Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bflat

  1. I actually feel pretty handcuffed on what I can even say here, but it would be great if this could somehow get to David. @GarethIcke?
  2. I chalk this whole thing up to indoctrination and blind faith. I mean considering there is not one replicable experiment that can be done that shows water curving around a ball or sticking to outside of any spinning shape for that matter, what is left? Logical fallacies? See if this helps: Partnerships Implementing Engineering Education Worcester Polytechnic Institute – Worcester Public Schools Supported by: National Science Found Changing shape of water Grade Level 1 Sessions Session I: Use different containers to show water takes on the shape of it’s container – 15 minute Physical Sciences Identify objects and materials as solid, liquid, or gas. Recognize that solids have a definite shape and that liquids and gases take the shape of their container. Here guys, as always, I beg of you to not take my word or anyone's. Experiment for yourselves. You can try this lesson here: https://web.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/PIEE/1c3.pdf
  3. This is what water actually does in the real world:
  4. They have already moved on to dishonest memes. Take the win, lol.
  5. ***When all they have is purposeful deception, it's time to ask why. Real eyes -----------Realize ------------------- Real Lies
  6. It looks like the balloon blows and that's why we see the apparent free fall.
  7. ...the fool on the hill Sees the sun going down And the eyes in his head See the world spinning 'round...
  8. Look up "replicable." And see the post you literally just quoted. I literally just described the method, as this must be done so those who follow can, in fact, have a chance to either replicate or not replicate the results. Keep in mind, the results will be the raw footage timestamped side-by-side. I hate giving ammo to nasa trolls, but I have issues both with Eric and also his idiot mod who goes by shpankme (or something close). Eric was the guy who gave us the Zetetics and all of their work, but how the hell did he even learn of it? And I love his presentations, but his idea of a research forum is far different than mine. Dude? We in?
  9. Hi, Theo, it's been too long, lol. This is for observational purposes that can then be replicated. That is all.
  10. @ evryone who is scared of facts and physics: --Laser tests over several miles --A 1000 mile horizon taken from a passenger jet --Brian Shul, USAF (retired) seeing Canada from above Tucson, NM at 85,000 feet --Water curving around a ball or any shape has never been proven in any replicable or observable way --Laser experiments show the exact opposite --Multiple emergency landings - pilots, nor ship's captains have ever... they have never used a globe to navigate from - they would be lost which is why they have always used something close to the freemason's UN flag (great circle routes are pure reified idiocy brought to you from disney) Need I go on? Ok, how 'bout nasa's own tech manuals? I'm not talking about the kiddie BS they teach wannabees and 'goy - NOPE - here are their own technical documents. While this makes perfect sense to the loudest handful on here, for those reading along, I would really... really... really...Like you to think about this: NASA Technical Memorandum 104330; Predicted Performance of a Thrust-Enhanced SR-71 Aircraft with an External Payload (Page 8 - Digital Performance Simulation Description) "The DPS equations of motion use four assumptions ... a nonrotating Earth." https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88507main_H-2179.pdf NASA Technical Note: A Method for Reducing The Sensitivity of Optimal Nonlinear Systems to Parameter Uncertainty (Page 12 Problem Statement) ... "(2) A flat, nonrotating Earth" https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710018599.pdf NASA Technical Note; Calculation of Wind Compensation for Launching of Unguided Rockets (Page 8 Trajectory Simulation, 2nd Paragraph) ..."this simulation assumes ... the missile position in space is computed relative to a flat nonrotating Earth" https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040008097.pdf NASA Technical Paper 2768; User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models (Page 12, Program Overview) ... “Within the program, the nonlinear equations of motion include 12 states representing a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth” https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88072main_H-1259.pdf NASA Technical Paper 2835; "User's Manual for LINEAR, a FORTRAN Program to Derive Linear Aircraft Models" (Page 1, Summary) AND (Page 126 , Report Documentation Page, Section 16) "The nonlinear equations of motion used are six-degree-of-freedom equations with stationary atmosphere and flat, nonrotating earth assumptions." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890007066.pdf NASA Technical Memorandum; Determination of Angles of Attack and Sideslip from Radar Data and a Roll Stabilized Platform (Page 2, Section 16.) “The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth may be assumed.” NASA Contractor Report 186019; An Aircraft Model for the AIAA Controls Design Challenge (Page 11, Equation of Motion and Atmospheric Model) ... “The nonlinear equations of motion used in this model are general six-degree-of-freedom equations representing the flight dynamics of a rigid aircraft flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat nonrotating Earth.” https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88248main_H-1777.pdf NASA Contractor Report 3073; Investigation of Aircraft Landing in Variable Wind Fields (Page 6, Chapter II - Aircraft Landing Model) ... "The Aircraft trajectory model employed in this study was derived based on the following assumptions: a) The Earth is flat and non-rotating. " https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19790005472.pdf NASA Technical Memorandum 81238; A Mathematical Model of the CH-53 Helicopter (Page 17, Equations of Motion) .. "The helicopter equations of motion are given in body axes with respect to a flat, nonrotating Earth." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810003557.pdf Engineering Experiment Station, Georgia Institute of Technology, Prepared for NASA; Atmospheric Oscillations (Page 10) ... "A model frequently used is that of a flat, nonrotating earth." ... (next paragraph) .. "The most one can profitably simplify the problem is to consider an isothermal atmosphere, plane level surface, and a nonrotating Earth." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650015408.pdf NASA Tecnical Paper 2002-210718; Stability and Control Estimation Flight Test Results for the SR-71 Aircraft With Externally Mounted Experiments (Pages 10-11 Equations of Motion) ... "These equations assume a rigid vehicle and a flat, nonrotating Earth." https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88733main_H-2465.pdf NASA Technical Memorandum 100996; Flight Testing a VSTOL Aircraft to Identify a Full-Envelope Aerodynamic Model (Pages 4-5, State Estimation) ... “For aircraft problems, the state and measurement models together represent the kinematics of a rigid body for describing motion over a flat, nonrotating Earth…” https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19880014378.pdf NASA Ames Research Center; Singular Arc Time-Optimal Climb Trajectory of Aircraft in a Two-Dimensional Wind Field (Page 2, Section II. Singular Arc Optimal Control) ... “In our minimum time-to-climb problem, the aircraft is modeled as a point mass and the flight trajectory is strictly confined in a vertical plane on a non-rotating, flat Earth." https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20060053337.pdf
  11. Sure, no problem and I am not claiming proof, nor do I have time to research the RAS from the middle of the 1800s. As our technology continues to improve, however, the things we will continue to see will leave the globe believers as a gigantic minority. It's the horizon that doesn't lie. It is the fact that water does not bend around anything, let alone a spinning, whirling, wobbling ball. The laser experiments do not lie. Freemasons do.
  12. It is an unproven claim to get past the observations that destroy their model.
  13. Prove that please. Several observations even below 20 degrees south have been recorded multiple times by navigators and some of these observations have been documented by the Royal Astronomical Society. The Zetetics were frequently in contact with the RAS and if you really want to search online, these discussions can be found in their literature and notations. Also, be aware that it is known that Ursa Major (near Polaris) can be seen from 90 degrees North to 30 degrees South.
  14. That video is ridiculous! At 50 seconds a boat crosses in front of the target boat and a second or two later the boat just appears to drop a foot or two. That is impossible on any model that I have ever seen! What follows are just three of six million videos that actually require explanation. I mean honestly now, how many multiples of miles past where the geometric horizon needs to be do we need to go before people open their eyes to see what has been right in front of them for their entire lives? Good luck with that!
  15. You chose to sign up here for that? Please tell me more about your beliefs, or better yet, you could prove them and end this.
  16. No, you can work out the speed the stars travel at. You do not move as the earth has not moved since creation. I have shown videos, time lapse of exactly what happens and every star makes perfect concentric circles around Polaris EXACTLY AS IT APPEARS! GOOGLE "STAR TRAILS AROUND POLARIS!" Total reification falacy.. c'mon, be fair. Just prove it! This is what started the whole thing... alexa asking you quite simply for your "facts" to be true!
  17. Well, I have no idea as the math I used is really pretty basic and accepted even by nasa, I assure you. You can argue all your reified fallacies as much as you like, but that does not change the actual math. Make no mistake, when you hit a golf ball directly north from the equator, for every ten seconds that ball is in the air, the hole will have moved nearly three miles. You can't change that... no one can. For if that changes, the entire heliocentric paradigm collapses. Here, let's try lesson two of our nasa math 101 series, lol. You are again standing directly on the equator, but this time you will be driving the ball directly down the equator to the west to a hole that is 350 yards away and there is no wind. You are still an alien who hits perfectly straight, 350 yards every single time. QUESTION: What happens?
  18. Well, if you read the OP, under point one, I posted a video that I hoped would clear up this exact situation. Here it is again. What this is is an open sourced 3d model of what we should see from a hot air balloon, yet never do. Be sure to pause the video at 20 miles as it continues all the way to 154 miles. Most find the side-by-side comparison unmistakable, but I am really curious as to your take.
  19. Ok, let's see. Nasa math is really pretty basic.; I hope you can follow below. Modern astronomy claims that earth spins west to east at about 1000 mph on the equator where you have struck the ball. So: 1000/60=16.67 <---this gives us miles per minute since there are 60 minutes in one hour Now. because there are 60 seconds in one minute, let's divide that by 6 to determine how far that hole moves in just 10 seconds. 16.67/6=2.77 <---Thus we can conclude that the hole AMAZINGLY moves over 2 3/4 or nearly three miles every ten seconds! Quite a drive, yes?
  20. With all due respect, you have offered no proof of any axial speed at all. What you have done is googled it and repeated the claim. Modern Astronomy claims that the earth rotates at approximately 1000 mph on the equator. It is because they claim we live on a sphere that speeds reduce the farther north or south that you go, that at every single latitude, whether north or south, spins at the same speed (ie. 45n and 45s or 30n and 30s, etc.). All you have done is repeat the claim, fair? Are we on the same page thus far? What alexa asked for and what I have been begging for are for these CLAIMS to be shown to be TRUE. Can you do that or not? That is the question... we all know the claim now (hopefully).
  21. Sure I'm not busy, lol. Posted Tuesday at 12:42 PM l'm busy now. Let's talk later. This was relating to this meme showing the most basic concepts that must be true if we are to believe in heliocentrism: This goes back a page prior where alexa had simply asked for your facts to be true. I asked you about the first one. You didn't reply. I asked you to try the second and the same thing happened. This is especially odd since these are literally the two most basic concepts THAT MUST BE TRUE - axial and orbital speeds! I then asked you to choose any of them, just one, and that is where your reply about handling it later that I bolded above came in.
  22. First off, I have never tried it. Have you? Secondly, I have pretty much begged y'all to familiarize yourselves with some of the most widely understood logical fallacies. You still have not grasped the one concerning false equivalence. False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges". Lastly, just a page back I responded to similar questions from @Grumpy Owl. Again, what you both are talking about are CLOSED SYSTEMS! Modern astronomy claims our atmosphere that gravity can spin perfectly with our world exists at some point (which THEY STILL REFUSE TO DEFINE) next to a 10^-17 torr vacuum. I have begged many times for y'all again to understand the implications here. Think! Here, you once again rely on the reification fallacy and combine it with the false equivalence you established for yourself prior. I wasn't really trying to confuse you. All this paranoia aside, I was actually trying to see if any of the heliocentrists even realized how far that hole MUST move if heliocentrism is to be believed. For fun, do the math... I will bet you will be amazed. And let's make it even easier and just consider the hang time of the ball or let's say on a massive drive, the ball has been known to be in the air for 20 seconds. Do the math on just 10 seconds and amaze the whole family. We can call this little subsection of the discussion: nasa math101
  • Create New...