It has been proved by people seeing it from space ( oh yeah and all the maths and other academic disciplines).
The fact you do not accept those proofs doesn't mean they are not valid.
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Put a flat earthier into space
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
The fact you do not accept those proofs doesn't mean they are not valid.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
So they tell us.
The reality is nobody would get to so called space in the vacuum they tell us it supposedly is.
The thing is people seem happy to go with stuff that defies logic when they can clearly see how stuff works down here and why it doesn't when you take away the medium for atmospheric travel.
The only thing of Earth that's seen from above is from the highest flying craft which are still well within atmosphere and at a height where it is impossible to determine a spinning globe.
They even show us silly supposed spacewalks with a supposed globe underneath with no global movement, despite us being told the ISS orbits the Earth 16 times a day.
An absolute joke.
To you, I agree. To me, they're not valid and for good reason.
Just saying something isn't valid doesn't mean it's not valid.
The onus is on you to prove it, something you have so far failed to do
Northern Boarders
Goalkeeper
Yes. Lots of people have provided proof over the past 100 pages. I won't waste my time trying to argue with a WUM I'd rather just laugh at your incoherent ramblings & read interesting posts from genuine posters.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
And saying it is does not mean it is.
I have no onus to prove anything. I'm not trying to pacify you or anyone else. I'm not trying to say my theories are factual without showing proof.
I'm questioning the spinning global model because it deserves questioning and simple logic calls it out for what it is, which is utter baloney. But that's just my opinion and what you or others thInk of it is entirely up to yourselves.
If people want to mock me or ridicule me to the point of their own frustration then they are welcome to.
If people feel the globe comes into question then they can go a bit deeper if they feel it's worth their time.
Most won't because people have little time for debating what we may live on. They are too busy living their lives and sorting their own good bad and ugly stuff out to do with it.
The onus is on people like yourselves to question the narrative, not me to offer you assistance.
I merely put my side across and answer questions whether those answers are deemed relevant or not.
DaveH
Striker
I don't know if it is still around, but there used to be something called "The Trojan Defence". Basically someone downloads something illegal, or more likely a series of illegal things over a course of time, the police find it on their computer and it ends up in court. The defence barrister pops up smugly and says "Oh but viruses and trojans can do all sorts to your computer, this was done by a virus". Hands waved a vague bit of blame and the problem waved away.
Some of the responses on this thread remind me of that. "So they say.....", just seems to be a valid way of taking a massive load of evidence for a space programme or an insanely complicated long con, and pretending it didn't happen.
In terms of IT Forensics, the prosecution would then dig into details of the response: No virus has been found on this PC, there is no known virus that does this, there is no known virus that edits your browser history showing a history of downloading this still, no known virus that stops working when you go on holiday, no known virus that then appears to open this material on a regular basis and constructs a play list. The defendant has clearly been browsing for this stuff, downloading it and viewing it every night. At that point the judge sends the defendant off to prison.
The difference here is the person claiming one far fetched unworkable idea and denying what is right in front of his face,is free to keep waving away firm evidence like it didn't happen and live in his blissful two dimensional world of ignorance.
DPTT
Striker
Why can’t vehicles get close to the source?
And surely we would notice this thick atmosphere near the hold wouldn’t we not, surely someone would have noticed this and investigated it?
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
Because the source of our light and heat is too cold and dark until it's gone an immeasurable distance, melted hydrogen icicles on a flexible rigid dome and reflected off a diffusing reflector which somehow still gives us a nice sharp image when it reaches our shitty eyes.
fyl2u
Striker
Wait, is it ice now? It was super-fluid earlier.
Theoretical physicists take observations and come up with hypotheses that might explain those observations mathematically.
From there, they conceive of experiments that would determine one way or another whether those hypotheses stand up or not.
They're not just a bunch of nutjobs sitting around their parents' houses spouting jibberish about distant unobservable superfluid walls that turn to ice the higher it climbs and the closer they get to a light source made from arcing carbon shining through crystals back onto a flat earth in a way that light doesn't usually work but for some reason does in this situation, ice that appears to breathe when that light is shone onto it because reasons, and light projections of stars and planets in the night sky that defy the laws of geometry, all because they think their bathwater is flat but don't want to actually measure it accurately to test the theory just in case it shows how wrong they are.
Last edited:
0verlord44
Winger
I’d say this can be dangerous. 50 years ago we as a race stepped foot on another celestial body, we had a supersonic airliner. These days we have the worlds largest megaphone (the internet) and it seems if you shout loudest and last, you don’t have to be right.
misinformation is dangerous full stop
payne
Striker
I'm with you on this one. The type of mindset when use to talk about stuff like flat earth is harmless, but that type of backward logic leads of anti vaxers, climate change deniers etc etc
aye, science I & IIAye, maybe I've missed something.
0verlord44
Winger
it’s this mindset of ‘It’s my opinion and you can’t make me change that’. So regardless of science, actual accounts of people who have had the tangible experience, and some basic common fuckin sense, they can spout random shit because they are so insecure that they dare not acknowledge somebody may be smarter or better informed than they are!
oh and it completely pisses on the graves of Apollo 1, challenger, Columbia and the cosmoneaughts who gave their lives so the race could explore beyond our own planet. Because this shit calls them all liars
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Feel free to choose. You're your own boss.
Good write up but it does not offer any proof of a globe and any of the stuff associated with it.
Immense cold, in a nutshell.
Nobody is going to investigate something they cannot even get close to, physically.
What can be seen with telescopes via mountain tops aided by the doome reflection mirror is another thing.
Last edited:
DPTT
Striker
So what CAN be seen via mountain tops aided by the dome reflection mirror?
So if it’s too cold for planes to fly other, when does this light source transfer over to heat?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Potentially what's going on in and around the centre in much more detail than we can see from our vantage points.
It's not too cold for planes to fly over. Planes would get nowhere near the centre because it's too inhospitable for man or machine.
And the light source doesn't transfer to heat. The heat source transfers to light.
DPTT
Striker
You managed to source any photos of this or even know of anyone who is involved in investigating this?
Can you tell me where these telescopes are positioned?
Nukehasslefan
Winger
No.
