Post: #76

Excellent write up Jackreacher.
Well done.
This is exactly the kind of topics we need to be examining to get to a more logical conclusion of what's the truth.
As for all the satellites, space shuttles and NASA footage I'm finding a lot of material online that seems to show how all of them COULD be fake.
I'm not saying they are...but the arguments they present are fascinating.

Another thing....Googles maps and google earth doesn't seem to give you much detail on the landscape of antarctica.

Post: #77

I'm undecided on the flat Earth question (leaning heavily toward ball earth), but if I were to choose based on nothing more than this short thread, I'd conclude:

Flat Earth opponents: mean-spirited, mockers of independent thought.

Flat Earth proponents: zealous, earnest, wondering if they might have been duped.

Based on this alone, tell me which side is more red pill.

Post: #78

(01-22-2017 10:09 PM)Hoser Wrote:  I'm undecided on the flat Earth question (leaning heavily toward ball earth), but if I were to choose based on nothing more than this short thread, I'd conclude:

Flat Earth opponents: mean-spirited, mockers of independent thought.

Flat Earth proponents: zealous, earnest, wondering if they might have been duped.

Based on this alone, tell me which side is more red pill.

The counter-official-narrative opinion will always look worst if you look trough the prism you are looking. It's just like the beta underdog looks like the one who deserves to get the girl in Hollywood movies.

All I see is flat earth proponents pasting more dubious arguments from the internet and round earth proponents debunking them. Then flat earth proponents, not bothering to reply and pasting the same arguments from a different source.

Post: #79

A fair assessment. I just wish the discussion were more civil. In a courtroom*, typically the less unhinged side prevails. Here, the debunkers are largely the ones losing their shit.

* Real courtrooms, not TV or movie courtrooms. Quintus would back me on this

Post: #80

Compilation of strange inconsistencies in the international space station (ISS) videos and other material from NASA :






And China:

Weird "bubbles" in the Chinese "space walk" videos

Post: #81

That China video is new to me.

Honest question: has any space apologist shared a good answer to the bubble question? I've sure seen a lot of bubbles in a lot of space movies. Surely there's a sensible source, if the traditional narrative is to be believed.

Post: #82

(01-22-2017 10:09 PM)Hoser Wrote:  I'm undecided on the flat Earth question (leaning heavily toward ball earth), but if I were to choose based on nothing more than this short thread, I'd conclude:

Flat Earth opponents: mean-spirited, mockers of independent thought.

Flat Earth proponents: zealous, earnest, wondering if they might have been duped.

Based on this alone, tell me which side is more red pill.

It's annoying arguing with flat earthers and people who take similar science-denying positions because the arguments they make depend heavily on scientific ignorance, logical fallacies and confirmation bias.

What's the motivation even supposed to be for untold millions of scientists to prop up the Sphere Earth Conspiracy? Surely some legit scientists would present papers showing data that supports the flat earth business if it was real. Or are all of us scientists just supposed to be too stupid to see the truth?

I'm positive the moon landings were not a hoax. But at least there's a logical argument for why the US might want to perpetuate such a hoax, if that's what it was. So who benefits, and in what way, from pretending the planet is an oblate spheroid if it's actually flat?

Post: #83

^ Yup. Sad but true. It's just a shame that more people don't keep the argument aimed at the issues, as you do.

Post: #84

I honestly can't tell if that's shit tier snark or what.

Post: #85

(01-25-2017 11:32 PM)weambulance Wrote:  It's annoying arguing with flat earthers and people who take similar science-denying positions because the arguments they make depend heavily on scientific ignorance, logical fallacies and confirmation bias.

What's the motivation even supposed to be for untold millions of scientists to prop up the Sphere Earth Conspiracy? Surely some legit scientists would present papers showing data that supports the flat earth business if it was real. Or are all of us scientists just supposed to be too stupid to see the truth?

I'm positive the moon landings were not a hoax. But at least there's a logical argument for why the US might want to perpetuate such a hoax, if that's what it was. So who benefits, and in what way, from pretending the planet is an oblate spheroid if it's actually flat?

To be fair, I think it would be best to look at what is actually presented as physical or observable evidence. No one can account for the individual motivations of millions of people to maintain a deception if such a deception has in fact taken place, unless of course it could be done with a very broad brush, where a simple and obvious answer could fit in neatly with that conclusion. There are simply too many variables to account for in that scenario. It would more then likely be an assumption. Throughout history slaves were usually left uneducated and in many cases grossly misinformed, an uneducated slave is much easier to control and manipulate. Offer the illusion of freedom and no one will make a run for the boundaries you set forth. Think about the "5 monkey's in a ladder" social experiment. It's perfectly OK and important to question what has already been "discovered" provided that what one is questioning is not immediately apparent.

It's not like wood where you can simply tap on it and at a moments notice observe that it is actually solid, a flat or a round Earth is not as readily apparent, it requires a certain level of experimentation, at the very least considerable research from excellent sources. Nasa for example is an excellent source, there is a tremendous wealth of information regarding the subject from the orginazation even if some of the video evidence they put up is a bit suspicious:





Most of their data is pretty solid. Take into account that China landed on the moon as well:

China's Moon Landing

More on China's Moon Landing

Around 120,000 people work at the CASC (China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation) the umbrella corporation that did the bulk of the work for the moon landing project as well as CNSA (The Chinese National Space Agency) to make that landing a reality.

I don't believe any of these organizations are being deceptive. But I'd say it's best to use physical evidence to support an argument over human accountability or even anecdotal information wherever possible.

I'll also say that if a man such as Nicola Tesla could make an error in judgement with respect to the shape of the Earth then surely a layman could be forgiven.

Post: #86

It's always fun to see these day/night pictures of flat Earth...


... then wait for someone to explain how does the light just stop at Alaska and it's pitch dark from there on?

And related to the above, if the Earth was flat, how come the Sun is not visible from South America?

Have you guys ever tried placing a light bulb over a flat cardboard?

Post: #87

Any why the heck do you need to use conformal map functions to show a map of the Earth on a 2D image if the Earth is flat?



Why not just place a 2D square grid over the map and have a map that is both conformal and preserves metric properties (such as shape and scale) then? This would make navigation and geodesy much easier.

Post: #88

I realize these are not views espoused by Jackreacher, just points he's offering that are believed by flat earthers.

(01-22-2017 02:26 PM)Jackreacher Wrote:  The problem with Flat Earth Theory is that it presupposes quite a lot. I won't go into the MANY reasons why a Flat Earth couldn't be possible but I'll take the devil's approach and put up some of the points that are certainly interesting and worth considering as “noteworthy” arguments.

The Foundation of Flat Earth
I'll start at the ground level with how the Earth itself is seen at different heights. If one were for example to look at the land surrounding them and the land was mostly featureless(no mountains, hills, no depressions) the earth would appear to be quite flat. The same would occur if one were standing on the tallest sky scraper or the tallest mountain on the Earth. It would again still appear to be flat. Even at 40,000 feet above land (while flying) the Earth would still appear flat at eye level. The first man to enter the stratosphere August Piccard declared that the Earth "seemed a flat disk with upturned edge". It was recorded he went as high as ten miles into the sky.



The Earth's Curvature
Now in regards to the curvature of the Earth here is what Google has to say; Using the theorem of Pythagoras a2= 39632+ 12= 15705370 and thus a = 3963.000126 miles. Thus your position is 3963.000126 - 3963 = 0.000126 miles above the surface of the earth. 0.000126 miles = 12*5280*0.000126 = 7.98 inches.

So for every mile you will get 8 inches of curvature roughly speaking. Using one of the calculators available on the web I punched in how much curvature could be expected over a distance of 60 miles standing at an eye level of 6 feet. The calculation comes out to 2100 feet of curvature. The second tallest tower the Shanghai Tower would be completely obscured to me at that distance as it is 2073 feet tall.

This assumes, though, that the earth is a perfect sphere. It's not only not a sphere in general shape--it's an oblate spheroid--but it has enormous amounts of surface relief relative to the height of a person. This complicates the matter significantly.

Quote:Flat Earth Theory states that this is not true and points to some anecdotal evidence, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLlNKy5j_O8

As the man says, it's a mirage. Or can I go to the southeast coast of Lake Michigan and see Chicago on any clear day?

Mirages are well known, well understood phenomena. I've seen mirages plenty of times in the southwest US.

Very in-depth discussion of the Chicago-from-Michigan picture here:

https://www.quora.com/Chicago-is-59-mile...it-be-seen

Quote:and with due respect to the curving horizon and perspective

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE

I have no idea what I'm supposed to see here. That boat is not nearly far enough away to claim proof of anything regarding horizon curvature.





Slowest sinking sailboat ever? Or is it disappearing over the curved horizon?

Quote:Most Popular Flat Earth Model
Now lets take a look at their views regarding what the Earth looks like in their model. How for example does a flat earth theorist account for circumnavigation around the globe? So far this is the most popularized model of the Earth that FE theorists point to to demonstrate how circumnavigation is possible on a flat model and I urge you not to laugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOhsKAR6OY

The Sun and Moon
So that covers the mainstream view of the what the Earth looks like to most Flat Earth Theorists, now what about the Sun, the Moon and the rest of the universe with all the planets and celestial objects within the cosmos. For this the best way I can describe it in their terms is with Plato's “Allegory of The Cave” analogy. We see the sun and the moon as round therefore the Earth must be round also is what they claim is a logical error. To them the sun and moon are not celestial objects hundreds of thousands, or in the case of the Sun 93,000,000 miles away but instead sits 70-80 miles over a transparent dome that encapsulates the lands of the Earth and is synonymous to what is known in scriptures as the “Firmament”.

Not much to say there.

Quote:What could possibly support some of these outlandish views?

One of the arguments has to do with the rays of the Sun:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_ppPXChyTo

Their perspective on the Sun's supposed “Vanishing” point

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayZcmJbL4Q

First one is too long to bother with.

Second one is meaningless. I've seen sunsets where the sun looked huge on the horizon. So?

Quote:How night and day at the same time is supposedly impossible on a round Earth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPlGJdY3PkI

Because the earth is a spheroid and on a significantly tilted axis, this is how daylight looks on a flat projection map:



The moon is visible to about half the earth at any given time if the earth is a spheroid. Is it possible to orient a globe to see Alaska and Australia at the same time, as if you were standing on the moon looking at earth?



Yep.

Quote:How the Moon does not appear to rotate since we never see the “Dark Side” of the moon:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZIB_leg75Q

Tidal lock.

Quote:Also of note how the Moon appears upside down when viewed from the south hemisphere:

Moon's Orientation

This is evidence for a spheroid earth, not flat.

Quote:The Stars and Other Planets
Now for the rest of the celestial objects they claim that the stars are nothing at all like our sun and that other planets do not exist. For example a non digital telescope will render images that look nothing like the depictions of stars and planets that you find from Nasa:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kGc-ukd0Pk

If you're looking through atmosphere, there's enormous distortion. Also, it's well known that NASA images are often punched up one way or another to represent what's there in a way more appropriate to how humans perceive things. If you take data from a radio telescope array what does that picture look like?

Quote:The North Star
Polaris, the North Star never moves. All the stars visible from the Earth appear to revolve around Polaris leaving Polaris at the center. The idea is if the Earth rotates the Sun and the Sun rotates the Milky Way this is impossible, all stars including Polaris would move in all sorts of directions relative to our view of the sky:

Polaris does move relative to our axis. Right now it's the best "north star" we have but depending on rotational precession, the star closest to where the north pole is pointing doing change.

Polaris is 400+ light years away, so the difference in angle between the axis of rotation and where Polaris appears to be during an orbit around the sun is not something that you can easily observe.

The galactic year--how long it takes the solar system to orbit the core of the galaxy--is hundreds of millions of earth-years long. Of course Polaris doesn't seem to be moving very much with respect to Sol.

Quote:Additional Notes of Support:
Prominent scientists/inventors have stated that the Earth is not round.

Nikola Tesla:

"Earth is a realm, it is not a planet. It is not an object, therefore, it has no edge. Earth would be more easily defined as a system environment. Earth is also a machine, it is a Tesla coil. The sun and moon are powered wirelessly with the electromagnetic field (the Aether). This field also suspends the celestial spheres with electo-magnetic levitation. Electromag levitation disproves gravity because the only force you need to counter is the electromagnetic force, not gravity. The stars are attached to the firmament"

Pretty meaningless. He died 74 years ago, and brilliance in one field does not extend to all fields.

Quote:Some pictures from Nasa of the Earth apparently do not add up to FE'ers:

Option 1: photoshop.

I went and found the sources. Sure enough, they're from NASA.

Okay, option 2: lens distortion.

Quote:These are at the very least some clever arguments. I'll give them that. But their arguments are undone by footage of satellites and space stations, astronauts doing live interviews while in space and many other arguments. A good mental exercise though!

And of course there is a mountain of other contradictory evidence. It's possible, with the right equipment, to take a picture of the ISS from the surface of Earth. You can bounce lasers off the specific spots on the moon where our astronauts placed retroreflectors, but not other spots. Seismology pretty conclusively supports the Earth being a spheroid. If the Earth was flat, it would have to be an impossibly strong material like the scrith in Ringworld not to break into pieces. Etc.

As I've said in other threads like this, the problem with these conspiracy theories is they require throwing away virtually all long-established science. That's the same science we use to build laptops and airplanes and MRI machines and so on. So if the science is all bunk, what's going on? Are engineers and scientists actually succeeding through blind luck and infinitely improbable coincidences?

Post: #89

Official disclaimer before anyone jumps down my throat again.

These are images designed to generate healthy discussion.
Not a claim to absolute truth.



Flat Earth map inside US President John F Kennedy's Air Force One airplane ?








Flat Earth map inside US President John F Kennedy's situation room ?







1962 Cuban missile crisis anyone ?





Wernher von Braun and JFK

Post: #90

I think these maps images in JFK Air Force 1 and office are just a type of map projection. Actually I think this is either Conformal map or Azimuthal projection map.

Post: #91

so are the FES meetings a good place to game chicks?

Post: #92

(03-08-2017 06:32 AM)Hypno Wrote:  so are the FES meetings a good place to game chicks?

Hey bro...get your own speakeasy gaming niche venue.
Only true flat earth believers are allowed in.

Post: #93

(03-08-2017 05:51 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Official disclaimer before anyone jumps down my throat again.

These are images designed to generate healthy discussion.
Not a claim to absolute truth.

I really don't understand the point of this thread. The only possible discussion that can be generated by the images that you posted is the fact that a lot of people apparently have don't understand how a three-dimensional object can be represented in a two-dimensional plane.

Mercenary, I can certainly respect your ability to 'entertain' certain scenarios in your mind while withholding judgement, but in this case even by suspending one's initial reaction to the absurdity of the belief in a flat Earth, a cursory examination of the so-called arguments held by flat-Earthers reveals their complete lack of any kind of intellectual rigour.

Any 'attacks' that you perceive stem from the fact that all of the pro-flat-Earth arguments are quite easily debunked (as Weambulance has demonstrated), hence leading to a lot of confusion as to why you appear to give their ideas some semblance of credibility.

In any case I definitely thank you for the laughter that some of these 'flat Earth conspiracy' pictures have given me.

Post: #94

(03-08-2017 07:26 AM)thebassist Wrote:  I really don't understand the point of this thread. The only possible discussion that can be generated by the images that you posted is the fact that a lot of people apparently have don't understand how a three-dimensional object can be represented in a two-dimensional plane.

Mercenary, I can certainly respect your ability to 'entertain' certain scenarios in your mind while withholding judgement, but in this case even by suspending one's initial reaction to the absurdity of the belief in a flat Earth, a cursory examination of the so-called arguments held by flat-Earthers reveals their complete lack of any kind of intellectual rigour.

Any 'attacks' that you perceive stem from the fact that all of the pro-flat-Earth arguments are quite easily debunked (as Weambulance has demonstrated), hence leading to a lot of confusion as to why you appear to give their ideas some semblance of credibility.

In any case I definitely thank you for the laughter that some of these 'flat Earth conspiracy' pictures have given me.

We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe the holocaust never happened.

We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe demons visit them when they have sleep paralysis.

We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe that black magick is a real thing that works in real life.

We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe they spoke to intelligent entities in another dimension when taking the drug DMT.

We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe hollywood is lead by people who worship Satan.

We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe there is a global pedophilia network lead by politicians and rich people.



But flat earth is even not worth a discussion ?

Post: #95

Love ya, Merc. The history of "science" is: widespread "everybody knows X" until suddenly X turns out to be false. These things deserve bringing up, no matter how likely or unlikely they are.

Post: #96

(03-08-2017 07:42 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe the holocaust never happened.

We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe demons visit them when they have sleep paralysis.

We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe that black magick is a real thing that works in real life.

We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe they spoke to intelligent entities in another dimension when taking the drug DMT.

We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe hollywood is lead by people who worship Satan.

We have respected high rep members on this forum who with all sincerity believe there is a global pedophilia network lead by politicians and rich people.

But flat earth is even not worth a discussion ?

All of these things are more credible and likely then Flat earth.

The reason all these theories have a higher credibility then flat earth is because no functioning technology exists that is contradicting them, but if Earth were flat then everything from satellites to sea navigation by stars would not be wotking.

Is flat earth worth a discussion? Only a small discussion. On some point you have to move on and discuss truly mysterious topics. If you get stuck on basic things like is earth flat or not you cannot move on with your life. It's like if you suddenly start doubting Pythagorean theorem and prove it once, but you are not satisfied and keep proving it again and again wasting a lot of time - then you will never be able to move up to higher mathematics to explore quantum physics and other science forefront stuff where the real paradigm shift occurs.

Post: #97

So how do flat earthers explain the obelisk shadow expirement?

Post: #98

Its good to even questionthe most basic things. .y friend was telling me this info and I turned to another friend who flew military transport and asked him. He explained why not many flights go ovee the pacific and that he himself had been over the pacific over 100 times. The theory died a quick death.

Post: #99

I find the whole flat earth thing pretty fascinating. I think its good to always discuss this. People believed the earth was flat 1000 years ago even though, our ancestors 5,000 years ago knew it was round.

Thought the beginning of this thread was relevent.

/thread-55245.html

Post: #100

(03-10-2017 06:01 PM)slppryslp Wrote:  Its good to even questionthe most basic things. .y friend was telling me this info and I turned to another friend who flew military transport and asked him. He explained why not many flights go ovee the pacific and that he himself had been over the pacific over 100 times. The theory died a quick death.

The flat earth theory does not say there is no pacific ocean. You just fly in a different sort of direction. Check the flat earth theoretical map.

It's flights across the bottom of the planet at the south pole which are impossible....such as from the bottom of Argentina to the bottom of South Africa. Or from south africa to the bottom of Australia.

Also, a full trip around the whole continent of Antarctica with a ship would also not be possible.

Incidentally, both these types of flights and ship routes are virtually impossible for a normal person to try out.