Jump to content

Flat Earth: the last thread about this subject on this forum


 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, alexa said:

 

Maybe I need a bit more blue-sky approach to interactive strategic projections.✈️

 

You couldnt sell a lifeboat to a drowning man surrounded by hungry sharks.😂

Edited by oddsnsods
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This software you can track sats over your country & detect them with ham radio______ then time them as they orbit if you feel the need____________could even spot them with a telescope maybe.

I find it really interesting_________________________easy to figure out also & isolate the sat you wish to track______________________________

If you know the Satellites orbit height & type can easily figure out earths rotation speed also__________________

https://aerospace.csis.org/aerospace101/popular-orbits-101/

 

http://celestrak.com/cesium/orbit-viz.php?tle=/pub/TLE/catalog.txt&satcat=/pub/satcat.txt&referenceFrame=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

Reality check.

Oh well, pick and choose your science and fundamental principals

 

Cognitive dissonance is rampant

 

The helio science shows how the [atmosphere] is a massive reflective, refracting and dampening zone for EMF trying to pass through it but of course the signal must be bouncing da moon because 'its all in their heads'

 

  • No proof of the signal bouncing the moon
  • the helio science supports the impossibility and the total possibility 🤦‍♂️
Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

Geo stationery ham radio sat.. travelling same speed as Earth______________________________________

 

 

 

really? any actual photos of the Es’hail-2?

i cant seem to find any construction pictures or finished product pictures. I

I see photos, cgi, a rocket taking off but cant find photos of the Es’hail-2.

 

https://www.eshailsat.qa/ just shows a rocket. wheres the smegging sat?

 

https://www.eshailsat.qa/en/satellites/index/ << just shows CGI image

 

very odd

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

 

Learn about frequency bands & microwaves, you just look a clown, even I can see & no point sourcing anything as you dont read or wish to know if it doesnt fit your bias. Yet cant source nothing when asked.

This page I posted already will answer all your questions.

 

Tropopheric & Ionospheric Effects on EME Moonbounce

https://vu2nsb.com/amateur-satellite-radio/eme-moonbounce-communication/

 

 

blah blah blah, blah blah blah

 

Just tip your science out the window, introduce your [in the moment] science then tip that and reuse the original science

 

flipflopmoon.jpg.e0778d5a291aafddfcf843b863fd04c0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prince William slams the billionaires' space race and says they should focus on fixing Earth's problems first - in stunning intervention hours after Amazon chief Jeff Bezos sent Star Trek's William Shatner into orbit. 

William has said his father Prince Charles was 'well ahead of the curve' on the environment in BBC interview

 

😂😂😂

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10088619/Prince-William-slams-space-race.html

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, zArk said:

yes i did. That query you had has been responded to adequately, i have nothing more to add to it. I am satisfied. 

you can reject it if you wish.

since you are always bringing up lasers across lakes as evidence that the earth is flat ,I will let you know why I believe there is a fundamental flaw in those experiments. First off I will assume that the basic premise of these videos is that the laser will travel in a straight line to the other side of the lake,not having watched them lets say 20 or 30 miles and since the earth is curved. at that distance, it should be impossible and therefore the earth cant be a globe with curvature so by logical deduction the earth must be flat.

Now look at the scale, a lake no matter how big,it is minuscule to the earth , we have also herd on more than one occasion that water finds it's own level as evidence the earth is flat ,and yes it does in a container ( unless we are talking about the oceans and gravity), so no matter how big a lake is it is essentially just a container for the water and therefore one would expect the level of the water to be flat ,and as such isolated from the curvature of the earth, to me these types of videos are nothing more than a  cleaver magicians slight of hand and the same could be said for your fence  logic as well.

In my estimation the only experiment of this nature that could have any validity what so ever should be held at see level with regards to the ocean, however I can still see problems with ,air pressure, wind, temperature, time of day , mirage , salt content of surrounding air, refraction, reflection, humidity etc etc 

 

The only thing you put up was the bit that said this was my last post, nothing of the above was shown

 

 

This was your reply

experiments were at two locations:

lake balaton hungry

lake ijssel holland.

Lake ijssel is a closed off inlet bay 0m surface elevation

Lake balaton is at 100m surface elevation

 

when I said you hadn't commented  this was you further reply

 

i pretty much did, Lake Ijssell is a closed inlet bay.

 

Then your final reply

yes i did. That query you had has been responded to adequately, i have nothing more to add to it. I am satisfied. 

you can reject it if you wish.

 

Once again your full of it ,I think we are up to about 8 now in the stretching the truth dept, as not one of the points I raised was even mentioned so how could  they have  been responded adequately

 

So once again I invite you to comment on the points I raised as to why I think lasers across the lake isn't valid evidence to indicate a FE

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zArk said:

Oh well, pick and choose your science and fundamental principals

 

Cognitive dissonance is rampant

 

The helio science shows how the [atmosphere] is a massive reflective, refracting and dampening zone for EMF trying to pass through it but of course the signal must be bouncing da moon because 'its all in their heads'

 

  • No proof of the signal bouncing the moon
  • the helio science supports the impossibility and the total possibility 🤦‍♂️

 

Domehead so desperate & cringe..

 

https://wiki.microwavers.org.uk/Microwave_EME

 

Only works when you aim the dish at the moon & detect moon noise, wHiCh yOu OnLy GeT wHeN yOu PoInT aT tHe MooN! like sun noise & send or receive a 10ghz 60watt signal, you can also bounce audio.

 

Desperate Domehead for the hundredth time, do you have a source for your claim of a krypton layer, that forms the manifestation the rest of the planet refer to as the moon or evidence of your magical dome.

 

Until then..

 

Seriously now.

 

index.jpg.56740c1b34cff08627267daae379673c.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, zArk said:

 

really? any actual photos of the Es’hail-2?

i cant seem to find any construction pictures or finished product pictures. I

I see photos, cgi, a rocket taking off but cant find photos of the Es’hail-2.

 

https://www.eshailsat.qa/ just shows a rocket. wheres the smegging sat?

 

https://www.eshailsat.qa/en/satellites/index/ << just shows CGI image

 

very odd

 

 

O dear.

 

You are claiming again millions of people are lying or delusional.🤭 & several areas of science are bunkem.

Not just rocket science, or Satellite TV but ham radio too & the geostationary Satellite that can be viewed from earth in the same spot 24/7 is nonsense.

You can even pick up a signal pointing a phone in the sky from this thing.

But then space doesn't exist you made the claim also..then you started talking about the atmosphere layers.

 

https://www.rtl-sdr.com/eshail2-amateur-transponder-now-active/

 

BewitchedDescriptiveAyeaye-max-1mb.gif

 

800px-Seperation.JPG

 

 

Edited by oddsnsods
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zArk said:

blah blah blah, blah blah blah

Now your starting to talk some sense,in my opinion it's a little better than your cracked dome and your non existent refracted moon and sun, but not much better mind you

Edited by peter
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oddsnsods said:

 

O dear.

 

You are claiming again millions of people are lying or delusional.🤭 & several areas of science are bunkem.

Not just rocket science, or Satellite TV but ham radio too & the geostationary Satellite that can be viewed from earth in the same spot 24/7 is nonsense.

You can even pick up a signal pointing a phone in the sky from this thing.

But then space doesn't exist you made the claim also..then you started talking about the atmosphere layers.

 

800px-Seperation.JPG

 

 

fs @oddsnsods more unsubstantiated footage, stills and pictures

 

thats right fella, Helio [space] is a big fiberooney. Satellites orbiting earth is a big fib. 

Moon bounce is another con.

 

The measurement of Satellites or anything up there is in err as the calculations are contaminated with Helio nonsense.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, peter said:

Now your starting to talk some sense,in my opinion it's a little better than your cracked dome and your non existent refracted moon and sun, but not much better mind you

no, no, i didnt say that. scarring

 

 

you just go and measure Tycho and wonder why you can see it when [its soooo far far far away]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you can visualise satellites with telescopes or even the naked eye, you can time them with ham radio, you can pick up a GPS signal at 50,000 ft far off shore. But its all a fib to domehead here.

 

Like I said in previous post last night, check out this software @peter can easily track every Satellite & easily work out the earths rotation speed. Although might need two different people at different locations, depending on the orbit. Could prove it easily without a shadow of doubt.

 

http://celestrak.com/cesium/orbit-viz.php?tle=/pub/TLE/catalog.txt&satcat=/pub/satcat.txt&referenceFrame=1

 

If they are Tesla Sats, can pick up a wifi signal as well.

The speed the sats are going obviously outside domeworld fantasy amusement park prove they are outside our atmosphere.

Flatliners gonna flatline.

 

clown-%C3%A7a.gif

Edited by oddsnsods
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

es you can visualise satellites with telescopes or even the naked eye, you can time them with ham radio, you can pick up a GPS signal at 50,000 ft far off shore. But its all a fib to domehead here.

[satellites] do not bounce the signal. they receive and send.

completely different to the moon bounce

 

there is no proof that the [satellites ] are at x altitude or their size or speed

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, zArk said:

@peter not watched any more experiments video recorded you want to comment on?

 

🤣

and that's translated into blah blah blah, blah blah blah,like I said before don't try and be smart it really  doesn't suit you,

still waiting for a comment on the laser experiment and your theory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, peter said:

and that's translated into blah blah blah, blah blah blah,like I said before don't try and be smart it really  doesn't suit you,

still waiting for a comment on the laser experiment and your theory

 

If you havent got knowledge of the experiment and havent got at-hand the details of the experiment there can be no discussion.

 

surely you see that?

i am not fetching information for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

If you havent got knowledge of the experiment and havent got at-hand the details of the experiment there can be no discussion.

 

surely you see that?

i am not fetching information for you.

Like I said problematic and inconvenient, keep ducking,  weaving and dancing, you will be back  waltzing  soon to conserve energy and the best thing is you only have to count to 3 so you can leave your socks on

 

since you are always bringing up lasers across lakes as evidence that the earth is flat ,I will let you know why I believe there is a fundamental flaw in those experiments. First off I will assume that the basic premise of these videos is that the laser will travel in a straight line to the other side of the lake,not having watched them lets say 20 or 30 miles and since the earth is curved. at that distance, it should be impossible and therefore the earth cant be a globe with curvature so by logical deduction the earth must be flat.

 

Is that the premise of your argument  yes or no

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, zArk said:

[satellites] do not bounce the signal. they receive and send.

completely different to the moon bounce

 

Who claimed they did?

 

Your replies are pathetic Zark, you are no shame whatsoever.

 

12 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

there is no proof that the [satellites ] are at x altitude or their size or speed

 

Yes there is as I explained above & im not going to keep repeating  myself.

 

@Grumpy Owl I am being constantly trolled by this fool now. Please read my posts & evidence presented for EME moon bounce & check the link for Satellite software you can track & detect with ham radio or telescope & GPS of course. Its not possible for Satellites to orbit at the speeds observed in our atmosphere.

I also gave geosynchronous ham radio satellite above, he offers no explanation for, but continues to troll with pathetic replies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

Yes there is as I explained above & im not going to keep repeating  myself.

 

@Grumpy Owl I am being constantly trolled by this fool now.

 

Shrug your shoulders. Admit defeat. You're wasting your time trying to reason with people who don't want to be reasoned with. Step away from this thread, and find other topics where people want to discuss stuff.

 

That's my advice.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, zArk said:

f you havent got knowledge of the experiment and havent got at-hand the details of the experiment there can be no discussion.

 

surely you see that?

i am not fetching information for you.

The points I made about the laser across the lake experiments are fundamental to all these experiments ,therefore having details of each one is neither here nor there so your statement above is a typical cop out ,so I will ask you again , is the following the premise of your evidence as to a  flat earth?

 

since you are always bringing up lasers across lakes as evidence that the earth is flat ,I will let you know why I believe there is a fundamental flaw in those experiments. First off I will assume that the basic premise of these videos is that the laser will travel in a straight line to the other side of the lake,not having watched them lets say 20 or 30 miles and since the earth is curved. at that distance, it should be impossible and therefore the earth cant be a globe with curvature so by logical deduction the earth must be flat.

 

If this is indeed the case the questions I raised are relative to all said experiments and individual details of each is inconsequential , if it is not the premise of the laser experiments can you please enlighten me as to what is, however if my assumptions are correct, and I believe they are I once again invite you to comment on the statement below

 

 

Now look at the scale, a lake no matter how big,it is minuscule to the earth , we have also herd on more than one occasion that water finds it's own level as evidence the earth is flat ,and yes it does in a container ( unless we are talking about the oceans and gravity), so no matter how big a lake is it is essentially just a container for the water and therefore one would expect the level of the water to be flat ,and as such isolated from the curvature of the earth, to me these types of videos are nothing more than a  cleaver magicians slight of hand and the same could be said for your fence  logic as well.

In my estimation the only experiment of this nature that could have any validity what so ever should be held at see level with regards to the ocean, however I can still see problems with ,air pressure, wind, temperature, time of day , mirage , salt content of surrounding air, refraction, reflection, humidity etc etc 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...