Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
DarkKnightNomeD

I'm drunk as f***, I'm going go Ackbar on Flat Earth.

15 posts in this topic

Admiral Ackbar that is

ITS A f***ING TRAP

FLAT EARTH is f***ING STUPID - My final thought TBH

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough tacos, DK. The correct term is "drunk as Cooter Brown" :drinkingwine:

I will shoot down your wimpy thread with a railgun. If its target is 100 miles away, then it must penetrate the earth to reach it. Mach 7 is 4000 - 6000 mph.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:drinkingwine:

Good thread.

I'm convinced.... thank you for the revelations.

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 5, 2016 at 10:41 PM, DarkKnightNomeD said:

Admiral Ackbar that is

ITS A f***ING TRAP

FLAT EARTH is f***ING STUPID - My final thought TBH

 

Sorry you feel that way, but not really. The same could be/should be said about the ball earth. But we'll continue to let the research speak for itself. 

I sure hope you admire all of those fake pictures of earth from space. You know "space", the only place one could possibly go to get an entire picture of earth. The place that no average person can go. Only government and private space agencies can reach outer space. Though private and government space agencies are in cahoots with one another, and the government space agencies have admitted to their fakery and lies... Keep believing in the perpetuated lie bud.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

23 hours ago, grav said:

Tough tacos, DK. The correct term is "drunk as Cooter Brown" :drinkingwine:

I will shoot down your wimpy thread with a railgun. If its target is 100 miles away, then it must penetrate the earth to reach it. Mach 7 is 4000 - 6000 mph.

 

 
 

Grav, one question that just occurred to me. If the earth is motionless, why do we have to continually adjust our telescopes when viewing the moon? It keeps moving out of view within a minute or two and will be completely out of view. That pretty much tells me there is motion, and I dare say, rotation. Or will you say, "it's the moon moving?" What say ye?

edit: Well, correction. The same thing happens when viewing anything out in space, so there is rotation.

Edited by Cryptic Mole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cryptic Mole said:

Grav, one question that just occurred to me. If the earth is motionless, why do we have to continually adjust our telescopes when viewing the moon? It keeps moving out of view within a minute or two and will be completely out of view. That pretty much tells me there is motion, and I dare say, rotation. Or will you say, "it's the moon moving?" What say ye?

What say I? The sun, moon, and stars move over us. 

We bandy the word "dome" around a lot. That is possibly a series of plasma shields, solid crystalline structures, Van Allen belts, whatever. If you stand on one side under the dome, the celestial objects will appear to move such and so. Move to the opposite side and look up, you will see a different view. Plain perspective, not rocket surgery.   :cool:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, grav said:

What say I? The sun, moon, and stars move over us. 

We bandy the word "dome" around a lot. That is possibly a series of plasma shields, solid crystalline structures, Van Allen belts, whatever. If you stand on one side under the dome, the celestial objects will appear to move such and so. Move to the opposite side and look up, you will see a different view. Plain perspective, not rocket surgery.   :cool:

 

 

Sorry Grav, I love ya, and ya know it, but, sounds silly and far-reaching to me.

I'm so respectful, I'll even leave you an out by saying, "but maybe that's just me.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Cryptic Mole said:

Sorry Grav, I love ya, and ya know it, but, sounds silly and far-reaching to me.

I'm so respectful, I'll even leave you an out by saying, "but maybe that's just me.'

Okey doke, have fun on your spinning ball with round oceans, all surrounded by the complete vacuum of space. ;)

So where is our intrepid OP? Sleeping it off?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, grav said:

Okey doke, have fun on your spinning ball with round oceans, all surrounded by the complete vacuum of space. ;)

So where is our intrepid OP? Sleeping it off?

 

Grav, one day when we all see one another in the great gathering, I'll be giving out lot's of hugs to all you flat earthers and saying, "I hate to say I told you so," but with love and respect of course. Mark it down! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, grav said:

What say I? The sun, moon, and stars move over us. 

We bandy the word "dome" around a lot. That is possibly a series of plasma shields, solid crystalline structures, Van Allen belts, whatever. If you stand on one side under the dome, the celestial objects will appear to move such and so. Move to the opposite side and look up, you will see a different view. Plain perspective, not rocket surgery.   :cool:

 

 

Nope! Please explain to me how stars that are many light years away, and take millions of years before even showing any signs of movement will suddenly move out of view when being watched in a telescope? That is impossible, and if you claim it is, well, you are wrong! That can only happen when the earth is spinning and rotating.

That may be true for closer objects, but not distant object.

Distant stars take millions of years to show any signs of movement.

Regardless of flat or ball earth, this is in reference to you claiming the earth is motionless in the video you've provided.

Simply put: The reason distant stars quickly move out of a telescope's field of view is because the earth is spinning/rotating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cryptic Mole said:

Nope! Please explain to me how stars that are many light years away, and take millions of years before even showing any signs of movement will suddenly move out of view when being watched in a telescope? That is impossible, and if you claim it is, well, you are wrong! That can only happen when the earth is spinning and rotating.

That may be true for closer objects, but not distant object.

Distant stars take millions of years to show any signs of movement.

Regardless of flat or ball earth, this is in reference to you claiming the earth is motionless in the video you've provided.

Simply put: The reason distant stars quickly move out of a telescope's field of view is because the earth is spinning/rotating.

The Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe said that parallax should have been evident after a relatively short time. I forget the time, less than a year. Maybe 6 weeks? He backed off a bit when the head knockers told him how the cow chews the cabbage. 

Even if the stars didn't move, earth does (in theory). Look at the numbers in the top of my Research thread in my signature, about the speeds and movements of earth and the sun. To demonstrate it, I used to try to keep my eyes on the ceiling fan as I spun around and vortexed around the room the best I could. Not a great experiment but good enough to see that the whole cosmology is wrong wrong wrong. 

And tell me, astronomers, how you came up with these estimates of parsecs, speeds of light from twinkly lights in the sky? Bah, humbug. Light years are as real as fiat dollars. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

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


Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.