The NSMB Random Conspiracy Theory Thread

And forget all those high altitude plane and satellite photos.  It's just lens arberation.

Posted by: KenN

How does the center (north "pole") of a flat earth end up colder than the temperate doughnut bounded by the central "north" and the outer ring "south", if the sun hits the whole thing equally?

Couldnt tell ya. Other than think of a heat lamp on a roast for lack of a better description?? edit: you're using the helio-centric Sun as opposed to the FE Sun that is within the Dome. Again, just relaying what I've read. No idea what Physics they use but it probably doesnt jive with anything we've read.

Can you tell me how many people, myself included, can see or have seen clouds behind the Sun or Moon if they're not in our atmosphere? If you want pics, my cell phone doesnt pick up much.

Posted by: switch

And forget all those high altitude plane and satellite photos.  It's just lens arberation.

Good, glad you understand ;) They say (almost) all of the images of Earf from space are renderings? Unless land masses rapidly change size over 1-2 decades. According to Flat Earfer's, there are no satellites. Why? Because firmament. .. .....

Keep in mind, I'm merely passing on things I've read from reading about Flat Earf.

I'll leave this one with you guys. Covers an air travel route. After looking at it, look at South America to Australia.

When I look out to the distant of an ocean and see a ship appear, top of the mast first and then the rest of the shop rise up out of the water, it doesn't make me think the Earth is flat.  Same thing on land - I can see farther if I climb up to the top of a hill or to the top of a skyscraper.

Posted by: switch

When I look out to the distant of an ocean and see a ship appear, top of the mast first and then the rest of the shop rise up out of the water, it doesn't make me think the Earth is flat. Same thing on land - I can see farther if I climb up to the top of a hill or to the top of a skyscraper.

The horizon is limited by the human eye. Look into it, this has apparently been debunked. Or youtube flat earf laser tests of the (lack of) curvature. It's an 8 foot drop per mile right? Missile tech, mortars and planes do not account for curvature iirc.

edit: Next time you're at the beach and see a ship go over the horizon, bring some binocs or a d90 and look at it. Easier test.

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

The horizon is limited by the human eye. Look into it, this has apparently been debunked. Or youtube flat earf laser tests of the (lack of) curvature. It's an 8 foot drop per mile right? Missile tech, mortars and planes do not account for curvature iirc.

edit: Next time you're at the beach and see a ship go over the horizon, bring some binocs or a d90 and look at it. Easier test.

Human eye can see pretty far.  Right now I can see the sun and it's 90 million miles away...  But use binoculars or a telescope and watch a tall ship (like a cruise ship) sail out into the distance.  It will shrink in size from the bottom up.

Airliners fly from Vancouver to London via a curved, polar route because it's a shorter distance.  Only makes sense if the Earth is spherical, otherwise a curved route would take longer.

Ballistics for short range mortars aren't concerned about the 5cm drop per kilometer as being off by a few centimeters won't make much of a difference.  But highly precise targeting needs to be, and also needs to be for long ranges.  For example, precise long range rifle shots need to be concerned about the Coriolis effect, which exists because of a rotating Earth.

Putting satellites in orbit needs to take into account the curvature of the Earth.  Don't know how you get orbiting satellites with a flat Earth - do they just magically disappear at one end and then pop up at the other end?  What keeps them from falling out of the sky if the Earth isn't spherical?

Posted by: switch

Posted by: aShogunNamedMarcus

The horizon is limited by the human eye. Look into it, this has apparently been debunked. Or youtube flat earf laser tests of the (lack of) curvature. It's an 8 foot drop per mile right? Missile tech, mortars and planes do not account for curvature iirc.

edit: Next time you're at the beach and see a ship go over the horizon, bring some binocs or a d90 and look at it. Easier test.

1.Human eye can see pretty far. Right now I can see the sun and it's 90 million miles away... But use binoculars or a telescope and watch a tall ship (like a cruise ship) sail out into the distance. It will shrink in size from the bottom up.

2. Airliners fly from Vancouver to London via a curved, polar route because it's a shorter distance. Only makes sense if the Earth is spherical, otherwise a curved route would take longer.

1b. Ballistics for short range mortars aren't concerned about the 5cm drop per kilometer as being off by a few centimeters won't make much of a difference. But highly precise targeting needs to be, and also needs to be for long ranges. For example, precise long range rifle shots need to be concerned about the Coriolis effect, which exists because of a rotating Earth.

3. Putting satellites in orbit needs to take into account the curvature of the Earth. Don't know how you get orbiting satellites with a flat Earth - do they just magically disappear at one end and then pop up at the other end? What keeps them from falling out of the sky if the Earth isn't spherical?

1. Sun comment doesnt deal with the horizon. If its 93 million miles away, why can we see clouds behind it?

1b. Is the drop 8 feet per mile or 5cm per km ? Coriolis effect - So how come volcanic ash post eruption doesnt swirl until its affected by the wind or jet stream - those plumes or ejecta can reach the upper atmosphere? If I took a helicopter, flew 5 km straight up, hovered for 3 hours then descended, where would I land (provided a gps lock is off)?

2. GPS loc of Vancouver, London, Hong Kong and Japan:

London : 51.5074° N, 0.1278° W

Vancouver : 49.2827° N, 123.1207° W

Sapporo Japan : 43.0621° N, 141.3544° E

Hong Kong : 22.3964° N, 114.1095° E

Doesnt look so curved to me. Van to London looks due East bruv. When I flew to China from YVR/SFO, I wondered why we didnt fly straight across the Pacific because the HUD on the chair in front of me had us going North close to coastal Alaska, Russia and Japan then HK. Is that for safety and recovery reasons in case of an accident? I realize its a representation to give the look of take off, flight level altitude and then descent. But look at the Flat Earf in the linked pic posted above and it oddly enough, lines up with what I saw on the HUD. Somethings fucky.

3: A DOD man is quoted as saying there's no satellites just balloons and planes/drones. I'll look for it, if you want. Most of the internet traffic is still via sub-sea cables from what I've read.

Switch bruuuuuv... ? Where'd you go?

You didnt fall off the edge of the map did you .... tee hee ;)

I'll admit the Volcanic ash plume question is easily explained. But the helicopter question is very similar to Felix Baumgartner and the Red Bull atmosphere jump - he floated a balloon from New Mexico to the atmosphere and he landed back in New Mexico. Common sense says he should not have been over New Mexico when he jumped. BUT.

Lets collectively hash some things out: like whats the distance that an earth hour covers in day light? If I'm going by time zones, it's roughly 1,100km per hour going from MST to PST (Calgary vs Vancouver).  That doesnt help my argument lol. But thats also not the human definition of an earth hour.

According to Wiki, the ascent lasted 2.5 hours. Considering the Earf rotates at 1,000mph and he's freely ascending in a balloon, he should've been 2 - 2,5000~ Miles from where he took off, give or take a 50-100 for wind shear? Can a free falling object cover that distance back to base or GZ after 4:19 of free fall?

edit: after noticing the take off and landing gps coords on wiki, he landed 71.55km away from where he took off.

One other "argument": They call it sea level because water always finds its level. Can Water ever be level on a spinning sphere?

Water isn't level on the Earth.  That's why we have tides.

Is not gravitational theory trying to explain that due to the mass of rotating earth every object is influenced by the mass and therefore by gravity?

Re: the horizon - I think that the earth is so huge that a height of a commercial flight is simply not high enough to notice the curvature, my guess.

And....I have never seen clouds behind the sun and if I ever should I'd assume an optical illusion because of the light from the sun.