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.

 

Flat earth theory?

page: 113
14
<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2019 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

Even extreme religious people distance themselves from this nonsense




posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
The Hollow earthers and the expanding earthers are laughing at this


What about the simulated universe matrix people?


We are all good and posting across the net



posted on Jun, 25 2019 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: stonerwilliam

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: stonerwilliam
The Hollow earthers and the expanding earthers are laughing at this


What about the simulated universe matrix people?


We are all good and posting across the net


Hi SW.

Careful: lest the juvenile bully-in-training globe-heads start leaning on ya.
Did you know that: since they don't believe in flat-Earth; they have globes in their cars to navigate around?
Really. Just ask 'em.



posted on Jun, 26 2019 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Nothin




Did you know that: since they don't believe in flat-Earth; they have globes in their cars to navigate around? Really. Just ask 'em.


Can you explain what you mean by that, please?



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Nothin




Did you know that: since they don't believe in flat-Earth; they have globes in their cars to navigate around? Really. Just ask 'em.


Can you explain what you mean by that, please?


Intended for someone else to ask the proposed question.
Was a reference to an earlier post in this thread.
Long time ago, and understandable that you wouldn't remember.



posted on Jun, 27 2019 @ 03:40 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

i suspect i know what the evasive little sophist is talking about - and if correct - its his usual bollox - a straw man from him

but hey - if only he cited his claims - we wouldnt be having this post

edit on 27-6-2019 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

You are referencing to a bible quote place on his tombstone.

No quote where he said rockets couldn’t go into space.


Are you serious?

The only reference on his tombstone specifically mentions the existence of the firmament, and somehow, that's not relevant?




posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
So...…………..

Just to clarify for the entire class....

Something like planetary retrograde which I've witnessed with my own eyes... is not real... The ISS isn't real, even though many have seen it overhead at night... including myself and other posters... Satellites aren't real, even though you can see them on a clear night almost nightly... Annnnnnnd, planets are actually stars with unique paths...

Yet you know theres a dome over a flat earth... even though you can't see it, or prove it...



The blue sky IS the firmament, which is proven when we see every object BELOW the blue sky, in daylight.

The Sun, the moon, stars, and so-called 'planets', can all be seen below the blue sky in daylight, which proves they ARE below the blue sky, of the firmament.

The moon is a great example, because it is seen at night, AND in daylight, at the EXACT same position in the sky, which is proof of it being BELOW the blue sky.

And yes, planets are simply stars with unique paths, nothing more. 'Retrograde' doesn't exist, it's simply a lame excuse for their unique movements. You can't even account for Venus, which moves opposite of other 'planets', because it is NOT a planet, same as other 'planets' are simply stars with unique paths. With my argument, Venus fits perfectly. With your argument, Venus can't fit at all.


The so-called 'satellites' and 'ISS' you claim to see 'orbit' Earth, are simply lights above a dark sky, which you ASSUME are 'satellites' and the 'ISS', and further assume they are all orbiting the Earth. That's hardly proof of what you claim, by any standard of evidence.


Look at your so-called 'satellite' going into Earth 'orbit', which passes by clouds!! The fact is clouds are within Earth's atmosphere, that's where your so-called 'satellite' is seen! Like all objects are seen, below the blue sky.


If 'satellites' were going into 'orbit', they would NOT pass by clouds, they would NOT be seen below the blue sky, which is where they ACTUALLY ARE, in the blue sky.

I asked you to show me any rocket that REALLY goes into orbit, or flies up until it is barely a little speck above us, which then, finally vanishes from sight. Shown from the surface of Earth, itself. You show me a rocket passing by clouds, in a blue sky, and a phony 'rocket' going into 'space' alongside it, and you think it's 'proof' or something!!!


What a joke.



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


The blue sky IS the firmament, which is proven when we see every object BELOW the blue sky, in daylight.


I think you misunderstand the word "proven" lol


The Sun, the moon, stars, and so-called 'planets', can all be seen below the blue sky in daylight, which proves they ARE below the blue sky, of the firmament.


No... a few planets can be seen in the blue sky of the morning or evening... you can't see a single star unless the sun is blocked... that's how light works. And the only reason you can see a few of the planets in early or late light is because the reflection of light is brighter then the prevailing or escaping light


The moon is a great example, because it is seen at night, AND in daylight, at the EXACT same position in the sky, which is proof of it being BELOW the blue sky.


and "Proof" that it changes shape apparently... lol


And yes, planets are simply stars with unique paths, nothing more. 'Retrograde' doesn't exist, it's simply a lame excuse for their unique movements. You can't even account for Venus, which moves opposite of other 'planets', because it is NOT a planet, same as other 'planets' are simply stars with unique paths. With my argument, Venus fits perfectly. With your argument, Venus can't fit at all.


Actually you don't have an arugument… you just babble nonsense...

You couldn't pick out venus in the sky if someone payed you to do so... unless you used your phone or Cpu…

You don't know or understand the path of Venus..... so don't tell me I can't account for it, whatever that means!!

God did it isn't even a half assed answer to planetary retrograde... it happens, you can witness it.. period


The so-called 'satellites' and 'ISS' you claim to see 'orbit' Earth, are simply lights above a dark sky, which you ASSUME are 'satellites' and the 'ISS', and further assume they are all orbiting the Earth. That's hardly proof of what you claim, by any standard of evidence.


Lights...



Look at your so-called 'satellite' going into Earth 'orbit', which passes by clouds!! The fact is clouds are within Earth's atmosphere, that's where your so-called 'satellite' is seen! Like all objects are seen, below the blue sky.


uhm.. what?


If 'satellites' were going into 'orbit', they would NOT pass by clouds, they would NOT be seen below the blue sky, which is where they ACTUALLY ARE, in the blue sky.




and the Darwin award goes to...…



I asked you to show me any rocket that REALLY goes into orbit, or flies up until it is barely a little speck above us, which then, finally vanishes from sight. Shown from the surface of Earth, itself. You show me a rocket passing by clouds, in a blue sky, and a phony 'rocket' going into 'space' alongside it, and you think it's 'proof' or something!!!


What a joke.


Yeah its pretty damn funny!! LMAO!!

IF i showed you a rocket that went up and vanished... it would be going straight up... which means, it would return STRAIGHT back down... what don't you get about that??

TO orbit the planet you need to be circling it... what don't you get about that?

Objects don't FLOAT in space... nor do they float on this planet... they fall at a certain speed...

Orbit, is literally falling around the planet.... which is exactly what the video I posted for you showed




edit on 29-6-2019 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Rockets WOULD fly straight up if they were going into space. Claiming rockets must first 'break free of Earth's gravity' is their lame excuse for rockets veering sideways, where nobody can see them anymore...

If 'gravity' existed as claimed, as a massive force within the Earth, which pulls objects down, to the Earth's surface....

The force must be strongest, when objects are nearer to the Earth, and weaker, when objects are farther from Earth....


Based on all known, proven forces, it is an absolute fact.


When claiming there is a force which completely opposes proven forces, contradicts all physical laws, and common sense, that cannot show a sliver of proof to support it even EXISTS....it is sheer nonsense.

A force that doesn't hold a rocket in any way from LEAVING the Earth, or going upward in air, AWAY from Earth, somehow will hold rockets from breaking free of that massive force, which didn't hold anything to Earth, until then!!

If it didn't hold a rocket to Earth's surface, or pull it towards Earth, afterwards, rockets would NOT have to 'break free' of some 'force' within Earth!!


You make up excuses for everything, and this one takes the cake!

A rocket that can fly from Earth's surface, without resistance, proves that NO resistance exists within Earth, as it flies freely in air. And it continues to fly directly upward, in air, without resistance from a force within Earth.

Even if there WAS resistance from a force within Earth, the rocket has overcome it. And the rocket would NOT face MORE resistance from the force, but only when it's at a far greater distance, AWAY from the source of that force!


This is a total joke!


(post by Akragon removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 29 2019 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Why do you keep posting. You just look ignorant and dogmatic at this point.

By the way. What is you explanation for all the broadcasts and data transmitted from space. Such as weather maps? Radar ground maps?



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Why do you keep posting. You just look ignorant and dogmatic at this point.

By the way. What is you explanation for all the broadcasts and data transmitted from space. Such as weather maps? Radar ground maps?


Why do YOU keep posting? That's the real question here.

I support the flat Earth argument, and I post evidence that backs it up.

You say the flat Earth argument is nonsense, and not worth discussing, yet you are here, discussing it all this time. Why would you keep posting about an issue you feel is NOT worth discussing?


I don't go on threads about issues like werewolves, or time travel, or so on, because I find they are nonsense, and not worth wasting time discussing with those who support them. I've gone on alien threads, and pointed out that aliens have never been proven, nobody has seen them, and those who claim to have seen them have no proof to support their claims. I also mention that aliens were never mentioned for thousands of years before recently, which makes no sense, unless they don't really exist, and despite all that, people seem so convinced they exist. They just ignore those points, and go on discussing aliens as if they were proven to exist. So from that, I just leave the thread, and let them discuss aliens as if they were real, or something. At least I made the points clear, and if they are that dense to not even respond to my points, then it's a waste of time to continue.

I've never seen you and others go on alien threads, or similar threads, and call people idiots for believing in such things. At least, not like you do with the flat Earth threads.

Why would you care about the flat Earth argument so much, that you keep posting about it, and saying how it's utter nonsense, yet you never discuss aliens?

If you don't believe in aliens, and that the alien issue is not even worth discussing, then why, oh why, do you keep on discussing the flat Earth issue?


Ask yourself why you keep on posting on the flat Earth issue...an issue you say in nonsense, and a waste of time to discuss....


The only reason you would keep discussing the flat Earth issue, is because you DON'T find it is nonsense, or a waste of time. Whether you just won't admit it, or you don't even realize it, you are still discussing it because you find it worth your time to post on it...



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   
The radar maps are based on Earth, so that's not an issue.

The 'satellite' maps are not from 'orbit', since 'orbit' doesn't even exist. That's why I asked you to show me actual footage from Earth proving a rocket actually goes up into 'orbit', because no footage shows such a thing (and never will, of course).

How could radio signals, which originate from a single source, on Earth, which is a tower......possibly reach a car hundreds of miles away? How could shortwave signals travel thousand of miles over an ocean?

If the Earth was round, like you claim, the curvature of Earth would never allow signals to reach across the oceans, as the signal would be way above the Earth's surface by then.

The only reason radio/shortwave signals can reach across the oceans, is because the Earth is a flat surface. A curved surface would not allow for signals to reach the Earth's surface, thousands of miles away. By that point, the signal would be going way above the Earth's surface, into 'space'.



So why do you wonder how a signal goes across an ocean without bouncing off a 'satellite', when a shortwave signal reaches over the ocean without a problem? Because you accept that 'satellites' are the only possible way to explain these signals reaching thousands of miles away, and nothing else can explain it??



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Now I freely admit to being a bit of a simpleton but even I fully understand how shortwave radio works.

Explained in layman's terms so even I can understand.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.google.co.uk... 81#imgdii=rWxOm4u_6myDJM:&imgrc=-iN38ZsNgoWVWM:&spf=1561941820468



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: turbonium1

Now I freely admit to being a bit of a simpleton but even I fully understand how shortwave radio works.

Explained in layman's terms so even I can understand.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.google.co.uk... 81#imgdii=rWxOm4u_6myDJM:&imgrc=-iN38ZsNgoWVWM:&spf=1561941820468



Since you didn't explain your source, let's review what it says about shortwave signals...

Radio waves in the shortwave band can be reflected or refracted from a layer of electrically charged atoms in the atmosphere called the ionosphere. Therefore, short waves directed at an angle into the sky can be reflected back to Earth at great distances, beyond the horizon. This is called skywave or "skip" propagation. Thus shortwave radio can be used for very long distance communication, in contrast to radio waves of higher frequency which travel in straight lines (line-of-sight propagation) and are limited by the visual horizon, about 64 km (40 miles). Shortwave radio is used for broadcasting of voice and music to shortwave listeners over very large areas; sometimes entire continents or beyond. It is also used for military over-the-horizon radar, diplomatic communication, and two-way international communication by amateur radio enthusiasts for hobby, educational and emergency purposes, as well as for long distance aviation and marine communications.

Wow, who knew that shortwave signals reached across oceans, years before they first 'invented' satellites, which 'bounce' signals from 'orbit'?

Well, everyone here should know it by now, if they didn't before.


If shortwave signals DO bounce off the atmosphere, and back to Earth again, then 'satellites' are not needed for long distance signal transmissions, as claimed by your side.

So why claim satellites prove the Earth is round, when it's not true at all?



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Hey dingle berry. You don’t address the real issue. What the hell are the thousands of objects transmitting data from space to earth.

Like the only way we had HBO growing up is by using a satellite subscription, a satellite dish, and the satellite dish pointed at the right satellite.

You just look more and more dogmatic and unintelligent ever post.
edit on 30-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Olympic broadcasting before satellites


1960 Summer Games

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Since television broadcast satellites were still two years into the future, CBS, CBC, and Televisa shot and edited videotapes in Rome, fed the tapes to Paris where they were re-recorded onto other tapes, which were then loaded onto jet planes to North America. Planes carrying the tapes landed at Idlewild Airport in New York City, where mobile units fed the tapes to CBS, to Toronto for the CBC, and to Mexico City for Televisa. Despite this arrangement, many daytime events were broadcast in North America, especially on CBS and CBC, the same day they took place.[9]


Olympic broadcasting after satellite



1964 Summer Games

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The games were telecast to the United States using Syncom 3, the first geostationary communication satellite. It was the first television program to cross the Pacific Ocean.


Why in the hell would there be lies around using satellites for real-time broadcasting across the pacific.

Any response you give is just going to mark you for the intelligently dishonest dogmatic person you are.



posted on Jun, 30 2019 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Hey dingle berry. You don’t address the real issue. What the hell are the thousands of objects transmitting data from space to earth.

Like the only way we had HBO growing up is by using a satellite subscription, a satellite dish, and the satellite dish pointed at the right satellite.



Insults are childish, so grow up, for once....

The idea of thousands of satellites being in Earth orbit, transmitting data to Earth, is a complete farce. Nonsense.

Shortwave signals reach across the oceans, without any satellites, so your claim fails right there.


What if they had claimed shortwave signals reached across the ocean by bouncing signals off 'satellites' in Earth orbit? You would believe it was true, same as you believe it is true now, with no proof of any kind.

The only difference is that they did NOT claim shortwave signals bounced off satellites in orbit, back then. They couldn't claim this back then, because we hadn't 'flown into orbit' yet. But if they had 'flown into orbit' back then, they'd have claimed satellites were used to transmit shortwave signals across the oceans.


If you want to believe that thousands of 'satellites' are really in 'orbit', that's your own little fantasy tale.


I don't accept what they claim as true, I want PROOF of what they claim, and no proof exists, in any way, at all.

They have never shown a single rocket, among 'thousands' of rockets, actually going into orbit, from Earth. None. Never.

What if I told you airplanes are flying above Earth, but you never saw one fly above Earth, and nobody else saw one fly above Earth, either...? Would you believe me, or not? Would you ask to SEE an airplane actually fly above Earth, before you believed it was true, or not?


So when you claim thousands of satellites are in orbit, which nobody has ever seen happen with their own eyes, why do you wonder why I'm asking you to PROVE your claim is true? Do you expect me to believe what you claim, without a shred of proof, or something? Not a chance, bud.



posted on Jul, 1 2019 @ 12:35 AM
link   
Suppose I told you a force held objects to Earth, but not birds or insects, and told you this same force didn't hold a rocket from going straight up in the air, above Earth, but held it from leaving Earth's gravity, which nobody can see happen, but they told us it happens?

That's nonsense, of course.


Let's assume 'gravity' doesn't hold a rocket from flying straight up, but holds a rocket from leaving Earth's gravity, which makes no sense in any way, but let's go with it, for argument's sake.

At a certain point, the rocket still has to fly into orbit, from there, which must be seen FROM the Earth, wherever that happens....right?

It's nonsense.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 110  111  112    114  115  116 >>

log in

join