Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[Duritz]

Well this has almost 100% certainly convinced me. I have a few more queries but I am sure they will be answered somewhere. Is there some sort of forum anywhere I can join to discuss this without Ball Lovers trolling?

Welcome to the other side, friend. My colleagues and I at the FES will be more than happy to show you the avenues of information and enlightenment.

 

[darthbards]

Well this has almost 100% certainly convinced me. I have a few more queries but I am sure they will be answered somewhere. Is there some sort of forum anywhere I can join to discuss this without Ball Lovers trolling?

It's almost impossible to escape ball lover trolling as they try to disguise the truth with ridicule and lies,to afraid to enter proper scientific discussion.
As the FE Scientists continue to answer the questions the ball lovers continue to ignore the questions asked of them.

 

[BrewSmackerVeiny]

What's the shadow object you refer to Duritz ?

 

[cannot]

Well this has almost 100% certainly convinced me. I have a few more queries but I am sure they will be answered somewhere. Is there some sort of forum anywhere I can join to discuss this without Ball Lovers trolling?

the globe head shill brigade is numerous and cunning

 

[Duritz]

What's the shadow object you refer to Duritz ?

The Shadow Object, or SO for short, is an impossible to see (with the naked eye) object that exists close to the sun. Eclipses occur when the SO passes between the sun and the moon. It is impossible to see the SO because of how close it is to the sun. The brightness of the sun prohibits us from witnessing it.

However it certainly exists because otherwise eclipses are impossible. Ipso facto, the SO must exist.

 

[Present Not Past]

The shadow object has finally been revealed.
I think it is clear now who and what is behind the Flat Earth Theory

 

[Quivorir]

The Shadow Object, or SO for short, is an impossible to see (with the naked eye) object that exists close to the sun. Eclipses occur when the SO passes between the sun and the moon. It is impossible to see the SO because of how close it is to the sun. The brightness of the sun prohibits us from witnessing it.

However it certainly exists because otherwise eclipses are impossible. Ipso facto, the SO must exist.

You mention its impossible to see with the naked eye. Am I right to assume I can use some device to see it?

 

[PoppedCorn]

First I've heard of a shadow object


Maybe the Simpsons movie was trying to tell us something, plus that under the dome tv show with the stupid egg

 

[Nothing]

You mention its impossible to see with the naked eye. Am I right to assume I can use some device to see it?

Yes, you can use the moon in a lunar eclipse to see it.

I'm not sure what happens in solar eclipses, I guess for a really short period of time the sun shines less bright so we can see the shadow object. I like the sun more being able to control how bright it is when it feels like revealing the shadow object.

 

[katana]

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply?

Religion or no religion, not telling the truth about if the earth is flat or not doesn't serve a purpose.

i gave you a bunch of reasons why it does. you haven't refuted any of them.

 

[Quivorir]

Yes, you can use the moon in a lunar eclipse to see it.

I'm not sure what happens in solar eclipses, I guess for a really short period of time the sun shines less bright so we can see the shadow object. I like the sun more being able to control how bright it is when it feels like revealing the shadow object.

And what is the shadow object exactly? Is it like a gas? A solid but mostly invisible object?

 

[Present Not Past]

What about the Black Hole Sun?







R.I.P. Chris Cornell

 

[PoppedCorn]

Sad...Mustve been in a bad place
Talented and prob one of hard rocks greatest vocalists

 

[Nothing]

And what is the shadow object exactly? Is it like a gas? A solid but mostly invisible object?

I'm not an expert scientist like cannot or darthbards but I think it is some undetectable thing that must exist because FE scientists (that is real scientists rather than paid shills) know it is there because of eclipses (but only lunar eclipses solar eclipses are when the sun turns down the light for a little while).

 

[PoppedCorn]

I'm confused
If the sun is really really close, in FE theory it's inside a firmament or a dome, then we should be able to see an object that blocks it from us.

 

[Nothing]

I'm confused
If the sun is really really close, in FE theory it's inside a firmament or a dome, then we should be able to see an object that blocks it from us.

The sun is too bright so it hides the SO. Until an eclipse then it blocks the light enough to see the effect of it.

 

[Quivorir]

The sun is too bright so it hides the SO. Until an eclipse then it blocks the light enough to see the effect of it.

So wait. Does the sun turn down its brightness, or does this shadow object get darker, to prevent the suns brightness?

 

[darthbards]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse
Not that hard to understand

 

[Nothing]

A Solar Eclipse occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun.

At last FE science is right!

 

[Duritz]

I sense a lot of SOD's in here at the moment.

 

[Quivorir]

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=The+Lunar+Eclipse
Not that hard to understand

Well it is when just a few posts earlier I was told that the sun "turns down its brightness" and now this link tells me that some invisible object is causing the eclipse. Do you guys want to pick one story and stick with it?

 

[Nothing]

The globular earth is said have a circumference of 24,900 miles while the atmosphere is said to extend only 100 miles around it. If the RE model were true, and the redness of the shadow was caused by the sun's light filtering through the earths atmosphere, then the earth's shadow upon the moon would only have a slight sliver of red around the shadow's edges.

Why?

The moon could not turn entirely red as it does in the above image.

Why not?

The fact that the moon turns entirely red during a Lunar Eclipse can only suggest that the light of the sun is flowing through the majority of the body which intersects the path of light.

Yes, it passes through the earth's atmosphere.

Clearly an impossibility in the RE explanation.

The light has been scattered as it passes through the atmosphere.

 

[Duritz]

Well it is when just a few posts earlier I was told that the sun "turns down its brightness" and now this link tells me that some invisible object is causing the eclipse. Do you guys want to pick one story and stick with it?

A shill mentioned the false brightness change.

 

[Nothing]

I like this from FES

Burden of Proof
Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?

A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.

A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.

You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, government contractors can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.

The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you.

In particular "The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic. The burden of proof is on you."

You are claiming a FE, the burden of proof is on you.

 

[darthbards]

Well it is when just a few posts earlier I was told that the sun "turns down its brightness" and now this link tells me that some invisible object is causing the eclipse. Do you guys want to pick one story and stick with it?

In fairness you were told that by someone who doesn't understand science and probably made it up. Why would the sun turn down its brightness?
People seem to believe anything they read on the net sometimes.
I've provided explanations only this week,which included my personal scientific feelings regarding the Shadow Object and now I've provided a link to the FES official explanation. Don't be afraid to learn.