Post: #101

I myself still believe in the turtle and elephants. The whole "Atlas holding the earth" theory is just silly.

Post: #102

(03-10-2017 10:25 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  I myself still believe in the turtle and elephants. The whole "Atlas holding the earth" theory is just silly.

The old idea about animals holding up the earth brings up an interesting point.

If for a moment you eliminate the idea that "outer space" exists and the earth as a kind of enormous pond with land masses surrounded by ice holding in the water there is no need for anything to be "holding" it up, and at the same time there is no way for anything to fall off the edge either as the ice wall is so high.

Also, under this model, flying up to a height where there is less gravity is still possible, but you cannot go into outer space.








Incidentally, here are various depictions of the shape of the earth in the mythology of various old cultures.

Post: #103

Unfortunately all of those depictions are somewhat lacking, as the true reality is that we are simply a snow globe on God's desk.

Post: #104

LMAO @ the NASA pic. How many sexual slang terms are even in there? I saw 4, but didn't spend too long checking.

Post: #105

(03-10-2017 09:57 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(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.

A normal person with enough money can launch a minirocket with a camera attached into outer space which exactly what a local club in my university is doing. To see for himself if the earth is round or flat.

Post: #106

Make sure not to use a camera with a fish eye lens.

Post: #107

It's too bad Nasa Test Pilot is no longer with us, he could have told us how groovy the earth curvature looks cruising on his SR-71 at mach3 and 80,000ft...



Merc, you're being played bro, Flat Earth is nothing but an elaborate psy-op. It's actually pretty easy to debunk, even for people with limited science backgrounds. Will do so later, for now I think it's worth looking into the deeper aspects around F.E., rather than the subject matter itself.

Flat Earth started getting a lot of play around the time Cass Sunstein came up with his plan to disrupt and subvert the online skeptic community, nudging the public towards the "right choices" using invisible algorithms or old-fashioned human shills. F.E. is very much within this this framework, a poison pill designed to ruin the skeptic brand.

The FE videos are way too slick, and they're way too present online. All of a sudden there are a lot of people who have spent hours and hours producing elaborate videos with the coolest animations and the dankest, most contorted theories. And they get "nudged" up suggested playlists...


Basically you need to have those three elements in order to get to the bottom of "conspiracies" as a skeptic:

1- a healthy dose of skepticism, the ability to overcome the kind of cognitive dissonance that comes from suddenly realizing that institutions you've grown up trusting are not as they seem. The ability to think for yourself, and to overcome the Asch conformity effect.

2- a decent technical background when dealing with technical issues, or at least some discernment and the ability to dissect the facts and forensics.

3- you have to take the time to gather the facts and do the research.

Most of the Flat earthers I've come across are a combination of too much of (1) and not enough of (2), a case of skepticism run amok paired with poor scientific grounding. The perpetrators of this hoax use the moon landing conspiracy as a launch point: if NASA lied about the moon landing, then they can also lie about "globe earth".

Post: #108

(03-11-2017 11:41 PM)911 Wrote:  The FE videos are way too slick, and they're way too present online. All of a sudden there are a lot of people who have spent hours and hours producing elaborate videos with the coolest animations and the dankest, most contorted theories. And they get "nudged" up suggested playlists...

This is quite true.
I will readily admit that the amount of "semi professional" material on this topic has exploded online in the last 2 years.

However, I think the intention is to confuse and ridicule those who may be curious on the subject by presenting valid arguments together with nonsensical arguments at the same time. I will give you an analogous example.

In the 1960s and 1970s there were a lot of people asking serious questions about the assassination of John F. Kennedy and made valid arguments that were worth investigating. At the same exact time various alternate theories that were just crazy started popping up. For instance, that a man who opened an umbrella along the motorcade route killed Kennedy with a poison dart that was fired from the umbrella. That got a lot of the public laughing and really sidetracked people's ideas from the seriousness of the issue. More recently I have seen theories saying the limo driver fired the shots which is just as crazy as everyone in the limo and the witnesses around the limo would have seen him. Stuff like that discredits the wider questions which are valid and gets people really confused.

My point is that legitimate questions and doubts about a certain subject can be sidetracked by mixing in more outlandish theories alongside it, so that that general public does not take it seriously anymore.

Mixing truth and lies makes finding truth more complicated. If you lie about everything, one can just dimiss everything you say, but if you lie and tell the truth in equal measures, people are never sure what's real and what's not.

So yeah, there sure are a lot of flat earth theories out there that are quite outlandish, but the more basic questions I think are valid and worth discussion.

Post: #109

Make your own rainbow and see the reflection of the firmament dome above the flat earth THEORY.

Post: #110

So firmament dome is the new word for ozone?

Post: #111

(03-12-2017 12:40 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  So firmament dome is the new word for ozone?

It's the other way round cascade.
The word firmament came way before ozone.


Genesis 1:6-8

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.




Something a bit more spooky.
Remember last October 2016 when wikileaks revealed that Shillary was connected with people doing devil worship like Marina Abramovic.

Well, now listen how many times she mentions living under (and breaking) the "glass ceiling".
What do you think she is really talking about ?

Post: #112

(01-21-2017 02:01 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

Perhaps the only people flying from Johannesburg to Perth are Instagram hoes that need to refuel their bank accounts first...hence the route via Dubai

Post: #113

Merc, rainbows are basic optics physics, you could recreate them with a powerful spotlight and a cloud of mist indoors. There is no such a thing as literal firmament, it stands for space, not the lid on a flat earth.

The Glass Ceiling is a feminist myth, not the lid on a flat earth.

I'm going to undo your flat earth psyop Merc, here you go, mate:



Flight time from Sydney to Santiago (Chile) is 12h 30min

Flight time from Sydney to Vancouver is 14h 10min.

Flat earth debunked.

Post: #114

(03-12-2017 12:52 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 12:40 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  So firmament dome is the new word for ozone?

It's the other way round cascade.
The word firmament came way before ozone.


Genesis 1:6-8

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.

Before you try to incorporate the Bible into your reasoning I'm going to to have to be skeptical as with which 'translation' you are cherry picking from.

Post: #115

(03-12-2017 04:16 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 12:52 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 12:40 PM)cascadecombo Wrote:  So firmament dome is the new word for ozone?

It's the other way round cascade.
The word firmament came way before ozone.


Genesis 1:6-8

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven.

Before you try to incorporate the Bible into your reasoning I'm going to to have to be skeptical as with which 'translation' you are cherry picking from.

The quote comes from the King James version completed in the year 1611.
I'm not sure what word was used in versions before that.

Post: #116

Quote:firmament
/ˈfɜːməmənt/
noun
1.
the expanse of the sky; heavens

Quote:Word Origin and History for firmament Expand
n.
mid-13c., from Latin firmamentum "firmament," literally "a support or strengthening," from firmus "firm" (see firm (adj.)), used in Vulgate to translate Greek stereoma "firm or solid structure," which translated Hebrew raqia, a word used of both the vault of the sky and the floor of the earth in the Old Testament, probably literally "expanse," from raqa "to spread out," but in Syriac meaning "to make firm or solid," hence the erroneous translation.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source

Quote:firmament in the Bible Expand

from the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew _raki'a_. This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered _raki'a_ by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below (Gen. 1:7). The _raki'a_ supported the upper reservoir (Ps. 148:4). It was the support also of the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1:14), and is spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" (Gen. 7:11; Isa. 24:18; Mal. 3:10) through which the rain and snow might descend.

Post: #117

All I see on this thread is a whole lot of reaching.

Give us some hard evidence backed up by reasoning that doesnt require a massive leap of faith.

Post: #118

(03-12-2017 03:21 PM)911 Wrote:  Flight time from Sydney to Santiago (Chile) is 12h 30min

Flight time from Sydney to Vancouver is 14h 10min.

Flat earth debunked.

I'll admit, the above flight times do pose a problem but keep in mind that the classical flat earth map with the north pole in the centre and the position of the continents is theoretical....Australia may not be in the position we think it is.

It is also possible we would need a new flat earth theoretical map with antarctica/south pole as the centre, and the north pole/arctic circle as the wall of ice surrounding us such as this:

Post: #119

(03-12-2017 05:24 PM)Mercenary Wrote:  

(03-12-2017 03:21 PM)911 Wrote:  Flight time from Sydney to Santiago (Chile) is 12h 30min

Flight time from Sydney to Vancouver is 14h 10min.

Flat earth debunked.

I'll admit, the above flight times do pose a problem but keep in mind that the classical flat earth map with the north pole in the centre and the position of the continents is theoretical....Australia may not be in the position we think it is.

It is also possible we would need a new flat earth theoretical map with antarctica/south pole as the center, and the north pole/arctic circle as the wall of ice surrounding us such as this:

Flat Earth with Antarctica in the middle doesn't hold water (literally as well I guess) because boats are constantly crossing the Arctic Ocean. That's why Dubay and the other shills have to use the disk with the north pole at the middle as their template, it's a little less goofy looking than any other setup.

With this other map above, NYC is twice as close to Chile as it is to LA.

Flight time from NYC to Santiago (chile): 10h 40m

flight time from NYC to LA: 5h 50m.

Flat Earth will never work, because it's a projection of a globe, so the actual arc distances will be highly distorted. This alone debunks it.

The areas won't work either. On that last map, Alaska (area size 1.7 million km²) looks bigger than Australia (area size 7.7 million km²). On the other map with the north pole in the middle, Australia looks much bigger than Canada, which is nearly 50% bigger than Oz (10 million km²).

Give it up, Merc. Now you know that all these Flat Earthers are either shills working to destroy legit conspiracies, or victims. Don't be one, and do spread the word.

Post: #120

My biggest (only)? sticking point is how the expected curvature seems absent in so many instances, for example how many towers and lighthouses are visible from many miles away, distances which should involve so much curvature that the towers should be completely beneath the horizon, yet there they are in plain sight.

It bugs me so much I've been thinking of ways to test it myself, but I no longer live near any large bodies of water.

Anyone know what I'm talking about and have an explanation that doesn't assume mirages?

Post: #121

(03-12-2017 05:17 PM)Steve McQueen Wrote:  All I see on this thread is a whole lot of reaching AROUND.

Fixed it for you

Post: #122

(03-12-2017 07:16 PM)Hoser Wrote:  My biggest (only)? sticking point is how the expected curvature seems absent in so many instances, for example how many towers and lighthouses are visible from many miles away, distances which should involve so much curvature that the towers should be completely beneath the horizon, yet there they are in plain sight.

It bugs me so much I've been thinking of ways to test it myself, but I no longer live near any large bodies of water.

Anyone know what I'm talking about and have an explanation that doesn't assume mirages?

If you sail out from a coastal city with highrises, you'd see those landmarks first disappearing from the bottom up, getting covered by the flat water horizon, and the opposite when you sail in, with the tips of the buildings appearing first over the water. Here's an example with Toronto:






Flat Earth exploits the fact that (1) the spherical shape of the earth is not something one experiences every day because it's so big that you can't see the curvature, so it's a counter-intuitive notion.

And (2), most people have a limited understanding of physics and science, so they're vulnerable to being hoodwinked through their ignorance of optics, chemistry or physics.


Unfortunately, this scientific illiteracy is often used to control the masses. Most people for instance don't understand that tall steel structure buildings like WTC 7 can't collapse on their own footprint at freefall speed without being rigged in a controlled demolition pattern, it's physically impossible. But that's another can of worms...

Post: #123

Here's an example of the result not matching the theory:

San Clemente Island lies 70 miles off the coast of San Diego, but on rare days, the air is clear enough that it can be seen from the city. Note the caption of the photo of the island in this news article: http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/mili...story.html ("San Clemente Island was visible from the San Diego County coastline on Christmas Day.").

According to the accepted earth-curvature formula, from 70 miles' distance, the curvature should make the horizon block everything shorter than 3,267 feet tall. The tallest point on San Clemente Island is 1965 feet above sea level.

Even if the photo in the link were taken from the top of the tallest building in San Diego, 500 ft tall, the first 1211 ft of the island would be hidden beneath the horizon. In other words, you'd be able to see little more than the top 1/3 of the island, but in the newspaper photo, which appears to have been taken from a height closer to only 100 - 200 ft (judging by the angle and the appearance of the waves), you can make out basically the entire outline of the island.

Island from San Diego:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-57cd69bc/turbi...39/739x416

From up close:

http://www.militarymuseum.org/Resources/...emente.jpg

Dunno about you, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of horizon in the way.

Post: #124

911: great Toronto video, tyvm.

Also, I'm with you on WTC7. Shocking what ppl will believe uncritically!

Mercenary: how would you (or if not you, Eric Dubay) use the vanishing point / perspective explanation to show those very wide buildings on the Toronto skyline? Shouldn't they appear much skinnier due to parallax effect before their lower portions become obscured?

Post: #125

BTW all, my phone browser won't let me embed pics or I would. Sorry to have the links only.