Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Pluto's a bit dull for me.

I'm more an Earth fan. With our atmosphere, weather patterns and clouds, there's a just lot more going on.

I have no problem with that. You believe what you believe. I simple don't believe Earth is the globe we are told about or shown pictures of.

 

[peachy]

I'm thinking flatpluto perhaps.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

I'm thinking flatpluto perhaps.

Look closely and you can see pluto the dog on it. Maybe that's why they called it pluto.

 

[Pancho]

I have no problem with that. You believe what you believe. I simple don't believe Earth is the globe we are told about or shown pictures of.

So you keep saying.

Even so you must admire NASA, even just for their sheer determination in perpetuating their ruse for decades.

For example you've got to be impressed with the speed with which they doctor their 'satellite' imagery to reflect contemporaneous weather events.

 

[Tadger]

So you keep saying.

Even so you must admire NASA, even just for their sheer determination in perpetuating their ruse for decades.

For example you've got to be impressed with the speed with which they doctor their 'satellite' imagery to reflect contemporaneous weather events.

I’m even more impressed that the entire conspiracy has managed to keep all involved from blowing the whistle.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So you keep saying.

Even so you must admire NASA, even just for their sheer determination in perpetuating their ruse for decades.

For example you've got to be impressed with the speed with which they doctor their 'satellite' imagery to reflect contemporaneous weather events.

Balloons and dirigibles etc can do all kinds of weather predictions and also planes, etc.
No need for so called space satellites.

We're told to accept that satellites are geostationary at 23,000 miles into space with no means of repair and are sent out to magically send out signals for computers and TV and all kinds of stuff.
Google Earth uses a CGI Earth to pinpoint a position until it gets to plane height before it starts to show you reality.

I mean I do admire those who tell/sell the stories and do the magical CGI and stuff. I think it's genius but then again I also think those that do films like armageddon and such like are also genius. I wonder if they're all part of the same group. But anyway.

I’m even more impressed that the entire conspiracy has managed to keep all involved from blowing the whistle.

All of who?

 

[Tadger]

All of who?

Well, the multitudes of people that would be required to keep quiet about the whole flat Earth thing. Scientists, engineers that work for the space programs, military, even air traffic controllers and commercial pilots and probably many many others fields that relate to the lie.

 

[Pancho]

Balloons and dirigibles etc can do all kinds of weather predictions and also planes, etc.
No need for so called space satellites.

We're told to accept that satellites are geostationary at 23,000 miles into space with no means of repair and are sent out to magically send out signals for computers and TV and all kinds of stuff.
Google Earth uses a CGI Earth to pinpoint a position until it gets to plane height before it starts to show you reality.

I mean I do admire those who tell/sell the stories and do the magical CGI and stuff. I think it's genius but then again I also think those that do films like armageddon and such like are also genius. I wonder if they're all part of the same group. But anyway.

All of who?

Some aeroplane that took this mind.

That's live imagery of Hurricane Ida as it heads towards mainland USA

Logon or register to see this image

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Well, the multitudes of people that would be required to keep quiet about the whole flat Earth thing. Scientists, engineers that work for the space programs, military, even air traffic controllers and commercial pilots and probably many many others fields that relate to the lie.

The thing is it can all come down to massive compartmentalisation.
From the outside looking in anyone can believe it takes many thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to be in on something but it comes down to what part each person plays in that set up.

As an instance you could be told you're manufacturing a part for a space rocket but are told that you can't have any specifics as to where that piece goes.
To you, you become part of that space rockets construction and ability to go into space. You can tell all and sundry about you being part of that,
if you believe in it all then why would you argue about the authenticity of the part. It may be manufactured to go into some other thing like a missile or whatever.
How would you know?

I'm just giving you a simple thought process on it but throughout a lot of manufacturing of stuff Peter doesn't know what Paul's doing and they may work for the same company.

It may sound too simple and you could say "yeah but the NASA is far too big to pull off something like this."
It depends on who gets up close and personal with it all.

 

[Pancho]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Some aeroplane that took this mind.

That's live imagery of Hurricane Ida as it heads towards mainland USA

Logon or register to see this image

It may not be any aeroplane. It could be a weather balloon or some other high altitude aircraft.
It does not have to be so called space satellites.
Apparently in 1945 Arthur C Clarke invented the satellite theory. The sci-fi writer.

I'm not against high altitude craft in whatever form. I just don't believe in satellites and such like in what we're told is a space vacuum...etc.

I would have no issues believing craft can fly in what's known as the jet stream.
Geostationary satellites and especially 23,000 miles into so called space with zero ability to repair and yet nothing goes wrong. Nahhhh. Seriously I don't go with any of that.

 

[Tadger]

The thing is it can all come down to massive compartmentalisation.
From the outside looking in anyone can believe it takes many thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to be in on something but it comes down to what part each person plays in that set up.

As an instance you could be told you're manufacturing a part for a space rocket but are told that you can't have any specifics as to where that piece goes.
To you, you become part of that space rockets construction and ability to go into space. You can tell all and sundry about you being part of that,
if you believe in it all then why would you argue about the authenticity of the part. It may be manufactured to go into some other thing like a missile or whatever.
How would you know?

I'm just giving you a simple thought process on it but throughout a lot of manufacturing of stuff Peter doesn't know what Paul's doing and they may work for the same company.

It may sound too simple and you could say "yeah but the NASA is far too big to pull off something like this."
It depends on who gets up close and personal with it all.

My line of thinking is more along the lines of if knackers on the internet can easily figure this out, why can’t the supposed best and brightest. And if they have, you’d think at least one would blow the whistle.

Same logic applies to the moon landings. Nobody in the over 100,000 involved in the whole endeavour ever claimed it was faked.

My point is, your fundamental belief is a fallacy easily disproved by putting a stick in the ground. So no amount of rationalising or Peter and Paul analogies really make any difference.

It may not be any aeroplane. It could be a weather balloon or some other high altitude aircraft.
It does not have to be so called space satellites.
Apparently in 1945 Arthur C Clarke invented the satellite theory. The sci-fi writer.

I'm not against high altitude craft in whatever form. I just don't believe in satellites and such like in what we're told is a space vacuum...etc.

I would have no issues believing craft can fly in what's known as the jet stream.
Geostationary satellites and especially 23,000 miles into so called space with zero ability to repair and yet nothing goes wrong. Nahhhh. Seriously I don't go with any of that.

How do you explain satellite navigation.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

My line of thinking is more along the lines of if knackers on the internet can easily figure this out, why can’t the supposed best and brightest. And if they have, you’d think at least one would blow the whistle.

There's lots of stories about people blowing the whistle but it can be brushed off by people who say "nahhh, they were just nutters" or "it didn't happen"...so where does that put us?
We can argue this based on only what we read and the rest is about interpretation and a belief of stories told if they come from what is deemed as, authority.

Same logic applies to the moon landings. Nobody in the over 100,000 involved in the whole endeavour ever claimed it was faked.

Who are the 100,000?
Plenty have claimed it was faked and plenty questioned it.
Enough people today question it.
The belief system in place in those days was likely through the roof.
Tv and radio plus newspapers all pushing the moon storyline. Who wouldn't believe it.
I believed it all when I was at school and on towards my 30's, so I can easily see how people would go with it.

It's only when you actually look through all the stuff that you start to wonder about shenanigans.

My point is, your fundamental belief is a fallacy easily disproved by putting a stick in the ground.

Putting a stick to the ground shows nothing of a spinning globe.

So no amount of rationalising or Peter and Paul analogies really make any difference.

That's fine. No offence but nothing you would say would be changing my mind unless you had some proof. You have none other than adherence to the stories told like we all have to.
You believe your side and I simply don't.

How do you explain satellite navigation.

You mean GPS, ground positioning stations?

 

[Tadger]

That's fine. No offence but nothing you would say would be changing my mind unless you had some proof. You have none other than adherence to the stories told like we all have to.
You believe your side and I simply don't.

There’s plenty of proof, you just choose not to accept it on the basis that it disproves your belief system.

Nobody with any scientific credibility believes the Earth isn’t a globe.

Believing the Earth is flat in this day and age is attention seeking, it can’t be anything else.

 

[Drifter]

It could be a weather balloon or some other high altitude aircraft.

Won’t they bounce off the dome?

 

[taipeisafc]

GPS is global positioning system

 

[fyl2u]

People have no trouble believing in a god which has been passed down the years. However there are plenty that do not. Who is right?
Are we being duped or are there numerous gods for the religions.
If true then what is the purpose of god and how does anyone get real proof?
If it's a lie then how do people find out if it's a lie?

It comes down to your own senses. You either believe it for whatever reasons or you question it and refuse to believe it until you get some genuine evidence that can nudge you one way or the other.

It gets easier to sell fiction the more technology advances, not harder.



Your mind is set on your own belief system which you follow the story of, like most do. Trying to get your head around anything else would be hard for you, obviously.
The dome is already covered up by the global model handed out to us all, so it's pretty simple and gets simpler as technology advances because CGI gets more realistic almost daily.


There's nothing staggering about any of it.


Nothing needs to be offered in return.
If a story is told to be fact and people are coaxed into following that narrative and someone questions it asking for proof of the told facts, then real proof should be offered regardless of whether someone thinks there's another potential.

There's no real facts offered for any spinning globe except movies, CGI and all the rest of it.


There are maps but those maps of the known (to us) Earth terrain etc are sold as global maps, in my opinion.

There's a big difference there.

You're quite right that a belief in gods is based on nothing but stories. However you will find that most scientists don't believe in them.

That's largely because of The Scientific Method, a system that requires that everything postulated as fact must be questioned, tested, proven, checked, peer-reviewed and ultimately replicable by anyone with access to the correct equipment.

If you start with a blank slate and you want to write on it "there is a god, FACT", The Scientific Method would require that you prove this to be true, otherwise it gets wiped back off the slate. (Or at least reworded so that "FACT" is removed and it becomes clear that it's an unproven hypothesis rather than an absolute scientific truth).

No matter how many times you spout the same lie, science is categorically not based upon "stories".

Science requires proof before anything can be declared a fact.

Time and again on this thread you've been shown proofs that the Earth is globe-shaped, and shown ways you can test these proofs for yourself.

Time and again you've demonstrated that you don't understand what's being explained to you (even the most basic maths that most 12-year-olds can understand), or you have put your fingers in your ears and spouted more nonsense to try to cover up the holes in your "story".

Time and again you've been asked to provide proof of your own model.

Time and again you've failed to do so.

Your belief in your own model is very much akin to a faith that a god exists. It is based on absolutely no proof whatsoever and there's nothing about it that you can prove to anyone else.

Conversely, the rest of us have an almost endless amount of proof that the Earth is a globe and a multitude of ways to demonstrate it to others. You're just choosing to ignore it all, skipping around your dome-shaped totem pole singing "Laaa la la laa, I can't hear you, it's all just stories, tra la laaa".

 

[payne]

There's a big difference there.

You're quite right that a belief in gods is based on nothing but stories. However you will find that most scientists don't believe in them.

That's largely because of The Scientific Method, a system that requires that everything postulated as fact must be questioned, tested, proven, checked, peer-reviewed and ultimately replicable by anyone with access to the correct equipment.

If you start with a blank slate and you want to write on it "there is a god, FACT", The Scientific Method would require that you prove this to be true, otherwise it gets wiped back off the slate. (Or at least reworded so that "FACT" is removed and it becomes clear that it's an unproven hypothesis rather than an absolute scientific truth).

No matter how many times you spout the same lie, science is categorically not based upon "stories".

Science requires proof before anything can be declared a fact.

Time and again on this thread you've been shown proofs that the Earth is globe-shaped, and shown ways you can test these proofs for yourself.

Time and again you've demonstrated that you don't understand what's being explained to you (even the most basic maths that most 12-year-olds can understand), or you have put your fingers in your ears and spouted more nonsense to try to cover up the holes in your "story".

Time and again you've been asked to provide proof of your own model.

Time and again you've failed to do so.

Your belief in your own model is very much akin to a faith that a god exists. It is based on absolutely no proof whatsoever and there's nothing about it that you can prove to anyone else.

Conversely, the rest of us have an almost endless amount of proof that the Earth is a globe and a multitude of ways to demonstrate it to others. You're just choosing to ignore it all, skipping around your dome-shaped totem pole singing "Laaa la la laa, I can't hear you, it's all just stories, tra la laaa".

I think his contention is that all the mathematics, physics we use is just a system set up to pop out the results that align with the story of the globe earth we've been told. There's actually something else going on behind the curtain. That's the only angle I can guess to when he keeps telling us that the mathematical reasons given to him 'aren't proof' as he puts it.

I have no clue as to where the 'behind the curtain' had an initial spark and gain any traction with no evidence for any of it.

 

[Pancho]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[zwartekat]

There's lots of stories about people blowing the whistle but it can be brushed off by people who say "nahhh, they were just nutters" or "it didn't happen"...so where does that put us?
We can argue this based on only what we read and the rest is about interpretation and a belief of stories told if they come from what is deemed as, authority.



Who are the 100,000?
Plenty have claimed it was faked and plenty questioned it.
Enough people today question it.
The belief system in place in those days was likely through the roof.
Tv and radio plus newspapers all pushing the moon storyline. Who wouldn't believe it.
I believed it all when I was at school and on towards my 30's, so I can easily see how people would go with it.

It's only when you actually look through all the stuff that you start to wonder about shenanigans.



Putting a stick to the ground shows nothing of a spinning globe.




That's fine. No offence but nothing you would say would be changing my mind unless you had some proof. You have none other than adherence to the stories told like we all have to.
You believe your side and I simply don't.




You mean GPS, ground positioning stations?

Why is the flat earth being hidden from us? What is the deception for?