Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.
- Thread starter katana
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #152
Because you're implying that the position of the moon is very "convenient", how it only ever faces us with one side, how it snugly blocks out the sun, etc. "Convenient" is another way of saying "deliberate".
Had a mate bring up this subject over drinks a week ago, he got duly roasted by all and sundry.
- Sep 19, 2007
- 19,078
- 17,644
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Other Teams
- Anaheim Ducks, PSV Eindhoven
If the earth is flat how do you explain the mountains?
Although you do see the moon slightly differently from the northern hemisphere to the southern, and from the most easterly point where it is visible to the most westerly point. Although the difference is difficult to see with the naked eye, at any given time Earth based observers can in fact see approximately 51-52% of the moon's surface because of different viewing angles. (Any one person will only see 50%)
And due to wobbling, overall around 59% can be seen. Clearly, therefore a sphere that can be observed as such.
- Oct 14, 2011
- 66,571
- 112,003
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Flat earth theory is bogus. It can be disproved easily as there are infinite examples of the curvature of the earth.
A far more interesting theory is the concave earth theory. I don't believe its true, and at first it seems completely idiotic. But the more you look into it the stranger and more plausible it becomes. It's one of the most mind blowing theories I've ever come across. If you have an open mind and believe it's possible we've been lied to about most things our whole lives then check it out. If not then don't even bother with it as your long held beliefs will instantly get in the way (as mine did). Again, I don't believe in its actuality. But at the same time I do have an open mind, and can't 100% without doubt discredit it. What I do believe is NASA's only reason of existence is to deceive us, and if that really is the case then even though this theory is highly unlikely it's still possible, which is what makes it so interesting. As I said at first it will seem idiotic, but then the stranger it becomes.
*I expect to cop it for this but I don't care. Its interesting as hell.
A far more interesting theory is the concave earth theory. I don't believe its true, and at first it seems completely idiotic. But the more you look into it the stranger and more plausible it becomes. It's one of the most mind blowing theories I've ever come across. If you have an open mind and believe it's possible we've been lied to about most things our whole lives then check it out. If not then don't even bother with it as your long held beliefs will instantly get in the way (as mine did). Again, I don't believe in its actuality. But at the same time I do have an open mind, and can't 100% without doubt discredit it. What I do believe is NASA's only reason of existence is to deceive us, and if that really is the case then even though this theory is highly unlikely it's still possible, which is what makes it so interesting. As I said at first it will seem idiotic, but then the stranger it becomes.
*I expect to cop it for this but I don't care. Its interesting as hell.
- Thread starter
- #158
- Thread starter
- #159
the stars, the moon and the sun orbit the north pole on the flat model (I don't agree with it necessarily) but that accounts for seasons and day and night.
but I don't want to argue with you because anyone who can see through the total bs that is NASA is alright by me.
Yeah... 200 "proofs" from an idiot who doesn't seem to have much scientific knowledge, and only seems to be doing this to fool people into buying his books and merchandise.
Are you serious? We may not know exactly what creates gravity, but we understand how it works. And when you know the strength of the forces involved, it's basic physics - force and momentum (angular). I did it in high school.
There is some relativistic effects that operate at the small scale which account for tiny variations, but basically, the effects of gravity have been pretty well understood since at least the 1500s. Newton codified it. Einstein refined it. Plenty of other scientists did their bits. All independent of NASA.
There is some relativistic effects that operate at the small scale which account for tiny variations, but basically, the effects of gravity have been pretty well understood since at least the 1500s. Newton codified it. Einstein refined it. Plenty of other scientists did their bits. All independent of NASA.
You have an interesting idea of what constitutes an open mind, but if you don't trust NASA here's some alternatives
earth as seen from a russian satellite:
Image of earth captured by the Chinese lunar probe:
- Oct 14, 2011
- 66,571
- 112,003
- AFL Club
- Richmond
You have an interesting idea of what constitutes an open mind, but if you don't trust NASA here's some alternatives
earth as seen from a russian satellite:
Image of earth captured by the Chinese lunar probe:
So you're saying there is absolutely no chance we're being lied to about certain things? That would definitely constitute a closed mind.
In google images search "earth from outer space". All the images are cgi, whether they are supposedly from Russian satellites, Chinese or any other country with satellites. Surely we should have millions of real images. If you think they are all real then I don't know what to say.
Where the hell are all the stars in the background?
Here's 1 image with stars I found. Could not look any more fake.
Last edited:
- Oct 14, 2011
- 66,571
- 112,003
- AFL Club
- Richmond
- Thread starter
- #166
I always knew new Zealand didn't actually exist
- Oct 14, 2011
- 66,571
- 112,003
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Nice find.. didn't look too close at the cgi
there's a reason they call it the land of the long white cloud.
well where to start with this, you claimed to have an open mind, yet you dismiss the very possibility of using evidence from one of the leading space programs because you believe it's all fake.
Nowhere did i make a positive claim one way or the other. But willing to go along with your position of NASA i went ahead and provided you with alternative sources. but of course now they're "in on it"
as for your CGI, you're confusing the movie reference to CGI which are created by hand by artists, with an image generated within a computer from data it receives. most satellites transmit data in the form of raw pixels, these pixels are assembled into an image back at the base, and colour coding is added so that laymen like ourselves can more easily understand what your looking at.
as for your stars, the earth reflects too much light to have the earth visible and stars visible. look we both know there's no real point explaining how luminosity of an object affects saturation in an image or how the atmosphere helps diffuse light. because clearly it's "all" part of a great world wide conspiracy. So i'm going to give you a very easy instructions on how to document this phenomenon yourself.
what you will need, a camera good enough to show detail when taking a photo of the moon, i'm talking about all the meteor impacts etc, etc. most good mid range DSL cameras are good enough, i recommend a 200MM lens. (but honestly even a low budget camera will "make do" so long as it has a zoom feature) pop outside of the city you're in. you don't have to go too far, just enough that there's plenty of stars visible.
point your camera at the moon at take a photo. now what you will get is a bright orange blob........... wow that sucks!
Yes it does suck, this is how evil conspiracy from NASA and the russian and chinese and european and indian and basic the entire world is it's invaded your camera. whatever you do don't learn about it that's how they get you. But don't worry, We can fight it, We are going to need to adjust your camera settings so that you can take a picture of the moon in crisp detail and defeat the NWO!
for this i don't recommend skimping get a decent camera there a few hundred bucks.
set your ISO to 100. (some fancy brands might need 200 but most are 100) make sure your turn ISO auto off.
set your aperture to f8 or f11 (i recommend f11)
set your shutter speed, now this depends on what you set your ISO to if its 100 you want 1/125 if its 200 you want 1/250
set your lens focus to manual and switch all the way over to this symbol:
You can now take a nice clear photo of the moon. (I myself suffer from shaky hands so i require a tripod to take these photo's or else it all just comes out as a blurr, keep that in mind before you set off)
Now i can guarantee you you won't see any stars in your image. now objectively we can state there's only a few possibilities for what's occurred.
1: the illuminati have messed with your camera making it impossible to photograph the moon in detail and have stars visible in the same image, through software hidden inside every digital camera on the planet which is why they deliberately sent kodak out of business
2: (my personal favorite) I'm secretly a wizard, who's just used the power of suggestion to make you think these pictures have no stars even though they really do!
3: stars are relatively dim in comparison to things like the moon and the earth which is why you don't see them together in photographs.
Now if you want to do this you should wait until at least the 19th as the moon is waning right now so it gives s**t images unless you really know what you're doing. the moon's going to be full on boxing day, but keep in mind cloud cover so just pick a clear night between the 19th and 30th.
On the other hand, If you don't want to have your amazing no stars insight which nobody has ever thought of as a "gotcha before" shattered into fragile little pieces. Do me a favour and tell me whether this post was condescending enough. If not, feel free to offer feedback on how i can be more condescending in future.
- Oct 14, 2011
- 66,571
- 112,003
- AFL Club
- Richmond
well where to start with this, you claimed to have an open mind, yet you dismiss the very possibility of using evidence from one of the leading space programs because you believe it's all fake.
Nowhere did i make a positive claim one way or the other. But willing to go along with your position of NASA i went ahead and provided you with alternative sources. but of course now they're "in on it"
as for your CGI, you're confusing the movie reference to CGI which are created by hand by artists, with an image generated within a computer from data it receives. most satellites transmit data in the form of raw pixels, these pixels are assembled into an image back at the base, and colour coding is added so that laymen like ourselves can more easily understand what your looking at.
as for your stars, the earth reflects too much light to have the earth visible and stars visible. look we both know there's no real point explaining how luminosity of an object affects saturation in an image or how the atmosphere helps diffuse light. because clearly it's "all" part of a great world wide conspiracy. So i'm going to give you a very easy instructions on how to document this phenomenon yourself.
what you will need, a camera good enough to show detail when taking a photo of the moon, i'm talking about all the meteor impacts etc, etc. most good mid range DSL cameras are good enough, i recommend a 200MM lens. (but honestly even a low budget camera will "make do" so long as it has a zoom feature) pop outside of the city you're in. you don't have to go too far, just enough that there's plenty of stars visible.
point your camera at the moon at take a photo. now what you will get is a bright orange blob........... wow that sucks!
Yes it does suck, this is how evil conspiracy from NASA and the russian and chinese and european and indian and basic the entire world is it's invaded your camera. whatever you do don't learn about it that's how they get you. But don't worry, We can fight it, We are going to need to adjust your camera settings so that you can take a picture of the moon in crisp detail and defeat the NWO!
for this i don't recommend skimping get a decent camera there a few hundred bucks.
set your ISO to 100. (some fancy brands might need 200 but most are 100) make sure your turn ISO auto off.
set your aperture to f8 or f11 (i recommend f11)
set your shutter speed, now this depends on what you set your ISO to if its 100 you want 1/125 if its 200 you want 1/250
set your lens focus to manual and switch all the way over to this symbol:
You can now take a nice clear photo of the moon. (I myself suffer from shaky hands so i require a tripod to take these photo's or else it all just comes out as a blurr, keep that in mind before you set off)
Now i can guarantee you you won't see any stars in your image. now objectively we can state there's only a few possibilities for what's occurred.
1: the illuminati have messed with your camera making it impossible to photograph the moon in detail and have stars visible in the same image, through software hidden inside every digital camera on the planet which is why they deliberately sent kodak out of business
2: (my personal favorite) I'm secretly a wizard, who's just used the power of suggestion to make you think these pictures have no stars even though they really do!
3: stars are relatively dim in comparison to things like the moon and the earth which is why you don't see them together in photographs.
Now if you want to do this you should wait until at least the 19th as the moon is waning right now so it gives s**t images unless you really know what you're doing. the moon's going to be full on boxing day, but keep in mind cloud cover so just pick a clear night between the 19th and 30th.
On the other hand, If you don't want to have your amazing no stars insight which nobody has ever thought of as a "gotcha before" shattered into fragile little pieces. Do me a favour and tell me whether this post was condescending enough. If not, feel free to offer feedback on how i can be more condescending in future.
This. Just dancing around the point.
Wait you think you have a point?
i explained to you exactly how images from satellites are generated.
the images i posted are "real", it's becoming very clear neither of you know what you're talking about.
- Oct 14, 2011
- 66,571
- 112,003
- AFL Club
- Richmond
You explained how images from satellites are generated. That in no way shape or form proves these images are real.
A quick google search shows 100's of fake images that clearly weren't taken from any satellite. If you think they are real, then not much more needs to be said and this discussion isn't even worth having.
what do you think raw pixel data is and where do you think there getting it?
type moon in google hit images and look how many fake ones show up. * i knew that thing the sky was fake. probably one of nasa's weather balloons. these campaigners are everywhere!
