|
http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/03/a-conversation-with-a-flat-earth-believer.html tia
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 12:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
theres no real core to it op
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
Why is there whole movement of people out there who are trying to loving devolve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
Ratjaculation posted:theres no real core to it op was that after they took our space station offline? i think we are saving space by being flat, no need for a center right!  e; left
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 12:53
|
|
|
checkmate, ain't a game of chess globalists see me as a threat free thinking got the world at my neck
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
hmmm seems pretty gay op
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
ghostter posted:checkmate, ain't a game of chess a lot of the time i get trolled on the internet by people hyping up lovely you tube links. your posts are not that
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 13:00
|
|
|
i like it op
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 13:01
|
|
|
I wonder if flat earth people think other planets are flat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
actual believers are called flats
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
hey look its me the global elite lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Just let them believe what they believe and pray(?) they don't make it somewhere important.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
I play dota 2 with a guy who thinks literally all diseases are drug company conspiracies. He's nice otherwise. I just avoid the topic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
drug companies are a disease of the minds that run this gay country
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
sometimes dead is better
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
"The Flat Earth society is a gatekeeper organization to misdirect people sincerely looking into the flat earth theory. They're a joke." So many layers to this conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
http://dinarvets.com/forums/index.php?/topic/210192-is-the-earth-flat/page-2?hl=+earth%20+flatquote:Here's what you need to understand, in order for this evidence to make sense to you. The Van Allen Belts were indeed discovered prior to the Apollo missions, however it was still in a theoretical stage, and undergoing a lot of study by entities like NASA and independent researchers like Van Allen and many others. The point to this whole thing are a series of FACTS that you should consider as follows: a- The Van Allen Belts were discovered in 1958, however the degree of radiation and the effects of the radiation on spacecraft and people was a big mystery at the time of the Apollo missions. It's argued that NASA should have included some type of radiation barrier in the space craft AND the space suits. If you do your research (which you obviously haven't), none of the Apollo Missions were equipped to deal with any sort of radiation. You could argue that this was irresponsible of NASA, but you could also argue that it was because they didn't need to pay for something they were never going to use... Keep in mind, the Apollo missions are the ONLY manned space missions that EVER supposedly travelled over 20,000 miles THROUGH the Van Allen Belts, then 200,000 Miles WELL BEYOND the Van Allen Belts, TEN TIMES FURTHER than any other space missions (Before or since), Then walked on the moon, , Travelled All the way 200,000 miles back (Again, ten times further than ANY OTHER Space mission before or since)... Then they traveled about 30,000 MILES BACK THROUGH the Van-Allen Radiation belts, (NOT EQUIPPED with any sort of Radiation Shielding), and landed safely on the Earth, where they LOST ALL THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE of said "moon walk" which footage we DO HAVE NOW is a known hoax... b- When BART SIBREL asked one of the Astronauts he was interviewing (included towards the end of this video), The Apollo Astronaut was asked, "Did your mission travel through the Van Allen Belts???" He answered, "I don't think we traveled through the belts"... So Bart asks, "Did you have any ill effects, or notice anything weird???" He answered, "No, if we went through them, we didn't know it, and didn't notice anything"... c- At this point, you would think this is odd, but to clarify, The international space station (I believe), got around 300 miles away from the Van Allen Belts (Which is WAY closer than any other mission or most existing satellites ever get), 300 miles away, and the astronauts noticed SHOOTING STARS, EVEN WITH THEIR EYES CLOSED, which was obviously associated with them being about 300 miles away from the radiation belts. d- When Bart Sibrel Points this fact out during the interview, The astronaut suddenly CHANGES HIS STORY, and says, "Yes, we saw shooting stars with our eyes closed", a direct contradiction in testimony. Were that a court of law, he could have been jailed for PERJURY!!! e- Furthermore, the astronaut goes on and on and on about all the different ways he saw SHOOTING STARS, but then realizes that he's JUST PERJURED himself, and retracts his statement, by asserting TOTAL IGNORANCE of the Van Allen belts during that mission, because (and I QUOTE): "They hadn't been discovered yet"... ---Do you see, now why the story about the Van Allen belts PROVES that the Astronaut was lying!!! If you didn't get it before, certainly you get it now, RIGHT? 2 - The point I'm making with the NAZIs of project paperclip doesn't prove NASA is EVIL, however it DOES INDEED prove that NASA is a deceptive organization, since its very inception. Could you imagine if President Bush would have secretly consripted a bunch of "Muslim extremists" to run a government program, provide them with big salaries right after 9/11? The Nazi's were supposed to be our enemies, and some of those scientists would have been considered as such to the general public. That's why they did it all secretly. If not for the freedome of information act, we would have NEVER gotten an admission from the government about paperclip and other similar clandestine programs. 3 - Where did you learn to do math? To figure a circumference, you need to do PHI x Radius x Radius.. (or 3.14 x R2)... So IF the earth were a circle, and it had a radius of 4000 miles, then it would have a circumferance of over 50 MILLION MILES! (not 8,000 miles)... Furthermore, you're not factoring-in the laws of perspective. Would you assert that a perfectly straight train-track would appear to be perfectly straight "to infinity"? NO, it would appear to terminate at the vanishing point, in adherance to the laws of perspective. People often mistake the vanishing point with actualy infinity, however the horizon is simply the perspective vanishing point. The fact that we can see perfectly vertical, perpendicular (to the horizon) buildings from over 50 miles away AT SEA LEVEL, is proof that our world is NOT a globe! Even if you could somehow gain enough altitude on a globe to see a building 50 miles away, you'd find that it SHOULD appear to slant away from your perspective. 4 - If you believe that you've seen the curve of the earth from a weather-balloon camera, it's because of the "fish-eye" lenses used. The perfectly flat horizon will appear to curve in all sorts of different directions.. What we DO see is a perfectly eye-level horizon, regardless of altitutde. Again, the reason the horizon appears to terminate has to do with the laws of perspective.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
drunk dog posted:a lot of the time i get trolled on the internet by people hyping up lovely you tube links. your posts are not that ya 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
it sounds to me like these guys are just using the "flat earth" flag to draw attention to their real issue, which is questioning things and seeking out understanding for oneself rather than simply accepting what authority figures tell you sounds like they are trying to be like modern day socrates and they are using a contentious point as click bait
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:it sounds to me like these guys are just using the "flat earth" flag to draw attention to their real issue, which is questioning things and seeking out understanding for oneself rather than simply accepting what authority figures tell you It isn't a contentious point because that term implies there is some sort of controversy, and there is no controversy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 07:38 |
|
|
Hey, maybe just a thought, but consider putting more effort into your OP, OP.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 15:19
|
|
