Guide to the FLAT EARTH

a reply to: ignorant_ape

It's incomparable surely. You're giving examples of straight lines a few meters or miles across.

The planet is huge? Thousands of Mike in diameter, we live on a squashed ball not a perfect sphere. We would see the difference.

And yes, I do believe we spin around and go round the sun, I believe That stars and planets exist.

I just don't believe that we've seen a genuine picture of our planet.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

It's incomparable surely. You're giving examples of straight lines a few meters or miles across.

The planet is huge? Thousands of Mike in diameter, we live on a squashed ball not a perfect sphere. We would see the difference.

And yes, I do believe we spin around and go round the sun, I believe That stars and planets exist.

I just don't believe that we've seen a genuine picture of our planet.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

It's incomparable surely. You're giving examples of straight lines a few meters or miles across.

The planet is huge? Thousands of Mike in diameter, we live on a squashed ball not a perfect sphere. We would see the difference.

And yes, I do believe we spin around and go round the sun, I believe That stars and planets exist.

I just don't believe that we've seen a genuine picture of our planet.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

It's incomparable surely. You're giving examples of straight lines a few meters or miles across.

The planet is huge? Thousands of Mike in diameter, we live on a squashed ball not a perfect sphere. We would see the difference.

And yes, I do believe we spin around and go round the sun, I believe That stars and planets exist.

I just don't believe that we've seen a genuine picture of our planet.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

It's incomparable surely. You're giving examples of straight lines a few meters or miles across.

The planet is huge? Thousands of Mike in diameter, we live on a squashed ball not a perfect sphere. We would see the difference.

And yes, I do believe we spin around and go round the sun, I believe That stars and planets exist.

I just don't believe that we've seen a genuine picture of our planet.

a reply to: thesneakiod

sigh - yes the dimensions of the earth are huge :

equitorial dameter = 12756 km

polar diameter = 12714 km

that is a difference of 42km

now the RATIO between these 2 numbers = the smallest , divided my the largest

thus 0.996707

now the diference between :

1275 mm and 1271mm = 0,4 mm

now - the gottcha question is whats the ratio ?

basic arithmetic [ 1271 / 1275 ] = 0..996862

do you understand the principle of scale yet ?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: thesneakiod

sigh - yes the dimensions of the earth are huge :

equitorial dameter = 12756 km

polar diameter = 12714 km

that is a difference of 42km

now the RATIO between these 2 numbers = the smallest , divided my the largest

thus 0.996707

now the diference between :

1275 mm and 1271mm = 0,4 mm

now - the gottcha question is whats the ratio ?

basic arithmetic [ 1271 / 1275 ] = 0..996862

do you understand the principle of scale yet ?

Enough with the "sigh" doesn't make you look intellectual, just pretentious 👍

a reply to: thesneakiod

enough with the evasion of simple questions - it makes you appear dishonest

i am explaining basic concepts that you should have learnt in elementary school

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Ok. Can you show me an actual genuine picture of our earth? Not a composite, or 3D imagery.

NASA admits to not having any except one from 1972 from the Apollo missions.
But having seen so many that are open forgeries how are we meant to believe the appollo one is real?

a reply to: stumason

Not one of your authored threads has anything to do with consipacies...

Don't even know why your here on this site.

Perfect shrill behaviour....

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

There's no where on earth, in or out of a plane where curvature can be seen.

Stop with the trolling

a reply to: thesneakiod

NASA admit no such thing.

There are many many photographs of Earth taken by many space agencies, and luckily for the rest of the world we don't have to take your narrow definition of what you consider to be acceptable evidence.

There is not just one Apollo photograph of Earth, there are dozens, all of which are an exact match for the weather data taken by satellites orbiting a nice globe Earth. None of them have ever been proven to be forgeries.

Here are some of those Earth images from Apollo 11 strung together to make a nice movie for you:



Lovely spherical Earth.

Speaking of weather satellite images, here's one from 1967:



Claims that there aren't any images of Earth have suddenly gained currency on the conspiracy world, and it's a complete lie.

a reply to: thesneakiod

There are simple points to science: (a) scientific theories can explain natural phenomena better than their predecessor. (b) they can predict items/scenarios/physical phenomena which were unknown before.

May I ask, what advantage does the FE-theory have compared to the RE-theory?

What kind of discovery could the FE predict to be made?

originally posted by: thesneakiod
We are now getting told time and time again by scientists that the earth is not a perfect sphere but more squashed in the middle. Like a spheroid.

So every picture we've ever seen of the earth taken from space has been fake.

Non-sequitur. You seem to be assuming a priori that images of earth taken from space do not show the expected amount of oblateness of the spheroid, but you have utterly failed to demonstrate this. Earth's oblateness is determined by satellite telemetry, it's too small to notice by eye in a picture (and even with measurement there's not enough resolution there to compete against direct telemetry data). Here, let me demonstrate:
upload.wikimedia.org...
The pale blue circle is a perfect circle, the dark blue outline has the same oblateness as the earth, yet if I didn't tell you beforehand, you'd probably look at that and say that it looks perfectly circular to you. The images from EPIC show earth is NOT a perfect circle, same as the above diagram, if you actually measure it.
epic.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Take a magic wand tool in your favorite image editing program. I use GIMP, so I'll refer to GIMP commands. First copy the image into GIMP from the EPIC website. Now select the magic wand tool and click the black area around earth. Now click select->Invert. Now click edit->copy. You now have selected and copied just the earth itself. Now paste this as a new image by clicking edit->Paste As->New Image. You now have an image of just the earth surrounded by transparency. How wide is the earth in the image? The same width as this new image itself. 1672 pixels. How tall is the image? Same as the height of the earth itself in the image, 1663 pixels. Wait, those values aren't the same! Earth IS slightly wider in the image than it is tall. How different should the polar and equatorial radius of the earth be?

"The Earth is only approximately spherical, so no single value serves as its natural radius. Distances from points on the surface to the center range from 6,353 km to 6,384 km"

en.wikipedia.org...

So the image should be about 1.00488 times as wide as it is tall. 1663*1.00488=1671.12 Not bad, not bad at all considering we didn't even fine tune the sensitivity of the wand tool, just default settings. Earth IS oblate in the image, just as it should be:
h.dropcanvas.com...

a reply to: thesneakiod

and bang - right on cue - exactly the dishonesty i reffered to - you has changed the topic

does your refusal // inability to actually address the explaination i gave mean that you now accept that it is correct ?

but hey - to address your new " logic "

define " actual genuine picture "

and explain coherently why a " composite " image is invalid

as you have already accepted that APPOLLO program images meet your ceiteria of " real " but you then volte-face and claim they are forgeries [ with zero evidence to support the claim ]

i can only assume you are " making crap up as you go "

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: TheDon

you claim that there are " simple experiments " that demonstrate the veracity of your flat earth claims

so detail them

" do your own reserarch " is simply a silly cop out to avoid answering questions

Hello,

Personally i bought my self binoculars, went to the beach on a calm clear day, waited for the cruise ship to make its way out. Then i waited till i can no longer see it, as it appeared to go ''over'' the horizon, but when i used my binoculars i could see the ship breaking the water, as it moved further away from my ''zoomed'' vision it again appeared to go ''over''.

Next step, get my self a telescope see if i can see it even beyond human vision which is roughly 5km, let alone binoculars, increased the range to 20km (known by island). That's a 50 foot drop, i shouldn't have seen the ship break water.

That's a simple one, especially near water.

originally posted by: NNN87

Hello,

Personally i bought my self binoculars, went to the beach on a calm clear day, waited for the cruise ship to make its way out. Then i waited till i can no longer see it, as it appeared to go ''over'' the horizon, but when i used my binoculars i could see the ship breaking the water, as it moved further away from my ''zoomed'' vision it again appeared to go ''over''.

Next step, get my self a telescope see if i can see it even beyond human vision which is roughly 5km, let alone binoculars, increased the range to 20km (known by island). That's a 50 foot drop, i shouldn't have seen the ship break water.

That's a simple one, especially near water.

ever flown overseas??

why dont you see the sun during "night time"?

a reply to: choos

Have you ever painted or work with 3d animations, anything to do with Art? That's where you learn the laws of perspective, as i said humans seeing limit on objects due to perspective is roughly 5km, on a flat surface with a sun that has different properties, proportions and distance compared to the globe model, it is possible for it to seem to go ''over'' the horizon whilst instead it is moving away to far for us to see. Mind you, you cannot use the same principles of nature as we are told of them, and apply it to the flat earth model, its completely different. So that would also mean that a sun has a localized light such as the moon would.

a reply to: NNN87

how does the sun have a localised light when we see it sink beneath the horizon?? it should be disappearing in the distant sky getting more and more dim, eventually just disappearing in the sky correct?

and according to a flat earth maps, airlines should fly over north america when flying from australia to argentina.. but it doesnt at all.. they choose to waste huge amounts of money to fly the long way around..