• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Put a flat earthier into space

Did he not have any cameras on board?
Cameras are made by authority Kodak so can't be used or trusted to not have technology installed to correct for flat earth when the image is captured and presented on the screen and/or picture. For this reason simple use of own eyes and crosshair painted on the window give unhindered view of level earth without the need to move the neck or drop eyes out of head.
 

@BigPete this is a amateur rocket that went slightly higher

You must be logged on to see media items

We're not allowed to use it as fact though as we never built the thing, only the people who built it are allowed to say if it's real or not
 
We all appeal to authority in one form or another so there is no rule other than the ones you decide you want to use. I simply say you appeal to authority, not that you aren't allowed to.

It would be spot on if the experiment was done correctly and not manipulated like the lake one, which I'm sure you would've been only too happy to offer to me, right?

The scope and crosshair are an easy fix and cheap.
It would take nothing to add a crosshair to any scope.
It would be very similar to the lake experiment.

How was that one manipulated?
Wonder if he was even looking to or just shitting his pants thinking wtf am I doing
One of the daftest things was that he had a target height and I don't think he achieved that. It might have been 2000 feet or something daft. I remember looking up and I think there were about 40 mountains in the US higher than his target height.

In this country, 3000 feet is the bare minimum height for a static line parachute jump.
 
Last edited:
You must be logged on to see media items

Do you think this is fake @Nukehasslefan ?
Crazy that like
It would be very similar to the lake experiment.

How was that one manipulated?

One of the daftest things was that he had a target height and I don't think he achieved that. It might have been 2000 feet or something daft. I remember looking up and I think there were about 40 mountains in the US higher than his target height.

In this country, 3000 feet is the bare minimum height for a static line parachute jump.
I've took pictures higher from a plane :lol:
 
It absolutely does. Graph it out and see for yourself.

Here, I've done it for you. This is a graph of y = -8 inches per miles squared x

Logon or register to see this image


As you can clearly see, it is a parabola, not a circle.

YOUR FORMULA IS WRONG. LIKE WE'VE BEEN TELLING YOU FOR 200 PAGES.
Go back 4 pages and he was happy to repeat that his rule does offer a parabola. Just as I say well done for learning something he is back to saying it doesn't.

Seems to have done a complete U-turn. Or should that be graphing -x^2 rather than x^2?
 
So if someone sent a so called satellite into so called space and took a picture of the so called globe... that only counts as proof if you watched them build and launch the satellite, flew into space with it, and took the picture yourself?
You would expect the image to look like a globe in this instance, due to the demagnifatmospheric influences combined with things. Again this picture of a globe most certainly proves that the Earth is flat.
 
presumably then with the earth being flat, all the knowledge we have about the earths magentic field are wrong as well, which means even the simplest of devices like a compass dont work

even though every one uses them and the simplest of navigation techniques using one are entirely proven
 
You would expect the image to look like a globe in this instance, due to the demagnifatmospheric influences combined with things. Again this picture of a globe most certainly proves that the Earth is flat.
Probably yes, unspecified things which only exist once they're required to prove/disprove something and will under no circumstances follow the so called laws of physics or geometry and whatnot as were told.
 
You would expect the image to look like a globe in this instance, due to the demagnifatmospheric influences combined with things. Again this picture of a globe most certainly proves that the Earth is flat.
That is a new concept that I absolutely love. The atmosphere falls naturally into stacks for reasons unexplained, but it does. It squeezes more dense or less dense mass (incorrect use of terms) up or down, which is why objects fall to the earth. It also bends light around the horizon so ships disappear from the bottom up as they go over about 5km, all due to atmospheric density. It matters not that when atmospheric density changes, more or less of the ship/distant object doesn't just appear. Now it seems to have been decided that objects are magnified or demagnified as the light from them travels (light doesn't actually travel apparently) through the atmosphere. It just magnifies.

The real fantastic thing is that as the sun or moon rises up the dome and should look smaller, the atmosphere adjusts their image so they always appear the same size, no matter what the atmospheric conditions or the position of the observer. Wow.

Science: See result, make up random shit for a cause. It reminds me of reading that it has been well known for a very long time that swallows disappear in the winter. Why? Where do they go? These days we have the answer (I've never actually rode on the back of a swallow to Africa so I'm appealing to authority here, sheep schooling), so it was assumed they went to the moon or slept in river beds. No explanation as to why it was the case for either, no evidence, it was just said.
 
Obviously a lot of clever posters in this thread.

Only reason still keep reading tbh. He's been shown up that much to the point where he is now denying what he's said himself :lol:

Still lots of very interesting stuff posted and has its comedy value
 
That is a new concept that I absolutely love. The atmosphere falls naturally into stacks for reasons unexplained, but it does. It squeezes more dense or less dense mass (incorrect use of terms) up or down, which is why objects fall to the earth. It also bends light around the horizon so ships disappear from the bottom up as they go over about 5km, all due to atmospheric density. It matters not that when atmospheric density changes, more or less of the ship/distant object doesn't just appear. Now it seems to have been decided that objects are magnified or demagnified as the light from them travels (light doesn't actually travel apparently) through the atmosphere. It just magnifies.

The real fantastic thing is that as the sun or moon rises up the dome and should look smaller, the atmosphere adjusts their image so they always appear the same size, no matter what the atmospheric conditions or the position of the observer. Wow.

Science: See result, make up random shit for a cause. It reminds me of reading that it has been well known for a very long time that swallows disappear in the winter. Why? Where do they go? These days we have the answer (I've never actually rode on the back of a swallow to Africa so I'm appealing to authority here, sheep schooling), so it was assumed they went to the moon or slept in river beds. No explanation as to why it was the case for either, no evidence, it was just said.
Some may say it's a coincidence. However, unlike all other coincidences it can't be ruled out.
 
That is a new concept that I absolutely love. The atmosphere falls naturally into stacks for reasons unexplained, but it does. It squeezes more dense or less dense mass (incorrect use of terms) up or down, which is why objects fall to the earth. It also bends light around the horizon so ships disappear from the bottom up as they go over about 5km, all due to atmospheric density. It matters not that when atmospheric density changes, more or less of the ship/distant object doesn't just appear. Now it seems to have been decided that objects are magnified or demagnified as the light from them travels (light doesn't actually travel apparently) through the atmosphere. It just magnifies.

The real fantastic thing is that as the sun or moon rises up the dome and should look smaller, the atmosphere adjusts their image so they always appear the same size, no matter what the atmospheric conditions or the position of the observer. Wow.

Science: See result, make up random shit for a cause. It reminds me of reading that it has been well known for a very long time that swallows disappear in the winter. Why? Where do they go? These days we have the answer (I've never actually rode on the back of a swallow to Africa so I'm appealing to authority here, sheep schooling), so it was assumed they went to the moon or slept in river beds. No explanation as to why it was the case for either, no evidence, it was just said.
You would have a job sitting on a swallow's back considering we already know they wouldn't be able to carry a coconut.

Even Monty Python has made a worthwhile contribution to this thread now.
 
You would have a job sitting on a swallow's back considering we already know they wouldn't be able to carry a coconut.

Even Monty Python has made a worthwhile contribution to this thread now.
so it can't be proven then, cameras are tools of the mass authority secret cabal of fish eye lens fame
 
Back
Top