The Official Chat Thread - Part 3

[MS140ukn]

good evening friends. just passing by tonight. get this, it looks like all the rains we had, it has gotten us out of drought (california) 40% of the state is out of drought restriction. and hopefully more rains will come our way. and by summer, we wont have to cut back

 

[Lamb]

good evening friends. just passing by tonight. get this, it looks like all the rains we had, it has gotten us out of drought (california) 40% of the state is out of drought restriction. and hopefully more rains will come our way. and by summer, we wont have to cut back

Do you capture any of the rain water?

 

[Stravinsk]

Le sigh.

I was just watching a video where this lady starts on her expose of the 9-11 symbology in movies and television programming, which was something I was familiar with already and then she slips in an untruth because I don't think she did her research carefully enough. Hello - we use 000 in Australia as our emergency number. New Zealanders use 111.

On another video that was marketed as a "flat earth" video this guy mixes in a lot of truth with some outright crap. Tries to tell me that all lies written into language can be recorded and when played backwards somehow reveal that it is a lie. Uh - I call bullcrap. So I recorded his example: Obama's "Yes we can" slogan - spoken by Obama. And yes, played backwards it *sort of* sounds like "Hail Sa____" Then I typed it into text to voice software. Played backwards. Nothing similar to the phrase. I typed other obvious falsehoods and nothing recognizeable came back when the sounds were reversed.

Dude.

 

[Lamb]

Le sigh.

I was just watching a video where this lady starts on her expose of the 9-11 symbology in movies and television programming, which was something I was familiar with already and then she slips in an untruth because I don't think she did her research carefully enough. Hello - we use 000 in Australia as our emergency number. New Zealanders use 111.

On another video that was marketed as a "flat earth" video this guy mixes in a lot of truth with some outright crap. Tries to tell me that all lies written into language can be recorded and when played backwards somehow reveal that it is a lie. Uh - I call bullcrap. So I recorded his example: Obama's "Yes we can" slogan - spoken by Obama. And yes, played backwards it *sort of* sounds like "Hail Sa____" Then I typed it into text to voice software. Played backwards. Nothing similar to the phrase. I typed other obvious falsehoods and nothing recognizeable came back when the sounds were reversed.

Dude.

It just goes to show you can't believe everything on the internet! LOL

 

[Rens]

 

[MoreCoffee]

heh heh heh

 

[Stravinsk]

It just goes to show you can't believe everything on the internet! LOL

I don't

Today I tested something I saw in an Eric Dubay (flat earth) video (who is an excellent resource for info regarding flat earth - if not in some other areas(my opinion)) regarding flights and stopovers. It was just a graphic displaying a Perth, Australia to Johannesburg, South Africa flight with a stop over in the middle east. So I went to a flight website and checked. Selected flights with 1 stop. Sure enough - Dubai in the United Arab Emirates is listed as a stop over from Perth to Johannesburg. Works perfectly on a flat earth - makes 0 sense on a globe. And the flight times (taking into account layovers) for Perth-->Johannesburg and Johannesburg---> Perth were nearly the same. Also makes no sense if the earth is spinning around 1000mph at the equator.

 

[Lamb]

I don't

Today I tested something I saw in an Eric Dubay (flat earth) video (who is an excellent resource for info regarding flat earth - if not in some other areas(my opinion)) regarding flights and stopovers. It was just a graphic displaying a Perth, Australia to Johannesburg, South Africa flight with a stop over in the middle east. So I went to a flight website and checked. Selected flights with 1 stop. Sure enough - Dubai in the United Arab Emirates is listed as a stop over from Perth to Johannesburg. Works perfectly on a flat earth - makes 0 sense on a globe. And the flight times (taking into account layovers) for Perth-->Johannesburg and Johannesburg---> Perth were nearly the same. Also makes no sense if the earth is spinning around 1000mph at the equator.

Hmm. I read that people refuted those claims and there ARE actual direct flights with proof of their airline passes.

BTW, airlines don't always make sense. My husband had to have a flight on the east coast and pretty much went back on a connecting flight THROUGH Chicago before going on to his destination that was only an hour and a half away by direct flight. His company wouldn't pay for the direct. It doesn't make sense how they make some of those flight patterns up for connecting flights! He was in the air all day!

 

[Stravinsk]

Hmm. I read that people refuted those claims and there ARE actual direct flights with proof of their airline passes.

BTW, airlines don't always make sense. My husband had to have a flight on the east coast and pretty much went back on a connecting flight THROUGH Chicago before going on to his destination that was only an hour and a half away by direct flight. His company wouldn't pay for the direct. It doesn't make sense how they make some of those flight patterns up for connecting flights! He was in the air all day!

1. My point was not that there are no direct flights. I said that the stop over flights (for which I searched 1 stop over flight) are in the middle east, or that general area, citing one from Dubai specifically. The people that are refuting claims that there "ARE actual direct flights" are setting up straw men. The straw man argument is an argument that misrepresents a point in order to take it down. It is a form of deception. There is no good reason for any airline to waste massive amounts of fuel and time to travel to the UAE for a stop over from Perth then fly to South Africa from Dubai on a Globe model. It's like flying from Florida to Northern Canada before getting to LAX.

2. You didn't specify any specifics outside of east coast and flying through Chicago before going to (destination ?) which was apparently a shorter flight direct. This is not something I can counter when I don't know the original flight origin and destination.

What I can say, however - is that no airline that wishes to remain in business and competitive would take routes that waste vast amounts of time and fuel getting to their destinations. On the Globe, the flight from Perth to Johannesburg wastes massive amounts of both time and fuel stopping over in a place like Dubai. If you look at a flat earth map - the stop over in Dubai makes perfect sense - because it's on the way to South Africa.

3. The flight times (going from Perth to Johannesburg and from Johannesburg to Perth) should also be vastly different - if the earth is spinning at around 1000mph at the equator. All factors of time considered (including layovers), however - do not show this. The flight times are either the same or very close.

And the simple reason for this is that Earth is not spinning. It is a stationary plane that does not move like all the major religions say including the Bible.

 

[Stravinsk]

I don't

Today I tested something I saw in an Eric Dubay (flat earth) video (who is an excellent resource for info regarding flat earth - if not in some other areas(my opinion)) regarding flights and stopovers. It was just a graphic displaying a Perth, Australia to Johannesburg, South Africa flight with a stop over in the middle east. So I went to a flight website and checked. Selected flights with 1 stop. Sure enough - Dubai in the United Arab Emirates is listed as a stop over from Perth to Johannesburg. Works perfectly on a flat earth - makes 0 sense on a globe. And the flight times (taking into account layovers) for Perth-->Johannesburg and Johannesburg---> Perth were nearly the same. Also makes no sense if the earth is spinning around 1000mph at the equator.

Hmm. I read that people refuted those claims and there ARE actual direct flights with proof of their airline passes.

BTW, airlines don't always make sense. My husband had to have a flight on the east coast and pretty much went back on a connecting flight THROUGH Chicago before going on to his destination that was only an hour and a half away by direct flight. His company wouldn't pay for the direct. It doesn't make sense how they make some of those flight patterns up for connecting flights! He was in the air all day!

1. My point was not that there are no direct flights. I said that the stop over flights (for which I searched 1 stop over flight) are in the middle east, or that general area, citing one from Dubai specifically. The people that are refuting claims that there "ARE actual direct flights" are setting up straw men. The straw man argument is an argument that misrepresents a point in order to take it down. It is a form of deception. There is no good reason for any airline to waste massive amounts of fuel and time to travel to the UAE for a stop over from Perth then fly to South Africa from Dubai on a Globe model. It's like flying from Florida to Northern Canada before getting to LAX.

2. You didn't specify any specifics outside of east coast and flying through Chicago before going to (destination ?) which was apparently a shorter flight direct. This is not something I can counter when I don't know the original flight origin and destination.

What I can say, however - is that no airline that wishes to remain in business and competitive would take routes that waste vast amounts of time and fuel getting to their destinations. On the Globe, the flight from Perth to Johannesburg wastes massive amounts of both time and fuel stopping over in a place like Dubai. If you look at a flat earth map - the stop over in Dubai makes perfect sense - because it's on the way to South Africa.

3. The flight times (going from Perth to Johannesburg and from Johannesburg to Perth) should also be vastly different - if the earth is spinning at around 1000mph at the equator. All factors of time considered (including layovers), however - do not show this. The flight times are either the same or very close.

And the simple reason for this is that Earth is not spinning. It is a stationary plane that does not move like all the major religions say including the Bible.

I just realized the purpose or cause of confusion. It's that you are mixing up the original argument with another.

I didn't say one word about Antarctica. The flights mentioned are: PERTH TO JOHANNESBURG. I said a stopover in Dubai from PERTH TO JOHANNESBURG on a Globe model makes 0 sense.

Here's a graphic outlining the absurdity of stopping over in Dubai on a flight between Perth and Johannesburg if we lived on a Globe verses a Flat Earth:

So I tested it. And sure enough, Dubai is listed as a stopover when traveling between these 2 locations. Check for yourself.

 

[Stravinsk]

More phantom flight booking.

Hobart, TAS, Australia (HBA)----->Montevideo, Uruguay (MVD)

Why not just fly South over Antarctica? Nope, every flight is a minimum of 2 stops. And the first direction is not South - it's north to Sydney:

https://www.expedia.com.au/Flights-...conomy&mode=search&origref=www.expedia.com.au

Total flight time including layovers is around 30 hours, and it'll cost you at today's prices around 6,000-7000 dollars.





Ball Earther excuse: Uh - it's too cold to fly over Antarctica! Yeah. I read that at Wikipedia. See!

Flat Earther: But you can visit the South Pole yourself - the very South Pole? How do you get there?

Ball Earther: Uh...fly? *experiences extreme cognitive dissonance*

Flat Earther:


Ball Earther 2: I went to the South Pole! I paid 48K for a trip! https://antarctic-logistics.com/trip/south-pole-flights/

Flat Earther: So you can fly to the South Pole and take a guided tour for around 48K, but umm - you can't actually fly over it *because it's too cold*. Is it less cold on the moon? In space??

Flat Earther: I'm sorry you wasted so much money. You do know that the place they say is the "Exact South Pole" where they have a cone set up is actually just ceremonial right? It's even in their brochure. They took you for a ride, literally.

Ball Earther: Screw you! Star Wars! Star Trek! Gravity, Refraction, Relativity, and Einstein! We've landed on Mars! Mankind is taking GIANT LEAPS! Space is the final frontier! We are going to MASTER THE UNIVERSE!!!!

Flat Earther: Sigh. Yeah, so I've heard. I don't suppose you'd like some evidence that that bs footage you say is from Mars is actually just landscape from right here on earth with a bit of red tint added?

Ball Earther: Are you flipping KIDDING ME? Of course it isn't you crazy conspiracy theorist!

Ball Earther : You people are complete MORONS! We are on the cutting edge of space exploration and it's MORONS like you who want to take us back to the stone ages!

Flat Earther: Actually, we are just interested in the truth. No-one willingly accepts the flat earth position unless they have been convinced it is true. We know we are a small minority and many people will dislike us.

By the way - do you have a telescope? They are cheaper these days and you can zoom really really far. Since we only see one face of the moon and some Astronauts supposedly landed on it (on the light side) - and planted a flag - why not just zoom in on it and find it? The flag and all the other space stuff we supposedly left up there.

Ball Earther: *runs away screaming!!!!* " Luke! Save me, Neil Degrasse Tyson....space movies....Einstein!.....Nicola Tesla (wait, no, not him)....someone aaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............."

 

[MoreCoffee]

The obvious answer is passengers. There are more passengers in Sydney so why not go there to collect them?

 

[Stravinsk]

The obvious answer is passengers. There are more passengers in Sydney so why not go there to collect them?

What, and then fly south over Antarctica? Doesn't work. Even from Sydney it's a 12hour 20 minute flight just to reach Santiago, Chile, and another 2 hours 20 minutes to travel to Montevideo, Uruguay. They aren't traveling over Antarctica on the trip.

Even if Sydney is the starting point - why travel to Santiago, Chile to begin with before heading on over to Uruguay? Why not just shoot straight over Antarctica and go straight to it?

As for picking up passengers in Sydney before traveling round about to Chile first (???) - that doesn't make much sense for the airline either. People living in Hobart heading south across Antarctica would just be picked up by a plane that had as it's starting point Sydney. It makes 0 economic sense for the plane to make a trip north first.

But that's all besides the point. Going across Antarctica is the quickest way to go from Hobart (or Perth) to Uruguay. It doesn't happen though - here's their excuse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route#Operational_considerations

In other words - it's too cold. Too cold because of distance to the Sun. But, we've managed to make it to the moon AND to Mars - apparently they weren't too cold because of distance to the sun.

And - you can pay nearly 50K to reach the "south pole" - but it's not the real south pole, which is why they have a "ceremonial pole" set up.

No - we don't fly over Antarctica. Because it isn't a continent. It's the Southern rim of a Flat, Stationary Earth.

 

[MS140ukn]

good morning children of god.

 

[Rens]

good morning MS140ukn!

 

[Ruth]

Good night yall

 

[Rens]

good morning

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'm hungry

 

[psalms 91]

Good morning

 

[Lamb]

Another beautiful day! I can't wait to go walking