http://www.astonishinglegends.com/al-podcasts/2017/2/6/ep032-lake-baikal
Great podcast about Lake Baikal
(not flat earth related)
Great podcast about Lake Baikal
(not flat earth related)
Last edited:
- Jul 19, 2012
- 23,238
- 34,379
Video was actually really good but the one question about the ISS and using a plane landing as a comparison to a space station is kinda deceptive and doesn't fit.
- Apr 23, 2014
- 45,457
- 17,598
Man I'm 15minutes in(don't even have time to hit all 2hrs right now) and it's lit!
Dope post man, I'll knock this on the way to Tulsa tomorrow.
- May 7, 2013
- 24
- 36
He wants the attention,
- Apr 15, 2004
- 45,134
- 76,854
Agian with the lake baikal thing...how do u even know that lol.
Just because someone made a video ...same person who made a "god is real in 1 minute "video lol
How am i supposed to confirm this..am i supposed to go to russia and wait til the lake freezes then measure the curvature for 400 miles..
Why is there not a basic method to show the earth is flat like there are to show its round...one would think if the earth was flat there would be MORE obvious basic methods of proof.
But the big thing to me is WHY are cats choosing to believe THESE examples over basic things you can actually do yourself
Just because someone made a video ...same person who made a "god is real in 1 minute "video lol
How am i supposed to confirm this..am i supposed to go to russia and wait til the lake freezes then measure the curvature for 400 miles..
Why is there not a basic method to show the earth is flat like there are to show its round...one would think if the earth was flat there would be MORE obvious basic methods of proof.
But the big thing to me is WHY are cats choosing to believe THESE examples over basic things you can actually do yourself
- Apr 23, 2014
- 45,457
- 17,598
But yea, I don't actually know it's flat for sure because I've never been there and observed it
Last edited:
- Jul 1, 2016
- 6,072
- 12,780
okay, this is just my nonscientific opinion, but since YouTube videos have replaced the scientific method I guess my theory is as good as any.
the water in this lake is subject to gravity, and the sheer weight of 400 miles' worth of water causes it to freeze flat.
like most liquids, water freezes at the surface first. along with the surface tension of the water, this effect yields a flat surface, as pond hockey enthusiasts around the globe can attest.
the water may not, in fact, be frozen to the bottom like an ice cube, but instead covered by a layer of flat ice that may be several meters thick.
after all, this is the largest freshwater lake in the world we're talking about. even though the lake is in Siberia, I can buy 20 percent of the world's fresh water not freezing in a single winter.
therefore, I propose that the example of a wiffle ball filled with frozen water yielding a round shape is flawed in this model, as the volume of water is not sufficient to simulate the phenomenon.
in addition, I contend that the proportions of material are also unsuitable to simulate the effect, as the Earth is not completely filled with frozen water, instead being composed of other materials such as soil and rock which significantly alter the conditions at hand.
a better example would be freezing water in a large arc shaped bowl with a relatively flat bottom, something in this family:
my hypothesis is that the water would chiefly level off at the highest retaining wall before freezing into a relatively, if not completely flat surface.
if this is true, we can assume that a similar effect would take place on a larger scale.
sure, one might say I'm pulling stuff out of my *** just a tiny bit...but how does one know that lake even exists? could be a conspiracy to increase Siberian tourism.
the water in this lake is subject to gravity, and the sheer weight of 400 miles' worth of water causes it to freeze flat.
like most liquids, water freezes at the surface first. along with the surface tension of the water, this effect yields a flat surface, as pond hockey enthusiasts around the globe can attest.
the water may not, in fact, be frozen to the bottom like an ice cube, but instead covered by a layer of flat ice that may be several meters thick.
after all, this is the largest freshwater lake in the world we're talking about. even though the lake is in Siberia, I can buy 20 percent of the world's fresh water not freezing in a single winter.
therefore, I propose that the example of a wiffle ball filled with frozen water yielding a round shape is flawed in this model, as the volume of water is not sufficient to simulate the phenomenon.
in addition, I contend that the proportions of material are also unsuitable to simulate the effect, as the Earth is not completely filled with frozen water, instead being composed of other materials such as soil and rock which significantly alter the conditions at hand.
a better example would be freezing water in a large arc shaped bowl with a relatively flat bottom, something in this family:
my hypothesis is that the water would chiefly level off at the highest retaining wall before freezing into a relatively, if not completely flat surface.
if this is true, we can assume that a similar effect would take place on a larger scale.
sure, one might say I'm pulling stuff out of my *** just a tiny bit...but how does one know that lake even exists? could be a conspiracy to increase Siberian tourism.
you know what pisses me off so much about this debate?
it's an example of acceptance gone too far.
it's fine to see the world in your own way..fine you're a woman or a pony or Trunks now. you only eat vegan because animals are swell, you have certain items of clothing your beliefs say you should wear, you really like your traitor flag and want to fly it off the side of your truck.
whatever, man. it's all good as long as nobody gets hurt. people can choose to play along with you or not, because honestly, nobody that doesn't know you really cares.
but now we're getting into load-bearing ********. stuff that is actually detrimental to believe.
the earth isn't flat. is not. wasn't. ain't.
this entire debate at its root essentially calls NASA a fraud, and thereby anyone standing on the opposite side is actively working to discredit the efforts of some of the greatest men to ever live as well as limiting the full extent of human potential.
it's not just about pretty space pictures and galaxy print.
the sheer number of ways in which space-based research has improved the standing of humankind is nearly immeasurable.
their research has delivered advanced food storage, water purification and air quality management systems among other less important but more fun innovations of a quality that is literally out of this world, and continues to drive the development of practically every modern industry.
****, have you seen the build quality on the ISS? that's some damn fine tooling...BECAUSE IT NEEDED TO BE TO GO INTO OUTER ******* SPACE.
even better, the drawbacks have been close to zero. a few brave souls were lost to beta testing, but that's just kinda what happens. the Russians put a gun on one of their spacecraft, but they only shot it off for fun and it hasn't happened again since, and since I might have done the same I give them a total pass for that.
when you say the Earth is flat and the Universe is some kind of mobile hanging over the cradle of civilization, you effectively say that these endeavors should be minimized.
so yeah, I get a tad triggered when we as a species are still debating the shape of this planet while we're actively working to colonize others should we actually make it that far.
idk tho...not like we're going to anyway, obviously.
I'm not even sure who I'm writing this for...just finally got my thoughts on the matter organized, i guess.
by the way, I found a pretty cool video too:
if it's a fake--which, admittedly, anything could be in the modern age of CGI and Photoshop--then it's a damn good one, and I don't see how you can trust a single thing you see on any screen.
it's an example of acceptance gone too far.
it's fine to see the world in your own way..fine you're a woman or a pony or Trunks now. you only eat vegan because animals are swell, you have certain items of clothing your beliefs say you should wear, you really like your traitor flag and want to fly it off the side of your truck.
whatever, man. it's all good as long as nobody gets hurt. people can choose to play along with you or not, because honestly, nobody that doesn't know you really cares.
but now we're getting into load-bearing ********. stuff that is actually detrimental to believe.
the earth isn't flat. is not. wasn't. ain't.
this entire debate at its root essentially calls NASA a fraud, and thereby anyone standing on the opposite side is actively working to discredit the efforts of some of the greatest men to ever live as well as limiting the full extent of human potential.
it's not just about pretty space pictures and galaxy print.
the sheer number of ways in which space-based research has improved the standing of humankind is nearly immeasurable.
their research has delivered advanced food storage, water purification and air quality management systems among other less important but more fun innovations of a quality that is literally out of this world, and continues to drive the development of practically every modern industry.
****, have you seen the build quality on the ISS? that's some damn fine tooling...BECAUSE IT NEEDED TO BE TO GO INTO OUTER ******* SPACE.
even better, the drawbacks have been close to zero. a few brave souls were lost to beta testing, but that's just kinda what happens. the Russians put a gun on one of their spacecraft, but they only shot it off for fun and it hasn't happened again since, and since I might have done the same I give them a total pass for that.
when you say the Earth is flat and the Universe is some kind of mobile hanging over the cradle of civilization, you effectively say that these endeavors should be minimized.
so yeah, I get a tad triggered when we as a species are still debating the shape of this planet while we're actively working to colonize others should we actually make it that far.
idk tho...not like we're going to anyway, obviously.
I'm not even sure who I'm writing this for...just finally got my thoughts on the matter organized, i guess.
by the way, I found a pretty cool video too:
if it's a fake--which, admittedly, anything could be in the modern age of CGI and Photoshop--then it's a damn good one, and I don't see how you can trust a single thing you see on any screen.
- Apr 23, 2014
- 45,457
- 17,598
I can't wrap my head around this.
- Jul 1, 2016
- 6,072
- 12,780
okay, so water freezes at the top and sides first, right? why would water, once it is frozen and the borders of the ice-shape are established, drastically change shape at its most solid points instead of simply freezing inward as the overall water temperature lowers?
does frozen water bulge out of a large bowl or does it freeze along the top? even if you bent it at the bottom beforehand, the water--and therefore the ice--could only rise as high as the lowest side because of gravity and the resulting weight.
Last edited:
- Apr 18, 2014
- 8,775
- 5,738
Repped for this explanation.okay, this is just my nonscientific opinion, but since YouTube videos have replaced the scientific method I guess my theory is as good as any.
the water in this lake is subject to gravity, and the sheer weight of 400 miles' worth of water causes it to freeze flat.
like most liquids, water freezes at the surface first. along with the surface tension of the water, this effect yields a flat surface, as pond hockey enthusiasts around the globe can attest.
the water may not, in fact, be frozen to the bottom like an ice cube, but instead covered by a layer of flat ice that may be several meters thick.
after all, this is the largest freshwater lake in the world we're talking about. even though the lake is in Siberia, I can buy 20 percent of the world's fresh water not freezing in a single winter.
therefore, I propose that the example of a wiffle ball filled with frozen water yielding a round shape is flawed in this model, as the volume of water is not sufficient to simulate the phenomenon.
in addition, I contend that the proportions of material are also unsuitable to simulate the effect, as the Earth is not completely filled with frozen water, instead being composed of other materials such as soil and rock which significantly alter the conditions at hand.
a better example would be freezing water in a large arc shaped bowl with a relatively flat bottom, something in this family:
my hypothesis is that the water would chiefly level off at the highest retaining wall before freezing into a relatively, if not completely flat surface.
if this is true, we can assume that a similar effect would take place on a larger scale.
sure, one might say I'm pulling stuff out of my *** just a tiny bit...but how does one know that lake even exists? could be a conspiracy to increase Siberian tourism.
you know what pisses me off so much about this debate?
it's an example of acceptance gone too far.
it's fine to see the world in your own way..fine you're a woman or a pony or Trunks now. you only eat vegan because animals are swell, you have certain items of clothing your beliefs say you should wear, you really like your traitor flag and want to fly it off the side of your truck.
whatever, man. it's all good as long as nobody gets hurt. people can choose to play along with you or not, because honestly, nobody that doesn't know you really cares.
but now we're getting into load-bearing ********. stuff that is actually detrimental to believe.
the earth isn't flat. is not. wasn't. ain't.
this entire debate at its root essentially calls NASA a fraud, and thereby anyone standing on the opposite side is actively working to discredit the efforts of some of the greatest men to ever live as well as limiting the full extent of human potential.
it's not just about pretty space pictures and galaxy print.
the sheer number of ways in which space-based research has improved the standing of humankind is nearly immeasurable.
their research has delivered advanced food storage, water purification and air quality management systems among other less important but more fun innovations of a quality that is literally out of this world, and continues to drive the development of practically every modern industry.
****, have you seen the build quality on the ISS? that's some damn fine tooling...[SIZE=1em]BECAUSE IT NEEDED TO BE TO GO INTO OUTER ******* SPACE.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1em]even better, the drawbacks have been close to zero. a few brave souls were lost to beta testing, but that's just kinda what happens. the Russians put a gun on one of their spacecraft, but they only shot it off for fun and it hasn't happened again since, and since I might have done the same I give them a total pass for that.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=1em]when you say the Earth is flat and the Universe is some kind of mobile hanging over the cradle of civilization, you effectively say that these endeavors should be minimized.
so yeah, I get a tad triggered when we as a species are still debating the shape of this planet while we're actively working to colonize others should we actually make it that far.
idk tho...not like we're going to anyway, obviously.
I'm not even sure who I'm writing this for...just finally got my thoughts on the matter organized, i guess.
by the way, I found a pretty cool video too:[/SIZE]
if it's a fake--which, admittedly, anything could be in the modern age of CGI and Photoshop--then it's a damn good one, and I don't see how you can trust a single thing you see on any screen.
- Sep 18, 2013
- 6,231
- 5,707
Haven't even been to the moon. President Nixon was the only president to ever sign off on any moon mission, if you believe that he's honorable then continue believing whatever you want.
The fact is the world is a plane not a planet... mathematical theorhErical equations aren't real and can be created to fit any imagination possible.
The fact is the world is a plane not a planet... mathematical theorhErical equations aren't real and can be created to fit any imagination possible.
- Oct 4, 2010
- 769
- 99
Here's a better question...
For what purpose would scientists have created false research for this 'curved earth' propaganda?
Does having the world believe the earth is round help the illuminati's agenda become easier to accomplish? You really believe the worlds richest people got together and said "I got it, we'll make them believe the earth is round, not flat, and that's how we'll keep them blind"?
The earth is round because it is. Why don't you understand how? The dude in the video says it best, explain all these things with simple concepts that don't involve math that I don't care to understand nor ever will. Some things in science can't be explained simply. Just the way the way it is.
It's a lack of education in science. The field isn't easy but those who truly care to understand it take the time to find answers and share it with people. Others who are just as passionate don't allow those people to feed them false info and challenge it (the scientific method). But you can't disprove something if you don't understand the concepts. So when BOB is blitz'd out of his mind and doesn't understand why the earth is round it's not because he's on some super Saiyan level of thinking.... he's just, well, uneducated in science.
For what purpose would scientists have created false research for this 'curved earth' propaganda?
Does having the world believe the earth is round help the illuminati's agenda become easier to accomplish? You really believe the worlds richest people got together and said "I got it, we'll make them believe the earth is round, not flat, and that's how we'll keep them blind"?
The earth is round because it is. Why don't you understand how? The dude in the video says it best, explain all these things with simple concepts that don't involve math that I don't care to understand nor ever will. Some things in science can't be explained simply. Just the way the way it is.
It's a lack of education in science. The field isn't easy but those who truly care to understand it take the time to find answers and share it with people. Others who are just as passionate don't allow those people to feed them false info and challenge it (the scientific method). But you can't disprove something if you don't understand the concepts. So when BOB is blitz'd out of his mind and doesn't understand why the earth is round it's not because he's on some super Saiyan level of thinking.... he's just, well, uneducated in science.
- Feb 22, 2012
- 10,937
- 14,514
Your children will never make it past kindergarten if this is what you make them believe
- Feb 22, 2012
- 10,937
- 14,514
I called most Americans dumb (and posted links to studies that prove that they really are) and
a-friend
said that I must call black people n___s. Of course, there's zero connection between the two statements, but this is the type of person that believes the earth is flat.
Last edited:
- Apr 23, 2014
- 45,457
- 17,598
Edit: not even worth the derail
Last edited:
- Sep 18, 2013
- 6,231
- 5,707
why would I bombard my kids with stuff I don't even.understand. my 9 yr old is going to the 5th grade my 5 year old is going to kindergarten, she can count to 100 write her name and is starting to read. My son is 4 and will wash any child that came from your lineage foh
- Dec 3, 2013
- 24,494
- 39,597
- Apr 23, 2014
- 45,457
- 17,598
This is a thread where I was actually always curious on who was repping who.
- Apr 15, 2004
- 45,134
- 76,854
You just brought up a VERY interesting aspect of the new site
- Apr 23, 2014
- 45,457
- 17,598
Folks are going back through some threads "unliking" posts like a MF
- Sep 10, 2011
- 27,789
- 12,466
- Jun 7, 2008
- 3,770
- 7,694
- Sep 10, 2011
- 27,789
- 12,466
Top Boy
formerly jay patt
- Feb 5, 2013
- 8,403
- 5,630
What the actual ****
