Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 13:20:11 GMT
Yes, maybe he doesn't understand, that, being the host, his tones are not perceived as if he were a regular member. When he escalates the tones like he did, he sounds twice as threatening. As if he threatened to ban me because I don't agree with him, or if I had to quietly accept his disrespectful terms (asking me if I am "trolling") without reacting, for fear of being banned.
I think that as host you should weigh more your words and not be as straightforward.
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 13, 2015 13:24:15 GMT
Hi fellas. I'm still not sure what trolling or shilling means, but I do believe that we are all sincere in trying to uncover the truth in these things. I do not think that all the flight data proves a flat earth, but I still do think that many of the flight paths also do not describe a proper spherical earth either. There are many that do not make sense if they are supposed to be flying across a globe, but on a flat earth map they seem to make more sense. Sometimes, also, a person will have an understanding of a subject that another just does not get - and many times it is because of simple miscommunication of ideas - I know what I am trying to get across but you do not understand it in the way I am saying it. Sometimes, too, when things just "do not add up", that is enough for one person to question it, but another person will see it as "not enough evidence". Actually, I have a globe in front of me right now, and I can't see where the flight paths don't make sense. Please give an example. Acenci cannot explain why on a flat Earth(at least by looking at the map) it appears that the flights should take ~40 hours, but they take only 12 hours. Quite ingeniously then some people made up this nonsense that the flights are fake. I am sorry, but this is not only pathetic it is deceptive and promotes ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 13, 2015 13:28:57 GMT
Yes, maybe he doesn't understand, that, being the host, his tones are not perceived as if he were a regular member. When he escalates the tones like he did, he sounds twice a threatening. As if he threatened to ban me because I don't agree with him, or if I had to quietly accept his disrespectful terms (asking me if I am "trolling") without reacting for fear of being banned. I think that as host you should weigh more your words and not be as straightforward. I think that you shouldn't tell your host "to take a day off". Also, this is not a debate as you don't have any evidence about the flights being fake, and you will never have because they are real. It is absolutely pointless to discuss this politely when it is so ridiculously wrong. By talking about it the way you want us to we're just promoting something which is not true. It should be debunked as soon as possible. Also, I will never ban anyone, so what your wrote is just funny.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 13:36:45 GMT
Replying as I read:
I didn't say they are fake. You might have misread my 30 posts on this subject.
Disrespectful terms: "ridiculously".
Thanks for reassuring me about that. Given your tone, I was wondering about it.
Well, if you don't like debating with me, I can also be quiet. We can certainly agree that we are not forced to debate and not forced to agree.
I also would like to not be told that I am in bad faith because I have a certain opinion.
I edited it and corrected it with "Let's take a day off". You are very sensitive for someone who asked me if I was trolling.
|
|
|
Post by zero11s on Apr 13, 2015 13:43:27 GMT
Mark said that they disappear from GPS and thats what they do so there is no evidence that these flights are correct. They don't disappear, and I already gave you screenshots. The flights are not correct in what way? What is not correct about them? The flights exist, people fly between New Zealand and South America directly and between Australia and South America. What is incorrect about this? It takes on average around 12 hours. On the UN flat Earth map it should take 40 hours. Your evidence is that someone on youtube said something. Please refresh my memory since when youtube is evidence? You can see the flight statistics online. You can see exactly how many flights got delayed, cancelled etc. That is evidence, because it is actual, verifiable evidence, not hearsay by someone on youtube. strong argument for the Concave Earth however I don´t buy into both of the Gravity version - I will need time to get around this
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 13, 2015 13:48:50 GMT
flat earth truthIf the flights are not fake they are real, and you don't have a point at all. How are you going to debate if you admit the flights are not fake? I still think you're trolling. If you want me to change my mind give me reasons.For instance, just read again what you posted. You didn't say they are fake, but you believe they are not real or they stop at refuelling stations and that is why it actually takes them less time to reach South America from Australia? Yeah, when you stop for a break it definitely makes you reach your destination faster. Indeed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 13:52:38 GMT
OK, I won't disrespect you, but since you said there is no risk of being banned, I tell you this: I don't like your tone and your terms, so I will stop discussing for a few hours.
And, also, I am tired because I didn't sleep.
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 13, 2015 13:52:47 GMT
They don't disappear, and I already gave you screenshots. The flights are not correct in what way? What is not correct about them? The flights exist, people fly between New Zealand and South America directly and between Australia and South America. What is incorrect about this? It takes on average around 12 hours. On the UN flat Earth map it should take 40 hours. Your evidence is that someone on youtube said something. Please refresh my memory since when youtube is evidence? You can see the flight statistics online. You can see exactly how many flights got delayed, cancelled etc. That is evidence, because it is actual, verifiable evidence, not hearsay by someone on youtube. strong argument for the Concave Earth however I don´t buy into both of the Gravity version - I will need time to get around this That is not an argument for concave Earth. In a concave Earth, the circumference of the planet would be smaller if you fly by plane then if you follow the surface. I don't think this is the case.
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 13, 2015 13:55:56 GMT
flat earth truthI know you would stop discussing, because you don't have evidence and instead of admitting it and moving on, you prefer to not discuss and continue believing lies.
|
|
|
Post by efrohi on Apr 13, 2015 15:01:29 GMT
I look Know ... Every flight take 19 to 25 hours ... Rio to sidney ... And who knows the delays and so on ...
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 13, 2015 15:23:58 GMT
I look Know ... Every flight take 19 to 25 hours ... Rio to sidney ... And who knows the delays and so on ... Efrohi, Rio de Janeiro is in Brazil. Sydney is in Australia. There are no direct flights from Rio to Sydney, but there are from Santiago to Sydney. Santiago, Chile is also in South America. It takes only ~12 hours from Santiago to Sydney. Please look at the flat Earth map now. This is the shortest flight path from Rio to Sydney if we assume for a second the map is correct. Let's also take a look at the flight which connects in Santiago: Let's now study the distances. The distance from Rio to Sydney is supposed to be two times bigger than the distance from Rio to the North Pole! Instead of taking the shortcut through the North pole(talking about your favorite flat Earth map), they first fly to Santiago(that is the fastest route), which makes the trip even longer. There are flights which connect in Dubai or London(which indeed makes the flight extremely long), but it doesn't matter, because we also have a flight through Santiago, Chile, which is absolutely reasonable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 16:38:43 GMT
Who says that azimuthal equidistant is a "perfect" map? I never said that, personally. I only believe it fits in terms of putting the north pole in the center, and arranging continents around it.
Sydney to Santiago might only be 12 hours flight time. So what? Maybe the continents are closer and fatter than azimuthal equidistant infers. We already know that EVERY map in EVERY school around the world, is fake. The Mercator projection is a fraud, and everybody knows that. So drawing red lines on a map, means nothing. You've proven nothing. You haven't proven that the earth is a ball, or flat. You've only proven that the azimuthal equidistant is not to scale. And again, so what? No map is to scale. Everything is a fraud.
I remember growing up, I'd see the tiniest jagged lines drawn for coastlines, and I'd be like, how can they know that it looks EXACTLY like that? There is no way. You can't sail alongside it and get it so perfect. And even supposed "satellite photos" are frauds. So it's just an agreed upon map. The shoreline looks like that, just accept it, people of the world.
Every map is a fraud.
I watched a video this morning, had nothing to do with the earth, but the idea that, the so-called "truth movements" are a waste of time. They are just as compromised and stupid as turning on CNN. So the only answer is to do your own research, see what you believe, and stick with it, adjusting as needed.
|
|
|
Post by efrohi on Apr 13, 2015 16:47:39 GMT
LOL i just look for flight santiago to sidney and most flys Took 40 hours.
One flight "just" 15 hours and who knows will the plane not have delay or something in the end ... I dont know ... I believe it when i fly it ... And 15 hours is much ... That are 15.000 km ... Thats Like in the flat earth map ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 16:54:09 GMT
Efrohi, you are right. There are usually weird things going on with the southern hemisphere flights. Things that don't occur in the northern hemisphere flights very often. So you are right.
One thing that Matt Boylan said to me about it, when I asked him about this issue, he said that the flight times determine the map, not the other way around. We can't take a fake map (and all the maps are fake) and then draw conclusions about anything.
I do believe that the north pole is at the center. And there is a snow-covered mountain range surrounding the earth (a person can call it "Antarctica" if they like). Other than that, there's a lot to figure out. The orientation of continents, the size of them, the distances between them.
|
|
|
Post by Lion on Apr 13, 2015 17:08:19 GMT
Efrohi, you are right. There are usually weird things going on with the southern hemisphere flights. Things that don't occur in the northern hemisphere flights very often. So you are right. One thing that Matt Boylan said to me about it, when I asked him about this issue, he said that the flight times determine the map, not the other way around. We can't take a fake map (and all the maps are fake) and then draw conclusions about anything. I do believe that the north pole is at the center. And there is a snow-covered mountain range surrounding the earth (a person can call it "Antarctica" if they like). Other than that, there's a lot to figure out. The orientation of continents, the size of them, the distances between them. Right @jess, and then there's THIS:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 17:12:50 GMT
Thank you, Lion, I did look at that video yesterday when you suggested it. But I would need to have something more to even consider it. How do you just morph into the "other side"? I would need to have more to go on, other than that video. And from that suggestion of the orientation of the earth, then you will have people saying the earth is a tube, circling in that way. It will be pandemonium.
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 13, 2015 17:29:55 GMT
I don't think efrohi is right. If the map is almost correct, please explain why on a globe the distances are just fine. The maps are not fraud, but they are projections. A projection is a means of representing or a representation of the globe or celestial sphere or part of it on a flat map. This always creates distortions. You guys are not paying attention. I said that from Rio to Sydney you should fly over the North Pole if the flat Earth map is even remotely accurate. I showed you the map and drew the line. What are you debunking? It doesn't work. Just because you want it to be true it doesn't mean it is. I am talking about the model with the north pole in the middle and the map per se. You can read the following article and the comments after that to figure out why they don't have so many non-stop flights. www.traveller.com.au/lan-airlines-787-dreamliner-to-fly-sydney-to-santiago-route-11k3zu
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 17:39:33 GMT
Once again, LIT, you are missing the point. You drew lines on a map. So what? Who is arguing for the map being perfect? Maybe the orientations and sizes of the continents are so far off from the map, that the line proves nothing.
I already stated, I believe the north pole to be at the center, and an outer wall to exist at the perimeter. Other than that, nothing is sure.
The article you linked to, also proves nothing. They will always find reasons for every "discrepancy".
I'm not just "wanting" the world to be flat. It really wouldn't change anything in my life if it were a ball or flat. It is investigation. I'm convinced by tons of other things, that the ball theory is suspect. And I know that concave is a joke, not possible. And I see with my own eyes, that the world is flat. Or I need to be up hundreds of miles to see the curve? According to the "official" numbers about the ball earth, the curve should be evident from the surface of the earth, given the right visual distances. You know the drill.
So some flight issues don't bother me at all. The maps are all FAKE. No matter how many lines you draw, you prove nothing. The maps are fake.
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 13, 2015 17:45:38 GMT
@jess
The article is not finding reasons for any discrepancy. It explains why it is not safe to fly planes over huge oceans. These are safety regulations. However, we don't need to focus on the regulations, as there are flights between NZ and Chile, so I don't know what we're talking about. You're saying that the map doesn't matter. Of course it does. You can't make the orientations meaningful. No one has. Something else, it is not true that according to the official numbers the curve should be evident from the surface of the Earth. That is just not true. I am arguing, because I think this "evidence" about the flights is bullshit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 17:55:27 GMT
Well, LIT, then you are somewhat naive when it comes to matters of conspiratorial studies. It is an easy enough explanation that, well, "we just don't fly over oceans", as a means to explain away discrepancies. That's routine M.O.
And once again, nobody has a perfect map. So drawing lines on anything, is wasting your time and proving nothing. It's a straw man fallacy, that you are committing.
As for the curvature of the earth, you've already read all this elsewhere. 25,000 miles as the "official" circumference of the earth. Here comes geometry that 13 year old students do. 25,000 miles circumference. That means 3 miles, lose 8 inches to the line of sight. By the time you went over about 20 miles, you lose about 16 feet. You believe we just simply wouldn't notice that?
The five senses are able to make determinations and draw conclusions. As simple as that. This is one of very many things that have convinced me that the earth is flat. If these things were not so, I wouldn't believe it.
And that's why, it seems with every passing day, you believe less and less in a flat earth. That's fine, of course. But then I don't understand the purpose of this board. Just to chat about what probably isn't so? Again, that's fine, of course. Just trying to get my bearings, here.
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 13, 2015 19:50:54 GMT
Well, LIT, then you are somewhat naive when it comes to matters of conspiratorial studies. It is an easy enough explanation that, well, "we just don't fly over oceans", as a means to explain away discrepancies. That's routine M.O. And once again, nobody has a perfect map. So drawing lines on anything, is wasting your time and proving nothing. It's a straw man fallacy, that you are committing. As for the curvature of the earth, you've already read all this elsewhere. 25,000 miles as the "official" circumference of the earth. Here comes geometry that 13 year old students do. 25,000 miles circumference. That means 3 miles, lose 8 inches to the line of sight. By the time you went over about 20 miles, you lose about 16 feet. You believe we just simply wouldn't notice that? The five senses are able to make determinations and draw conclusions. As simple as that. This is one of very many things that have convinced me that the earth is flat. If these things were not so, I wouldn't believe it. And that's why, it seems with every passing day, you believe less and less in a flat earth. That's fine, of course. But then I don't understand the purpose of this board. Just to chat about what probably isn't so? Again, that's fine, of course. Just trying to get my bearings, here. So basically, your argument is that if the Earth is flat, it doesn't matter what other lies we push as truth as long as they suggest it is indeed flat. Using fake arguments is perfectly fine. I get it now. Just because something might be true we should all start making up stuff in order to convince the others we're right. That is what Mark Sargent did, that is what Eric does when talks about Antarctica. You can't simply make up stuff to prove your beliefs. If you can't prove it now, you should look for real evidence, otherwise it is empty talk. Also, when you say you can't notice anything you basically deny that buildings, mountains etc appear to sink below the horizon. No one has explained this so far. It is not perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 20:13:16 GMT
Well, LIT, then there's no point in discussing it at all. What I call proof, you say is not proof. So it's pointless.
|
|
|
Post by LIT on Apr 13, 2015 20:50:19 GMT
Well, LIT, then there's no point in discussing it at all. What I call proof, you say is not proof. So it's pointless. Yeah, right. Let's not discuss it. Let's just repeat the same stuff over and over till we get completely convinced it is true. That is definitely a better approach. Choosing the evidence carefully to fit our theory and denying the rest. I didn't read about any proof. You just said that it appears that way. How is that proof?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2015 21:10:02 GMT
Well, LIT, then there's no point in discussing it at all. What I call proof, you say is not proof. So it's pointless. Yeah, right. Let's not discuss it. Let's just repeat the same stuff over and over till we get completely convinced it is true. That is definitely a better approach. Choosing the evidence carefully to fit our theory and denying the rest. I didn't read about any proof. You just said that it appears that way. How is that proof? I'm not denying anything, nor am I being convinced by just seeing "phantoms" on the wall. I have what I see as undeniable proof. You say that it isn't proof. So there it is. There's nothing more to discuss. We are at a disagreement, that simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 1:42:26 GMT
ifers.boards.net/post/3864/threadI have done about four days of solid research on this and everything I have seen EXCEPT the southern hemisphere flight information points to a FE. I have personally taken the Santiago - Auckland nonstop flight so I know it exists. Now, I do remember it taking what seemed to be more than 13 hours but but I did not make note of the exact time. Here's what bothers me: I used the same web site as Rinoni to figure travel distances around the world at the 33rd parallel in both the northern and southern hemispheres. Here are the cities I used and you can do the calcs for yourself. The distances are in statute miles and they appear to show equal circumferences around a ball. Can someone please tell me why this analysis is wrong? Are the numbers given to us by the web site rigged to conform to a ball? Why does Rinoni complicate his video with the radius formula when merely calculating as below should show the proof? Why did Rinoni not use cities located at the same latitude north and south? This alone makes his calculations...and motives?...suspect. latitude start finish air miles 33.53 sydney capetown 6850 33.92 capetown santiago 4938 33.44 santiago sydney 7058 total 18846 33.53 beruit los angeles 7452 34.03 los angeles shanghai 6491 31.23 shanghai beruit 4855 total 18798 Remember, @jess, that discussion we had with Rinoni? That didn't make much sense to me. I could not figure out what he was talking about. It seemed to me like there were some mistakes in his calculations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 20:56:32 GMT
Acenci, yes, rinoni's calculations didn't make any sense. They were based on going to different latitudes on a ball. Of course the numbers wouldn't be equal.
Likewise, going to the same latitudes on a ball, would make the numbers equal. They are building the model with a ball, putting the land masses on the ball, so of course taking the measurements that way, will tell you that "the earth is a ball". And if I take the land masses and put them on a flat surface, with the north pole at the top, then the measurements will tell you that "the earth is flat". So the assumptions they make going in, determines the answer you end up with.
The distances between cities isn't taking into account the size of continents and distance from each other on a flat map. And the "ball" is a cartoon, so that really doesn't tell us anything usable.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 21:03:39 GMT
I dont know anything about this stuff but it sounds interesting to research
Can I be given the number one anomaly that you guys are looking at that says we don't live on a round world?
Thanks
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2015 21:08:59 GMT
I dont know anything about this stuff but it sounds interesting to research Can I be given the number one anomaly that you guys are looking at that says we don't live on a round world? Thanks The problem is, the premise that we begin with. For example, in dating the age of the earth, they use the "geologic column". Assuming that sedimentary levels tell us how far back those levels go in time. Such a premise is silly, because it doesn't work. It doesn't tell us anything about the age of the earth, and besides, those sedimentary levels have trees growing through them in some cases. It's fiction. But the scientists call it "science" (by the way, I believe the age of the earth to be about 6000 years old, but that's another discussion). Add to this issue, that you're trusting Google and other CIA-run operations, for your numbers and data and pictures (cartoons, really). A person that doesn't believe in conspiracies, doesn't have any problem with this. But a person that believes that everything is a potential conspiracy, has to consider that Google is lying just as much as NASA and whoever else. So what can I go with? I have five senses, by which I can determine what I believe about the nature of the earth. I have my personal experiences on this earth. I have experiments that people have done with sight distance, when calculating the supposed "curvature" of the earth, the sight distances end up proving a flat earth. Put up on that, that NASA is fake, from A to Z. So these kinds of things are why I can't accept the ball.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 21:31:22 GMT
25,000 miles circumference. That means 3 miles, lose 8 inches to the line of sight. By the time you went over about 20 miles, you lose about 16 feet. You believe we just simply wouldn't notice that? After 20 miles you lose much more than 16 feet, and of course you can notice it. Please notice the dip in the middle of this picture and then locate it from the other side of the english channel 20 miles away and viewed from 20m above the water in the second picture You cannot use a perspective argument to say the waves partially hide the cliffs in a magnified manner. The waves would just have to be enormous to hide 50m of those 110m cliffs when the camera is about 20m above the water.
|
|
|
Post by aliveandkicking on Apr 14, 2015 21:34:21 GMT
I dont know anything about this stuff but it sounds interesting to research Can I be given the number one anomaly that you guys are looking at that says we don't live on a round world? Thanks The problem is, the premise that we begin with. For example, in dating the age of the earth, they use the "geologic column". Assuming that sedimentary levels tell us how far back those levels go in time. Such a premise is silly, because it doesn't work. It doesn't tell us anything about the age of the earth, and besides, those sedimentary levels have trees growing through them in some cases. It's fiction. But the scientists call it "science" (by the way, I believe the age of the earth to be about 6000 years old, but that's another discussion). Add to this issue, that you're trusting Google and other CIA-run operations, for your numbers and data and pictures (cartoons, really). A person that doesn't believe in conspiracies, doesn't have any problem with this. But a person that believes that everything is a potential conspiracy, has to consider that Google is lying just as much as NASA and whoever else. So what can I go with? I have five senses, by which I can determine what I believe about the nature of the earth. I have my personal experiences on this earth. I have experiments that people have done with sight distance, when calculating the supposed "curvature" of the earth, the sight distances end up proving a flat earth. Put up on that, that NASA is fake, from A to Z. So these kinds of things are why I can't accept the ball. Sorry i should have made it clearer i meant the flight time stuff. What is the number one anomaly for that.
|
|