The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Status
Not open for further replies.

WizardofOz

New member
This thread is not about "ice walls", it's about evidences for a flat stationary earth.

And Antarctica has "ice walls" even if one of the pics is not from Antarctica.

--Dave

If your model for a flat earth includes ice wall boundaries then it is certainly a part of the discussion. If someone flies a plane over the ice walls, what do they run into? Do they fly into outer space?

This is a crucial stumbling block of your theory.
 

Derf

Well-known member
This thread is not about "ice walls", it's about evidences for a flat stationary earth.

And Antarctica has "ice walls" even if one of the pics is not from Antarctica.

--Dave

If we can't talk about one of the evidences, how can we talk about any of them.

If ice walls somehow indicate an unreachable land of unknown size, then we must have many of those around the world--the unreachable lands, that is. But if one can go a few miles or even a few hundred miles, if necessary, to go around them, as shown from the pictures of Antarctica, then they aren't the mystery-hiders your sources seem to think.

Ice walls by themselves are no such thing, as Knight pointed out--there are walls of ice in the grocery store. If you are willing to admit that your ice wall evidence is no longer evidence for a flat earth, then I'm more than happy to stop discussing them. We can move on to something else, like the Great Circle distances I mentioned before, here.

If you still believe in the ice walls, you need to present some evidence that your evidence is true, and that it indeed is useful in determining the shape of the earth, as you claim. That's what this thread is all about, isn't it?
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If we can't talk about one of the evidences, how can we talk about any of them.

If ice walls somehow indicate an unreachable land of unknown size, then we must have many of those around the world--the unreachable lands, that is. But if one can go a few miles or even a few hundred miles, if necessary, to go around them, as shown from the pictures of Antarctica, then they aren't the mystery-hiders your sources seem to think.

Ice walls by themselves are no such thing, as Knight pointed out--there are walls of ice in the grocery store. If you are willing to admit that your ice wall evidence is no longer evidence for a flat earth, then I'm more than happy to stop discussing them. We can move on to something else, like the Great Circle distances I mentioned before, here.

If you still believe in the ice walls, you need to present some evidence that your evidence is true, and that it indeed is useful in determining the shape of the earth, as you claim. That's what this thread is all about, isn't it?

I already answered your question, do some reading of this thread.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
If your model for a flat earth includes ice wall boundaries then it is certainly a part of the discussion. If someone flies a plane over the ice walls, what do they run into? Do they fly into outer space?

This is a crucial stumbling block of your theory.

It's your stumbling block, not mine.


--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
I notice you've avoided answering the question:
If someone flies a plane over the ice walls, what do they run into? Do they fly into outer space?

Who knows, no one can go very far into Antarctica which only fuels the mystery.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL
 

WizardofOz

New member
Who knows, no one can go very far into Antarctica which only fuels the mystery.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

This is why this issue is a huge stumbling block for a flat-earth theory.

People can, and have flown over Antarctica.

Polar Route


The Soviet pilot Valery Chkalov was the first to fly non-stop from Europe to the American Pacific Coast. His flight from Moscow, Soviet Union to Vancouver, Washington, United States, via the North Pole on a Tupolev ANT-25 single-engine plane (June 18–20, 1937) took 63 hours to complete. The distance covered was 8,811 kilometres (5,475 mi).[2]

In September 1945, a long-distance flight was undertaken for public relations purposes: generals Barney M. Giles, Curtis LeMay and Emmett O'Donnell, Jr. piloted three specially modified B-29s from Chitose Air Base in Hokkaidō to Chicago Municipal Airport, continuing to Washington, D.C., the farthest nonstop distance to that date flown by U.S. Army Air Forces aircraft and the first-ever nonstop flight from Japan to the U.S.. The distance covered was approximately 5,839 miles or 9,397 kilometers.[3][4] Two months later, Colonel Clarence S. Irvine commanded another modified B-29, Pacusan Dreamboat, in a world-record-breaking long-distance flight from Guam to Washington, D.C., traveling 7,916 miles (12,740 km) in 35 hours,[5] with a gross takeoff weight of 155,000 pounds (70,000 kg).[6] Almost a year later, in October 1946, the same B-29 flew 9,422 miles nonstop from Oahu, Hawaii, to Cairo, Egypt, in less than 40 hours, further proving the capability of routing airlines over the polar icecap.[7]

Of the commercial airlines, SAS was first: their Douglas DC-6B flights between Los Angeles and Copenhagen, via Sondre Stromfjord and Winnipeg, started on November 15, 1954.[8] Canadian Pacific DC-6Bs started Vancouver–Amsterdam in 1955, then Pan Am and TWA started West Coast to Paris/London in 1957. SAS was first again, flying Europe to Tokyo via Anchorage with Douglas DC-7Cs in February 1957; Air France Lockheed L-1649 Starliner (which was the final version of the Lockheed Constellation) and KLM DC-7C aircraft followed in 1958.



500px-PolarRoute.png


Is this all a conspiracy to discredit the truth?
 

Derf

Well-known member
Who knows, no one can go very far into Antarctica which only fuels the mystery.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

The first part of your statement is true--no one can go very far into Antarctica! That's because you can only go so far before you start going back out the other side. And you can only go so far south before you are going north again. Funny how those two things seem to go together.

But people really do cross Antarctica all the time:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...yRJNdXUarfpmoTDkvvYjIw&bvm=bv.152479541,d.amc
 

Derf

Well-known member
I already answered your question, do some reading of this thread.

--Dave


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

No, I'd rather stay in my opinion without ever considering the other side. I am the sole determiner of truth. Even if I'm wrong, I just tell people to go read some more until they either stop bothering me or they accept what I'm saying as truth. You're my inspiration, Dave!
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
No, I'd rather stay in my opinion without ever considering the other side. I am the sole determiner of truth. Even if I'm wrong, I just tell people to go read some more until they either stop bothering me or they accept what I'm saying as truth. You're my inspiration, Dave!
:rotfl:
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
You've gone now from debating to lying. I'm not putting up with it.

Goodbye Dave.

Thanks for wasting months of my time. Go and say these stupid things to unbelievers on the street and make us all look like slobbering morons.

As I just mentioned to Knight, I would like to retract this whole post. It was an emotional reaction and I shouldn't have said it.

I'm sorry Dave.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If Dave is a spokesperson for Christianity I'm quite sure he loses converts the minute he says, "Jesus loves you. Oh, and by the way, the Earth is flat because the bible says so". It makes ALL christians look like excapees from a lunatic asylum.

How has, "Jesus loves you. Oh, and by the way, EVERYTHING in the bible is LITERALLY true, even the totally stupid parts", been working for you so far?

Dave does not say anything like, "Jesus loves you. Oh, and by the way, the Earth is flat because the bible says so."

He's merely preparing himself for a possible encounter with the issue. He's not one of those who likes to be caught having to say, "I have no idea what you're talking about."

Clete
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
This is why this issue is a huge stumbling block for a flat-earth theory.

People can, and have flown over Antarctica.

Polar Route


The Soviet pilot Valery Chkalov was the first to fly non-stop from Europe to the American Pacific Coast. His flight from Moscow, Soviet Union to Vancouver, Washington, United States, via the North Pole on a Tupolev ANT-25 single-engine plane (June 18–20, 1937) took 63 hours to complete. The distance covered was 8,811 kilometres (5,475 mi).[2]

In September 1945, a long-distance flight was undertaken for public relations purposes: generals Barney M. Giles, Curtis LeMay and Emmett O'Donnell, Jr. piloted three specially modified B-29s from Chitose Air Base in Hokkaidō to Chicago Municipal Airport, continuing to Washington, D.C., the farthest nonstop distance to that date flown by U.S. Army Air Forces aircraft and the first-ever nonstop flight from Japan to the U.S.. The distance covered was approximately 5,839 miles or 9,397 kilometers.[3][4] Two months later, Colonel Clarence S. Irvine commanded another modified B-29, Pacusan Dreamboat, in a world-record-breaking long-distance flight from Guam to Washington, D.C., traveling 7,916 miles (12,740 km) in 35 hours,[5] with a gross takeoff weight of 155,000 pounds (70,000 kg).[6] Almost a year later, in October 1946, the same B-29 flew 9,422 miles nonstop from Oahu, Hawaii, to Cairo, Egypt, in less than 40 hours, further proving the capability of routing airlines over the polar icecap.[7]

Of the commercial airlines, SAS was first: their Douglas DC-6B flights between Los Angeles and Copenhagen, via Sondre Stromfjord and Winnipeg, started on November 15, 1954.[8] Canadian Pacific DC-6Bs started Vancouver–Amsterdam in 1955, then Pan Am and TWA started West Coast to Paris/London in 1957. SAS was first again, flying Europe to Tokyo via Anchorage with Douglas DC-7Cs in February 1957; Air France Lockheed L-1649 Starliner (which was the final version of the Lockheed Constellation) and KLM DC-7C aircraft followed in 1958.



500px-PolarRoute.png


Is this all a conspiracy to discredit the truth?

People have only flown over the edge of it as your picture shows. There is no practical reason to have commercial flights over Antarctica.

There are three reasons why no commercial flight overflies Antarctica:

1. Geography

2. ETOPS

3. Special Rules

See link --Quora

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
No, I'd rather stay in my opinion without ever considering the other side. I am the sole determiner of truth. Even if I'm wrong, I just tell people to go read some more until they either stop bothering me or they accept what I'm saying as truth. You're my inspiration, Dave!

Truth is only found in research into all sides of an issue.

Perspiration gets the job done so get to work and do study if you want to know anything that's true.

--Dave
 

DFT_Dave

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
So you're actually not interested in convincing others that Flat Earth is true. That's been apparent for weeks but thank you for making it very clear.

You can't convince someone something is true, or not true, with out properly understanding what it is.

This thread is meant to be a debate, and to be informative as well, about a subject most of you know very little about. And even that which you think you know is not really true of flat earth anyway.

I am taking the side of flat earth in order to have a debate about cosmology which I think is important to have. Flat earth is the original and first cosmology that was followed by an earth centered universe, then a sun centered universe, to an evolving universe of millions of universes all started with there own big bang. And not to long ago, flat earth resurfaced with a major challenge to all cosmologies with the aid of new powerful cameras that show us "ships" and "cityscapes" well beyond the "curvature" of the earth. We are seeing the sun, moon, and stars unlike what NASA has been showing us. This is why I post all the videos that I think are good ones. Flat earth is primarily a "visual" empirically based argument against the status quo.

In the end I want to know what is and is not true as well, or at least understand this as well as I can. I'm open to flat earth mostly because sun centered universe is no longer the simple God created Copernican Christian model.

--Dave
 

musterion

Well-known member
You can't convince someone something is true, or not true, with out properly understanding what it is.

This thread is meant to be a debate, and to be informative as well, about a subject most of you know very little about. And even that which you think you know is not really true of flat earth anyway.

I am taking the side of flat earth in order to have a debate about cosmology which I think is important to have. Flat earth is the original and first cosmology that was followed by an earth centered universe, then a sun centered universe, to an evolving universe of millions of universes all started with there own big bang. And not to long ago, flat earth resurfaced with a major challenge to all cosmologies with the aid of new powerful cameras that show us "ships" and "cityscapes" well beyond the "curvature" of the earth. We are seeing the sun, moon, and stars unlike what NASA has been showing us. This is why I post all the videos that I think are good ones. Flat earth is primarily a "visual" empirically based argument against the status quo.

In the end I want to know what is and is not true as well, or at least understand this as well as I can. I'm open to flat earth mostly because sun centered universe is no longer the simple God created Copernican Christian model.

--Dave


You say you're having a debate. Not a thing wrong with that, if that's what one is actually doing. But all you've been doing is posting video after video while ignoring almost every response people here blow holes in them with. How is that a debate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top