Jump to content

Mr. Nice

Members
  • Posts

    568
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mr. Nice

  1. Let me explain something here. The polar diameter and the circumference are tied together by pi. At best the ancients had figured out that a circle circumference is 3.142 times the size of the diameter. What are you seeing that I am missing?
  2. Does it? Why that crazy figure he uses. I'll address it later.
  3. It does, but there are no distances that this matters to visible observation - no short change of any note effectively. It's accurate enough for all human visibility statements.
  4. It's a bit of old cobblers. He's plucked figures from somewhere and kind of got them to work. There is no way they could know either of those two measurements.
  5. It is for a massive parabola, but for short distances there is virtually no difference. The bottom of a parabola overlays a circle very closely.
  6. I have been blocked from posting outside the members only area. Censorship and the opposite of what Icke preaches.
  7. Being a truth seeker, did you at any time seek to verify the claims this big pile of guff refers to? Why not!? Rebuttals to Eric Dubay’s “200 Proofs Earth is not a Spinning Ball” – FlatEarth.ws
  8. I find it quite sad really - just refusing to debate honestly
  9. It's close enough for both - at sea level and ignoring refraction. The squaring works for an entire parabola but just the bottom part of the Earth curve. So if you took your circle above, perhaps a 10 degree segment would be accurate, then as you went higher around, it becomes less and less accurate. It's ok for short distances, 10 degrees on that circle is 2,500 miles. I wouldn't accurately like to use it for more than a hundred miles though. Curvature = Miles squared multiplied by 8 inches. Eight Inches Per Mile Squared – FlatEarth.ws
  10. Rudeness, hope somebody logs that somewhere Notice everyone how he didn't actually address the video. Are we seeing a pattern yet again?
  11. Is it? Says who? I ask because it would appear that you are taking facts from a group of scientists who tell you how they know this - clue - it's a planet. The world is pretty damn big. The curve of the oceans is so small that those who don't like science can be forgiven for thinking it's flat. But it has a gentle curve. That is a lie. Every single large structure in the world have the top of the suspension bridges farther apart than the bottom. Another lie. They just set local levels for sea-level because as they go around the curve, the local level changes accordingly. Suez Canal – FlatEarth.ws Wow, lots of lies in one post: Nope, really it isn't. Go to the clue shop and buy one.
  12. I watched. I learnt that even with 12 minutes of video the guy still couldn't explain it. He said they weren't in a straight line, which is completely irrelevant. He said it was an illusion and gave no other reason except that they weren't exactly straight linear. None of that alters the fact that they disappear over the horizon just like dozens of images of wind turbines, ships and oooh, let's not forget the bleedin' Sun! Nonsense. Don't attribute your personal failure to accomplish this as factual for everyone. p.s. That Comedy Time bloke sure kicked everyone's butt didn't he!
  13. That is correct. Can you explain the motions and energies involved that contradict that scenario?
  14. No it isn't. That is a piece of deception by a conspiracy theorist who created that meme. Identify the NASA picture containing Devon Island. You can't and won't because none exists.
  15. Nonsense. It is a chunk of rock similar to Earth's coalesced to form an orbiting body around a quarter of a million miles from Earth. It has no energy waves detectable by any instrument known to man that affect our bodies. As for spirit and soul, the sight of it is very often an uplifting experience. Are you suggesting that the Moon is not solid? In which case you explain all the data coming from it from space missions. Point the receiver at it etc. Explain how people like David Icke are somehow mistaken when they refer to it "ringing like a bell" when one of the NASA craft impacted it and one of the Apollo seismology experiments detected it and transmitted the data to Earth. That paragraph barely scratches the surface, we also have Moon bounces from amateur radio enthusiasts and laser reflecting from numerous teams over the planet that determine its distance to within a millimetre.
  16. Yes, they always advise when they have. Mostly though, not at all. Apollo never used any. Why is this relevant?
  17. What can't be true? Some twit on Twitter making bare assertions? Little man is a little boy in a peaked cap. How come you suck this up as the "truth" - what was it that convinced you? Another ad hominem comment....do try to argue the subject. If truth is on your side you will prevail.
  18. Disgraceful. So your response to failure in an argument is to go after the poster. I get the impression that you are talking bollocks.
  19. Sheesh, this off topic nonsense gets everywhere doesn't it. Since you are using it inappropriately and inaccurately to suggest lies being told.... For starters the missing tapes were BACKUPS! They were for Apollo 11 telemetry and slow scan TV. Every single piece of data from the mission was recorded on other media, or written down and thousands of reports written accordingly. They were not lost, but overwritten at a time when these kinds of backup tapes were in short supply. And what? You cite NASA telling you about this as proof that they lie? A lie. Debunked to death. Click grey arrow top right corner:
  20. Are you an alternative misinfo "fanboi"? I already said news media doesn't exactly thrill me....but your opinions on this are just that....opinions. I don't share your conclusion.
×
×
  • Create New...