Chinahand Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 @ Mr Sausages & Bobby, Gerry lives in a closed world where his echo chamber is full people agreeing with each other rather than challenging their assumptions. When it comes to these types of minutiae it is pointless - debunking them just becomes an exercise in "he said, you said" and it is impossible to actually refute. I've pointed to the Jodrell Bank observations and recordings before, but as Gerry firmly believes in a mass conspiracy involving a cast of thousands all sworn to Masonic secrecy he simply discounts this, in fact I image he sees it as confirming it - look those boffins from Manchester are in on it too. It is very difficult to challenge such a world view simply by adding to the "he said, you said" ping-pong, so I'm not going to bother but in posts like the below you can actually do something far more substantive because here you can bring new evidence to the issue: Moving back to trigonometry and the pole star, if Earth is a ball and the pole star is a long way away, then the angle of the pole star should be the same as the observers earthy latitude, so here on IOM the angle of the star should be about 54°, this correlates to Chinahands Trigonometry and the million earth radius distance for Polaris as being the best match. I have found no one in the FE community tackle this problem, and I think it is a big problem for the FE model as in no way can I make this happen on a flat Earth with any number of distances for the pole star. Without the maths this diagram explains the situation of the ball Earth observer latitude and North Star angles well. This diagram will also tell you that it is impossible to see Polaris from even 1° in the southern hemisphere, but apparently you can, some say as far as 15° into the southern hemisphere the pole star is visible, how does that work? Gerry, I find it so amusing when you admit Polaris is a big problem for Flat Earthers and no one will refute it within the Flat Earth community you frequent - do you think that might provide a hint as to the ability of such forums to scientifically examine theory and evidence? Polaris is an obscure and minor problem for flat earths - sun rise, sun set and noon are far bigger and more obvious problems which are also just ignored. Gerry, I've asked you again and again to engage with this, but you haven't, but in typical banging head against a brick wall fashion I'll try again. The sun reaches it's highest point above the horizon at a different height every day and at every different latitude. The Flat Earth gives a clear set of predictions about what the highest elevation of the sun will be on a particular day at a particular location once it has been calibrated via an observation. So today at Castletown the height of the sun at its highest point will be 13.2 degrees - you can measure it yourself to refute these evil masonic astronomy charts. Given the reality of this (Gerry, do you admit that this is true, plus or minus a minor error due to atmospheric distortion?) what would a flat earth model predict would be the height of the sun on a line of latitude a 1000 miles further south, or North of this? This is something far easier to test than the position of Polaris. Are the flat earth forums you frequent able to make predictions about what the maximum altitude of the sun will be in Alexandria today? It will be 36.0 degrees, plus or minus a small error. What about Nairobi? It will be 68.5 degrees Gerry, do you acknowledge the flat earth model cannot explain these three results? There is no way for the model to fit the three points together. On a globe they are entirely consistent and this has enabled mariners to navigate from place to place for centuries relying on their sextants. There cannot be a conspiracy about this - you and anyone else can measure the height of the sun at it's highest point - at its most basic all it takes is a flat surface, a stick, some chalk, a ruler and some year 7 mathematical ability. The only conspiracy is a conspiracy of denial within the Flat Earth community. They refuse to use their models to make predictions about the sun etc which can be checked very simply with only a little bit of effort. Why is this? In my view, because the results would totally nullify the theory, show it to be totally useless in understanding a simple and well observed part of reality - the height of the sun at local noon. Far better to simply make up lies on Youtube, hey. Polaris, pah. Gerry, if you want to understand the bulk shape of the Earth go and take some simple measurements of the sun, and get 2 other people living at different locations to do the same. The results will not be consistent with a flat earth, but will be for a globe. Are you evidence based enough to admit that, or to at least go and try to learn about how to measure the height of the sun at noon so you can know I, and the astronomical charts I'm linking to, aren't lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 @Chian Fair point. I now appreciate the distinction between debunking moon landing hoax stuff (but relying on observations and evidence provided by others) and the flat earth stuff, the latter being debunkable by direct observation by anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 @Chinahand, Yes the sunrise, sunset and the angle of the sun in the sky are not addressed by any flat earth explanation, it does not work at all in any of their models. I am sure I have admitted that here before already somewhere back in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I was thinking more on the theme of missing original footage, missing telemetry data, missing plans and documents of designs of the moon buggy, the space suits, the little foil wrapped capsule that put them on the surface, the one with a 20000 LB thrust engine that never displaced any moon dust whilst landing, not even dust on the feet of the lander, perhaps a silly over sight by the set creators, its impossible to create the perfect crime, mistake's will always be made, thus the need to lose and accidentally destroy evidence. It is quite common for the fraudster to destroy the evidence to conceal the crime, telemetry data would be a sure giveaway, and how convenient for the biggest achievement in human history to be taped over because of cut backs.. You surely don't believe this do you. not a dozen reels of data, thousands missing or destroyed. The moon rocks are quite interesting especially the ones that turned out to be petrified wood that were gifts to heads of state...I tend to not bother with this anymore as we could assume they were swapped by a thieves who then sold them on, must have been a good forger also to pull it off, but I admit it is possible to some extent that they were swapped by greedy people. Have you ever considered getting professional help Gerry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 @Chinahand, Yes the sunrise, sunset and the angle of the sun in the sky are not addressed by any flat earth explanation, it does not work at all in any of their models. I am sure I have admitted that here before already somewhere back in the thread. So why do you say this then? does this Polaris problem outweigh all of these other “plane arguments”? I would still argue that without NASAs visual effect’s department it is easier to prove we are on a plane than a ball. Visual effects have nothing whatsoever to do with taking some very simple measurements of the Sun which categorically show Mr Dubay is talking out of his proverbial. I find it just amazing how you think a load of discredited assertions have some merit compared to simple observational science which make it quite clear the Earth is a globe. Go and do it yourself and you will know Mr Dubay is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 "dilligaf" I consider him a "failure" , he's a great self publicist but thats about it in my book . I'd cross the road to avoid him Your personal view on his grinning ginger beard shouldn't really detract from the fact he's a self made billionaire, which, in a capitalist society, means he's far from a failure. You could say the same about blair mugabe, and many other "self made millionaires" , the trouble is many of them tend to worship their creator You can be a success in financial terms but a failure as a human being , well in my book anyway ." "You can tell what god thinks of money when you see the people he gives it to" Comparing Blair and Mugabe to Richard Branson is just insane. Two of them have the blood of millions on their hands and have used their political positions to leech money from wherever they can get their hands on it and the other guy is a self made entrepreneur who has a reputation for paying his staff well and seems to be liked by many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 ......... now that's an opinion , others view him in a different light . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lxxx Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 The earth has always been flat, the moon is a semi transparent spherical disk that can't be walked upon as the dark side doesn't exist, the people in Australia aren't standing upside down and we're not whizzing through space at thousands of miles an hour as my barnet is still is as perfect as it was 5 minutes ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 here's my first youtube video results comparison list! enjoy, maybe even make your own. how do they come up with these numbers? https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22flat+earth%22+ https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=flat+earth+ https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22eddy+grant%22 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=eddy+grant https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22brian+cox%22 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=brian+cox https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22john+barnes%22 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=john+barnes https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22carl+sagan%22 https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=carl+sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 To PGW; I would be surprised if CH would watch one, never mind all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 To PGW; I would be surprised if CH would watch one, never mind all. oh no it's not videos. it's just search results comparisons. an a couple of songs x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 #chinasnibblesthebait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisenchuk Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 #pgwsnobbledthebait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted January 16, 2016 Share Posted January 16, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 http://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/20/flat-earth-believers-youtube-videos-conspiracy-theorists now in the guardian, as the trend continues x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.