regular people with some decent equipment still manage to get pictures of it from mountaintops over 10 miles away.

So, yeah, there's ways to prove this icy wall or edge or whatever but since the earth is actually round and no icy wall or edge exists anywhere except in the mind of a FE believer, no one will step up for their cause.
edit on 13-9-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by Orderamongchaos
 





how many people do you personally know that have been to Antarctica

I live with one. How do you explain the lack of giant ice wall where McMurdo Station is, which is located at the southern tip of Ross Island? When people fly to the continent to work at McMurdo, they land near here. No giant ice wall, sorry. While it is the bottom of the world, there's no mysterious edge to somehow accidentally fall off of.


During the summer months, there are hundreds of people on Antarctica.


Ignorance begets ignorance. They think it's some mythical place that only two people have ever been to and only 1 lived to tell the tale (which didn't include any ice wall or edge of the Earth, strangely)

This really is too easy, if they are trolling they aren't doing a very good job, they are just making themselves look foolish and providing some solid entertainment for us.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by hoppy1

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy
hoppy1, as long as you don't know how to explain why the moon is sometime spherical, sometime crescent, don't bother pushing your kiddy science.
I don't care what you think. I just came here to let you know what I believe. If you guys don't want to hear about it I'll leave. CHILL PEOPLE.


No, that's the problem, we DO want to hear about it.

Just coming on here and telling us WHAT you believe is worthless. We already know that. WHY you believe it is what we are interested in. But you won't tell us, because you don't have any explanation.

We find it odd you believe in a very off the wall idea that you yourself claim you have no explanation for.

We can explain these things, such as the shapes of the moon throughout the month, using our idea (well, not really ours, it's the idea of every sane person) everything fits. With your idea, nothing fits, and then when we ask you to explain, you throw your hands up and say "I have no idea"

A logical person doesn't behave like that. If they are defending an idea, they actually defend it. They have reasons to believe in what they do. Evidently you don't. Which begs the question why you continue to believe it. Your only reason that you continue to bring up is because you don't like NASA. But NASA has nothing to do with the shape of the Earth. There are millions of proofs that are completely independent of NASA, and the shape of the Earth has been around far before NASA.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join