Mega Thread The Flat Earth Mega thread.

[Heisenberg_]

27 people dead in Antarctica would make it the 3rd highest death toll for accidents/disasters, pretty sure that would get a mention anywhere.

"THEY" don't want us to know about it

 

[Duritz]

Good grief - you don't even understand your own theory.
I'll explain again. If you look at that photo the ocean disappears over the horizon. This is due to the curvature of the Earth - because the Earth is spherical.
Your job is to provide a similar pic, but one taken in Flat Earth Land where this curvature obviously doesn't exist.

Lol. The ocean doesn't disappear in the slightest, I can see it all the way to the horizon!!

 

[Duritz]

Haven't had the opportunity obviously to speak to any of the expeditioners as they are missing,and as you might imagine I'm deeply concerned for their welfare which means far more to me than the ice wall right now.
The weather around the ice wall according to my research is sometimes fine enough to see but extremely unpredictable,you certainly wouldn't fly an aircraft around there,storms can pop up in a matter of seconds. These storms are unimaginable so to ask me to imagine would be silly.
The courage shown by these men and woman is of the highest order and subsequently all of us at the FES hold them in the highest of regards and consider them true heroes.

"We don't do these things because they are easy, but because they are hard."

Quote from JFK, the MSM would have you believe he was talking about going to the moon when he said this but I have my suspicions he was really discussing the ice wall, especially as he was a big NASA advocate and its clear NASA have never been out of low earth orbit. In fact, on my research there's a solid chance the shooting of this great man was due to him potentially blowing the whistle about the nature of our flat earth.

Fact: JFK said about the CIA "I'll scatter them to the four corners of the planet."

What better reference do you need for proof of a flat earth?? Circles don't have corners sheeple.

 

[Procrastinator35]

"We don't do these things because they are easy, but because they are hard."

Fact: JFK said about the CIA "I'll scatter them to the four corners of the planet."

What better reference do you need for proof of a flat earth?? Circles don't have corners sheeple.

irrefutable logic.

 

[Present Not Past]

Lol. The ocean doesn't disappear in the slightest, I can see it all the way to the horizon!!

 

[PoppedCorn]

stop repetitively posting "i believe this" with a list then

Ohhhhhhhh I see
Criticism starts when someone says I'm not sold on something and that something happens to be something you believe in?

So basically you're like the ballers you dislike

Dont be so antsti

 

[cannot]

Ohhhhhhhh I see
Criticism starts when someone says I'm not sold on something and that something happens to be something you believe in?

So basically you're like the ballers you dislike

Dont be so antsti

not really, i believe you misunderstand me

i am happy for you lot to believe in what you wish

feel free to identify your earth as a pear, more power to you

 

[cannot]

What are you talking about?
The trolls or should I say cowards are the ball lovers to fearful to put up a ball loving thread on the fraudulent science board. They know they're ideologies are fraudulent so they have to concern themselves or even attempt to police others people's beliefs.
The fraudulent science board is a mortuary because the believers in that particular religion spend all their time trolling and derailing everybody else's threads.
And why the hell would anybody salute a troll?

bobs kid knows whats up

DAMIAN MARLEY
"Educated Fools"

3 monkeys sittin' under a coconut tree
Discussing things as they are set to be
Said one to the others
Now listen you two
There's a strange rumor that can't be true
They say man was descended from our noble race
But the very idea is a big disgrace
No monkey ever deserted his wife
Or her baby to ruin their lives
YEAH, the monkey's drift is mine.

[Chorus:]
Educated fools they have ruined di world
And start make it hard for both di boys and di girls
Dem steal all the Africans diamonds and pearls
And start bank it up inna federal reserves

 

[Procrastinator35]

bobs kid knows whats up

DAMIAN MARLEY
"Educated Fools"

3 monkeys sittin' under a coconut tree
Discussing things as they are set to be
Said one to the others
Now listen you two
There's a strange rumor that can't be true
They say man was descended from our noble race
But the very idea is a big disgrace
No monkey ever deserted his wife
Or her baby to ruin their lives
YEAH, the monkey's drift is mine.

[Chorus:]
Educated fools they have ruined di world
And start make it hard for both di boys and di girls
Dem steal all the Africans diamonds and pearls
And start bank it up inna federal reserves

Evolution fred baby.

 

[RedStarUncle]

Well the moon is only 3000 miles away and it doesn't seem overly big. I'm unsure what sort of camera was used to take this photo also. You will find with cameras they come in different qualities. Let's say you visited a camera store,what you will find is they come in at a large variation of prices. One of the reasons for this is their quality. You will be able to perform this experiment quite easily by looking at camera stores online,you won't actually need to physically go into a store which you may find helpful.
Camera capacities are also much like our eyes and much of this comes down to science. Vertical perception is far greater than horizontal perception.
Hope that helps.

But if the moon is 3000 miles away according to your theory... and I can image it with a camera... why can't I image Uluru which is about the same distance away from Brisbane using the same camera? Or at least see it using a high powered telescope? Indeed, forget about 3000 miles away from Brisbane... what about just 400 km away in Alice Springs? I'm pretty close, and it's pretty big... shouldn't my camera that can image small details on the moon be able to image something one-tenth the distance away?

 

[cannot]

But if the moon is 3000 miles away according to your theory... and I can image it with a camera... why can't I image Uluru which is about the same distance away from Brisbane using the same camera? Or at least see it using a high powered telescope? Indeed, forget about 3000 miles away from Brisbane... what about just 400 km away in Alice Springs? I'm pretty close, and it's pretty big... shouldn't my camera that can image small details on the moon be able to image something one-tenth the distance away?

is the answer cause ayers rock doesnt give off light?

atmospheric refraction ?

 

[cannot]

Evolution fred baby.

* the 'theory' of evolution , my dear educated fool / friend

 

[Dan]

omg....why didn't I find this earlier.

 

[darthbards]

But if the moon is 3000 miles away according to your theory... and I can image it with a camera... why can't I image Uluru which is about the same distance away from Brisbane using the same camera? Or at least see it using a high powered telescope? Indeed, forget about 3000 miles away from Brisbane... what about just 400 km away in Alice Springs? I'm pretty close, and it's pretty big... shouldn't my camera that can image small details on the moon be able to image something one-tenth the distance away?

Did you not read or not understand the clear comment that vertical perception is greater than horizontal perception?
And like someone else scientifically pointed out,Ayres Rock doesn't give off light.
Your entitled to believe the earth is spinning and hurtling,with us miraculously not being able to feel it because that is what the religion of fraudulent science wants you to believe. You are also entitled to start a thread where you can discuss your ball love with other ball lovers,it's not that hard.

 

[Catfish Alley]

What's the benefit of this global con again? What were ancient Greeks and Magellan getting out of it?

 

[cannot]

What's the benefit of this global con again? What were ancient Greeks and Magellan getting out of it?

the globe manufacturing industry is large and ruthless

 

[cannot]

Is the Flat Earth thing just an elaborate apologetics tool for Christian fundamentalists?

... no

 

[RedStarUncle]

Did you not read or not understand the clear comment that vertical perception is greater than horizontal perception?
And like someone else scientifically pointed out,Ayres Rock doesn't give off light.
Your entitled to believe the earth is spinning and hurtling,with us miraculously not being able to feel it because that is what the religion of fraudulent science wants you to believe. You are also entitled to start a thread where you can discuss your ball love with other ball lovers,it's not that hard.

As I've said before... it's you who constantly and consistently derails this thread. The premise of the thread is that the Earth is flat and there is a conspiracy to conceal this fact from the wider populace. You keep posting about fraudulent science, fake gravity, etc. Maybe you need to start a thread where you can discuss the great conspiracy of anti-science, and leave this thread to specifically discuss flat Earth.



In terms of your comments actually related to flat Earth, I presume then that part of FE theory is that the moon emits rather than reflects light? What causes the moon to emit light?

Why is vertical "perception" greater than horizontal "perception"? I presume by perception, you mean the distance to which an object can be observed. Also, if something (e.g. the top of a tall tree) is the same distance horizontally away as the base... would it not be true to say that you should never be able to see the top of the tree over the horizon, but not the bottom (as if you're close enough to see the top and the Earth is flat you should also see the bottom). This would be a very simple experiment to conduct and demonstrate practical evidence for a Flat Earth.

 

[katana]

close the thread. y'all are going round in circles. flat circles.

i spent a 20 minutes explaining the concept of atmospheric density to some guy who thought he should be able 2 see NEw ZealAND from da edge of awstralia. and here on this page the same question gets asked again.

 

[katana]

As I've said before... it's you who constantly and consistently derails this thread. The premise of the thread is that the Earth is flat and there is a conspiracy to conceal this fact from the wider populace. You keep posting about fraudulent science, fake gravity, etc. Maybe you need to start a thread where you can discuss the great conspiracy of anti-science, and leave this thread to specifically discuss flat Earth.

this thread is a good place to dump scientism posts. that is ridiculing or questioning of the heliocentric model and the scientism that pervades our society-at-large. it's not your thread so don't tell me what the premise is, capiche?

Why is vertical "perception" greater than horizontal "perception"? I presume by perception, you mean the distance to which an object can be observed. Also, if something (e.g. the top of a tall tree) is the same distance horizontally away as the base... would it not be true to say that you should never be able to see the top of the tree over the horizon, but not the bottom (as if you're close enough to see the top and the Earth is flat you should also see the bottom). This would be a very simple experiment to conduct and demonstrate practical evidence for a Flat Earth.

if you go up a mountain (or just leaving mum's basement would be a start) you'll notice the oxygen thins as you climb. that is to say that there is a greater density of oxygen at sea level than there is at, for instance, 1000m. the further you go the more you'll notice it thins. so when looking upwards you're not actually looking through that much that would obscure or dilute your vision. if looking horizontally, even over a hypothetical flat plane, its though the thickest levels of oxygen, and therefore more likely to occult distant objects.

i shouldn't have to explain simple concepts like this ad nauseum when a google search would yield the answers. but you're much more interested in meaningless online posturing.

 

[katana]

JFK said about the CIA "I'll scatter them to the four corners of the planet."

actually he is reported to have said he will "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds". please fact-check before posting in my thread in future.

 

[Quivorir]

Yes. Fact check.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Actually, he is reported to have said he will "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds". please fact-check before posting in my thread in future.

Guess we all know who won that one then.

close the thread. y'all are going round in circles. flat circles.

I spent a 20 minutes explaining the concept of atmospheric density to some guy who thought he should be able 2 see NEw ZealAND from da edge of Awstwalia. and here on this page the same question gets asked again.

But if there's only a 'ditch' between us, then really we ought to.

 

[darthbards]

close the thread. y'all are going round in circles. flat circles.

i spent a 20 minutes explaining the concept of atmospheric density to some moron who thought he should be able 2 see NEw ZealAND from da edge of awstralia. and here on this page the same question gets asked again.

Yes,the explaining of the same things has become somewhat tiresome.
The suggestion has been made for the ball brigade to start a ball thread on the science board so the workings of the true nature of our flat world can be discussed without the interferences of fraudulent science,yet the true confidence in the ball hypothesis seems lacking by those who believe in such nonsensical ideologies.

 

[RedStarUncle]

this thread is a good place to dump scientism posts. that is ridiculing or questioning of the heliocentric model and the scientism that pervades our society-at-large. it's not your thread so don't tell me what the premise is, capiche?

I guess it's a bit frustrating for those who might have an interest in actual conspiracies and conspiracy theory to find that 90% of activity in this forum is dedicated to a thread where people pose that fundamental concepts relating to human existence are fabricated... it's a bit like if I went onto the thread about whether Hitler survived WW2 and lived out his days in Argentina, and found people arguing that he can't have shot himself because suicide is fundamentally not possible due to the human condition and also Hitler never existed in the first place as Nazi Germany never existed. Sure you can dump those theories and call them related to that thread, but it kind of ruins it for everyone else.

if you go up a mountain (or just leaving mum's basement would be a start) you'll notice the oxygen thins as you climb. that is to say that there is a greater density of oxygen at sea level than there is at, for instance, 1000m. the further you go the more you'll notice it thins. so when looking upwards you're not actually looking through that much that would obscure or dilute your vision. if looking horizontally, even over a hypothetical flat plane, its though the thickest levels of oxygen, and therefore more likely to occult distant objects.

i shouldn't have to explain simple concepts like this ad nauseum when a google search would yield the answers. but you're much more interested in meaningless online posturing.

Yes ok so air density is greater at sea level. But an observer 20 km away looking at the top of a tower over the horizon is looking through pretty much through identically dense air to observe the peak and the base. So if the only reason things disappear over the horizon is air density, then presumably the peak and base would disappear and the same distance. So you shouldn't be able to see the top of a tower (or a ship or a tree or a mountain) over the horizon with the base obscured.


And that is even accepting that density of air causes objects to become less visible at distance, which I would suggest would need to be demonstrated (atmospheric reaction as a concept is different as it involves the bending of light due to variable densities... looking towards the horizon on a flat Earth you would expect air density to be more or less constant).

So we have to accept:
1) the moon emits its own light which still has not been explained
2) higher air densities result in lower visibility
3) it's mathematically demonstrable that the difference in density observing the top of a tree or ship at the horizon is sufficient for it to be visible even if the base of the object isn't

I'm not even trying to argue with FE Theory per se... I just think if you want to claim the high ground on science, these would be good examples where you can apply science and unify FE Theory as describing the nature of the world in one uniform way rather than a cluster of ideas that don't fit together.