Put a flat earthier into space

[Gelan]

Nukehasslefan has a bet on with a mate that he can keep this thread going to 500 posts...there can be no other explanation.

 

[payne]

Nukehasslefan has a bet on with a mate that he can keep this thread going to 500 posts...there can be no other explanation.

that was done hundreds of pages ago

 

[Gelan]

that was done hundreds of pages ago

You know I meant pages

 

[What A Waster]

I was tempted to get one of those online sound board generators and put the standard responses from him onto the buttons then post the image on here. Then thought he isn’t worth the hassle.

I think the rest of us would all enjoy that tbf.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Unfortunately this thread has become a farce

Some great posters explaining things in great detail and I’ve learnt an awful lot.

However, the responses from Mr Wanksplat are basically a piss take and for me has ruined what was a cracking thread.

Typical f***ing mag

If you're learning a lot without my input then gladly pass over my input and learn a lot more. Easy. No need for name calling to wind yourself up.

From memory about 20k miles. It sits above a point on the earth and stays there so it has to match the spin of the earth

Ok, so who repairs them and what keeps them in geostationary orbit?

 

[monkeytassle]

If you're learning a lot without my input then gladly pass over my input and learn a lot more. Easy. No need for name calling to wind yourself up.

Ok, so who repairs them and what keeps them in geostationary orbit?

They don't. They bring them down. Gravity keeps them in orbit. Same force that keeps everything glued together

 

[Nukehasslefan]

The very important point is that you or anyone else can not under any circumstances provide a working map of your flat/cell based world which accounts for all of the observed, known, testable and provable things dealt with perfectly by the globe model.

Can you?

The fact that someone replying to you on a message board cannot personally draw a map of the globe is the pointless and irrelevant part.

It's absolutely relevant when you're asking me to draw one that doesn't suit the narrative.

It's a challenge to flat earthers and it's never once been taken up and completed.

It's not a challenge that can be completed unless people have access to a world to map. It's not like mapping out the UK. There's a lot of water to navigate and inhospitable land areas on top of that.

If you had access to a plane you could fly along every coastline and document the entire flight. You'd end up with pictures that match the global map as we know it.

No I wouldn't. You believe that because your globe is offered to you as just that.
You have absolutely no clue as to what it really is. Just be honest with yourself. You're arguing/appealing from/to authority, regardless of me saying it all the time.

You are constantly offering water level as proof without presenting anything close to actual proof.

The proof is there but anyone that believes water/oceans just stay nicely on a spinning globe will obviously not accept what's in their face. The peer pressure of mainstream narratives is strong and likely will remain so, because people police themselves once the majority prevails.

"You cant see the curve therefore there is no curve" is not proof.

That's just one thing of evidence and it gets better once a person starts to argue curvature can be seen from shorter and shorter distances then argues the opposite when it suits.
The globe story is saturated in contradictions and nonsense.

Measure it properly and accurately and you will find your proof. Not proving what you wanted it to, but still proof.

I have all the proof I need that Earth is not a spinning globe. What you decide it is, is irrelevant to me.

Yes, look at the sky. It's full of the stuff. I cannot however see it for you.

No need. See it for yourself and you decide for yourself. I'm fine.

So now you're actually disputing the very shape of countries? Are the very well known coastlines of all the world just made up?

I'm disputing a globe so I would imagine that would bring sea and landmass into question.

As above, look at the sky. All you need is there. If you cant see it, it's still there.

Yep, what's in the sky is there. The thing is, is it a solid or a reflection/holographic image from a dome?
To me that's what the situation is. To you you're looking at sky whilst spinning on a ball. I can't help you with that. That's up to you to question...or not.

Oh so if one of us presented a fact from a science book, you'd happily accept that?

Absolutely. As long as you can present it as a fact and know it to be a fact.

Or would the appeal to authority parrot pop up again?

That depends. If you appeal to authority and find you can also back that up as factual, then you have me and I can no longer argue against that point.
Can you think of anything?

You do apply a rule to anyone who replies though.

The rule is simple. Offer facts and shut me down or offer appeals to authority for your supposed facts and carry on debating my obvious dismissal.

You do reject anything you think we cannot prove for ourselves rather than accept from authority.

No.
It depends on what is offered and whether it's worth taking the time to think on it.
I can generally accept a lot of things that carry no proof to me or you but offer a reasonable story as to the set up.
And then there's this stuff which I do not accept because I know in my own mind it's utter nonsense just like you know in your own mind that what I say to you is utter nonsense.
The difference between us is, I don't offer my stuff as fact. You do. You have to.
Because the minute you say it may be this or that is when you lose the ability to checkmate the opponent.

The Sun, the planets, the stars. It doesn't matter if you think they are huge balls of rock and gas or just points of light, they do show you're on a spinning globe and definitely not on or in a flat earth or cell.

No they don't. They absolutely do not.
You know 100% in your mind that what you see up in that sky...is moving. You know 100% in your mind that what is up in that sky is not moving because you are still and moving on a ball.
But the narrative set out makes you accept the opposite of what your own senses tell you. In my opinion.

No, arguing that it has not been answered is because it hasn't been answered.

No.
An answer is just that, an answer. Not accepting the answer or ridiculing the answer does not make it a non answer.

You have said many times that you already answered, but you have no correct answers.

I'll never have any correct answers for you or others that support a spinning globe model and how they see life. My stuff sidesteps that so I wouldn't expect anything to be deemed correct.
The good thing is, I don't offer my thoughts as being factual. I offer them as my own potentials regardless of what you or others decide.
The only things I offer as factual are the things that can be tested. Water level is one nailed on fact that I have no further need to argue but I will consistently use it against anyone who tries to use the nonsensical water curving and staying on a spinning oblate spheroid.

Water level is not an answer and is not proof until you measure it accurately.

Then you go with it curving like you do. I have no issue with what you decide, just don't expect me to follow what I believe to be absolute nonsensical mainstream forced bull.

Meaningless waffle. No-one here is ever going to prove anything to you but the whole thread is full of stuff that proves the globe should you choose to look.

I don't see anything at all in this thread that proves a globe. Nothing whatsoever. I do see plenty of people who tell me it is a globe and I'm a nutter...but forgive me for not accepting that as proof.

We know what happens. You get stuck at the first question and rule it pointless. You fall at the very first hurdle.

I don't see hurdles. If there are hurdles then they must be so low as to not warrant much, if any raising of myself to overcome them.
The biggest hurdles I see are the books the mainstream place in front of the participant, stacked so high as to become impossible to jump over and tough to break down but never impossible to get around if a person chooses to step aside of it to overcome it.

Can and have done so, several times.
Explain the mechanics of day and night, the seasons and the star maps without a globe...

Already did ages ago.
Not in any real detail but then again who's offering detail?

 

[BigPete]

Just scrolled past all that..

I'm 100% sure though it's just a load of waffling and bollocks.

The word can you will be in there and at least 5 question marks I'd guess.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What magical force would make it "cascade right off" a global spinning Earth?

Nothing if you think water and oceans can happily go about their way, as we see it but with your mindset that it's happening on a spinning globe when everything around you absolutely 100% tells you different.
I can't change that mindset. It's up to people to ask themselves those questions and see the nonsense for themselves.

Many people would not dare to go against the grain and many people do not like to admit they're wrong or may be wrong.
This is where we're at and we're all guilty of it, so there's no singling out.

Here's a thought process.
If you were told the world was a cell and everything that happens is due to the central energy and you are offered reasons as to why, such as eggs and cells and basically what we see of life happening..you'd accept it all and be happy to argue it.
If I came along and said " it's not a cell and you've been duped. It's really a spinning globe in a space vacuum." You or others would likely say stuff to ridicule me like " oh yeah you bozo, then how does the oceans stay on your big ball then?"
And I would say, " well...well, it's a this thing I call gravity and it goes to the centre of Earth and keeps the oceans on it."

I would expect people to offer utter utter ridicule as my answers and plenty of laughing. Why?
Because I can't back it up and it just seems preposterous and nuts to the extreme.

Exactly the same would be offered if I said went against a religious majority and said " it isn't that, I have a god here that says it's the real god and people should follow this way."
Then I'm asked to prove it, so I counteract with, you prove yours first. I then find myself in hospital due to the severity of my wounds due to being hit by bibles and crosses and small statues of their god, then visited in hospital to be told "there's your proof."

It would be pretty pointless at this stage for me to offer them my writings of my own or my plasticine model of what my god basically looks like because I'd likely be ridiculed and cast off as a lone nut who may start a cult and be wrapped up in swaddling...I mean a strait jacket and carted off to a padded cell because I talked to and mentioned the invisible god whilst the crowd with the pitchforks shake their heads and go right back to worship their invisible god with better books and ornaments to back them up.

Sit back and absorb it.

 

[taipeisafc]

I have stated that I can not determine the distance to the moon without observations made during an eclipse, which I have not done.

But why should I go into another lengthy discourse when you provide nothing.

Tell us how to measure water is flat.

Or tell us how to measure the distance to your holographic moon projected onto the dome.

You must be logged on to see external links

And new simpler method i might give it a go tonight

 

[BigPete]

You must be logged on to see external links

And new simpler method i might give it a go tonight

Like how it says with a few pictures and a little math..

A little..
Maths not my strong point unless multiplying, dividing and subtracting. That formula hurt my head

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Look at the state of this post ffs. Answer me, answer me, give me more attention, do more work, give more detail (and then I will dismiss for no reason).

Don;t give me any attention. Don't whine about it then offer more. You only have yourself to blame.

So you confirm that the two things repeated below are your two ways of absolute proof, 100% that the earth is not a globe?
1 - put a spirit level on it
2 - look at it

Water level.

It’s basically come down to unless you can physically do everything yourself :-

Design your own rocket
Build own rocket
Fly own rocket
Map the world yourself
Build own stars
Etc

Then it’s all bulshit

That's basically what's being asked of me.
So now we're on the same page in regards to that we can now see why the debate rumbles on based entirely on you arguing it by nothing more than appeals to authority and theories...not physical facts.

I was tempted to get one of those online sound board generators and put the standard responses from him onto the buttons then post the image on here. Then thought he isn’t worth the hassle.

Do whatever makes you feel better.

 

[DaveH]

You must be logged on to see external links

And new simpler method i might give it a go tonight

Interesting, thanks for that link. I suspect the degree of error in that could be pretty high (15% perhaps), but it gives a pretty good estimate. Certainly well within the reals of knowing if it is 50 miles away or 50 million miles away.

Because you are looking at the apparent change in size of the moon as it moves through the sky, if it were a projection on a dome (snigger), then the same should hold true and we can also estimate the distance to the dome. If not, I'd be interested to know why this is not a reliable method.

 

[BigPete]

That's basically what's being asked of me.

Designing your own rocket is nothing like a simple explanation of these experiments you have done yet refuse to explain.

Its obvious you are a troll. Nobody can be that stupid. Used to think you were areet but your just a bit of a condescending twat who thinks he is a genius and smarter than everyone else on the planet.

Deluded troll. Best bit of bit of information posted in whole thread was in the last post.

Don't give me any attention.

Don't feed the troll lads..

 

[Nukehasslefan]

nukehasslefan said:
Ok, now a counter point.
Can any of you provide a scale map of your world without the aid of those who schooled the current one into you?

My guess is, you can't, so I'd say question 1 is absolutely pointless.

Question 2?

This is weird. Can you type the above without the use of the English language that has been schooled into you?

Ok, maintenant un contre-point.
L'un de vous peut-il fournir une carte à l'échelle de votre monde sans l'aide de ceux qui vous ont formé la carte actuelle ?

Je suppose que vous ne pouvez pas, donc je dirais que la question 1 est absolument inutile.

Question 2?

They don't. They bring them down. Gravity keeps them in orbit. Same force that keeps everything glued together

They bring them down to where?
Do you mean they send the satellites 20,000 miles into space and geostationary orbit them over Earth and never need to adjust them or repair them?
Also, what is the reason for this 20,000 mile distance?

 

[DaveH]

Don;t give me any attention. Don't whine about it then offer more. You only have yourself to blame.

Water level.

That's basically what's being asked of me.
So now we're on the same page in regards to that we can now see why the debate rumbles on based entirely on you arguing it by nothing more than appeals to authority and theories...not physical facts.

Do whatever makes you feel better.

Water level is not an answer to a yes/no question, but you are not disagreeing, so that seems to confirm it. Your one fact, your only fact that proves there is a earth, moon, planets and space conspiracy is that water sits perfectly flat.

And your proof as to this fact is to hold a spirit level over a body of water and because you can't see the micron level curve over the length of a level, the water is flat. Your second method is looking and saying that looks flat to me.

Basically no reliable scientific method to investigate the curve of something as massive as the earth. That puts your level of scientific sophistication at around 2,500 BC - 4,500 years out of date.

The rest of it, the dome, the inhospitable zones, crystal projectors, secondary reflections, clockwork pressure waves, and then the rewriting of science (sound and light are the same ) to fudge this all together - that is just laughably pathetic. It is funny but actually really sad that you and other conspiracy theorists are in this state.

 

[BigPete]

It is funny but actually really sad that you and other conspiracy theorists are in this state.

It is crackers like..

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Designing your own rocket is nothing like a simple explanation of these experiments you have done yet refuse to explain.

Its obvious you are a troll. Nobody can be that stupid. Used to think you were areet but your just a bit of a condescending twat who thinks he is a genius and smarter than everyone else on the planet.

What you think of me is irrelevant to me. I'm not here to be your mate. There's plenty of people on this forum that are pleasant.

Deluded troll. Best bit of bit of information posted in whole thread was in the last post.

Don't give me any attention.

Don't feed the troll lads..

Don't do it.

 

[DaveH]

Designing your own rocket is nothing like a simple explanation of these experiments you have done yet refuse to explain.

Its obvious you are a troll. Nobody can be that stupid. Used to think you were areet but your just a bit of a condescending twat who thinks he is a genius and smarter than everyone else on the planet.

Deluded troll. Best bit of bit of information posted in whole thread was in the last post.

Don't give me any attention.

Don't feed the troll lads..

But that gets back to the question I have asked many times. Why?

This person may be on a wind up, but look at the time and detail put in. It is not just this thread (dating back to July), prior to this, Flat Earth threads came up every 6 months or so and would run for a few weeks before disappearing again. This one has stuck for some reason. I think quite a few others went to the Parsnip to die.

This 'wind up' goes back years. And then we find he has been active on other forums, on the Flat Earth conspiracy sites, describing himself as a flat earth scientist, spouting the same drivel. Even the hard core flat earthers laughed at him.

Nobody would put in that amount of effort for a laugh. Yes he clearly has a deep desire for attention and comes across as an insecure & needy person, but I think he genuinely believes what he says. Which as I said above is funny on the surface, but really sad too.

 

[BigPete]

But that gets back to the question I have asked many times. Why?

This person may be on a wind up, but look at the time and detail put in. It is not just this thread (dating back to July), prior to this, Flat Earth threads came up every 6 months or so and would run for a few weeks before disappearing again. This one has stuck for some reason. I think quite a few others went to the Parsnip to die.

This 'wind up' goes back years. And then we find he has been active on other forums, on the Flat Earth conspiracy sites, describing himself as a flat earth scientist, spouting the same drivel. Even the hard core flat earthers laughed at him.

Nobody would put in that amount of effort for a laugh. Yes he clearly has a deep desire for attention and comes across as an insecure & needy person, but I think he genuinely believes what he says. Which as I said above is funny on the surface, but really sad too.

Top level tin foil hatter.

Surprised he even uses the forum tbh as technically it should not exist.

How could it if all we have been taught is a lie?

The knowledge learned at "school" which resulted in the Internet is obviously just all bollocks.

The fibre optic cables should be screaming away considering sound is the same as light.

Strange as my old dial up made loads of noise now I'm using light it's quiet.. hmm