Jump to content

Mars next stop :)


gangzoom

Recommended Posts

Any takes on those flight paths making more sense on a flat plain?

 

This is what Captain Cook was looking for all those years Terra Australis, he should have updated his sat nav lol 

 

At the time Europeans were obsessed with exploring, descovering new animals, plants and mapping the world in detail for the first time, as so much of it was unknown and ready to be claimed!!! 

 

All that time, distance and effort to which he could not find the mystical land at the bottom of the earth. Either he couldn't find it because it's not there or he was misinformed. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Australis 

 

5a831c92669fe_IMG_20180213_1705162772.thumb.jpg.633b8049091c9b3aa731707610a9f71c.jpg

 

5a832169eb183_Screenshot_20180213-1731292.thumb.png.448de3b0754c7b72e1f7f93c624bc631.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's there alright, just maybe not in the way Captain Cook had imaged or hoped. Unlearning what you've been told, I find it very interesting along with project highjump & also certain flight paths that I've witnessed myself as a yout. 

 

 

IMG_20180213_175757812~2.jpg

Edited by davey_83
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha I will. My biggest no no with the FE is the model for the sun and moon. Their mock ups are elementary and would have you think a rocket in a short period of time could fly higher. Or that on certain points on the map way down south you'd see another side of the moon. 

 

A sunset isn't the object getting smaller into the distance to a pin point, but appearing to go over the horizon very much off the earth - that's my biggest gripe.

 

Is it possible Cook couldn't find away to circumnavigate a simple land mass, unlikely given his credentials but possible.

 

Is it more likely dude on the flat frozen lake has his calculations out by 20 inches or 20ft? Lakes don't crown or bow in the middle and neither does a laser. 

 

Do certain flight paths appear odd on the globe model, undoubtedly. Is the quickest route from south Africa to Australia mostly over sea? Or UK to Jamaica, yeah should be.

 

 

 

 

Screenshot_20180213-205642.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think it's a cartography issue of 2D images of the world.  Try it with a globe and some string and measure it that way. 

Also what is the non stop range of a jet like that? That's a lllloootttt  of water with no refuelling.  I'm not saying it's the answer,  just thinking outside the box. 

Edited by Jay84
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So heres a chap that flew from the West Indies and didn't see land at all, so who is right, how can that be? https://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/99724-flight-paths-uk-wi.html They also rightly call out ETOPS which states in law that certain types of aircraft have to be within an hour of an airport during any flight and that some do hug the coastline when crossing the atlantic for this reason.

 

When looking up a flat earth map there are so many variations, you would think being 2D this should be a doddle to map but seems its very difficult. Anyway I picked one and given my experience of travel having lived in Japan where I flew between the UK and Japan (12 hour flight) and Japan and Australia (10 hour flight) can you explain (other than all the airline companies staff also being paid up members of the secret NASA cover up) why one arrow is less than half the length of the other?

 

Screen_Shot_2018-02-14_at_07_48_31.jpg.ded4fbd4f97debea1e1fb94da1f592dc.jpg

 

Having read a few Captain Cook websites now associated with his south pole exploration, at no point does it mention he was attempting to circumnavigate it. His direction it would seem was always southwards, he would retreat north a number of times to find a better way to navigate through the ice. There is no mention of an attempt to circle the south pole only to reach it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the way back I dint see land or don't recall, tbf IF you're flying along the coast out the of one side of the plain you will see land and the other you'll see sea which makes sense. Again maybe its a safety thing, who knows however I trust my eyes *but not after much stella LOL

 

The flat earth map is derived from opening up and making flat a globe, its proportions will be tough to be true. Airline staff aren't paid to keep a secret they don't know. The curve of the earth from models of the globe isn't high enough to see a curve. The ISS isn't far enough from the earth to see anywhere near 20% *iirc on the one side for example.

Edited by davey_83
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK so flat earthers are just making assumptions without any knowledge or proper scientific tests. I think that sums up the majority of what I have seen so far. Easiest way to settle it is for the FE society to put their money where their mouth is and fly up there privately and photograph what they see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, coldel said:

 

Having read a few Captain Cook websites now associated with his south pole exploration, at no point does it mention he was attempting to circumnavigate it. His direction it would seem was always southwards, he would retreat north a number of times to find a better way to navigate through the ice. There is no mention of an attempt to circle the south pole only to reach it?

 

And does that make sense? He maps countries so why would he not wish to not map Terra Australis? He mapped new Zealand only to come to find it wasn't a continent. Using logic look at the length of travel, why would you do that if only to view one small part of the land mass? 

 

You can only prove or disprove a supposed continent by circumnavigating it, not view it from a fixed point ie the closest point to South America.

 

Let's use some logic, without any preconceived notions. You can get to this icy place easily from the southern tips of south America, south Africa and new Zealand but I can't map it?? 

 

Hello McFly!!!!

 

5a84253b73cf8_IMG_20180213_1757578123.jpg.2cbf2dcb17a013071fb0b43bd4e6b028.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If only someone had succesfully mapped it since the 1700s, gosh darn it :dry:

 

It’s laughable that the constraints of 300 year old ship technology are completely disregarded when questioning why he wasn’t able to fully investigate some of the most dangerous waters on the planet. Even to this day it remains perilous to sail these waters, with advanced weather prediction and more resilient craft.

 

That’s without questioning why he might spend less time investigating uninhabited ice when there was bountiful resources to steal from natives in warmer climes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see his letter home now:
Dearest Yvonna (Yvonna Cook get it?),

I've been foiled by the weather in finding my way to the southern frozen lands once again due to extensive damage to the ship, and find myself on a relatively small tropical island awaiting the locals to harvest enough timber to repair the ship. Its too hot here and wearing all those layers you packed is somewhat redundant. The locals have precious little here except coconuts that seem to be fermented, but its all that is safe to drink. It could be  month or even 2 before we are ready to set sail again.

All my Love,

Cookie

p.s.

How are the 6 kids getting on?

xx

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In terms of orders, his orders (quite clearly outlined on many sites dedicated to this issue) were to discover the great southern continent, the fact he never got there meant mapping it was never done because you kind of have to get there first. 

 

Anyway, again conspiracy theorists lean on one piece of information, taken out of context, ignoring conflicting evidence, evidence even conflicting from their own source, and ignore everything else such as expeditions that have met in the south pole after starting on opposite sides, ignore everything and keep going with the convoluted theory of a 300 year old ship. That the stars in the sky are consistent with globe theory over flat theory, that they cant explain a lunar eclipse, that they can only explain gravity by inventing something with absolutely no practical evidence the list is endless that cannot be explained other than inventing something with no evidence. 

 

So, dear old Elon Musk and all the staff on Space X are also now a paid off members of the global conspiracy to tell us the world is round. The reach of this organisation is amazing ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and yet it read as if he saw it clearly, let not forgot he had a good eye for detail.

 

in 1773 Captain Cook became the first modern explorer known to have breached the Antarctic Circle and reached the ice barrier. During three voyages, lasting three years and eight days, Captain Cook and crew sailed a total of 60,000 miles along the Antarctic coastline never once finding an inlet or path through or beyond the massive glacial wall! Captain Cook wrote:

 

The ice extended east 57 and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height. It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the pole, or perhaps joins some land to which it has been fixed since creation.”

 

Obviously he could have been lying, clearly not wanting to go back with his tail between his legs. However you can not do that sort of mileage and not circle the icy continent at least from a far.

 

 “I had now made the circuit of the Southern Ocean in a high latitude … in such a manner as to leave not the least room for the possibility of there being a continent, unless near the Pole and out of the reach of navigation …”

 

If it was there to circle I believe he would have.

 

 

5a844f233f5b3_map-southern20hemisphere-1757-thumb.jpg.82715787d849930002e8ca84e811d8ca.jpg

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look for the maps of that voyage he didn't circumnavigate anything in those three years he visited a number of islands and other lands to restock etc (they couldn't carry three years of water on board) some of his trips in that three years took him very north such as south Africa and new Zealand. Sure if you ignore the 10+ landfills he made which were well documented ignore all the witnesses at the time ignore his own logs unless it suits the story) then yes what was he doing at sea for three years...or he wasn't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked and it's documented to have gone to 71' latitude, that's pretty low and on the map Antarctica actually reaches higher than that figure.

 

Antarcticamap.GIF.84c037f95193ff5b2071eaca1fd3326c.GIF

 

http://www.south-pole.com/p0000071.htm

 

Remember our winter is the best time to explore the Antarctica circle. Instead of fighting what I'm reading, I'm reading it for what it was. 

 

On his third voyage he didn't even both to explore Antarctica as he felt it was all he could do by sea ie not a continent at the bottom of the world.

 

On December 11 the crew of the ADVENTURE thought they found it. What they actually sighted was an iceberg and by the following day they found themselves at the edge of an endless pack of ice. On January 17, 1773, the ships most likely became the first to cross the Antarctic Circle. For two months Cook sailed alongside the pack, looking for an entrance to travel further south. 

 

He once again reached the ice pack, in mid December, and continued his search for a way through to the south. Cook's skill as a seaman and navigator cannot be challenged...through heavy storms and dangerous seas filled with huge icebergs the RESOLUTION survived without the loss of a single man. On January 30 he reached his furthest south but could go no further. The ice "extended east and west far beyond the reach of our sight, while the southern half of the horizon was illuminated by rays of light which were reflected from the ice to a considerable height...It was indeed my opinion that this ice extends quite to the Pole, or perhaps joins to some land to which it has been fixed since creation".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget Antarctica, at no point in all those years at sea did he ever go in a southernly direction and pop up the other side. South South South and oh we're going North now, champion.

 

He'd have done this surely, surely this is achievable. No, documented ice wall with no way through. Not able to stay a steady course and find yourself heading back up North. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm calling ships going over the horizon too :thumbs: as proof back in the day of curve. That ship should have been well out of possible view by now. Furthermore the mass should has showed signs of tiling top first away from the base due to sailing over the curve and yet it remained proportional from start to finish.

 

#whatif

 

Watch all or from 8:20

 

 

Edited by davey_83
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you dismiss evidence derived from the scientific method, recreated by totally independent individuals across many different organisations and countries, in favour of anecdotes and conjecture. How do you reconcile that with, at the same time, benefiting from the conveniences that the very same scientific method provides? Things like the internet, healthcare, your camera or your 350z?

 

Is there a system for cherry picking which bits of science are “true” or is it just a matter of accepting anything that’s convenient/useful?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • coldel locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...