# Calling all space nerds



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

This is pretty darned amazing if I do say so....


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1430363489214816258


----------



## Always12AM (Sep 2, 2018)

This is brilliant.
I have to say, Europa and Io seem rendered in this clip. I’d also skeptical about the orbit of the actual satellite image in relation to the speed of the two larger bodies. But if the Cassini is very far out and this is magnified from a static shot, that would explain it.

Either way, this is phenomenal. I hope I’m alive long enough to see some more like this.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

CGI


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

I’m sure it has been digitally enhanced, but I’m pretty sure it’s real. I saw a much fuzzier version a couple years ago.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Sneaky said:


> I’m sure it has been digitally enhanced, but I’m pretty sure it’s real. I saw a much fuzzier version a couple years ago.


How are you sure it's real, when NASA admitted that any 'ball earth' photos are artist interpretations of flat photos compiled and wrapped around a ball shape? Or that NASA has been caught dozens of times faking space station chats, etc.? What proof do you have that this is real, when the planet is millions of miles from the sun, yet is clear as day? And have you noticed that latest shot of Jupiter, showing some weird octagon shaped indentation at the top (yet every aspect down to the smallest detail for the rest of the planet is the same as the 'photo' apparently taken years previous)?


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

It's not CGI, It's UV filters, and this filter and that filter and those filters and these filters. And a whole bunch of filters. And a whole bunch of filters on top of that. We would never see this with the naked eye even if we were on Cassini itself.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> It's not CGI, It's UV filters, and this filter and that filter and those filters and these filters. And a whole bunch of filters. And a whole bunch of filters on top of that. We would never see this with the naked eye even if we were on Cassini itself.


The magic of NASA filters (and sending such incredibly crisp data through space and radiation). Got it!


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

@Brian Johnston All Hubble images are taken in black and white. Red/Green?/are added afterwards as well as UV and IR and a host of others to show different things. There are filters to show oxygen atoms filters to show hydrogen atoms etc. Do some research next time you want to be a sarcastic smart %^&


----------



## Grainslayer (Sep 26, 2016)

It looked different when i was there.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> @Brian Johnston All Hubble images are taken in black and white. Red/Green?/are added afterwards as well as UV and IR and a host of others to show different things. There are filters to show oxygen atoms filters to show hydrogen atoms etc. Do some research next time you want to be a sarcastic smart %^&


It's fake. Hubble is nothing more than Sofia... research it.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)




----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

I'd like to hear more about the flat earth thing. Seems I came to the right place.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

jb welder said:


> I'd like to hear more about the flat earth thing. Seems I came to the right place.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

You may want to investigate the layout of the continents on a flat earth (check the UN's flag, among some other controlling organizations), it doesn't look like that. In fact, all air travel is based on a flat earth, which is why you can't fly from the tip of South America to Australia, although they appear on a straight line on a globe. Pilots also will tell you (I know one) that the horizon always remains constant and never dips or rises, as suggested by a rotating globe. What most people don't realize is that 99% of all internet and communications is via underwater cable, whereas small percentage is via atmospheric satellites (balloons that stay up for 6 months at a time before having them sent back up). No photos exist of 'space' satellites... they are all artist renderings (what camera is taking the photo, if you want to ponder that).


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

A six-hour video for those interested (broken up into hundreds of 'proofs,' so that you can stop it at any time):


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

Brian Johnston said:


> A six-hour video for those interested (broken up into hundreds of 'proofs,' so that you can stop it at any time):


That was great. I just watched the whole thing. 🥴


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

zztomato said:


> That was great. I just watched the whole thing. 🥴


Your choice to believe what you want, including Freemason Tyson who now suggests Earth is shaped like a pear.


----------



## zztomato (Nov 19, 2010)

Brian Johnston said:


> Your choice to believe what you want, including Freemason Tyson who now suggests Earth is shaped like a pear.


Thanks. Carry on.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

zztomato said:


> Thanks. Carry on.


Thanks also. Maybe go to 4:52 and watch from there... you may find some interesting NASA information.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)




----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> View attachment 378889


This is the problem... posting things that are irrelevant to the argument... no one believes in what is depicted in that picture, yet so many believe man went to the moon and is probing Mars, etc. Again, go to 4:52 of the long video and challenge that information without a stupid meme.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Don’t need to add to the view count on that video, but thank you.
And I don’t think the meme is stupid because that’s exactly what many flat earthers are proposing.

Before you say “your argument is invalid if you won’t watch “the proof””, I have seen the proof. I’ve looked up and seen a round moon, a round sun, I’ve looked through my telescope and seen round Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. Whatever “proof” awaits me in the video, I will already say it’s garbage if it proposes that every other visible planet or celestial body is round but the earth isn’t.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> Don’t need to add to the view count on that video, but thank you.
> And I don’t think the meme is stupid because that’s exactly what many flat earthers are proposing.
> 
> Before you say “your argument is invalid if you won’t watch “the proof””, I have seen the proof. I’ve looked up and seen a round moon, a round sun, I’ve looked through my telescope and seen round Jupiter, Saturn, and Mars. Whatever “proof” awaits me in the video, I will already say it’s garbage if it proposes that every other visible planet or celestial body is round but the earth isn’t.


Not sure what flat earther you are referring to, but the person wouldn't be too bright and it does NOT reflect the concept in the least. Just letting you know so that you're educated on the subject. Round does not mean globe, just so that you know. The flat earth map is round, is it not? Yes, the earth is round, but not a globe. Hope that helps in your quest.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Bugs Bunny proved the earth was round in 1951. 






Sorry about the poor vid quality, it's all I could find.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

SWLABR said:


> Bugs Bunny proved the earth was round in 1951.


Shortly before NASA. Still waiting for an actual photo of earth from space.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


>


You do realize that video is now considered fake (even Tyson said as much). They used a wide angle or fish eye lens. If you watch him before he leaves the pod, it's FLAT. There are videos out there from the top of Mt. Everest... FLAT... from 20 miles up in a balloon... FLAT. And that FAKE video you just presented is not the ENTIRE earth. No such photo exists, including the ones faked from astronauts in the 1960s. I could provide evidence of that, but it seems no one wants to hear it. Disassociation Disorder Syndrome... most of us have been fooled all our lives while NASA (snake tongue in the symbol) takes in billions every year. And what do you get for it? Fake footage with greenscreen of the space station, and never returning to the Moon since NASA admits they "lost the technology."

Back in the 50s or 60s there was a scientist who claimed no one can land on the Moon as it wasn't solid... it was plasma. Within months they made him out to be a crackpot. However, when there is a crescent Moon, you can see stars through it (a Muslim symbol, by the way... a crescent moon with a star in the middle). Seeing through the Moon is proof that the moon is semi-transparent and not a solid object. And then you have times when the Moon is visible during the daytime and you can see blue (the sky) through it. Hmmm.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Sooooo... do you believe it's flat?? or are you going with the pear shaped theory??


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

SWLABR said:


> Sooooo... do you believe it's flat?? or are you going with the pear shaped theory??


We live on a plane surface; zero evidence of curvature, including aerial photography (go to 5:34 in the video and check out the heat spot caused by the Sun on the earth, which suggests it's not 94 million miles away, and shortly after that footage of a balloon camera 107k feet above in the higher atmosphere with NO curvature showing). No one (you and me) knows what is beyond the Antarctic, which is not at a pole, but surrounds the entire surface. There is aerial footage out there shows a 300 foot wall of ice that continues on for hundreds of miles without end (the airplane, obviously, could not continue following it for fuel reasons). I'm pretty sure it's included in the 6 hour documentary. Every country signed a treaty that prevents ANYONE from going to the Antarctic, with the excuse of 'protecting the penguins.' Try heading down there, beyond a specific registered tourist trip that brings you literally nowhere, and you will be met up with war ships protecting the area. Beyond the plane surface (which is round in nature, surrounded by ice), no one outside the Freemasons (every astronaut on the moon, lol, was a Freemason) has a clue what is beyond that ice shield.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

What if I told you I was a Freemason??


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

I bought a car off of a Mason. He tried to induct me.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

laristotle said:


> I bought a car off of a Mason. He tried to induct me.


They are not allowed to "recruit". "To Be One, Ask One". If they were trying to sway you, they are very indoctrinated themselves. It's pretty frowned upon.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

SWLABR said:


> They are not allowed to "recruit". "To Be One, Ask One". If they were trying to sway you, they are very indoctrinated themselves. It's pretty frowned upon.


Ok, not so much recruit as to ask if I ever considered joining after inquiring about some 'masonry' objects around his living room.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

SWLABR said:


> What if I told you I was a Freemason??


It means nothing; I have friends who are Freemasons. Low level Freemasons don't know squat... they merely go to meetings, do work for the organization, etc. As they see potential in a person (usually psychopathic liars who can hold secrets and pull the wool over the eyes of others), they move up the ladder.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Brian Johnston said:


> It means nothing; I have friends who are Freemasons.* Low level Freemasons don't know squat*... they merely go to meetings, do work for the organization, etc. As they see potential in a person (usually psychopathic liars who can hold secrets and pull the wool over the eyes of others), they move up the ladder.


That's what you're _supposed_ to believe. Keep believing it.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

SWLABR said:


> That's what you're _supposed_ to believe. Keep believing it.


Like spinning on a ball rotating 1k miles per hour, around the sun 66.6k miles per hour, etc., solar system spin across the universe at millions of miles per hour, etc. Makes you wonder why the stars and constellations have remained so stationary if we are hurtling around the universe and never in the same spot due to that expansion. Those other stars, etc., would have to be expanding and moving away, as well. Hey, all this is in that video that no one wants to watch, and I understand why. When the truth is put to the lie, it can be very difficult to accept. And if the low levels know much, they are not too concerned about the quality, since the people I know are not terribly bright. Very average IQ at best.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

I believe Finland doesn’t exist. I mean, _I’ve_ never seen it with my own eyes.

“_But what about all those photos?_”

Oh, you mean the ones the “Finnish” want you to believe? I’m not falling for that. Do your research sheeple!


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> I believe Finland doesn’t exist. I mean, _I’ve_ never seen it with my own eyes.
> 
> “_But what about all those photos?_”
> 
> Oh, you mean the ones the “Finnish” want you to believe? I’m not falling for that. Do your research sheeple!


Brilliant argument. Accept a spinning ball in the vacuum of space with ZERO evidence of any curvature... ZERO. There's a reason why a photo doesn't exist... no Hubble taking photos from 'space' (it's called Sofia and it's a plane with a camera on it, costing millions per day to operate). I believe in Finland since I know two people from there, and who go there on holidays to visit relatives. Do you know any space men taking photos for us?


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

Well, this thread has sure turned interesting.


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

The signs were always there.


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

Lol. Is this conversation actually happening right now?


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

jbealsmusic said:


> Lol. Is this conversation actually happening right now?


Now I know what teenage girls mean when they say
_“I can’t even...”_


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

2manyGuitars said:


> Now I know what teenage girls mean when they say
> _“I can’t even...”_


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## MetalTele79 (Jul 20, 2020)

Are all planets flat or just the Earth? Is the moon also flat?


----------



## Verne (Dec 29, 2018)

If the earth is flat, what's on the other side??


----------



## Paul Running (Apr 12, 2020)

Read up on some of Euclides's theories, focus on Euclidean geometry.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

C'mon!! 
This is all the proof we need!


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Oooooooo... but then there's this:


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> There is aerial footage out there shows a 300 foot wall of ice that continues on for hundreds of miles without end (the airplane, obviously, could not continue following it for fuel reasons).


CGI


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

The original post video is a collection of still black and white images filtered and colorized. So basically it's a GIF.


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

I know all this stuff, what I need to know is who is pulling the strings, and how have they kept it all pretty much secret.
Whenever I get close to finding out, everybody in the know clams up.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Bet it has something to do with the freemasons?
or humanoid lizard aliens of the illuminati whose mother ship is still trapped under ice?


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)




----------



## Paul Running (Apr 12, 2020)

laristotle said:


> humanoid lizard aliens


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Well, if people would actually watch an EDUCATIONAL video on the subject (I posted it) rather than replying with idiotic and immature memes, photos and comments, there may be something to discuss. Nothing out of the ordinary... ridicule and ignore when you don't know.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

SWLABR said:


> Oooooooo... but then there's this:
> 
> View attachment 379008


Only if you're an idiot and don't know the actual information.


----------



## Grainslayer (Sep 26, 2016)

Brian Johnston said:


> Well, if people would actually watch an EDUCATIONAL video on the subject (I posted it) rather than replying with idiotic and immature memes, photos and comments, there may be something to discuss. Nothing out of the ordinary... ridicule and ignore when you don't know.


But it wouldnt be as much fun to read without the immature memes,photos and comments though


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Brian Johnston said:


> Only if you're an idiot and don't know the actual information.


Name calling from a complete stranger I have zero respect for… 

I’m crushed.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> Only if you're an idiot and don't know the actual information.



Please explain- seasons, sunrise and sunset, gravity, Coriolis effect, Solar and Lunar eclipses, not to mention how "someone" managed to get every country on the planet to sign on to this "globe shaped earth conspiracy" and keep it secret when they can't agree on anything else whatsoever.

Of course I'm sure all of that stuff is fake right?


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

gtrguy said:


> Please explain- seasons, sunrise and sunset, gravity, Coriolis effect, Solar and Lunar eclipses, not to mention how "someone" managed to get every country on the planet to sign on to this "globe shaped earth conspiracy" and keep it secret when they can't agree on anything else whatsoever.
> 
> Of course I'm sure all of that stuff is fake right?


Now that IS CGI! 

And, you have never seen real snow, and through the Global Hypnosis League (GHL for short) you have never really been hot or cold!


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

I've watched flat-earth "truther" documentaries before. I don't need to watch another to confirm that most of it is garbage and easily disprovable. You can keep trotting that video out all day long and you won't convince me to watch it. I can point you to a dozen videos supporting _my _viewpoint but I know that even if you did watch them, you wouldn't believe them anyway.

Confirmation bias is a helluva' drug.

...and yes, I realize I also have confirmation bias but at least mine is supported by centuries of science. Not a decade of youtube "experts".


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

I’m going to start a “birds aren’t real” thread next.


----------



## Grainslayer (Sep 26, 2016)

Sneaky said:


> I’m going to start a “birds aren’t real” thread next.


Flat ones or round ones?


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

2manyGuitars said:


> I've watched flat-earth "truther" documentaries before. I don't need to watch another to confirm that most of it is garbage and easily disprovable. You can keep trotting that video out all day long and you won't convince me to watch it. I can point you to a dozen videos supporting _my _viewpoint but I know that even if you did watch them, you wouldn't believe them anyway.
> 
> Confirmation bias is a helluva' drug.
> 
> ...and yes, I realize I also have confirmation bias but at least mine is supported by centuries of science. Not a decade of youtube "experts".


This!


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Sneaky said:


> I’m going to start a “birds aren’t real” thread next.











Birds Arent Real


THE OFFICIAL SITE of the BIRDS AREN'T REAL movement. Wake yourself up from the lie. Resist the bird drones that steal your information and spy on you. Tell others about the truth that you've discovered. TOGETHER WE CAN CHANGE HISTORY AND REGAIN OUR SANITY.




birdsarentreal.com


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Watch for squirrels too.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

gtrguy said:


> Please explain- seasons, sunrise and sunset, gravity, Coriolis effect, Solar and Lunar eclipses, not to mention how "someone" managed to get every country on the planet to sign on to this "globe shaped earth conspiracy" and keep it secret when they can't agree on anything else whatsoever.
> 
> Of course I'm sure all of that stuff is fake right?


Everything is in the video I posted.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Grainslayer said:


> But it wouldnt be as much fun to read without the immature memes,photos and comments though


Well, there is that.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


>


You may want to watch the video I posted, as the information in this video has been debunked. Have a good one.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Brian Johnston said:


> You may want to watch the video I posted, as the information in this video has been debunked. Have a good one.


At least point out the spots (time marks) in your video that debunk our arguments.
Such as gtrguy's questions, re; seasons, sunrise, sunset and gravity.
Simply saying watch my video won't cut it. It's six hours. Are you nuts?!


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


> At least point out the spots (time marks) in your video that debunk our arguments.
> Such as gtrguy's questions, re; seasons, sunrise, sunset and gravity.
> Simply saying watch my video won't cut it. It's six hours. Are you nuts?!


You must be nuts to think I'm going to go through the video and create time-line markers on each aspect and relative to any questions on the subject. If anyone TRULY is interested, they will take the time to learn why a globe earth does NOT account for solstices, etc. I'm not here to hold anyone's hand.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> Everything is in the video I posted.


I skimmed and watched sections of it, I’m looking for answers based on logic and facts backed up with empirical testing. What I saw in that video was vague statements, half truths and complete absurdity that people are just expected to accept as facts. 

Many of the claims are easily proven false with simple experiments that anyone can perform or through logical thought. Some of the claims are basically collections of semi scientific sounding words thrown together and presented as facts but completely lacking in any kind of verifiable science. It’s basically “trust me because I say it’s so”. Show me the evidence!

Here’s a video for you or anyone looking for an alternative viewpoint based on verifiable scientific principles-


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

gtrguy said:


> I skimmed and watched sections of it, I’m looking for answers based on logic and facts backed up with empirical testing. What I saw in that video was vague statements, half truths and complete absurdity that people are just expected to accept as facts.
> 
> Many of the claims are easily proven false with simple experiments that anyone can perform or through logical thought. Some of the claims are basically collections of semi scientific sounding words thrown together and presented as facts but completely lacking in any kind of verifiable science. It’s basically “trust me because I say it’s so”. Show me the evidence!
> 
> Here’s a video for you or anyone looking for an alternative viewpoint based on verifiable scientific principles-


I watched the video you presented and it was full of vague statements, half truths and complete absurdity that people are just expected to accept as facts. I can do that as well. A true argument will take a quote or section, indicate why it's false and then provide an alternative that would support known principles.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> I watched the video you presented and it was full of vague statements, half truths and complete absurdity that people are just expected to accept as facts. I can do that as well. A true argument will take a quote or section, indicate why it's false and then provide an alternative that would support known principles.


 You mean things that can be empirically proven?


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

gtrguy said:


> You mean things that can be empirically proven?


Yes, like what was done several times over that six hour video you glossed over. Pick a section and discuss, if you wish, but to simply state "vague statements, absurdity, etc.," is meaningless.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Brian Johnston said:


> You must be nuts to think I'm going to go through the video and create time-line markers on each aspect and relative to any questions on the subject. *If anyone TRULY is interested*, they will take the time to learn why a globe earth does NOT account for solstices, etc. I'm not here to hold anyone's hand.


Re; bolded.
One would think that you would take the time to explain in your own words why you believe in what you believe.
As I stated, 'watch my video' doesn't cut it.

Another point.
_This gif is from the flat earther's wiki page;_








Does the moon circle faster or slower to create the solar/lunar eclipses?
The moon would have to be closer to our disk and would look gigantic to be able to block out the sun.
And look much smaller when going behind it for a lunar eclipse.
Yet, the moon remains relatively the same size year round.

Onto the (or our) sun. Are flatter's claiming that it's not powerful enough to illuminate the entire disk and also scorch the ground directly under it's path, yet powerful enough to illuminate distant planets? or does each planet have it's own sun that we can't see? Are the planets actually closer/smaller than we were led to believe all these centuries? Are the planets/sun/stars also disks or are they all globes, except for our disk? How is it that only the flat part of all these celestials just happen to face us appearing round?

Again, please don't reply with your repeated 'watch my video' response. I'd like to read _your _logic.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


> Re; bolded.
> One would think that you would take the time to explain in your own words why you believe in what you believe.
> As I stated, 'watch my video' doesn't cut it.
> 
> ...


The Sun and Moon are the same size; both are within thousands of miles from the earth and not 93 million miles away (if that far away, light would be straight, whereas it spreads out at 60 degrees when the rays shine on the earth, which means it's much closer and (obviously) much smaller than suggested. The Moon is not relatively the same size year round... it's pattern in the sky (from crescent to full) mimics the infinity symbol, which is why it appears in different sizes. If you review the video, you will note that the planets are not planets as we are told, nor are stars. Stars, for example, are apparently trillions of miles away, and yet... cameras can zoom up on them and they appear like 'bodies' shimmering, as do rocks under water, while changing colors, as though going through various spectrums, e.g., red, blue, green, etc. They are not like our Sun. Do you think the Sun is illuminating that 'video' of Jupiter on page one of this thread? 484 million miles away (wow, that's bright), and we get that super clear video... and that data is transmitted all the way back to earth no problem? Oh, I forgot... filters, but what technology is in place for that to occur?

Something very simple, rather than going into celestial bodies, etc,... none of us (on this forum) have experienced any curvature, nor seen any. I'm not talking about video footage using wide angle and fish-eye lens that distort. For instance, if there is an 8-inch drop for every mile, to account for curvature, why is it that something 30 miles away (e.g., lighthouse) does not appear slightly tipped... to account for the curvature, but remains completely upright? Why is it that pilots and ship captains do NOT navigate relative to any curvature, but straight lines? Imagine an earth rotating at over 1,000 miles per hour... rotating away from you, while a plane travels at 500 miles per hour. You would never reach your destination if you were moving with the curvature (where the earth is rotating in the same direction that you are moving); and if the earth was rotating toward you, you would reach your destination in far less time. In either instance (traveling toward or away from the curve), a plane would have to regularly adjust its altitude, but it does not. I only know a few pilots, and both are not commercial, but might travel hundreds of miles. In their experiences, the horizon always is at eye level, with nothing shifting down or up (to accommodate a curve); both believe we live on a flat plane.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> Yes, like what was done several times over that six hour video you glossed over. Pick a section and discuss, if you wish, but to simply state "vague statements, absurdity, etc.," is meaningless.


You’re the one asking people to accept something that is outside the commonly accepted and scientifically verifiable views of the nature of our planet, the universe and physics. That puts the onus on you to prove it.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

gtrguy said:


> You’re the one asking people to accept something that is outside the commonly accepted and scientifically verifiable views of the nature of our planet, the universe and physics. That puts the onus on you to prove it.


Read my last paragraph. I couldn't give a crap what you or others choose to believe or have accepted to believe. I simply presented information TO PROVE IT, which no one seems to want to look into, which is fine. Ignore it, if you wish.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Artistotle


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


> _This gif is from the flat earther's wiki page;_


By the way, if you truly are interested in any of this, I would avoid Wiki and some other junk sites (no wonder people think 'flat earthers' are nuts... much stupidity on some of those sites). The only valid information I have heard/read comes from *The International Flat Earth Research society* (not the flat earth society). Some useful links include:

http://www.AtlanteanConspiracy.com
http://www.IFERS.123.st

Make fun of the 'freemason' aspect all you want, but what's interesting is that four historic figures (e.g., Galileo and Newton) that suggested a round earth were freemasons. Every society, from the Aztecs to early Europeans, Ptolemy, etc., accepted a flat earth based on math and the fixed Polaris star and how the stars rotated around that star and earth. It's only been in the past 500 years that the freemasons (followed by NASA) pushed the earth moving through 'space' concept, and it works out for NASA with billions of dollars coming in yearly. There are so many fake space station videos out there, yet those are forgiven, for some reason. It's all a scam. Another interesting point, the astronauts that died in explosions, etc., were not freemasons, were speaking out against so-called space travel and reaching the Moon (the likelihood of doing so), and that any person who landed on the Moon was a Freemason. Coincidence, I suppose. And if you think the Freemasons do not control what's going on world-wide, look into the history of the Rothschilds and how they were involved in just about every war you can think of, along with have a world bank in every country, expect those in the middle east always in a state of war.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Here's another example of being duped... most people think we built all those wonderful buildings around the world, including the White House, the original Parliament building in Ottawa, etc., but there have been many 'resets,' including one around mid-1800s. The groups likely responsible for all this engineering and building construction (think of the great cathedrals in Europe) were the Tartarians and Moors. Russia did a fine job destroying Tartaria (on every map prior to the 1800s, but few people even know of this country and its people). History and the gov't are not what most people think or what they've been taught in school. 









Tartary aka Tartaria - an Empire hidden in history. It was bigger than Russia once...


TARTARY "Tartary, a vast country in the northern parts of Asia, bounded by Siberia on the north and west: this is called Great Tartary. The Tartars who lie south of Muscovy and Siberia, are those of Astracan, Circassia, and Dagistan, situated north-west of the Caspian-sea; the Calmuc Tartars...




stolenhistory.org


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

A few other points... ever shine a light on a round ball... e.g., bowling ball?... the light focuses on one point (the point most pronounced/closest to the light), whereas the rest of the ball remains darker. The light converges to one area. This is not how it appears on earth (and notice it does not do that to the Moon, if it were round like a ball, during a full Moon). To clarify more, think of the sun rising over the ocean... an ocean that curves 8 inches for every mile. The light reflects in a straight line for hundreds of miles. The light does not focus on one part of the water/earth. Even the light from the Moon in strange... take a thermometer and place it in the shade (at night) during a full moon... it will register WARMER than when placed direct in the light of the moon. If the full moon was the result of the sun shining on it, why is that light not warmer than the shade? I'm not suggesting anything about the above, but it does make one questions what we're told.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

laristotle said:


> Are you nuts?!


Finally!!
Someone asking the _real_ questions!


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> Finally!!
> Someone asking the _real_ questions!


Yup, nuts for providing 6 hours of proof, to get rid of the brainwashing that took place over a person's entire life.


----------



## Hopalong (Aug 30, 2021)

This is such a wild thread. I've had a great time reading through it and watching the videos posted.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Brian Johnston said:


> Yup, nuts for providing 6 hours of proof, to get rid of the brainwashing that took place over a person's entire life.


You do you. I'll stick with reality.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


> You do you. I'll stick with reality.
> View attachment 379153


LOL, OK. Reality... spinning on a ball at 1,000 mph, in a solar system going tens of thousands of miles per hour in an expanding universe, although all the stars and constellations have remained constant for centuries. No proof of a curvature, light reflecting from the sun that can exist only a flat plane. Reality, Mr. Anderson. Nice ignoring all the points I brought forward, relative to your post, but that's OK. Just read Carlin's quote again and aim it accordingly.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

There is SOOO much stupidity in much of the "proof" that has been spewed here that I could type all day breaking down the flaws in all of it but again, a flat-earther wouldn't believe a word of it. When the science can't be refuted, then it must be "part of a conspiracy".

My favourite is the big mucky-muck in the flat-earther movement who saved up and bought a $20,000 laser gyroscope. A globe that rotates 360 degrees in 24 hours would rotate 15 degrees every hour. This incredibly accurate scientific marvel would finally offer irrefutable concrete proof, once and for all, that the idea of being on a spinning ball flying through space is a ridiculous notion. Guess what happened...

From the documentary...
_"What we found is, when we turned on that gyroscope, we found that we were picking up a drift," Knodel explains. "A 15-degree per hour drift.
"Now, obviously we were taken aback by that - 'Wow, that's kind of a problem.'
*"We obviously were not willing to accept that, and so we started looking for a way to disprove it* was actually registering the motion of the Earth."_

When the ball misses the goal, move the goalposts. Well I ain't kicking your ball.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

I think someone may have watched “The Truman Show” and mistakenly thought it was a documentary. 

End of the earth protected by secret military forces… ice wall so long a plane runs out of fuel.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> There is SOOO much stupidity in much of the "proof" that has been spewed here that I could type all day breaking down the flaws in all of it but again, a flat-earther wouldn't believe a word of it. When the science can't be refuted, then it must be "part of a conspiracy".


How about simply address the curvature of the earth information I provided? The Panama Canal is over 50 miles long and as straight as an arrow. Why didn't the engineers take into account curvature in their calculations.... 8 inches per mile? Why is it that a structure that can be seen 30 miles in the distant is straight up, e.g., lighthouse, when it should be tipping away and toward the curvature? Not only that, at 30 miles, there should be a good 200+ inches of the structure not seen, yet zoom up with a telescope and you can see the entire structure... nothing is below the horizon, following the 'curvature.' Why is it that the sun reflects along the distance of an ocean and is not specific to one point, as would be the case with any other round structure. See photo below. If the Moon were not merely a semi-translucent object (as per stars shining through it when crescent), which it is, and was, in fact, like a globe, it would reflect light as shown in the photo below and not have the entire face of it light up when a full moon. Same with the planets... the same thing would happen with the Sun shining on them millions of miles away... with one focal point lit up and the rest in darkness, but that's not what we see in NASA IMAGES (NOT PHOTOS... IMAGES... AS PER THE LANGUAGE OF NASA).


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

When you have a ball earth (it does not have to be perfectly spherical... it can be oval, oblong, pear-shaped, lol), this is how light reflects off it, but we don't see that in any NASA "images." We don't see sun light behaving like that on water or how light distributes across the FLAT PLANE of the earth.


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

jb welder said:


> I know all this stuff, what I need to know is who is pulling the strings, and how have they kept it all pretty much secret.
> Whenever I get close to finding out, everybody in the know clams up.





Brian Johnston said:


> if you think the Freemasons do not control what's going on world-wide, look into the history of the Rothschilds and how they were involved in just about every war you can think of, along with have a world bank in every country, expect those in the middle east always in a state of war.


Took long enough but finally we get to the nitty gritty. Same old tripe. I'm sure Chavros is in on it as well.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Again, all of those are easily refutable but I'm not going to waste the keystrokes. I _will_ say, the two "stand ins" he uses to demonstrate how light falls on a round surface make the question flawed before he even asks it.

One is a sphere made up of flat facets so of course the light will appear to reflect from one point. The other is a clear, glass sphere. Light is passing _through_ it and is therefore being focused to one point. Typical "proof" in that the question they ask or the "facts" they use are already wrong so that the answer fits their view.










I'd ask his opinion on COVID but I don't want to blow up the forum.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Brian Johnston said:


> it does not have to be perfectly spherical... it can be oval, oblong, pear-shaped


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> Again, all of those are easily refutable but I'm not going to waste the keystrokes. I _will_ say, the two "stand ins" he uses to demonstrate how light falls on a round surface make the question flawed before he even asks it.
> 
> One is a sphere made up of flat facets so of course the light will appear to reflect from one point. The other is a clear, glass sphere. Light is passing _through_ it and is therefore being focused to one point. Typical "proof" in that the question they ask or the "facts" they use are already wrong so that the answer fits their view.
> 
> ...





laristotle said:


> View attachment 379161


So easy to refute that you won't. Brilliant! As for the blue marble showing the entire globe lit up almost evenly (on that side), NASA admitted that it was a artist rendering, and so, you can't use that. But whatever. There was a North American rocket launch made by a private individual/team not long ago... no one inside the rocket, but some cameras were attached. They got higher than any other private launcher, minus the billionaire boys. What's interesting is that the Moon was visible during this daytime launch, when it should have been around Australia according to globetard information. By the way, if you don't like my examples, how about shining a light a bowling ball and tell me what you see? How about any round ball object of YOUR choosing. I simply did a google search and selected those two. It matters not that the christmas bulb has some flat surfaces (isn't the earth irregular with valleys and mountains)?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

As someone who studied Astronomy in university and had to recreate experiments regarding Parallax and Foucault's Pendulum amongst others I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Of course I also studied Descartes so it could just be demons fooling us into believing this stuff.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> As someone who studied Astronomy in university and had to recreate experiments regarding Parallax and Foucault's Pendulum amongst others I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Of course I also studied Descartes so it could just be demons fooling us into believing this stuff.


Well, use your astronomy to challenge my position on curvature of the earth. We keep going into space while neglecting the proofs right here.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Curious to know how sailors, for centuries, navigated with a sextant, using the flat, horizontal horizon (notice horizon is in the word horizontal) as a Zero angle, together with the star Polaris, which remains fixed with the earth... and without accounting for any curvature. I know, I know... it's so easy to answer that, but you won't.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> As someone who studied Astronomy in university and had to recreate experiments regarding Parallax and Foucault's Pendulum amongst others I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Of course I also studied Descartes so it could just be demons fooling us into believing this stuff.


Oh Foucault's pendulum is easy for them to dismiss. They claim that us "globetards" use magnets to make it appear that the earth is rotating. And don't get me started on the Coriolis force, I'll tell you whut...

If you studied astronomy, then you probably understand the effect of cool and warm layers of air making it possible to see objects at a distance that are below the horizon. I'd say that maybe _you_ could explain it to him better than me but we both know there would be some "gay space frogs" conspiracy theory that would explain it away.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> Well, use your astronomy to challenge my position on curvature of the earth. We keep going into space while neglecting the proofs right here.


Dude, you have no "position". The earth is globular. I know this to be true.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

2manyGuitars said:


> Oh Foucault's pendulum is easy for them to dismiss. They claim that us "globetards" use magnets to make it appear that the earth is rotating. And don't get me started on the Coriolis force, I'll tell you whut...
> 
> If you studied astronomy, then you probably understand the effect of cool and warm layers of air making it possible to see objects at a distance that are below the horizon. I'd say that maybe _you_ could explain it to him better than me but we both know there would be some "gay space frogs" conspiracy theory that would explain it away.


He brought up sailing so I was tempted to bring up the purpose of a crow's nest - you know, using the height to see past the horizon kinda thing. But - not my toddler to raise


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> Dude, you have no "position". The earth is globular. I know this to be true.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> He brought up sailing so I was tempted to bring up the purpose of a crow's nest - you know, using the height to see past the horizon kinda thing. But - not my toddler to raise


Like my coworker used to say when dealing with people who didn't want to listen...

"I have neither the time nor the crayons to adequately explain this to you."


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)




----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)




----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> He brought up sailing so I was tempted to bring up the purpose of a crow's nest - you know, using the height to see past the horizon kinda thing. But - not my toddler to raise


OK, how does one see past the horizon when the horizon is always there? And if the earth drops 8 inches per mile, and the person is looking forward for 50 miles (for example), any land would be below the horizon on the curve, right? Yet, that is NOT the case when we view things 50 miles away. Land, buildings, etc., are ON the horizon and not below it. Dude, I know the earth is a plane... you cannot address the ideas I presented about the curvature, which means you have no legs to stand on. But you did take an astronomy class.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> Like my coworker used to say when dealing with people who didn't want to listen...
> 
> "I have neither the time nor the crayons to adequately explain this to you."


That argument was so good, it addressed every aspect I bought forward about light pinpointing a round object. Hope you like the bowling ball and GLOBE examples, since you couldn't see beyond the other two examples. Anything round will produce such light, but the earth does not (not according to NASA's made up images), nor does the Moon or other planets. Hmmmm, I wonder why? Maybe Mr. Astronomy can answer why... if the closest star is trillions of miles away, why can today's best cameras zoom up on them? Something with a Zoom of 180x cannot bring in an object larger if it were trillions of miles away... and would barely make a difference on something 1,000 miles away. Why is it that the stars do not produce light like our Sun... when zoomed up, they appear like shimmering rocks of various colours in a brook stream. Obviously, those 'bodies' are not Sun-based, which is a different matter than earth being a flat plane, although round in nature.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> Dude, you have no "position". The earth is globular. I know this to be true.


Prove it, based on the information I brought forward on the curvature. It's all up there, in a few posts. Debunk any or all with common sense and explanation, so that any of us can understand. I did so without using math equations, etc., but through mere observation. Don't take off into space (although you can't), just use observation of the earth, of what we can sense and make sense of.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

There _is_ light hitting every part of that ball although it _is_ fainter at the edges due to the fall off angle of the spherical surface. This is exactly what happens with the earth and the reason with have seasons. It's also why the climate is warmer as you get closer to the equator because the angle of incidence means the Sun's rays are concentrated on a smaller area. As you get closer to the poles, the Sun's rays are hitting the earth at an increasingly steeper angle making the energy spread out over a much larger area. Hence the cooler climate.

And the bright spot in the middle is simply the highly reflective surface mirroring the light source. If I were to leave both the ball and light source in the EXACT same spots and move around the ball in any direction, the reflection would move as my position changes but it would not change the amount of light hitting the object by even one photon.

Do I need to take a picture of MY balls?


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Has anyone noticed that, on a cloudy day, the clouds go on and on for dozens/hundreds miles... in a straight link perspective and without any curvature, to follow the earth. Simply look up in the sky... follow the clouds for as far as possible... all diminishing in perspective (for any artists on here) along a flat plane and without any curvature.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> Prove it, based on the information I brought forward on the curvature. It's all up there, in a few posts. Debunk any or all with common sense and explanation, so that any of us can understand. I did so without using math equations, etc., but through mere observation. Don't take off into space (although you can't), just use observation of the earth, of what we can sense and make sense of.


Look, I watched the first 10 minutes of your video, some in the middle, the other middle and the ending. I'll tell you whut - if you start of by disbelieving gravity or any other properties of Physics then I got nuthin' I can teach you and a lot more important things to do. Stay in school.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> There _is_ light hitting every part of that ball although it _is_ fainter at the edges due to the fall off angle of the spherical surface. This is exactly what happens with the earth and the reason with have seasons. It's also why the climate is warmer as you get closer to the equator because the angle of incidence means the Sun's rays are concentrated on a smaller area. As you get closer to the poles, the Sun's rays are hitting the earth at an increasingly steeper angle making the energy spread out over a much larger area. Hence the cooler climate.
> 
> And the bright spot in the middle is simply the highly reflective surface mirroring the light source. If I were to leave both the ball and light source in the EXACT same spots and move around the ball in any direction, the reflection would move as my position changes but it would not change the amount of light hitting the object by even one photon.
> 
> Do I need to take a picture of MY balls?


Let me be even clearer, since your response is not answering the question. I'm not talking about seasons. Why does the Moon show full face of brightness when a full moon, but does not behave like any other round object with light reflecting on it? Obviously, you know about light concentrating on one spot, as I do, since you indicated as much. No kidding. Focus on the Moon and why do the only 'images' of earth not show a similar pinpointed light (obviously, they are fake, and even NASA claims as much)? Why are planet images fully light up, if they also are ball-like? You just PROVED in your own words that there would be a bright spot, but this is NOT the case with the Moon, other 'planets' or even NASA images of earth. Amazing, too, that the Sun is supposed to be 92 million miles away, and yet, there are such significant temperature differences at the same time, across the earth. That big massive sun, with heat that can reach the earth 92 million miles away, and yet, we have freezing temperatures at one part of the earth, and sweltering heat only a few thousand miles away. Doesn't seem strange to you?


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> Look, I watched the first 10 minutes of your video, some in the middle, the other middle and the ending. I'll tell you whut - if you start of by disbelieving gravity or any other properties of Physics then I got nuthin' I can teach you and a lot more important things to do. Stay in school.


Give me a break. The laws of buoyancy and density both take care of anything substance that is light vs. heavy (e.g., a rock dropping in a glass of water, water separating from oil, etc.). But gravity is a 'thing' that not even Newton was convinced of... that Einstein refuted... and that Degrasse Tyson had no idea what it was when questioned, as no one does. Gravity has never been proven as an actual thing. Here's one example... if the earth were a globe, holding its waters in place with gravity (we are told), then how does a butterfly fly? Think about it... a force so strong that it can hold trillions of gallons of water, weighing untold amounts, to it surface, even while spinning 1000 miles per hour (spin a wet tennis ball), yet that powerful force cannot keep a butterfly down. The Moon's gravity is so strong that it can cause tides (and overcome the earth's gravity, although much larger than the moon), but this can be done only in very heavy and massive bodies of water (oceans) and not in streams, ponds or lakes... or toilets. Nor does the Moon's gravity, that can shift millions of tons of water, pull the butterfly up in the sky.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Never mind that in the bottom left, I _do_ see clouds dipping below the horizon, but the fact that it's cloudy means that there's likely water vapour or particulate matter in the air limiting the distance that you're able to see.

And speaking of seeing, let's say you're looking at 100 miles of clouds. At 8 inches per mile, that would be an 800 inch curvature or 66 feet. I know you said that you're not going to cloud your arguments with "science and math" but simply what you can "observe with your eyes". I guess your eyes must be waaay better than mine if you can definitively say that the cloud 100 miles away isn't actually 66 feet lower than the one directly over your head.

And speaking of "over head", in the most common flat earth models (yes, there are many because depending on which particular flavour of bullshit any particular flat-earther believes in, they need to cook up a model that fits their "facts") the common thought is that the sun flies around over head, never dipping below the horizon but simply relocating around the disc. So...
How do you get sunlight lighting up the bottoms of clouds?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> Give me a break. The laws of buoyancy and density both take care of anything substance that is light vs. heavy (e.g., a rock dropping in a glass of water, water separating from oil, etc.). But gravity is a 'thing' that not even Newton was convinced of... that Einstein refuted... and that Degrasse Tyson had no idea what it was when questioned, as no one does. Gravity has never been proven as an actual thing. Here's one example... if the earth were a globe, holding its waters in place with gravity (we are told), then how does a butterfly fly? Think about it... a force so strong that it can hold trillions of gallons of water, weighing untold amounts, to it surface, even while spinning 1000 miles per hour (spin a wet tennis ball), yet that powerful force cannot keep a butterfly down. The Moon's gravity is so strong that it can cause tides (and overcome the earth's gravity, although much larger than the moon), but this can be done only in very heavy and massive bodies of water (oceans) and not in streams, ponds or lakes... or toilets. Nor does the Moon's gravity, that can shift millions of tons of water, pull the butterfly up in the sky.


Right - so like I said - you don't believe in gravity. So you don't believe in the laws of physics or mathematics either?

Against my better judgement let's try a little math. The formula for distance to a visible horizon is K(distance in kms) = 3.57 x sq root of the viewing height (in meters). Look it up - I'll assume you accept that. If I'm at sea, standing in a row boat with a telescope the horizon will be 5.02 km away. If I climb a 10 meter mast and do the same the visible horizon is now 11.28 km. Why? Because the additional height allows me to see further around the curvature of the Earth.

Believe it or not.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> Never mind that in the bottom left, I _do_ see clouds dipping below the horizon, but the fact that it's cloudy means that there's likely water vapour or particulate matter in the air limiting the distance that you're able to see.
> 
> And speaking of seeing, let's say you're looking at 100 miles of clouds. At 8 inches per mile, that would be an 800 inch curvature or 66 feet. I know you said that you're not going to cloud your arguments with "science and math" but simply what you can "observe with your eyes". I guess your eyes must be waaay better than mine if you can definitively say that the cloud 100 miles away isn't actually 66 feet lower than the one directly over your head.
> 
> ...


Get a telescope... nothing is "dipping below the horizon." The horizon is always straight ahead, as any pilot or sea navigator will tell you. Things appear that way due to perspective (ask an artist who paints or draws, as I do) and the limitation of the eyes... but use a telescope to draw those objects in, and they do NOT dip below the horizon. Again, you are with me about the limitations of the eyes, yet used the "dipping below the horizon" as an argument. But one can see left and right, for hundreds of miles (of clouds), yet NO curvature. It matters not forward, but think side to side... NO CURVATURE of the clouds. They merely stretch straight across. This is one example of how WE do not experience or see any curvature, yet we're told the earth is round. Like I already mentioned, if a lighthouse is 30 miles away, which you can see with a telescope, why is it vertical and not tip a bit to account for the 240 inches of DROP due to curvature? You tell me... if the Sun is above the clouds on flat earth, and the sun is above the clouds in space/round earth (92 million miles away), how do the bottom of clouds get lit up?


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> Right - so like I said - you don't believe in gravity. So you don't believe in the laws of physics or mathematics either?
> 
> Against my better judgement let's try a little math. The formula for distance to a visible horizon is K(distance in kms) = 3.57 x sq root of the viewing height (in meters). Look it up - I'll assume you accept that. If I'm at sea, standing in a row boat with a telescope the horizon will be 5.02 km away. If I climb a 10 meter mast and do the same the visible horizon is now 11.28 km. Why? Because the additional height allows me to see further around the curvature of the Earth.
> 
> Believe it or not.


Horrible fallacy, that because I believe in one thing that YOU conclude that I don't believe in other things. Quote me otherwise, and I promise $1000 dollars. I clearly indicated the bullshit behind GRAVITY (not Newton's three laws of motion, or mathematics), and YOU, Mr. Professor, have yet to even comment on my comments. Explain gravity with the ocean waters vs. a butterfly... the pull of the Moon vs. that of the Earth with tides, and that the Moon is too weak to affect lakes, ponds and rivers, yet can control trillions of tons of water. Forget the other 'laws,' as none of them were even mentioned by myself. Heck, the moon landers, lol, could hop around without much effort, and they are a lot lighter than all that tide water 100+ thousand miles away. Does that not seem odd to you?


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

You DO realize that the sun is 400 times larger than the moon, right? Oh wait. You don't believe that.
Well my if it were, then it would explain the phenomenon your so confused about.

Picture the moon is a one inch ping pong ball. Picture that the sun is a 3 storey office building (400 inches is 33 feet). Now, shine that REALLY bright and REALLY big light on that ball. Yeah, I don't expect a lot of light fall off at the edges either.

But of course, the flat-earther method is the "I don't believe the sun is 400 times bigger than the moon, therefore your explanation makes no sense". Then the only logical conclusion is that the moon is also a flat disc positioned perfectly so as to always be facing straight at any observer located anywhere on earth.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

How does the sun light up the bottoms of clouds in a globe-earth world? Easy.
As the globe spins, the position of the sun changes such that the sun drops closer to and eventually below the horizon and can illuminate the bottoms of the clouds.

Listen, this was amusing in it's absurdity at one point but I feel like I'm getting stupider through osmosis here, so I'm out.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> You DO realize that the sun is 400 times larger than the moon, right? Oh wait. You don't believe that.
> Well my if it were, then it would explain the phenomenon your so confused about.
> 
> Picture the moon is a one inch ping pong ball. Picture that the sun is a 3 storey office building (400 inches is 33 feet). Now, shine that REALLY bright and REALLY big light on that ball. Yeah, I don't expect a lot of light fall off at the edges either.
> ...


You keep bringing up new points without addressing ANY of the old points. Hmmm. You go first... address all the points I brought up and I'll tackle this one. Deal? You see, the size of either is IRRELEVANT to all I brought up about curvature, gravity and the horizon. Talk about moving the goal post, you poser, lol.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> How does the sun light up the bottoms of clouds in a globe-earth world? Easy.
> As the globe spins, the position of the sun changes such that the sun drops closer to and eventually below the horizon and can illuminate the bottoms of the clouds.
> 
> Listen, this was amusing in it's absurdity at one point but I feel like I'm getting stupider through osmosis here, so I'm out.


Hugh... because the clouds are always moving, right? What if moving toward or away from the moving curvature? Yes, very absurd, lol. But keep trying. What YOU haven't considered is that if the Sun is moving further toward the horizon (based on you looking in that direction) on a flat earth/plane and moves PAST the clouds, then that TOO would light up the bottom of the clouds, right????


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> Horrible fallacy, that because I believe in one thing that YOU conclude that I don't believe in other things. Quote me otherwise, and I promise $1000 dollars. I clearly indicated the bullshit behind GRAVITY (not Newton's three laws of motion, or mathematics), and YOU, Mr. Professor, have yet to even comment on my comments. Explain gravity with the ocean waters vs. a butterfly... the pull of the Moon vs. that of the Earth with tides, and that the Moon is too weak to affect lakes, ponds and rivers, yet can control trillions of tons of water. Forget the other 'laws,' as none of them were even mentioned by myself. Heck, the moon landers, lol, could hop around without much effort, and they are a lot lighter than all that tide water 100+ thousand miles away. Does that not seem odd to you?


Don't like facts, huh? Math, Science? Funny that you cherry-pick "Density" and "Buoyancy" as acceptable, but then - you did watch a 6-hour video, after all.

"Mr. Professor" out.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> Don't like facts, huh? Math, Science? Funny that you cherry-pick "Density" and "Buoyancy" as acceptable, but then - you did watch a 6-hour video, after all.
> 
> "Mr. Professor" out.


What facts? You talk about seeing beyond the horizon, which is impossible. You claim to know the earth is round, but cannot address any issues I brought up about curvature. You then claimed I didn't believe in other scientific principles, but you smirk at buoyancy and density. LOL... WOW, Mr. Astronomy. Don't forget to provide facts on how the Moon can pull water, but not a butterfly (same with earth's control of water around a ball). Without 'gravity,' the ball concept falls apart, yet gravity is nothing more than supposition (which is addressed via buoyancy vs. density).


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)




----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Why is it that as we rise up... an elevator to the ends of the sky... that we still can see the horizon? With a ball earth, you would have to constantly look down, since the earth would curve away from you.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

In the past 2000 years, there has been, on record, 50 times that the Sun was in view during a lunar eclipse. In other words, it is not the Sun behind us producing a shadow on the Moon. I won't even suggest what it is, since it's beyond the scope of the earth's curvature. Waiting for that to be dubunked.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Here's an example of propaganda. That guy who jumped from a balloon (which is what satellites are... they can stay up for 8 months and are not in 'space'), you will notice that when in the capsule, the horizon was flat, but with the magic of a camera lens (wide angle or fish-eye), it looks round. Why do such a thing... for what deception?


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

knight_yyz said:


> The original post video is a collection of still black and white images filtered and colorized. So basically it's a GIF.


So it’s a CGIF.  

In other news, all videos are collections of still images.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Sneaky said:


> So it’s a CGIF.
> 
> In other news, all videos are collections of still images.


But some are more creamy smooth, ethereal and suitable for Avatar 2 than others.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)




----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Flying above the clouds and looking pretty darn flat.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> Why is it that as we rise up... an elevator to the ends of the sky... that we still can see the horizon? With a ball earth, you would have to constantly look down, since the earth would curve away from you.


I gave you the formula, chum. And you don't see "past" the horizon - the distance you can see IS THE HORIZON - it ain't real. I used a real example and a formula you can look up to prove the curvature of the Earth. To argue that is just plain nonsense. What else can I say? Butterflies and water? Weight, mass, density. So, so basic.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Wow, 273 miles away and no curvature or drop below the horizon... you can see the shore. That's over 2600 foot drop, which would make it impossible to see the shoreline. Hmmm..


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

allthumbs56 said:


> I gave you the formula, chum. And you don't see "past" the horizon - the distance you can see IS THE HORIZON - it ain't real. I used a real example and a formula you can look up to prove the curvature of the Earth. To argue that is just plain nonsense. What else can I say? Butterflies and water? Weight, mass, density. So, so basic.


That's what I need... a formula, while you IGNORE every other aspect I mentioned. Nor can you argue why gravity acts the way it does with super heavy water (lift a bucket vs. an ocean) vs. a butterfly. Does the formula figure that out? Show me how, oh, Mr. Astronomy. I do not want to figure out anything with a man-made formula when simple observations prove otherwise, and that you cannot contest those simple observations. Your retort... a formula, LOL


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Why isn't this below the horizon... around the curve of the earth??????????????????????????????


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

If you start with different presuppositions and never look past them, it's impossible to have a rational debate that goes anywhere. We should probably just get back to guitar stuff.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

jbealsmusic said:


> If you start with different presuppositions and never look past them, it's impossible to have a rational debate that goes anywhere. We should probably just get back to guitar stuff.


I keep bringing up the CURVATURE... I have never left it. None of my comments have been challenged or proven false.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

You need to be at least 35000 feet up before you can see the earth is not flat. It becomes more obvious the higher you go. That's also assuming there are ZERO clouds and you have at least a 60* field of view.

To put that into perspective, a 50mm lens on an SLR has only a 46* field of view. So any shot taken with a lens longer than 50mm will show the earth as flat. A 30mm lens will give you just about 61*.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Haven't been lied to? Barbados apparently ended slavery shortly after 1816, but what of this penny?


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Huh... one image I posted was 120,000 feet (balloon)... not 35,000 feet. How's that for perspective? The Red Bull jump was higher than that... using a fish-eye lens outside for a curve, but flat is seen inside. Explain that with perspective? Something else, if the earth curved, the highest point would be BELOW you in a plane, with any other 'point' curving away. It doesn't look like that, does it? A Jumbo 747 typically ascends 43,000 feet... but no curvature. Why is that?



knight_yyz said:


> You need to be at least 35000 feet up before you can see the earth is not flat. It becomes more obvious the higher you go. That's also assuming there are ZERO clouds and you have at least a 60* field of view.
> 
> To put that into perspective, a 50mm lens on an SLR has only a 46* field of view. So any shot taken with a lens longer than 50mm will show the earth as flat. You need at the most a 35mm lens.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Brian Johnston said:


> Flying above the clouds and looking pretty darn flat.
> View attachment 379172



Well duh, you're looking at the clouds not the planet.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> Well duh, you're looking at the clouds not the planet.


Have you not flown and seen the earth with no clouds, duh? Why don't the clouds curve to the earth, duh? Don't forget to address my comments of the views over 35k, duh!


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

OMG seriously? so the clouds are x meters thick plus or minus .001 of an inch everywhere? what have you been smoking?


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

Brian Johnston said:


> I keep bringing up the CURVATURE... I have never left it. None of my comments have been challenged or proven false.


I think you quoted me by mistake.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> OMG seriously? so the clouds are x meters thick plus or minus .001 of an inch everywhere? what have you been smoking?


OMG, so a board can be 1000 feet thick and still be straight, right? Thickness of clouds affect curvature? Please explain. And then you post a CGI video, LOL. Brilliant. And how high does it say you have to be... beyond human perception and higher than any balloon can travel? How CONVENIENT. And you believe what you're told? Do you also believe the gov't and all it recommends? LOL. The video uses an EMULATOR to predict curvature based on bullshit measurements... no actual FOOTAGE from a camera. LOL. Are you not getting it yet? It's called PROPAGANDA. Give us your money to explore space. And now, there are other countries following suite... billions in revenue for bullshit, which was based partly on you accepting a globe earth. Heck, even encyclopedias in the 1950s spoke about a 'dome' or firmament, and even gave a measurement on it (from outer edge to center point)... and then that info ended once NASA was established. Still can't challenge the BS footage of NASA in the 'space station'?


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Why can't I see this from my house? You honestly think this is a heads or tails thing? I'm talking about the milky way arm not the rocks. And my point abut the clouds is they are not uniform thickness!! So you will never see the curve because of that! If the clouds were 3 feet thick and uniform then you would see the curve!!


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

jbealsmusic said:


> I think you quoted me by mistake.


I responded to your comment, but not to suggest you were in opposition or had any particular opinion.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> Why can't I see this from my house? You honestly think this is a heads or tails thing? I'm talking about the milky way arm not the rocks. And my point abut the clouds is they are not uniform thickness!! So you will never see the curve because of that! If the clouds were 3 feet thick and uniform then you would see the curve!!


This proves nothing about all the points I brought up about curvature. You're looking up into the sky, and not the horizon where there is supposed to be 8 inches per mile of curvature... yet hundreds of miles spread, no curvature. As per the clouds, there are so many photos (Google works) that shows a very uniform base, but NEVER any curvature... NEVER. You think there would be one example, from earth or 120,000 feet up. But apparently, that's not enough. You have to be as high as NASA and then trust them, although they produce continual green screen BS.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Butterflies have wings, don'cha know?


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

That doesn't answer the question. why is this impossible to see from the northern hemisphere? I'm not trying to prove anything. I would like to know why this arm of the Milky Way is not visible from my house. Please, enlighten me


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Apparently


laristotle said:


> Butterflies have wings, don'cha know?


Amazing how those flimsy wings can fight gravity, but a trillion tons/gallons of heavy water cannot. Please explain.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> That doesn't answer the question. why is this impossible to see from the northern hemisphere? Please, enlighten me


Coming from someone who has yet to answer any of my questions. My response? Perspective. Remember how we can only see so far, and an object appears to be sinking below the horizon... but a telescope brings the ENTIRE thing back in, full view? Remember that? Do you not think that THOUSANDS of miles away in a different area on earth that the stars would appear a bit different, especially if not trillions of miles away (REMEMBER that a quality camera can ZOOM up a star, which would be impossible if trillions of miles away?). They are not trillions of miles away. More BS from NASA.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Brian Johnston said:


> Apparently
> 
> Amazing how those flimsy wings can fight gravity, but a trillion tons/gallons of heavy water cannot. Please explain.


Because water doesn't have wings.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

how much for a pound of that shite you are smoking? 


Black line is the flat earth. Green dot is a dude at the tip of South America, red dot is me in Canada. Yellow squiggle is anything you want it to be but in space. Assuming the dude in South America can see the yellow squiggle, How would I not be able to see the yellow squiggle?


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

knight_yyz said:


> how much for a pound of that shite you are smoking?
> 
> 
> Black line is the flat earth. Green dot is a dude at the tip of South America, red dot is me in Canada. Yellow squiggle is anything you want it to be but in space. Assuming the dude in South America can see the yellow squiggle, How would I not be able to see the yellow squiggle?
> ...


Fuck! I promised myself I'd stay out of here...

This is an even better explanation but of course, it'll be countered with misdirection to some other question...


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


> Because water doesn't have wings.
> View attachment 379181


Together with super strong muscles in the butterfly... stronger than the WEIGHT of all the waters, right?


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> how much for a pound of that shite you are smoking?
> 
> 
> Black line is the flat earth. Green dot is a dude at the tip of South America, red dot is me in Canada. Yellow squiggle is anything you want it to be but in space. Assuming the dude in South America can see the yellow squiggle, How would I not be able to see the yellow squiggle?
> ...


You're looking up and not at the horizon, are you not? Do you think 'that' is the curve between Canada and South America? LOL. It's 8 inches per mile, apparently, yet something 200+ miles away is not down over (and beyond the horizon). You can't keep providing questions when you can't even answer one of mine. If you went over everything I presented to you, and others, you wouldn't even post what you did...your question would be answered. Our children are our future.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> Fuck! I promised myself I'd stay out of here...
> 
> This is an even better explanation but of course, it'll be countered with misdirection to some other question...


I'll watch once YOU challenge ANY aspect of curvature that I presented. I've never seen such weak arguments as what has been on this site and those lame videos you present to 'prove' a globe earth. But do ignore the six hour one I presented, and without 'skimming.' What intellectual laziness. Off for dinner.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Brian Johnston said:


> Together with super strong muscles in the butterfly... stronger than the WEIGHT of all the waters, right?


Strength has nothing to do with it. It's all in the wings, which, water has none of.
Ask any butterfly.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


> Strength has nothing to do with it. It's all in the wings, which, water has none of.
> Ask any butterfly.


When you're FIGHTING AN OPPOSING FORCE, strength has something to do with it. Strength is the ability to produce or resist force. Definitions and stuff. And, buoyancy vs. density.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)




----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Brian Johnston said:


> buoyancy vs. density.


No. 
Wings vs No Wings.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Blue line is my maximum PERSECTIVE way up in Canada trying to look at the yellow squiggle while living on a gigantic sphere. Where as dude in South America can see it no problem. Show me how that can happen on my first drawing and you might actually sway me.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> Blue line is my maximum PERSECTIVE way up in Canada trying to look at the yellow squiggle on while living on a gigantic sphere. Where as dude in South America can see it no problem. Show me how that can happen on my first drawing and you might actually sway me.


Fundamentally, you are providing a squiggly line drawing and I'm supposed to provide an opinion. Seriously? How about we get back to reality and YOU answer my questions? You cannot ignore a person by providing your own question (I suppose you can, but it shows weakness)... to answer a question with a question IF your question is merely to misdirect because YOU cannot answer the question. If you cannot answer my questions about curvature, then that is OK. I certainly cannot answer your question based on a squiggly set of lines that have no sense of reality.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Regardless of it flat or spherical, assume there are no mountains no buildings. Just plains dead flat the entire earth. In this drawing put the yellow squiggle where one dot can see it and the other cannot. Make the yellow squiggle any celestial object you like. Regardless, put any object you like in the sky, put a freaking battleship up there if you want. Make it anything big enough to see from both perspectives. Now put the massive whatever somewhere in the drawing where only one can see it. Again blue line is perspective on a totally flat earth. No mountains or buildings for excuses not to be able to see it. According to you you would have dead line of sight. So show me the earth is flat.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> Regardless of it flat or spherical, assume there are no mountains no buildings. Just plains dead flat the entire earth. In this drwing put the yellow squiggle where one dot can see it and the other cannot.


I just posted LEVEL 2021. It's a bit over an hour long. Watch it or not. But you keep IGNORING my questions and now are fixated on your squiggly line. Not interest. Good night.


----------



## Hopalong (Aug 30, 2021)

The various videos are great but can flat earth focused people make theirs shorter? Five minutes and to the point would be perfect. I'm still trying to finish the six hour one and it is a slug


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

The last video I posted... LEVEL... go to 43:12 and listen carefully (includes pilot manuals indicated flat earth and no spinning).


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Hopalong said:


> The various videos are great but can flat earth focused people make theirs shorter? Five minutes and to the point would be perfect. I'm still trying to finish the six hour one and it is a slug


My round-earth one is only 5 minutes. _Those_ guys know how to get to the point.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> My round-earth one is only 5 minutes. _Those_ guys know how to make a point.


Check out the points in LEVEL... YOU CAN EVEN START AT THE 43 MINUTE MARK, TO SAVE TIME!


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Brian Johnston said:


> It's fake. Hubble is nothing more than Sofia... research it.


I love it when your kind claim to have done research.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Brian Johnston said:


> We live on a plane surface; zero evidence of curvature, including aerial photography (go to 5:34 in the video and check out the heat spot caused by the Sun on the earth, which suggests it's not 94 million miles away, and shortly after that footage of a balloon camera 107k feet above in the higher atmosphere with NO curvature showing). No one (you and me) knows what is beyond the Antarctic, which is not at a pole, but surrounds the entire surface. There is aerial footage out there shows a 300 foot wall of ice that continues on for hundreds of miles without end (the airplane, obviously, could not continue following it for fuel reasons). I'm pretty sure it's included in the 6 hour documentary. Every country signed a treaty that prevents ANYONE from going to the Antarctic, with the excuse of 'protecting the penguins.' Try heading down there, beyond a specific registered tourist trip that brings you literally nowhere, and you will be met up with war ships protecting the area. Beyond the plane surface (which is round in nature, surrounded by ice), no one outside the Freemasons (every astronaut on the moon, lol, was a Freemason) has a clue what is beyond that ice shield.



Wow, just wow.

There were no lifeguards in your gene pool eh?

Just think everyone - he's allowed to vote!


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

I'd like to see Bill Nye our science guy answer a couple of questions without referring back to that stupid video.

1) If the earth is flat please explain circumnavigation.

2) What would be the point of the alleged conspiracy to convince us it is round? Wouldn't it be much simpler to admit that it is flat? I mean seriously, what would be the fucking point of the lie?


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

colchar said:


> 2) What would be the point of the alleged conspiracy to convince us it is round? Wouldn't it be much simpler to admit that it is flat? I mean seriously, what would be the fucking point of the lie?


YOU might actually appreciate this. This guy has done other videos addressing flat earth stupidity in depth, but this little series was broken down into 4 videos, around 5 minutes each. The theme is irrefutable proof that requires no math, science, or even above average intelligence. Just simple observation and logic. The topics are;
1) The moon
2) The stars
3) Airplanes
And part 4 is The Conspiracy or more accurately, what would be the fucking point?!?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

2manyGuitars said:


> YOU might actually appreciate this. This guy has done other videos addressing flat earth stupidity in depth, but this little series was broken down into 4 videos, around 5 minutes each. The theme is irrefutable proof that requires no math, science, or even above average intelligence. Just simple observation and logic. The topics are;
> 1) The moon
> 2) The stars
> 3) Airplanes
> And part 4 is The Conspiracy or more accurately, what would be the fucking point?!?



That was well done. I'm going to have to watch some of his other videos.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Unexpected and disappointing thread. I'm literally shook.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

colchar said:


> Wow, just wow.
> 
> There were no lifeguards in your gene pool eh?
> 
> Just think everyone - he's allowed to vote!


Wow, just wow, even when there's evidence in front of your own eyes, too obtuse to see it...and you're allowed to vote. But maybe you're an idiot savant, with so much knowledge that you will actually challenge any of my curvature statements with information to make me believe that a curvature exists. I await your brilliance.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

colchar said:


> I love it when your kind claim to have done research.


And what have you researched about Sofia? Your kind likes to make comments, to suggest how others are stupid, etc., yet offer nothing of substance within your comments. How many logical fallacies have you committed? I'll let you research that.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

colchar said:


> I'd like to see Bill Nye our science guy answer a couple of questions without referring back to that stupid video.
> 
> 1) If the earth is flat please explain circumnavigation.
> 
> 2) What would be the point of the alleged conspiracy to convince us it is round? Wouldn't it be much simpler to admit that it is flat? I mean seriously, what would be the fucking point of the lie?


1) The video actually has the answers, stupid. Circumnavigation was only done east to west, not north to south. If that doesn't quite answer it for it, then research it, and consider that all airplane and boat routes are based ON A FLAT EARTH layout (as per the UN's own friggin' flag). 
2) If you actually researched this or watched the videos, then you would know. Why would you expect me to invest time trying to convince your insulting ass?


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Still looking for proof of a spinning ball, going 1000 mph. None of us feel it, and there are clouds that move in different directions (with and without the supposed curve's direction). There are no videos showing the 1000 mile rotation (that's not CGI), mostly because our satellites are upper atmospheric and not space (NASA is the largest producer and user of helium). But even those upper atmospheric satellites that take pictures beyond our world does not show any 1000 mph movement. This would be seen relative to clouds along the horizon and any stars or other celestial bodies. But nope. As NASA states, as did Tyson and Nye, don't trust your eyes, trust what we tell you.


----------



## Paul Running (Apr 12, 2020)

Lots of mileage on this topic...might have to make it a sticky.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)




----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


>


A few problems, including using cartoons to prove a point. The way the Sun, Moon and stars behave fit the flat earth narrative as well (and makes more sense... made more sense for 2000 years among Chinese, Aztec, etc., all of whom used the stars, sun and moon to predict things... based on a flat earth. This is all presented in the videos I presented, and so, I'm not retyping the information. The second problem, there is no VISUAL evidence... nothing showing the actual earth rotating, although NASA claims its got space cameras, etc. They can video Jupiter, but not earth? Wake up people! Third, the pendulum is not predictive... sometimes it changes directions or moves in different amounts. Anyone trying to prove earth rotation with a pendulum will ignore the times it doesn't work... while ignoring how clouds behave in our own atmosphere (they behave as though the earth is a flat plane, while they go about their business with no concern about any type of rotation).


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Here is a flat earth with the moon doing what you think the moon is doing. Please explain why the Red dot cannot see the moon but the green dot can. If the earth was truly flat there is no reason the red dot can't see the moon. It may seem a bit smaller because it is farther away but it isn;t small enough to disappear. And you can't say it is blocked by mountains or apartment buildings or tall trees. And to avoid semantics, assume the flat earth pictured has all the continents on it just like a normal paper map. Show me why the red dot can;t see the moon, because we all know the red dot cannot see the moon. I cannot see the moon right now. And don't say it's too bright utside. We've all seen the moon at some point during daylight.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

knight_yyz said:


> You need to be at least 35000 feet up before you can see the earth is not flat. It becomes more obvious the higher you go. That's also assuming there are ZERO clouds and you have at least a 60* field of view.
> 
> To put that into perspective, a 50mm lens on an SLR has only a 46* field of view. So any shot taken with a lens longer than 50mm will show the earth as flat. A 30mm lens will give you just about 61*.


I think these, or ANY LEGITIMATE arguments are going to fall on deaf ears. 

Any one of us: "This photo was taken at XXXXXXXX ft, clearly showing a curvature". 

That guy: "CGI". "Fake" (news)


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Everything is falling on blind eyes and deaf ears. You can't take a video of a rotating earth when the camera is rotating at the same speed of the earth. Why do 99.9 percent of satellites rotate the same direction of earth? (see below) Hubble and Sofia etc are not capable of video and they are not stationary. They are orbiting the earth. So any video will be like looking at the hour hand of your analog clock. The hour hand is moving but you can't see it. There is a great video of the earth rotating from the spaceship Galileo as it left earth's orbit and headed out to Jupiter. But again, no video, a bunch of black and white still images pieced together and filtered to make a video. So I won't post it because it is probably fake. 

There is a really good reason why rockets are launched from down south. You do know that most rockets are launched from as close to the equator as economically possible? Why don't we launch rockets from say Sudbury? Or even Colorado. Why the tip of Florida? It has nothing to do with money. It has everything to do with centrifugal force. Your flat earth has no centrifugal force. They use the earth's spin to launch rockets. Research that.

Go outside with a baseball. Hold your arm out parallel to the ground. spin counterclockwise. Now while spinning throw the ball clockwise as hard as you can. How far did it go? Nowhere? Now spin counterclockwise and throw the ball counterclockwise. Like a shot putter or a discus thrower.... Centrifigul force!!! The same applies to rockets close to the equator. Your flat earth could never launch rocket.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Brian Johnston said:


> sometimes it changes directions


Aye. That's what the experiment proved. That the earth's rotation causes the pendulum to do that.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

2manyGuitars said:


> The topics are;
> 1) The moon
> 2) The stars
> 3) Airplanes
> And part 4 is The Conspiracy or more accurately, what would be the fucking point?!?


If a certain someone is still arguing their point after this one, then, well... there is no hope. But it's 10 pages in, there wasn't any to start with. 

What I find most interesting is how far we've gotten with one member vs every other member who chose to chime in. 

Remember the COVID ones?? Lots of folks on either side, and a whack load in the middle. This one... not so much.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


> Aye. That's what the experiment proved. That the earth's rotation causes the pendulum to do that.


That's the thing. It also moves COUNTER to the earth's rotation... and sometimes with a larger swing or smaller, etc.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

SWLABR said:


> If a certain someone is still arguing their point after this one, then, well... there is no hope. But it's 10 pages in, there wasn't any to start with.
> 
> What I find most interesting is how far we've gotten with one member vs every other member who chose to chime in.
> 
> Remember the COVID ones?? Lots of folks on either side, and a whack load in the middle. This one... not so much.


And a whack load still can't provide proof of curvature, but I provided VISUAL PROOF there is no curvature. If you look and still cannot believe, then the brainwashing (since childhood) stuck real good!


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Ok... let's boil down to the video... the one you clearly did not watch posted by @2manyGuitars 

Why?? 

Why would this still be a gigantic hoax carried out by BILLIONS of people?? Who is gaining from it?? 

And if you say "the Freemasons", I am done!!! They haven't had this mysterious power over the world... EVER, but certainly not now. 

"_If the most powerful man in the world couldn't hide a little fellatio, than how has this not been exposed?"_ And, I don't mean exposed by You-Tubers like you. REAL SCIENTISTS! 

Oh wait, they're in on "it".


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Brian Johnston said:


> It also moves COUNTER to the earth's rotation


If it's set up in the southern hemisphere, sure.


> and sometimes with a larger swing or smaller, etc.


Not on it's own. Someone/thing would have to interact with it.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

SWLABR said:


> If a certain someone is still arguing their point after this one, then, well... there is no hope. But it's 10 pages in, there wasn't any to start with.
> 
> What I find most interesting is how far we've gotten with one member vs every other member who chose to chime in.
> 
> Remember the COVID ones?? Lots of folks on either side, and a whack load in the middle. This one... not so much.


It’s like I said a few pages back, it was amusing at first but once I realized how mind-numbingly insane some of these beliefs are, I was actually a little saddened and “noped” out of the argument.

With the ones who are that deep into it, you could fly them into space, grab their head and point it at the earth, and they still wouldn’t believe it.


----------



## Hopalong (Aug 30, 2021)

I want to believe but I'm starting to think both sides of this argument are using some sort of CGI or doctored images.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

So why do toilets flush backward below the "equator" there is no coriolis effect on a flat earth


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

So, let's say that I give up all reason and join the flat side.
What do I get? A nifty UN T-shirt? a hat? a 'dumbass' pin?


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Hopalong said:


> I want to believe but I'm starting to think both sides of this argument are using some sort of CGI or doctored images.



All the images ARE doctored because they can't put a video camera on a space telescope. BANDWIDTH!!! And all photos are black and white for a reason. Did you know most hubble exposures are about 1200 seconds long? That's 20 minutes! The most famous of Hubble Images showing the millions of galaxies took 4 months!! They didn't point the camera at space and take a photo at 1/8000 of a second!! You cant take a video when every frame needs 20 minutes to gather enough light !! There is not much light out there when you point away from the sun... 
Hubble is orbiting at 17000 mph about the same speed as the earth rotation. So if they pointed Hubble at earth you would not see any rotation, even if it was capable of video!! Stare at your analog watch/clock for 24 hours.... How fast is the hour hand moving? It is moving! Can you imagine the bandwidth required of a color telescope transmitting 4k colour video through space? We are not there yet people!! I cant even watch 4k video on my TV using my PC as the source. It drops frames left and right.

Anyone who owns an SLR has the B setting for BULB. Have you tried taking a picture of the stars at 1/8000th of a second? Or even the moon? You can't!! You need to use the BULB feature and take lengthy exposures. Hubble Sofia Cassini Voyager etc are no different.

The image below originally taken in black and white took a total of almost 4 months to take. then it was filtered and processed to give it
color... Not sure how long that took but probably another 4 months.

The main reason (there are a few) Black and white is used because a black and white pixel is larger than a color pixel. The smaller the pixel the more "noise" you get. You all have digital cameras so you know what noise is. A colour pixel is 1/3 size of a black and white sensor pixel. So black and white has far less noise.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


> If it's set up in the southern hemisphere, sure.
> 
> Not on it's own. Someone/thing would have to interact with it.


Actually, no. I've seen this in action on a few videos, and what certain parties present in 'proof' videos removes any anomalies. Also, in regard to how things turn in hemispheres, water can go down a drain both ways, whether you're in Australia or the USA. It depends on the sink, how the water begins to flow, etc. Run your tap enough and you will see opposing currents. Regardless, as per the pendulum experiment, if you have a dish of water, there should be a slight change in elevation from one side of the dish to the other... since the water would move with rotation, but it does not. I'm not comparing this to a dish of water in a moving car, where there may not be any change, but if the car were going down a slight hill (rotation downward), certainly the water would shift slightly toward the downward rotation... but this does not happen in lakes, ponds or oceans... the water remains flat. Nor do any of us feel any rotation... but some how the pendulum does? Look into it more... you will find evidence that the pendulum is not always predictable.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

laristotle said:


> So, let's say that I give up all reason and join the flat side.
> What do I get? A nifty UN T-shirt? a hat? a 'dumbass' pin?


How about using reason and provide evidence of a curvature? I'm still waiting on that. As for your pendulum, did you know Foucault had to keep adding weight to the ball for it to work... that lighter balls did not work? That the ball can 'sense' rotation, but we cannot, based on our eyes, our inner ear and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. Absolutely no sense of it, even when observing from a plane, traveling toward or away from the said curvature/rotation. There are no video footage of any rotation of the earth and NO OTHER OBJECT can be used to prove the rotation, except the pendulum, which does not always work as expected. Do you think you still have reason? Then reason the above.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> So why do toilets flush backward below the "equator" there is no coriolis effect on a flat earth


Not only does this have NOTHING to do with proving curvature (how many pages do we need to go through before someone offers something up), but that is false. It can flow in different ways (videos on YouTube have proven it). It may flow one way more than another, and sometimes it has to do with the design of the sink and how the water falls and hits the porcelain, etc.








Does water go down the drain counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere?


It all depends upon how the water was introduced and the geometric structure of the drain. Handwashing over a sink. Amanda Mills, CDC photographer, 2011. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Public Health Image Library. One can find both counterclockwise and clockwise flowing drains in...



www.loc.gov




Also, if you look at a flat earth map (AGAIN, CHECK OUT THE UN'S MAP!!!!), there are sections that are further out from the center... there are hemispheres. In fact, the flat earth map (as per the UN) is divided into 33 zones... hmmmm... 33rd degrees of Freemasonry.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Show me a video of a toilet in australia with the water flowing the same direction as mine.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

The way the water hits the sink has to do with the coriolis effect!! Are you actually suggesting that the water has a choice as to which way it flows down the drain? ROTFLMFAO Outside forces control that. The water does not have a mind of its own!! Why do hurricanes spin? Because it wants to?


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Will you get me a UN T-shirt if I click 'like' on your posts?


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

Hopalong said:


> I want to believe but I'm starting to think both sides of this argument are using some sort of CGI or doctored images.


Take a plane flight sometime and focus on what you're seeing.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> The way the water hits the sink has to do with the coriolis effect!! Are you actually suggesting that the water has a choice as to which way it flows down the drain? ROTFLMFAO Outside forces control that. The water does not have a mind of its own!!


First, you can read the above article I posted. Second, you can prove it to yourself. If your bathroom tap swivels, run water with the tap toward the left side of the bowl...then rotate it so that it flows down the right side. Two different flows. It's difficult to be civilized and to discuss this when you have an attitude of ROTFLMFAO. It makes you look childish. Still waiting on you to prove there's curvature.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Brian Johnston said:


> Take a plane flight sometime and focus on what you're seeing.


You may think you have a possible convert here... but I doubt he's actually questioning himself. And what I mean by "himself" is actually "reality". 

By the way, you did not answer my question... 

Why? Why the continued hoax of a spherical earth?


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Bugs Bunny would call you an ultra moroon. Of course if you force the water to go the opposite direction it will!! It doesn't rotate down the drain by shear will. Water doesn't decide, "You know, i think I will go clockwise today.... " Something has to make it go that way. It does not choose to go clockwise or anti clockwise, outside forces are causing the water to take a direction. Whether that is you forcing it or the corelis effect is moot. I could buy a custom toilet with backwards jets if i wanted to. LMAO 

Here's your proof


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

knight_yyz said:


> So why do toilets flush backward below the "equator" there is no coriolis effect on a flat earth


Uh, duh! I think we've already established that Australia *doesn't exist*. 

We did right?? Was that on this free-ride into lunacy, or another one?? I can't keep track.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Insane Person said:


> Wow, 273 miles away and no curvature or drop below the horizon... you can see the shore. That's over 2600 foot drop, which would make it impossible to see the shoreline. Hmmm..
> 
> View attachment 379173


And here, my friends, is a perfect example of how these morons bombard you with shit from the internet and ask you to disprove it. If you take the bait an try to explain about light and refraction, you’ve already lost the battle.

What you’ve both failed to realize, and what is usually the case with SOOOOO much of their “proof” is that the question is already factually incorrect. You don’t need to answer their question because their own example already proves them wrong.

According to their own “proof”, the photo is at a distance of 273 miles and there should be 2600 feet of curvature. I know these idiots don’t like to “complicate things will silly stuff like math” so let’s just round that to 10 feet of curvature by mile.

Wait… WHAT?!?!

The actual number is 8 INCHES per mile, so (sorry to bring yucky math into this) 273x8 is 2184 inches, divided by 12 (inches per foot) gives you 182 feet. Quite a bit of a rounding error even for these “math deniers”.

So as much as I hate even dignifying their loaded question with a reply…
How could this photo be real?
The photo appears to have been taken from a point already above the surface. Is it 10 feet? 50 feet? Maybe even 182 feet? Also, ground is not even. I’m sure even _they_ will concede that the earth isn’t THAT flat. Changes in elevation in an obviously mountainous area could eat up 180 feet pretty easily. And third, the object in the distance is huge and 273 FUCKING MILES AWAY!!!!! How do you know that the bottom 182 isn’t hidden by the curve? And that’s with me giving you the whole 182 feet of curvature, which my first 2 points may have taken care of already.

So there’s my original point of why I won’t even answer their questions. They spew copied and pasted “proof” which if they took a couple seconds to fact check (not their strong suit) they would see they’ve already proven their own point as FALSE.

So they can fuck off with their “Oh yeah? But what about…”


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

It's on the other side of the flat earth. You know, like heads and tails. right?

So Hurricanes also decide which way they spin? The southern hemisphere hurricanes formed a committee all decided to be different from the northern hemisphere and spin different directions? Is it racial or political? Because someone farted in that direction? A bunch of people with straws blew in that direction? someone turned on a fan or two? Ultra maroon.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

SWLABR said:


> You may think you have a possible convert here... but I doubt he's actually questioning himself. And what I mean by "himself" is actually "reality".
> 
> By the way, you did not answer my question...
> 
> Why? Why the continued hoax of a spherical earth?


Money... space travel is expensive... and the thought that outside our atmosphere (beyond the firmament) is space to be discovered takes YOUR money that you earned from work (presuming you work). Billions just from NASA... trillions over the years. You know the saying... follow the money, and that pertains to anything in life. Now, answer my question... WHY IS THERE NO CURVATURE TO THE EARTH... AND IF THERE IS, PROVE IT. Whether on the water, in the air, up 130,000 feet, the horizon is always at eye level. With a round earth, the highest point would be directly under you (imagine being in a weather balloon), whereas everything else (to the front, back and both sides) it would curve away from you. But it does NOT, does it?


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

2manyGuitars said:


> And here, my friends, is a perfect example of how these morons bombard you with shit from the internet and ask you to disprove it. If you take the bait an try to explain about light and refraction, you’ve already lost the battle.
> 
> What you’ve both failed to realize, and what is usually the case with SOOOOO much of their “proof” is that the question is already factually incorrect. You don’t need to answer their question because their own example already proves them wrong.
> 
> ...



Not to mention the field of view. In order to take a picture of something that far away with that much detail would require a telephoto lens. That was not taken with a 35mm or less lens. Wrong field of view won't show the curve. Take that same photo on the calm ocean with a 35mm lens and see the results.... You can.t show the curvature from left to right if the resolution is too small, ie not a wide enough angle of view.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> And here, my friends, is a perfect example of how these morons bombard you with shit from the internet and ask you to disprove it. If you take the bait an try to explain about light and refraction, you’ve already lost the battle.
> 
> What you’ve both failed to realize, and what is usually the case with SOOOOO much of their “proof” is that the question is already factually incorrect. You don’t need to answer their question because their own example already proves them wrong.
> 
> ...


The problem is, you're the moron, and there are many like you. You cannot dispute that photo (and I provide plenty on this thread). You can't take something right in front of your eyes... you have to add 'light and refraction,' as though what you are seeing is a mirage. And that photo was extracted from actual video, and if you and others were no SOOOOO lazy and afraid of the truth, you would have watched the two videos I provided you, as the video footage (not doctored images) are in there. How about you fuck off and don't bother with this thread, since YOU HAVE YET TO PROVE THERE IS CURVATURE TO THE EARTH... YOU CANNOT, SINCE THERE IS NO CURVATURE. Engineers don't factor in curvature when laying railway lines or canals... why not? Airline pilots don't factor in curvature when flying... why not? And did you know that the US pilots guide, as well as NASA even indicate in their manuals that everything is flat and not to be concerned with curvature???? Don't believe me? The information is in the second video, with photos of the pages in question. And I do know two pilots... both claim the earth is flat... there is no curvature... they can see... they believe their eyes, rather than Bill Nye the bullshit paid shill guy.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Here's an example with field of view. The blues lines are say a 28mm lens, the red are a 1000mm lens. Cannot see the curve with 1000 mm so it doesn't exist? This diagram disproves your shite photo


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> Not to mention the field of view. In order to take a picture of something that far away with that much detail would require a telephoto lens. That was not taken with a 35mm or less lens. Wrong field of view won't show the curve. Take that same photo on the calm ocean with a 35mm lens and see the results.... You can.t show the curvature from left to right if the resolution is too small, ie not a wide enough angle of view.


And you can't do it with a fish-eye or wide angle, either, can you? And so, what lens do we need, and can you show me the photos from this camera that show curvature... because my OWN EYES cannot see it LIVE in the air or at the ocean. Apparently, neither can any 'satellites.' Any 'space' photos use wide angle or fish-eye, and it's been admitted to (including the Red Bull Skydive). I look forward to those photos.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> Here's an example with field of view. The blues lines are say a 28mm lens, the red eare a 1000mm lens. Cannot see the curve with 1000 mm so it doesn;t exist? This diagram disproves your shite photo
> 
> View attachment 379272


Cool, more pencil lines to prove the earth has curvature. Waiting on those photos with 50mm or whatever you want to use.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Perfect example, calling me a moron and then arguing that I “can’t dispute the photo”.

I just did! They fail to acknowledge the astounding error (ie. deliberate misinformation) of 2600 claimed feet being 182 actual feet. If they won’t acknowledge _that_ and then continue to trot that photo out as “proof”, then I’m finally convinced...

That this person is the biggest troll ever on GC.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> It's on the other side of the flat earth. You know, like heads and tails. right?
> 
> So Hurricanes also decide which way they spin? The southern hemisphere hurricanes formed a committee all decided to be different from the northern hemisphere and spin different directions? Is it racial or political? Because someone farted in that direction? A bunch of people with straws blew in that direction? someone turned on a fan or two? Ultra maroon.


Explain how that proves there is curvature? That has been my ONLY concern on this entire thread, but people keep dishing out other bullshit. In any case, why do 5% of tornadoes rotate in the opposite direction (relative to where they are located). And don't forget, I'm not saying there are not two hemispheres. In fact, the tropic of Capricorn/Cancer (no longer called that, since the stars have changed positioning and were now in the age of Aquarius, which arrangements only work on a flat earth when determining what age we're in relative to the stars' positioning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) exists on a flat earth map, and so, you're barking up the wrong tree.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> Perfect example, calling me a moron and then arguing that I “can’t dispute the photo”.
> 
> I just did! They fail to acknowledge the astounding error (ie. deliberate misinformation) of 2600 claimed feet being 182 actual feet. If they won’t acknowledge _that_ and then continue to trot that photo out as “proof”, then I’m finally convinced...
> 
> That this person is the biggest troll ever on GC.


I thought you would appreciate YOUR OWN LANGUAGE. Read the first line of your post. I posted that photo, then you talk about morons...
They likely meant 260 feet. I've seen enough typos in videos, including those created by the government. REGARDLESS, THERE IS NO CURVATURE.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

The field of view proves my point. what else do you need? I've shown you that the wrong lens will not show you enough of the curve!! and until you can prove your amazing photo was taken with a 35mm lens you're full of hot air. I can't go outside and take a pic of a flat earth or a curved earth, i don't have the ability to go up 35000 feet and take a shot. But If i could you would be eating crow.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Brian Johnston said:


> Money... space travel is expensive... and the thought that outside our atmosphere (beyond the firmament) is space to be discovered takes YOUR money that you earned from work (presuming you work). Billions just from NASA... trillions over the years. You know the saying... follow the money, and that pertains to anything in life. Now, answer my question... WHY IS THERE NO CURVATURE TO THE EARTH... AND IF THERE IS, PROVE IT. Whether on the water, in the air, up 130,000 feet, the horizon is always at eye level. With a round earth, the highest point would be directly under you (imagine being in a weather balloon), whereas everything else (to the front, back and both sides) it would curve away from you. But it does NOT, does it?


Your answer of "money" to the "why" is the exact opposite of an argument for you.

Spend billions to keep up a hoax?? If it were to *cost* billions if the hoax was released, then yes. Money is the answer. But spend to keep the secret does not answer WHY?????

WHY?

WHY?

WHY??


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Brian Johnston said:


> Explain how that proves there is curvature? That has been my ONLY concern on this entire thread, but people keep dishing out other bullshit. In any case, why do 5% of tornadoes rotate in the opposite direction (relative to where they are located). And don't forget, I'm not saying there are not two hemispheres. In fact, the tropic of Capricorn/Cancer (no longer called that, since the stars have changed positioning and were now in the age of Aquarius, which arrangements only work on a flat earth when determining what age we're in relative to the stars' positioning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) exists on a flat earth map, and so, you're barking up the wrong tree.



So why do hurricanes spin? Answer me that. On a flat earth there are no hurricanes. Because there is no coriolis effect. My crude drawing proves that the wrong lens will prove your point every time. Falsely I'll add. Your photo does not prove the earth is flat. it shows a picture of uneven mountains with a shitty field of view that even if the earth was half the size it was the curvature would not show up in your bullshit photo. In order to see the curve you have to have a really big field of view. which can only be attained by going up to 35000 feet or more and using the right lens!!

Any photo taken of the earth to show the earth is flat will prove the earth is flat. Reminds me of the ostrich who thinks i can't see him (with my head in the sand) therefore I am safe. 

Even the highest mountain in the world is too low to show you proof. So you look at false proof and deem it true. And because all the real proof has been doctored to be aestheticaly pleasing it is all fake... I'm done. I'll get better results explaining this to my dog.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Brian Johnston said:


> 1) The video actually has the answers, stupid. Circumnavigation was only done east to west, not north to south. If that doesn't quite answer it for it, then research it, and consider that all airplane and boat routes are based ON A FLAT EARTH layout (as per the UN's own friggin' flag).


🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣



Circumnavigation has been done north to south you moron. But why let anything as inconvenient as facts get in the way of your 'research' eh?






> 2) If you actually researched this or watched the videos, then you would know. Why would you expect me to invest time trying to convince your insulting ass?



Because you're the arrogant prick making completely unsubstantiated claims. But your answer was exactly what I expected. The arrogance of the ignorant is always entertaining.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

knight_yyz said:


> But If i could you would be eating crow.


And there’s the million dollar answer as to why no amount of proof will ever satisfy them. Then they’ll have to wake up one morning and admit that everything that they believed in so strongly for many, many years has been wrong. They they’ve been spewing idiotic nonsense and that’s a tough pill to swallow. It’s easier to just endlessly ask for “proof” and then dismiss anything that could possibly explain it.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Brian Johnston said:


> Wow, just wow, even when there's evidence in front of your own eyes, too obtuse to see it...and you're allowed to vote. But maybe you're an idiot savant, with so much knowledge that you will actually challenge any of my curvature statements with information to make me believe that a curvature exists. I await your brilliance.


Time for you to go see Matron and get the next dose of your meds.

But first, tell us more about this massive wall (did Trump build it?) down in Antarctica that is patrolled by navy ships (which country's navy????).


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> Bugs Bunny would call you an ultra moroon. Of course if you force the water to go the opposite direction it will!! It doesn't rotate down the drain by shear will. Water doesn't decide, "You know, i think I will go clockwise today.... " Something has to make it go that way. It does not choose to go clockwise or anti clockwise, outside forces are causing the water to take a direction. Whether that is you forcing it or the corelis effect is moot. I could buy a custom toilet with backwards jets if i wanted to. LMAO
> 
> Here's your proof


You people are DUMB. For the THIRD time, I do not dispute that there are different hemispheres. The tropics were named after star positions ON A FLAT EARTH MAP (it doesn't work on a globe... investigate that). Globetards only started up 500 years ago... for centuries before that, every culture based seasons, time, etc., on a flat earth map and the stars. Simple history if you care to look into it. Swirling water in different directions means nothing in regard to CURVATURE... why you people (Don Cherry had it right) can't get about CURVATURE and addressing CURVATURE is beyond me. And I can make water swirl in either way in my bathroom (you can do the same thing if you can get your ass off the chair and try it). I even provided an article from the Library of Congress that addresses the FACT that swirling can occur in different ways, depending on different conditions. Amazing that there's no water movement in lakes or ponds as the earth rotates... no movement of water tipping toward the 1000 mph movement... the water maintains a flat position.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Brian Johnston said:


> And what have you researched about Sofia?



Um, I'm an academic so research is pretty much all I do.





> How many logical fallacies have you committed? I'll let you research that.


You wouldn't know a logical fallacy is one bit you on the ass.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

colchar said:


> Time for you to go see Matron and get the next dose of your meds.
> 
> But first, tell us more about this massive wall (did Trump build it?) down in Antarctica that is patrolled by navy ships (which country's navy????).


Go get your booster. I'm sure you took the jab. The wall is made of ice... go do some searching, and try to take a boat trip to the Antarctic. If you're not on the one and only approved cruise (which takes you to one spot where they have a flag planted) you cannot get near it. This information is so easy to look up, which makes me think you're a time vampire with zero interest in discussing anything, particularly CURVATURE of the earth.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

The pics of the Red Bull parachute drop were clearly misleading. The one with the actual wide angle view clearly showed the curvature (no wide angle trickery). The one through the porthole window show about 2 degrees, so of course it doesn't show any curvature, it is too 'narrow angle'. 

Other than that, it's pretty clear this guy doesn't understand the massive size of the solar system or that weight has a significant effect on gravity (and why butterflies can fly and oceans can't, etc) - gravity which was initially proven by Newton and clarified even more with Einstein's two theories of relativity, General Relativity being specific to situations that involve gravity. To say either of these didn't believe in gravity is highly amusing, as is most of this thread.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

colchar said:


> Um, I'm an academic so research is pretty much all I do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Then research it! Academic, lol, professional student too lazy to get a real job. Those who teach cannot do. I've never met so many buffoon teachers in all my life as what is out there today... memorizing and regurgitating crap they were told. No critical thinking skills... just parroting.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

High/Deaf said:


> The pics of the Red Bull parachute drop were clearly misleading. The one with the actual wide angle view clearly showed the curvature (no wide angle trickery). The one through the porthole window show about 2 degrees, so of course it doesn't show any curvature, it is too 'narrow angle'.
> 
> Other than that, it's pretty clear this guy doesn't understand the massive size of the solar system or that weight has a significant effect on gravity (and why butterflies can fly and oceans can't, etc) - gravity which was initially proven by Newton and clarified even more with Einstein's two theories of relativity, General Relativity being specific to situations that involve gravity. To say either of these didn't believe in gravity is highly amusing, as is most of this thread.
> 
> ...


Well, like other, people don't seem to focus. I clearly stated that the crap espoused by The Flat Earth Society is just that, and I suspect headed by the CIA or some other group to make flat-earthers appear stupid. The only trustworthy information is through the *International Flat Earth Research Society*. I even gave two links to their sites, but instead, this stuff crops up. I've had enough of this, since no one here knows a thing about CURVATURE or can prove CURVATURE. If you cannot prove that, and show evidence so that I can see it with my own eyes... then it doesn't exist. Curvature is physical and of a solid nature... let's see it.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

knight_yyz said:


> Show me a video of a toilet in australia with the water flowing the same direction as mine.



Bart Simpson has already established which direction it flushes in.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

OH MY GAAAAAWD THIS IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO BLOOOOOODY FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!










"Members all around the globe"

AROUND
THE
GLOBE

What shape is a globe genius?

I'll wait for the "that pic has been doctored" defense.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Brian Johnston said:


> how many pages do we need to go through before someone offers something up),


To YOUR satisfaction? All of them is my guess.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

The proof you want has all been doctored to show colour. We've stated numerous times that any photo of the earth taken from space is black and white and a time exposure. As soon as we add color to it you call it fake.... So you can't have the proof you want. Tell you what, pay for me to go on one of those space missions for normal people and I'll get you your proof. And even if you did that, the cloud cover would make you say it's fake because you would not be able to see all the continents at once.

To get the photo you want, you have to be in space 35000 feet up, no clouds whatsoever. anywhere. So you can't have the proof you want, therefore it isn't possible. And if I scoured the net and found a black and white image of the earth from 35000 feet up and for some strange reason it was cloudless you would still call it fake. So the argument is moot. There is no proof the earth is curved that will satisfy your dumb ass. But show me any flat earth picture and i will debunk it.


----------



## MetalTele79 (Jul 20, 2020)

2manyGuitars said:


> And here, my friends, is a perfect example of how these morons bombard you with shit from the internet and ask you to disprove it. If you take the bait an try to explain about light and refraction, you’ve already lost the battle.
> 
> What you’ve both failed to realize, and what is usually the case with SOOOOO much of their “proof” is that the question is already factually incorrect. You don’t need to answer their question because their own example already proves them wrong.
> 
> ...


The photo was taken from a height of 2,820m and the mountains in the distance are 4,102m. There are very few places on earth that you can take such a long distance photo because of the curvature.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Using your ultra shite photo.... 273 Miles away, and the peaks are not below the horizon. Who told you the peaks were less than 2600 feet? How high are these peaks? If it is 273 miles to the peaks, how long is the chain? It's not 273 miles. Shitty field of view with uneven mountains with no heights of the mountains given.... Yes this makes the earth look flat because the information is incomplete. What's the elevation of the photo? How long is the chain of peaks? without that info this proof is useless as tits on a bull

Shall we do the math and calculate how much the peaks are sticking up? The picture is 37 inches wide on my TV. The peaks are 2 inches high. The black line on the left is 272 miles. If we make the angle 60 degrees to show the proper field of view second black line, it makes the length of the chain 472 miles wide. (unless you want to debunk pythagoras as well. You know, A squared plus B squared equals C squared? ) Short side B is 273 miles, angle of lines is 60 Degrees, A is the width of the chain. A=472 miles. So if the 37 inches wide is 472 miles, how much is 2 inches? A hell of a lot more than 2600 feet. This proves the earth is flat because the field of view is too narrow to show 8 inches per mile, not to mention the fact that it was not taken from 35000 feet up! And was taken with a telephoto lens. Any photographer will tell you that if you don't believe me. and by the way, the math says that if this photo was taken with a 35mm lens, the peaks are 24 miles high..... 

Got another one?


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

MetalTele79 said:


> The photo was taken from a height of 2,820m and the mountains in the distance are 4,102m. There are very few places on earth that you can take such a long distance photo because of the curvature.


So curvy, it looks flat. How logical.


----------



## Brian Johnston (Feb 24, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> Using your ultra shite photo.... 273 Miles away, and the peaks are not below the horizon. Who told you the peaks were less than 2600 feet? How high are these peaks? If it is 273 miles to the peaks, how long is the chain? It's not 273 miles. Shitty field of view with uneven mountains with no heights of the mountains given.... Yes this makes the earth look flat because the information is incomplete. What's the elevation of the photo? How long is the chain of peaks? without that info this proof is useless as tits on a bull
> 
> Shall we do the math and calculate how much the peaks are sticking up? The picture is 37 inches wide on my TV. The peaks are 2 inches high. The black line on the left is 272 miles. If we make the angle 60 degrees to show the proper field of view second black line, it makes the length of the chain 472 miles wide. (unless you want to debunk pythagoras as well. You know, A squared plus B squared equals C squared? ) Short side B is 273 miles, angle of lines is 60 Degrees, A is the width of the chain. A=472 miles. So if the 37 inches wide is 472 miles, how much is 2 inches? A hell of a lot more than 2600 feet. This proves the earth is flat because the field of view is too narrow to show 8 inches per mile, not to mention the fact that it was not taken from 35000 feet up! And was taken with a telephoto lens. Any photographer will tell you that if you don't believe me. and by the way, the math says that if this photo was taken with a 35mm lens, the peaks are 24 miles high.....
> 
> Got another one?


Not only did I post other photos (simply check), but you can't even grasp the FACT that the SHORELINE can be seen. Yap about mountains, etc., all you want, but the point is that the SHORELINE is not hidden from the curve.

SHOW ME EVIDENCE OF THE CURVE


----------



## MetalTele79 (Jul 20, 2020)

Brian Johnston said:


> So curvy, it looks flat. How logical.


It's a telephoto lens and the shore line is close to 300km from the mountains which are rising above the horizon.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Brian Johnston said:


> Comment removed by mods for derogatory language.


Get some help bro.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

knight_yyz said:


> I'll get better results explaining this to my dog.


Yes, because even your dog can grasp that the ball is round.



knight_yyz said:


> Using your ultra shite photo.... 273 Miles away, and the peaks are not below the horizon. Who told you the peaks were less than 2600 feet?


Again, you’re arguing the point using their FALSE number of 2600 feet of curvature. In my post, I pointed out that 8 inches times 273 miles is only 182 feet. They’re only fudging the number by 1428%. Barely anything at all.

So I tell you my buddy is 85 feet tall. You tell me “that’s impossible”. As proof, I post a photo of him with his dog who is 28 feet tall. In reality, the dog is 2 feet tall but hey, this text on a photo I downloaded from the internet says otherwise. Boom! I’m right, you’re wrong.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

And I was walking down Elgin street earlier today with my daughter. I could see that over the next 3 or 4 blocks, the ground level dropped by about 20 feet.

BOOM!! Proof that the earth ISN’T flat!!
You know... because I can SEE it with my eyes. No pesky science, math, or facts to get in the way.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

knight_yyz said:


> I'll get better results explaining this to my dog.





2manyGuitars said:


> Yes, because even your dog can grasp that the ball is round.


Well then Fido got up off the floor, and he rolled over
And he looked me straight in the eye
And you know what he said?
"Once upon a time, somebody say to me"
This is the dog talkin' now
"What is your, conceptual, continuity?"
"Well I told 'em right then", Fido said
"It should be easy to see
"The crux of the biscuit
Is the apostrophe"
Well you know, the man that was talking to the dog
Looked at the dog, and he said
Sort of staring in disbelief
"You can't say that"
He said
"It doesn't, and you can't, I won't, and it don't
It hasn't, it isn't, it even ain't, and it shouldn't
It couldn't"
He told him, "No, no, no"
I told him, "Yes, yes, yes"
I said, "I do it all the time
Ain't this boogie a mess"?

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

laristotle said:


> Well then Fido got up off the floor, and he rolled over
> And he looked me straight in the eye
> And you know what he said?
> "Once upon a time, somebody say to me"
> ...


And that, my friends, makes about as much sense as this flat earth lunacy.

Oh wait... I can’t say “lunacy” because the moon is fake.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

I can’t be bothered reading the pro flat earth drivel but what little I did look at suggests that open carry permits would be a good idea.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

So let’s dive into a bit of “flat earth math” since they don’t like to (it kind of exposes some of the bullshit).

Round or flat, the distance from the North Pole (centre of the flat earth) to the South Pole (the ice wall) is 20,014 kms (let’s say 20,000). That means that the “flying space disc” is 40,000 kms across. That means that this ice wall would need to be over 125,000 kms long. That’s a LOT of ice.

You’d think that the lizard people pulling the strings would fess up to the flat earth so they could take the trillions of dollars used to hide the truth, and divert it to fight global warming. I mean, even a tiny breach anywhere along a 125,000 km wall of ice and the oceans would drain out into space.

Oh wait, they don’t believe in gravity. Never mind, we’re good.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

2manyGuitars said:


> Oh wait, they don’t believe in gravity. Never mind, we’re good.


Only when butterflies are involved.


----------



## Grainslayer (Sep 26, 2016)

Ahh think some peeps here need to take an internet break and go pick up a geetar👽


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

This thread could be, if taken in a certain context, the seed of a cool guitar concept album. 

Just have to find 1 sliver of light.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Some more “flat earth math” that I know they’ll never address because it proves them wrong.

I want to fly direct from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Luckily, this airline makes that trip 4 times a week. It’s roughly 11,000 kms and takes 12.5 to 14 hours depending on the direction.



















Here’s where the flat earth theory is proven to be complete BS.

On the magical, floating disc, the absolute shortest distance between those cities is a straight line measuring around 33,000 kms (which would also fly right over the US, Canada, and Alaska BTW).









The cruising speed of a 747 is around 900 km/h so the “globetard” 11,000 km flight is almost _exactly_ right. On the “flearth” flight path, it’s a nearly 37 hour flight.

Before I see one more post about “bUt nO oNe Can ExPlaiN tHE cUrVe...” I want to see this answered. Actually... I don’t. You’ll either tell me that the planes secretly fly 2700 km/h or that they pump sleeping gas into the cabin to knock the passengers out for 24 hours.


----------



## fogdart (Mar 22, 2017)

Come on fellas. We have had a number of comments flagged for personal attacks and inappropriate language. I don’t have time to read through this entire thread and edit/delete every post that breaks the rules.

Let’s keep this civil. Debate and discussion is healthy and interesting, but the bickering is immature and the derogatory language is against the rules. If the rules continue to be broken we’ll unfortunately have to close this thread as it’s simply too long to read thru and edit each post. That is not fair to the members that have been engaging in interesting and constructive conversation.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Debating whether the earth is round or flat is a flawed prospect from the beginning and hardly to be considered constructive.

I’d suggest a compromise along the lines of round during the week and flat on sunday as a first proposition with the fall back position being that it is round and then flat on alternate days.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Wardo said:


> flat on sunday


That makes sense on a Sunday morning after a bender the night before.
Saturday mornings too.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Flat Earth Fridays?


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

2manyGuitars said:


> Flat Earth Fridays?


That would work and if every Friday was declared a paid flat earth spiritual civic holiday then the world would flatten out pretty damn quick once the “I used to know but now I believe” crew caught on to that one.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

As Sgt Schultz would say, 'flat as a pancake'.


----------



## Midnight Rider (Apr 2, 2015)

There's no shortage of 'Smoke & Mirrors' and 'Snake Oil' during anyone's lifetime,... present or past.









A predetermined grand illusion? 

Welcome to the Grand illusion
Come on in and see what's happening
Pay the price, get your tickets for the show
The stage is set, the band starts playing
Suddenly your heart is pounding
Wishing secretly you were a star

But don't be fooled by the radio
The TV or the magazines
They show you photographs of how your life should be
But they're just someone else's fantasy

So if you think your life is complete confusion
Because you never win the game
Just remember that it's a grand illusion
And deep inside we're all the same
We're all the same

So if you think your life is complete confusion
Because your neighbors got it made
Just remember that it's a grand illusion
And deep inside we're all the same

Canada spells competition, join us in our blind ambition
Get yourself a brand new motor car
Someday soon we'll stop to ponder what on earth's this spell we're under
We made the grade and still we wonder who the hell we are


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Brian Johnston said:


> Not only did I post other photos (simply check), but you can't even grasp the FACT that the SHORELINE can be seen. Yap about mountains, etc., all you want, but the point is that the SHORELINE is not hidden from the curve.
> 
> SHOW ME EVIDENCE OF THE CURVE


What does the shorline have to do with anything? We don't know how far away the shoreline is. We don't know the distance between the shoreline and the peaks. All we know is the distance to the peaks. And we know it's not a 60 degree angle of view. so your photo proves nothing. I can debunk every photo you've posted to prove the earth is flat becase all of them were taken within our breathable atmosphere. I've already told you the photographic proof you seek is unattainable unless you go into space. There is no place on earth where you can take a picture to show the curvature of the earth. You can't have any photographic evidence because it doesn't exist. But if you go up 35000 feet on a non cloudy day you will have your proof. Just because you can't see the proof does not make the proof non existent. You cannot prove the earth is flat with a photograph and I cannot prove the earth is a sphere with an undoctored photograph. There are tons of photos to prove you wrong but you think they are all fake. 

The evidence of the curve is the coriolis effect. That will never happen on a flat earth. I'm still waiting for you to explain how all the hurricanes in the southern hemisphere rotate one way and in the northern hemisphere they rotate another way. But you don't believe in hemispheres. So this flat earth map has a sun on it. why do the hurricanes inside the circle with the sun rotate one way and the ones outside the same circle rotate the other way?


----------



## jbealsmusic (Feb 12, 2014)

Brian Johnston said:


> The wall is made of ice... go do some searching, and try to take a boat trip to the Antarctic. If you're not on the one and only approved cruise (which takes you to one spot where they have a flag planted) you cannot get near it.


Here are some facts about Antarctica that might interest you.

Just like the North Pole, Antarctica has only two seasons: summer and winter. When summer is in full swing, the sun never sets. In the dead of winter, the sun never rises. That kind of sun activity would be impossible with the current flat earth model.

Antarctica is not a large impenetrable ice barrier. It has been traversed a handful of times throughout history and there have been hundreds of expeditions there, despite it's incredibly inhospitable climate. It is still explored to this day. I have a cousin who worked in Antarctica, and traveled to the south pole (which shouldn't even exist, according to the flat earth model). There are literally thousands of people who live and work in Antarctica at any given time (more in the summer than in the winter, for obvious reasons). It isn't guarded by an ice wall or a black ops security force. Despite the fact that most of the continent's stations are for scientific research, you don't even need to be a scientist to work there. You can get a job serving food, taking out the trash, or doing admin stuff. There is a lot of equipment and housing that needs maintenance, so contractor style work is also needed. Electricians, plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, etc. Like all places, they need emergency services too, like fire fighters and doctors/nurses. They money isn't bad, and you can say you've been to a place that only a few thousand people have been to in history. The larger stations are like college campuses. Dorms, cafeterias, gyms, games rooms, etc. Decent amenities for one of the least hospitable places on the planet.

People circumnavigate it all the time. It was first done way back in the 1800's. France has hosted a sailing yacht race around the world since the 80's. The total course is around 40,000km, starting in France, heading south down the Atlantic Ocean, circling Antarctica, then heading back up to France. You can't keep turning slowly to the right if an impenetrable ice wall barrier is also to your right. Also, with the flat earth model, the course would be a few hundred thousand kms long. It would be impossible for a sailing yacht to achieve the speeds necessary to complete the course in the times they are able to achieve in this race.

So, at the very least, the current model/map of the apparent flat earth has to be considered inaccurate. Antarctica is not a heavily guarded ice wall barrier that surrounds everything, or circumnavigation would be impossible. There would also be no south pole. It wouldn't have the day/night seasonal patterns that it does. And, certainly, there wouldn't be thousands of people living/working there year round, and you wouldn't be able to apply for a job there.

Also, regarding the curvature of the earth, I've seen it personally. I suppose you've never taken an international flight on board a decent sized aircraft flying at cruising altitude with clear skies. If you look out your window, you can see the curvature of the earth. No fish eye lenses or CGI trickery, just your own eyes/observation. No science/math needed either.

I studied the Flat Earth stuff in seminary back in 2008. Back then, it was a fringe thing with very few followers. But they had websites and forums that I joined, and I even took part in some of the online discussions. They always brought up scientific concepts that they misunderstood and misapplied, like buoyancy, light refraction, electromagnetic fields, static electricity, etc. They frequently denied science they didn't understand, like gravity, aerodynamics, physics, etc. They regularly misrepresented (Straw Man) the positions of those who opposed them. When presented with good evidence they didn't have an answer for, they would ignore, deflect, or move the goal posts. When challenged by people who had first hand experience seeing the curvature of the earth or other phenomena that can't exist on the flat earth model, they are simply called liars and/or are branded as part of the conspiracy. In general, they always argued in bad faith. I was mostly an observer, primarily reading the discussions of others doing research for my paper. I didn't think I'd ever run into it again to be honest.

13 years later, here we are. It's interesting to see how much the movement has grown since 2008. I actually watched that 6 hour documentary (spread across several days). I'm fascinated to see that the talking points really haven't changed in all this time, despite some of them being completely debunked ad nauseam. I can see also from this thread, the related YouTube videos, and other discussions I've come across in the last few days, that the style of argumentation hasn't changed one bit. Still arguing in bad faith. There's no rational discussion to be had here.

I would bet good money that if this post is quoted and responded to, my Antarctica points won't be addressed at all. Even though these facts about Antarctica melt the theory of the supposedly impenetrable ice barrier around the planet, and provide good evidence for a globe Earth. Instead, it will be a scathing attack on my lack of responding to any number of the other things mentioned in this thread or in the videos posted. Or, an attack on my observations about the movement, and possibly labeling it ad hominem. Maybe I will simply be branded a liar or conspirator.

Or, just maybe, there will be a response. Something like this:
1) Ok, maybe people live and work in Antarctica. But, they just live/work on the edge. They haven't actually traversed straight across it. The workforce is just there as part of the conspiracy. The south pole is fake, put there to fool those working there. They aren't in on it. They're being fooled too!
2) The people in history who claimed to circumnavigate it are liars. Part of the conspiracy. France's race is a hoax. Or, sure, France's race goes to Antarctica. But, it's an optical illusion due to light refraction and instrumentation malfunction due to electromagnetic interference that makes them think they're turning right the whole time, when really they're turning LEFT the whole time. Yeah. It's a natural phenomenon in the area. Along with unimaginably high speed winds and ultra high speed surface currents that allow them to travel several times faster than the highest speeds their tiny boats are normally capable of going.
3) You didn't see the curvature of the earth. What you really saw was the curvature of the glass of the window of the plane, distorting your vision.

There. I responded for you. See? Anyone can make this nonsense up on the spot. Didn't even take a lot of thought... This was a nice trip down memory lane, but I've had my fill. I'm out of this thread for good. You all keep doing you.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)




----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

Brian Johnston said:


> Go get your booster. I'm sure you took the jab. The wall is made of ice... go do some searching, and try to take a boat trip to the Antarctic. If you're not on the one and only approved cruise (which takes you to one spot where they have a flag planted) you cannot get near it.

















> This information is so easy to look up, which makes me think you're a time vampire with zero interest in discussing anything, particularly CURVATURE of the earth.



What in the fuck is a time vampire?


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

fogdart said:


> Come on fellas. We have had a number of comments flagged for personal attacks and inappropriate language. I don’t have time to read through this entire thread and edit/delete every post that breaks the rules.
> 
> Let’s keep this civil. Debate and discussion is healthy and interesting, but the bickering is immature and the derogatory language is against the rules. If the rules continue to be broken we’ll unfortunately have to close this thread as it’s simply too long to read thru and edit each post. That is not fair to the members that have been engaging in interesting and constructive conversation.



How the hell can there be constructive discussion with someone irrationally promoting a theory that has been debunked countless times and that is ridiculous on its face?

With all his ice wall BS I'm starting to think that he watched waaaaaaay too much _Game of Thrones_. Maybe he'll explain dragons to us next. He's already talking about time vampires so dragons really can't be far off can they?


----------



## Jim Wellington (Sep 3, 2017)

Well...lets review our grade 7 science class...cause physics doesn`t care about batshit conspiracy theories...

Now explain away the characteristics of gravity...and centrfugal force.

"Silly rabbit...tricks are for kids."






Why Are Planets Round? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids


And how round are they?




spaceplace.nasa.gov













Ask an Astronomer


Why is the Sun round?




coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

2manyGuitars said:


> Some more “flat earth math” that I know they’ll never address because it proves them wrong.
> 
> I want to fly direct from Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Luckily, this airline makes that trip 4 times a week. It’s roughly 11,000 kms and takes 12.5 to 14 hours depending on the direction.
> 
> ...


This is an incredible amount of research, and I commend you for your level of "give a crap" to help educated the _lost_... sadly, I think we both know it won't. 

As I've already suggested, there is no hope for this person. None. It appears (almost) the entire forum has tried to prove something this ostrich clearly has been taught to refute. He presents his math and photos but does not accept the flaws we all find. As a response, he slams the arguments of some incredibly smart people as CGI, or fake. When he tries to get the upper hand to suggest he is well read, and tells one of our members to "go do research" and their response is that they are an Academic, and research is basically their job, the Antagonist reverts to insulting them personally, and their job. How do you argue that? You don't. 

He clearly believes he knows best, and we are Sheeple. 

History has a long list of people who know better, and the rest of us didn't. Jim Jones, Marshal Applewhite, Charles Manson, David Koresh to name a few. (I'm not suggesting he is like one of these... nooooo... he's been pulled in by one) 

In the end, he is lost, we all tried, lets go play our guitars.


----------



## fogdart (Mar 22, 2017)

colchar said:


> How the hell can there be constructive discussion with someone irrationally promoting a theory that has been debunked countless times and that is ridiculous on its face?
> 
> With all his ice wall BS I'm starting to think that he watched waaaaaaay too much _Game of Thrones_. Maybe he'll explain dragons to us next. He's already talking about time vampires so dragons really can't be far off can they?


He is entitled to an opinion, no matter how far that opinion is from what most accept to be true. As long as his posts don’t break forum rules then he is allowed to post it here. You have no obligation to respond to his opinion, this is a forum not a deposition. Just look past anything that upsets you and continue the conversations that intrigue you. Life is short and fighting online is a waste of precious time.


----------



## MetalTele79 (Jul 20, 2020)

knight_yyz said:


> What does the shorline have to do with anything? We don't know how far away the shoreline is. We don't know the distance between the shoreline and the peaks. All we know is the distance to the peaks. And we know it's not a 60 degree angle of view. so your photo proves nothing. I can debunk every photo you've posted to prove the earth is flat becase all of them were taken within our breathable atmosphere. I've already told you the photographic proof you seek is unattainable unless you go into space. There is no place on earth where you can take a picture to show the curvature of the earth. You can't have any photographic evidence because it doesn't exist. But if you go up 35000 feet on a non cloudy day you will have your proof. Just because you can't see the proof does not make the proof non existent. You cannot prove the earth is flat with a photograph and I cannot prove the earth is a sphere with an undoctored photograph. There are tons of photos to prove you wrong but you think they are all fake.
> 
> The evidence of the curve is the coriolis effect. That will never happen on a flat earth. I'm still waiting for you to explain how all the hurricanes in the southern hemisphere rotate one way and in the northern hemisphere they rotate another way. But you don't believe in hemispheres. So this flat earth map has a sun on it. why do the hurricanes inside the circle with the sun rotate one way and the ones outside the same circle rotate the other way?
> 
> View attachment 379347



Here's are the shooting and subject location of the long distance photo...


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

^^^ Exactly. So the shoreline is less than half the distance to the peaks. Therfore it won't be beneath the horizon. LOL the picture proves nothing about the earth being flat....Not a 60 degree view, not 35000 feet up. I have said it countless times. Any photo taken in our breathable atmosphere will always always always show a flat earth. Even Mount Everest is not high enough!! And any photo taken from space has been filtered therefore he deems them "fake". The proof he wants doesn't exist on the earth, you have to leave the earth to get the proof. Anyone who has been on an airplane on an international flight has seen the curve. I've seen it going to and from Italy. So maybe he needs to pay some airfare and look out the window for his proof. Nobody on this earth can give him his proof therefore it does not exist, is the same mentality as the ostrich who thinks he cant see the enemy with his head in the sand means the enemy can't see him. 
Nasa sure spends a lot of time and money sending telescopes into space to take "fake" photos. 


Earth curves at about 8 inches per mile, but the distance one can see depends on height. For a six-foot-tall person, the curvature is approximately 3 miles away. This is a geometrical finding since the human eye cannot see a 24-inch curve from 3 miles away. Studies place the threshold altitude for seeing Earth's curvature at about 35,000 feet. Even at this height, it is difficult to discerbbbbbbn the curve as the observer requires a wide-angle of view. Since the distance of the horizon depends on the length of a person, it is possible to see the Earth's curvature while standing on a raised position. For a person standing at the summit of Mount Everest, which is about 29,029 feet, the horizon is approximately 230 miles away. On a clear day, it is possible to see such a distance, but 230 miles is not enough for the human eye to discern an expansive curvature like that of the Earth. It is, therefore, possible to see the horizon from the top of Mount Everest but not Earth's curvature. If we consider the effect of refraction, the horizon appears even further. Cold weather raises the atmospheric refraction making it possible for people in colder regions to see further. Secondly, clouds hover above the ground level and can be seen further than the surface. As much as the weather aids our view, it can also distort it. Precipitation and fog scatter light, making it impossible to see features visible on a clear day. 

If you don;t believe the above statement, take a guitar neck with a 12" radius and put it 1.5 miles away. Can you see the curve? You won;t even see the neck let alone the curve!! You cannot see a 24" curve at 3 miles nor can you see a 12" curve at a mile and a half.


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

BTY, any picture taken on earth, even mount Everst that shows the earth is curved is due to the lens. If one lifts a camera above the center of the frame, then the right and left edges curve inwards to mimic Earth's curvature. 

Taken from the internation space station by astronauts. Must be doctored in some way


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

fogdart said:


> He is entitled to an opinion, no matter how far that opinion is from what most accept to be true. As long as his posts don’t break forum rules then he is allowed to post it here. You have no obligation to respond to his opinion, this is a forum not a deposition. Just look past anything that upsets you and continue the conversations that intrigue you. Life is short and fighting online is a waste of precious time.



Opinion is defined as 1. *A personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof* or certainty; 2. A message expressing a belief about something; _*the expression of a belief that is held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof*_. So while he is entitled to his opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts. Considering how much misinformation is out there and how distrust of science is increasing among the ignorant and gullible this place shouldn't be encouraging the posting of outright lies and falsehoods.

Differences of opinion are fine, outright lies are not.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)




----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

And while some say “live and let live”, here’s why rational people should push back against this garbage.

Here’s an excerpt from this article from Physics World.








Fighting flat-Earth theory – Physics World


Rachel Brazil explores ways in which the physics community can best combat unscientific thinking, such as the belief the Earth is flat



physicsworld.com





_From McIntyre’s perspective, flat-Earth conspiracies are a danger and need confronting. “Maybe 10 or 20 years ago, I would have said, just laugh at them, how much traction are they going to get? I no longer feel that way.” If these ideas are not challenged, he fears that as with supporters of “intelligent design”, proponents of a flat Earth will start running for US school boards, looking to push their ideas into the US education system. “The sort of reasoning that they use is infectious and if you don’t push back against them, it just gets worse and they’re able to recruit new members,” he warns._


----------



## Grainslayer (Sep 26, 2016)

With space travel potentially being open to the public in the near future..Richard Branson or who ever should take the Flat Earth supreme leader up to see for themselves.....they would probably still call bullshit and come up with some "logical" explanation.🙄


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

Grainslayer said:


> With space travel potentially being open to the public in the near future..Richard Branson or who ever should take the Flat Earth supreme leader up to see for themselves.....they would probably still call bullshit and come up with some "logical" explanation.🙄


I don’t think the lizard people do space travel.


----------



## Grainslayer (Sep 26, 2016)

Sneaky said:


> I don’t think the lizard people do space travel.


Oh...i did not know that.😄


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wait a sec,.....

Are you guys saying the earth isn't flat?

How do you like that.


----------



## Verne (Dec 29, 2018)

I think the earth is bowl shaped. How else does the water not just drip off the edges of the planet?!?! DUH!!!!


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Verne said:


> I think the earth is bowl shaped. How else does the water not just drip off the edges of the planet?!?! DUH!!!!


That actually makes more sense than the member arguing for flat. HAHAHAHAH!


----------



## Grainslayer (Sep 26, 2016)

Verne said:


> I think the earth is bowl shaped. How else does the water not just drip off the edges of the planet?!?! DUH!!!!


Wasnt there something about a great wall of ice holding it all in or something??? If so,we are doomed once global warming melts it.lol


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Grainslayer said:


> Wasnt there something about a great wall of ice holding it all in or something??? If so,we are doomed one global warming melts it.lol


Yes, and it's protected my a "secret military navy". 

Seriously... if you feel like skimming through 15 pages of frustration.


----------



## Grainslayer (Sep 26, 2016)

SWLABR said:


> Yes, and it's protected my a "secret military navy".
> 
> Seriously... if you feel like skimming through 15 pages of frustration.


No thankyou...once was enough..Im still not convinced


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Grainslayer said:


> they would probably still call bullshit and come up with some "logical" explanation.🙄


Their spaceships have curved glass installed?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

It's ok to build castles in the sky.

It becomes less ok when you choose to live in them.

I've read that that's one of the differences between neurosis and psychosis.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Grainslayer said:


> Wasnt there something about a great wall of ice holding it all in or something??? If so,we are doomed one global warming melts it.lol


I'm pretty sure that the wall is refrigerated to address that very possibility.


----------



## Grainslayer (Sep 26, 2016)

laristotle said:


> Their spaceships have curved glass installed?
> View attachment 379556


Thats pretty much what i had in mind with my comment.lol


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

Brian Johnston said:


> Engineers don't factor in curvature when laying railway lines or canals... why not?


Sure they do. For roadways and land surveys, they're called correction lines and you will find them on maps, or if you've driven much where the land is set up in grids, like the prairies. They are real, and if you don't make the turn, you go off the road: correction lines

"Provisions in the public land survey system made to correct for the curvature of the earth; one cannot have perfect rectangles over a curved surface. Every fourth township line (24 miles apart) is used as a correction line on which the spaces between the east and west range lines are corrected to a full and proper 6 miles.The effect is that the grid lines do not match up until they meet at the principal meridian"


----------

