Jump to content

The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Given To Fly said:

i've said this in the pre-hacked version, what about the attack on pearl harbour ? how was that carried out on flat earth ??

Hi GTF, can you elaborate on your confusion here? Please be specific.

 

3 minutes ago, Given To Fly said:

also, in one of those 'place in the sun' programmes somebody went to chile i think it was and they were able to see new zealand with a lens.

Link please... very interesting if true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, bflat said:

Hi GTF, can you elaborate on your confusion here? Please be specific.

 

Link please... very interesting if true.

 

 

japan flew from kasatka bay over the north pacific to attack pearl harbor, not from east to west across the earth.

 

re: chile / new zealand, it was a programme which i didn't record, just watched !! but why hasn't there been anyone in the east coast of the americas with a strong telescope not coming forward saying that all they see through their lens is a wall or whatever you think is there and not another piece of land ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Given To Fly said:

japan flew from kasatka bay over the north pacific to attack pearl harbor, not from east to west across the earth.

I still don't see your confusion as it makes perfect sense:

20793253712.jpg

 

4 minutes ago, Given To Fly said:

re: chile / new zealand, it was a programme which i didn't record, just watched !! but why hasn't there been anyone in the east coast of the americas with a strong telescope not coming forward saying that all they see through their lens is a wall or whatever you think is there and not another piece of land ?

I am not understanding this point. A telescope still must deal with atmospheric conditions. Look at the above map again. The ice wall is the circumference of our plane and both Chile and New Zealand lie inside that boundary like all other land masses we know of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bflat said:

I still don't see your confusion as it makes perfect sense:

20793253712.jpg

 

I am not understanding this point. A telescope still must deal with atmospheric conditions. Look at the above map again. The ice wall is the circumference of our plane and both Chile and New Zealand lie inside that boundary like all other land masses we know of.

 

so is there any place on earth that a telescope would be able to see this wall ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Given To Fly said:

 

so is there any place on earth that a telescope would be able to see this wall ?

A telescope is not needed.

 

flat-earth-ant-ice.gif

 

ice-wall-meme-polarstern-e1514513113373.

 

 

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

13 minutes ago, bflat said:

A telescope is not needed.

 

flat-earth-ant-ice.gif

 

ice-wall-meme-polarstern-e1514513113373.

 

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSOMxldaZbcXWXdIZdHCBL

 

of course there're massive icebergs, cliffs and land of ice and snow in antarctica at the weddell sea and southern ocean.

https://www.mapsofworld.com/large-world-map-in-robinson-projection.html

 

from my knowledge not one person has ever used a telescope to prove flat earth and these walls. it would be easy to do, and monumental, do you not think ?

Edited by Given To Fly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Given To Fly said:

of course there're massive icebergs and land of ice and snow in antarctica at the weddell sea and southern ocean.

https://www.mapsofworld.com/large-world-map-in-robinson-projection.html

 

from my knowledge not one person has ever used a telescope to prove flat earth and these walls. it would be easy to do, and monumental, do you not think ?

As explained earlier:

You really need four aircraft carriers that each depart the "north pole" which is actually the center of our plane (see map above). They need to leave exactly 90 degrees from each other and maintain a completely straight path until they reach ice. Four military jets need to follow and be able to refuel at each point and then continue until forced to turn back for fuel concerns.

 

50 million a day for nasa and we could know for sure for far less than nasa's daily!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bflat said:

As explained earlier:

You really need four aircraft carriers that each depart the "north pole" which is actually the center of our plane (see map above). They need to leave exactly 90 degrees from each other and maintain a completely straight path until they reach ice. Four military jets need to follow and be able to refuel at each point and then continue until forced to turn back for fuel concerns.

 

50 million a day for nasa and we could know for sure for far less than nasa's daily!

all this science talk but buddy what you're saying is that a telescope is unable to see the wall ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Photos of an ice wall or glacier...as some glaciers are like the size of England, hardly prove any ice wall..accept if you have gone fall flat, then anything's possible & beyond reasonable doubt.

Maybe, just maybe... the masons & Disney production team have this giant great chain saw ship & are putting on a show for their next NASA movie?

 

PowerlessAcidicCero-size_restricted.gif

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by oddsnsods
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Given To Fly said:

all this science talk but buddy what you're saying is that a telescope is unable to see the wall ?

1) I explained one cannot see "forever" through our atmosphere. It simply does not work that way.

 

2) Where do you suggest we place this telescope? How about directly over our magnetic center? Now, the highest hot air ballon footage availabke is over 20 miles high. The horizon remains horizontal for the entire 360 degrees. More to your point, this is far above the clouds so our horizon does not even include land.

 

Is this making sense yet? Do you see how that if you use a compass to travel south, no matter where you are on earth that you will end up in 'Antarctica?"

 

Take a look again at the OP. There remains those five points that need to be understood.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bflat said:

Where do you suggest we place this telescope? How about directly over our magnetic center? Now, the highest hot air ballon footage availabke is over 20 miles high. The horizon remains horizontal for the entire 360 degrees. More to your point, this is far above the clouds so our horizon does not even include land

Yup and still no excuse from the other side, wishing it away with a chalk board

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

Yup and still no excuse from the other side, wishing it away with a chalk board

 

Some excellent footage available from high altitude balloon enthusiasts out there with the technical quality of gear rapidly increasing and the costs remaining affordable.

 

Here's a three hour video with a good introduction  explaining some of the problems of getting good footage despite the slow pitch, yaw and roll unavoidable for a small ballloon operating in the winds of the stratosphere which can be mitigated to some degree by using a good gimbal mount.

 

 

 

 

Edited by serpentine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bflat said:

 

Is this making sense yet? Do you see how that if you use a compass to travel south, no matter where you are on earth that you will end up in 'Antarctica?"

Brilliant ! you got me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, peter said:

Brilliant ! you got me

 

What bflat is trying to explain is that if we travel far enough  from the center of earth ie. North, South, East or west we will always end up at the ice wall, as the Ice wall is what surrounds earth 360%. This ice wall is earth's boundaries and it what Keeps the sea's from spilling over what you might call the edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

What bflat is trying to explain is that if we travel far enough  from the center of earth ie. North, South, East or west we will always end up at the ice wall, as the Ice wall is what surrounds earth 360%. This ice wall is earth's boundaries and it what Keeps the sea's from spilling over what you might call the edge.

Brilliant ,you got me as well, sorry I can't compete with that

I give up

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bflat said:

1) I explained one cannot see "forever" through our atmosphere. It simply does not work that way.

 

2) Where do you suggest we place this telescope? How about directly over our magnetic center? Now, the highest hot air ballon footage availabke is over 20 miles high. The horizon remains horizontal for the entire 360 degrees. More to your point, this is far above the clouds so our horizon does not even include land.

 

Is this making sense yet? Do you see how that if you use a compass to travel south, no matter where you are on earth that you will end up in 'Antarctica?"

 

Take a look again at the OP. There remains those five points that need to be understood.

 

 

All this balloon stuff is great but still doesn't explain away the 8” per mile 2

 

Viewing across the sea generally has the advantage of being a clear viewing scene. 

 

At 20 miles there should be 270ft of drop off

 

There are videos of more than 20miles 

 

The curvature isn't there

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, alexa said:

What bflat is trying to explain is that if we travel far enough  from the center of earth ie. North, South, East or west we will always end up at the ice wall...

Yes, sorry for the confusion. Compasses simply cannot work on a ball. This is why navigators across time have always found themselves miles off their dead reckoning when traveling below the equator. The father from the equator, the more miles they would be off.

52195eee4a305e3db1f750827cd81626.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

All this balloon stuff is great but still doesn't explain away the 8” per mile 2

 

Viewing across the sea generally has the advantage of being a clear viewing scene. 

 

At 20 miles there should be 270ft of drop off

 

There are videos of more than 20miles 

 

The curvature isn't there

 

Yes. Exactly. And we have finally touched on a point from the OP which is nice.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bflat said:

Yes, sorry for the confusion. Compasses simply cannot work on a ball. This is why navigators across time have always found themselves miles off their dead reckoning when traveling below the equator. The father from the equator, the more miles they would be off.

52195eee4a305e3db1f750827cd81626.jpg

 

If anything, magnetism proves that the earth is a 'ball'.

 

diagram-showing-earth-magnetic-field-ill

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Grumpy Owl changed the title to The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)
  • Grumpy Owl locked, unlocked and locked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl unlocked this topic
  • Grumpy Owl locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...