What do we think of Antarctica?
Is it a huge wall of ice that encircles us? A nazi base? Aliumz?
Since this flat earth business has been in articles and headlines lately, I've developed a curiosity about Antarctica and want to explore some theories about it. Figured there's no better place than here to get the ball rolling.
I am "mason", so - I have had my very own theory about high jump. They found a Nazi base, they threw the bomb at it, end of the story.
What about Linguistic, Math etc? Its fucking Antarktika.
Because I'm not an egomaniacal moron. I trust what has been proven, not what some random person who's never set foot outside his basement says the world is like. Outside the mountains of photographic and physical evidence that the Earth is flat, basic physics will tell you that it makes no sense whatsoever. But by all means, keel asserting that you are in fact the smartest person alive because of belief in "alternative" theories. I'm sure you'll lead a happy, fulfilling, and productive life!
Other than being up in the sky and looking back at the earth, all you have to go on is information based off of someone that essentially has the same resources as you or anyone else now with the internet
Look, I think flat Earth theories are ridiculous but honestly, I don't know. I've never been to space. I cannot confirm if what we're being told is all lies or truth. I think the Earth is spherical. Maybe not perfectly spherical. But it certainly isn't a disk as far as I'm concerned. But again, I do not know. I only know what I've been shown.
Holy. Fucking. Shit. You retarded motherfucker. You just described why YOU are wrong you smoldering shitstain. You can do the math yourself. The Earth is round. And no, the people who have been in space don't have the same resources as me you fuckwit. They have billions of dollars and teams of scientists backing them up. YOU are the one who has nothing but a team of fat NEETS backing you up. THEY have no proof. YOU are not the fucking emporer of the world, and nobody is obligated to take your uneducated ass into fucking space just to prove something to you a fucking 2nd grader can understand. Honestly, rethink your life pal. You're not doing anybody any good backing the fever dreams of the mentally ill.
its muslim propaganda. the reason its poped up more recently is kebabagedaboom across europe.
european liberals have zero conviction in anything.
>"omg some one might hurt me if i dun say what they wan... sure da erf is flat ery won noe dat"
> You can do the math yourself.
You mean like eratosthene, who's math would work out the same if the earth were flat and the sun was 3100 miles up and 32 miles across like flat earthers are saying? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs&feature=youtu.be&t=3m40s
The only advantage they have over you is saying that they've been to space. I don't know why you're so worked up about this.
Are you trying to convince me, or yourself?
Hell with that. Let >>17290234 sum up one article of "proof" from any of his videos, and if we can't shoot it down, *then* go check out the vids.
Otherwise, you're just putting money in that asshole's pocket, and I'm utterly convinced he doesn't believe one damn thing he's saying. If you think they're worth it for the entertainment value, don't let me stop you, but don't think for one instant you're going to convince him he's wrong when he's got a vested, possibly monetary interest in being right.
In short, don't feed the shills.
Whatever, square. Each video is short af. If you wanna know, there it is. If not I'm not going to drag you. There is an opportunity cost to everything and I'll not drag one when I could lead many. Its your own loss.
like.. ppl saying earth is flat and i knew that it was a troll. But then it took crazy longer than a troll and ppl still speak about that even on many sites
have i missed a /b/ thread guys? raid time reliving the old days?
No I'm not talking about literal mathematical proofs I'm talking about basic fucking physics. Do you have any idea at all how the Earth was formed at all? I'm guessing not because if you did you would hopefully realize how absurd the Earth not being spherical it is.
You're right. You people aren't worth the hassle. Have fun wallowing in ignorance and wasting your lives!
Anon's can't delete threads, newfriend. Mods delete the flat earth thread here. Again, I'm not going to drag you anywhere you don't want to go. It would be a waste of time when I can show people the way who will walk it with their OWN energy. No one has ever been dragged into heaven and no one will ever be dragged there.
Oh, but they totally can. Try starting a new one, give it about 5minutes, and make use of the options in the lower right corner. All you have to do to close a thread yourself is delete the initial post.
Pretty sure they don't archive when you do that.
You're not a christian.
Don't be thick. That's not what I meant. This is an old, established thread. It can no longer be deleted but by mod. mods have been deleting these threads. They've popped up more since B.o.B.
If the earth is flat how can you sail completely around the earths ocean
What would it take for you to radically change the way you see the world?
You're right, if they're not the thread starter. I'm working off the suspicion that
are all the same guy. If they're not, I apologize, OP.
But OP's still a fag.
Because the continents are arranged in a concentric circle. In the middle is the north pole. If you travel perpendicular to the center of a circle i.e. east or west you will eventually arrive back are your starting point. Circumnavigation is not globe-exclusive.
Ok, lets take this step by step:
Gravity pulls things together. I think we can all agree on this.
There are things in the universe. Again, there should be no arguement.
So, with all these "things" (which are just tiny specs of dust) free floating in space, with no other forces acting on them, gravity makes them float towards each other, ok?
Sonce there are no other forces to pull them apart, they stick together when they collide due to the friction of them touching. Make sense?
These bits grow larger and larger, and since they are just, for all intents and purposes, 'randomly' floating around colliding with other bits, they don't grow in any particular direction and are vaguely spherical, maybe even potato shaped, but definitely 3 dimensional. Still with me?
This is where some higher level physics and logic come into play. Eventually these chunks grow to such massive sizes that they have an incredibly powerful gravitational pull. So powerful, that every single speck of dust in it is being pulled to the center simulataneously with huge force,so they all want to get to the center, but are blocked by each other from getting any closer. So the only way they can all get as close to the center as possible is in the shape of a sphere. This is the basic process by which planets are created. Understand?
TL; DR Earth formed in 3 dimensions not 2
>If the earth is flat how can you sail completely around the earths ocean
Like you've ever done that.
Have you even been past the fields at the edge of the village. Or to the base of the mountains on the horizon?
and you know this because someone told you
Quit assuming I disagree with anything in particular.
I'm just trying to convey the point to you that you're just regurgitating things that were fed to you. It's healthy to question everything. Believing something someone with a lot of money and essentially in control of your life and liberty tells you that you can't personally prove is crazier than being suspicious of what is being told to you by that entity.
Wouldn't a flat earth have an obvious affect on radio transmissions? I imagine that it would be apparent.
Not smoking pussy ass Newports, faglord.
Skepticism to the point of closed mindedness will lead you nowhere. I choose to believe what I am taught because, as you said, I can't disagree with it. There's too much proof, and it is backed up by logic and physics. I only disagree with something either when I find fault in it, or a better solution is presented. I don't base my opinions on who says something but what it is that's being said. And if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and I need to think harder about it the next time.
There's a place for feelings, and there's a place for reason. Knowing the difference and striking a balance will see you massive amounts of understanding and success, and I hope you can find that balance.
You're right. It's good to question. Here's a few "flat"questions for you:
What keeps the sun and moon from falling like Newton's Apple?
What makes them travel in a circle?
Why can't I throw something and see it follow a path similar to the sun and moon?
If the world is flat, how do you explain the findings of the Bedford Level experiment?
If atmospheric refraction plays a role in the aforementioned experiment(it does), then why do flat-earthers say it functions differently in regards to seagoing vessels?
If the sun is only about 32 miles across and roughly 3,000 miles away, how hot is it?
How much higher is "the dome of the heavens" than the sun and moon?
If the earth is flat, why haven't flat-earthers opened their own airline that makes use of a relatively simple trig algorithm to ignore navigating by use of magnetic north, thus allowing them to travel in straight paths far shorter than the "curved" circumtransits airlines currently make?
Who said anything about the government? I think he's trolling for views for his vids or is some deluded idiot that's already been hooked in and is shilling on the owner's behalf, paid or otherwise.
Fuck. this sums up Flat Earthers perfectly.
Flat earther here. here are my no bullshit answers. If I don't know yet, I'll say so. I don't know everything every flat earther knows so keep that in mind. What I don't know today might tomorrow, like the Coriolis effect.
>What keeps the sun and moon from falling like Newton's Apple?
I don't know.
>What makes them travel in a circle?
I don't know.
>Why can't I throw something and see it follow a path similar to the sun and moon?
Becuase the sun follows on a circular circuit that contracts and expands to provide the seasons. You throw something and it goes in a straight line.
>If the world is flat, how do you explain the findings of the Bedford Level experiment?
I don't know the bedford experiment so I can't speak to it specifically but I'll explore the answer and will come back if this thread is still up when I do.
<If atmospheric refraction plays a role in the aforementioned experiment(it does), then why do flat-earthers say it functions differently in regards to seagoing vessels?
See above. Dunno. Yet
>If the sun is only about 32 miles across and roughly 3,000 miles away, how hot is it?
That's a question of measurement, not modeling. I'm sure someone can answer though. That seems really easy to measure. Did you know that moonlight is COOLING? It is.
>How much higher is "the dome of the heavens" than the sun and moon?
about three thousand miles higher. The dome of the heaven is at its highest point about six thousand miles high.
>If the earth is flat, why haven't flat-earthers opened their own...
that is a fantastic question! And the answer will change your world view. Basically, airlines DO travel according to straight lines on the flat earth model already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX61yQnylgI&list=PL_2NzKg0JlbpTZ-cD6SWWCYmXM1CnyaBG&index=7 It's only 4 minutes and 22 seconds long so please watch.
and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdoGTeM0koQ&feature=youtu.be&t=31m4s 31 minutes and 4 seconds in
Guy who posted this here. This guy sucks. I don't like how he see the dome as some sort of nihilistic, alien construction. Be careful not to catch his depression.
>If the earth is flat, why haven't flat-earthers opened their own airline that makes use of a relatively simple trig algorithm to ignore navigating by use of magnetic north, thus allowing them to travel in straight paths far shorter than the "curved" circumtransits airlines currently make?
The airlines already travel the flat earth straight path https://youtu.be/fk4YqPtvJao?t=1h12m20s
I love the idea of settling antarctica. Fuck their shitty treaties.
If i want to go and found a state there I'll do it dammit!
Need to find a source of hydrocarbons somewhere like coal or oil or even some hidden volcano which can generate heat, then operate huge heated greenhouses.
In the center of the continent there is literally no living animals the penguins and seals only exist around the edges.
A guy tried that. To explore antarctica. He was stopped by the chilean government at the border. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id1G_iouuao&list=PL_2NzKg0JlbpTZ-cD6SWWCYmXM1CnyaBG&index=9
Thank you for replies, now let me explain why I asked the questions that I did.
Slowly, over the course of better than two millennia, mankind has slowly been finding the answers to all those questions for which you had no ready answers. Over the centuries, as the body of human knowledge has grown, we have amended the answers, and on many occasions, tossed out old answers in preference of new answers that better fit the observations we made. At times, we even realized that it was the questions themselves that were the problem, so we formulated better ones.
Over the course of human history, the process I just described came to be formalized into something we now refer to as the scientific method. It is not to be feared. It is not a god. It is merely a tool we use to better understand the physical world around us and the universe.
Now I'm going to watch the video about airplane paths, mainly because you've been courteous and forthcoming, and once I'm done, I'll come back here and tell you what I think. I also have a request to make of you, if you're willing to try it.
This is a little experiment to test whether or not the moon's light has a cooling effect. Science tells us that it's only sunlight reflected off the lunar surface, so at best, we'd expect it to have a slight warming effect. I've already seen a video with a guy using a laser thermometer on his wallet to demonstrate the cooling, and the demonstration left a lot to be desired in terms of scientific rigor; however, the experiment I'm going to suggest in my next post should give us a more accurate picture of the effects of moonlight.
Okay. I await your response. Actually, >>17290844's video is a bit more rigorous. And to add to it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao&feature=youtu.be&t=1h31m58s part 9 adds to it, illustrating the fact that all transoeanic flights in the southern hemisphere turn off their GPS when they leave land.
>>If the earth is flat, why haven't flat-earthers opened their own...
that is a fantastic question! And the answer will change your world view. Basically, airlines DO travel according to straight lines on the flat earth model already.
jesus fuck I made it ten seconds in and he's talking about the moon landing being a hoax
>need to fly to ching ching chinky China
>from anywhere in America, fly west
I just finished taking a shit. Why don't you hand me all the paperwork with your flat earth bullshit so I have something to wipe my ass with?
>It is a big continent covered by big chunk of ice. Not much to see, please don't fall for that flat earth bullcrap!
That is why OP made the thread, dingus.
words are reflections of a life time of experiences. please, no one cares about your fetishes and degenerates, filth.
ok and then what? Look at japan. japan didn't die. japan is a stronger place than much of the EU. I seriously, SERIOUSLY DOUBT the NAZIs died if they were there and were hit by the bomb.
>I trust what has been proven
lol. here's your (You)
The idea about flat earth is that the earth as we know it is a flat section of a much larger planet we are not allowed to know about and that everything is smoke, mirrors, magic, the matrix, alien earth bound ancient technology or some jazz, man. it's like... it's fucking NUTS.
>The idea about flat earth is that the earth as we know it is a flat section of a much larger planet we are not allowed to know about and that everything is smoke, mirrors, magic, the matrix, alien earth bound ancient technology or some jazz, man. it's like... it's fucking NUTS.
No it isn't.
The experiment: Measuring temperature changes due to moonlight.
3 glass thermometers.
2 drinking glasses or jars (straight out of the cupboard is fine, as similar as possible).
1 small cardboard box, large enough to cover one of the glasses and accommodate a thermometer.
Pencil and paper.
1) Fill the glasses with tap water, place a thermometer in each glass, and allow to sit for 30 minutes, with the third thermometer nearby.
2) Check the thermometer readings and record them into separate columns for each.
3) Place both glasses in a location exposed to moonlight, preferably indoors in a climate-controlled room. If such a room is unavailable, place them outside and place the third thermometer in an area not exposed to moonlight. Cover one of the glasses with the cardboard box.
4) Every 30 minutes, record the temperatures on all three thermometers. In a separate column, make note of moon visibility(cloud cover).
5) Repeat Step 4 for three hours.
Now that's just off the top of my head, but it's more in line with what it would take to measure what effect the moon might have on temperature. It might seem tedious and boring, but no one ever said science was for everybody.
>four hours there and four hours for the ride to and four hours for the ride back
Nigga, four hours will barely get you from Chicago to Vegas and that's chump change compared to the mass of Antarctica
I have an experiment for you
select a flight from Auckland to Buenos Aires
notice length of flight
select a flight from Auckland to Singapore
notice length of flight
FE scientist/researcher here. I can answer any FE question.
Their actions are closer to srs disinformation than classic trolling.
Using trips is a shortcut for trust and reputation-building. And the fnord code is a nice technical trick for seeming mysticish.
We'll have to poke and prod, or wait, to figure out the end-game, focus or intention.
As it stands idek what "lachabo" means
This is what Earth actually looks like (without water, obviously)
Nonstop from Auckland to Singapore:
Nonstop from Auckland to Buenos Aires:
Now, at first glance, that does look rather odd, but having checked out a couple of things like the typical cruising speed of commercial airliners(somewhere between 870-920 km/hr), how the jet stream works south of the border, I really don't see us needing to embrace a flat earth to account for it.
>we don't ask one of us
So, your telling me that my friend who is a marine with a sizable ammout of confirmed sniper kills will tell me its bullshit? Provide any information at all about a physics model that would work with a flat earth. You say all of this is "debunked" without a shred of info. Go back to /b/. You don't have to get up for school tomorrow so you can watch YouTube cosperisies all night that quote the bible. Also that's for proving you lack the fundamental knowelge of someone who would of seved in the Navy. I'm waiting on your next baseless, emotional, and intulectally bankrupt post that just try to polarize instead of arguing a point scientifically.
The US navy had the most success of any participating organisation with mku ltra - related projects
Their approach usees a combination of recivev-chips/antennas , electrolytic treatment of the bodily fluids & EM bombardment...
Absolutely. We snipers don't use the earths rotation to adjust our aim, we use the wind.
every sniper and gunman knows this.
>You don't have to get up for school tomorrow so you can watch YouTube cosperisies all night that quote the bible
you sure are defensive...
>explain why hurricanes and typhoons differ
You realize they're the exact same thing, right? The only difference is the location. Hurricane is used in the Atlantic, Caribbean Sea, central and northeast Pacific. They are typhoons in the northwest Pacific.
In response to the first video you linked in >>17290696:
:49 - He references a book called "The Australian Handbook & Almanac & Shippers & Importers Directory"(those guys really wanted to cover all the bases), and the only editions of it I can find were all published between 1874 and 1905.
He might want to consider comparing references that don't have the advent of those crazy "flying machines" between them if he wants to cite them as evidence of some sort of flat earth cover-up.There's been a technological innovation or two between now and then that might have improved our ability to measure distances between locations, one might even go so far as to guess somewhere around an 18% improvement.
1:02 - There's a big difference between circumnavigating something and following its coastline, This guy appears to be confusing the two. Surely, he's just confused. Also, it would be just great if he could provide some sources on those voyage times for Ross and Cook, because for all I know, he could be citing their entire travel time/distance from port to port . . . on exploratory voyages, no less.
1:30 - All this talk of Antarctica being "too cold" is only hitting on the very broadest of reasons not to routinely route flights across the continent. Too cold, too remote, too dangerous, and too sparsely populated for any hope of rescue if you have some sort of equipment failure.
2:09 - Bases "all over" Antarctica. Here's what we're calling "all over:"(pic related), and with a wintertime population of somewhere around 1,500. Now imagine being in a plane crash in Iowa and your closest possible help beng a population of janitors, night watchmen, and midnight-oil-burning researchers scattered around in little coastal towns who collectively couldn't fill the cheap seats in a football stadium.
2:12 - Flight paths. What flight is he even talking about? I found a non-stop on Expedia that beats his estimated time by 1:40. Maybe he's using an airline that's estimating their times based off that old Almanac he mentioned.
2:50 - Found direct flights to everywhere he mentions, except Johannesburg to Santiago, and this site helped my understand what was going on tremendously.
That site also quite rightly points out how much longer some flights should be on a flat earth, but somehow they're not, almost as if we're living on a sphere of some sort.
Also, on a side note, this talk of planes turning off their GPS over water . . . all I can tell you is that at present, the southern hemisphere just hasn't floated enough satellites to guarantee line of sight communication yet, so . . . step it up, southern hemisphere! Here's where I'm getting my info:
And this guy >>17290844:
1:12:20 - So just because I can't get a direct flight from Capetown to Sydney, the fact that I can still get a non-stop from Johannesburg to Sydney counts for nothing?
1:17:51 - "Utter lack . . ./you can't get a single non-stop flight" I've already found several. "Losing most of the time" - but not all of the time? What are the flight times when you're *not* losing?
1:18:30 - He says the optimum cruising speed of a 777 is 640 mph. Every bit of information I've seen so far indicates an optimum cruising speed(the most fuel-efficient) 560 with a maximum speed of 590, so he's overstating the 777's maximum speed by 8% and it's typical cruising speed by 14%. Is this related to that almanac from earlier?
1:18:45 - "7,400 miles" to *where*? "Try to find this route" - *to where*? Well, after some trial and error, I found a direct flight from Sydney to Johannesburg that was listed at a flight time of 12 hours. Care to guess what flight time I calculated using the listed typical cruising speed of 560 mph? 12.27 hours. I guess Quantas has figured out how to fold the flat earth a little.
1:19:00 - GPD mumbo jumbo. Yeah, except as covered earlier, pilots don't navigate exclusively by GPS and never have. Before it existed, they made use of land-based radar beacons and on-board inertial navigation systems.
And here's one to close out on, Flat-Earthers. Now, I freely admit that I'm no expert in aeronautics, but from what I've read up on just now, it seems to me like the only way an INS can even function is if its computer has a fairly detailed map to reference. For lack of a better example, imagine if you were blind and memorized the layout of your house, and knew that once you came down the stairs, turning right and taking 5 strides would take you to your front door.To the best of my understanding, that's what an INS is doing.
So if I'm right, there's your smoking gun! You guys should buy an INS and see what sort of map it relies on to work. Then you could show us once and for all.
Yeah, sorta like that cute girl in front of you on the carousel that time at the fair that you couldn't work up the nerve to talk to, right Timmy?
My bad. I thought it was the equator that determined what they're called. I stand corrected.
But still, why do they spin in different directions depending on which side of that imaginary, completely meaningless line us clueless spherists draw around the globe?
>They spin in opposite directions.
No they don't.
>Hurricanes, typhoons and cyclones are all rotating storms spawned in the tropics. As a group, they can be referred to as tropical cyclones. Because of the Coriolis effect, these storms rotate counterclockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.
A Hurricane will spin clockwise if it is in the Southern Hemisphere of the Atlantic Ocean, and a Hurricane will spin CCW in the Northern Hemisphere of the Atlantic Ocean.
A typhoon does the same thing, but in the Pacific Ocean.
They are literally the same thing, just in a different spot.
The fuck are you on about? The difference between a hurricane and a typhoon is NOT that they spin in opposite directions. Both hurricanes and typhoons spin in clockwise and counter-clockwise directions, depending on where they are in regards to the equator.
The only difference between calling one a hurricane and one a typhoon is whether it starts in the Atlantic or Pacific.
>"midnight sun" is a purely arctic phenomena
I can't do this shit.
thats not true im from chile and we have people living there. you can take a plane to Puerto williams and pay a tur to the antartica. even can buy a boat and travel to this continent
Okay. I hope you really care because I'm going to take the time to respond to each of your concerns so for your own benefit don't ignore or dismiss or scoff.
1:02 Yes, but the difference does not account for the recorded estimations which is more than 4 times the amount of miles.
1:30 There is more proof of the difference between the north pole and antarctica which are in line with the map. Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzRnFmgOrf8&list=PL_2NzKg0JlbpTZ-cD6SWWCYmXM1CnyaBG&index=6 It's abou 3 minutes long.
2:09 Those are all excuses man. Truly you're just defending them instead of mulling over the evidence and seeing if it truly leads to anything disproving or true. Sure though, I'll grant that in this conversation and not pursue it.
2:12 Not trying to be a shit when I say these two things. 1. Take the flight and run your camera out the window the entire flight to prove it even exists and is not just a red herring/ruse against flat earth.
and 2. It might be that the flight times and project distance do not add up. See this video for more on how certain non-stop flights take longer than their planes should take, flying at minimum cruising speed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk4YqPtvJao&feature=youtu.be&t=1h31m58s The entire segment is 10 minutes 3 seconds. And begins at 1 Hour 31 minutes 58 seconds.
2:50 >That site also quite rightly points out how much longer some flights should be on a flat earth, but somehow they're not, almost as if we're living on a sphere of some sort.
Those are just words.
>Also, on a side note, this talk of planes turning off their GPS over water . . . all I can tell you is that at present, the southern hemisphere just hasn't floated enough satellites to guarantee line of sight communication yet, so . . . step it up, southern hemisphere! Here's where I'm getting my info:
That is an establishment excuse. They ROUTINELY TURN OFF their gps over the ocean but NEVER disappear over the continents of Africa, South ameria, Australia, New zealand or anywhere else. I don't even have to address whatever information you have because its been disproven and you're being so damn flippant about your proof that I feel it would be a waste of my time.
I'm not talking to you anymore. I'm not going to drag you into enlightenment.That's never worth it. Why would I use my energy to DRAG you forward when I could take that energy and parcel it out and show MANY people who have a will to walk where the safe and straight path is? Stay ignorant or adjust your attitude. I hope you regret being so arrogant.
I don't know. We're told, by conventionalist, the moon and sun, but they cannot prove it either without seeking to prove it and making the math fit by changing their model. Which is circular investigation "The moon causes the tides thus this must make sense. This does make sense so the moon must be a sphere but.... this doesn't make sense so the moon must be a sphere but..." No scientist is allowed to let go of that fundamental assumption without losing any funding to investigate the issue at all. Because science is a dogma. BTW, flat earthers know the moon and sun are spheres. Also BTW, for an example of this dogma, if you have about 2 hours, here is proof the HIV DOES NOT cause AIDS which illustrates just how flawed the scientific community and the idea of peer reviewed = right, not peer reviewed = poppycock is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqjI-YiNliQ
>read about cosmic turtle in history class
>it's described as a tan disk with a blue disk and trunks coming out of the middle
>look at some pictures of the milkyway galaxy in science class
>looks like a tan disk with blue disk with trunks coming out of the middle
>mfw I thought that's exactly what they were teaching us in school
It's the freemason/jesuit lie that all ancient accounts that the earth is flat, that it is still and the sun moves, or that the entire cosmos revolves around earth is just "Ancient ignorance" and "We" know better.
1:02 - As before, what is his source? I can't find it, and I want to know if he's referring to their time mapping the coast or their entire trip - two very different things.
1:30 - Not giving the vids one more view. Not. One. I said I'd watch one, I tore it to shreds, and forgive me for saying so, but all you're offering is deflections and evasions.
2:12 - With all due respect, it's you who should take that trip. Find the two most far-flung spots on your model that offer a non-stop flight(check multiple days; some aren't offered daily), calculate the distance you'd cover, and compare that to what you experience. Remember - the burden of proof is on you.
2:50 - And that's just a hand-wave.
I think I see. When you say the planes are disappearing, You're referring to them disappearing from Radar? That would be correct. At present, the tech's not completely up and running to transmit "real-time" GPS info to satellites, so we're still at the mercy of ground-based radar stations, which aren't capable of tracking past line of sight(it's that whole horizon thing again - Radar goes in a straight line; the earth doesn't.) From what I gather, they're bringing it online, but it's slow and it's costly. On a related note, this also plays into a lot of the air routes discussed in your vids - since Radar stations aren't in continuous contact with all the birds in the sky, it's safer for them to travel pre-established routes and have the pilots use their on-board Radar to look out for "strays,"
It saddens me that our discussion appears to be at a close and that you find me so unworthy of your efforts.
"What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?" - Luke 15;4
Speaking of satanic trips: pic related 66.6 degrees satan confirmed
speaking of satanic trips do you know the basis for all life on earth?
352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 352
Instead, have here an interesting book on Antarctica:
how do you explain this
check mate theists
Okay, I'll give you another one then. If we can see a galaxy 2.6mm light years away with our naked eye and much further with the aid of a telescope, why can't we see a fucking ship beyond 4 miles away on the open ocean? If we can see a galaxy millions of light years away even with our naked eye, we should be able to see a ship's course all the way to the edge of your gay flat earth, right? (Never mind the thing falling off the fucking earth when it gets there.) Do you FEs need to have instructions on how to breathe tattooed on your wrists?
so they say in this video the earth should look 4x bigger from the moon, true or not?
oh shut up you fucking clown. so it's fake? okay, if the earth is flat, go to New York Harbor with a telescope and a camera and take a picture of Africa for me. i'll give you a million dollars if you can; that ought to pay for your expenses. i'll wait. yeah, didn't think so. okay, then how about this: find me a picture of the Antarctic taken from Cape Town, South Africa or one of Madagascar taken from Australia. if the earth was flat, there ought to be plenty such photos around, right? I know if I had a telescope and camera attachment, I'd be taking pictures of the sun coming up over Liberia when it's midnight in Tennessee. you ever see such photos? i'll give you $500,000 if you can find a photo of the west African coast taken from the east coast of the United States. i'll wait.
pic related was taken with an 8m telescope. the moon is 239,000 miles away. Liberia is 4500 miles from New York. with a telescope even a fraction the power of the one that took this pic, you ought to be able to take an exquisite picture of the Liberian coastline from the coast of the United States. $1,000,000 is riding on it, fag. hop to it. moron.
yup. And let's talk about how their photographic evidence doesn't real. It's like when a child forges their parent's signature as "mom/dad" because their don't know their real name. Then they learn it and their foolishness is revealed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lchtwf5Fvhc&feature=youtu.be&t=7m31s
You nailed it. I don't know what focal length they were using, but the cameras were custom-made for the trip.
I bet NASA's still kicking themselves for not giving the astronauts specific instructions on how best to photograph the earth to give us the same view they must have had,
Check out these shots. http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/earth-from-space/
Some great pictures here too. http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/earth-from-space/
> 500 year old fake theory. Shill
Think about how little sense this makes. Why the fuck would we, as a civilization, decide that the most important priority of mankind was to convince everyone of a fake theory. Why?
> inb4 gubmint like us be stoopid
What are you actually babbling about, you utter dimwit? I don't speak fucktard, so all I'm getting here is
>durr durr durr durr durr. hurr durr durr durr durr. atmospheric hurr durring obviously.
Every singular large body astronomers have ever observed is pulled into a perfect sphere by gravity. Am I to believe the Earth is the only object in the Universe that is a perfectly shaped disk?
Also, math and physics don't fucking lie. Gravity wouldn't even work right on a flat Earth. The "gravity is caused by Earth's constant upward acceleration" handwave can be disproved by any amateur astronomer with a telescope.
There's also mounds and piles of images of a round Earth taken from space by astronauts, satellites, and even ordinary people riding planes at extreme altitudes. Yet, there doesn't exist even a single shred of photographic evidence from space of the Earth being flat.
Every natural phenomena caused by the spherical Earth's rotation cannot exist together on a flat earth. Not only science is involved, these are things that can be determined with simple logic and experimentation.
I am absolutely CONVINCED flat-earthers are nothing but pro-memers out to make everyone hot in the jimmies. NO ONE is stupid enough to honestly believe this nonsense. It's the simplest of science and logic. Every single person can recreate famous experiments to see for themselves. Observing shadows of a pole at different latitudes, riding elevators and watching two sunsets, ships on the horizon, observing shadows on the moon, all shit you can do yourself. Fuck, you can buy a fucking weather balloon, strap a camera to it, and take a high-altitude image of the Earth's curvature yourself. There is centuries worth of concrete scientific evidence gathered through legitimate experimentation by the world's greatest minds backing up a round Earth. The burden of proof is on you. Stop making up fake reasons why the Earth does the things does, and bring back YOUR OWN concrete proof.
Space tourism will be an affordable thing soon. When I livestream my ascent past the Karman line and personally show you images of our beautiful marble of a planet, you flat-earthers can all suck my dick.
so we can take photos of Jupiter from the Earth as it rises over the horizon, but not a ship as it floats off the edge of your flat earth into the abyss. riiiight. okay.
atmospheric blurring, folks. different for planets.
Oh look, it's NASA's fake as fuck space station floating in the Neutral Buoyancy Lab.
Why would they need to be using Greenscreen there?
Looks more like one of NASA's fake props than the actual Moon.
How are there people still balls retarded enough to think the earth is flat? It was literally something we figured out in the 6th or 7th century. What the fuck is wrong with you fuckwits?
>, if the earth is flat, go to New York Harbor with a telescope and a camera and take a picture of Africa for me
Captain obvious here for you my retarded amigo
1/ atmosphere is no vacuum it is filled with particles like water droplets which prevent clear sight at a distance
2/ perspective that make everything look smaller and smaller and smaller and .... well even you get the idea. Even using a telescope you just can't magnify to infinity and the loss of light/details caused by *1* is still in effect.
hope this helps
You know I think you might be onto something with the whole jimmy rustlin' memery thing. I'm noticing a pattern with these threads:
Shitposter starts shit tier "flat eerth amirite??" thread
Arguements fly back and forth but remain civil (by 4chan standards)
Smart person loses their shit and spergs out on the conspiratards in a way that redifines getting 'rekt'
Tin foils retreat, their mission accomplished
Wait for smart person to leave
Start up flat Earth shitposting again until next person loses it
Solution? Ban all flat Earth threads because they are blatant /b/tard level shitposts
oh, so we can take a photograph of mars from the surface of the earth, but not a coastline that is 0.00001 of that distance away. got ya. go eat some more crayons, you fucking retard.
holy mushroom, you are beyond retarded
we have only like 100 miles of air above our heads, with only the very first being very dense and causing the most loss.
you are talking of looking from one part of the disc to the other side, going through thousand miles of the thickest layer of the atmosphere.
not only that but you are assuming that Mars is millions miles away which is another lie.
hope this help, dumb shill
they had a larger one for their bullshit close up from orbit
The Earth is not a perfect sphere. It's spherical, but it's not a perfect sphere.
That's a relief map with exaggerated elevation differences to highlight geographic patterns. The purple spot south of India is the depression left behind as the Indian plate moves northward, pushing into the central Asian plate (this is what created the Himalayas).
>We snipers don't use the earths rotation to adjust our aim, we use the wind.
every sniper and gunman knows this.
Except you, apparently. Including the Coriolis effect in shot calculations is a pretty common thing.
You flat-earthers are fucking retarded as fuck btw; the sun would never set, for anyone, on a flat Earth. Unless you think the Earth is like a disc or coin, floating in space, which is so far beyond pants-on-retarded I can't even be bothered to waste anymore time trying to convince your mold-like intelligence.
>The Earth is not a perfect sphere. It's spherical, but it's not a perfect sphere.
Classic ball-earther deflection!
Violating the core tennants of your ideology as soon as you confront the slightest resistance. It's just lazy pandering to accepted authority.
The proper term is "Oblate Spheroid". The Earth is flatter at the poles, and wider at the Equator. This is due to the earth's rotation, and can be learned in any basic science class.
Obvi a fake pic.
You can't even see the Earth from space because of all the black knight satellites.
I swear I'm not on drugs, you can check pic-related.
>Not understanding the difference between something being spherical and something being a perfect sphere
Do you know what mountains are? Do you know what valleys are? Have you ever watched a sailing ship go over the horizon?
If Earth was flat, we wouldn't have the wind and tide patterns that we do; these patterns are dependent on a spinning, spherical Earth.
You flat earthers are the worst kind of delusional morons. You make young earth creationists look like geniuses.
I have my basement and my patio, my auntie cooks supper and I have my own coffee-maker. That's enough for me, you may get all upitty and decide to gaze off into the horizon, over the sea regularly, but, for me, web-design, vidya, anime, & forums are enough, and you should respect that.
The world's bigger than your head, where you'e always right, you know!
Or maybe not, you obviously have a pretty big head.
Are you referring to that low-res model in the top middle? The one I could have done in Blender in a few hours, while jerking off? You don't even have straws to grasp at. You're clutching the hot air of your farts. Get out of the closet, faggot.
>Gravity pulls things together. I think we can all agree on this.
No, we can't. I'm not saying I don't agree, but that it's not something flat-earthfags would agree with.
It's not something we can demonstrate in our every-day earth-scale lives. It's not really seen outside of astronomy, which they're already throwing out the window
The very first fact that you're basing the rest of your argument on requires either a considerable amount of knowledge or faith in the claims of someone who has that knowledge. Which again, they don't have.
>"blah blah herpdederp fish-eye lenses."
They're not exactly wrong. I've seen an collection of satellite photos of earth, where each one shows the continents on a different scale. For instance, one image shows a huge portion of both north and south america on the globe, while another has just the southern half of north america taking up a huge portion of the globe
They're all real photos, just taken from different distances with different lenses. Some of which are more "fish-eye" than others. They're not wrong about it.
>The idea about flat earth is that the earth as we know it is a flat section of a much larger planet we are not allowed to know about and that everything is smoke, mirrors, magic, the matrix, alien earth bound ancient technology or some jazz, man. it's like... it's fucking NUTS.
And how the fuck did Japan attack pearl harbor for example, how can you fly over the pacific and appear at the other side of the map, how does Russia share a border with Alaska, it's fucking retarded and I feel retarded just for talking about it. (inb4 some faggot saying I feel retarded because I am)
Contributing with something very recent.
>He died in 2016 while attempting to complete the first solo and unaided crossing of the Antarctic.
Experienced explorer unable to make it across the Antarctic alone... very mysterious. Granted I believe this would be very hard to do in the first place, but I find it strange no one has every been able to do it in all of humanity.
The flat earth projection is in the OP. It's not exact but that's basically the idea. The 2d rectangle projection that we see when we typically think of a map is just as inaccurate for the flat earth model as it is for the globe model.
>Experienced explorer unable to make it across the Antarctic alone... very mysterious
No it isn't. Antarctica is one of the harshest climates on earth.
That's like saying "Wow a bunch of people died climbing Mount EVerest? Must have been yetis! How else could it have happened!".
I can kind of see it, but he was an experienced explorer, specifically of Antarctica, not a random person. Combine that with the fact no one has done it then it becomes somewhat mysterious. Sorry if you're too autistic to understand.
I might be the worlds best cave and mountain explorer but I still cant climb in an active volcano.
The biggest problem with exploring antarctica is that it's extremely sparsely populated. If one small thing goes wrong you're a fucking goner because theres no one you can call for help.
I understand what you're saying but it's fucking stupid.
No one's done a trek like that BECAUSE it's so dangerous. And it's well known that even experts of a particularly dangerous field die all the time, see mountain climber, cave divers, radio tower repair men and skydivers the list goes on and on.
You should call someone autistic for pointing out your stupid uneducated bullshit.
Finally someone who gets it!
btw, the earth isn't, can't be, flat
>source, there's a hill by my house.
It's a hologram. NASA already has that technology and they are only letting it out slowly. Just like there haven't been a movie about the moon landing since the actual moon landing, a fictional one I mean, because then people would say "That looked real. How long have we had the technology to fake this?" and NASA would be screwed.
Don't want to start YET ANOTHER flat earth thread, but I thought I'd drop this by to show /x/ how fucking lazy they are.
High schooler puts a camera in space. Why haven't you, just to be sure they use the right lens? Any case, enjoy the new fuel for the fire, especially the bit at the end.
>Journey to the Edge of Space - Jens Rataczak
>Using a high-altitude weather balloon, a high definition camera will be lifted into the high stratosphere and capture images of the curvature of the earth. Additionally, the balloon's current location and altitude will be transmitted to a computer on the ground so that the path of the flight can be stored and tracked.
He's in Minnesota. Anyone want to be the asshole who tries to get the telemetry from him?
Reading this got me thinking and I came across this:
It's not as precise as the original Cavendish experiment, but you can tighten it up a bit by using all lead weights and test it for electromagnetism by placing magnets on the sides opposite the placement of the bricks. If nothing changes, then that has to mean there's some other force at work. Us non-Flatheads have just been calling it "gravity."
Oh, and here's some real-time tracking of the ISS and a live feed
Here's the guy who co-captained the 6-man team that dogsled dead across the whole continent, the route they took, a picture of the team and an old news article about them reaching the South Pole.
And here's a dude filming his rocket ascent and what kind of camera he used to avoid the GoPro fisheye:
And a bonus question:
If the sun in Flatworld is about 3,000 miles up, and we can show with balloons and rockets that clouds are nowhere near that high, how do we see the sun shining on them from underneath at sunset?
Nice try indeed. Presenting thoughts that require some scientific investigation- albeit at an elementary school level. All you need is a globe, a map, a ruler and a couple text books. Logic and reason too, of course. The best LULZ I get from 4chan currently are people referring to this flat earth bullshit as a debate. gets me every time
How does flat earth hypothesis explain the phases of the moon? The only way I can rationalize it would be with ANOTHER- but unseen directly- body up there blocking light and causing it's phases. Also, tides. If flat earth were accurate, tides would be moving toward an epicenter- directly below the moon- as it travels above earth's surface- one of its two. That isn't what happens. And any pilot will tell you that they don't fly in straight lines, that the distance between two points on a flat map is not the same as between the two points on a globe.
leave. dont read anything ever again, do not look at research, just believe what you believe and scream it at people at mcdonalds
i was going to say the bus or subway but you probably dont have public transportation where you are alive at... not living, you are simply alive
>My retard buddy is a pilot and would totally tell NASA is the earth was flat
What kind of argument is that? Do you think NASA would just tell him 'Good job! We had no idea, perhaps all of our data from the last 50 years is wrong, we better recheck it. Thanks bro'
>Worsley arrived at his starting point, Berkner Island, on 13 November 2015 with the aim of completing his journey in 80 days. He covered 913 miles (1,469 km) in 69 days, and had only 30 miles (48 km) to go. However, he had to spend days 70 and 71 in his tent suffering from exhaustion and severe dehydration. Eventually he radioed for help and was airlifted to Punta Arenas, Chile. He was diagnosed with bacterial peritonitis. On 24 January 2016, he died of organ failure following surgery at the Clinica Magallanes in Punta Arenas.
He almost made it, only 30 miles left before he got ill. Not really very suspicious sounding.
That view shows almost the same curvature as the ISS view, except the ISS is at ~220 miles altitude, and this balloon was at 20 miles.
I don't think it should be possible to see the curvature of the 8,000+ mile wide Earth from a mere 20 miles off the surface. What that video is showing is just the horizon line, and the apparent curvature must be a result of the wide angle lens.
The flag is used because it represents all continents/countries equally, something that our traditional world map doesn't by placing North American, Europe and Asia on top, implying dominance.
It's not because of some retarded conspiracy "THEY ARE RUBBING IN YOUR FACES" bullshit.
It's no use. What's the word for people who only spend time with others who think like they do? Someone who's never had to deal with an objective opinion so their delusions become their reality? That's the flat earth people.
Bullshit video. The lens used creates the curvature. Once the balloon pops and the camera flips upside, for a split second, you can see the horizon curved in the opposite direction. Video proves nothing.
Indeed, both the ISS cameras and the kid's camera have lenses that exaggerate the curve of the Earth, but that isn't the point of the video.
And this gentleman, who specifically used a lens that won't exaggerate any curve?
Note in pic the third camera which lacks the fisheye of the upper two GoPros.
And note the difference in the curve at apogee taken from the GoPro.
Not >>17306582, but what I have are observations and experiments that span the the lifetime of western civilization, and gravity's only one of them. And yes, I've even performed a few experiments myself.
And that's the thing.It's all about reference frame. As long as your model holds for you frame of reference, it's fine.There was a time when science regarded centrifugal force as a real, separate thing, but further investigation revealed it to simply arise as a consequence of inertia and angular acceleration. That's where the word pseudoforce comes from.
And that's one of the biggest problems Flatheads run into - every time something contradicts their model, they invent some new kind of pseudoforce. It's at this point that someone is likely to invoke science's use of terms like dark matter and dark energy, and to a degree, that's a valid argument, but only if you completely disregard that those terms are only being used to describe their observations. Once someone finds an explanation for it, the model will get adjusted to accommodate the findings.
Flatheads don't do that. To them, their model is sacrosanct, invioble, so they'll disregard anything that contradicts it. By way of analogy, it's like declaring all cats are orange, and when someone shows them a black one, they declare it an entirely separate species and, while incapable of testing it themselves, handwave away any DNA evidence as having been faked.