I'm sorry BADecker but that's not an argument.
Thank you. It wasn't meant to be an argument. It was meant to be a fact that you can't argue with... which you don't, because you can't.
Topic: Flat Earth - page 194. (Read 1095196 times)
Thank you. It wasn't meant to be an argument. It was meant to be a fact that you can't argue with... which you don't, because you can't.
Not sure why there is a discussion about it here. 
To those who still believe that the Earth is flat.
Here: NASA Live: Earth Views from the Space Station
See for yourself.
To those who still believe that the Earth is flat.
Here: NASA Live: Earth Views from the Space Station
See for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMynLy3ienc
100% true i have seen him personally much better than just a video.
btw
like to discuss some technical details about it, like power source, power storage capacity, how much power does water purification consume, how much for heating, cooking, washing, how much power for data transmission (average city radio station uses 100,000 watt, further reach needs transmitter tower) how does going form 1 bar pressure to vacuum work without a physical barrier (when you can explain that one your are smarter than all humans combined)
Hey ---
If you get a second can you put your easiest proof that the Earth is not flat. I know you said something about the Russian Railroad. I would be interested to see what you got.
The only thing that is flat is the mind of the one who made this thread!
Not sure why there is a discussion about it here.
To those who still believe that the Earth is flat.
Here: NASA Live: Earth Views from the Space Station
See for yourself.
To those who still believe that the Earth is flat.
Here: NASA Live: Earth Views from the Space Station
See for yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMynLy3ienc
100% true i have seen him personally much better than just a video.
btw
like to discuss some technical details about it, like power source, power storage capacity, how much power does water purification consume, how much for heating, cooking, washing, how much power for data transmission (average city radio station uses 100,000 watt, further reach needs transmitter tower) how does going form 1 bar pressure to vacuum work without a physical barrier (when you can explain that one your are smarter than all humans combined)
Not sure why there is a discussion about it here.
To those who still believe that the Earth is flat.
Here: NASA Live: Earth Views from the Space Station
See for yourself.
To those who still believe that the Earth is flat.
Here: NASA Live: Earth Views from the Space Station
See for yourself.
.
.Source: NASA Artist (contractor).
I'm still waiting for Vod's proof he told us he has given us of spherical earth, I can't find it anywhere in here. Hopefully he can give us a nice experiment we can all do to prove this thing once and for all.
I'm giving him extra time since Canada just did something correct by legalizing MaryJ.
..Source: NASA Artist (contractor).
''My point that you're being intellectually dishonest'' Says the guy quoting another guy that said they have to stitch the pictures together because most of the times they can't take full pictures of earth.
Full picture of earth from a russian satellite.
In fact, I see the earth flat, because I only learned from books and media that the earth was round, I have not yet proved this earth in so I am like you. Earth.
The fact that your open is the entire battle. There is 600 pages of information here. Go through it. See who is able to prove their points with real experimentation and see who cannot. This is a great place to start the journey from. Nobatman has put 3 years of information into one place. If you land on the flat earth side be careful as you will be attacked verbally and with negative trust.
In fact, I see the earth flat, because I only learned from books and media that the earth was round, I have not yet proved this earth in so I am like you. Earth.
..Source: NASA Artist (contractor).
I'm sorry BADecker but that's not an argument.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Changed the topic? I didn't draw anything, it was in the comments and it's not angled, check for yourself lmao, you can see the curve. Yeah, it seems to me that all the optical illusions and effects always make it seem like the earth is a sphere, never the opposite way, huh?
Yes, changed the topic from the horizon distance to the straw man of horizontal horizon curvature. Also there's an angle between the line that's been drawn and the horizon line. Rope yourself.
Straw man horizon distance vs visual evidence that the earth is a sphere. Go rope yourself. You proved the globe earth with that video, thanks!
How is the distance to the horizon a straw man, do explain? Horizontal curvature is not conclusive, therefor claiming that it's proof of anything is bullshit. You can't show that it's not distortion especially with the center of the image being brighter/overexposed. I've got evidence for distortion meanwhile you completely ignore the distance to the horizon based on landmarks and prop up this straw man.
I've exposed your intellectual dishonesty asshole.
You can't show it is distorted. Keep using straw mans to get away from real evidence. Do you not get tired of claiming everything is either Photoshoped or some weird atmospheric distortion made it look like that?
I can't prove 100% it's distortion based on the image alone and you can't prove it's a curved globe, this make it inconclusive and your argument a straw man but, not one that works in your favor. The result being that you've got no argument. I've put the horizon beyond 500 miles using a landmark and that proves the earth is flat and that the curvature in your image is from distortion.
My point that you're being intellectually dishonest and need to rope yourself stands.
All the photos/videos of earth show the earth is a sphere beyond any doubt, you are delusional.
I'm sorry BADecker but that's not an argument.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Changed the topic? I didn't draw anything, it was in the comments and it's not angled, check for yourself lmao, you can see the curve. Yeah, it seems to me that all the optical illusions and effects always make it seem like the earth is a sphere, never the opposite way, huh?
Yes, changed the topic from the horizon distance to the straw man of horizontal horizon curvature. Also there's an angle between the line that's been drawn and the horizon line. Rope yourself.
Straw man horizon distance vs visual evidence that the earth is a sphere. Go rope yourself. You proved the globe earth with that video, thanks!
How is the distance to the horizon a straw man, do explain? Horizontal curvature is not conclusive, therefor claiming that it's proof of anything is bullshit. You can't show that it's not distortion especially with the center of the image being brighter/overexposed. I've got evidence for distortion meanwhile you completely ignore the distance to the horizon based on landmarks and prop up this straw man.
I've exposed your intellectual dishonesty asshole.
You can't show it is distorted. Keep using straw mans to get away from real evidence. Do you not get tired of claiming everything is either Photoshoped or some weird atmospheric distortion made it look like that?
I can't prove 100% it's distortion based on the image alone and you can't prove it's a curved globe, this make it inconclusive and your argument a straw man but, not one that works in your favor. The result being that you've got no argument. I've put the horizon beyond 500 miles using a landmark and that proves the earth is flat and that the curvature in your image is from distortion.
My point that you're being intellectually dishonest and need to rope yourself stands.
I'm sorry BADecker but that's not an argument.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Changed the topic? I didn't draw anything, it was in the comments and it's not angled, check for yourself lmao, you can see the curve. Yeah, it seems to me that all the optical illusions and effects always make it seem like the earth is a sphere, never the opposite way, huh?
Yes, changed the topic from the horizon distance to the straw man of horizontal horizon curvature. Also there's an angle between the line that's been drawn and the horizon line. Rope yourself.
Straw man horizon distance vs visual evidence that the earth is a sphere. Go rope yourself. You proved the globe earth with that video, thanks!
How is the distance to the horizon a straw man, do explain? Horizontal curvature is not conclusive, therefor claiming that it's proof of anything is bullshit. You can't show that it's not distortion especially with the center of the image being brighter/overexposed. I've got evidence for distortion meanwhile you completely ignore the distance to the horizon based on landmarks and prop up this straw man.
I've exposed your intellectual dishonesty asshole.
You can't show it is distorted. Keep using straw mans to get away from real evidence. Do you not get tired of claiming everything is either Photoshoped or some weird atmospheric distortion made it look like that?
I'm sorry BADecker but that's not an argument.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Changed the topic? I didn't draw anything, it was in the comments and it's not angled, check for yourself lmao, you can see the curve. Yeah, it seems to me that all the optical illusions and effects always make it seem like the earth is a sphere, never the opposite way, huh?
Yes, changed the topic from the horizon distance to the straw man of horizontal horizon curvature. Also there's an angle between the line that's been drawn and the horizon line. Rope yourself.
Straw man horizon distance vs visual evidence that the earth is a sphere. Go rope yourself. You proved the globe earth with that video, thanks!
How is the distance to the horizon a straw man, do explain? Horizontal curvature is not conclusive, therefor claiming that it's proof of anything is bullshit. You can't show that it's not distortion especially with the center of the image being brighter/overexposed. I've got evidence for distortion meanwhile you completely ignore the distance to the horizon based on landmarks and prop up this straw man.
I've exposed your intellectual dishonesty asshole.
Source: https://youtu.be/hobnOTKIjWE
Biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind folks.
I'm sorry BADecker but that's not an argument.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Changed the topic? I didn't draw anything, it was in the comments and it's not angled, check for yourself lmao, you can see the curve. Yeah, it seems to me that all the optical illusions and effects always make it seem like the earth is a sphere, never the opposite way, huh?
Yes, changed the topic from the horizon distance to the straw man of horizontal horizon curvature. Also there's an angle between the line that's been drawn and the horizon line. Rope yourself.
Straw man horizon distance vs visual evidence that the earth is a sphere. Go rope yourself. You proved the globe earth with that video, thanks!
I'm sorry BADecker but that's not an argument.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Changed the topic? I didn't draw anything, it was in the comments and it's not angled, check for yourself lmao, you can see the curve. Yeah, it seems to me that all the optical illusions and effects always make it seem like the earth is a sphere, never the opposite way, huh?
Yes, changed the topic from the horizon distance to the straw man of horizontal horizon curvature. Also there's an angle between the line that's been drawn and the horizon line. Rope yourself.
I'm sorry BADecker but that's not an argument.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Astargath why are you changing the topic you fucking weasel, huh why? You draw an angled line under the horizon to exaggerate the minor barrel distortion from the lens and window combined with the greater light intensity in the middle as your globe curvature? The proof I've provided isn't about curvature douchebag, it's a fucking strawman argument because of the uncertainty caused by an array of potential barrel distortions. Distance to the horizon, the fact the horizon rises to eye level and the fact observation of the horizon is consistent with perspective and convergence on a plane proves the earth is flat. Thanks to JTolan I have the infrared images to prove my point.
Vod, nice try but the red-shift assumes the stars are millions and billions of miles away and doesn't prove outer space is real, or that stars aren't close points of light projected off a concave mirrored dome. Given the radically different cosmology an engineered, enclosed flat earth provides an explanation for the observed wavelengths is going to be somewhat different.
Changed the topic? I didn't draw anything, it was in the comments and it's not angled, check for yourself lmao, you can see the curve. Yeah, it seems to me that all the optical illusions and effects always make it seem like the earth is a sphere, never the opposite way, huh?
I haven't met a flat Earther yet that has been to the Antarctic to prove this is not true.
Dude... get in line. I've been asking about the Antarctic military blockade for months. I'm trying to find out where it is so that I could go see it but damn flat-earthers are hiding it from me.
I'm sure you can spot 8 inches per mile squared with your naked eyes from at least a mile away.
I haven't met a flat Earther yet that has been to the Antarctic to prove this is not true.
So there you have it folks, my critics here can't address the evidence I put forth that proves my claims without changing the subject. Horizon curvature is not the argument, it has an array of possible causes and introduces an uncertainty as to the cause. Landmarks on the other hand can still be positively identified even in the case of severe image distortion.
Jump to: