Jump to content

Comedy Time

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Comedy Time

  1. 9 hours ago, zArk said:

     typically refuting the start and end of the eclipse to maintain your model because the spherists didnt predict the eclipse or its path ... that was done by much cleverer people . people who didnt make up crappy pappy sphere nonsense. the Saros cycle details the eclipse and spherists must use it to pretend they predict it but also deny the start and end

    gah ... its pathetic


    Keep them toys in the pram dude😄.  The problem is you and your much "cleverer" people being unable to understand things that even small children would see.


    The MP4 shows the way it works.


    9 hours ago, zArk said:

    the bloody umbra is too small in the cgi models .. look at the data.

    look at your sun size, distance, the moon size distance and then the size of the umbra.. its ridiculous

    the observed real doesnt match the sphere model at all




    You are talking "50 tons of bollocks". Penumbra looks perfect size. Look at the point on the globe where the FULL shadow arrives JUST as daylight begins. It is WEST of the first viewable area of the Penumbra






  2. 9 hours ago, zArk said:

    and we must revisit the disappearing moon prior and post eclipse


    you say scattering light i say .. if you can say you see the dark outline of the moon during an eclipse then the moon should have a dark outline prior to the eclipse, it should be a black disc prior and post eclipse but its not there. its not seen, its not identified, its not discovered using high tech


    its not the moon causing the eclipse


    your model says its the moon but your model doesnt fit with the observed data. 


    One of the least intelligent observations I have ever seen. The "dark outline" is the non reflecting Moon blocking a bright object. When the non reflecting Moon is not in the way, it is non reflecting and not visible. If you doubt this stunningly obvious fact then you should seek out an optician. See the bit you can't see? No. You can't see the bit you can't see can you! The bit you can't see keeps getting bigger until you can't see any of it.






    Amazingly, when the atmospheric scattering of the Sun is gone, ie. at night you CAN often see the Moon because then we see the very faint Earth shine.


    9 hours ago, zArk said:

    its not the moon causing the eclipse / your model says its the moon but your model doesnt fit with the observed data. 


    This debate is done. You are repeating yourself and answers have been given that explain it all in copious detail. Go and read them all. Stop relying on videos made by charlatans who make money out of the gullible public.


  3. 19 hours ago, amy G said:

    Good morning everyone. It looks like some missed the point of the video I posted. Please notice where the horizon is in the picture below. I hope we agree that the horizon is behind both platforms as it is clearly visible.




    The above observation was taken from a camera placed just one foot over the water, but to drive this point home, let's assume a camera height of six feet. Mathematics dictates that the horizon must be at three miles for this observation... no more, no less.


    Nope. Mathematics dictates that on a perfect sphere and under zero refraction that would be the case. The far one is a little different when the picture is taken with different air temperatures:



  4. 3 hours ago, amy G said:

    See my response to peter above.


    And that is no problem as it has been replicated and mirrored all over the internet. But now that you seem to understand the problem, will you offer an honest to the video you hand waved away?




    I don't think the horizon problem can be made any more understandable.



    Nice video, look I can't fault the person who made it - I'll assume they are honest. For anyone who doesn't understand what light does at the edges of the horizon it can be very appealing. Sadly it has an easy explanation. You can dismiss it all you like but it is exactly what is going on. Refraction. If you look at how the Buoy varies in what is behind it, that should give you an inkling of how temperature and air density affect light. The problem is YOUR understanding.


    Your video:





    "Ignore everything, research nothing and believe whatever you like"

    Some reading for you to improve your understanding.







    Regarding your request for responses to YOUR stuff, I have about 100 posts on this thread that require explanations. I could summarise them all YET again or you could start playing fair with decent and honest debating and go back and respond.



    How far away is the Sun from any observer when it is 10 degrees above the horizon? Flat earthers say it is 3000 miles ABOVE the Earth, so on the flat Earth its is 3000 miles above the point being observed.


    Here, let me help you out.......


    A=5 degrees

    a=3000 miles


    Distance to Sun equals 34,300 miles!!


    Can you see the problem with the flat Earth?

  5. 1 minute ago, zArk said:

    and the moon moves 0.5 degree orbit



    see the tiny moon just infront of the earth .. in 5 hrs it moves 0.5 degrees on its orbit .... the earth moves 0.2 degrees on its orbit






    You are the problem. The moon is moved closer to show how its shadow moves. The problem with any graphic is that it is impossible to replicate scale. Large sun and far away moon make the same path and shadow. 



  6. 1 hour ago, zArk said:

    50 ton of bollocks its the picture of a sphere apparently rotating westward after pausing for a bit. The moon sun position not even shown its the crown jewel of heliocentrism , its the money shot Earth , moon, sun An impossible combo of size distance movement and the fecker cant be arsed to show it in its glory Obviously too much for the spherists The moon moving 2.5 degrees to earth spin 75 degrees and angular change to sun ...... 1/5 of a degree. Get real and stop with the silly cgi deceivious


    "50 ton of bollocks". 

  7. 1 hour ago, zArk said:


    It is as it is. It is we that observe it 

    The observed data is what doesnt fit with your sphere model. 


    Yes it does. Here. 


    Alternative 1:

    Every single astronomer, cosmologists, physicist, student who has ever studied this is either too dumb to work it out or hiding things. There is an ongoing global conspiracy to lie, deceive and obfuscate involving a cast of unimaginable numbers for hundreds of years.


    Alternative 2:

    You are wrong and don't know want you are talking about.



    Tough one that.


  8. 1 hour ago, zArk said:

    Which it can only do by moving the moon 8 days and the earth 60 days


    So its nonsense therefore any explanation based upon that for the case of a 5hr eclipse is ludicrous


    NO NO NO. It does the same thing in reality and is impossible to draw to scale. It just illustrated that when the shadow us off Earth you can still see the penumbra.


  9. 9 minutes ago, zArk said:

    the diagram wasnt true to spherist model. in your diagram the moon moved on its orbit 8 days, the earth on its sun orbit 60 days and the earth didnt spin.


    It was there to illustrate a point about the visibility of the penumbra. But you know that and besides the MP4, you have repeatedly failed to address, shows the path exactly.


    9 minutes ago, zArk said:

    at the end of the eclipse, as per the data, the sun has gone down. there is no visibility. there is no shadow. the point in the atlantic, as per spherist model, has rotated eastward and now the sun is beyond its horizon. your diagram is not adhering to the spherist model


    Yeah, this is your perception problem. The sun has gone down where the FULL eclipse shadow disappears at the times stated. BUT the penumbra is still visible afterwards. All that left and right hand area is, is the part of Earth that sees only a penumbra BEFORE and AFTER the shadow disappears. 


    Why don't you stop wasting my time and address that post I gave you a week ago? The MP4 video shows it quite clearly.....




    At 15:46 the penumbra becomes visible in the area seen on the large shadow. 

    At 16:48 an hour later, the FULL shadow begins to pass over the Earth.

    At 20:02 3hrs 14 minutes later the FULL shadow disappears off the edge of the Earth.

    Meanwhile the penumbra is still visible.

    It finally disappears at 21:04. There's your 5 hrs 18 mins eclipse duration.


    All exactly as it should.


    9 minutes ago, zArk said:

    as i said, the spherists want to ignore the start and end of the eclipse as not real , not counting as a proper eclipse. the reason the spherists include the start and end of the eclipse is because they are tied to the Saros calculations and must apply the entire eclipse to their globe. when the fact of 'no more runway' rears its head... straight to denying the eclipse


    That is just complete nonsense. It all fits exactly. There are no speed or time discrepancies, no visibility issues. It does exactly what it says it should.


    9 minutes ago, zArk said:

    no, 'we' , the royal we? , is seeing an eclipse of the Sun but spherists are trying to shoehorn it into their model. it doesnt fit


    Yes it does. The problem is your understanding. If there were issues, any one of the millions of astronomers would scream out loud and become famous.


    9 minutes ago, zArk said:

    the eclipse only exists when it is observed on earth o_0 thats the point, aint it.


    Yep. The FULL eclipse is visible when the shadow is being cast on the surface. The partial eclipse is visible before and after this for reasons that are so obvious I cannot believe you are unable to see them.


    Now would you PLEASE watch the bloody MP4 and let the 50 ton penny drop into place.

  10. On 8/6/2020 at 8:33 AM, alexa said:

    Space exist in movies only.




    Space exists whether you like it or not. 


    I'm not going through that entire video only for you to ignore it so I'll address point number one.


    Have you ever seen one piece of film edited into another with a cross fade? That is what we are seeing. And you know what, it's dead easy to prove.


    The following animated gif contains two screen shots, one just before he exits and one immediately after. See all the things "moving"? QED.






  11. 4 minutes ago, alexa said:

    The Bible & Gods word, there are over 200 verses in the Bible that states how the earth is a circle, stationary & fixed, & how it is the sun that moves and not the earth.


    Let God be true but every man a liar. Romans 3-4


    The Bible you say?  Hell's bells, did the superior being dictate it then? Did he sit atop a cloud bellowing down his information? Or did he whisper in these lucky people's ears and tell them this? In modern times, people who "talk to god" tend to pick up automatic weapons and revisit their old schools!


    It's a load of silly old men writing down their nonsense:




  12. 4 hours ago, screamingeagle said:

    you are right


    Yes I know. It carries over 3 times the kinetic energy of a conventional Tomahawk missile. Dare you admit this though, because your response seems once again to be sarcastic.


    4 hours ago, screamingeagle said:

    in fact the plane was soooooooooo big(and kinetic energy) that it didn't fit in the frame of the camera 


    Well in fairness that IS a shitty closed circuit TV shot. There were two of them and one captured something - see below.


    To answer your point though, the kinetic energy being big is not in the least bit relevant to your claim that there is no plane.


    Where is the missile? The impact went INWARDS, so we're back to magic explosions again or something hit the Pentagon. Not rocket science to work this out.

    Do you believe a missile was used? 


    4 hours ago, screamingeagle said:

    can't argue with that kind of physics


    The physics of kinetic energy are as I say irrelevant to your claim. And besides you actually CAN'T argue with it can you?


    4 hours ago, screamingeagle said:



    No need to shout dude, I get it that you have an opinion about this. Watch the video and prove it wrong. Or not, feel free to ignore it.



  13. 1 hour ago, amy G said:

    Good morning everyone. It looks like some missed the point of the video I posted. Please notice where the horizon is in the picture below. I hope we agree that the horizon is behind both platforms as it is clearly visible.




    The above observation was taken from a camera placed just one foot over the water, but to drive this point home, let's assume a camera height of six feet. Mathematics dictates that the horizon must be at three miles for this observation... no more, no less.


    Image source please.

  14. 12 hours ago, screamingeagle said:

    with all that force and kinetic energy we don't need bombs at all......and to think all the work and time that went into development 


    kinetic energy.....yea right 😏



    The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
    = 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
    = 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).


    One 767 on 911 carried 6.22 Gigajoules

    One metric ton of TNT is equal to 4.184 Gigajoules

    Conventional Tomahawk missile is equal to 1.88 Gigajoules.


    Kinetic energy. Yeah right!

  15. 9 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

    They could have possibly blown that section out the building with that wheel stuck in it & if you check the art students "Gelatin - B thing" who occupied that building before hand, they were doing all sorts of strange bizarre shit..accessing the outside of the building.

    There are videos of no plane, just explosion & witnesses.


    Like a comedy "plane-part" cannon? The energy to get that thing moving that distance would be fairly excessive.




    How do you figure they got it to look like that, transport it to wherever they got it to look like that, people to do it, transport it to magic plane-part cannon (who made that), people to do it (yeah - you lot go up in that seriously compromised building that's on fire and blast bits out of the window). Not really likely is it.


    Occam's razor says it was a plane part ejected during impact.

  16. 32 minutes ago, serpentine said:

    They are not nor ever have been here for the opportunity for a discussion.


    Personally I have found this sadly the case on virtually every discussion I have had. There always comes a point when solid counter evidence gets ignored. But the point is, others can see this and maybe not make the same errors. It's very odd that a lot of newbies to a conspiracy will make no effort to check the efficacy of what they read.


    It's why my main interest - space travel - frequently involves what I labelled "whackamole" arguments. 

  17. 2 minutes ago, zArk said:

    theres refraction when you lot want it  lol 




    There's complete denial when the flat earthers want it. I made a small edit to my post above btw. Did you see the video at 4.12?


    2 minutes ago, zArk said:

    the shadow touching the spinning earth at the end of eclipse in the atlantic but i cant blame Heliocentrism for trying to cover this up because it uses the Saros cycle and series to accurately predict and map the eclipse onto the globe model






    This is simply a problem in your interpretation of what those areas mean. They are visibility curves for the partial eclipse on the left and right edges. My diagram that demonstrates this was dismissed by you. The two points I made were not addressed by you. The shadow is very wide as we can see by the green line. That width extends beyond where the shadow ends (into space).


    The Moon penumbra "shadow" which is effectively a varying diminishing of the extremely bright Sun is very big:

    https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/35635/during-an-eclipse-how-big-is-the-shadow-of-the-moon-on-the-earth#:~:text=Typically%2C the umbra is 100–160 km wide%2C while,km. Source%3A Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse

    Typically, the umbra is 100–160 km wide, while the penumbral diameter is in excess of 6400 km. Source: Geometry of a Total Solar Eclipse


    https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/partial-solar-eclipse.html#:~:text=During a partial solar eclipse%2C the Moon's umbra,a place close to one of the poles.

    "During a partial solar eclipse, the Moon's umbra or antumbra, the shadow's center portion, is cast into space just above the polar regions, missing




    2 minutes ago, zArk said:

    because helio models cannot predict the solar eclipses , its tooo much for their calcs, they use the Saros Cycle and they use the predicted path of the shadow. So the start and finish of the solar eclipse is argued against by the spherists because they know the trouble it causes their beliefs


    Of course they can predict the eclipses. It's just a simple computer program with the motion of each astronomical body. It will give exact figures to the second. Saros is used for old timers such as NASA's main eclipse man "All eclipse calculations are by Fred Espenak, and he assumes full responsibility for their accuracy."


    You can also do it manually with simple mathematics.



    Besides SAROS started to go wrong slightly. Luckily the global earth explains it all.



    Saros uses a human version of computing. It recognises that after certain long periods the exact same line up re-occurs, allowing predictions for the next eclipse. Simple.


    2 minutes ago, zArk said:

    they wrap the data around the globe model as much as they can as try to hide the issue yet the solar eclipse figures are there, the helio globe moon data is there and they do not match up together.


    I just cannot understand what you are saying. It all matches exactly. I suggest you download Stellarium and program the times and locations into it to show how the partial eclipse is visible after the shadow is cast beyond the Earth.


    Once again I suggest you watch the animation of the whole thing. BEFORE the eclipse shadow arrives, the penumbra is visible on Earth even though the full eclipse shadow is cast into space. And after.


    2 minutes ago, zArk said:

    the movement of the moon on its orbit places the shadow outside the earth 


    This is your understanding of what we are seeing. That is the problem.




  18. 15 minutes ago, zArk said:

    well not really, i was with carlos opening up the issues with the Solar Eclipse data vs heliocentric maths and calculations

    there are still a couple of unresolved points


    regarding the laser over the water --- other than 'its fake' and 'laser skipping across' there has been no serious rebuttal


    Ok, shall we continue? I got my second wind.


    What are the unresolved issues left?


    The laser in theory can be skipping over the sea but this is 100% light refraction. I want you to go to your video at 4.12 and look at how this dead straight laser can easily be bent through simple temperature gradients and density variations in the sky. If you like I can give you some great mathematics pages that show the looming effects that this is.




    I would add that we have no independent corroboration the heights are as they say - and I really don't trust these people at all. They cannot possibly believe the Earth is flat, it's a big cash cow for them.


  19. 1 hour ago, alexa said:


    I'm sorry Carlos, math's never was my strongest point..............➕➖➗:classic_unsure:


    What is? 


    Your map doesn't work. Even at maximum speed possible the 787 is not going to cover that distance in that time?


    So many things wrong with flat earth, how can this not bother you. There are hundreds of long haul flight discrepancies like this for that impossible map.


    How about the videos. You afraid to respond to them? How do starfields rotate in opposite directions like that? Globe explains all. Flat earth explains not a single thing.

    • Like 1
  • Create New...