Flat Earthers

[Hungry]

Gosh! Your'e SOOO witty!!!



Nah.... Just lazy sarcasm. Have a great day!

Now that’s funny. I give you something seriously legitimate to ponder and not only do you accuse me of being sarcastic, but lazy to boot. Am I to assume you do not consider Nibiru as plausible?

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

same guy had a thread going on a science forum, where his proposed experimental methodology was similarly criticized, and if you compare what he said he did on the science forum with what he records on his video and admits he did in the metabunk thread, he lies to the science forum. then, in the comments of his youtube video, despite being shown in two separate discussions that he has an inconclusive experimental design, he claims he has 'proved' flat earth, and calls the science forum trolls. he wasn't banned from the science forum, but he stopped participating in the thread there.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98386-laser-curvature-test-on-lake-balaton/


end of the story is, what he set up as an experiment was full of problems. what he reported as data was unsubstantiated and didn't match his own video. he either intentionally falsified his data or didn't know how to record it properly. he clearly knew better ways to collect accurate data but did not pursue them.

it's not proof. it's bad science, and interesting only in terms of an illustration of poor experimental design & confirmation-bias induced data collection error.

No. I didn't realise all this. But to me, if the main substance of the experiment is accurate - i.e. the height of the laser at 1 mile, 2 miles, 3 miles remained at 0.5m - it's still enough to prove Earth flat. Obviously, if his credibility has been cast into doubt over other aspects of the experiment, I can understand you doubting him.

However, as I stated, his experiment (rather than Steve Hawkins') is consistent with my observations of reality, so until I actually get the time and money to do it myself, and in the absence of any better experiment in the meanwhile, I'm going to trust his results.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

What makes you think I trust the governments? I think the level of deception may be so layered so that they might have bases on the moon. Then to make people think the moon is unreachable, they fake a moon landing, and then blow the whistle on it themselves. Everything is a mystery...wrapped in enigma...encased in a riddle. Is the moon hollow? Is Nibiru returning? Is that really what Revelations describes? I think it is a very real possibility. It fills in so many blanks. Ridiculous right? Maybe while the flat earthers are busy chasing their tails, Planet X sneaks up on us. Maybe it’s visible in the South Pole and that’s why there are laws against freely exploring there.

You don't think it's the Planet X, Nibura and fake moon landing that are the diversions, and flat Earth that is the reality? 'Cause that's my view.

 

[posthuman]

No. I didn't realise all this. But to me, if the main substance of the experiment is accurate - i.e. the height of the laser at 1 mile, 2 miles, 3 miles remained at 0.5m - it's still enough to prove Earth flat. Obviously, if his credibility has been cast into doubt over other aspects of the experiment, I can understand you doubting him.

However, as I stated, his experiment (rather than Steve Hawkins') is consistent with my observations of reality, so until I actually get the time and money to do it myself, and in the absence of any better experiment in the meanwhile, I'm going to trust his results.

If you ever do want to try to make a measurement like this, the metabunk people were trying to convince him to do it as Wallace's experiment instead. There are a lot less ways to introduce error, and you don't have to be as acurate to get meaningful results.

 

[GHClarkII]

Hungry,

And with that logic, why are you here?

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. John 19:30

My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins around 2,000 years ago. That means it is finished. It is done. There is nothing I can do to add onto it, or to change it. God just told me to believe it. And I do. Glory to God.

But here you are, acting all high and mighty, as if the world has to be round, and who could this be that is coming around here, with scriptures, saying that the world is flat? He must not be taken literally. But I am here to tell you that I am standing up for the truth. The truth is the word of God, and I am standing up for it. And I will not back down. You don’t want to talk to me, fine. But don’t keep acting like you know for sure that the world is round, and that there is not even a need to answer me, as I should not even be taken seriously. I am standing up for the word of God, and those who believe it.

Actually his approach is perfectly sound. You are the one twisting scripture to say what it does not.
Jesus said he is the door, does he then have hinges?
This method of literalistic interpretation cannot be used to defend sound doctrine. It runs in circles and falls all over itself. You need to seriously reconsider your biblical hermeneutic.

 

[Hungry]

You don't think it's the Planet X, Nibura and fake moon landing that are the diversions, and flat Earth that is the reality? 'Cause that's my view.

I think the opening of the sixth seal perfectly describes the passing of a large heavenly body, and the consequences that it would render. Even to the sky rolling back like a scroll, as the atmosphere is moved by a gravitational pull of something else.

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

I think the opening of the sixth seal perfectly describes the passing of a large heavenly body, and the consequences that it would render. Even to the sky rolling back like a scroll, as the atmosphere is moved by a gravitational pull of something else.

You know that a scroll rolls best flat, right? Flat Earth - flat sky. Kinda fits. 'Though the flat Earth model does usually have a dome sky.

 

[Hungry]

You know that a scroll rolls best flat, right? Flat Earth - flat sky. Kinda fits. 'Though the flat Earth model does usually have a dome sky.

It’s clear your logic can twist anything to fit a flat earth model.

 

[posthuman]

If you ever do want to try to make a measurement like this, the metabunk people were trying to convince him to do it as Wallace's experiment instead. There are a lot less ways to introduce error, and you don't have to be as acurate to get meaningful results.

@he-rat_of_the_circus-mice

i just saw that someone over at metabunk was supposed to have done this at the Bedford canal just a few days ago, actually. page 7 of the thread has a link to a video announcing their plans to do so.

https://www.metabunk.org/where-and-how-could-the-wallace-experiment-easily-be-repeated.t7920/

 

[posthuman]

It’s clear your logic can twist anything to fit a flat earth model.

we haven't talked about what the sky looks like near the equator & south of it yet..

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

@he-rat_of_the_circus-mice

i just saw that someone over at metabunk was supposed to have done this at the Bedford canal just a few days ago, actually. page 7 of the thread has a link to a video announcing their plans to do so.

https://www.metabunk.org/where-and-how-could-the-wallace-experiment-easily-be-repeated.t7920/

I think from memory Rowbotham already did similar experiments. The horizon does appear to drop slightly through a telescope (believed to be due to refraction), so my prediction is that B will visually appear higher than C, from the telescope. I disagree that this means B is actually higher than C, though. Better to try something with similar setup, but using a laser. If B really is higher than C, laser wouldn't reach C. But laser will reach C (provided it is powerful enough).

 

[posthuman]

I think from memory Rowbotham already did similar experiments. The horizon does appear to drop slightly through a telescope (believed to be due to refraction), so my prediction is that B will visually appear higher than C, from the telescope. I disagree that this means B is actually higher than C, though. Better to try something with similar setup, but using a laser. If B really is higher than C, laser wouldn't reach C. But laser will reach C (provided it is powerful enough).

I wouldn't trust a single word rowbatham ever said.

 

[tanakh]

I wonder what shape flat Earthers think the Moon is. Does the Moon still orbit the Earth in their universe? If so does it go round to the underside or around the edge? Are all the other Planets flat as well? These profound questions keep me awake at night. The fear of
the earth flipping over and sending us all into oblivion fills me with dread!!

 

[Hungry]

we haven't talked about what the sky looks like near the equator & south of it yet..

That was one of my first arguments. Some stars can be seen only from the north or the south, not because they are “out of range” but because the equator blocks the view. This was obviously ignored by through the dome. He retorted with some awe inspiring math from his book. Like they say, “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull___.” I think he is dazzled by his own bull___.

 

[breno785au]

It's prohibited without a licence, which makes exploration very difficult. I'm not talking about the tourism profiteering where people are charged a substantial fee for travelling not far enough to disprove (or prove) the midnight sun. If the world governments are hiding something (which is made obvious by their collusion on the licence requirement to explore), one wouldn't want to advertise to them the fact one is exploring, as they may work to make the mission perilous and unsuccessful.

This is true. But how would it profit the cause of evil to claim the Earth is flat, when in fact, it is spherical? Surely you have this reversed?

Not sure what you're getting at here. Are we talking about times and seasons, or day and night?

Yeah, those Antarctica videos only started popping out when people started making this claim, despite a presence in Antarctica for decades. No such issue with the North. Without independent people being able to access and explore Antarctica and film such videos for themselves, I'm putting these in the same bucket as the NASA lies. Science is testable and repeatable, and the governments of the world have taken away repeatability on this one.

Exploration is incredibly difficult with or without a said licence. Have you considered going on one these tourism charters and seeing the giant ice wall for yourself?

 

[he-rat_of_the_circus-mice]

Exploration is incredibly difficult with or without a said licence. Have you considered going on one these tourism charters and seeing the giant ice wall for yourself?

I'm not sure the charters go far enough to see the ice wall. But even if they did, they're quite overpriced. I'd sooner an adventure in the spirit of Amelia Earhart or Jarle Andhøy.

 

[Hungry]

Just for fun I thought I would see how long it takes to fly from South Africa to New Zealand, 17hrs. From Japan to New Zealand takes 20hrs. On a flat earth map Africa to NZ is twice as far. Why does it take less time. This question is partly rhetorical. I already have my answer, but your answer may be entertaining.

 

[KnowMe]

how does the equator has a constant 12 hour day and 12 hour night all year long at the same time the poles have 24 hour day and night six months all year on a flat earth model.

 

[Hungry]

how does the equator has a constant 12 hour day and 12 hour night all year long at the same time the poles have 24 hour day and night six months all year on a flat earth model.

They claim the sun is too far to see when the sun speeds up to traverse closer to the Antarctic ice shelf. ??? I know...it all makes sense when they just explain it.

 

[KnowMe]

They claim the sun is too far to see when the sun speeds up to traverse closer to the Antarctic ice shelf. ??? I know...it all makes sense when they just explain it.

If that was true then that would mean the sun rise and set at the equator would be extreme left or extreme right on the horizon each day depending on the time of the year that doesn’t happen at all