RugbyRebels

zer0 wrote:I'm interested in how one could circumnavigate a flat earth.

This is how they are saying the earth really looks, with the North Pole in the middle, and with Antarctica being the edge. So as you can see from this you can still sail around the world. By the way, no one is allowed to explore Antarctica, you can go on official excursions, where they tell you when and where to go, but no one is allowed to get an expedition together and set off to see if they can cross Antarctica as people have done with the North Pole. It can't be done, you won't be allowed to do it, no matter how much money or resource's you have.

Whats on the other side?

Lord Lucan wrote:This is how they are saying the earth really looks, with the North Pole in the middle, and with Antarctica being the edge. So as you can see from this you can still sail around the world. By the way, no one is allowed to explore Antarctica, you can go on official excursions, where they tell you when and where to go, but no one is allowed to get an expedition together and set off to see if they can cross Antarctica as people have done with the North Pole. It can't be done, you won't be allowed to do it, no matter how much money or resource's you have.

That's just the globe mapped out with the Azimuthal equidistant projection. But its use here begs the question, if the earth is flat, why would you need a projection system to map it? Should it not translate seamlessly onto a flat surface, such as a map or computer screen? Why all the spatial distortion?

zer0 wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:This is how they are saying the earth really looks, with the North Pole in the middle, and with Antarctica being the edge. So as you can see from this you can still sail around the world. By the way, no one is allowed to explore Antarctica, you can go on official excursions, where they tell you when and where to go, but no one is allowed to get an expedition together and set off to see if they can cross Antarctica as people have done with the North Pole. It can't be done, you won't be allowed to do it, no matter how much money or resource's you have.

That's just the globe mapped out with the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal ... projection]Azimuthal equidistant projection[url]. But its use here begs the question, if the earth is flat, why would you need a projection system to map it? Should it not translate seamlessly onto a flat surface, such as a map or computer screen? Why all the spatial distortion?

How would you find a perfect image or map of flat earth when we are told the earth is round? flat earth is not supposed to exist, so any "supposed" image or map you can find will have its flaws. The only way to get a precise image of the earth would be to photograph it from space, but if the flat earth theory is true we cannot go into space, so this is not possible.
Now if the earth really is a globe as we are told, and we can go into space, in this day and age when people are obsessed with photos, millions are taken every day and passed around on Facebook and what have you, why are pictures of the earth from space so few in number? you would think we would have an unlimited amount of shots of the earth to admire, yet the ones we have are few in number, and they have been photoshopped, and why do they all look so different, continents are different sizes, the colours are different, why is this?

Besides the frequent pictures of Earth sent down from the ISS on a regular basis?

Lord Lucan wrote:How would you find a perfect image or map of flat earth when we are told the earth is round? flat earth is not supposed to exist, so any "supposed" image or map you can find will have its flaws. The only way to get a precise image of the earth would be to photograph it from space, but if the flat earth theory is true we cannot go into space, so this is not possible.

Why not? Is this flat earth sitting inside a box which prohibits travel above a certain height? Besides, if the north pole is the centre, then you have a reference point from which to perform a bunch of geometry from. Producing a geographically true map of a flat earth without satellite imagery shouldn't be that hard.

Lord Lucan wrote:Now if the earth really is a globe as we are told, and we can go into space, in this day and age when people are obsessed with photos, millions are taken every day and passed around on Facebook and what have you, why are pictures of the earth from space so few in number? you would think we would have an unlimited amount of shots of the earth to admire...

Cas has already pointed out one stream of orbital imagery. There's also the USGS, ESA and NOAA. As for why you wont find much of the imagery on social media, we have the infrastructure to support and share millions of images per minute, but do not currently the infrastructure to send any Tom, Dick and Harry into orbit. Once you have that infrastructure, then the deluge of user-submitted photos will follow.

Lord Lucan wrote:...yet the ones we have are few in number, and they have been photoshopped, and why do they all look so different, continents are different sizes, the colours are different, why is this?

Colour differences are largely down to the spectral purposes and specifications of the satellites, and the earth itself. Not only will North America in winter look very different to North America in summer, but the image colours may look different depending on whether a LANDSAT, SPOT or IKONOS satellite was used, for example. Post-processing can also change colours, depending on the needs of the authors.

Another wonder of mine, how does aircraft pilots use of the great-circle route fit into the flat earth theory?

Couple of questions.

1. Lucan is an obvious troll - why are y'all engaging with him?

2. If you happen to think that he's honestly deluded; do you really think that anything anyone can say would change his mind? His version of physics flies in the face of rationality; so rational discussion isn't going to make the slightest difference. So why y'all engaging with him?

Which Tyler wrote:Couple of questions.

1. Lucan is an obvious troll - why are y'all engaging with him?

This


But then, I originally thought that about Rowan

Stones of granite wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Couple of questions.

1. Lucan is an obvious troll - why are y'all engaging with him?

This


But then, I originally thought that about Rowan

& you don't even have the intelligence to see the irony in that comment . . .

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Couple of questions.

1. Lucan is an obvious troll - why are y'all engaging with him?

This


But then, I originally thought that about Rowan

& you don't even have the intelligence to see the irony in that comment . . .

But of course, it was tongue in cheek.

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote: This


But then, I originally thought that about Rowan

& you don't even have the intelligence to see the irony in that comment . . .

But of course, it was tongue in cheek.

Then you should have used this rolling eyes emoticon to help us identify your razor sharp wit . . .

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:
& you don't even have the intelligence to see the irony in that comment . . .

But of course, it was tongue in cheek.

Then you should have used this rolling eyes emoticon to help us identify your razor sharp wit . . .

Ah yes, rolling eyes emoticon. The moron's assistant.

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:
But of course, it was tongue in cheek.

Then you should have used this rolling eyes emoticon to help us identify your razor sharp wit . . .

Ah yes, rolling eyes emoticon. The moron's assistant.

You forgot to use it again, so that your comment just comes across as banal, school yard bitchiness...

rowan wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

rowan wrote:
Then you should have used this rolling eyes emoticon to help us identify your razor sharp wit . . .

Ah yes, rolling eyes emoticon. The moron's assistant.

You forgot to use it again, so that your comment just comes across as banal, school yard bitchiness...

No, I didn't forget.

Which Tyler wrote:Couple of questions.

1. Lucan is an obvious troll - why are y'all engaging with him?

2. If you happen to think that he's honestly deluded; do you really think that anything anyone can say would change his mind? His version of physics flies in the face of rationality; so rational discussion isn't going to make the slightest difference. So why y'all engaging with him?

In my case, it is/was interest in seeing some of the reasoning and explanations. Whether he's WUMing or genuine doesn't really matter too much to me.

Which Tyler wrote:Couple of questions.

1. Lucan is an obvious troll - why are y'all engaging with him?

2. If you happen to think that he's honestly deluded; do you really think that anything anyone can say would change his mind? His version of physics flies in the face of rationality; so rational discussion isn't going to make the slightest difference. So why y'all engaging with him?

He is, without a doubt, having an absolute laff. And fair play to him, its actually quite difficult pretending you have the intelligence of a 7 year old chimpanzee.

zer0 wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:How would you find a perfect image or map of flat earth when we are told the earth is round? flat earth is not supposed to exist, so any "supposed" image or map you can find will have its flaws. The only way to get a precise image of the earth would be to photograph it from space, but if the flat earth theory is true we cannot go into space, so this is not possible.

Why not? Is this flat earth sitting inside a box which prohibits travel above a certain height? Besides, if the north pole is the centre, then you have a reference point from which to perform a bunch of geometry from. Producing a geographically true map of a flat earth without satellite imagery shouldn't be that hard.

Lord Lucan wrote:Now if the earth really is a globe as we are told, and we can go into space, in this day and age when people are obsessed with photos, millions are taken every day and passed around on Facebook and what have you, why are pictures of the earth from space so few in number? you would think we would have an unlimited amount of shots of the earth to admire...

Cas has already pointed out one stream of orbital imagery. There's also the USGS, ESA and NOAA. As for why you wont find much of the imagery on social media, we have the infrastructure to support and share millions of images per minute, but do not currently the infrastructure to send any Tom, Dick and Harry into orbit. Once you have that infrastructure, then the deluge of user-submitted photos will follow.

Lord Lucan wrote:...yet the ones we have are few in number, and they have been photoshopped, and why do they all look so different, continents are different sizes, the colours are different, why is this?

Colour differences are largely down to the spectral purposes and specifications of the satellites, and the earth itself. Not only will North America in winter look very different to North America in summer, but the image colours may look different depending on whether a LANDSAT, SPOT or IKONOS satellite was used, for example. Post-processing can also change colours, depending on the needs of the authors.

Another wonder of mine, how does aircraft pilots use of the great-circle route fit into the flat earth theory?

I don't profess to be an expert in this area, I have only been looking into it recently, but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can, later, I'll be back.
The reaction from the others is natural, when you are taught something from childhood, its very difficult to try and get your head around it, when you are then told its not true, this is why its the best kept, and easiest kept secret in the world today. Those in the know are laughing at us.

Wot, like that Bad News roadies in your YouTube vids?

If hes taking the piss out of us (me) its a masterclass. Think Carter vs the Lions 2005

Len wrote:Think Carter vs the Lions 2005

I'd really rather not.

Stones of granite wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Couple of questions.

1. Lucan is an obvious troll - why are y'all engaging with him?

This


But then, I originally thought that about Rowan

I'm still 50/50 on Rowan being a troll or just daft enough to believe the tripe he posts

Digby wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Couple of questions.

1. Lucan is an obvious troll - why are y'all engaging with him?

This


But then, I originally thought that about Rowan

I'm still 50/50 on Rowan being a troll or just daft enough to believe the tripe he posts

& you lack the intelligence to see the glaring hypocrisy in that post. Loser

zer0 wrote:

Lord Lucan wrote:How would you find a perfect image or map of flat earth when we are told the earth is round? flat earth is not supposed to exist, so any "supposed" image or map you can find will have its flaws. The only way to get a precise image of the earth would be to photograph it from space, but if the flat earth theory is true we cannot go into space, so this is not possible.

Why not? Is this flat earth sitting inside a box which prohibits travel above a certain height? Besides, if the north pole is the centre, then you have a reference point from which to perform a bunch of geometry from. Producing a geographically true map of a flat earth without satellite imagery shouldn't be that hard.

Lord Lucan wrote:Now if the earth really is a globe as we are told, and we can go into space, in this day and age when people are obsessed with photos, millions are taken every day and passed around on Facebook and what have you, why are pictures of the earth from space so few in number? you would think we would have an unlimited amount of shots of the earth to admire...

Cas has already pointed out one stream of orbital imagery. There's also the USGS, ESA and NOAA. As for why you wont find much of the imagery on social media, we have the infrastructure to support and share millions of images per minute, but do not currently the infrastructure to send any Tom, Dick and Harry into orbit. Once you have that infrastructure, then the deluge of user-submitted photos will follow.

Lord Lucan wrote:...yet the ones we have are few in number, and they have been photoshopped, and why do they all look so different, continents are different sizes, the colours are different, why is this?

Colour differences are largely down to the spectral purposes and specifications of the satellites, and the earth itself. Not only will North America in winter look very different to North America in summer, but the image colours may look different depending on whether a LANDSAT, SPOT or IKONOS satellite was used, for example. Post-processing can also change colours, depending on the needs of the authors.

Another wonder of mine, how does aircraft pilots use of the great-circle route fit into the flat earth theory?

To fully understand the flat earth, you have to start from the beginning.
The flat earth is being hidden from us to deny the existence of God, the creator. The luciferian cults that rule the world want us to think we are insignificant, thats why they have us believing we are living on a spherical planet, one of billions in an infinite universe. We supposedly arrived here totally by accident, in a big bang, which formed the earth, then went on to form all life and plant forms. We are to believe all this happened by accident, all the complex and beautiful creatures we see today, were all formed just by chance.
On top of that the earth is said to spin at 1000 mph, and then the earth is said to orbit around the sun at 70,000 mph, at the same time we are held by the suns gravity while it hurtles at an astonishing 450,000 mph around the galaxy. As if that wasn't bad enough our galaxy is said to be in a constant spinning motion like an enormous pinwheel. We have all that motion yet we don't feel a thing here on earth, and we see the same star formations every night, an amazing feat of juggling by anyone's standards, and we are supposed to believe all this.

To answer your first question, the flat earth theory says the earth is the centre of the universe, it goes around us, the earth is encased in a dome, or firmament as it is called. In the 60s the USA and Russia did high altitude nuclear tests, loads of them, flat earthers say it was an attempt to break through the dome. This can be looked up under operation Dominic and operation fishbowl.

Orbital imagery from the ISS is just computer generated imagery, you can see in the film Gravity how realistic they can make it look. If the images from the ISS are real, why can you never see any satellites on their imagery? There are supposed to be thousands up there, surely you could see one, but you can't see any, and how do all these satellites avoid hitting each other, they must have magnificent collision avoidance systems.

Not sure about the great circle route, but as you mention flying, pilots would have to constantly keep adjusting their planes in a downward curve wouldn't they? in keeping with the curvature of the earth, if they flew in a straight line they would end up flying out into orbit wouldn't they?
Another thing, southern hemisphere flights would be a lot longer on a flat earth.

Looking at that map makes me wonder why they don't stage some Super Rugby and Rugby Championship games in Antarctica. Relatively short trip for all concerned - except the Japanese imposters...

rowan wrote:Looking at that map makes me wonder why they don't stage some Super Rugby and Rugby Championship games in Antarctica. Relatively short trip for all concerned - except the Japanese imposters...

What they are saying is that direct flights don't exist, as you cannot cross Antarctica like in the diagram, on a flat earth the distances are greater. You will see some fake direct flights offered, but all the flights go by way of stop overs, in Dubai, North America, places like that, which make no sense on a ball earth, but make perfect sense when mapped out on a flat earth.