The Rod of God -- (!) Pages 33 and 34 (!)

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

:|

[poptart]

the water does go to the low point which is a tangental arc. Seeing as the radius of this arc is roughly four thousand miles, it appears to be a flat surface.

Wat??

I said the natural lake is 1/4 miles long.

In that case, a 2" arc must be there.
Round earthers are saying that water will stack up on the arc, rather than flow down to lower ground.

[R-Jack]

Will someone just go on a flight to Antarctica already?
Real simple. Fly down, hang a right and fly along the coastline. If the coast stays in the left side of your window.....round.

Tart, you live in slopeville. You obviously got time on your hands. Be a hero.

[poptart]

He agreed that in orbit on the DAYLIGHT side he couldn't either after Neil's statement.

1. You saw Armstrong's reaction when Collins said that, right?

2. Some Apollo astronauts reported seeing the brighter stars if they stood in the shadow of the lunar lander and raised their protective gold visors.
http://astrobob.areavoices.com/2015/05/ ... 8tKik.dpuf

3. Edgar Mitchell said stars are 10x brighter and 10x more numerous in space.

4. Michale Collins was not ON the moon, but was 100 miles up, in space.

[poptart]

. . . on the arc, rather than flow down to lower ground.

OK maybe this is really not a big troll job.

Pops, do you mind me asking about your history of belief? Born into, converted, saw the light, just wondering.






PS I've tried to be civil and respectful and read your stuff, tho this is a smack board.

You must be completely clueless.

Answer about the Toronto skyline if you want to say something.

[poptart]

If it's so easy to go to the moon, why not go BACK?
40 years later, with advance in tech, it should be a piece of cake now?


People, have you ever been to NASA and looked at this flimsy shit that supposedly went to to the moon and back?

I wouldn't trust riding this garbage on wheels down to Busan, yet we supposedly went to the moon and back in it.


Friggin' Pong hadn't been invented, folks.
We were a decade away from Space Invaders, yet we sent 6 missions to the moon, through the Van Allen Belt -- in flimsy shit cans.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people?


I know I am in the minority, but damn, I'm glad I am.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...Van...

...and I promised myself I wasn't going to cry...


:cry:

[Jay in Phoenix]

If it's so easy to go to the moon, why not go BACK?
40 years later, with advance in tech, it should be a piece of cake now?

That's easy. Funding. As well as some serious shortsightedness as well as concentrating on other projects. At some point we will return. There is an a light, non-radioactive isotope of helium called helium 3, that could become a substantial source of power and the moon is supposed to be rich with it. China is already at work on a lunar mission to explore this possibility. In the interim, our gov has other priorities, all politically based, not exploratory.

People, have you ever been to NASA and looked at this flimsy shit that supposedly went to to the moon and back?

I wouldn't trust riding this garbage on wheels down to Busan, yet we supposedly went to the moon and back in it.

Since you know jack crap about physics, science, logic or anything else that actually matters, your question is silly and meaningless. Equipment going to an environment as it exists on the moon doesn't require the same density or properties as it does on Earth. Get a basic grasp of gravity and start there.

Friggin' Pong hadn't been invented, folks.
We were a decade away from Space Invaders, yet we sent 6 missions to the moon, through the Van Allen Belt -- in flimsy shit cans.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people?

Seriously, what is wrong with you. What the he'll does a video game for Joe Public have to do with NASA tech? What, you expect the same science and technology to be available in a video game as it would be applied for scientific missions and research. Are you really that dense? Come onoptart, at least pose a reasoned question once in a while. That one was incredibly silly.

That "shit can" as you refer to it, helped save the lives of three very smart and brave astronauts on Apollo 13. Without the lunar module, they would have died. But as you don't believe we have even been into space, this widely known and well documented fact is lost on you. Go read Jim Lovell's "Lost Moon" sometime. Or not. You are too blinded by your own myopic stubbornness to absorb anything new, truthful or rational.

I know I am in the minority, but damn, I'm glad I am.

A minority of one, indeed you are. As ignorance is bliss, you must be one amazingly happy idiot.

[poptart]

Uh, gravity, round planets . . . Oh never mind.

If not hopelessly lost in the bible dogma, then Pops it looks like you are fanatical and compulsive about taking this troll job so far.

Either way, it will be entertaining watching you descend farther into the abyss. I don't think you can let go now.

This is the typical response to PRACTICAL thing which I've posted.

Suit yourself.
No skin off my nose.

[poptart]

Think for a minute about Hollywood, folks.

They make movies about everything, right?

Now think (if you really can) about what is very arguably the greatest adventure/accomplishment in modern American history.
Maybe in all of American history -- and maybe in all of world history.

The Apollo 11 moon landing triumph!


No movie made.

Let it sink in.

And really no movie about any of the Apollo moon landings.

The Right Stuff hardly touched it and was all about the early days -- and personal drama, doings, and accomplishments.

Apollo 13 was not at all about a moon landing.


Apollo 11.
Maybe THE greatest of all human adventures.
The pinnacle of American greatness.
Skill, bravery, adventure.

NO Apollo moon landing movie made.


Obvious hypothesis: A moon landing movie would have had people (well, maybe not most of you) pausing, scratching their head and saying, "Wow, this moon film shit looks kind of real. Pretty realistic looking. How do we know the Apollo dealie was... real?"


Or... maybe THE greatest of all human adventures as a movie -- is just something that nobody has yet thought to produce.











*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?

[poptart]

Anyways I have a question for you. Do you believe that a lake, one mile from shore to shore, is flat (as it appears to me) or is it 8" diff due to the earth's curve, the same as one mile of ocean must be?

Jayne, you didn't answer him.
Yet you keep whining about questions not being answered.

NOBODY answered him.
lol


You people are ALL bark.

Pitiful.
Just pitiful.

[War Wagon]

14 pages... I'm not reading all that, but I've read enough.

'tart, what's your take on 9/11 - do you believe the official story of that episode was fiction?

You may have chimed in on that before but if so, I missed it.

[Atomic Punk]

Think for a minute about Hollywood, folks.

They make movies about everything, right?

Now think (if you really can) about what is very arguably the greatest adventure/accomplishment in modern American history.
Maybe in all of American history -- and maybe in all of world history.

The Apollo 11 moon landing triumph!


No movie made.

Let it sink in.

And really no movie about any of the Apollo moon landings.

The Right Stuff hardly touched it and was all about the early days -- and personal drama, doings, and accomplishments.

Apollo 13 was not at all about a moon landing.


Apollo 11.
Maybe THE greatest of all human adventures.
The pinnacle of American greatness.
Skill, bravery, adventure.

NO Apollo moon landing movie made.

I told you before. I have the Apollo mission movies on DVD. I've watched every single one of them. They are long and somewhat boring.

You keep KYOA so badly it's a wonder you can sleep.

[Felix]

I do assume we are enclosed by a firmament.

and what kind of "firmament" would that be?

If it's so easy to go to the moon, why not go BACK?

it costs hundreds of millions of dollars and all we get are some rocks......why should we be forking over the money necessary to fund another trip to the moon?
there are better ways that money can be spent....

once again, if it was faked how many people would have to be involved and remain silent about it? thousands?
do you honestly think thousands of people involved in a project like that could keep a secret like that? you're an okay cat, but man somewhere the train derailed, rolled down the hill and killed everybody living near the tracks on this one tart.....just sayin

[Atomic Punk]

Pops, just for fun... how come you don't see stars during DAYLIGHT on the Earth but can at night? Could it be that the relative brightness of the closest star to us and the Moon is more powerful than the ambient light from distant stars? Hmmm...

[poptart]

tart, what's your take on 9/11 - do you believe the official story of that episode was fiction?

I've not really explored it that deeply.

But...
I've never seen a satisfactory answer for why Building 7 fell the way it did.
And the two main towers appeared to me to be a controlled demolition fall.
As I noted in the thread I started a couple of months ago, Bush just sitting there in the classroom when the country was under attack pointed to something being awry.
Maybe it's just that he was completely fucked, I don't know.

There are a lot of other things, and our government has no credibility.

That said, I've never seen anything to persuade me that Bush & Cheney knew it was coming and/or were in on it.

[poptart]

You keep KYOA so badly it's a wonder you can sleep.

I guess you can keep chirping that if you want to, but as I look at this, I see that you've brought almost nothing packing a punch to counter the substantive points I've brought to the thread.

[Atomic Punk]

You keep KYOA so badly it's a wonder you can sleep.

I guess you can keep chirping that if you want to, but as I look at this, I see that you've brought almost nothing packing a punch to counter the shit points I've brought to the thread.

FTFY

[poptart]

and what kind of "firmament" would that be?

I'm not sure.
I do think it's something we can not go beyond.

See Genesis 1:6-8, 14-18.


I think the overwhelming number of people at NASA just do their own job within their own department.
And they all grew up looking at a globe (their home) sitting on their teacher's desk in 1st grade.
They all think the world is round and it orbits the sun.

NASA puts out laffable bullshit -- and laffable tales which only children can believe, Felix.

[Atomic Punk]

I've met John Young, and even have his autograph from when he was on STS-1. This was some of the Apollo 16 mission on 16mm film back in 1972.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Anyways I have a question for you. Do you believe that a lake, one mile from shore to shore, is flat (as it appears to me) or is it 8" diff due to the earth's curve, the same as one mile of ocean must be?

Jay, you didn't answer him.

That' s true, I did not, as MS didn't seem to be addressing it to me.

As to the Apollo 11 movie question, there could be any number of reasons Hollywood hasn't turned this bit of history into a drama. It could be an issue of rights, or that the story exists and was being considered, but some studio has it sitting in limbo. Do you have any idea how many scripts are written, purchased, finalized and green lighted only to get thrust into studio limbo? Happens every day. Just because a film hasn't been made doesn't give any credibility to your protests about it.

For every movie that gets made, there are hundreds that are not.

Still, as AP answered, there are plenty of documentaries, newsreels, etc. that are available for perusal.

Now then, once again, why would NASA and every other world government agency involved in space exploration, experimentation, etc., be engaged in a cover-up and what is to be gained by it?

No names, no insults, just a straightforward two-part basic question.

[Moving Sale]

I was addressing you Jay.

[Jay in Phoenix]

I was addressing you Jay.

Okay cool, appreciate you clearing that up MS.

Bear in mind, I answered this question already (in an indirect way). The properties of water and the shape it maintains is variable. At the most basic level, a single drop of water is round. A large volume of water can literally "bend", on the surface of a volume. I put that in quotations for a reason. It depends on said volume and conditions, including gravitational pull, weather, seasons, etc.

A perfectly calm volume of water at rest, depending on volume and containment, can appear flat. Does it mean that it is? Maybe yes or no.

Does it mean that it is curving to the exact specifications as you ascribe in the example? Same answer. As a body of water can rise or fall, there is no perfect answer. Water is malleable, fluid. It is in almost constant motion.

Go back to the issue of perspective. If you have a perfectly flat plane, no matter how long or wide, the vanishing point of the horizon or an object on the horizon maintains a "flat" perspective. If you look out onto the distant horizon of the ocean and spot a large enough ship, as example, that ship will appear to "rise" from the surface rather than appear as a perfect shape in the distance. The Earth is round, of this there is no dispute. Poptart even showed this without realizing it by giving an illustration of a spinning moon. A ROUND moon, same as the rest of the planets in our solar system and elsewhere. You see this with your eyes everybday you look up into the sky. Look through a good telescope and view, say Saturn, and you not only see a round planet, but the round rings surrounding it.

What I am curious about Sale, is why you are indulging pops and his math with subjects and facts you already know the answer to. Unless of course, you are buy into flat Earth theory as well.

What is your answer?

[poptart]

AP, your video.
From 2:20 - 3:30.

Can you honestly watch that and think it is real?
Wow.

Hey, it's one thing to be duped, but to continue on?
Free your mind.


Jay, I told you.
Watch Flat Earth Clues #2.
If you do that, it shows me you have a genuine open mind to explore the subject.
Then I'm glad to elaborate on where I am coming from.

Absent that, I won't waste my time on it with you.

Anyways I have a question for you. Do you believe that a lake, one mile from shore to shore, is flat (as it appears to me) or is it 8" diff due to the earth's curve, the same as one mile of ocean must be?

It was a yes or no question.

Jay danced but did not answer.

A perfectly calm volume of water at rest, depending on volume and containment, can appear flat. Does it mean that it is? Maybe yes or no.

Does it mean that it is curving to the exact specifications as you ascribe in the example? Same answer. As a body of water can rise or fall, there is no perfect answer. Water is malleable, fluid. It is in almost constant motion.

lol




By not answering, Jay can claim that water will stay up on the tangent point -- because there is "no perfect answer" -- even though we all know that water ALWAYS falls to the lower points.

Water will do what Jay wants it to do -- to fit his preconceived round earth model.

[Atomic Punk]

Pops, you really stopped watching the video at the beginning? Why not scroll forward to maybe 30 minutes in? Like I've said, I've watched every one of the Apollo missions in the utmost boring detail. Each mission had 6 to 8 hours of raw footage. That is good ole 1970's technology at its finest. You didn't bother to watch Young and Mattingly drive around on the Moon's surface? Pretty hard to fake that.

[R-Jack]

Pops, you really stopped watching the video at the beginning? Why not scroll forward to maybe 30 minutes in? Like I've said, I've watched every one of the Apollo missions in the utmost boring detail. Each mission had 6 to 8 hours of raw footage. That is good ole 1970's technology at its finest. You didn't bother to watch Young and Mattingly drive around on the Moon's surface? Pretty hard to fake that.

You're going to have to wait. 'Tart is skimming through the latest Variety to prove his point.

[poptart]

What's proven is that what we see of the Toronto skyline is NOT POSSIBLE with the current paradigm y'all buy into.

I'm sure there are a few who are reading who have taken blinders off and are looking at things.
For those, I continue to post on the subject.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Pops, you really stopped watching the video at the beginning? Why not scroll forward to maybe 30 minutes in? Like I've said, I've watched every one of the Apollo missions in the utmost boring detail. Each mission had 6 to 8 hours of raw footage. That is good ole 1970's technology at its finest. You didn't bother to watch Young and Mattingly drive around on the Moon's surface? Pretty hard to fake that.

Yes, of course he has. What is astounding is that this is the exact same thing he complains about for anyone not watching more than a few minutes of his very selective videos. That he won't realize or acknowledge this the essence of his hypocrisy.

Pops accuses others of wearing binders as he narrows the focus of his own.

Hysterical. Or as he prefers...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jay in Phoenix]

Oh yes, of course. As to that little water graphic, where is the force of gravity being factored in?

It isn't.

The calculations you and MS seem to be so enamored with are restricted by a single mile of distance. Try using something a bit more reasonable in consideration of the size of the planet, say from the East coast of North Carolina to the West coast of Australia. From point A to point B. Using a telescope that can cover the distance from the Earth to the moon, a much, much longer distance, if the plane of the surface of the Earth is flat, you should be able to easily see the other shore. Yet, you cannot. Why?

[R-Jack]

What's proven is that what we see of the Toronto skyline is NOT POSSIBLE

From what I've heard the strippers are unreal too.

Just a magical place.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Just a magical place.

Where dreams come true, chum.

Where dreams come true.

[poptart]

Yes, of course he has. What is astounding is that this is the exact same thing he complains about for anyone not watching more than a few minutes of his very selective videos. That he won't realize or acknowledge this the essence of his hypocrisy

You are a complete tool.

Where did I say I didn't watch his video?
lol

All I did was point out that you can easily notice that it is fake within the first 3 minutes.

I watched most all of it.

[poptart]

The calculations you and MS seem to be so enamored with are restricted by a single mile of distance. Try using something a bit more reasonable in consideration of the size of the planet, say from the East coast of North Carolina to the West coast of Australia

Stop dancing, puppet.

Over the span of 1 earth mile (water or not), there MUST be an 8" drop -- if the current round earth model is reality.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

The calculations you and MS seem to be so enamored with are restricted by a single mile of distance. Try using something a bit more reasonable in consideration of the size of the planet, say from the East coast of North Carolina to the West coast of Australia

Stop dancing, puppet.

Over the span of 1 earth mile (water or not), there MUST be an 8" drop -- if the current round earth model is reality.

Well, to be precise, Earth isn't a perfect sphere...

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...but please, continue shaking your magic bag of chicken bones or whatever it was that you were doing.

[poptart]

[Jay in Phoenix]

The calculations you and MS seem to be so enamored with are restricted by a single mile of distance. Try using something a bit more reasonable in consideration of the size of the planet, say from the East coast of North Carolina to the West coast of Australia

Stop dancing, puppet.

Over the span of 1 earth mile (water or not), there MUST be an 8" drop -- if the current round earth model is reality.

Stop dodging poptart.

Answer the line of sight question.

[poptart]

if the plane of the surface of the Earth is flat, you should be able to easily see the other shore. Yet, you cannot. Why?

lol

1. YOU have not answered MS's question.

2. As I've said many times, I don't know for sure what the exact shape of the earth is. Just that the model we've been shown is not it.


There needs to be an 8" drop over a 1 mile span of the earth -- water or not.
This is not open to any interpretation.
It is based on the earth being 25,000 miles in circumference.
That's YOUR model.
Deal with it.

[Atomic Punk]

if the plane of the surface of the Earth is flat, you should be able to easily see the other shore. Yet, you cannot. Why?

(insert deflect)

LOL

Deal with it.

[poptart]

Follow the thread.

Jay was asked simple yes or no question by MS... days ago.

He still has not answered -- yet he wants to ask me a question instead.

Very rude and silly of Jay.


Beyond that, if you've got disagreement with what I said in that last post, go for it.


Drive-by rolleyes and/or "You're an idiot" takes are methods of the very weak-minded.

No beef.

Anyways I have a question for you. Do you believe that a lake, one mile from shore to shore, is flat (as it appears to me) or is it 8" diff due to the earth's curve, the same as one mile of ocean must be?

Do you have an answer, AP?

It's YOUR model.
lol