When you start questioning the shape of the earth you need to drop some assumptions. Like the assumption that we are on an object floating through 'space'. There doesn't necessarily have to be another side.
Flat earthers show their hand as disinfo agents when they can't answer that. They have no answers aside from "space don't real". No explanations for their "beliefs" just nonsense about NASA being a hoax and what not.
That's really not true. All that is required to make this a legitimate topic is to show that the official model cannot work. Proving another model 100% correct is much more difficult. It isn't about "beliefs" at all, it is about experiments and observations that are repeatable by others rather than just trusting science by dictate from people who have been demonstrated to lie over and over.
Except you didn't show the official model to not work; currently, it works and most people know that and understand basic physics and why a round earth makes sense. We're not bible thumping backwards people from the past trying to kick dirt up over a shitty theory.
Not a "flat earther" but I think they don't have an answer for that. It's OK not to have an answer to a question, since there are already so many unanswered questions anyway. Better than saying I don't know than selling some lie as truth.
You are a flat earther despite what you say, look at your posts; your comments, you defend it night and day. What are your reasons for believing this shit?
Lol "flat earther", the term itself is used to discredit anyone who questions NASA. I believe NASA is a fraud and uses propaganda and media to sell their lie. People who believe everything NASA says without asking questions are plain stupid.
Its not just NASA jackass, Its the governments of the world and emerging private space industries telling us; THEY HAVE BEEN TO SPACE! You also didn't answer why you believe in this shit other than "I don't believe those science guys".
People who believe everything NASA says without asking questions are plain stupid.
And people who blindly reject everything they say are equally stupid. Just because your "aerospace engineering degree" can't help you understand everything they do doesn't mean they are fake.
For NASA to be the fraud you claim they are, you would have to have the participation of tens of thousands of people from around the world, both professional and amateur. The fact that only a few handful of science-illegitimate individuals such as yourself are challenging all of what NASA has done is proof enough of how deranged you actually are.
You know nothing about organisational compartmentalization and different levels of employees are privy only to the information they are given. As a matter of fact NASA hires a lot of contractors for a lot of their work! Having a very few people as actual employees.
This has nothing to do with "organizational compartmentalization". It has everything to do with the fact that many of the claims NASA makes would be easy to disprove in the backyard with a telescope if they were as fake as you claim. If what you claimed were even close to true (including your insane claim of a "flat earth") it would be easy to disprove.
What about the many pictures of the ISS taken by individuals (non contractors) under a variety of conditions? Are they all part of the "big conspiracy" as well? I am willing to think further - further than your tinfoil-hat fueled rants can ever hope to take you.
The first thing I have to mention here is that you shouldn't group everyone who questions the official line together into one group. When you do that you allow controlled opposition to make the arguments and discredit others by association. So the term 'flat earthers' is problematic.
For the topic of the shape of the earth we discard things that are dictated to us by official sources and work with what can be independently verified through repeatable experiments and observations. It is important to note that disproving the official spinning globe is not the same thing and proving the standard flat earth model.
From looking at the topic myself I have seen that both of those models cannot work. It appears that we are being pushed into a false dialectic on the topic, preventing us from considering other options. In the search for the correct model it is ok to say "I don't know" or "I don't know how to test that" to some questions and leave them as unknowns while fleshing out with what we do know.
It is a huge topic. Not something you can reasonably fully explore in reddit format. Here a couple things to get started with:
Water doesn't curve. For a sphere of circumference 25000 miles the formula for curvature is a drop of 8 inches * distance in miles2 below the tangent at the point of the observer. But objects are visible much farther away than that, lighthouses would be useless. For this to work light would need to be refracted through the air at exactly the same amount as the curvature at all times. Explanations like this one are required: https://youtu.be/Sekn2jbXSkY . However this is contradicted by observing ships sailing away from you with the naked eye until they appear to 'go down' over the horizon, then using applying a telescope/binoculars and being able to see the ship again. The ship disappeared to the naked eye due to perspective, the pyramidal nature of vision. The light should be refracted by the same amount regardless of whether a magnifying device is used or not.
For amateur rockets sent up, the horizon is flat no matter how high you go. In addition to that the level of the horizon rises with the observer to stay at eye level. That is a property of a flat plane. For a sphere the horizon should drop as you ascend.
Problems with the atmosphere and spinning. The atmosphere must move with the earth as it spins, otherwise it would always be very windy. At the equator ~1000 miles per hour. Either this continues at the same radial velocity as you rise (meaning even faster than 1000 miles per hour higher up), or there is a gradual change up to the point of the edge of the atmosphere. Neither fits observation though. I also have a problem with atmosphere existing beside the vacuum of space. The force of pressure equalizing is enormous compared to the supposed force of gravity.
Issues with the angle of sunlight. For example, when the sun is setting and you are standing in front of a wall, your shadow should climb up the wall as the sun sets, but this does not occur, your shadow just gets longer along the ground. This indicates that the sun is still above you, just further away and the setting is just due to perspective. Also angles of sunlight coming through clouds.
Star maps staying accurate through the ages. If the solar system is hurtling through space there should be parallax changes even if the stars are very far away.
Moonlight being cooler than in the shade at night. Concentrating moonlight drops the temperature. This indicates that the light from the moon is not reflected sunlight, but that the moon is its own light source. I have not yet tested this myself.
Stars being visible through the parts of the moon that are not visible when the moon is not full. This has been observed many times and described even by official societies. This indicates that the moon is not actually a solid object that can be landed on as we are told.
1) Your "water doesn't curve" argument has been something you've been repeating for a month. People have explained it. You choose not to believe it. Is Chicago visible from Michigan every single day? It should be, since the scientific explanation given to you is false, right?
You could complete destroy the round earth theory if one of your flat earth brethren took a video like this and then zoomed in. Shouldn't be hard.
We have telescopes that let us see billions of miles away. If the earth is flat, and the ocean water has no curve, could you not see land across the ocean? Shit, shouldn't I be able to see Cleveland and Cincinnati if I stand on the tallest building in Columbus with a telescope?
5) They haven't always remained the same. There have been changes in star maps. Edmond Halley noticed that Greek maps had changed in the 1600's.
6) Where have you read this? Not Charles Dickens, I hope.
Wouldn't the moon always be fully visible if it were its own light source?
7) According to 6, this shouldn't be possible, but... I have never, ever, heard of this. Source?
For numbers 2 and 3 I think there are other people would be much better to hear from. I have seen users like /u/DethFiesta, /u/AngelOflight, /u/KingKha, and /u/The_Goa_Force over in /r/theworldisflat provide scientific answers about these topics. It'd be great if they all could cover all of your points, but hopefully me paging the four of them will get at least one of them over here to look at at least 2 and 3.
No you did good. He provided no sources, so you just used rudimentary logic to shut him down. Well done! This sub really needs more people willing to engage in debate!
Haha, well thank you if you're being serious. I should have included /u/LurkingSarcasm as a good commenter when it comes to explaining these things as well. He explained the first two points, as well as the rest, much better than I could have.
For amateur rockets sent up, the horizon is flat no matter how high you go.
False.
The atmosphere must move with the earth as it spins, otherwise it would always be very windy.
It's called "momentum".
The force of pressure equalizing is enormous compared to the supposed force of gravity.
Source?
Issues with the angle of sunlight. For example, when the sun is setting and you are standing in front of a wall, your shadow should climb up the wall as the sun sets, but this does not occur, your shadow just gets longer along the ground.
Source?
Star maps staying accurate through the ages. If the solar system is hurtling through space there should be parallax changes even if the stars are very far away.
There actually IS change over time! You've been fed false information.
Moonlight being cooler than in the shade at night. Concentrating moonlight drops the temperature. This indicates that the light from the moon is not reflected sunlight, but that the moon is its own light source. I have not yet tested this myself.
Honestly have never heard of this. Link to the scientific journal this is explored in?
Stars being visible through the parts of the moon that are not visible when the moon is not full. This has been observed many times and described even by official societies. This indicates that the moon is not actually a solid object that can be landed on as we are told.
Pics?
The fact that you've provided no sources for your claims speaks volumes.
The visible horizon is about 3 miles from your viewpoint. Youre purposely ignoring in your calculations both the height of the lighthouse and the height of the ship viewing it, which can increase viewing distance significantly. Even if it didnt, a warning of 2 miles before running aground is definitely not useless. The view of a mirage (refraction of light through the air for those referencing the OP) would follow the temperature of the air through the course of the day, varying the degree of your view distance slowly over time. I dont see the reasoning behind the statement "For this to work light would need to be refracted through the air at exactly the same amount as the curvature at all times." Here is my previous explanation of mirages which your video link was also included. Id like to see a video of the ability to use a telescope to see a ship again after it disappears over the horizon. Here is a video of a ship going over the horizon, note that it doesn't get smaller until its gone, the sail is still of good size OVER the horizon.
This is a video of a high altitude balloon flight. I'll quote myself from another thread...
the basis for the observation of "no curvature" is a camera still within the stratosphere looking straight out at this layer. You cant distinguish the surface of the planet through the combination of haze, clouds, and air density. While the math says you can see the curve of the Earth starting at about 35000ft, it also is not including the atmosphere and clouds that can (and in this case, did) obscure the view. You're basically looking for a pronounced curve of the layer of ozone while still being within it and claiming it appearing straight is proof the earth is flat. Funny thing about this though, if you compress it only horizontally, it will exaggerate any slight curve that might exist, but if its indeed straight, would still be so. In this case, you can see the curve. See here from a screen grab compressed horizontally from the video. You can reproduce this yourself.
The confusion here lies with comparing the rotational speed of earth as if it were spinning within air. But there is no friction or air resistance in space, so there is no friction against our atmosphere as it spins and no sense of the motion its making through the vacuum. That means the speed in which we rotate is really irrelevant until it approaches the point it would overpower the gravity within the Earth. The speed is completely relative. Also, as you rise in the atmosphere, it doesnt just stop at a line. Due to gravity, it gets thinner and thinner in density until it becomes the vacuum of space, so what exactly would cause this 'pressure equalizing'?
Im not even sure what youre talking about here exactly, because shadows do in fact go up the wall as the sun goes down. Here are 2 examples. One / Two
Stars are millions of lightyears away, and because it seems that is a term not understood, one lightyear is how far light travels in a year. To see a difference in the star position at those distances will take a significant amount of time, but some stars are closer to us and have a notable change in location, like Barnards Star Not only that, the only basis for their locations back then were drawings, and while the general locations are still recognizable, you cant say they were photographically accurate and comparable.
This would be very interesting if true. Ive never read about this or heard about it and plan to also test this.
Id like to see some evidence of this, and though it does sound a bit silly, I will also look with my own eyes.
What the hell are stars then, when the sky isn't blocked by clouds and we can see all the other shit floating in "nothing" WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION?! "I don't know" only works when there is no evidence, but we have shittons and shittons of evidence and men (and monkeys and dogs and bacteria) we send into space who come back. LIKE WTF STOP POISONING THE WELL FOR US.
I'm curious about what triggered you to ask this? The alien/Steven Hawking stuff?
Personally, I never really think about the flat earth theory until it comes up in the new section, and once I start thinking about it, I find it very interesting to think about.
The other interesting thing is that all the flat earth threads come from people who want to know what flat earth theorists think. Other than those, I never see any flat earth threads started by flat earth believers. Very interesting, lol.
It's because we get very tired speaking with dogmatic Globe Earthers assuming we were never once like them and yet crossed over to the Flat land by doing objective study of how the Earth possibly is shaped vs. what humans have been correct or deluded about, including the signs of mass brainwashing. Most people simply are not looking at the issue close enough.
37 comments
2 Balthanos 2015-07-20
That's where my logic stops.
2 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-07-20
When you start questioning the shape of the earth you need to drop some assumptions. Like the assumption that we are on an object floating through 'space'. There doesn't necessarily have to be another side.
4 Balthanos 2015-07-20
Well, that's my point. What do flat earthers believe is out there instead of what academia says?
4 YouMayBeRight79 2015-07-20
Flat earthers show their hand as disinfo agents when they can't answer that. They have no answers aside from "space don't real". No explanations for their "beliefs" just nonsense about NASA being a hoax and what not.
-4 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-07-20
That's really not true. All that is required to make this a legitimate topic is to show that the official model cannot work. Proving another model 100% correct is much more difficult. It isn't about "beliefs" at all, it is about experiments and observations that are repeatable by others rather than just trusting science by dictate from people who have been demonstrated to lie over and over.
3 MarzMonkey 2015-07-20
Except you didn't show the official model to not work; currently, it works and most people know that and understand basic physics and why a round earth makes sense. We're not bible thumping backwards people from the past trying to kick dirt up over a shitty theory.
-1 metabolix 2015-07-20
Not a "flat earther" but I think they don't have an answer for that. It's OK not to have an answer to a question, since there are already so many unanswered questions anyway. Better than saying I don't know than selling some lie as truth.
3 MarzMonkey 2015-07-20
You are a flat earther despite what you say, look at your posts; your comments, you defend it night and day. What are your reasons for believing this shit?
0 metabolix 2015-07-20
Lol "flat earther", the term itself is used to discredit anyone who questions NASA. I believe NASA is a fraud and uses propaganda and media to sell their lie. People who believe everything NASA says without asking questions are plain stupid.
3 MarzMonkey 2015-07-20
Its not just NASA jackass, Its the governments of the world and emerging private space industries telling us; THEY HAVE BEEN TO SPACE! You also didn't answer why you believe in this shit other than "I don't believe those science guys".
3 Dreadpirate3 2015-07-20
And people who blindly reject everything they say are equally stupid. Just because your "aerospace engineering degree" can't help you understand everything they do doesn't mean they are fake.
For NASA to be the fraud you claim they are, you would have to have the participation of tens of thousands of people from around the world, both professional and amateur. The fact that only a few handful of science-illegitimate individuals such as yourself are challenging all of what NASA has done is proof enough of how deranged you actually are.
1 metabolix 2015-07-20
You know nothing about organisational compartmentalization and different levels of employees are privy only to the information they are given. As a matter of fact NASA hires a lot of contractors for a lot of their work! Having a very few people as actual employees.
Think further than what you are told.
3 Dreadpirate3 2015-07-20
This has nothing to do with "organizational compartmentalization". It has everything to do with the fact that many of the claims NASA makes would be easy to disprove in the backyard with a telescope if they were as fake as you claim. If what you claimed were even close to true (including your insane claim of a "flat earth") it would be easy to disprove.
What about the many pictures of the ISS taken by individuals (non contractors) under a variety of conditions? Are they all part of the "big conspiracy" as well? I am willing to think further - further than your tinfoil-hat fueled rants can ever hope to take you.
-3 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-07-20
The first thing I have to mention here is that you shouldn't group everyone who questions the official line together into one group. When you do that you allow controlled opposition to make the arguments and discredit others by association. So the term 'flat earthers' is problematic.
For the topic of the shape of the earth we discard things that are dictated to us by official sources and work with what can be independently verified through repeatable experiments and observations. It is important to note that disproving the official spinning globe is not the same thing and proving the standard flat earth model.
From looking at the topic myself I have seen that both of those models cannot work. It appears that we are being pushed into a false dialectic on the topic, preventing us from considering other options. In the search for the correct model it is ok to say "I don't know" or "I don't know how to test that" to some questions and leave them as unknowns while fleshing out with what we do know.
4 Balthanos 2015-07-20
Answer the question or get out. No one came here to see you dance around the subject.
2 BillionaireBob 2015-07-20
Third time I'll ask you. Lets see if you have an answer this time.
What is your biggest problem with the globe model?
-1 Balthanos 2015-07-20
Haha, you guys set yourselves an intro question? What a bunch of cornheads.
3 BillionaireBob 2015-07-20
What?
-1 Balthanos 2015-07-20
You hijacked my thread with your own conversation. Make your own text post next time.
3 BillionaireBob 2015-07-20
I asked a flat earther a question that has to do with the flat earth theory. Settle down.
-2 ChangeThroughTruth 2015-07-20
It is a huge topic. Not something you can reasonably fully explore in reddit format. Here a couple things to get started with:
Water doesn't curve. For a sphere of circumference 25000 miles the formula for curvature is a drop of 8 inches * distance in miles2 below the tangent at the point of the observer. But objects are visible much farther away than that, lighthouses would be useless. For this to work light would need to be refracted through the air at exactly the same amount as the curvature at all times. Explanations like this one are required: https://youtu.be/Sekn2jbXSkY . However this is contradicted by observing ships sailing away from you with the naked eye until they appear to 'go down' over the horizon, then using applying a telescope/binoculars and being able to see the ship again. The ship disappeared to the naked eye due to perspective, the pyramidal nature of vision. The light should be refracted by the same amount regardless of whether a magnifying device is used or not.
For amateur rockets sent up, the horizon is flat no matter how high you go. In addition to that the level of the horizon rises with the observer to stay at eye level. That is a property of a flat plane. For a sphere the horizon should drop as you ascend.
Problems with the atmosphere and spinning. The atmosphere must move with the earth as it spins, otherwise it would always be very windy. At the equator ~1000 miles per hour. Either this continues at the same radial velocity as you rise (meaning even faster than 1000 miles per hour higher up), or there is a gradual change up to the point of the edge of the atmosphere. Neither fits observation though. I also have a problem with atmosphere existing beside the vacuum of space. The force of pressure equalizing is enormous compared to the supposed force of gravity.
Issues with the angle of sunlight. For example, when the sun is setting and you are standing in front of a wall, your shadow should climb up the wall as the sun sets, but this does not occur, your shadow just gets longer along the ground. This indicates that the sun is still above you, just further away and the setting is just due to perspective. Also angles of sunlight coming through clouds.
Star maps staying accurate through the ages. If the solar system is hurtling through space there should be parallax changes even if the stars are very far away.
Moonlight being cooler than in the shade at night. Concentrating moonlight drops the temperature. This indicates that the light from the moon is not reflected sunlight, but that the moon is its own light source. I have not yet tested this myself.
Stars being visible through the parts of the moon that are not visible when the moon is not full. This has been observed many times and described even by official societies. This indicates that the moon is not actually a solid object that can be landed on as we are told.
5 BillionaireBob 2015-07-20
1) Your "water doesn't curve" argument has been something you've been repeating for a month. People have explained it. You choose not to believe it. Is Chicago visible from Michigan every single day? It should be, since the scientific explanation given to you is false, right?
You could complete destroy the round earth theory if one of your flat earth brethren took a video like this and then zoomed in. Shouldn't be hard.
We have telescopes that let us see billions of miles away. If the earth is flat, and the ocean water has no curve, could you not see land across the ocean? Shit, shouldn't I be able to see Cleveland and Cincinnati if I stand on the tallest building in Columbus with a telescope?
4) http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/models/flat.html explains the sunset according to the flat earth model.
5) They haven't always remained the same. There have been changes in star maps. Edmond Halley noticed that Greek maps had changed in the 1600's.
6) Where have you read this? Not Charles Dickens, I hope.
Wouldn't the moon always be fully visible if it were its own light source?
7) According to 6, this shouldn't be possible, but... I have never, ever, heard of this. Source?
For numbers 2 and 3 I think there are other people would be much better to hear from. I have seen users like /u/DethFiesta, /u/AngelOflight, /u/KingKha, and /u/The_Goa_Force over in /r/theworldisflat provide scientific answers about these topics. It'd be great if they all could cover all of your points, but hopefully me paging the four of them will get at least one of them over here to look at at least 2 and 3.
2 GrovyOne 2015-07-20
DAMN you just DESTROYED him!
2 BillionaireBob 2015-07-20
Sounds sarcastic. I don't think I answered much. That's why I called in others who could do it better.
2 GrovyOne 2015-07-20
No you did good. He provided no sources, so you just used rudimentary logic to shut him down. Well done! This sub really needs more people willing to engage in debate!
2 BillionaireBob 2015-07-20
Haha, well thank you if you're being serious. I should have included /u/LurkingSarcasm as a good commenter when it comes to explaining these things as well. He explained the first two points, as well as the rest, much better than I could have.
1 LurkingSarcasm 2015-07-20
I hadnt considered your #6, good point. Thanks for the nod!
5 GrovyOne 2015-07-20
False.
False.
It's called "momentum".
Source?
Source?
There actually IS change over time! You've been fed false information.
Honestly have never heard of this. Link to the scientific journal this is explored in?
Pics?
The fact that you've provided no sources for your claims speaks volumes.
4 LurkingSarcasm 2015-07-20
Alright, I'll bite.
The visible horizon is about 3 miles from your viewpoint. Youre purposely ignoring in your calculations both the height of the lighthouse and the height of the ship viewing it, which can increase viewing distance significantly. Even if it didnt, a warning of 2 miles before running aground is definitely not useless. The view of a mirage (refraction of light through the air for those referencing the OP) would follow the temperature of the air through the course of the day, varying the degree of your view distance slowly over time. I dont see the reasoning behind the statement "For this to work light would need to be refracted through the air at exactly the same amount as the curvature at all times." Here is my previous explanation of mirages which your video link was also included. Id like to see a video of the ability to use a telescope to see a ship again after it disappears over the horizon. Here is a video of a ship going over the horizon, note that it doesn't get smaller until its gone, the sail is still of good size OVER the horizon.
This is a video of a high altitude balloon flight. I'll quote myself from another thread... the basis for the observation of "no curvature" is a camera still within the stratosphere looking straight out at this layer. You cant distinguish the surface of the planet through the combination of haze, clouds, and air density. While the math says you can see the curve of the Earth starting at about 35000ft, it also is not including the atmosphere and clouds that can (and in this case, did) obscure the view. You're basically looking for a pronounced curve of the layer of ozone while still being within it and claiming it appearing straight is proof the earth is flat. Funny thing about this though, if you compress it only horizontally, it will exaggerate any slight curve that might exist, but if its indeed straight, would still be so. In this case, you can see the curve. See here from a screen grab compressed horizontally from the video. You can reproduce this yourself.
The confusion here lies with comparing the rotational speed of earth as if it were spinning within air. But there is no friction or air resistance in space, so there is no friction against our atmosphere as it spins and no sense of the motion its making through the vacuum. That means the speed in which we rotate is really irrelevant until it approaches the point it would overpower the gravity within the Earth. The speed is completely relative. Also, as you rise in the atmosphere, it doesnt just stop at a line. Due to gravity, it gets thinner and thinner in density until it becomes the vacuum of space, so what exactly would cause this 'pressure equalizing'?
Im not even sure what youre talking about here exactly, because shadows do in fact go up the wall as the sun goes down. Here are 2 examples. One / Two
Stars are millions of lightyears away, and because it seems that is a term not understood, one lightyear is how far light travels in a year. To see a difference in the star position at those distances will take a significant amount of time, but some stars are closer to us and have a notable change in location, like Barnards Star Not only that, the only basis for their locations back then were drawings, and while the general locations are still recognizable, you cant say they were photographically accurate and comparable.
This would be very interesting if true. Ive never read about this or heard about it and plan to also test this.
Id like to see some evidence of this, and though it does sound a bit silly, I will also look with my own eyes.
Edit because of formatting error
1 justinxduff 2015-07-20
http://i.imgur.com/PGwwOBR.gifv
1 MarzMonkey 2015-07-20
What the hell are stars then, when the sky isn't blocked by clouds and we can see all the other shit floating in "nothing" WHAT IS YOUR EXPLANATION?! "I don't know" only works when there is no evidence, but we have shittons and shittons of evidence and men (and monkeys and dogs and bacteria) we send into space who come back. LIKE WTF STOP POISONING THE WELL FOR US.
2 BassBeerNBabes 2015-07-20
Dildos and marijuana for everyone!
1 kebutankie 2015-07-20
I'm curious about what triggered you to ask this? The alien/Steven Hawking stuff?
Personally, I never really think about the flat earth theory until it comes up in the new section, and once I start thinking about it, I find it very interesting to think about.
The other interesting thing is that all the flat earth threads come from people who want to know what flat earth theorists think. Other than those, I never see any flat earth threads started by flat earth believers. Very interesting, lol.
1 jtcribbs 2015-07-20
It's because we get very tired speaking with dogmatic Globe Earthers assuming we were never once like them and yet crossed over to the Flat land by doing objective study of how the Earth possibly is shaped vs. what humans have been correct or deluded about, including the signs of mass brainwashing. Most people simply are not looking at the issue close enough.
1 justinxduff 2015-07-20
Do the flat-earthers believe all of this is fake? http://planetary.org/explore/space-topics/earth/pics-of-earth-by-planetary-spacecraft.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
0 whatisauthority 2015-07-20
agartha
-1 konspirate 2015-07-20
Flat with a foundation and an impenetrable dome, bordered by an ice wall (Antarctica). Google Flat Earth Images.
2 BillionaireBob 2015-07-20
Sounds sarcastic. I don't think I answered much. That's why I called in others who could do it better.