Comments by "Flook D" (@flookd5516) on "JRE Clips" channel.

  1. The pressure isn’t from the plane’s speed but the inertial force acting on the pilotas it changes direction. The body is sensitive to acceleration but not velocity; it does matter how fast you may be travelling, you will only sense acceleration.
    3
  2. If FE'ers were sceptical then they would question what FE conspiracist theorists tell them.
    2
  3.  @Oropia1  You're referring to it as a rabbit hole while claiming it all makes sense? Openmindedness is the willingness to listen to new ideas, think about them and ask questions. FE'ers never give coherent replies to those questions.
    2
  4. William Saunders Being able to see through Dubay is a “caged mind”? Which of us is actually thinking about what Dubay said rather than taking his word for it? If you think he is right then what is his explanation for how density can act as a force?
    2
  5. William Saunders Then why do you get uptight when asked questions?
    2
  6. William Saunders Rowbotham relied on the refraction close to the water surface to mask the curvature; when repeated several feet above the water the curvature was apparent. Refusing to look through the theodolite did not disprove that.
    2
  7. William Saunders The horizon does not rise with your elevation. The size if Earth is such that the drop is not apparent to the eye.
    2
  8. Kyle Mccann The curvature observed with telescopes when all the key factors are taken into account (curvature, elevation & atmospheric refraction). Ignoring key factors does not make for accurate estimates. Claiming you can’t make it work while ignoring key factors is not a valid result.
    2
  9. ​ @kylemc0254  I read through your posts and all you are doing is repeating the same baseless claims. Nobody has provided evidence of zooming boats into view from hundreds of miles away; a video zooming a set sun back into view would be simpler and should be easy to do on a FE but nobody has done it. There's detectable equipment on the moon and verifiable material brought back, all ignored by those who don't want them to exist. Nobody has provided a working model for a FE, just kept claiming one exists. Nobody has provided a working map despite claiming they have one, i.e., one with a consistent scale across the entire surface, something that should be easy with known distances and mapping a 2D surface to a 2D surface. Gravity has been proven to exist; not knowing of the Cavendish experiment does not mean it was never done or reproduced or invalidate the results. Nobody has ever explained how density could act as a force and why it would do so in a consistent direction. Flight paths make sense on a globe; they don't appear to make sense when projected onto a flat surface because of the distortion that occurs in the transition from 3D to 2D. Still waiting on an explanation on how there can be direct flights between the southern hemisphere continents when they would be out of flight range in a FE. Nobody has provided an explanation as to how a globe sun can act as a a spotlight or why a 2D sun would appear round from all angles or how it would illuminate the correct zones on a FE at any given time, particularly 24hrs daylight in Antarctica. No explanation as to how the sun can stay in the air, remain in motion or change its course much less any explanation as to how it produces light. Openmindedness is the willingness to listen to and consider new ideas. It does not mean espousing ideas that differ from accepted wisdom; the logical thinking is required. When somebody can't put forwards any evidence to back their claims and simply wants you dismiss all contradictory evidence you need to be sceptical. What is proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
    2
  10.  @kylemc0254  "there isnt 1 picture unedited" So FE'ers keep claiming though they never explain how they identify alterations other "it doesn't look flat" or "I don't know what to expect but it isn't that". The ISS ran a live video stream for years as did DishTV and that didn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons". The US, Russia & Japan all have websites with real-time full hemisphere pictures of Earth and that doesn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons". Tesla had live cameras onboard its car and that didn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons". SpaceX has live cameras onboard its launches and (unsurprisingly) that doesn't satisfy FE'ers for "reasons". "i think science is a language designed by freemasons" Science isn't a language and there is no requirement to be a freemason to be a scientist. That you don't understand something does not mean it is not understandable to others. I said flight paths make sense on a globe (a 3D shape) but not when projected onto a 2D surface. You have to think beyond 2D projections. "there straight lines on a flat gleesons map" They aren't. Pick a few select ones in the upper northern latitudes and they seem to be which is what you have been shown. The further south you go then the greater the distortion of the actual dimensions and the dumbness of the claim becomes readily apparent. Try tracking the flight path between Melbourne, Australia and Santiago, Chile and consider how that would make sense on a Gleason map. Then look at it on a globe (in actual 3D, not a projection) and you will see a direct line. "there crazy stop points on a globe" Direct flights don't have stop points except for the final destination; that is why they are called direct flights. Indirect flights make use of the more heavily used routes to provide a series of economically conservative flights which is why some indirect flights are cheaper than the direct flights. Example, there's considerably more travel between North America & Europe and Europe & Far East than there is from North America to the Far East directly so it is more economical to run two separate flights for most passengers. A direct flight from Atlanta to Bombay is a mixture of American & Indian passengers; Atlanta to Amsterdam is mostly American & Dutch passengers with Amsterdam to Bombay a combination of Indian & Asian passengers. "do you think the apollo missions between 1969 and 1972 were all legit" Traceable signals to, on & from the moon, detectable equipment left there, verifiable material brought back and the landing sites recently confirmed by satellite pictures. "But, but, but they've just gotta be fake" and "I don't see how..." do not explain any of that, nor does the absence of lead in the Apollo capsules, fictitious claims the Van Allen belts are impassable and a posthumous interview with Stanley Kubrick. No, the data was not lost; the tapes the data was originally stored on went the same way as floppies.
    2
  11.  @kylemc0254  "when i look at pictures of the globe its clear there an animation" You need to describe the criteria, not "you can tell". Try defining the criteria whereby you can identify animation. "curavture does not make the difference in dimensions" Z axis. "it is very possible to live on a flat earth" So some you keep claiming and claiming and claiming but for which you never produce evidence. All you do is keep repeating the same tired and debunked claims. You have it repeatedly explained to you and you just reject all evidence for "reasons" and consider yourself geniuses for doing so. "what is more insane is we live on a spinning ball" One rotation per day, measurable with a laser gyroscope. FE'ers have done it and even with clear and repeated measurements demonstrating rotation deny there is motion. None of you can ever explain why it wouldn't work, just fall back on incredulity. Try actually explaining. "its holding oceans" Gravity is directly proportional to mass. Earth has more mass than a basketball; they are not comparable masses nor have comparable gravity. None of you ever explain what you think would pull the oceans off. Try actually explaining. "we can travel all around the ball this is crazy" How many people have to travel around it how many times before you would accept it can be done? Simple question: try answering it.
    2
  12.  @onthelvl8291  By being personally banned from Dubay's channel.
    2
  13. 1a. There's nothing in a vacuum to do the sucking. 1b. The expansion of air into the vacuum surrounding Earth is countered by gravity, the balance resulting in a gradual decline in air pressure with increasing altitude. 2. Because the light has been dissipated by the water & dust content in the atmosphere long before then. The dissipation is how you are able to see them from side on. 3. Would you accept that as proof? 4. Because the oblation is 0.3% not the 30% you're visualising and the "pear-shape" is an even smaller deviation. 5. How do you conclude the fly was on the outside? How do you think a fly couldn't hitch a ride inside a Soyuz capsule? 6a. Did he ask to try it? 6b. The difference in air pressure between space and a vacuum chamber is essentially zero. You're confusing orders of magnitude with absolute value. 7. Windows, not holes.
    2
  14.  @brettg82au  "You won't be able to see the cylinders base." Only if your eye is slightly below the board. You need something to physically come between your eye & the object for the view to be blocked.
    2
  15.  @brettg82au  I understand the angles fine; it works when your eye is slightly below the board.
    2
  16. Mikael Andersson Because you get local variations in the overall motion. The atmosphere as a whole rotates with the Earth, a long-term result of the friction with the Earth’s surface. You get variations principally due to the varying thermal properties of land & water. If you want something easy to visualize then think about local eddies in a flowing river.
    2
  17. Marco Sul You think? The FE’ers who’ve leapt down the rabbit hole aren’t bothered that observable reality clashes with their claims; they aren’t going to be convinced by a debate when they think Dubay simply saying “It’s flat.” Is conclusive evidence.
    2
  18.  @marcosul3992  "“If “gravity” is credited with being a force strong enough to hold the world’s oceans, buildings, people and atmosphere stuck to the surface of a rapidly spinning ball, then it is impossible for “gravity” to also simultaneously be weak enough to allow little birds, bugs, and planes to take-off and travel freely unabated in any direction.”" Dubay's Proof 32. You can't figure out what the gaping hole in his claim is? You think it is a credible argument? "The existing laws of density and buoyancy perfectly explained the physics of falling objects" Dubay's Proof 115. Explain how you think density can act as a force and why objects fall in a consistent speed & direction regardless of the strength & direction of the "density force" being applied to them?
    2
  19. I asked questions and was banned, not answered.
    2
  20. Feel it compared to what?
    2
  21. Try coming up with realistic evidence of a FE.
    1
  22. You don’t see any connection between wings and flight?
    1
  23. Cofe Donqe Evidence?
    1
  24.  @Oropia1  I have. I'm asking you to provide evidence to back your claim, not repetition of Dubay's bilge; if you can't see the problems with the latter then I doubt you can provide anything.
    1
  25.  @Oropia1  I've done the research. I', asking you to provide the evidence that FE'ers claim exist somewhere but can never be found.
    1
  26. Cofe Donqe As I said, you’re claiming the evidence exists somewhere but you can’t say where even though you profess to have examined it. If you want me to believe it exists then you need to demonstrate it exists.
    1
  27. Ima Frettin https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round/ Easy to demonstrate that it does.
    1
  28. 1960’s but the web appeared in 1992 or 1993.
    1
  29. William Saunders Would you step in front of a moving car?
    1
  30.  @williamsaunders4321  "extremely possible" Explain how it is possible. "you observe a light coming over the top of you and disappearing over the horizon at you distance to view," Explain why it moves at a constant angular velocity and retains a constant angular diameter through the course of the day. Explain how rises & sets.
    1
  31. William Saunders Which lead to a pronounced variation in angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day. You need to explain how both remain constant. Try doing it.
    1
  32. William Saunders Which leads to a pronounced variation in angular diameter and angular velocity through the course of the day. You need to explain how both remain constant. Try doing it.
    1
  33. William Saunders Another “man with the answers” who can’t answer. None of you can. Be brave; step up and give the answer that you all profess to know. It’s easy so actually try it.
    1
  34. William Saunders Looked, no answers forthcoming but plenty of FE’ers who profess to have the knowledge so I’m asking directly. Have the guts to answer.
    1
  35.  @williamsaunders4321  You made the OP and have been replying to our comments for five days; you're in a debate. Answer the question.
    1
  36. William Saunders More claims. A FE is “biggest” at Antarctica, so explain what you mean by biggest at the equator. What’s your evidence that the moon emits its own light? What generates the light and how do phases and eclipses occur?
    1
  37. William Saunders Why do the “question what you’re told” brigade get so uptight when asked questions?
    1
  38.  @williamsaunders4321  Questioning what you hear makes you a troll?
    1
  39.  @williamsaunders4321  What can you say to someone's face that can't be written here? I asked you for an explanation as to how you think a closely placed sun on a FE would not manage to retain a constant angular diameter & angular velocity. What is so difficult to explain that you can't write it here?
    1
  40. William Saunders I’m hardly ignoring what you’re saying if I’m questioning what you’re saying. Objects’ angular diameter decrease with increasing distance to the observer; explain why you think this doesn’t apply to the sun & moon. Angular velocity of objects moving a constant velocity also decrease with increasing distance from the observer; explain why you think that doesn’t apply to the sun & moon. Neither require a practical demonstration, just the hypothesis.
    1
  41. William Saunders How are you claiming NASA leant on the ancient Greeks?
    1
  42. William Saunders Given a 25,000 mile circumference, how many degrees curvature would you expect per mile? We’re taking about the difference in separating distance between the tops and the pylons and the bottom of the pylons, not how flat the water at the bottom appears.
    1
  43. William Saunders Multiple Greeks over several centuries culminating in Ptolemy and his model of the geocentric system based on a spherical Earth. That was the accepted until Copernicus proposed a heliocentric alternative. That the Earth rotates & orbits was part of that model and were demonstrated by the Foucault pendulum and stellar parallax. You need to explain how NASA could lean on all the people confirming this through the centuries. Assuming the Earth to be flat does not mean anybody knows the Earth was flat. That Blue Marble II was a compilation of LEO shots does not magically mean every picture must be so. That an artist’s impression of another planet exists does not magically every picture must be so.
    1
  44. William Saunders How much curvature you would expect to find over that distance when discussing curvature over that distance is a straw man how exactly?
    1
  45.  @kylemc0254  " there too many fake versions i wanna see the real one," Who decides what is genuine and what is fake? What criteria do they use? This is what I mean about FE'ers declaring video & photos to be fake for "reasons" they can never give. Unless we are going to set clear criteria first then it is pointless for me to provide you with anything. I'm glad you have some concept of dimensions. This is the difference between elevation and curvature: https://imgur.com/a/DbuDdVN We're discussing curvature, not elevation. You are saying the surface has no curvature, i.e., that it is 2 dimensional other than variations in elevation. The globe is 3 dimensional, the surface varying in x, y & z dimensions. Try plotting the flight paths on a globe like https://earth.google.com/web/
    1
  46. How do you think something could revolve in a straight line?
    1
  47. NoNapinInNaptown 360 Scientific theory: a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well substantiated by extensive experimentation and observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning of theory.
    1
  48.  @onthelvl8291  You're confusing the vernacular meaning with the scientific (and original) meaning, a common problem with FE'ers. Cavendisg proved the existence of gravity so catch up.
    1
  49. NoNapinInNaptown 360 A scientific theory is a comprehensive explanation for a natural phenomenon that is well substantiated by extensive experimentation and observation. It is not a guess or hunch; that is the vernacular meaning. In science, something is accepted as a theory because it has accurate and dependable prediction. Clear? You can measure the Earth’s curvature with sticks & shadows; it’s a regular school project in the US. We have accurate world maps enabling long distance trade. The Earth’s shape us mapped to the square meter; see WGS84. We are still waiting on any FE’er to carry out the much simpler task of mapping a FE to a flat surface. You try it. Earth, atmosphere & balloon are moving eastwards at the sand speed; there is no need for anything or everything else to stand still simply because the Earth is moving. Local air currents within the atmosphere displaced the balloon from its launch point. Produce the video for 3hrs at 120,000ft without a curve.
    1
  50. NoNapinInNaptown 360 You didn’t make a comparison of Earth and models of FE; you just watched incredulous FE videos. Try actually asking knowledgable people.
    1