• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space


What A Waster said:
No matter what he says, there's evidence against it but then he just doesn't accept that evidence. You can't win. That photo will a newer one or edited one made after people started pointing out the lack of tyre tracks
Click to expand...
Right lads, we have more moon landings to fake after the success of the first one.
Erm, is this not pushing our luck? I mean we could only do it once and be done with it.
No, we need to do it a few more times, just to be sure, otherwise the plebs might guess there is no such thing as space or the moon is really a reflection of the sun.
Erm, doesn't the moon look completely different from the sun, what with it's phases, craters and changing shadows and the sun with it's sun spots, and prominence?
Well yes, but lets not go there, we know the truth, so we need to do something bigger and better with our moon scene in a warehouse. We are going to make up some buggies to drive on our moon, so you need to make some sort of working car that doesn't look like and ordinary car, a bit like a lightweight beach buggy with foil.
That should be easy enough. We are going to have to change the scenery around a bit too because we don't want it to look the same as the Apollo 11 fake landing site, but we can do that.
Excellent, get on that, but there is a twist. Although we are going to have fake astronauts drive this buggy so it need to be working, we are going to crane it onto the set.
What? Is that not more expensive, difficult and might lead to it breaking? It also would not leave any tyre tracks.
No, it has to be craned in for erm reasons. Driving it in would be crazy. Ok? Now get on with it.
 
DaveH said:
Right lads, we have more moon landings to fake after the success of the first one.
Erm, is this not pushing our luck? I mean we could only do it once and be done with it.
No, we need to do it a few more times, just to be sure, otherwise the plebs might guess there is no such thing as space or the moon is really a reflection of the sun.
Erm, doesn't the moon look completely different from the sun, what with it's phases, craters and changing shadows and the sun with it's sun spots, and prominence?
Well yes, but lets not go there, we know the truth, so we need to do something bigger and better with our moon scene in a warehouse. We are going to make up some buggies to drive on our moon, so you need to make some sort of working car that doesn't look like and ordinary car, a bit like a lightweight beach buggy with foil.
That should be easy enough. We are going to have to change the scenery around a bit too because we don't want it to look the same as the Apollo 11 fake landing site, but we can do that.
Excellent, get on that, but there is a twist. Although we are going to have fake astronauts drive this buggy so it need to be working, we are going to crane it onto the set.
What? Is that not more expensive, difficult and might lead to it breaking? It also would not leave any tyre tracks.
No, it has to be craned in for erm reasons. Driving it in would be crazy. Ok? Now get on with it.
Click to expand...

Sounds about right from that scam group NASA
 
DaveH said:
Oh, now this bit of maths I can do and I hope we agree on. You say there is zero evidence for a global earth and there is more evidence for your flat dome earth than a globe, so that does mean you have some evidence for a dome projector and flat earth.

Can you provide that for us?
Click to expand...
Off course he can't, the f***ing buffoon, he's like all flat earthers, they say the globe doesn't exist despite all the evidence, even photos for fuck sake, yet can't supply one piece of evidence for a flat earth which cannot be debunked,not one f***ing piece.
 
Last edited:
DaveH said:
Oh, now this bit of maths I can do and I hope we agree on. You say there is zero evidence for a global earth and there is more evidence for your flat dome earth than a globe, so that does mean you have some evidence for a dome projector and flat earth.

Can you provide that for us?
Click to expand...
What is a flat dome Earth?
You're getting mixed up with alternate theories.

Mine is simple and something you cannot show for your globe. Water level and water conforming to the container it is in.

Your globe offers water conforming to a convex curve and the argument for it is gravity somehow holding it all on in a level fashion.
Something as simple as this kills off the global model. No need for maths and equations that are not provable for the global story.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
It does a great job for building.
Ever used one of these?
You must be logged on to see external links
Click to expand...

Yes. But if you have a long enough tube, the surface of the water remains parallel to the general surface of the earth (certainly sea or ocean ignoring tidal and wave effects).

That example is another where the sample is too small relative to the earth’s curvature to be perceptible by the human eye.
 
Kevj said:
Yes. But if you have a long enough tube, the surface of the water remains parallel to the general surface of the earth (certainly sea or ocean ignoring tidal and wave effects).

That example is another where the sample is too small relative to the earth’s curvature to be perceptible by the human eye.
Click to expand...
If you built a high building using this level your building would go up plumb.

Your globe cannot offer a similar set up.
This isn't about a sample. It's about what's right there in front of a persons face.
 
Kevj said:
Yes. But if you have a long enough tube, the surface of the water remains parallel to the general surface of the earth (certainly sea or ocean ignoring tidal and wave effects).

That example is another where the sample is too small relative to the earth’s curvature to be perceptible by the human eye.
Click to expand...

You're talking to a brick wall mate. He's clueless and refuses to concede even the most obvious of points. Just let it go.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
If you built a high building using this level your building would go up plumb.

Your globe cannot offer a similar set up.
This isn't about a sample. It's about what's right there in front of a persons face.
Click to expand...

Idiot / ignorant moron / ill informed plank / wind up artist (delete as appropriate)
 
fyl2u said:
You're talking to a brick wall mate. He's clueless and refuses to concede even the most obvious of points. Just let it go.
Click to expand...
There are no obvious points.
People are coaxed into believing water conforms to a globe. A convex curve and just happens to sit level but are told it's not really level, it's just because it's massive and gravity is the reason.
When asked what gravity is you get, " well erm...well it's a force that gets pulled into the centre of the Earth."

When asked how a small moon with 1/6th less gravity can overcome this Earth to centre pull, it's "ermmm, well, it just does."

And so on.
The story tellers throwing nonsense out and expecting us to accept them as factual, with zero proof.
taipeisafc said:
Idiot / ignorant moron / ill informed plank / wind up artist (delete as appropriate)
Click to expand...
Keep them all if it makes you feel better.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
What is a flat dome Earth?
You're getting mixed up with alternate theories.

Mine is simple and something you cannot show for your globe. Water level and water conforming to the container it is in.

Your globe offers water conforming to a convex curve and the argument for it is gravity somehow holding it all on in a level fashion.
Something as simple as this kills off the global model. No need for maths and equations that are not provable for the global story.
Click to expand...
Sorry, whatever your model is. As you will not say it makes it hard to know what to call it.

But you strongly suggest you have evidence for this model of yours. Can you enlighten us?
 
DaveH said:
Sorry, whatever your model is. As you will not say it makes it hard to know what to call it.

But you strongly suggest you have evidence for this model of yours. Can you enlighten us?
Click to expand...
I've told you time and time again that my model cannot be passed as factual. It is my own thought process by use of my own simple experiments.

As for telling you about my model, i've given you plenty of info about it. You not accepting it as any explanation or overlooking it or whatever, is down to you.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
There are no obvious points.
People are coaxed into believing water conforms to a globe. A convex curve and just happens to sit level but are told it's not really level, it's just because it's massive and gravity is the reason.
When asked what gravity is you get, " well erm...well it's a force that gets pulled into the centre of the Earth."

When asked how a small moon with 1/6th less gravity can overcome this Earth to centre pull, it's "ermmm, well, it just does."

And so on.
The story tellers throwing nonsense out and expecting us to accept them as factual, with zero proof.

Keep them all if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...
If you mean the tides, the effect of the moon’s gravity is small, but on a body of water as large as the oceans, that is significant enough to make the difference that gives us the tides.

Magnetism is similar to gravity but not exactly the same, before you get too caught up in that one. Scatter iron filings on a table and wave a magnet high above. You can make the iron filings move and stand on end long before you get close enough to make them jump off the table.

Now imagine that a magnet could do that to water. In a sink of water the pull in the middle would be so small, the level at the edge would only drop a fraction of a millimetre. But do it over the Atlantic and a small percentage rise in the middle gives a few meters of tide at the shore.

Then look at the alternative theory proposed by you. A regular as clockwork high pressure wave pushing down on the oceans in the middle. While that would give that effect, the key thing is that no barometer has ever detected this clockwork pressure wave moving round the planet. A bit unlikely isn’t it?
Nukehasslefan said:
I've told you time and time again that my model cannot be passed as factual. It is my own thought process by use of my own simple experiments.

As for telling you about my model, i've given you plenty of info about it. You not accepting it as any explanation or overlooking it or whatever, is down to you.
Click to expand...
You said zero evidence for globe and you had more evidence for yours. That means you have some evidence.
 
DaveH said:
If you mean the tides, the effect of the moon’s gravity is small, but on a body of water as large as the oceans, that is significant enough to make the difference that gives us the tides.
Click to expand...
As we are led to believe.
DaveH said:
Magnetism is similar to gravity but not exactly the same, before you get too caught up in that one. Scatter iron filings on a table and wave a magnet high above. You can make the iron filings move and stand on end long before you get close enough to make them jump off the table.
Click to expand...
Going by that explanation the moon dust should be dragged towards Earth with the moon being 1/6th less gravity, as we're led to believe.
But yet, it drags water upwards.

Makes no logical sense, at all.

DaveH said:
Now imagine that a magnet could do that to water. In a sink of water the pull in the middle would be so small, the level at the edge would only drop a fraction of a millimetre. But do it over the Atlantic and a small percentage rise in the middle gives a few meters of tide at the shore.
Click to expand...
Atmospheric pressure changes could do exactly the same thing.
People simply overlook the power of atmospheric pressure.

DaveH said:
Then look at the alternative theory proposed by you. A regular as clockwork high pressure wave pushing down on the oceans in the middle. While that would give that effect, the key thing is that no barometer has ever detected this clockwork pressure wave moving round the planet. A bit unlikely isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Not at all.
A barometer is merely showing that the pressure changes against something as small as that barometer shows just what it could do on a larger scale.

It's all as clear as anything when looked at with a more released mind away from the global mindset.

Atmospheric pressure can be explained. Gravity cannot.
 
Nukehasslefan said:
I've told you time and time again that my model cannot be passed as factual. It is my own thought process by use of my own simple experiments.

As for telling you about my model, i've given you plenty of info about it. You not accepting it as any explanation or overlooking it or whatever, is down to you.
Click to expand...
Is it really your own thought process?

Watch any You Tube video and every Flat Earth regurgitates this one single argument for the Earth not being a globe.

Did you think of it first or just believing someone else’s story as fact?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top