Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

NASA could tell you, but then they would have to kill you.

In all seriousness, this is a good question. I think this question is also why so many people make fun of flat earthers. So many conspiracy theories about why NASA and the Earth Oligarchy want us to believe the earth is round, yet none of them seem to make sense.

My guess is that it relates to the safety of the Earth and its inhabitants. Or maybe there is a more complex reason, but I would assume that very few people know for sure.

I wish I could answer wrote:

NASA could tell you, but then they would have to kill you.

In all seriousness, this is a good question. I think this question is also why so many people make fun of flat earthers. So many conspiracy theories about why NASA and the Earth Oligarchy want us to believe the earth is round, yet none of them seem to make sense.

My guess is that it relates to the safety of the Earth and its inhabitants. Or maybe there is a more complex reason, but I would assume that very few people know for sure.

It's one f'ing big conspiracy:

- Aerospace engineers and other personnel

- Airline pilots

- Communication engineers (satellites, broadcast towers, radio waves, etc.)

- Civil engineers (bridges, tunnels, etc.)

- Cartographers

- Geologists

- Artists

- Government officials

- Politicians of all ideologies

- Militaries

- Many, many more I can't think of right now

Not only that, but it's a worldwide conspiracy. So all of the people listed above in EVERY country around the world. Christ, I need to go have a lie down thanks to how stupid these flat Earthers are.

Dude, no. You don't get it. All of these people believe the earth is round. None of these people have seen the earth from space. What they have learned in life - and practice on a daily basis - is correct, it just isn't relative to a round earth.

Think of it this way: From the first day you are alive, someone shows you the color red and tells you it is green. No one ever corrects you for as long as you are alive because they have been taught the same thing. Well, just because everyone thinks that red is actually green does not mean that red is green. Red is still red.

And, they framed OJ too.

Maths wrote:

Can anyone here mathematically prove the earth is round?

Yes, and it's very easy by using geometry.

Approach 1.

1) move in a straight line for a long enough distance

2) turn right 90° degrees, walk straight for the same distance

3) again turn to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance

If you will able to hold the line straight and turn exactly 90° degrees you'll end up at the starting location. If the Earth would have been flat, you'd never end up in the same starting location. This possible thanks to the triple-right triangle on a sphere

Approach 2.

1) draw a large triangle on surface of the Earth

2) measure the angle sum of the triangle

3) on a sphere the angle sum will never be 180° degrees, which is always a constant on flat surface

But all of these people do important work everyday that relies on the Earth being a sphere.

Just one example: communication satellites would not be able to maintain a geosynchronous orbit if the Earth wasn't a sphere. If the Earth was flat and the satellite simply "hovered" in one place, the amount of fuel required to maintain such a position would be enormous. When people design satallites, they do so with a specific orbit in mind, and the physics to bring a satellite into such an orbit are only possible with a spherical Earth with its gravitational pull.

Unless I missed the sarcasm tag on your post, in which case I'll shut up.

You Don't Get It wrote:

Think of it this way: From the first day you are alive, someone shows you the color red and tells you it is green. No one ever corrects you for as long as you are alive because they have been taught the same thing. Well, just because everyone thinks that red is actually green does not mean that red is green. Red is still red.

This analogy makes no sense. "red" or "green" are the english words given to what our eyes see. No matter what you call it, the light hitting your eyes when you see the color green is the light hitting your eyes when you see the color green. You could call the color "verde" or "Kevin" and it doesn't matter. Try a different analogy.

The analogy is a fine one. If you tell an airline pilot "fly this route because the world is a globe" and he flies that way despite it not being a globe, it does not prove that the world is a globe. Nor does it prove that he is a willing contributor to some conspiracy.

qw wrote:

Maths wrote:

Can anyone here mathematically prove the earth is round?

Yes, and it's very easy by using geometry.

Approach 1.

1) move in a straight line for a long enough distance

2) turn right 90° degrees, walk straight for the same distance

3) again turn to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance

If you will able to hold the line straight and turn exactly 90° degrees you'll end up at the starting location. If the Earth would have been flat, you'd never end up in the same starting location. This possible thanks to the triple-right triangle on a sphere

http://www.math.cornell.edu/~mec/tripleright.jpg

Approach 2.

1) draw a large triangle on surface of the Earth

2) measure the angle sum of the triangle

3) on a sphere the angle sum will never be 180° degrees, which is always a constant on flat surface

Great, now mathematically prove the world is flat.

See.

Don't act like you can't.

EVERYTHING IS A LIE!!!

qw wrote:

Maths wrote:

Can anyone here mathematically prove the earth is round?

Yes, and it's very easy by using geometry.

Approach 1.

1) move in a straight line for a long enough distance

2) turn right 90° degrees, walk straight for the same distance

3) again turn to the right 90° degrees and walk again the same distance

If you will able to hold the line straight and turn exactly 90° degrees you'll end up at the starting location. If the Earth would have been flat, you'd never end up in the same starting location. This possible thanks to the triple-right triangle on a sphere

http://www.math.cornell.edu/~mec/tripleright.jpg

Approach 2.

1) draw a large triangle on surface of the Earth

2) measure the angle sum of the triangle

3) on a sphere the angle sum will never be 180° degrees, which is always a constant on flat surface

Thud is the life and times of the geodetic surveyor.

That engineer guy again wrote:

The analogy is a fine one. If you tell an airline pilot "fly this route because the world is a globe" and he flies that way despite it not being a globe, it does not prove that the world is a globe. Nor does it prove that he is a willing contributor to some conspiracy.

But if you were in a plane you'd be constantly banking. If the world is flat, and you expect to fly over certain geographical features, you'd be flying in a huge curve. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but you're claiming that every plane is flying miles and miles extra for no real reason?

But okay, say the plane's navigational computer was configured in such a way as to fly the correct route regardless on the heading set by the pilot (i.e., it makes an automatic correction to account for the flat Earth). Someone in the design phase of the planes avionics would have to make this adjustment. Not only that, but this adjustment would have to be made for every plane every made by every manufacturer around the world.

To go back to the original question. It would appear that either flat earthed a are a real thing, or legit question is one of the greatest trolls in letsrun history.

10/10 and hats off to you, sir.

The famous photo of Buzz Aldrin standing in the spotlight is a giveaway in that he is being lit up in a spotlight from alleged sunlight while the ground around him is shrouded in darkness! How can the sun put a spotlight around a particular person like a stagehand pointing a spotlight on an actor or singer on stage?! This was obviously a major screw up, and NASA was reckless for thinking that no one would notice or that they could get away with it. In fact, it was such a blunder that NASA even tried to cover it up by brightening the rest of the surface in subsequent versions of it. Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?

Here is the original version of it by NASA, which was released to newspapers in 1969:

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2001-000013.jpg

Here is the edited version with the surface brightened up for the Lunar Surface Journal to hide the discrepancy:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

Apollo defenders can’t explain this at all, so they’ve resorted to deception by claiming that the edited version is the original. So again, why would NASA alter the photos if they had nothing to hide?

I'm now a Pringle-Earther. Thank you, Pringle Can Johnson for your contribution. You are an inspiration and truly a god among men.

Legit question wrote:

Bart Rutan wrote:

When the Rutan Vogager flew around the World in 9 days where did it actually go?

He circumnavigated a circle.

But the spot he took off from don't appear to be on the edges of the circle. Are you sure you're not thinking of a sphere?

Apollo 11 was the greatest feat of mankind, we walked on the moon! Note the odd behavior of our heroes. The astronauts looked guilty, sad and reluctant during Post-Flight Press Conference

During the Apollo 11 Post-Flight Press Conference, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, all look uncomfortable with sad reluctant looks on their faces, as if they had been forced to do something against their will. Armstrong especially looked like he wanted to cry deep down. Watch his face during his introductory statements at the beginning of it.

It was very odd for three people who just survived the trip of their lives being the first ever to step on the moon. In that position, I would have been ecstatic, wouldn't you? Yet they were anything but. They act as though they were being forced to lie and go along with a hoax under enormous threat and pressure against their will. Something is definitely not right about their demeanor. It just doesn?t make sense.

You can see this for yourself. Why the guilty expressions?

http://www.american-buddha.com/apollo11.15.jpg

http://youtu.be/9tjCP3myofE

Legit question wrote:

coach deez nuts wrote:

Something being negligible doesn't mean it doesn't exist moran.

Water doesn't curve either, Moran.

Never seen a water droplet like Burt mentioned?

His destination was his starting point. He didn't have any other destinations.