Flat Earth - It's NOT Ridiculous

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

That's not true. You need the appropriate qualifications to be a pilot and of course you need ATC clearance for your journey, but unless you're a military pilot there are no reporting restrictions.

In earlier times (e.g. cold war), astronauts needed fairly high-level security clearances, and still need security clearance for work involving DoD tests and payloads, but now there's no specific requirement beyond background checks, and no NDAs are required. Obviously, they can't talk about secret or restricted military matters, but there's no problem with the everyday stuff.

Click to expand...

The problems of a conspiracy theory: the non-existence of evidence is evidence that something is hidden.

So I can safely claim that pilots cannot talk about what they see up there, and I don't have to give evidence for that... because there cannot be any evidence... because, see, pilot cannot talk about what they see up there.

AV1611VET said:

How easy do you think it was to deny that the Challenger wasn't fit for launch?

I submit it was a piece of cake for a shrewdness of scientists to tell someone, who was telling them the truth, to take a hike.

Click to expand...

In the Challenger case, the engineers and technicians at Morton Thiokol repeatedly raised their concerns and protested at the highest available level, but it was the MT management that made the decision to proceed, under perceived pressure from NASA management.

A Realist said:

Yes, but according to FE'ers (in order to maintain and propagate their farce), the "real" truth about it all is "secret stuff", that the astronauts are not allowed to talk about.

Click to expand...

Naturally - FE'ers have to believe a significant proportion of the world's population is part of the conspiracy... if they bother to think about it at all.

Freodin said:

The problems of a conspiracy theory: the non-existence of evidence is evidence that something is hidden.

So I can safely claim that pilots cannot talk about what they see up there, and I don't have to give evidence for that... because there cannot be any evidence... because, see, pilot cannot talk about what they see up there.

Click to expand...

Much of what pilots see, the passengers also see, and there are over 4 billion passenger flights every year. Even if only a small proportion is long-haul flights, that's one big conspiracy...

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

Much of what pilots see, the passengers also see, and there are over 4 billion passenger flights every year. Even if only a small proportion is long-haul flights, that's one big conspiracy...

Click to expand...

That and all of the other things mentioned by the informed, non-paranoid folks on this thread are why, yes, flat earth notions ARE ridiculous.

Zetetica said:

The Bible doesn’t outright state it. However, it doesn’t refute it either.

Click to expand...

You can't refute a premise that didn't exist.

Zetetica said:

I could go on listing things people believe in. However, I think you get the point. So… Why do you believe the world is a globe, orbiting the Sun? Can your reasons have other explanations than what you currently accept?

Click to expand...

You have confused Adam's flat Earth with the present Earth. God tells us the the world/kosmos that THEN WAS perished or in Greek: was totally destroyed in the flood. Then God tells speaks of the heavens and Earth WHICH ARE NOW. 2Pe 3:7

The first Earth was placed inside the firmament on top of water. Genesis 1:9-10 Try to make a model of that without getting a FLAT EARTH. Adam's Earth was destroyed "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 in the flood. It's gone, never to rise again. We live on the 2nd Earth, a rock with a molten core and covered with water. You have confused Adam's world with the present world. Amen?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

That's not true. You need the appropriate qualifications to be a pilot and of course you need ATC clearance for your journey, but unless you're a military pilot there are no reporting restrictions.

In earlier times (e.g. cold war), astronauts needed fairly high-level security clearances, and still need security clearance for work involving DoD tests and payloads, but now there's no specific requirement beyond background checks, and no NDAs are required. Obviously, they can't talk about secret or restricted military matters, but there's no problem with the everyday stuff.

Click to expand...

What's not true? I said pilots need clearance to fly... do they not?

I said astronauts need clearance to go up... do they not?

I didn't say anything about qualifications and, if we are being honest that is a completely different argument (one that would actually highlight how painfully ignorant the layperson is about "secrets".)


Do not conflagrate a problem because the implications bother you. Pilots and astronauts need clearance, which means the layperson will always know LESS than they know. You assume pedestrian layperson things are pedestrian pilot/astronaut events. This is folly.

Every day a secret is given to layperson in their faces; you don't know how to decipher these secrets because the same institution that remains clandestine in plain sight is of the same school of thought that has you and others defending it. You don't realize you are being boiled alive by your own logic taught to you by the ones who would eat your flesh.

I hope you find what you are looking for.

Kaon said:

What's not true? I said pilots need clearance to fly... do they not?

Click to expand...

They do not. At least not a security clearance.

It's not like they require passengers to have a clearance to prevent them from reporting what they might see if they look out the window.

Tinker Grey said:

They do not. At least not a security clearance.

It's not like they require passengers to have a clearance to prevent them from reporting what they might see if they look out the window.

Click to expand...

Don't you understand that passengers in an airline aren't really looking at the earth when they peer out the window? It's all virtual reality. We are being deceived.

Tinker Grey said:

They do not. At least not a security clearance.

It's not like they require passengers to have a clearance to prevent them from reporting what they might see if they look out the window.

Click to expand...

Oh, ok. Only if you say so.

Kaon said:

Oh, ok. Only if you say so.

Click to expand...

I work in the defense industry. I have a clearance. I know what they are for and to some extent what they are not for.

Of course, you can prove me wrong. Just find some documentation of the requirement for a clearance.

A Realist said:

You can't refute a premise that didn't exist.

Click to expand...

When ever you want to take a look at the Bible and how it speaks about Gods creation to see, does the descriptions line up with a flat, stationary creation. With the sun, moon and stars moving over the earth. Place in a raqia between two bodies of water that is separated by the raqia.

Or does the Bibles language match a science created illusion. with a globe earth (ball of water) moving around a star sun, along with a rock moon reflecting the suns light, etc...

d taylor said:

When ever you want to take a look at the Bible and how it speaks about Gods creation to see, does the descriptions line up with a flat, stationary creation. With the sun, moon and stars moving over the earth. Place in a raqia between two bodies of water that is separated by the raqia.

Or does the Bibles language match a science created illusion. with a globe earth (ball of water) moving around a star sun, along with a rock moon reflecting the suns light, etc...

Click to expand...

It appears that you are stating that the Bible is wrong.

Subduction Zone said:

But that is a very foolish thing to say. How is "science" lying? We can confirm the rotation of the Earth in several different ways. There is not even a working Flat Earth Model All that Flat Earthers have are self contradicting claims.

Click to expand...

Talk about working models, it is science that can not produce a working to scale with the distances they say exist.
I have been asking for a model to demonstrate the effect of the moon, the unlit side, that is supposedly black in outer space. That when the moon is seen during the day the earths atmosphere changes the black unlit side to the blue unlit side we see during the day. but no one can show that working model keeping the scale.

Or a working model lighting the moon from a light source (representing the sun) then having the reflected light from the moon to shine on a model earth.

d taylor said:

Talk about working models, it is science that can not produce a working to scale with the distances they say exist.
I have been asking for a model to demonstrate the effect of the moon, the unlit side, that is supposedly black in outer space. That when the moon is seen during the day the earths atmosphere changes the black unlit side to the blue unlit side we see during the day. but no one can show that working model keeping the scale.

Or a working model lighting the moon from a light source (representing the sun) then having the reflected light from the moon to shine on a model earth.

Click to expand...

Of course they can. Tell me what part you do not understand and I will gladly help you.

And what makes you think the the far side of the Moon is unlit? Where did you get that idea from? Your understanding of the Moon is terribly flawed. The Moon is tidally locked with the Earth. That means that the same side is always facing the Earth. And it also means that a Lunar "day" is a little more than four of our weeks long.

d taylor said:

Talk about working models, it is science that can not produce a working to scale with the distances they say exist.
I have been asking for a model to demonstrate the effect of the moron, the unlit side, that is supposedly black in outer space. That when the moon is seen during the day the earths atmosphere changes the black unlit side to the blue unlit side we see during the day. but no one can show that working model keeping the scale.

Or a working model lighting the moon from a light source (representing the sun) then having the reflected light from the moon to shine on a model earth.

Click to expand...

I finally understand what you are asking here. The moon does not "turn blue". When one sees the Moon during the day as you can see here:



The unlit side is not "blue" what you are seeing is the sky, or more accurately the light scattering caused by the atmosphere. You do not see the unlit side at all. The part that you can see is bright enough to be seen even through the scattering. Think of it as a photographic double exposure back in the film days. The dark part of the Moon contributes nothing to the picture, the sky, which is bright, does. Please note, even though they are still shining you do not see the stars. They are not as bright as the daytime sky so they do not register at all on your eyes. It appears that you problem here is not understanding how either sight or photography work.

d taylor said:

I guess that makes you a big boy, insulting a believer.
I understand, when you take science over the Bible, those are really your only discussion points.

Click to expand...

Not trying to insult you. Seriously, you don't make a lick of sense sometimes

d taylor said:

What about them, or how about the hail stones.

Click to expand...

How do you think that they formed? Scientists have a working model that describes their formation.

How would you test your theory? That means what reasonable test would show you to be wrong?

Subduction Zone said:

How do you think that they formed? Scientists have a working model that describes their formation.

How would you test your theory? That means what reasonable test would show you to be wrong?

Click to expand...

I am not a scientist and i do not have a theory about rain, hail, etc.. really i do not need one.
What i believe is stated by the Bible. The Bible states that God somewhere has hail stored away for times of war. theses hail stones were used in the past and will be used in the future.
And as for the jars, there is nowhere in the Bible where the Bible states, rain comes from jars.


The Bible does state rain comes from clouds and also the sky.
"He wraps up the waters in His clouds, And the cloud does not burst under them.
Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit.