Topic: Flat Earth - page 3. (Read 1095196 times)
When the clouds are painted on it's, it's not a photograph.
NASA's spokesman says it's photoshopped because it has to be, there are no real photographs of the globe.
show us that spokesperson making that statement.
Audio Interview: https://youtu.be/Qghv4en5res
Link: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html
LOL! You are such a puzzle. You find a NASA guy who takes the photos of the globe, and makes them into a video that displays the whole globe better. You make him out to be your hero. Then you try to say that the earth is flat.
Maybe you are like a quantum computer qubit... off at the same time you are on, and on at the same time you are off.
NASA's spokesman says it's photoshopped because it has to be, there are no real photographs of the globe.
show us that spokesperson making that statement.
Audio Interview: https://youtu.be/Qghv4en5res
Link: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html
NASA's spokesman says it's photoshopped because it has to be, there are no real photographs of the globe.
show us that spokesperson making that statement.
Right. And show us the court documents where it was proven to be the truth. If not, maybe it is all hearsay.
17) “Olber’s Paradox” states that if there were billions of stars which are suns the night sky would be filled completely with light. As Edgar Allen Poe said, “Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, since there could exist absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star.” In fact Olber’s “Paradox” is no more a paradox than George Airy’s experiment was a “failure.” Both are actually excellent refutations of the heliocentric spinning ball model.
We don't know what stars are. We are so far away from stars, that for all we know, the ones we see are black holes that we see from one of the poles where light escapes. And the others are black holes we see from the equator, where light doesn't escape because of centrifugal force.
We don't know enough to even guess why we don't see the stars that exist out there.
NASA's spokesman says it's photoshopped because it has to be, there are no real photographs of the globe.
show us that spokesperson making that statement.
NASA's spokesman says it's photoshopped because it has to be, there are no real photographs of the globe.
Well they have spokesmen and they claim to work in the vacuum of space.
Well, take a look at famous pictures of proposed space stations. You know, the bigger better space stations of the past. Take, for instance, this picture of Wernher von Braun explaining a space station:
If you look closely at the picture, you will see why many of these space stations will need spokesmen.
What do you think? Does notbatman know Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?
Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.
Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.
People like you say lots of ignorant things. So, what?
I certainly don't know as much about the flat Earth fiction as notbatman does. But why would I want to? It's hard enough keeping up with all the factual findings on factual globe Earth, and the factual universe.
Why would you think that NASA can speak? People and a few animals speak, not corporations.
NASA doesn't explain anything. People explain things... even about waters.
So, you show that you are deceitful by trying to trick us all into thinking that NASA speaks and explains.
What do you think? Does notbatman know Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?
Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.
Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.
People like you say lots of ignorant things. So, what?
I certainly don't know as much about the flat Earth fiction as notbatman does. But why would I want to? It's hard enough keeping up with all the factual findings on factual globe Earth, and the factual universe.
Why would you think that NASA can speak? People and a few animals speak, not corporations.
NASA doesn't explain anything. People explain things... even about waters.
So, you show that you are deceitful by trying to trick us all into thinking that NASA speaks and explains.
What do you think? Does notbatman know Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?
Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.
Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.
People like you say lots of ignorant things. So, what?
I certainly don't know as much about the flat Earth fiction as notbatman does. But why would I want to? It's hard enough keeping up with all the factual findings on factual globe Earth, and the factual universe.
What do you think? Does notbatman know Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?
Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.
Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.
People like you say lots of ignorant things. So, what?
I certainly don't know as much about the flat Earth fiction as notbatman does. But why would I want to? It's hard enough keeping up with all the factual findings on factual globe Earth, and the factual universe.
Water droplets alone can't produce the rainbows we see in the sky. For me a concave mirrored firmament is something I know, this is because a rainbow can't be created inside with only an artificial light source. However, once a mirror is added to the equation the indoor rainbow becomes a reality.
BADecker tries to use the English translations as the root of his argument instead of looking up what rāqîaʿ means. He continuously makes intellectually dishonest arguments, he's permanently cucked on the heavenly spheres.
"The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres
BADecker tries to use the English translations as the root of his argument instead of looking up what rāqîaʿ means. He continuously makes intellectually dishonest arguments, he's permanently cucked on the heavenly spheres.
"The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres
What do you think? Does notbatman kbnow Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?
Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.
Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.
Water droplets alone can't produce the rainbows we see in the sky. For me a concave mirrored firmament is something I know, this is because a rainbow can't be created inside with only an artificial light source. However, once a mirror is added to the equation the indoor rainbow becomes a reality.
BADecker tries to use the English translations as the root of his argument instead of looking up what rāqîaʿ means. He continuously makes intellectually dishonest arguments, he's permanently cucked on the heavenly spheres.
"The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres
BADecker tries to use the English translations as the root of his argument instead of looking up what rāqîaʿ means. He continuously makes intellectually dishonest arguments, he's permanently cucked on the heavenly spheres.
"The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres
What do you think? Does notbatman know Hebrew? How about Ancient Hebrew? How about enough to translate the Bible better than all the English Bible scholars who have studied Ancient Hebrew for years?
Just another flaw in flat Earth thinking, that you can use the Bible to determine the shape of the earth.
Notice his first paragraph, above. He's talking about flat Earth. Since all the things happen that he is talking about, but he says they don't, he is simply stating that FE doesn't exist.
Water droplets alone can't produce the rainbows we see in the sky. For me a concave mirrored firmament is something I know, this is because a rainbow can't be created inside with only an artificial light source. However, once a mirror is added to the equation the indoor rainbow becomes a reality.
BADecker tries to use the English translations as the root of his argument instead of looking up what rāqîaʿ means. He continuously makes intellectually dishonest arguments, he's permanently cucked on the heavenly spheres.
"The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres
BADecker tries to use the English translations as the root of his argument instead of looking up what rāqîaʿ means. He continuously makes intellectually dishonest arguments, he's permanently cucked on the heavenly spheres.
"The celestial spheres, or celestial orbs, were the fundamental entities of the cosmological models developed by Plato, Eudoxus, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and others. ..." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_spheres
verse 6. God placed the materials for making the sun and stars, yes, and even the moon, into the sky that He made when He separated the muddy waters.
??I think ive found your problem.!
You are reading the wrong book.!!!!, or you must have a bad copy.
This is verse 6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
But you haven't explained what my problem is, why you think that I am reading some wrong book. Rather, you have agreed with me by quoting verse 6.
"Firmament" is "expanse" or "sky." Although it isn't generally interpreted this way, it might mean the aether. Depending on which part of the firmament one is talking about, it could be the atmosphere area, inner space like where the ISS circles, or outer space where the stars exist.
You didn't quote verse 6 of genesis.!! Thats why i dont agree with you.!....
But why should I quote verse 6? You already did it! As a favor to you, if you really wanted me to, I could copy your verse 6 quote, and paste it right here, just so I quoted it like you did. But to what purpose?Where did the mud come from.? Which verse.?
I'll give you a hint. It's in Genesis chapter 1, before verse 27. I think you can figure it out if you read it a few times, and at the end of each verse ask yourself, Was there any mud in that water, I mean, verse?edit:
Not only but also the word "sky" isnt even mentioned till.
Deuteronomy 33:26
There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky
If you are talking about a translation of the Bible into English, dig around a little, and you will find the word "sky" in Genesis chapter 1 in many of the translations. However, most of the best translations use the word "expanse" more than they use the word "sky." Only a few use "firmament." Approximately 1 (maybe 2) uses dome. The current NIV uses "vault" and "sky," though older revisions used "expanse" rather than "vault." Don't forget to check verse 8.
See what the Hebrew really says. Use Strong's and an Ancient Hebrew Bible.
I put it to you sir. That you are reading the wrong book and that therefore you have no basis or frame of reference on which to make claim in this world.
1 Samuel 2:8
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.
Okay. I presume you are talking about the word "pillars." Some translations use "foundations," which is probably more descriptive of the what the Ancient Hebrew is really trying to get across to us.
If you are talking about something else, other than "pillars," let us know.
verse 6. God placed the materials for making the sun and stars, yes, and even the moon, into the sky that He made when He separated the muddy waters.
??I think ive found your problem.!
You are reading the wrong book.!!!!, or you must have a bad copy.
This is verse 6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
But you haven't explained what my problem is, why you think that I am reading some wrong book. Rather, you have agreed with me by quoting verse 6.
"Firmament" is "expanse" or "sky." Although it isn't generally interpreted this way, it might mean the aether. Depending on which part of the firmament one is talking about, it could be the atmosphere area, inner space like where the ISS circles, or outer space where the stars exist.
You didn't quote verse 6 of genesis.!! Thats why i dont agree with you.!.... Where did the mud come from.? Which verse.?
edit:
Not only but also the word "sky" isnt even mentioned till.
Deuteronomy 33:26
There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky
I put it to you sir. That you are reading the wrong book and that therefore you have no basis or frame of reference on which to make claim in this world.
1 Samuel 2:8
He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them.
Most of the terraplanistas' arguments are easily refutable and come from a deeply anthropocentric and simplistic conception of the universe . On the other hand, the vision proposed by science requires a certain level of abstraction; that is, we cannot observe with the naked eye, nor experience through our own experience the phenomena that govern the universe. In fact, this is precisely what makes us human: the physical limitations that we present, which prove precisely that we are not the center of the universe and probably not the only beings that inhabit it.
You're tripping balls dude, the mad impossible spinning carnival ride that is the heliocentric model exists only in your head.
Perhaps you should get off your "mad impossible spinning carnival ride," and realize that the heliocentric model is not a mad impossible spinning carnival ride.
verse 6. God placed the materials for making the sun and stars, yes, and even the moon, into the sky that He made when He separated the muddy waters.
??I think ive found your problem.!
You are reading the wrong book.!!!!, or you must have a bad copy.
This is verse 6
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
But you haven't explained what my problem is, why you think that I am reading some wrong book. Rather, you have agreed with me by quoting verse 6.
"Firmament" is "expanse" or "sky." Although it isn't generally interpreted this way, it might mean the aether. Depending on which part of the firmament one is talking about, it could be the atmosphere area, inner space like where the ISS circles, or outer space where the stars exist.
Jump to: