The Conspiracy Theory

andcp

Manc33 wrote:

The sea between Australia and Chile isn't some magical storm thrashed no man's land like they are trying to claim it is. Flights could cross it on a globe earth no problem.

If you'd read the other link you would have seen ETOPS mentioned. It's all about safety and probability. Further reading here if you think you can believe Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

RDW

There are actually very good reasons why commercial flights do not routinely overfly the Antarctic continent, especially the region around Mount Erebus. Some unusual hazards discovered by the Pabodie Expedition make this a surprisingly risky proposition, presumably making the cost of the insurance premiums prohibitive. If you're interested in the details, William Dyer's popular account comes across as a bit sensational, but is apparently pretty accurate: http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lo ... ddness.htm

Manc33

RDW wrote:

There are actually very good reasons why commercial flights do not routinely overfly the Antarctic continent, especially the region around Mount Erebus. Some unusual hazards discovered by the Pabodie Expedition make this a surprisingly risky proposition, presumably making the cost of the insurance premiums prohibitive. If you're interested in the details, William Dyer's popular account comes across as a bit sensational, but is apparently pretty accurate: http://www.dagonbytes.com/thelibrary/lo ... ddness.htm

Insurance could be higher because they might fly into the edge of the disc, it works both ways!

Or the "firmament" as they call it. The bottom of the dome - they think of it like the "world" in Truman Show, just Earth sized.

The most stupid thing about the theory is it needing a perpetual furnace under the Earth. :roll: Then again if some beings are clever enough to build everything we see around us, they probably have perpetual energy worked out anyway. Humans themselves could probably work this out, but if any scientist did that he would end up bankrupt or whatever and his ideas all stolen. You have to remember the world we are living in too, I mean we would be using water powered engines years ago if it wasn't for the oil companies.

Other things make the Flat Earth Theory sound more viable like how we have been using the same jet engines for the last 60+ years without anything at all replacing it. We are "kept" held back in this way, its so obvious.

Or when people like Richard Branson start saying they want to start offering space travel, the story just goes away and NASA or whoever comes and takes it all over. I bet they do. They think they own space and I find that really offensive.

andcp

There's more to it - the planes drop off GPS altogether around that area. So you can't actually track a plane that does fly between Chile and Australia.

GPS coverage is patchy in that part of the world, but don't forget GPS is a navigation device. If there were planes flying between Chile and Australia you could see them on radar:
http://www.flightradar24.com/1.06,166.55/2

His main point though is that these planes are not being tracked and isn't that dangerous? This is GPS itself we're talking about, not this plane website or that plane website, all of them because they all use only one system - GPS. He also points out how reliant pilots are on GPS - perhaps so reliant that they could not fly anywhere without it. Funny that isn't it - because it didn't even exist in the past and pilots managed.

Next time you see a commercial Pilot and wonder in what's in the bag he's carrying, it's full of charts. Believe me, pilots don't need/use GPS.

andcp

Manc33 wrote:

Other things make the Flat Earth Theory sound more viable like how we have been using the same jet engines for the last 60+ years without anything at all replacing it. We are "kept" held back in this way, its so obvious.

Hang on Manc, I've tried to explain this before - fundamentally, yes the design is the same - suck in air, compress it, ignite it and expel it. The actual physics is the same, but the engine designs have changed beyond all recognition. Think of it as the Wright flyer versus the Boeing 747 - same principle, much different design.

Manc33 wrote:

Or when people like Richard Branson start saying they want to start offering space travel, the story just goes away and NASA or whoever comes and takes it all over. I bet they do. They think they own space and I find that really offensive.

No, Mr Branson's spaceraft crashed, and it's all gone quiet because of this.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014 ... ject-doubt

pblakeney

I just want to acknowledge that I have read this thread.

Thank you for the entertainment. 8)

chris_bass

I still can't tell if manc33 is the best wind up merchant I've ever come across or genuine. I hope it's the former

Stevo_666

Chris Bass wrote:

I still can't tell if manc33 is the best wind up merchant I've ever come across or genuine. I hope it's the former

There is a theory I heard somewhere that Manc33, Cody and VTech are all in reality the same person. Now that might be a decent conspiracy

Manc33

Richard Branson's spacecraft could have been shot down on purpose. He doesn't need to know about the Flat Earth (and clearly doesn't if he is trying to offer space travel!)

I didn't even know it had crashed, but this makes the Flat Earth Theory more viable, not less.

It just shows that if anyone attempts to go into space themselves - something will stop them (always made to look like an accident).

OK here's one, why did seven nations lock down Antarctica in the late 1950's? Why is it a no go area, even if you had the men and resources to explore it all? Funny that they would do that when it is just a wasteland.

In Flat Earth theory they introduced penguins there so the ice wall guards have got food to eat, penguins are the only land animal that lives there.

RDW

Chris Bass wrote:

I still can't tell if manc33 is the best wind up merchant I've ever come across or genuine. I hope it's the former

Manc33 wrote:

In Flat Earth theory they introduced penguins there so the ice wall guards have got food to eat, penguins are the only land animal that lives there.

Chris, I think you have your answer.

RDW

Manc33 wrote:

OK here's one, why did seven nations lock down Antarctica in the late 1950's? Why is it a no go area, even if you had the men and resources to explore it all? Funny that they would do that when it is just a wasteland.

Didn't you read my link above? The lockdown occurred as soon as the authorities realised the full implications of the fate of the Pabodie Expedition.

http://gutalin.deviantart.com/art/At-th ... s-37797758

Manc33

Its not trolling, I am just explaining what the flat earthers think and the "evidence" they have of a flat earth.

ai_1

I would like to state for the record, my regret at having associated myself in any way with a thread riddled with such offensively ignorant and idiotic nonsense. My decision not to engage further in this conversation should not be construed as inability to address the comments made but rather the realisation that dealing with this level of stupidity makes me feel a little ill.

Manc33

Explain this:

When they send cameras up 110,000 feet (multiple videos on YouTube showing these balloons going up with cameras attached) the horizon of Earth looks:

Convexed in the top half of the frame.
Concaved in the bottom half of the frame.
Flat in the middle of the frame.

I know the answer but lets see...

pblakeney

Manc33 wrote:

Explain this:

When they send cameras up 110,000 feet (multiple videos on YouTube showing these balloons going up with cameras attached) the horizon of Earth looks:

Convexed in the top half of the frame.
Concaved in the bottom half of the frame.
Flat in the middle of the frame.

I know the answer but lets see...

Too easy.
Must try harder. C-

Manc33

No thats not the answer. The answer is: The horizon appears flat when it is slightly lower than dead center of the lens. This makes the natural curve of Earth become a straight line because the lens is slightly convexing the horizon making it appear straight.

The amount is so small it still looks like the horizon is in the middle of the frame, whilst actually being ever so slightly lower than center in the frame.

The thing is the videos prove nothing either way. People arguing the video proves earth is a ball are just as stupid as ones claiming it proves earth is flat - and it ain't got sod all to do with the "ball earth Vs flat earth" debate lol.

Stevo_666

Manc33 wrote:

Its not trolling, I am just explaining what the flat earthers think and the "evidence" they have of a flat earth.

You said that you don't believe the Earth is flat and I doubt anyone else on here believes it either. So it's a pointless argument.

andcp

Manc33 wrote:

Richard Branson's spacecraft could have been shot down on purpose.

But it wasn't. If you read the accident report ''Pilot error' was the reason for the accident. People make mistakes sometimes, whether you believe in a flat earth or not

veronese68

Manc33 wrote:

Its not trolling, I am just explaining what the flat earthers think and the "evidence" they have of a flat earth.

The 'evidence' for a flat earth is about as convincing as that given for the other nonsense you are dribbling though.

Kieran_Burns

One thing has become abundantly clear in all the statements (I cannot bring myself to use the word: arguments) put forward by Mac33. He propounds a ridiculous theory, it gets shot down, he does not reply but simply moves onto a new one.

It seems clear that he has now run out of his own and has decided to use the Flat Earth one as a vehicle to continue this thread.

seanoconn

I thought this thread was about conspiracy theories?

chris_bass

Stevo 666 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

I still can't tell if manc33 is the best wind up merchant I've ever come across or genuine. I hope it's the former

There is a theory I heard somewhere that Manc33, Cody and VTech are all in reality the same person. Now that might be a decent conspiracy

Well i have never seen them all in the same room. Therefore it must be true (that is how these theories are proved isn't it?)

veronese68

Chris Bass wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

I still can't tell if manc33 is the best wind up merchant I've ever come across or genuine. I hope it's the former

There is a theory I heard somewhere that Manc33, Cody and VTech are all in reality the same person. Now that might be a decent conspiracy

Well i have never seen them all in the same room. Therefore it must be true (that is how these theories are proved isn't it?)

I think that's rather more evidence than any other theory on this thread.
He gave the game away when he started on about Zionists when he was logged in as Cody rather than Manc.

ai_1

Chris Bass wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

I still can't tell if manc33 is the best wind up merchant I've ever come across or genuine. I hope it's the former

There is a theory I heard somewhere that Manc33, Cody and VTech are all in reality the same person. Now that might be a decent conspiracy

Well i have never seen them all in the same room. Therefore it must be true (that is how these theories are proved isn't it?)

It does indeed seem to be how they are "proved".
At it's best the approach is to look for any sort of correlation that does not appear to contradict the assertion, claim it therefore supports it and then call it proof. I trust the flaws in this method are self evident?
Alternatively it boils down to mentioning a few anecdotes, statistics, assumptions or third party assertions and then stating that therefore your assertion is proved, without the relevance or veracity of any of the supporting "evidence" ever being established.

Damn it, I participated in the thread again.....

seanoconn

Veronese68 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

I still can't tell if manc33 is the best wind up merchant I've ever come across or genuine. I hope it's the former

There is a theory I heard somewhere that Manc33, Cody and VTech are all in reality the same person. Now that might be a decent conspiracy

Well i have never seen them all in the same room. Therefore it must be true (that is how these theories are proved isn't it?)

I think that's rather more evidence than any other theory on this thread.
He gave the game away when he started on about Zionists when he was logged in as Cody rather than Manc.

I always try to remember not to talk about coffee, booze and fried pig products when I'm logged in as seanoconn.

chris_bass

I only mention wheels when logged in as Ugo

RDW

Ai_1 wrote:

Damn it, I participated in the thread again.....

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."

norvernrob

Andcp wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

The sea between Australia and Chile isn't some magical storm thrashed no man's land like they are trying to claim it is. Flights could cross it on a globe earth no problem.

If you'd read the other link you would have seen ETOPS mentioned. It's all about safety and probability. Further reading here if you think you can believe Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS

I was going to say they're the obvious things about flying over the Antarctic. There are no nearby airports should a plane develop a fault or need to do an emergency landing, and even if the pilot did manage to land safely the odds against anyone surviving in that environment until being rescued are remote.

Fuel saving doesn't come into it, the cost of airline tickets is simply more than it would be if the flight was shorter. Ask most passengers and I'm pretty sure they'd be happier to be close to an airport should anything happen.

No mystery there whatsoever.

ai_1

It says a lot that these guys think the best way to figure out the shape of the planet is to do internet searches for flight schedules and costs.

Can anyone enlighten me as to the motives these guys give, if any, for this grand deception?

I've been to many places round the world, and observed season changes, different length days, shifts in the sun and moons schedules, seen horizons.... all that crazy stuff. I presume there are really well thought out feasible explanations for these phenomena too? I have no doubt there are, they could hardly be avoided but seriously, are they any better than the long haul flight proposition?

Always liked the Great A'Tuin! And now he's real.....Yay!

We should start mining for the fifth elephant deposits immediately and end the energy crisis, or is that real (the energy crisis I mean, - I'm sure we can all agree on the plausibility of the fifth elephant!)

RDW

Ai_1 wrote:

Can anyone enlighten me as to the motives these guys give, if any, for this grand deception

I can only assume they're under Reptilian control, and the purpose of the exercise is to obscure the true nature of the planet as a 4 CORNER SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE: http://www.timecube.com/