Jump to content
Sign Up To Remove Ads! Or to Access Our Chatroom!

Rothbard

 Citizen
  • Content count

    3,063
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

Rothbard last won the day on June 10 2016

Rothbard had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,322 Excellent

About Rothbard

  • Rank
    Forum Veteran

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. An oldie from Rob Skiba but a goodie
  2. Excellent theory and experiment as to what caused the craters on the moon
  3. The paid-for liar used a mirage and waves to fake a curvature.
  4. I've been fighting with Astronomy Live for quite some time now. I didn't know he was that other damn shill.
  5. Fake News Explained

    Excellent speech at TedX - she probably wasn't referring to the same thing I was thinking of, but it's still terrific!
  6. The video says it all - there just so happened to be a shooting drill earlier that day! What are the odds?
  7. https://www.wired.com/story/when-modeling-the-mississippi-river-a-supercomputer-wont-do/ "The Mississippi River—it’s a big deal, OK? The combined ports of South Louisiana and New ­Orleans move more cargo, ton for ton, than any other US port. So figuring out the Mississippi’s hydrodynamics—the way its water, silt, and sand ebb and flow—matters. Matters so much, in fact, that Louisiana has dropped $18 million on a 10,800-square-foot model of Big Muddy’s sinuous meanders. It’s made of 216 panels of high-density foam, carved to match mapping data down to a quarter-millimeter tolerance." I guess they forgot the curvature - that's a curvature hump 375 miles tall (2,320 miles distance). https://drive.google.com/file/d/18rtApFhq_AVT772QcM-CkXo6itIm09mT/view
  8. The greatest thing about Mark Sargent has been his professional series. He just added to the list with an air traffic controller from the Army (starts at 8:19): Hi Mark, I have been listening to your interviews with previous military positions about their experiences. I was an US Army Air Traffic Controller. I will be happy to send you my DD214 for verification. I listened to your interview with the Navy TRADOC Controller and would like to add a perspective of how this applies to tactical airfield that we set up in the Army. One of my job requirements was to be able to set up a fully functional radar facility anywhere in the world. On many occasions, we would deploy the AN/TPN 40 radar facility. We would have to make all the calculations that, in essence, tricked the radar into 'thinking' it was located at the very end of the runway, where the flight would land on the runway threshold. We would use military maps, FAA MAPS, etc. None of which ever accounted for the curvature of the earth. Also, when we would establish the standard 3 degree glide slope (the angle of the aircrafts decent to the runway, we never accounted for any curvature of the earth. Keep in mind, it was our job to be able to do this ANYWHERE on earth we were ordered to do so. Even in our advanced NCO Academy that specifically trains ATC NCOs to calculate all the placement mathematics and trig involved, we never accounted for the curvature of the earth. Remember, these were called Precision Approaches. These types of approaches were essential for when the was little or no visibility. Thus the pilots relied entirely on our calculations to ensure their safety. We would also scan out to 80 miles, in surveillance mode, and again no calculations for curvature. We would even have to have FAA airplanes that were specially equipped come and ensure the accuracy of our 3 degree glide slope in what's called getting 'flight checked'. I just thought I could add to your discussion since, in addition to the Navy Controller in the fixed facility, I was tasked to do this all over the world. And never, ever did we account for curvature. Even the FAA flights that checked us could not have possibly accounted for curvature, since 3 degrees at 15 miles becomes quite problematic mathematically without curvature. Anyway, you may contact me if you wish. Sincerely, Ron Windle
  9. I made a video from bmlsb69's footage and applied the distance to the horizon test - At a camera height of 105 feet, the distance to the globe "physical" horizon can be mathematically determined. Distance to Horizon 12.6 miles - http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm Distance to Platform 1: 10.96 miles Distance to Platform 2: 21.94 miles Distance to Platform 3: 26.44 miles As is clearly visible, the horizon line is beyond 26.44 miles which completely contradicts the globe model's requirements.
  10. Pathetic response! Not worth my time anymore as your agenda is obvious.
  11. To begin with, no flat earther ignores the issue; that's just not true despite how many times you repeat the lie. Interestingly, the Egyptians, Babylonians, Mayans, Greeks, Chinese, the Indians, etc. all believed in the flat earth and yet witnessed lunar eclipses. Did they have any logical explanations? I've heard of Rahu but I find the issue interesting as these civilizations had excellent models based on the flat earth. But let's begin with a few problems I see with the official explanation of the lunar eclipse. First, is the selenelion - it's a fact - the lunar eclipse can happen with both the sun and moon above the horizon. If you want to believe that refraction somehow bends the shadow of the earth to hit the moon - that's your business but I find the explanation absolutely silly and such refraction would always happen just not at the time of the selenelion which would ruin all modeling. No experimentation necessary for the globe supporter; just nonsense theories backed by nothing that everyone unquestionably swallows as fact. Second, as described by the man in the video above and as was witnessed everywhere during the last lunar eclipse, the shadow often doesn't rise from bottom-up but falls from top-bottom. That's a geometric impossibility. What causes this? The globe supporter runs from this issue because it raises an interesting issue of perspective. Let's hear your explanation. Third, the color of the eclipse makes no sense. Go out and make a shadow red. Good luck with your experiments. Again, the globe model comes up with pure nonsense about sunsets making the lunar eclipse red but if the moon was in the shadow of the earth, the moon would be pitch black from the eclipse. I think you know that. But what does cause the lunar eclipse? I don't know for sure as everything must be investigated - which is the POINT of flat earth. My personal guess is that the lunar eclipse is caused by something like this - Maybe at various times the moon is out of reach of the light of the sun? What if at a certain distance, the light of the sun doesn't quite reach the moon? I know that contradicts your beliefs about light but I don't think we understand the limitations of light. Maybe there's another celestial object in the sky, like Rahu, that cannot be seen? Maybe it's not solid but composed of radiation or magnetic fields of some sort? Maybe it's some sort of physics that we still don't understand? I do find it funny that globe supporters are never interested in actually testing the ground they're standing on but always point upward to try to prove the shape of the earth. It doesn't make logical sense to me but what do I know - I am a flat earther after all.
  12. We've made our final plans and we'll be conducting this experiment in a week. Hopefully, there won't be any issues with the local government or the weather.
×