Flat Earthers Won't Go Away [Archive] - Page 3

Jewboo

30th October 2016, 04:32 PM

http://www.newretailblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Flatearth1.jpg

GOOGLE EDGE OF EARTH VIDEOS (https://www.google.com/search?q=edge+of+earth&biw=1536&bih=743&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi49LjxlYLQAhUI9GMKHWA6CAAQ_AUIBygC&dpr=1.25#tbm=vid&q=edge+of+earth+video)

Ok Mamboni. There are over a hundred Flat Earth websites on the internet and over a hundred Youtube videos promoting Flat Earth. You yourself in this thread have posted a few of these Flat Earth promotion videos.

Click on the Youtube link above and post just one video of some guy with his GoPro camera looking over the EDGE of your Flat Earth. Better yet, a video of some guy flying his cheap hobby GoPro camera drone over the EDGE of your Flat Earth.

http://www.topdronesforsale.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/GOPRO-drone-696x464.jpg
Maybe you and Mamboni Junior already filmed yourselves at the EDGE ?

http://www.roughingafterthewhistle.com/images/smilies/popcorn.gifjust one single EDGE OF EARTH video. one

Mamboni still can't even find one video of the EDGE of his Flat Earth. Not one.

:rolleyes: one

Jewboo

30th October 2016, 04:50 PM

...When I heard about 'flat earth' I thought it a joke or satire. When I realized that these people were serious I began studying the question. I collected and analyzed numerous data and observations from the internet, all with a critical eye looking for flaws and defects in their methods. In investigating the matter I have come to a startling conclusion. I now am convinced beyond any doubt that the earth is flat, stationary and sitting under a firmament...

I too first though you were joking and now realize you are serious. Instead of spamming us with all these canned flat-Earth promotion videos, let's cut to the chase and see just one convincing video of the EDGE of your beloved Flat Earth.

The EDGE Mamboni.

:rolleyes: the edge

Horn

30th October 2016, 04:55 PM

Mamboni is simply referring to that portion of Earth under the Illuminati pyramid he is building...

its connected to hedge fund he receives retirement benefits from.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d4/ef/fa/d4effab8c9658a1292118395dbcd0715.jpg

mamboni

30th October 2016, 05:04 PM

No one has a photo or video of the end of the flat earth AFAIK. Do you have any proof of curvature outside of NASA fake fisheye photos?

Jewboo

30th October 2016, 05:32 PM

No one has a photo or video of the end of the flat earth AFAIK.

Thank you for honestly acknowledging this one single critical fact. I noticed last night that this EDGE question is when even all the professional internet Flat Earthers lose their shit. Thank you for not resorting to their usual ad hom dismissal reaction and thank you again for not just ignoring this critical question.

Your flat Earth, of course, must have an EDGE. You already posted that article of some guy going up ten miles claiming that with his own eyes he saw Earth as pie shaped with an uplifted EDGE.

http://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/noticias/10572/0x0/Polar_chop.jpg
Helicopter at freezing-ass South Pole

http://www.gearthblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/south-pole.jpg
Google Earth of Antarctica

What acceptable excuse is there in 2016 for the lack of any videos at the EDGE of your Flat Earth?

:(?? not even one

mamboni

30th October 2016, 07:23 PM

Thank you for honestly acknowledging this one single critical fact. I noticed last night that this EDGE question is when even all the professional internet Flat Earthers lose their shit. Thank you for not resorting to their usual ad hom dismissal reaction and thank you again for not just ignoring this critical question.

Your flat Earth, of course, must have an EDGE. You already posted that article of some guy going up ten miles claiming that with his own eyes he saw Earth as pie shaped with an uplifted EDGE.

http://en.mercopress.com/data/cache/noticias/10572/0x0/Polar_chop.jpg
Helicopter at freezing-ass South Pole

http://www.gearthblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/south-pole.jpg
Google Earth of Antarctica

What acceptable excuse is there in 2016 for the lack of any videos at the EDGE of your Flat Earth?

:(?? not even one

Strawman strawman. The visable earth is flat. It may or may not have an edge. It's still flat. And just because you don't know something, it doesn't follow that something is unknown.

In any event, you and others here have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the globe earth worldview that seemingly no collection of hard data and observations will change that false view. Your mind is hopelessly trapped in the false matrix.

Horn

30th October 2016, 07:43 PM

Your mind is hopelessly trapped in the false matrix.

Its getting towards that time we can ship mamboni to the south pole,

that he may be able to TOUCH the Sun its sooo very close down there this time of the year...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eab_beh07HU

My trip began on Thursday November 10th in Chicago, Illinois at the University of Chicago. I left Chicago at 3:00 pm on that day from O’Hare Airport (ORD). My first flight brought me to the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) in Los Angeles, California and lasted about 4.5 hours. The actual time I reached Los Angeles though was 5:30 pm. This is because there is a 2-hour difference between the time in Chicago and the time in Los Angeles. Like my last entry explained, this is because the sun rises in Los Angeles 2 hours after it does in Chicago.

http://spadventure.blogspot.com/2005/11/getting-to-south-pole.html

Jewboo

30th October 2016, 08:04 PM

Strawman strawman. The visible earth is flat. It may or may not have an edge. It's still flat. And just because you don't know something, it doesn't follow that something is unknown.

In any event, you and others here have been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the globe earth worldview that seemingly no collection of hard data and observations will change that false view. Your mind is hopelessly trapped in the false matrix.

http://henrymakow.com/upload_images/flat-earth-society.jpg

http://manonthelam.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Flat-Earth-Sign-e1419161210648.jpg

Sad that you too lost your shit over this critical EDGE question and now resort to ad hom against everyone else here who isn't buying your Flat Earth.

Obviously your Earth must have an EDGE if it is really flat. You offered us no "hard evidence" or "observations" of this EDGE of your Flat Earth. Now you say your Flat Earth may not even have an EDGE.

You can't even tell us where the EDGE of your Flat Earth is. You and Mamboni Junior should be able to travel in a straight line in any direction and eventually arrive at the EDGE if your Earth really is flat. National Geographics (https://s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/NationalGeographic/2004336?$product484x484$) would pay for your expenses. You two would be famous.

In 2016 nobody can produce one photo of the EDGE? The biggest tourist attraction ever? A Trump Hotel would already be there if it existed.

In 2016 not one photo?

In 2016?

:) God forbid I ask you for a map of your flat Earth

Neuro

31st October 2016, 01:59 AM

Greece viewed from Turkey today...
http://s.pictub.club/2016/10/30/rmnJY.jpg

Look at the horizon line...

This one was taken at aprox 200 ft altitude, just 200 yards behind the first photo. You can see the small island in front doesn't share the coastline with the horizon any longer. The Island behind does though. These findings are consistent with a curved earth.
https://i.imgsafe.org/6f7cb80491.jpg

Neuro

31st October 2016, 02:10 AM

Here's my son. He followed the debate on the Internet re the flat earth.
https://i.imgsafe.org/6fad651401.jpg
He came to the conclusion that earth is shaped like a ball. Sure he is only 13 but he is a pretty smart dude. He solves the Rubik's cube in consistently less than a minute. His record is 41 seconds.

mamboni

31st October 2016, 06:40 AM

From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, both of these skylines should be hidden behind over 800 feet of Earth’s curvature.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o9262C1lCA8/Vb-RBB5WgTI/AAAAAAAAQBI/K1W5YlA1di4/s400/ny-skyline.jpg

It is often possible to see the Chicago skyline from sea-level 60 miles away across Lake Michigan. In 2015 after photographer Joshua Nowicki photographed this phenomenon several news channels quickly claimed his picture to be a “superior mirage,” an atmospheric anomaly caused by temperature inversion. While these certainly do occur, the skyline in question was facing right-side up and clearly seen unlike a hazy illusory mirage, and on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference should be 2,400 feet below the horizon.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o9262C1lCA8/Vb-RBB5WgTI/AAAAAAAAQBI/K1W5YlA1di4/s1600/ny-skyline.jpg)
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KvI8YmldH1k/Vb-RN3eOU5I/AAAAAAAAQBQ/-lfSkWXvfy8/s400/11035683_702251386553055_8670428708932061960_n.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KvI8YmldH1k/Vb-RN3eOU5I/AAAAAAAAQBQ/-lfSkWXvfy8/s1600/11035683_702251386553055_8670428708932061960_n.jpg )

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-o9262C1lCA8/Vb-RBB5WgTI/AAAAAAAAQBI/K1W5YlA1di4/s1600/ny-skyline.jpg)

mamboni

31st October 2016, 07:07 AM

https://youtu.be/fcteYfOMgJg

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 07:14 AM

8 inchs declination per mile is an incline, not a curve. With a sphere, the rate of declination increases with distance. For example, while in 1 mile the declination should be 8 inchs, go out one more mile from there and the declination is now 32 inchs. Go out one more mile from there and the declination is now 72 inchs. Another mile and suddenly it's 192 inchs down. This is why line of sight observations over 30, 40 and even 120 miles are so important; because at 120 miles the declination of the globe earth is 1.8 miles. And that should be readily detectable - but it is not! Ergo.....

Mamboni lost his shit last night admitting that he can't produce even one single photo of the EDGE of his alleged flat Earth in 2016. You would think he would now come to his senses but.................nope.

Here he is this morning propping up his previous Straw Man secret equation about declination. Let's take a quick look at what he is trying to say in the quoted post above:

http://s2.storage.snapzu.com/89/2f/69/33/AdelleChattre/snaps/f4/d2/130279/thumbs/c84e9ee577d7b103_fpi_large.jpg

Mamboni stands at 12 o'clock and says that this one-mile declination is 8 inches. Ok. Fine. We can probably verify this visually.

Mamboni stands at 12 o'clock and also tells us that the mile declination at 3 o'clock is 5280 feet. Literally vertically straight down drop. We obviously can't see it from 12 o'clock.

Mamboni in the above quoted post is insisting that we must pay more attention to that far-away straight down vertical mile we obviously can't see.

Look up again to where Mamboni is telling us the far-away mile is so much more "important" to measure than the mile we stand on that is visible.

Total misdirection bullshit.

:(?? show us the EDGE instead Mamboni

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 07:18 AM

http://henrymakow.com/upload_images/flat-earth-society.jpg

http://manonthelam.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Flat-Earth-Sign-e1419161210648.jpg

Sad that you too lost your shit over this critical EDGE question and now resort to ad hom against everyone else here who isn't buying your Flat Earth.

Obviously your Earth must have an EDGE if it is really flat. You offered us no "hard evidence" or "observations" of this EDGE of your Flat Earth. Now you say your Flat Earth may not even have an EDGE.

You can't even tell us where the EDGE of your Flat Earth is. You and Mamboni Junior should be able to travel in a straight line in any direction and eventually arrive at the EDGE if your Earth really is flat. National Geographics (https://s7d2.scene7.com/is/image/NationalGeographic/2004336?$product484x484$) would pay for your expenses. You two would be famous.

In 2016 nobody can produce one photo of the EDGE? The biggest tourist attraction ever? A Trump Hotel would already be there if it existed.

In 2016 not one photo?

In 2016?

:) God forbid I ask you for a map of your flat Earth

bump for the day crew

mamboni

31st October 2016, 07:26 AM

Mamboni lost his shit last night admitting that he can't produce even one single photo of the EDGE of his alleged flat Earth in 2016. You would think he would come to his senses but.................nope.

Here he is this morning propping up his previous Straw Man secret equation about declination. Let's take a quick look at what he is trying to say in the quoted post above:

http://s2.storage.snapzu.com/89/2f/69/33/AdelleChattre/snaps/f4/d2/130279/thumbs/c84e9ee577d7b103_fpi_large.jpg

Mamboni stands at 12 o'clock and says that this one-mile declination is 8 Inches. Ok. Fine. We can probably verify this visually.

Mamboni stands at 12 o'clock and also tells us that the mile declination at 3 o'clock is 5280 feet. Literally vertically straight down drop. We obviously can't see it from 12 o'clock.

Mamboni in the above quoted post is insisting that we must pay more attention to that far-away straight down vertical mile we obviously can't see.

Look up again to where Mamboni is telling us the far-away mile is so much more "important" to measure than the mile we stand on that is visible.

:(?? show us the EDGE instead MamboniSo you are saying that the Pythagorean theorem is false. Because the declination equation is merely a rearrangement of the Pythagorean equation for a circle z2 = x2 + y2. The equation for declination, the difference in height between a horizontal line and that of a circle where the circle and lines meet at point zero and the circle has known radius. The equation for globe earth is 8 inchs x distance (miles) squared. If you reject this simple algebra, then you are incapable of simple logic. You keep going and on about the "edge." Ok, keep lookng for that "edge" and ignore Pythagorus and ignore all of the observations and measurements that verify that the earth is "measurably" flat. These are facts that you ignore, while in search of the "edge." You say that if the "edge" cannot be seen, then the earth is not flat. This is fallacy pure and simple.

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 07:48 AM

So you are saying that the Pythagorean theorem is false. Because the declination equation is merely a rearrangement of the Pythagorean equation for a circle z2 = x2 + y2. The equation for declination, the difference in height between a horizontal line and that of a circle where the circle and lines meet at point zero and the circle has known radius. The equation for globe earth is 8 inchs x distance (miles) squared. If you reject this simple algebra, then you are incapable of simple logic. You keep going and on about the "edge." Ok, keep lookng for that "edge" and ignore Pythagorus and ignore all of the observations and measurements that verify that the earth is "measurably" flat. These are facts that you ignore, while in search of the "edge." You say that if the "edge" cannot be seen, then the earth is not flat. This is fallacy pure and simple.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/04/2a/8e/042a8eb372694b75e2b91115b8f7fa3c.jpg

Here we go again. Another ride on the Mamboni PhD chair. Blah blah blah my Phd. Blah blah blah my secret Phd equation. Blah blah blah...

No Mamboni. Enough of your silly misdirection. Show us a photo of the EDGE of your flat Earth Mamboni. This is 2016.

Show us the EDGE.

:rolleyes:

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 07:51 AM

mamboni

31st October 2016, 08:09 AM

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/04/2a/8e/042a8eb372694b75e2b91115b8f7fa3c.jpg

Here we go again. Another ride on the Mamboni PhD chair. Blah blah blah my Phd. Blah blah blah my secret Phd equation. Blah blah blah...

No Mamboni. Enough of your silly misdirection. Show us a photo of the EDGE of your flat Earth Mamboni. This is 2016.

Show us the EDGE.

:rolleyes:
Well, I don't know how my having a PhD has relevance to an inquiry into flat earth. I suppose this is some veiled personal attack. So you don't really want to learn anything. You want to hang your entire stance vis-a-vis flat earth on seeing the "edge." You can't learn anything if you don't know how to ask the right questions.

The teacher shall [re]appear when the student is ready.

StreetsOfGold

31st October 2016, 08:16 AM

8633

Why is the "continent" of Antarctica the ONLY "continent" which just happens to APPEAR AS A HUGH high WALL of ice?

8634

Why is Antarctica the ONLY (whole)continent not "OWNED" by ANY single country?
In this day and age?
Seriously?

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 08:19 AM

So you don't really want to learn anything.

https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/usedcarsalesman.jpg

I'm not the one who is trying to sell GSUS a flat Earth that apparently has no EDGE. You are.

:rolleyes: show us the EDGE. Get the keys and drive us to the EDGE of your flat Earth

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 08:22 AM

mamboni

31st October 2016, 08:29 AM

According to the heliocentric model, the earth rotates exactly once every 24 hours on it's axis. The earth rotates around the sun once every year. There are 365.25 days in one calendar year. So to high precision, a day is 24 hours almost exactly. At noon on Jan 1 if an observer is standing on the equator the sun is directly overhead and it is drectly "in front" of the earth In 24 hours, it will be noon again and the the observer side of the earth directly faces the sun; though the earth has advanced 1 day of its 365 day rotation around the sun. But, in exactly 180 days to the hour o June 1 the observer will see a noon sun and be directly facing the sun. But the earth should be now 180 degrees around the sun, half way through is annual rotation and importantly, facing away from the sun. The heliocentric model contradicts our own experience. And this cannot be accounted for by some small error in the day length. Each of our days is about 1 millisecond longer than 24:00:00 hours. In 180 days, the time error is less than 1 second.

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 08:35 AM

According to the heliocentric model, the earth rotates exactly once every 24 hours on it's axis.

More misdirection. You already said you don't believe in a rotating Earth but a stationary flat Earth. We get it.

Show us the EDGE of your flat Earth.

:rolleyes:

mamboni

31st October 2016, 08:38 AM

More misdirection. You already said you don't believe in a rotating Earth but a stationary flat Earth. We get it.

Show us the EDGE of your flat Earth.

:rolleyes:Right. The "edge." Keep at it.

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 09:05 AM

Right. The "edge." Keep at it.

http://www.southpolestation.com/news/heloside1.jpg
South Pole Helicopter

http://jonbowermaster.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/071128074937-large.jpg
Russian Antarctic Oil Rig

Thanks for getting us back on topic Mamboni. The EDGE.

I wonder why every Flat Earther loses their shit over this critical question. I've seen some silly attempts at saying it is a really tall ice wall but then they can't produce even a photo of this tall ice wall. Go to some of these professional Flat Earth websites and one of them finally posted a "STOP ASKING ME ABOUT THE DAMN EDGE" notice in their forum. These websites make money selling Flat Earth.

On a flat Earth, simply travel in a straight line in any direction and eventually we must arrive at the EDGE. A flat Earth that had no EDGE would go on to infinity and divide the entire Universe in half. Silly. A flat Earth must obviously have an EDGE.

Why not one single photo of the EDGE Mamboni? Look at the two photos above. We can travel everywhere on Earth and take a photo and video in 2016.

This is 2016.

:(?? why no photo?

mamboni

31st October 2016, 09:28 AM

http://www.southpolestation.com/news/heloside1.jpg
South Pole Helicopter

http://jonbowermaster.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/071128074937-large.jpg
Russian Antarctic Oil Rig

Thanks for getting us back on topic Mamboni. The EDGE.

I wonder why every Flat Earther loses their shit over this critical question. I've seen some silly attempts at saying it is a really tall ice wall but then they can't produce even a photo of this tall ice wall. Go to some of these professional Flat Earth websites and one of them finally posted a "STOP ASKING ME ABOUT THE DAMN EDGE" notice in their forum. These websites make money selling Flat Earth.

On a flat Earth, simply travel in a straight line in any direction and eventually we must arrive at the EDGE. A flat Earth that had no EDGE would go on to infinity and divide the entire Universe in half. Silly. A flat Earth must obviously have an EDGE.

Why not one single photo of the EDGE Mamboni? Look at the two photos above. We can travel everywhere on Earth and take a photo and video in 2016.

This is 2016.

:(?? why no photo?

Well, I'm sure with persistence and time you will find that "edge."

Neuro

31st October 2016, 09:38 AM

Well, I'm sure with persistence and time you will find that "edge."

You don't care about it?

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 09:49 AM

Well, I'm sure with persistence and time you will find that "edge."

That's the verbal equivalent of throwing up your hands. Losing your shit over the critical EDGE question that all Flat Earthers can't answer.

You posted above that you now believe in a flat Earth below a firmament. Let's cut to the chase yet again:

https://flatearthscienceandbible.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/img_8922-1.png

https://flatearthscienceandbible.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/img_0039-1.jpeg?w=768

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/164YdQvRDgE/maxresdefault.jpg

You must have been scientifically pondering this Flat Earth stuff for some time and at some point gave up...let go...and surrendered to the notion that our Earth must be some kind of special terrarium (http://www.juicykits.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/wet-terrarium-1972.jpg) built by "God". Once you arrive at that point and surrender, facts about the EDGE or anything else become unimportant. You now have Faith in the unknown. Faith in the unknowable. Faith in God.

http://www.newchristian.org.uk/existed.jpg

:(?? I'm not being facetious...notice your new Horizen

Horn

31st October 2016, 10:27 AM

mamboni

31st October 2016, 10:32 AM

I believe the ancient Hebrews were a lot closer to the truth of it than Copernicus. I don't have to be standing at the ends of the earth to know whether it is flat. Every experimental observation and measurement of the earth has:

1. failed to demonstrate that the earth moves (Einstein admitted this to true)
2. failed to measure curvature attributable to a globe earth.

The null hypothesis, a basic tenet of experiential scientific query, states that the null state is assumed unless there are data and observations to the contrary. By this reasoning alone, the earth should be taken as a flat plane until hard evidence to the contrary.

Where is the hard evidence for a globe earth?

Horn

31st October 2016, 10:36 AM

cold poles and a warm equator.

if it were flat heat would be distributed evenly, not to mention your water and air slip off the griddle...

think of cooking breakfast mamboni u will get closer

mamboni

31st October 2016, 10:43 AM

cold poles and a warm equator.

if it were flat heat would be distributed evenly, not to mention your water and air slip off the griddle...

think of cooking breakfast mamboni u will get closerNo, you are imagining a far distant sun. But if the sun is smaller and much closer, say 3000 miles, it could cause local lighting and day and night on a much larger flat earth. I haven't seen the "edge," but apparently the oceans have not spilled off the edge in thousands of years.

Horn

31st October 2016, 10:54 AM

ok strike the griddle for cooking an egg mamboni and try frying 4 seperate eggs in a wok all sunnyside up and seperate.

Your poles on a flat earth would be temperate as the equator is.

mamboni

31st October 2016, 11:05 AM

ok strike the griddle for cooking an egg mamboni and try frying 4 seperate eggs in a wok all sunnyside up and seperate.

Your poles on a flat earth would be temperate as the equator is.The flat earth is not a griddle. A griddle is made of a sheet of highly thermally conductive metal. This is completely different from land and water earth. Your analogy doesn't apply.

Now imagine a large pizza pie. Imagine a small incandescent bulb, perhaps 5W, moving about the pie 1 inch above it in a circular motion over the equator, the circumference at the midline of the radius. Over time, the equatorial middle of the pie will stay warm because the bulb passes over every few seconds. Howver, the crust and center of the pie (our earth north pole equivalent) will be cooler becuase these areas recieve less heat and light from the circling light above.

Horn

31st October 2016, 11:12 AM

mamboni

31st October 2016, 11:25 AM

Explain months without the Sun at the poles, mamboni.

Its an impossibility in a flat earth.

The Earth is perfectly compared to a wok with regards to the Sun.

In your flat earth it would be a griddle.No. The flat earth model explains perfectly how and why there is decreased sun at the poles. For example, when the sun is in capricorn and the southern hemisphere is in summer, the sun is circling over the tropic line that is maximally distant from the north pole, resulting in fewer daylight hours and a periods wthout sun (at the north pole).https://flatearthscienceandbible.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/img_6710.jpg

mamboni

31st October 2016, 11:28 AM

You have to remember that mamboni thought it were the Italian Volta who discovered electricity.

Those who a eloquent in artistry forms and creativity are often challenged in other history and physics departments ... I think Trump even noticed this :)Allessandro Volta is credited with inventing the electric pile. Others such as Galvani did work with electrical phenomena previously. I never said Volta invented electricity. Please do not make false attributions. This is very bad form.

Horn

31st October 2016, 11:42 AM

No. The flat earth model explains perfectly how and why there is decreased sun at the poles. For example, when the sun is in capricorn and the southern hemisphere is in summer, the sun is circling over the tropic line that is maximally distant from the north pole, resulting in fewer daylight hours and a periods wthout sun (at the north pole).https://flatearthscienceandbible.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/img_6710.jpg

Sure and it circles mars and jupiter in that same fashion.

Or do all those other planets have their own tiny Christmas bulb Suns that circle around the christmas tree Earth like a trainset, constantly setting up a new track?

No, the poles go without a Sun...

mamboni

31st October 2016, 12:00 PM

Sure and it circles mars and jupiter in that same fashion.

Or do all those other planets have their own tiny Christmas bulb Suns that circle around the christmas tree Earth like a trainset, constantly setting up a new track?

No, the poles go without a Sun...huh?

Horn

31st October 2016, 12:14 PM

Just as Hillary were defeated by a weiner, mamboni were defeated by a Dark Pole.

So dark it were, no Sun were shining on it...

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 12:19 PM

The null hypothesis, a basic tenet of experiential scientific query, states that the null state is assumed unless there are data and observations to the contrary. By this reasoning alone, the earth should be taken as a flat plane until hard evidence to the contrary.

Where is the hard evidence for a globe earth?

Hey. Not so fast. PatColo calls this sneaky trick "flipping the script". Data and observations have every other planet in our solar system a globe. Mamboni just tried to flip this globe data and observations into a contrary null state of flat?

:o

Dogman

31st October 2016, 12:22 PM

Just as Hillary were defeated by a weiner, mamboni were defeated by a Dark Pole.

So dark it were, no Sun were shining on it... You meen somthing like this ?

8635

http://www.alanpollack.com/gallery

;D

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 12:25 PM

huh?

I think Horn reasonably asked you how is your tiny sun close above our Earth frying the hell out of far-away Mercury.

:)

Shami-Amourae

31st October 2016, 12:32 PM

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/x/image/1470/61/1470610248786.jpg

mamboni

31st October 2016, 12:34 PM

I think Horn asked you how is your tiny sun close above our Earth frying the hell out of far-away Mercury.

:)How do you know Mercury is frying? How do you know Mercury is a planet, a solid sphere?

mamboni

31st October 2016, 12:37 PM

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/x/image/1470/61/1470610248786.jpgThe dimensions and distances are not known with this precision AFAIK. And you're disregarding the limits of visability due to atmospheric interference. I have my doubts about the 3,000 mile figure. I think the sun is much closer than 3,000 miles overhead.

Horn

31st October 2016, 12:40 PM

How do you know Mercury is frying? How do you know Mercury is a planet, a solid sphere?

OK for comparison if Mercury were my ass, U can see where the Sun dont shine on it.

Then kiss it there...

Buen Forma! lol

mamboni

31st October 2016, 12:44 PM

OK for comparison if Mercury were my ass, U can see where the Sun dont shine on it.

Then kiss it there...

Buen Forma! lolFuck you too.:rolleyes:

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 12:47 PM

How do you know Mercury is a planet, a solid sphere?

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/02/18/tele-f914a026a0b9f8dfe6a3909b593c039407d33170-s900-c85.jpg

Everybody can see that globe Mamboni...except you now?

:rolleyes:

Viewed from Earth, Mercury is never far from the Sun in the sky. Because of the glare of the Sun, it can only be seen in twilight. Timocharis made the first recorded observation of Mercury in 265 BC. Other early astronomers that studied Mercury include Zupus (1639), who studied the planet's orbit.

Horn

31st October 2016, 12:51 PM

Fuck you too.

You're just sore your "flat earth candidate" is slumping in the polls...

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 12:53 PM

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/x/image/1470/61/1470610248786.jpg

With his flat Earth only 15,000 miles wide Mamboni and Mamboni Junior can obviously travel to that EDGE rather quickly and take a video.

:)

Horn

31st October 2016, 01:01 PM

there IS a flat part on my ass too, if anyone wants candlelight videos of it, id be a happy to supply as weiner.

just text me.

Dogman

31st October 2016, 01:02 PM

there IS a flat part on my ass too, if anyone wants candlelight videos of it, id be a happy to supply as weiner.

text me.Chair and stool time will tend to flatten out what should have a curve to it...

;D

mamboni

31st October 2016, 01:50 PM

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2015/02/18/tele-f914a026a0b9f8dfe6a3909b593c039407d33170-s900-c85.jpg

Everybody can see that globe Mamboni...except you now?

:rolleyes:

Really? You've personally looked at the planets using a telescope and see solid spheres - you're sure of that? Photos of the planets from the best earth bound telescopes at best look like 2D lights. How do you know that these are solid?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hZ-LaDbVEgE/VmrS-H-dQlI/AAAAAAAAb4U/vvbFBIt-m7o/s1600/Mars%2Bamateur%2Btelescope%2Bpictures.jpg

Neuro

31st October 2016, 01:53 PM

No. The flat earth model explains perfectly how and why there is decreased sun at the poles. For example, when the sun is in capricorn and the southern hemisphere is in summer, the sun is circling over the tropic line that is maximally distant from the north pole, resulting in fewer daylight hours and a periods wthout sun (at the north pole).https://flatearthscienceandbible.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/img_6710.jpg

There you have it again, an Australia that is almost 3 times as long East to West as is commonly accepted, you really should go there and measure it accurately... For your own sake!

mamboni

31st October 2016, 01:56 PM

There you have it again, an Australia that is almost 3 times as long East to West as is commonly accepted, you really should go there and measure it accurately... For your own sake!Yeah, Ill take a couple of weeks off from work and spend $10,000 to go survey Australia myself - good advice.

Neuro

31st October 2016, 01:57 PM

Really? You've personally looked at the planets using a telescope and see solid spheres - you're sure of that? Photos of the planets from the best earth bound telescopes at best look like 2D lights. How do you know that these are solid?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hZ-LaDbVEgE/VmrS-H-dQlI/AAAAAAAAb4U/vvbFBIt-m7o/s1600/Mars%2Bamateur%2Btelescope%2Bpictures.jpg

It looks like there is decreased sun at the North Pole of Mars too, as it seems to have an ice cap! But maybe God put it there only to test your faith Mamboni?

mamboni

31st October 2016, 01:57 PM

You're just sore your "flat earth candidate" is slumping in the polls...No. I'm fatigued by small minds that lack imagination and basic logic.

Neuro

31st October 2016, 02:02 PM

Yeah, Ill take a couple of weeks off from work and spend $10,000 to go survey Australia myself - good advice.

I am sure it will be money well spent, at this point!

Horn

31st October 2016, 02:03 PM

all you need to do is stand at the pole during polar night to prove Earth's curveture, the Sun does not make it above the horizon.

As far as crescent photos of the planets proving their spherical shape browse for Venus or Mars.

Yes they tend to get cooler the further you progress away from the REAL Sun, not the flat earth christmas tree bulb Sun.

the graphic provided does not prove a flat earth sun, it (the sun) would still be visible in the polar night above the horizon in regards to that graphic, it could not would not go below the horizon at the poles.

Or anywhere for that matter in a flat earth.

The graphic is a prelude to constant daylight w/o sunset or rise It simply is Not a viable theory to flat earth.

Mamboni is proving a pyramid or christmas tree earth if anything

mamboni

31st October 2016, 02:20 PM

Horn

31st October 2016, 02:25 PM

You can Not have a sunset or rise in that model, it (the Sun) would simply fade in or out of atmospheric at level... like a airplanes headlight splitting the fog at night.

No Sun rise or set below or above horizon would be evident.

mamboni

31st October 2016, 02:30 PM

You can Not have a sunset or rise in that model, it would simply fade in or out of atmospheric at level...

Wrong. The "sunset" is the sun disappearing into the viewer's vanishing point on the horizon. Sometimes the sun disappears behind the cloud/atmosphere or land (i.e. mountains). The sun does not go under and around the earth.

Horn

31st October 2016, 03:08 PM

Wrong. The "sunset" is the sun disappearing into the viewer's vanishing point on the horizon. Sometimes the sun disappears behind the cloud/atmosphere or land (i.e. mountains). The sun does not go under and around the earth.

The Sun would appear at the level you are suggesting above the horizon Always in your flat earth model, never would it appear near to it (horizon)

A boat would because it sits on it (horizon) knumbskull.

You can Not have zero sun at the poles which IS the case also

mamboni

31st October 2016, 03:58 PM

The Sun would appear at the level you are suggesting above the horizon Always in your flat earth model, never would it appear near to it (horizon)

A boat would because it sits on it (horizon) knumbskull.

You can Not have zero sun at the poles which IS the case alsoYou have no understanding of perspective. The sun is thousands of miles away around sunset. But you insist on knowing it's position relative to earth - an empty assertion.

Watch this sunset - the sun shrinks as it moves away from the camera behind the clouds-atmosphere and then beyond the vanishing point. The sun is moving along the line of perspective and appears to be going down. It is moving away and towards the vanishing point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt_BzRxAW3o

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 05:31 PM

You have no understanding of perspective.

What are we actually (wink wink) looking at when we see with our own eyes the entire night sky circling the stationary north star Polaris ?

:) isn't Polaris the obvious center of your revolving Universe?

Horn

31st October 2016, 06:07 PM

You have no understanding of perspective.

Watch this sunset - the sun shrinks as it moves away from the camera

I look up, I look over, Sun's the same friggin size its been all friggin day.

In your model Venus would be somewhere mid transit that 3000 mile distance, we could shuttle up there on wings of a seagull.

Traces of rectangle known as Earth evident with shadows on the moon

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/news/photos/000/543/54359.jpg

https://c.tadst.com/gfx/750x500/december-solstice-illustration.png?2

osoab

31st October 2016, 06:13 PM

This one was taken at aprox 200 ft altitude, just 200 yards behind the first photo. You can see the small island in front doesn't share the coastline with the horizon any longer. The Island behind does though. These findings are consistent with a curved earth.

You positive about 200' above sea level? I give you 60' max. Building is 20' max. (10' per floor). I'll give you 66' for your height. :D Pserimos is 66' top height. You are level with the peak for all purposes. The horizon is beyond Pserimos imho.

osoab

31st October 2016, 06:21 PM

When he explained Polaris and the stars forming perfect concentric circles around Polaris - that's when I had the a-ha moment. Because one could argue that the rotation of the stars around Polaris can be due to either the earth (globe) rotating or the stars rotating above a stationary (flat) earth. However, the heliocentric model flies in the face of the stars' perfect circular movement because the earth is purported to orbit the sun and travel through space at 65,000 miles per hour, fully 60 times the speed of travel of the stars around Polaris. Further, the sun is purported to travel at 600,000 miles per hour. If you factor in the purported movement of the milky way galaxy, earth is traveling at about a million miles per hour, fully 1000 times faster than the speed of rotation (of the stars around Polaris). Yet time lapse photography produced perfectly round clean paths centered on Polaris, the latter a stationary point. This is impossible if the earth, the sun and the galaxy are moving 1000 times faster(than the stars that 'circle' Polaris). There is only one solution: the earth does not move. The stars move around the earth.

I can't find the video excerpt, but in one of his interviews he touts Karen Hudes. That is an automatic disqualifier for me.

osoab

31st October 2016, 06:24 PM

mamboni

31st October 2016, 07:28 PM

I'll this in with the fun.:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGxysKSGEM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUGxysKSGEM

Anyone tried the magnifying glass and moonlight? Supposedly it will have a cooling effect. :oSomeone had posted this awhile back. I wondered about some digital or software artifact. But he has gotten this filmed by others which means it's a real moon phenomenon. Honestly, the only explanation that comes to mind is the moon is a projection. That's rather a wild idea. It looks like a wave running through the moon. The wave seems always perfectly straight and moving with constant velocity, like a machine or electronic device (cathode ray tube projectors did this) would behave. Freaky.

mamboni

31st October 2016, 07:32 PM

I can't find the video excerpt, but in one of his interviews he touts Karen Hudes. That is an automatic disqualifier for me.I hear what you're saying. It's prudent to judge folk by the company they keep. But sometimes, you might be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 07:49 PM

But sometimes, you might be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

https://c.tadst.com/gfx/750w/partial-solar-eclipse-clouds.jpg?1

If your circling Sun is less than 3,000 miles above your flat Earth:

1) What is your little sun orbiting? If not orbiting anything... it must be self-propelled?

2) Where is your tiny orbiting Moon in relation to your little circling Sun?

3) How do you explain an eclipse?

:)

mamboni

31st October 2016, 08:02 PM

https://c.tadst.com/gfx/750w/partial-solar-eclipse-clouds.jpg?1

If your circling Sun is less than 3,000 miles above your flat Earth:
1) What is your little sun orbiting? If not orbiting anything... it must be self-propelled?

2) Where is your tiny orbiting Moon in relation to your little circling Sun?

3) How do you explain an eclipse?

:)
Yes, the sun and the moon are clearly on automatic guidance, like parts of a clock mechanism. Watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk3YndyvdKc

Oh, this one's for oyu. Someone got a video of the flat earth with the edge!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUQqd87pRIc#t=245.905934

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 08:23 PM

Yes, the sun and the moon are clearly on automatic guidance, like parts of a clock mechanism. Watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk3YndyvdKc

Oh, this one's for oyu. Someone got a video of the flat earth with the edge!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUQqd87pRIc#t=245.905934

Ok. Same size sun and much dimmer opposing moon. Before I wind up for another counterstrike (lol) please first supplement:

1) Explain an eclipse.

2) Explain tide rising and a full moon every 28 days.

3) All your stars below a non-transparent Firmament?

4) Earth surface center exactly where?...what do magnetic compasses point to on your flat Earth?

:)

mamboni

31st October 2016, 08:30 PM

Ok. Same size sun and much dimmer opposing moon. Before I wind up for another counterstrike (lol) please first supplement:

1) Explain an eclipse.

2) Explain tide rising and a full moon every 28 days.

3) All your stars below a non-transparent Firmament?

4) Earth surface center exactly where?

:)I dont have all the answers. I'm learning too. There are some videos explaining eclipses. Earth center at north pole. Stars are in the firmament (I think). The tides are above my pay grade.

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 08:37 PM

I dont have all the answers. I'm learning too. There are some videos explaining eclipses. Earth center at north pole. Stars are in the firmament (I think). The tides are above my pay grade.

Thanks.

Ok. Our magnetic compass points to the center of flat Earth which is the North Pole. Using our compass, can't we just keep going directly magnetic SOUTH in a straight line and soon arrive at the EDGE?

:)

mamboni

31st October 2016, 09:01 PM

Thanks.

Ok. Our magnetic compass points to the center of flat Earth which is the North Pole. Using our compass, can't we just keep going directly magnetic SOUTH in a straight line and soon arrive at the EDGE?

:)
Yes. And some historians believe that Admiral Byrd and the Americans did it in the years after WWII. They believe that they found the edge. Soon after this, the Antarctic Treaty was signed. It's apparently the only international treaty still intact after over 60 years. No nation has violated it.

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 09:19 PM

Yes. And some historians believe that Admiral Byrd and the Americans did it in the years after WWII. They believe that they found the edge. Soon after this, the Antarctic Treaty was signed. It's apparently the only international treaty still intact after over 60 years. No nation has violated it.

Ok. I'm now at the point of suspending disbelief so I can hopefully catch up with you. I'm not being sarcastic. Correct me where I'm wrong:

1) By "firmament" we are in some kind of huge terrarium that has a domed non-transparent ceiling under which are all the stars, sun, and moon.

2) This domed "firmament" slopes down and eventually meets the end of flat Earth. For now it doesn't matter what is beyond this "firmament".

3) The domed "firmament" slopes down and meets the flat Earth so there probably isn't even a visible EDGE that we can see.

4) When we reach the end of flat Earth we probably run into a "firmament" wall sorta like in the Truman Show but solid ice.

5) For now it doesn't matter if aliens, jews, or God himself built this elaborate terrarium we call Earth.

:)

mamboni

31st October 2016, 09:24 PM

Ok. I'm now at the point of suspending disbelief so I can hopefully catch up with you. I'm not being sarcastic. Correct me where I'm wrong:

1) By "firmament" we are in some kind of huge terrarium that has a domed non-transparent ceiling under which are all the stars, sun, and moon.

2) This domed "firmament" slopes down and eventually meets the end of flat Earth. For now it doesn't matter what is beyond this "firmament".

3) The domed "firmament" slopes down and meets the flat Earth so there probably isn't even a visible EDGE that we can see.

4) When we reach the end of flat Earth we probably run into a "firmament" wall sorta like in the Truman Show but solid ice.

5) For now it doesn't matter if aliens, jews, or God himself built this elaborate terrarium we call Earth.

:)
Yes, yes, agreed, agreed, agreed.

I'd say you've just about caught up with me. So both of us are probably nuts.

Horn

31st October 2016, 09:34 PM

So both of us are probably nuts.

And remaining closer to Venus pussy then you thought... safe in your embryonic firmaments...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew4D0dKNspE

http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2012/09/crescent_mars/11860803-5-eng-GB/Crescent_Mars_large.jpg

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Crescent_Mars

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 10:05 PM

Yes, yes, agreed, agreed, agreed.

I'd say you've just about caught up with me. So both of us are probably nuts.

Ok. I'm now there with you except for one serious problem with our mental model of this flat Earth:

http://g03.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1ESk_IXXXXXXOXVXXq6xXFXXXT/New-Style-font-b-Cheap-b-font-price-2-in-1-Portable-Ruler-font-b-Compass.jpg

We both agree that our cheap magnetic compass constantly points to the center of our flat pizza-shaped Earth which is The North Pole.

Standing anywhere on our flat Earth the SOUTH pointer of our cheap compass always points directly to the nearest frozen EDGE of our flat pizza-shaped Earth. There is no one single South Pole. Extreme "South" is the entire frozen crust that circles our flat pizza-shaped Earth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/4514/6118/3813/Flat_earth.png

See the frozen crust? No matter if you are in Sweden or Pennsylvania the entire frozen crust is all "South" if the magnetic North Pole is the center of our flat pizza-shaped Earth. There is no such place as The South Pole.

:(?? I dunno why Admiral Byrd went where he did and how that spot is so special

http://images.memes.com/meme/834153

The azimuthal equidistant projection is an azimuthal map projection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_projection#Azimuthal_.28projections_onto _a_plane.29). It has the useful properties that all points on the map are at proportionately correct distances from the center point, and that all points on the map are at the correct azimuth (direction) from the center point. A useful application for this type of projection is a polar projection which shows all meridians (lines of longitude) as straight, with distances from the pole represented correctly. The flag of the United Nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_flag) contains an example of a polar azimuthal equidistant projection.

It is useful for showing airline distances from center point of projection and for seismic and radio work. Distances and directions to all places are true only from the center point of projection. Distances are correct between points along straight lines through the center. All other distances are incorrect. Distortion of areas and shapes increases with distance from the center point.

mamboni

31st October 2016, 10:34 PM

Ok. I'm now there with you except for one serious problem with our mental model of this flat Earth:

http://g03.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1ESk_IXXXXXXOXVXXq6xXFXXXT/New-Style-font-b-Cheap-b-font-price-2-in-1-Portable-Ruler-font-b-Compass.jpg

We both agree that our cheap magnetic compass constantly points to the center of our flat pizza-shaped Earth which is The North Pole.

Standing anywhere on our flat Earth the SOUTH pointer of our cheap compass always points directly to the nearest frozen EDGE of our flat pizza-shaped Earth. There is no one single South Pole. Extreme "South" is the entire frozen crust that circles our flat pizza-shaped Earth:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/home/application/files/4514/6118/3813/Flat_earth.png

See the frozen crust? No matter if you are in Sweden or Pennsylvania the entire frozen crust is all "South" if the magnetic North Pole is the center of our flat pizza-shaped Earth. There is no such thing as The South Pole.

:(?? I dunno why Admiral Byrd went where he did and how that spot is so special

http://images.memes.com/meme/834153

Yes, there is no south pole. Yet all points along the antartica coast are directly south! And here is the kicker. Ships that have circumnavigated the antarctic coast logged over 60,000 miles!

Jewboo

31st October 2016, 10:44 PM

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/85/3c/69/853c69a442b48cfc2cbf7de8210e04b7.jpg

Thanks Mamboni. I'm gonna need some Time to process all this. A damn tragedy I don't drink anymore...lol.

http://smileys.newbeginningsnetwork.com/piwigo/galleries/LIFE/sleep/sleepy-smiley-face.gif

mamboni

31st October 2016, 10:57 PM

Horn

31st October 2016, 11:26 PM

And here is the kicker. Ships that have circumnavigated the antarctic coast logged over 60,000 miles!

Who's Admirals were flat Earth guys and without a sextant, much zig-zagging back and forth went on looking for videos of the edge.

Horn

31st October 2016, 11:30 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night

The polar night occurs when the night lasts for more than 24 hours. This occurs only inside the polar circles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_circle).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night#cite_note-1) The opposite phenomenon, the polar day, or midnight sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_sun), occurs when the Sun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun) stays above the horizon for more than 24 hours. "Night" is understood as the center of the Sun being below a free horizon. Since the atmosphere bends the rays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction) of the Sun, the polar day is longer than the polar night, and the area that is affected by polar night is somewhat smaller than the area of midnight sun. The polar circle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_circle) is located at a latitude between these two areas, at the latitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude) of approximately 66.5 degrees. In the most northern city of Sweden, Kiruna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiruna), at 67°51'N, the polar night lasts for around 28 twenty-four-hour periods, while the midnight sun lasts around 50 twenty-four-hour periods.

Horn

31st October 2016, 11:47 PM

I will not be falling my clocks back for your Illuminati, mamboni. Down here in cost rica there's no need to,

Nor in spring time when you in the U.S. and Europe somehow gobble all the Christmas Tree lightbulb Sun's rays in the world away from Argentina and South Africa.

mamboni

1st November 2016, 08:09 AM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night

Also die erde ist wohnung.

mamboni

1st November 2016, 08:19 AM

Not only is the Moon clearly self-luminescent, shining its own unique light, but it is also largely transparent. When the waxing or waning Moon is visible during the day it is possible to see the blue sky right through the Moon. And on a clear night, during a waxing or waning cycle, it is even possible to occasionally see stars and “planets” directly through the surface of the Moon! The Royal Astronomical Society has on record many such occurrences throughout history which all defy the heliocentric model.

Horn

1st November 2016, 09:09 AM

Ok, now i am certain you've been invaded by the body snatchers.

Is what u get for sleeping all day long.

mamboni

1st November 2016, 09:20 AM

Ok, now i am certain you've been invaded by the body snatchers.

Is what u get for sleeping all day long.Oh contraire, my sporadically inebriated hairless ape. Your mind has been hobbled by years of conditioning and suggestion. You cannot see that you are trapped in a matrix of lies and illusions. The earth is flat and does not move. The sun is small and local and moves above the earth plane to give us our days and nights and seasons. The moon is just a projection, not a real physical orb. Once you begin to grasp these realities, all the other parts of the deceptions begin to come into view. In time, the flat earth realization becomes so obvious as to be self-evident. In one year from today, I predict that the bulk of the world will awaken to this reality - this will be the game changer to usher in the new age!

Horn

1st November 2016, 09:26 AM

hmmm, must've been all the pink floyd and red hairs...

https://youtu.be/El2l__hRta0

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 09:40 AM

Yes, there is no south pole. Yet all points along the Antarctica coast are directly south! And here is the kicker. Ships that have circumnavigated the antarctic coast logged over 60,000 miles!

http://knox.villagesoup.com/media/Common/CourierPublications/2015/8/10/1555929/t600-Antarctica.gif

Good morning Mamboni. Your little rotating sun-moon video only works with a frozen pizza center North Pole and a frozen pizza crust Antarctica entirely surrounding our flat Earth.

If we can circumnavigate Antarctica then it obviously isn't a frozen pizza crust that entirely surrounds our flat pizza-like Earth.

:) Antarctica circumnavigation proves a GLOBE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk3YndyvdKc

mamboni

1st November 2016, 09:56 AM

http://knox.villagesoup.com/media/Common/CourierPublications/2015/8/10/1555929/t600-Antarctica.gif

Good morning Mamboni. Your little rotating sun-moon video only works with a frozen pizza center North Pole and a frozen pizza crust Antarctica entirely surrounding our flat Earth.

If we can circumnavigate Antarctica then it obviously isn't a frozen pizza crust that entirely surrounds our flat pizza-like Earth.

:) Antarctica circumnavigation proves a GLOBE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk3YndyvdKc OK. You missed it. Consider the following: a flat earth with Antarctica circumventing it's edge is a projection of the globe earth onto a plane. The physical evidence proves the earth is flat. Therefore, circumnavigation of Antarctica, while appearing to be proof of a globe, is proof that Antarctica is the edge of the flat earth. Mariners have told us that Antarctic coastline is over 60,000 miles long. This is all the proof of a flat earth that anyone should need.

Neuro

1st November 2016, 10:06 AM

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/x/image/1470/61/1470610248786.jpg

Did you forget this MambonI?

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 10:14 AM

OK. You missed it. Consider the following: a flat earth with Antarctica circumventing it's edge is a projection of the globe earth onto a plane. The physical evidence proves the earth is flat. Therefore, circumnavigation of Antarctica, while appearing to be proof of a globe, is proof that Antarctica is the edge of the flat earth. Mariners have told us that Antarctic coastline is over 60,000 miles long. This is all the proof of a flat earth that anyone should need.

http://buona-pizza.ru/images/papperoni336x343.png,qcrc=317845832.pagespeed.ce.T 5yqv8LJh0.png

Last night the entire crust was frozen Antarctica with the frozen North Pole remaining in the center. If you "circumnavigate" Antarctica you "circumnavigate" the entire flat pizza-shaped Earth.

:)

StreetsOfGold

1st November 2016, 10:26 AM

If you "circumnavigate" Antarctica you "circumnavigate" the entire flat pizza-shaped Earth.

Spooks say BOO

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/3b/23/58/3b2358f7a8a83f9a9e98e1da836a2287.jpg

A spook is a GOVERNMENT (CIA agent)
Do you ALSO get paid to keep the "spinning ball illusion" going or just the "it's da Jews" mantra? JEW-BOO?

spook

1.
a ghost.
2.
NORTH AMERICAN
a spy. "a CIA spook"

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 10:32 AM

http://buona-pizza.ru/images/papperoni336x343.png,qcrc=317845832.pagespeed.ce.T 5yqv8LJh0.png

Last night the entire crust was frozen Antarctica with the frozen North Pole remaining in the center. If you "circumnavigate" Antarctica you "circumnavigate" the entire flat pizza-shaped Earth.

:)

Oh...I get you now Mamboni: They "circumnavigate" the inside edge of the frozen crust not the outside edge of the frozen crust!

:D their magnetic compass pointing South sideways the entire way around

Horn

1st November 2016, 10:44 AM

http://buona-pizza.ru/images/papperoni336x343.png,qcrc=317845832.pagespeed.ce.T 5yqv8LJh0.png

Last night the entire crust was frozen Antarctica with the frozen North Pole remaining in the center. If you "circumnavigate" Antarctica you "circumnavigate" the entire flat pizza-shaped Earth.

:)

that Pizza is evenly "cooked" too, if you'll notice...

a fine and temperate pizza it is. You can be certain its not made in a wok.

mamboni

1st November 2016, 11:07 AM

Oh...I get you now Mamboni: They "circumnavigate" the inside edge of the frozen crust not the outside edge of the frozen crust!

:D their magnetic compass pointing South sideways the entire way aroundYes! The earth is flat. The deception has been revealed. Cosmology and Carl Sagan proven to be total BS. The recriminations will be far reaching.

Horn

1st November 2016, 11:14 AM

PatColo

1st November 2016, 11:29 AM

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 11:30 AM

Yes! The earth is flat. The deception has been revealed. Cosmology and Carl Sagan proven to be total BS. The recriminations will be far reaching.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/95/72/77/9572775cb0c9686edb0b08f141af0dc3.jpg http://hi.atgimg.com/img/p400/93/998.jpg

https://d.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/codesign/imagecache/slideshow_large/slides/nasa-13.jpg
NASA changing the recessed light fixture bulbs

Ok. Since I (duh) realized they were circling the INSIDE of the frozen pizza crust your flat-Earth map is in the ballpark.

You are nowhere near Mission Accomplished yet. Let's move on to all those "stars" in your dome firmament. Millions of 'em.

Explain what we are actually looking at when we see all those stars apparently revolving around Polaris.

:)

mamboni

1st November 2016, 11:32 AM

Horn

1st November 2016, 11:35 AM

ah i see, yes trust in the U.N.'s map should be awarded at these forums....

especially by those "illuminated" members...

Horn

1st November 2016, 11:44 AM

Nothing in nature is perfectly flat, with the exception of mamboni's head.

mamboni

1st November 2016, 12:07 PM

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/95/72/77/9572775cb0c9686edb0b08f141af0dc3.jpg http://hi.atgimg.com/img/p400/93/998.jpg

https://d.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/codesign/imagecache/slideshow_large/slides/nasa-13.jpg
NASA changing the recessed light fixture bulbs

Ok. Since I (duh) realized they were circling the INSIDE of the frozen pizza crust your flat-Earth map is in the ballpark.

You are nowhere near Mission Accomplished yet. Let's move on to all those "stars" in your dome firmament. Millions of 'em.

Explain what we are actually looking at when we see all those stars apparently revolving around Polaris.

:)

I explained Polaris in a previous post. Polaris is fixed, directly over earth north pole. The stars appear to rotate around Polaris. This is only possible with a fixed earth. A fixed earth shatters the Copernican system.

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 12:19 PM

I explained Polaris in a previous post. Polaris is fixed, directly over earth north pole. The stars appear to rotate around Polaris. This is only possible with a fixed earth. A fixed earth shatters the Copernican system.

https://static.bhphotovideo.com/explora/sites/default/files/TSstargazingFinal4_0.jpg

https://www.omsi.edu/sites/default/files/field/program-images/telescope_4.jpg

I understood you to say these millions and millions of moving "stars" are below or on the surface of your non-transparent dome firmament. Each "star" is independently apparently orbiting around Polaris. Explain this jaw-dropping Light Show that has been going on and pondered since forever.

1) Below or on the surface of your non-transparent dome firmament?

:)

mamboni

1st November 2016, 12:24 PM

https://static.bhphotovideo.com/explora/sites/default/files/TSstargazingFinal4_0.jpg

https://www.omsi.edu/sites/default/files/field/program-images/telescope_4.jpg

I understood you to say these millions and millions of moving "stars" are below or on the surface of your non-transparent dome firmament. Each "star" is independently apparently orbiting around Polaris. Explain this jaw-dropping Light Show that has been going on since forever.

:) below or on the surface of your dome? I don't know - the stars are probably in the firmament. They rotate around the earth as do all the stars (except Polaris) and perhaps fixed stars in the south. The key is recognizing that earth is the fixed reference point.

Dogman

1st November 2016, 12:24 PM

Trivia..

At the equator, the stars seem to move abt 15 degrees per hour as the ROUND earth turnes in its orbit..

Which = 15° x 24 = 360° = Round !

LMAO !

;D

osoab

1st November 2016, 12:33 PM

Trivia.. At the equator, the stars seem to move abt 15 degrees per hour as the ROUND earth turnes in its orbit.. Which = 15° x 24 = 360° = Round ! LMAO ! ;D

That works on a disk too. :o

osoab

1st November 2016, 12:44 PM

Take a look at a zoom in on Venus. Where's the globe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mDf9qN2Yg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mDf9qN2Yg

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 12:47 PM

I don't know - the stars are probably in the firmament. They rotate around the earth as do all the stars (except Polaris) and perhaps fixed stars in the south. The key is recognizing that earth is the fixed reference point.

This is obviously a big problem logically. The flat Earth is stationary. If the "stars" are IN the firmament that means the entire firmament dome itself must be rotating around the fixed flat-Earth?

Firmament Dome is non-transparent...yes?

:(??

firmament in the Bible
from the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew _raki'a_. This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered _raki'a_ by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. The language of Scripture is not scientific but popular, and hence we read of the sun rising and setting, and also here the use of this particular word. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below (Gen. 1:7). The _raki'a_ supported the upper reservoir (Ps. 148:4). It was the support also of the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1:14), and is spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" (Gen. 7:11; Isa. 24:18; Mal. 3:10) through which the rain and snow might descend.

Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

mamboni

1st November 2016, 12:59 PM

This is obviously a big problem logically. The flat Earth is stationary. If the "stars" are IN the firmament that means the entire firmament dome itself must be rotating around the fixed flat-Earth?

Firmament Dome is non-transparent...yes?

:(??

Don't know - could be transparent. It is said to separate the water from the air/land. There is water above the firmament. The stars (including wandering stars called planets by some) move within the firmament - a divine light show built for man.

I would like to give a common sense example that will prove to anyone possessing of basic logic that the spinning globe model is in fact impossible. But I'm tied down with work presently. Tonite.

Factoid:

In 2003, three University Geography professors collaborated in an experiment to prove that the state of Kansas is indeed actually flatter than a pancake! Using topigraphical geodetic surveys covering over 80,000 square miles it was determined that Kansas has a flatness ratio of 0.9997 over the entire state while the average pancake, precisely measured using a confocal laser microscope comes in at 0.957, making Kansas thereby literally flatter than a pancake.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0kCn63wiWL8/Vb-gZFoRtNI/AAAAAAAAQHg/SSwV8OMW8gg/s400/kansas-4.gif (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0kCn63wiWL8/Vb-gZFoRtNI/AAAAAAAAQHg/SSwV8OMW8gg/s1600/kansas-4.gif)

mamboni

1st November 2016, 01:03 PM

Neuro

1st November 2016, 01:28 PM

Don't know - could be transparent. It is said to separate the water from the air/land. There is water above the firmament. The stars (including wandering stars called planets by some) move within the firmament - a divine light show built for man.

I would like to give a common sense example that will prove to anyone possessing of basic logic that the spinning globe model is in fact impossible. But I'm tied down with work presently. Tonite.

Factoid:

In 2003, three University Geography professors collaborated in an experiment to prove that the state of Kansas is indeed actually flatter than a pancake! Using topigraphical geodetic surveys covering over 80,000 square miles it was determined that Kansas has a flatness ratio of 0.9997 over the entire state while the average pancake, precisely measured using a confocal laser microscope comes in at 0.957, making Kansas thereby literally flatter than a pancake.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0kCn63wiWL8/Vb-gZFoRtNI/AAAAAAAAQHg/SSwV8OMW8gg/s400/kansas-4.gif (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0kCn63wiWL8/Vb-gZFoRtNI/AAAAAAAAQHg/SSwV8OMW8gg/s1600/kansas-4.gif)

A pancake is usually a foot or less in diameter. Kansas is usually much bigger, so the flatlessness of both aren't really comparable... LOL

osoab

1st November 2016, 02:02 PM

Did you forget this MambonI?

Where did you get 15o above the horizon? That is ludicrous for Northern Latitudes.

mamboni

1st November 2016, 02:04 PM

A pancake is usually a foot or less in diameter. Kansas is usually much bigger, so the flatlessness of both aren't really comparable... LOLI think there is a picture of you next to the definition of OBTUSE.:cool:

osoab

1st November 2016, 02:05 PM

A pancake is usually a foot or less in diameter. Kansas is usually much bigger, so the flatlessness of both aren't really comparable... LOL

It's more impressive for Kansas than the chef.

Neuro

1st November 2016, 02:07 PM

I think there is a picture of you next to the definition of OBTUSE.:cool:

I think you have lost your mind.

Horn

1st November 2016, 02:08 PM

Take a look at a zoom in on Venus. Where's the globe?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mDf9qN2Yg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6mDf9qN2Yg

one flathead is enough running around here, dont start...

crimey focus JQP aint even a flathead, yet he thinks the entire universe revolves around a globe Earth.

Is atleast somewhat defendable.

osoab

1st November 2016, 02:11 PM

I think you have lost your mind.

Or found it... :o

Neuro

1st November 2016, 02:19 PM

Where did you get 15o above the horizon? That is ludicrous for Northern Latitudes.

That is the reality of a fictive sun at maximum distance from an observer at a flat earth with sun at 3000 miles above surface. The minimum angle beneath is 15° ABOVE horizon, and that is in the middle of the night! What you saw at the horizon 6 hours, when sun was setting, was an illusion.

I don't know why Mamboni continues to spew his bullshit. I suspect he has some ulterior motive

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 02:39 PM

Guess you picked a bad time to quit sniffing glue.

I don't drink anymore. For me to further follow your Flat Earth "logic" you will need to phone in to my local Pharmacist a Mamboni M.D. signed prescription for some of that medical marijuana you must be smoking.

You haven't even begin to explain what we are looking at when we see all those millions of "stars" in the sky above your flat Earth.

You only have your Sun under your firmament dome.

:)

mamboni

1st November 2016, 02:50 PM

I don't drink anymore. For me to further follow your Flat Earth "logic" you will need to phone in to my local Pharmacist a Mamboni M.D. signed prescription for some of that medical marijuana you must be smoking.

You haven't even begin to explain what we are looking at when we see all those millions of "stars" in the sky above your flat Earth.

You only have your Sun under your firmament dome.

:)Well, none of us have all the answers. We're investigating something that is way off the official narrative so we are on our own. My take on the stars is that all of them must be light projections on the firmament. So they appear to be in the firmament. To me, it's a big joke on all of us courtesy of the big man in charge: he has us counting galaxies like some crazy cat chasing a laser spot on the wall.

For me, the flat earth answers so many questions and clarifies so much of the lies and deception we suffer under today. Upon reflection, I feel as a total knave falling for the Copernican system, especially considering my top honors in Physics. Yet I failed the common sense test: the globe earth model fails in so many common sense ways.

mamboni

1st November 2016, 02:56 PM

That is the reality of a fictive sun at maximum distance from an observer at a flat earth with sun at 3000 miles above surface. The minimum angle beneath is 15° ABOVE horizon, and that is in the middle of the night! What you saw at the horizon 6 hours, when sun was setting, was an illusion.

I don't know why Mamboni continues to spew his bullshit. I suspect he has some ulterior motiveDo you believe that there are satellites orbiting the globe earth? Yes or no?

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 03:13 PM

Well, none of us have all the answers. We're investigating something that is way off the official narrative so we are on our own. My take on the stars is that all of them must be light projections on the firmament. So they appear to be in the firmament. To me, it's a big joke on all of us courtesy of the big man in charge: he has us counting galaxies like some crazy cat chasing a laser spot on the wall.

http://www.yhc.edu/sites/default/files/styles/hero/public/rollins_planetarium_6.jpg?itok=882EhwGm

Well...most of us have been to a planetarium and seen the projector. I'm assuming your projector is sitting at the North Pole shining on a firmament dome.

You also are now pretty much going on the record as saying "God" is your projector operator.

Long story short...at the end of the day...Mamboni is basically selling us Genesis:

http://www.pwanson.com/images/genesis-bible1.jpg

:)

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 03:56 PM

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/KeckObservatory20071020.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Kecknasa.jpg

The W. M. Keck Observatory is a two-telescope astronomical observatory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_observatory) at an elevation of 4,145 meters (13,600 ft) near the summit of Mauna Kea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Kea) in the U.S. state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) of Hawaii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii). Both telescopes feature 10 m (33 ft) primary mirrors, currently among the largest astronomical telescopes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflecting_telescopes) in use. The combination of an excellent site, large optics and innovative instruments has created the two most scientifically productive telescopes on Earth.

:)

mamboni

1st November 2016, 04:30 PM

http://www.yhc.edu/sites/default/files/styles/hero/public/rollins_planetarium_6.jpg?itok=882EhwGm

Well...most of us have been to a planetarium and seen the projector. I'm assuming your projector is sitting at the North Pole shining on a firmament dome.

You also are now pretty much going on the record as saying "God" is your projector operator.

Long story short...at the end of the day...Mamboni is basically selling us Genesis:

http://www.pwanson.com/images/genesis-bible1.jpg

:)

Well, the Genesis story jibes a whole lot better than the globe earth fantasy vis-a-vis our common sense reality: the earth feels motionless; it is flat everywhere it has been surveyed, etc.

Let's take NASA for instance. The moon landings were faked. All of the space missions were staged. The ISS is a total scam. How can I be so sure? Did you know that NASA admits that the ISS is at 95% earth gravity? So why are we shown "astronauts" floating weightless, tossing weightless objects, with hair standing up and all the other parlor tircks? It's all show biz: simulated zero gravity in planes, green screens and ground-based production studios, astronauts filmed underwater to simulate space walking, etc. It's all fake.

It's impossible to operate an object in orbit around the earth. Let's take the ISS. NASA says it orbits the earth at 17,500 mph at a height of 220 miles. Fair enough. Assuming this represents a stable orbit per Newtonian mechanics and gravity versus centriputal force, it is possible in theory around a stationary orb like a globe earth. But, they tell us that the earth is traveling around the sun in elliptical orbit at 65,000 miles for hour (18 miles per second). When the ISS passes in front of the earth's path around the sun, it is moving as a ballistic object, separate and apart from earth and sun, with only gravity exerting force perpendicular to it's direction of motion. So it cannot change it's angular velocity. The earth moving at 65,000 miles per hour will smash into the ISS in seconds. The opposite situation would apply if the ISS passed behind the earth: the earth would leave the ISS in the dust, and gravity be damned. These are indisputable facts when you apply basic common sense and logic.

Everything that goes up must come down. You don't find zero gravity when you go the great heights above the earth. The atmosphere thins and temperatures change, but all objects are still subject to falling back to earth. None of the rockets we've been shown flew into outer space. They cannot reach outer space - we are in a closed system under a firmament. The ISS image in the sky is a projection. There are no orbiting satellites. There are satellites...attached to high altitude weather balloons. NASA is a massive scam, and we are the marks.

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 04:40 PM

It's impossible to operate an object in orbit around the earth.

You yourself are trying to sell us on a small Sun that orbits your flat Earth under a firmament dome.

:) which is it? possible or impossible?

mamboni

1st November 2016, 04:53 PM

You yourself are trying to sell us on a small Sun that orbits your flat Earth under a firmament dome.

:) which is it? possible or impossible?
Read what I wrote: ballistic objects

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 05:41 PM

None of the rockets we've been shown flew into outer space. They cannot reach outer space - we are in a closed system under a firmament.

Oh. That firmament dome that your giant planetarium at the North Pole is projecting millions of stars on. Ok. You think they use these two monster telescopes to research the millions of phony projected stars on your nearby firmament dome:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/KeckObservatory20071020.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Kecknasa.jpg

:) you also say that your flat Earth moon under the firmament dome is just a hologram?

Horn

1st November 2016, 05:45 PM

It may have to do with the aging process, its been said the more you age the closer your return to the womb and death.

The world most likely appears very flat to babies also, is anything but flat to me at 47yrs of age.

I see nothing flat about it at all and I even passed through Oklahoma a couple times and had to stop to make sure i was not in some alien world.

the Ocean looks like a big round dome/bubble to me, everything else has a curve to it.

mamboni

1st November 2016, 06:27 PM

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 06:41 PM

Yes over all, though I don't know how the stars are projected but I suppose the norht pole is as good a candidate as any.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/96/38/8e/96388e63bf4be595a73b113e1075cf31.jpg http://www2.cincinnati.com/nie/archive/08-27-07/082707-2.jpg

We're not making any progress agreeing on a simple ballpark mental model of the visible sky over our flat pizza-shaped Earth. The night sky stars were the only show in town since forever up until teevee was invented.

Why didn't "God" just paint the nearby firmament flat black? Why isn't NASA today projecting Turner Classic Movies onto that nearby firmament dome instead of now-boring fake stars?

What is the PURPOSE of having any fake nearby stars at all over our flat pizza-shaped Earth way back then or now?

:( We're not making any progress agreeing today

mamboni

1st November 2016, 06:54 PM

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/96/38/8e/96388e63bf4be595a73b113e1075cf31.jpg http://www2.cincinnati.com/nie/archive/08-27-07/082707-2.jpg

We're not making any progress agreeing on a simple ballpark mental model of the visible sky over our flat pizza-shaped Earth. The night sky stars were the only show in town since forever up until teevee was invented.

Why didn't "God" just paint the nearby firmament flat black? Why isn't NASA today projecting Turner Classic Movies onto that nearby firmament dome instead of now-boring fake stars?

What is the PURPOSE of having any fake nearby stars at all over our flat pizza-shaped Earth way back then or now?

:( We're not making any progress agreeing today Whenever discussing any "natural" phenomenon and having very little in factual information to base any hypothesis on, we are well into pure speculation, baring I suppose the recent moon wave revelations. For me, the flat earth, the firmament, these are God's masterwork. Who can deny a creator - the design aspects are everywhere. The stars are God's code, his scribbling amidst mere mortals. I don't believe the stars are random. If they are laid out as solar systems, galaxies, nebulae (assuming such things aren't pure graphic inventions of cosmologists) then God wanted them laid out exactly that way, permanent and fixed since the dawn of man.

What's your idea?

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 07:02 PM

Whenever discussing any "natural" phenomenon and having very little in factual information to base any hypothesis on, we are well into pure speculation, baring I suppose the recent moon wave revelations. For me, the flat earth, the firmament, these are God's masterwork. Who can deny a creator - the design aspects are everywhere. The stars are God's code, his scribbling amidst mere mortals. I don't believe the stars are random. If they are laid out as solar systems, galaxies, nebulae (assuming such things aren't pure graphic inventions of cosmologists) then God wanted them laid out exactly that way, permanent and fixed since the dawn of man.

What's your idea?

I believe you are now finally confirming MY IDEA (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?83953-Flat-Earthers-Won-t-Go-Away&p=865149&viewfull=1#post865149) suggested yesterday morning.

:D

mamboni

1st November 2016, 07:06 PM

Oh. That firmament dome that your giant planetarium at the North Pole is projecting millions of stars on. Ok. You think they use these two monster telescopes to research the millions of phony projected stars on your nearby firmament dome:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/KeckObservatory20071020.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Kecknasa.jpg

:) you also say that your flat Earth moon under the firmament dome is just a hologram?
Think about it. How much of a challenge is it to project super high resolution images onto a liquid glass (per the Old Testament description) screen, after you've created the earth, the sun and the moon. Put another way, the Copernican universe is just as fanciful and outlandish as a virtual one projected onto a translucent dome. Of course the latter requires a lot less time, matter and energy!

mamboni

1st November 2016, 07:10 PM

I believe you are now finally confirming MY IDEA (http://gold-silver.us/forum/showthread.php?83953-Flat-Earthers-Won-t-Go-Away&p=865149&viewfull=1#post865149) suggested yesterday morning.

:D
The ancient Hebrew design seems to be the consensus amongst us believers. But, many ancient civilizations had similar flat earth designs.

Shami-Amourae

1st November 2016, 07:17 PM

https://s22.postimg.org/ogwg1274x/11_1_2016_7_16_23_PM.png

Jewboo

1st November 2016, 07:18 PM

Think about it.

http://static.deathandtaxesmag.com/uploads/2013/03/creationistfair.jpg

:rolleyes: you just won First Prize in this Flat Earth debate thread Mamboni

mamboni

1st November 2016, 07:19 PM

http://static.deathandtaxesmag.com/uploads/2013/03/creationistfair.jpg

:rolleyes: you just won First Prize in this Flat Earth debate thread Mamboni I don't know. Isn't there some rule about accepting compliments from Jewboo the sardonic?

Neuro

1st November 2016, 08:23 PM

Do you believe that there are satellites orbiting the globe earth? Yes or no?

Absolutely, thousands of them!

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 07:25 AM

Absolutely, thousands of them!Well then you are deluded. I wrote this earlier:

It's impossible to operate an object in orbit around the earth. Let's take the ISS. NASA says it orbits the earth at 17,500 mph at a height of 220 miles. Fair enough. Assuming this represents a stable orbit per Newtonian mechanics and gravity versus centriputal force, it is possible in theory around a stationary orb like a globe earth. But, they tell us that the earth is traveling around the sun in elliptical orbit at 65,000 miles for hour (18 miles per second). When the ISS passes in front of the earth's path around the sun, it is moving as a ballistic object, separate and apart from earth and sun, with only gravity exerting force perpendicular to it's direction of motion. So it cannot change it's angular velocity. The earth moving at 65,000 miles per hour will smash into the ISS in seconds. The opposite situation would apply if the ISS passed behind the earth: the earth would leave the ISS in the dust, and gravity be damned. These are indisputable facts when you apply basic common sense and logic.

palani

2nd November 2016, 07:32 AM

Now don't be afraid. I have heard that gravity provides a force that accelerates you toward the center of the earth at a rate of 9.8 meters per second per second. Now if the earth were not actually moving away from your feet you would actually know you are falling. The fact that the earth moves away from you at a slightly smaller rate than you are falling means you don't perceive this deadly death dive.

PatColo

2nd November 2016, 08:20 AM

Haven't read this whole thread nor certainly the vids, but recall Smallstorm's FE roundtable pod I posted here months back; the FEers were on about how the UN flag's map is an overhead view of the FE; also how Antarctica is no man's land by international agreement; for "science reasons" IIRC?

Yes Pat. Your memory serves you well. UN map is the azimuthal projection flat earth map. Howvever, we don't know how accurate the land masses are vis-a-vis sizes and relative positions.

That was an interesting roundtable if u didn't hear it. 2 unconvinced/decided (Smallstorm & some dude) vs 2 Fe advocates (the gay talking presumed dinjoo stein, and some other dude). Smallstorm brings her usual open minded inquisitiveness; and there's none of the telltale "unorthodox FE view= vax-damage/insanity/senility/yada/yada" gambit we see employed in this thread.

I wouldn't have heard of this flat earth inquiry trend if not for my routinely browsing Mami's (http://grizzom.blogspot.hk/) where, if you page back though their recent posts, you'll see a near daily flat earth blog entry. I gather mami's mod "delcroix (http://grizzom.blogspot.hk/2015/07/first-amateur-rocket-into-space-proves.html)" is a believer, as he seems to post most of the pro flat earth entries. delcroix also proclaims that nuclear bombs/energy is a big hoax, and I can't recall if he also proclaims that satellites are a hoax, but that is part of the same "everything's fake" crowd's campaigns.

As one whose first guess is that the Apollo moon landings were faked, and considering how for decades "flat-earthers" has been a systematically engineered meme to ridicule & dismiss those presenting alternative views, similar to the "conspiracy theorists" meme; lets just say I "allow for the possibility" that the flat earth speculation may be... ??? My first impression upon seeing that there's a "flat earther" trend being posted at otherwise truthy internet watering holes, was "uh oh, sunstein cognitive infiltration meant to discredit everyone of our mindset/message!" and that remains my first guess.

Sofia Smallstorm and "3 friends" evaluate :o, haven't listened,

What Is the World 7/3/15 (http://aboutthesky.com/podcasts)

http://aboutthesky.com/images/stories/inmedia/unflag_tn.gif

It appears that many are secretly looking into the possibility that we might not actually be on a blue globe doing a yearly orbit in a solar system in the universe. Even speculating that "the earth is flat" is enough to get you labeled absolutely loony, but believe it or not, 2015 is showing itself to be the year of this inquiry! I gather three friends here, two of whom are 99% and 100% convinced that the Globe Theory of the Earth is Wrong, to exchange information and explain what can and cannot be. We all have eyes and we have all lived here for a while now, so why don't you listen and go to some of the links to decide for yourself -- or at least so you can say you've taken a gander at this ridiculous theory!

(http://memoryholeblog.com/)
Listen here

(http://aboutthesky.com/images/stories/audio/SSmallstorm_podcast_027_7-03-15.mp3)

Links:
UN flag and emblem (http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/maplib/flag.htm)
Flat Horizon YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clecIaAF05c&index=1&list=PL8R7sUt1fYkDRv7Xw0Rh43F_-QJ1O5jjR)
The Sun and Seasons YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY0xhUOL3vM&feature=youtu.be)
Flight Paths Across North Pole Only YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eJLag-n33c)
Ball Earth Skeptic YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGvVZ8tj8bGowb609y__3SA/videos)
Ball Earth Skeptic FaceBook (https://www.facebook.com/ballearthskeptic)
Allegedly Dave Blog Flat Earth (http://www.allegedlydave.com/blog.htm?article_id=12)
Donald Simanek Early Ideas and Flat Earth Thinking (https://www.lhup.edu/%7Edsimanek/flat/flateart.htm)
Felix Baumgartner space jump image (http://aboutthesky.com/images/stories/inmedia/earthfromspacepic.jpg) and article (http://www.techandinnovationdaily.com/2013/02/13/real-time-earth-from-space/)

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 08:31 AM

That was an interesting roundtable if u didn't hear it. 2 unconvinced/decided (Smallstorm & some dude) vs 2 Fe advocates (the gay talking presumed dinjoo stein, and some other dude). Smallstorm brings her usual open minded inquisitiveness; and there's none of the telltale "unorthodox FE view= vax-damage/insanity/senility/yada/yada" gambit we see employed in this thread.If one sets asides ALL preconceived notions and looks at the question from the standpoint of an objective analyst, the procedure is thus: collect all data and observations and look for correlations and meanings. Fact: no one has every demonstrated movement of the earth of any kind. Fact: in all places surveyed the earth is measurably flat - no one has ever measured any curvature. Fact: It is impossible for satellites to form a stable orbit around an earth (if you believe in gravity and stationary orbits around a globe earth) that is supposed traveling around the sun at 65,000 miles per hour. Fact: projectiles fires straight up come straight down. This cannot be explained by the atmosphere being velcroed to and moving with the earth's rotation; nor can it be explained by conservation of momentum. Considering the speeds involved (earth rotating at 1000 mph [at equator] and earth traveling through space at 65,000 miles per hour) any projectile in the air for a few seconds is going to deflected many feet if not miles from the starting point.

Neuro

2nd November 2016, 09:15 AM

Well then you are deluded. I wrote this earlier:

It's impossible to operate an object in orbit around the earth. Let's take the ISS. NASA says it orbits the earth at 17,500 mph at a height of 220 miles. Fair enough. Assuming this represents a stable orbit per Newtonian mechanics and gravity versus centriputal force, it is possible in theory around a stationary orb like a globe earth. But, they tell us that the earth is traveling around the sun in elliptical orbit at 65,000 miles for hour (18 miles per second). When the ISS passes in front of the earth's path around the sun, it is moving as a ballistic object, separate and apart from earth and sun, with only gravity exerting force perpendicular to it's direction of motion. So it cannot change it's angular velocity. The earth moving at 65,000 miles per hour will smash into the ISS in seconds. The opposite situation would apply if the ISS passed behind the earth: the earth would leave the ISS in the dust, and gravity be damned. These are indisputable facts when you apply basic common sense and logic.

LOL, you are FUNNY. If you drop a peanut while flying at 500 mph, you'ld be surprised if it falls straight down in the aircraft cabin, but consider it completely normal if it hits a passenger or object behind you in the aircraft at 500 mph?

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 09:19 AM

LOL, you are FUNNY. If you drop a peanut while flying at 500 mph, you'ld be surprised if it falls straight down in the aircraft cabin, but consider it completely normal if it hits a passenger or object behind you in the aircraft at 500 mph?Sure, in a closed vehicle moving at constant velocity the peanut will fall straight down due to the conservation of momentum. The same conditions do not apply to a satellite in orbit. The motions of the earth and satellite are non-linear and contain angular momentum.

Neuro

2nd November 2016, 09:23 AM

Sure, in a closed vehicle moving at constant velocity the peanut will fall straight down due to the conservation of momentum. The same conditions do not apply to a satellite in orbit. The motions of the earth and satellite are non-linear and contain angular momentum.

There is no conservation of momentum in space? ;D

Jewboo

2nd November 2016, 09:29 AM

If one sets asides ALL preconceived notions and looks at the question from the standpoint of an objective analyst, the procedure is thus: collect all data and observations and look for correlations and meanings.

:rolleyes:

Whenever discussing any "natural" phenomenon and having very little in factual information to base any hypothesis on, we are well into pure speculation, baring I suppose the recent moon wave revelations. For me, the flat earth, the firmament, these are God's masterwork. Who can deny a creator - the design aspects are everywhere. The stars are God's code, his scribbling amidst mere mortals. I don't believe the stars are random. If they are laid out as solar systems, galaxies, nebulae (assuming such things aren't pure graphic inventions of cosmologists) then God wanted them laid out exactly that way, permanent and fixed since the dawn of man.

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 10:31 AM

There is no conservation of momentum in space? ;DYes, linear momentum is conserved. But the earth is not moving linearly.

PatColo

2nd November 2016, 10:47 AM

Fact: no one has every demonstrated movement of the earth of any kind.

I've felt at least a dozen earthquakes in my life, further evidenced by physical damage & magnitude graph readings. Does the FE community have any alternative theories wrt the orthodox plate techtonics theory?

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 10:49 AM

I've felt at least a dozen earthquakes in my life, further evidenced by physical damage & magnitude graph readings. Does the FE community have any alternative theories wrt the orthodox plate techtonics theory?I haven't research tectonics vis-a-vis FE. But some FEs believe the continents actually float(!?).

Quoting Gabrielle Henriet, “The theory of the rotation of the earth may once and for all be definitely disposed of as impracticable by pointing out the following inadvertence. It is said that the rotation takes twenty-four hours and that its speed is uniform, in which case, necessarily, days and nights should have an identical duration of twelve hours each all the year round. The sun should invariably rise in the morning and set in the evening at the same hours, with the result that it would be the equinox every day from the 1st of January to the 31st of December. One should stop and reflect on this before saying that the earth has a movement of rotation. How does the system of gravitation account for the seasonal variations in the lengths of days and nights if the earth rotates at a uniform speed in twenty-four hours!?”

Neuro

2nd November 2016, 11:20 AM

Yes, linear momentum is conserved. But the earth is not moving linearly.

You don't think the satellite is equally influenced by suns gravity, not to forget earths gravity... Or does those seize to be important as the satellite goes into orbit (or whatever?) somehow?

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 11:23 AM

You don't think the satellite is equally influenced by suns gravity, not to forget earths gravity... Or does those seize to be important as the satellite goes into orbit (or whatever?) somehow?The sun's gravitation is negligable when compared to earth's in it's effect on an orbiting satellite. If the sun vanshed the satellite would still continue it's hypothetical orbit around earth.

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 11:27 AM

That was an interesting roundtable if u didn't hear it. 2 unconvinced/decided (Smallstorm & some dude) vs 2 Fe advocates (the gay talking presumed dinjoo stein, and some other dude). Smallstorm brings her usual open minded inquisitiveness; and there's none of the telltale "unorthodox FE view= vax-damage/insanity/senility/yada/yada" gambit we see employed in this thread.

Felix Baumgartner space jump image (http://aboutthesky.com/images/stories/inmedia/earthfromspacepic.jpg) and article (http://www.techandinnovationdaily.com/2013/02/13/real-time-earth-from-space/)

This is a video everyone should examine with a critical eye. The earth curvature is very pronounced when viewed from outside his craft. Our vantage point, eye level with Baumgartner, is looking down onto globe earth. But they are using a fisheye lens. We know this because in the shot taken from inside the craft using a straight lens the horizon is ruler straight and up at eye level - completely at odds with the external view.

86438644

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 11:50 AM

:rolleyes:

I didn't enter into the FE inquiry with belief in a creator. In fact, I was agnostic. However, my inquiry has lead me to conclude that the earth is flat (empirical fact), motionless (empirical fact) and under a firmament (inferred from some observations - not proved). The structure absolutely mandates an intelligent design - there is no conceivable way for a FE et al. to come about through random events a la Big Bang-Copernican universe.

Jewboo

2nd November 2016, 12:00 PM

I didn't enter into the FE inquiry with belief in a creator. In fact, I was agnostic. However, my inquiry has lead me to conclude that the earth is flat (empirical fact), motionless (empirical fact) and under a firmament (inferred from some observations - not proved). The structure absolutely mandates an intelligent design - there is no conceivable way for a FE et al. to come about through random events a la Big Bang-Copernican universe.

It seems you use your PhD knowledge of math and science to disprove a globe but when I ask you to prove flat your responses above are mostly:

" I don't know. "

:(?? empirical fact that our moon is just a hologram and all the stars are just fake projections?

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 12:20 PM

It seems you use your PhD knowledge of math and science to disprove a globe but when I ask you to prove flat your responses above are mostly:

" I don't know. "

:(?? empirical fact that our moon is just a hologram and all the stars are just fake projections? I've been perfectly consistent. I don't have all the answers.

Neuro

2nd November 2016, 12:20 PM

The sun's gravitation is negligable when compared to earth's in it's effect on an orbiting satellite. If the sun vanshed the satellite would still continue it's hypothetical orbit around earth.

Sure, and you don't like that?

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 12:23 PM

Sure, and you don't like that?I'm factoring out the sun to illustrate a principle: independent actions of independent objects. The orbiting of the globe earth by a satellite is a function of [supposed] earth gravity, not the sun's gravity, per the Copernican model.

Jewboo

2nd November 2016, 12:32 PM

I've been perfectly consistent. I don't have all the answers.

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/creativecontent/images/cms/1357537_1280x720.jpg

Seems like the obvious existence of our MOON destroys your sun-under-a-firmament scheme so you dismiss it as just a hologram?

You have honors in Physics with your PhD and insist our MOON isn't real ?

Really?

For the GSUS record...once again scientifically PhD-tier explain the MOON and its orbit over your flat Earth.

:)

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 12:34 PM

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/creativecontent/images/cms/1357537_1280x720.jpg

Seems like the obvious existence of our MOON destroys your sun-under-a-firmament scheme so you dismiss it as just a hologram?

You have honors in Physics with your PhD and insist our MOON isn't real ?

Really?

For the GSUS record...once again scientifically PhD-tier explain the MOON and its orbit over your flat Earth.

:)
I never said the moon does not exist. I said it is a projection of light and not a solid body.

Dogman

2nd November 2016, 12:42 PM

I never said the moon does not exist. I said it is a projection of light and not a solid body.

Why yes !

That is the job of all the earth bound observatories, that is all they do !

They project the image of the moon into the filament !

;D

Snicker ! ! !

Lmfao !

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum runner

Neuro

2nd November 2016, 12:59 PM

I'm factoring out the sun to illustrate a principle: independent actions of independent objects. The orbiting of the globe earth by a satellite is a function of [supposed] earth gravity, not the sun's gravity, per the Copernican model.
Gravity was not even invented when Copernicus discovered the movement of the planets orbiting the sun. Newton made sense of it... No-one has been able to mount a SENSIBLE response to the duo's findings since! Plenty of idiots though.

Jewboo

2nd November 2016, 01:06 PM

I never said the moon does not exist. I said it is a projection of light and not a solid body.

https://www.cleargreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-12-09_Moon_first_quarter.jpg

Ok. Offer GSUS your honors-tier Physics PhD empirical facts proving your MOON that orbits your flat Earth is just a projection of light and not a solid body. Extra points if you address the visible quarter-half-full moon phases we all see with our own eyes.

:)

I didn't enter into the FE inquiry with belief in a creator. In fact, I was agnostic. However, my inquiry has lead me to conclude that the earth is flat (empirical fact), motionless (empirical fact) and under a firmament (inferred from some observations - not proved). The structure absolutely mandates an intelligent design - there is no conceivable way for a FE et al. to come about through random events a la Big Bang-Copernican universe.

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 01:34 PM

Gravity was not even invented when Copernicus discovered the movement of the planets orbiting the sun. Newton made sense of it... No-one has been able to mount a SENSIBLE response to the duo's findings since! Plenty of idiots though.You've done nothing but insult and insinuate. If you have a constructive criticism then level it. But stop with the stupid quips. I've given you a response vis-a-vis satellites and a moving earth (vide supra). Why don't you show me where my analysis is incorrect rather than offering these dumb ass hit and run responses?

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 01:35 PM

https://www.cleargreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2013-12-09_Moon_first_quarter.jpg

Ok. Offer GSUS your honors-tier Physics PhD empirical facts proving your MOON that orbits your flat Earth is just a projection of light and not a solid body. Extra points if you address the visible quarter-half-full moon phases we all see with our own eyes.

:)I'll address this later.

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 02:04 PM

Earth rotates around its own axis in 24h, and the distance around the equator is 24,000 miles, so it rotates around its own axis at 1000 mph, the air largely rotates with the solid ground and the liquid water of the oceans. Further the earth, allegedly rotates around the sun at 66,000 mph, luckily the air follows the earth on its orbit. It would be awful if the atmosphere was swept away at 66,000 mph, don't ya think?You sound like you don't even believe what you're relating. The fact is, it is thermodynamically impossible for a vacuum to exist in continuity with an atmosphere; and gravity cannot hold an atmosphere against the negative pressure of a vacuum. The entire globe earth model is impossible.

Jewboo

2nd November 2016, 02:06 PM

I'll address this later.

Excellent! Then we can proceed together to arrive at more agreement on our mental model of your flat Earth. The pizza-shaped flat Earth surface with the Antarctic crust is already in our ballpark. Both your sun and moon are under the firmament so are the easiest for you to address. Explaining the MOON should be a piece of cake for Mamboni PhD.

http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/gif/33316f4a4cc1f968ef7c1cf0367581737a026d50.gif <-- mamboni & jewboo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk3YndyvdKc
Mamboni already posted this sun-moon video for reference

Neuro

2nd November 2016, 02:31 PM

You sound like you don't even believe what you're relating. The fact is, it is thermodynamically impossible for a vacuum to exist in continuity with an atmosphere; and gravity cannot hold an atmosphere against the negative pressure of a vacuum. The entire globe earth model is impossible.

Really? I guess you have evidence to prove your assertions? There is no such thing as a negative pressure, vacuum is the absence of pressure.

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 03:43 PM

Really? I guess you have evidence to prove your assertions? There is no such thing as a negative pressure, vacuum is the absence of pressure.Negative relative to atmospheric pressure. Vacuum is the absence of pressure, yes.

So you believe that the earth is flying through the vacuum of space at 65,000 mph and the atmosphere is held to the earth's surface by gravity. Is this your assertion?

Dogman

2nd November 2016, 03:56 PM

What doesn't sucks!

Blows !

With brief inthrludes of nuthing in between !

Air has weight, (14 lbs PSI or so, at sea level) and seeing winter is upon us, consider this.

Colder than a witches tit ! Start the car, etc and start driving before the heater can kick in!

You will feel the cold air moving as the car moves or turning corner's, and that cold air has weight you can feel as it Jap Slap's you !

;D

Birr!

So yes gravity can hold the atmosphere close to the planet, in part skin effect and atmospheric weight!

Weighty subject !

;D

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Forum runner

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 05:18 PM

Jeff Berwick and Eric Dubay discuss FE: recommended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xta_AKF_LsE

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 05:21 PM

Eric Dubay explains the Moon and Flat Earth - excellent!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5J8Tk81aaE

Jewboo

2nd November 2016, 05:50 PM

Eric Dubay explains the Moon and Flat Earth - excellent!

MAMBONI'S NEW HOME?

:)
(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=jb34c64pa7rrq1n7qv538e4e65&)

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 05:52 PM

MAMBONI'S NEW HOME?

:)
(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=jb34c64pa7rrq1n7qv538e4e65&)Wow - an orgy of information on FE. Eric Dubay says that this is a cointel site. Reader beware.

Jewboo

2nd November 2016, 06:09 PM

SHOUT OUT TO DOGMAN (http://spie.org/newsroom/12-09-laser-ranging)

Why can't we use this on the flat Salt Lake for just ten miles and become famous?

:D

Shami-Amourae

2nd November 2016, 06:10 PM

MAMBONI'S NEW HOME?

:)
(https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?PHPSESSID=jb34c64pa7rrq1n7qv538e4e65&)

I'd think he'd work best on /x/

http://archive.4plebs.org/x/search/text/flat%20earth/
http://boards.4chan.org/x/

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 06:55 PM

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/iubppwm-jpeg.12309/

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 06:59 PM

Beautiful view of the earth from 95,000 feet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCAnLxRvNNc

Horn

2nd November 2016, 08:21 PM

chair for mamboni

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VdhZ2r6lvs

Jewboo

2nd November 2016, 08:22 PM

Eric Dubay explains the Moon and Flat Earth - excellent!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5J8Tk81aaE

This video rang my bell. A MUST WATCH.

Annoying flashing psychedelic images in the middle but around the 50:00 mark this Eric Dubay guy is amazingly red pilled. Says jews are behind everything.

https://a2-images.myspacecdn.com/images03/3/f914e23f5dc84e71b79c22cb0797c85f/300x300.jpg
obviously not a White Nationalist...lol.

I'm going to starting download his videos in the background for my archive and watch them later.

:o

osoab

2nd November 2016, 08:29 PM

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/iubppwm-jpeg.12309/

Only 4.75' would be hidden.

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Shami-Amourae

2nd November 2016, 08:29 PM

This video rang my bell. A MUST WATCH.

Annoying flashing psychedelic images in the middle but around the 50:00 mark this Eric Dubay guy is amazingly red pilled. Says jews are behind everything.

https://a2-images.myspacecdn.com/images03/3/f914e23f5dc84e71b79c22cb0797c85f/300x300.jpg
obviously not a White Nationalist...lol.

I'm going to starting download his videos in the background for my archive and watch them later.

:o

David Icke talks about Zionism, but also says it's all Reptilians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjG-ZA9L-L0

If the Flat Earth crap was a real thing, the media would be attacking the people believing in it. You can tell how close to the truth you are by how much opposition you get from the Jewish Elites.

https://s14.postimg.org/9c3vfj3n5/1460280459405.jpg

:rolleyes:

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 08:33 PM

Only 4.75' would be hidden.

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/12.9 feet is correct. 8 inchs X miles X miles

osoab

2nd November 2016, 08:48 PM

12.9 feet is correct. 8 inchs X miles X miles

Yeah, if you take a straight line out perpendicular. If we are assuming ball earth, then the observer and object would be on opposite sides of the bulge. You are really dealing with half of the bulge depending on viewer and object height.

Pics with no verifiable elevations are useless imho. There is no reference. How much of that house are we not seeing to begin with?

mamboni

2nd November 2016, 08:52 PM

Yeah, if you take a straight line out perpendicular. If we are assuming ball earth, then the observer and object would be on opposite sides of the bulge. You are really dealing with half of the bulge depending on viewer and object height.

Pics with no verifiable elevations are useless imho. There is no reference. How much of that house are we not seeing to begin with?What can I say. You see what you see.

osoab

2nd November 2016, 08:59 PM

What can I say. You see what you see.
Long distances is where you can prove.

https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Jewboo

2nd November 2016, 09:02 PM

If the Flat Earth crap was a real thing, the media would be attacking the people believing in it. You can tell how close to the truth you are by how much opposition you get from the Jewish Elites.

https://s14.postimg.org/9c3vfj3n5/1460280459405.jpg

:rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5J8Tk81aaE

Just the opposite Shami. Your assumption is wrong but your cartoon is spot on. Be sure to watch this video starting around the 50:00 mark and this young lad Eric Dubay is amazingly red pilled about the jews!

Shami-Amourae

2nd November 2016, 09:21 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5J8Tk81aaE

Just the opposite Shami. Your assumption is wrong but your cartoon is spot on. Be sure to watch this video starting around the 50:00 mark and this young lad Eric Dubay is amazingly red pilled about the jews!
I know about that. I watched a bunch of his material before I even started this thread. I looked into the issue objectively as I could. I concluded it's a giant psy-op to destroy the Truther community from within. A bunch of the stuff Mamboni is posting I posted in the first few pages of this thread.

Shiksa Goddess is also "red-pilled" on the Jews, and openly a Flat Earther.

It's meant to discredit our movement to the public.

I hate being the most intelligent person wherever I go.

Jewboo

2nd November 2016, 10:14 PM

I know about that. I watched a bunch of his material before I even started this thread. I looked into the issue objectively as I could. I concluded it's a giant psy-op to destroy the Truther community from within. A bunch of the stuff Mamboni is posting I posted in the first few pages of this thread.

Shiksa Goddess is also "red-pilled" on the Jews, and openly a Flat Earther.

It's meant to discredit our movement to the public.

I hate being the most intelligent person wherever I go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R77j9rUuky4

Nah. In this video made six months BEFORE the one posted above that we watched he didn't once even whisper "jew" but said the top was the "Masons". Let's give this lad the benefit of the doubt and hope he is quickly evolving closer to the truth...which is that jews are the top...which he says in the newer video.

:(??

Shami-Amourae

2nd November 2016, 10:45 PM

Some of the National Socialists were Hollow Earth retards...

https://s15.postimg.org/a847shlhl/1465222722304.jpg

Neuro

3rd November 2016, 12:42 AM

Negative relative to atmospheric pressure. Vacuum is the absence of pressure, yes.

So you believe that the earth is flying through the vacuum of space at 65,000 mph and the atmosphere is held to the earth's surface by gravity. Is this your assertion?

Yes, LOL! ;D You don't believe there is an air pressure difference due to altitude? Without gravity pulling on the gas molecules, why would you have that pressure difference?

Neuro

3rd November 2016, 01:08 AM

What can I say. You see what you see.

Come on firmament boy! You can do better than that...

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 05:32 AM

Yes, LOL! ;D You don't believe there is an air pressure difference due to altitude? Without gravity pulling on the gas molecules, why would you have that pressure difference?My NASA sock puppet alarm is flashing. Clueless on purpose?

Neuro

3rd November 2016, 07:03 AM

My NASA sock puppet alarm is flashing. Clueless on purpose?

Houston we have a problem... ;D

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 07:21 AM

Yeah, if you take a straight line out perpendicular. If we are assuming ball earth, then the observer and object would be on opposite sides of the bulge. You are really dealing with half of the bulge depending on viewer and object height.You're confused. It doesn't matter where the two observers are relative to the "bulge." The line of sight between the two observers is the tangent line to the curve. The declination is the total displacement of both viewers relative to the the point of tangent, period. Don't muddy the waters with this needlessly confusing dribble.

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 07:30 AM

Houston we have a problem... ;DYes we as a society have a problem. Critical thinking has all but died. Basic knowledge of physics and mechanics is all but dead. So many are so intellectually illiterate that they cannot see the utter absurdity and implausability of the spinning globe earth model. It is total fiction constructed out of whole cloth psuedoscience. The earth is flat and fixed. The stars are a few thousand miles away within firmament. We have been indoctrinated since birth to believe lies: that the earth is a globe, that it travels in a vaccuum at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour, that there is no deity, that we came from nothing and bang the universe came into existence. Hey folks, wake up. You're being played. There is no infinite universe with billions of galaxies. It's all fiction. For example, how exactly do our exulted shaman of science determine that a star is 10,000 light years from earth? Think about it.

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 07:37 AM

Yes, LOL! ;D You don't believe there is an air pressure difference due to altitude? Without gravity pulling on the gas molecules, why would you have that pressure difference?In the real world of real measurable phenomena a gas gradient can only form in a CLOSED system. It is impossible to form a continuous gradient between atmospheric pressure and a vacuum. You could take a closed cylinder of air and spin it centrifugally at 1000g (1000 times earth gravity) and form a density gradient - but as soon as you open that cyclinder into a vacuum the gradient will be sucked out and replaced with vacuum. No amount of acceleration will overcome the "pull" of vacuum on gas molecules; and thermodynamics tells us this. Put another way, the entropy of moving gas molecules far exceeds the energy of so-called gravitational work done on molecular masses.

Neuro

3rd November 2016, 08:18 AM

In the real world of real measurable phenomena a gas gradient can only form in a CLOSED system. It is impossible to form a continuous gradient between atmospheric pressure and a vacuum. You could take a closed cylinder of air and spin it centrifugally at 1000g (1000 times earth gravity) and form a density gradient - but as soon as you open that cyclinder into a vacuum the gradient will be sucked out and replaced with vacuum. No amount of acceleration will overcome the "pull" of vacuum on gas molecules; and thermodynamics tells us this. Put another way, the entropy of moving gas molecules far exceeds the energy of so-called gravitational work done on molecular masses.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0964/1872/files/altitude-to-pressure-conversion-table.png

Hmmm. Interesting so you are suggesting that it is a centrifugal force that is increasing the air pressure towards the surface of the flat earth. The firmament above the center of flat earth is actually working as the center of a gigantic centrifuge, simulating "gravity" for us here on earth, a bit like if you take a bucket of water and swings it around. I think you are on to something here Mamboni! That pivot point could be at 38.500 km altitude, the altitude of the "geostationary satellites"...

The interesting thing is that this theory could be proved. "Gravity" should increase the further below the surface you go like mine shafts. Not the opposite which mass=gravity theory suggests!

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 08:22 AM

Neuro

3rd November 2016, 08:57 AM

Nonsense - this is all gibberish and a mistatement of what I've written. I think you are deliberately trying to complicate and confuse what is actually simple and intuitive. Slow day at NASA?

Ok oh wise one were does the air pressure gradient come from? It takes half an hour to hard boil an egg in Lhasa at aprox 12,000 feet altitude, due to decreased air pressure lowering the boiling temperature of water. Surely you are not suggesting that there is no air pressure difference due to altitude?

Yes slow day here in Houston, we are waiting for an increase in funding following a Trump victory. First put a man on "Mars", then on "Jupiter", and then send Hillary to the Sun. All before first term is finished!

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 09:24 AM

Ok oh wise one were does the air pressure gradient come from? It takes half an hour to hard boil an egg in Lhasa at aprox 12,000 feet altitude, due to decreased air pressure lowering the boiling temperature of water. Surely you are not suggesting that there is no air pressure difference due to altitude?Ok we're done. Don't bother me with such moronic questions. You are being deliberately obtuse. No one could be this stupid.

Neuro

3rd November 2016, 09:29 AM

Ok we're done. Don't bother me with such moronic questions. You are being deliberately obtuse. No one could be this stupid.

May you burn on the stakes! How dare you question the roundness of MOTHER Earth, Witch doctor!

Jewboo

3rd November 2016, 09:49 AM

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 09:52 AM

Jewboo

3rd November 2016, 10:13 AM

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8wEfqnhcc7o/Vb-KKc3DyTI/AAAAAAAAP-U/Lkl-jp_58Zs/s400/antarcz%2B-%2BCopy.gif

Mamboni:

Trump should be able to fly his jet from South America directly over Antarctica to Australia. Bunch of rich people own private jets that can make this trip. Flat Earthers apparently claim that some secret United Nations military forbids this short direct flight and will shoot them down. Anybody ever publicly made this short direct flight from South America to Australia?

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/04/24/us/24trumpair-web01SUB/24trumpair-web01SUB-facebookJumbo-v2.jpg

:(??

Ok Mamboni. We agree that this short flight directly over Antarctica will forever shut up the Flat Earthers. Trump himself can do it with CNN and Fox News cameras recording the short flight time and distance. Time it took and distance traveled on video. Everybody can easily verify the liftoff and landing times. On camera. As it happened. Anybody with some extra money can just rent a Lear jet and do it. You and Mamboni Junior can rent a Lear jet for maybe $50k and do it. You two would be famous.

Can you link us to any real info about the UN Military policy shooting down any attempts?

Link us to the International Law that militarily forbids direct overflight of Antarctica?

:(?? this quick flight would forever shut everybody up and once and for all PROVE that Earth is indeed a globe

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 10:41 AM

Ok Mamboni. We agree that this short flight directly over Antarctica will forever shut up the Flat Earthers. Trump himself can do it with CNN and Fox News cameras recording the short flight time and distance. Time it took and distance traveled on video. Everybody can easily verify the liftoff and landing times. On camera. As it happened. Anybody with some extra money can just rent a Lear jet and do it. You and Mamboni Junior can rent a Lear jet for maybe $50k and do it. You two would be famous.

Can you link us to any real info about the UN Military policy shooting down any attempts?

Link us to the International Law that militarily forbids direct overflight of Antarctica?

:(?? this quick flight would forever shut everybody up and once and for all PROVE that Earth is indeed a globeAssuming you had a plane to fly and you pointed directly opposite NORTH at the Antarctica coast, and flew directly over the [purported] south pole, that would prove a globe. It hasn't been done because it cannot be done. Antarctica is not an island continent. Antarctica is the frozen end of the world.

Jewboo

3rd November 2016, 11:21 AM

Assuming you had a plane to fly and you pointed directly opposite NORTH at the Antarctica coast, and flew directly over the [purported] south pole, that would prove a globe. It hasn't been done because it cannot be done. Antarctica is not an island continent. Antarctica is the frozen end of the world.

http://www.traveller.com.au/content/dam/images/2/r/m/i/5/image.gallery.articleLeadwide.620x349.2rmkc.png/1420418782498.jpg

Qantas southern journey over Antarctica (http://www.traveller.com.au/qantas-jumbo-747400-jets-spectacular-southern-journey-over-antarctica-12htsi)

You and Mamboni Junior can do this tour on Qantas this winter real cheap. Read the details of this Qantas tour flight.

:) free champagne

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 12:55 PM

Also Quoting Dr. Rowbotham, “On the shore near Waterloo, a few miles to the north of Liverpool, a good telescope was fixed, at an elevation of 6 feet above the water. It was directed to a large steamer, just leaving the River Mersey, and sailing out to Dublin. Gradually the mast-head of the receding vessel came nearer to the horizon, until, at length, after more than four hours had elapsed, it disappeared. The ordinary rate of sailing of the Dublin steamers was fully eight miles an hour; so that the vessel would be, at least, thirty-two miles distant when the mast-head came to the horizon. The 6 feet of elevation of the telescope would require three miles to be deducted for convexity, which would leave twenty-nine miles, the square of which, multiplied by 8 inches, gives 560 feet; deducting 80 feet for the height of the main-mast, and we find that, according to the doctrine of rotundity, the mast-head of the outward bound steamer should have been 480 feet below the horizon. Many other experiments of this kind have been made upon sea-going steamers, and always with results entirely incompatible with the theory that the earth is a globe.”

Neuro

3rd November 2016, 01:39 PM

http://www.traveller.com.au/content/dam/images/2/r/m/i/5/image.gallery.articleLeadwide.620x349.2rmkc.png/1420418782498.jpg

Qantas southern journey over Antarctica (http://www.traveller.com.au/qantas-jumbo-747400-jets-spectacular-southern-journey-over-antarctica-12htsi)

You and Mamboni Junior can do this tour on Qantas this winter real cheap. Read the details of this Qantas tour flight.

:) free champagne

Aha not crossing the Antarctic but going back to Australia...

Jewboo

3rd November 2016, 01:49 PM

Aha not crossing the Antarctic but going back to Australia...

Yeah...but the firmament wall should be visible if it existed.

;D

Neuro

3rd November 2016, 02:10 PM

Yeah...but the firmament wall should be visible if it existed.

;D

They'll probably know how far they can go...

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 02:18 PM

Yeah...but the firmament wall should be visible if it existed.

;DUs common plebes will likely never see the firmament wall in Antarctica, if there is a wall. Governments have Antarctica locked down. The globe earth delusion must be maintained. Let's keep the goyim confused and busy with nonsense like satellite TV.

Neuro

3rd November 2016, 02:52 PM

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0964/1872/files/altitude-to-pressure-conversion-table.png

Hmmm. Interesting so you are suggesting that it is a centrifugal force that is increasing the air pressure towards the surface of the flat earth. The firmament above the center of flat earth is actually working as the center of a gigantic centrifuge, simulating "gravity" for us here on earth, a bit like if you take a bucket of water and swings it around. I think you are on to something here Mamboni! That pivot point could be at 38.500 km altitude, the altitude of the "geostationary satellites"...

The interesting thing is that this theory could be proved. "Gravity" should increase the further below the surface you go like mine shafts. Not the opposite which mass=gravity theory suggests!

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=l4ti42vks71b83ssicmpd3v874&action=dlattach;topic=45321.0;attach=16736;image
Aha! Apparently gravity increases with depth, something being blamed on mantel and crust being of lighter density than the core. However it could also be because centrifugal forces are greater the further you are away from the pivot point.

It is very telling that Mamboni doesn't even want to discuss this possibility in regards to his own flat earth theory, meanwhile he is lambasting the close mindedness of everyone who rejects a flat earth. He is clearly an unscientific hypocrite. Or even more likely he is a she!

Neuro

3rd November 2016, 03:00 PM

Us common plebes will likely never see the firmament wall in Antarctica, if there is a wall. Governments have Antarctica locked down. The globe earth delusion must be maintained. Let's keep the goyim confused and busy with nonsense like satellite TV.

Most likely you will probably never see anything, because you are not willing to open your eyes nor your mind. You still haven't explained the altitude dependent pressure gradient... Where does it come from? What physical forces is creating it? Hypocrite!

Jewboo

3rd November 2016, 03:56 PM

Us common plebes will likely never see the firmament wall in Antarctica, if there is a wall. Governments have Antarctica locked down. The globe earth delusion must be maintained. Let's keep the goyim confused and busy with nonsense like satellite TV.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y0arhcXTW5w/U1VmUBfztTI/AAAAAAABwVg/WD0BBSe7Ifg/s1600/440x660.jpg

I asked you to link us to that UN Military SHOOT DOWN order of any private planes flying across Antarctica.

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 03:57 PM

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y0arhcXTW5w/U1VmUBfztTI/AAAAAAABwVg/WD0BBSe7Ifg/s1600/440x660.jpg

I asked you to link us to that UN Military SHOOT DOWN order of any private planes flying across Antarctica.

Didn't know one existed.

Jewboo

3rd November 2016, 04:02 PM

Didn't know one existed.

http://www.royalaviationmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ellsworth-.jpg

So why hasn't Trump or some other private jet owner flown across Antarctica and become famous?

:(?? serious question

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 05:50 PM

http://www.royalaviationmuseum.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/ellsworth-.jpg

So why hasn't Trump or some other private jet owner flown across Antarctica and become famous?

:(?? serious question
Because there is probably no way to cross Antarctica.

Jewboo

3rd November 2016, 06:35 PM

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1459/28/1459286121266.jpg

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 07:26 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc6PGqIQ1IY&feature=player_embedded

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 07:27 PM

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1459/28/1459286121266.jpg
You know, sooner or later you have to get off the pot.

Jewboo

3rd November 2016, 07:51 PM

You know, sooner or later you have to get off the pot.

I'm still stuck where the "firmament" meets the flat Earth. Can't go further until you show us something in the ballpark.

mamboni

3rd November 2016, 09:00 PM

I'm still stuck where the "firmament" meets the flat Earth. Can't go further until you show us something in the ballpark.It's a question separate from the FE question.

Neuro

3rd November 2016, 09:51 PM

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=l4ti42vks71b83ssicmpd3v874&action=dlattach;topic=45321.0;attach=16736;image
Aha! Apparently gravity increases with depth, something being blamed on mantel and crust being of lighter density than the core. However it could also be because centrifugal forces are greater the further you are away from the pivot point.

It is very telling that Mamboni doesn't even want to discuss this possibility in regards to his own flat earth theory, meanwhile he is lambasting the close mindedness of everyone who rejects a flat earth. He is clearly an unscientific hypocrite. Or even more likely he is a she!

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/aroundthemall/files/2013/05/Hillary-scaling-Everest.jpg
Why did Hillary bother to bring Oxygen tubes while climbing Mt Everest? Why is there less air at Mt Everest, Mamboni than in Pennsylvania?

Jewboo

3rd November 2016, 10:06 PM

It's a question separate from the FE question.

http://www.sciencealert.com/images/articles/processed/The_Wall_web_1024.jpg

The HORIZON remains literally our scrimmage line. You spent pages of this thread on the HORIZON. How it isn't curved so this proves Earth must be flat. How the HORIZON goes on flat until Antarctica.

Ok. We get as far as Antarctica. Then what? No "edge" because there is a firmament dome wall that meets flat Earth.

Ok. Where the firmament dome wall meets flat Earth is the HORIZON.

We should be able to either fly or drive or walk to this firmament dome wall HORIZON.

Why hasn't anybody arrived at this firmament dome wall HORIZON since forever?

:) we are still talking about the HORIZON

Rubicon

3rd November 2016, 11:04 PM

this thread is pozzing my neg hole

bombers scannned me

kiss off

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtHbF7Ps7wQ

Horn

4th November 2016, 01:19 AM

The globe earth delusion must be maintained.

This is where I become a divergent.

I dont think it really matters oneway or another to tptb whether or not the earth is flat or round, just so long as they have the remote control for it.

it may have mattered in the past when they were directly turning the peoples knobs with religion, not anymore.

well they do it with some other bogus science, not round world science...gravity science of "Big G"

mamboni

4th November 2016, 06:31 PM

STANLEY KUBRICK, 1999 INTERVIEW: THE MOON MISSIONS (!!!)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5PZJR3u_ms

Jewboo

4th November 2016, 07:09 PM

http://www.sciencealert.com/images/articles/processed/The_Wall_web_1024.jpg

Hoaxed Moon Landing does not prove a flat Earth.

Photoshopped NASA photos do not prove a flat Earth.

Show us the HORIZON where your flat Earth meets your firmament wall in Antarctica.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHkEYgiC3EM

We can blow a hole in your firmament wall and find out what is on the other side Mamboni.

:)

mamboni

6th November 2016, 05:50 PM

Stanley Kubrick directed films of moon landings staged on earth at the request of President Nixon. Kubrick's last testimony asserts that the moon landings never happened; and he considers the moon landing's staging his greatest work and laments that his artist signature can never appear on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gtbJOQk8DA

Jewboo

6th November 2016, 05:58 PM

Hoaxed moon landing does not prove a flat Earth.

mamboni

6th November 2016, 06:07 PM

Hoaxed moon landing does not prove a flat Earth.I heard you. I heard you.

Silly strawmen aside, this Eric Dubay is absolutely brilliant. The clarity of his logic and reasoning is most astonishing. Voltaire said "If you want to know who rules you, know who cannot be criticized." This axiom no doubt was employed by Mr. Dubay in arriving at his fingering the real culprits pulling the levers of the NWO. I think this 32 year old Thai ex-pat American martial arts instructor could turn out to be the Voltaire of our times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFsuOFoolW8

Jewboo

6th November 2016, 07:07 PM

I heard you. I heard you...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDJzjomSN94

Yeah...but you still willfully refuse to address the HORIZON on your flat Earth. Where your flat Earth meets your firmament dome wall in Antarctica. Scroll up...you keep ignoring this critical HORIZON question in post after post.

You say you abandoned global Earth because the curvature of the HORIZON can't be measured on the surface. Ok. Your profound life-changing epiphany.

I keep asking you to show us your flat HORIZON where your flat Earth meets your firmament dome wall in Antarctica.

Watch this quick movie trailer above. There is no firmament dome wall in Antarctica. Look at the Antarctica sky in this high-definition video. See the planes flying around Antarctica that don't crash into your firmament dome wall?

:rolleyes: show us where your flat Earth meets your firmament dome wall in Antarctica. Show us Mamboni's Horizon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMo9N5uFwXk

Many of these camps are located in the Dry Valleys, a series of relatively ice-free valleys located across the Ross Sea from McMurdo Station. These valleys contain large glaciers, frozen lakes, and fascinating geology, all of interest to the science community.

In addition to the camps in the Dry Valleys the helicopter crews also support a high altitude camp located at 11,700’ on Mt Erebus, the world’s southernmost active volcano. The contract is currently fulfilled by PHI, Inc with a fleet of three Bell 212 and two AS350 helicopters.

Neuro

6th November 2016, 10:57 PM

Strange even at 38,000 feet, where nothing can obstruct the sun (clouds are below 38,000 ft) it still appears to go below the horizon line...

How can that be?

https://i.imgsafe.org/0165ba49bc.jpg

Don't believe your lying eyes...

mamboni

7th November 2016, 07:30 AM

Neuro

7th November 2016, 09:29 AM

Appears? You got some time lapse video? That still photo means nothing.

It doesn't? Why would a time lapse video on a moving aeroplane be better evidence? Would a string of still photos be acceptable?

Btw it only appears to be below the horizon to someone who observed it. However in this case you may be correct as I photographed it on around midsummer eve around midnight on a flight from Istanbul-Stockholm close to its destination, as it never appeared above horizon, an hour before when the flight was above Poland it was dark, it was also dark when the flight landed at Stockholm Arlanda Airport, so I never saw the sun above the horizon, and I suppose it is entirely possible that it was some 20° above horizon at this point but at such vast distance away that it wasn't visible, despite the atmosphere only having 20% of the density of atmosphere at sea level.

How thin must the atmosphere be to be able to see the sun 24/7 anywhere over the flat earth, Mamboni? Does the 1/5th as thick atmosphere at aproximately 6 miles height allow you to see the sun 5x as far away as at sea level? Maybe much farther as you have practically no water vapor at this altitude, as temperature is around -75°F, and thus no clouds or fogging!

Why couldn't I see the sun as we were flying over Eastern Poland, an hour before midnight? It was almost complete darkness. Or why not over Ukraine 2 hours before midnight. I realize the sun is hovering at above East Siberia Alaska or so at these times, and that the sun is 10-15% further away from Sweden in Poland and Ukraine at these times, but total darkness vs almost daylight in an atmosphere that us 1/5th as dense as at sea level?

Really doesn't add up,

dys

7th November 2016, 07:11 PM

I heard you. I heard you.

Silly strawmen aside, this Eric Dubay is absolutely brilliant. The clarity of his logic and reasoning is most astonishing. Voltaire said "If you want to know who rules you, know who cannot be criticized." This axiom no doubt was employed by Mr. Dubay in arriving at his fingering the real culprits pulling the levers of the NWO. I think this 32 year old Thai ex-pat American martial arts instructor could turn out to be the Voltaire of our times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFsuOFoolW8

I'm sorry but you've been had on Dubay. The flat earth stuff is the hook. Check out his new video where he spews esoteric Zeitgeist garbage. His family are masons, he even admits his Uncle is 33rd degree. Sitting in lotus position teaching marshall arts, talking about the pituitary gland....cmon now, you are smarter than this.

That's not to say that NASA isnt lying. I'm pretty much positive the earth doesn't spin at 1000 miles/hr.

mamboni

7th November 2016, 07:28 PM

I'm sorry but you've been had on Dubay. The flat earth stuff is the hook. Check out his new video where he spews esoteric Zeitgeist garbage. His family are masons, he even admits his Uncle is 33rd degree. Sitting in lotus position teaching marshall arts, talking about the pituitary gland....cmon now, you are smarter than this.

That's not to say that NASA isnt lying. I'm pretty much positive the earth doesn't spin at 1000 miles/hr.Dubay's logic and evidence are impeccable. The whole Zeitgeist deal is pretty wide of field of FE. But I tell you, the earth is flat and motionless. All of the real world observations support a flat earth. There does not exist a single piece of hard evidence to support the spinning globe model. Cosmology, like Anthropology, is a total complete fraud.

Jewboo

7th November 2016, 07:40 PM

All of the real world observations support a flat earth.

:rolleyes: Mamboni once again willfully refusing to address these real world observations near his firmament dome wall in Antarctica:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDJzjomSN94

Yeah...but you still willfully refuse to address the HORIZON on your flat Earth. Where your flat Earth meets your firmament dome wall in Antarctica. Scroll up...you keep ignoring this critical HORIZON question in post after post.

You say you abandoned global Earth because the curvature of the HORIZON can't be measured on the surface. Ok. Your profound life-changing epiphany.

I keep asking you to show us your flat HORIZON where your flat Earth meets your firmament dome wall in Antarctica.

Watch this quick movie trailer above. There is no firmament dome wall in Antarctica. Look at the Antarctica sky in this high-definition video. See the planes flying around Antarctica that don't crash into your firmament dome wall?

:rolleyes: show us where your flat Earth meets your firmament dome wall in Antarctica. Show us Mamboni's Horizon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMo9N5uFwXk

mamboni

7th November 2016, 07:49 PM

It doesn't? Why would a time lapse video on a moving aeroplane be better evidence? Would a string of still photos be acceptable?

Btw it only appears to be below the horizon to someone who observed it. However in this case you may be correct as I photographed it on around midsummer eve around midnight on a flight from Istanbul-Stockholm close to its destination, as it never appeared above horizon, an hour before when the flight was above Poland it was dark, it was also dark when the flight landed at Stockholm Arlanda Airport, so I never saw the sun above the horizon, and I suppose it is entirely possible that it was some 20° above horizon at this point but at such vast distance away that it wasn't visible, despite the atmosphere only having 20% of the density of atmosphere at sea level.

How thin must the atmosphere be to be able to see the sun 24/7 anywhere over the flat earth, Mamboni? Does the 1/5th as thick atmosphere at aproximately 6 miles height allow you to see the sun 5x as far away as at sea level? Maybe much farther as you have practically no water vapor at this altitude, as temperature is around -75°F, and thus no clouds or fogging!

Why couldn't I see the sun as we were flying over Eastern Poland, an hour before midnight? It was almost complete darkness. Or why not over Ukraine 2 hours before midnight. I realize the sun is hovering at above East Siberia Alaska or so at these times, and that the sun is 10-15% further away from Sweden in Poland and Ukraine at these times, but total darkness vs almost daylight in an atmosphere that us 1/5th as dense as at sea level?

Really doesn't add up,These are all good questions. I will tell that the atmosphere has significant extinction of light, especially when viewed through thousands of miles line of sight. We tend to perhaps exaggerate the size and power of the sun. But consider a flat earth roughly 25,000 miles in diameter. The sun is thought 31 miles in diameter and orbits above the flat earth roughly 3,000 miles, though I suspect that the sun is closer. Though a powerful luminous body, the sun's light becomes rapidly attenuated when viewed through a great expanse of lower atmosphere, say up to 5-7,000 miles. At sunset, the sun is viewed through over 10,000 miles of line-of-sight atmosphere. Can one even imagine 10,000 miles, the shear distance? Over an [flat] ocean, the sun literally melts behind the 5-7,000 miles of lower atmosphere and disappears into the vanishing point on the horizon. After sunset, the sun's light lags behind for several minutes. The sun behaves as a spot light over the massive earth plane; it illuminates roughly half the earth at any given time. Throughout the year the sun moves between the tropic lines giving us our seasons.

If we could send a camera high enough, say 100 miles, a hi-res camera with 300x zoom, I do believe it should be possible to see the sun rotating above the clouds spotlighing half the earth plane throughout the 24 hour day. Yes, that film would change the world. However, I think the temperature up that high is in thousands of degrees!

Neuro

7th November 2016, 08:47 PM

These are all good questions. I will tell that the atmosphere has significant extinction of light, especially when viewed through thousands of miles line of sight. We tend to perhaps exaggerate the size and power of the sun. But consider a flat earth roughly 25,000 miles in diameter. The sun is thought 31 miles in diameter and orbits above the flat earth roughly 3,000 miles, though I suspect that the sun is closer. Though a powerful luminous body, the sun's light becomes rapidly attenuated when viewed through a great expanse of lower atmosphere, say up to 5-7,000 miles. At sunset, the sun is viewed through over 10,000 miles of line-of-sight atmosphere. Can one even imagine 10,000 miles, the shear distance? Over an [flat] ocean, the sun literally melts behind the 5-7,000 miles of lower atmosphere and disappears into the vanishing point on the horizon. After sunset, the sun's light lags behind for several minutes. The sun behaves as a spot light over the massive earth plane; it illuminates roughly half the earth at any given time. Throughout the year the sun moves between the tropic lines giving us our seasons.

If we could send a camera high enough, say 100 miles, a hi-res camera with 300x zoom, I do believe it should be possible to see the sun rotating above the clouds spotlighing half the earth plane throughout the 24 hour day. Yes, that film would change the world. However, I think the temperature up that high is in thousands of degrees!

I don't think you need to go that high. According to this the atmosphere has about 1/70th of its density at 100,000 ft altitude or about 1/700th of its density at 150,000 ft...
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html

You should be able to see the sun at midnight around the winter solstice, if you send up a balloon to 100,000 ft with a camera doing a video. Actually you should be better able to see it from 100,000 feet height (~18 miles) vs 100 miles, as you would get a better angle from below towards the "spotlight" sun, especially as you believe the sun is probably at a lower altitude than 3000 miles...

Just out of curiosity what led you to conclude that the sun is like a spotlight?

mamboni

7th November 2016, 09:02 PM

I don't think you need to go that high. According to this the atmosphere has about 1/70th of its density at 100,000 ft altitude or about 1/700th of its density at 150,000 ft...
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html

You should be able to see the sun at midnight around the winter solstice, if you send up a balloon to 100,000 ft with a camera doing a video. Actually you should be better able to see it from 100,000 feet height (~18 miles) vs 100 miles, as you would get a better angle from below towards the "spotlight" sun, especially as you believe the sun is probably at a lower altitude than 3000 miles...

Just out of curiosity what led you to conclude that the sun is like a spotlight?The sun's light has a limited range of several thousand miles. It is close enough that it's light tends to localize over only half the earth plane, like a spot light.

Neuro

7th November 2016, 09:13 PM

The sun's light has a limited range of several thousand miles. It is close enough that it's light tends to localize over only half the earth plane, like a spot light.

Why and how does sun's light have a 'limited range'? Sure in terms of atmosphere I can see it blocking it out over a long distance, but not in vacum...

dys

8th November 2016, 05:43 AM

Dubay's logic and evidence are impeccable. The whole Zeitgeist deal is pretty wide of field of FE. But I tell you, the earth is flat and motionless. All of the real world observations support a flat earth. There does not exist a single piece of hard evidence to support the spinning globe model. Cosmology, like Anthropology, is a total complete fraud.

You are missing the point. The hallmark of masonry is to mix lies with the truth. I can guarantee you 100% that Dubay is either deceived (unlikely), or an intentional deceiver/shill (much more likely). Guys like this are poison. Even repping the guy hurts your own credibility. He is not who he says he is!

As to flat earth, there are many other sources out there other than Dubay. I'm curious myself; I'm leaning towards accepting the theory....but not until I have all the facts from credible sources. Some say that Dubay's numbers are off on his 200 proofs, btw. I haven't checked it out myself, but I wouldn't doubt it whatsoever. That's how controlled opposition works.

dys

edit to add: I disagree with some others who say this doesn't matter. It could matter quite a bit; especially if the bad guys try to fake an alien invasion.