The flat earth conspiracy

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Like how you pick and chose to ignore the whole argument.

And invoking a YouTube Video with no explanation on your part shows you have no argument.

Again. The whole argument in context you ignored.


originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Stop. You needed to address this glaring and debunking of the flat earth with the very real and simple: “ In the Northern Hemisphere stars appear to move counterclockwise around the North Pole. In the Southern Hemisphere stars appear to move counterclockwise around the South Pole.“

Northern and southern star trails

www.oceannavigator.com...

Why are there constellations only visible specifically to the Southern Hemisphere. Why do they travel around the southern pole in the opposite direction vs the northern pole?

Then you have “ Circumpolar stars”

Circumpolar star

en.m.wikipedia.org...

A circumpolar star is a star, as viewed from a given latitude on Earth, that never sets below the horizon due to its apparent proximity to one of the celestial poles

Why are there different sets of stars that never set below the horizon between the northern and Southern Hemispheres? And why do they rotate around their respective poles in opposite directions?

Just waiting to see if you ignore this post conceding the earth is spherical. Or if you just make up some utter BS and return to your “greatest hit”.


——————————

Let’s list the points.

Not any do the stars move move in opposite directions, there are two different poles. Not explain by the flat earth fantasy.

There are constellations only seen in specific Hemispheres. While they are visible, they never change in magnitude of brightness. They are blocked by the horizon when moving between Hemispheres.

Again. How can a point high above a flat plane go below the plane’s horizon when that object is viewed from a prospective above the same plane. Please provide geometry proof.

Each hemisphere has their different sets of stars that never set below the horizon between the northern and Southern Hemispheres. How does that fit with prospect BS.

Flat earth is a crock of crap.

Then why does an equatorial mount for telescope?

Perspective is why two people in two different places, or two different angles, in the same place, or both place and angle differ, would observe the same event in completely different ways, based on where they are on Earth, where they actually see it from, what angle they see it from, and so on.

But for viewing stars, it has another main feature in play - the vast area of Earth itself, the vast star-filled area blanketing over Earth, at the same time, and saying

Explain exactly why you believe that if Earth was flat, all of the stars above Earth would be visible at the same time, from everywhere on Earth, because I'd like to hear it.

Why would all the stars be seen at the same time, above a flat Earth?

Objects above Earth should somehow always be visible from anywhere below them, if the surface is entirely flat, is that what you're claiming?

Is it?

an object of sufficient size , magnitude and altitude SHOULD be visible ANYWHERE on a flat plane withinin a radius of 20000km . [ like a sun alledgedly 5000km above that plane ] - also - the sun and moon should if 5000km above a flat plane - show different faces to observers 10000km apart

also objects above above a flat plane SHOULD have differing apparent sizes - dependant on viewer distance

this is where perspective - bites back for flat earth proponents

flat erath cosmology is a joke - problem is - they [ flat earth cultists ] think its real - everyone else is laughthing

a reply to: puzzled2
Turb as per usual you missed the opportunity to give an answer.

I am trying to see your proof without using Modern Tech, as you deny anybodies tech answers to yourself.

So we are all wanting you to do more.

Give a flat earth map or flat earth flight path because the flight path you provided prove you wrong.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
So I show you a link that details how to see a launch at Vandenberg and this is somehow proof that you aren't allowed to see launches at Vandenberg?

I guess this site is also not allowing people to see those launches:

www.spacelaunchschedule.com...

and this guy didn't film one

or this guy

Top tip: screeching fake doesn't make something fake. Your claim that every launch video is cut at 2 minutes is bull. The thing 'spluttering back to Earth' is the spent first stage. There is a second stage. You can clearly see it fire up and continue the journey to orbit. The fact that this happens 5 minutes into a video when you claim they cut feeds long before that makes an even bigger mockery of your claim.

As for your previous post, the flight paths of the Saturn V after launch are well documented, you've been given the links. Not only did they actually go into orbit, they broadcast live TV from there and took photographs that are verifiable. The switched radio receiving stations about every 10 minutes as they passed from one to another. All verifiable. Your ignorance and denial of it is no proof of anything.

Don't lie and pretend you haven't been told all this before. The flight paths are not hidden, you've been given them. They do tell everyone exactly where rockets will be, you've been shown this. I showed you proof of that and right on cue, exactly as predicted, you give a knee jerk "fake" response and try and bury it in a wall of word salad garbage to pretend it was never posted.

The Starlink launch was well publicised, its flight path well advertised and I and many other people witnessed the result in the UK 20 minutes after it launched. I posted a photo of that not long afterwards.

You know nothing. You should really stop pretending that you do. That way everyone might stop laughing at you.

These videos are all the same, that's the laughable part here.

You have rockets launching, at the site, and never elsewhere, BUT the launch site, as if there's NO OTHER PLACE we could SEE them, or FILM them, other than at the launch site!!

Like your film here - at the lunch site, like always. Nobody can film it, or see it, somewhere else, a few hundred miles away from the launch site, since that's where they usually are, a few minutes after the launch, yes?

Look at them - after launching, they fly away from the launch site. They are still seen, at the launch site, for awhile, but it's at a distance.

Anyone might think of filming it THERE, which would mean from another position along it's flight path, based on the specific paths, which are well-established, well known, long beforehand.

So for example, your video of this rocket, launched in daylight, was shot from around the launch site. They always should film it from there, of course, that is not a problem at all, here.

The problem is not filming it after the launch, from elsewhere along the flight paths, which is completely absurd, and stinks to high heaven.

Take the famous Apollo flights, with rockets that are flying men to the moon, supposedly, each part is carefully planned out, tested, and fully documented beforehand, during, and after each mission.

Except they have never shown any documents on their flight paths, right after launch, and flight first begins, which is obviously important, and would certainly have detailed flight plans, beforehand, which are very critical to ANY flights, let alone for these, our first ever flights to the moon, that's for sure!

When they did NOT show any documents for their flight paths, it was not by accident, or oversight, or honest mistake, after some 50 years or so!

It is NEVER shown to us, even today!


But you disagree, right?

So please show me the actual flight paths of Saturn V on their world-famous Apollo missions, which supposedly flew around Earth, right after launching, and before going into 'orbit'.....


I'm looking for their specific times and coordinates, around Earth, after launch, obviously..

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
an object of sufficient size , magnitude and altitude SHOULD be visible ANYWHERE on a flat plane withinin a radius of 20000km . [ like a sun alledgedly 5000km above that plane ] - also - the sun and moon should if 5000km above a flat plane - show different faces to observers 10000km apart

also objects above above a flat plane SHOULD have differing apparent sizes - dependant on viewer distance

this is where perspective - bites back for flat earth proponents

flat erath cosmology is a joke - problem is - they [ flat earth cultists ] think its real - everyone else is laughthing

The Sun is much, much smaller in size than you believe it is, 109 times larger than the Earth in size, and is 93 million miles away from Earth.

That's hardly the case, but if you assume it's true, you'd also assume we'd all see the Sun everywhere on a flat Earth, too.


The Sun is too small, and close to Earth, to ever see it from everywhere on the flat Earth, which is much more immense in size than our Sun.

Any cloud can block the Sun out, that's some immense object.... yikes!


Isn't a massive Sun that's 93 million miles away, far BEHIND the moon, being only 250,000 miles away, too?

It matters not if the Sun is directly behind the moon, or far off to one side of it, because you claim it is 93 million miles away, and that the moon is only 1/4 million miles away.

If it was true, the sunlight would always hit to the NEARER side of the moon, which is NOT facing Earth, which is not the case, obviously.

The moon could never reflect sunlight from the side facing Earth, opposite the Sun far behind it, and we have proof of that, right here.

The moon is actually the SOURCE of that light, not a sunlight reflector of yet another of many fantasy stories told us as a truth, and now, is proven to be pure nonsense.

originally posted by: turbonium1
The moon could never reflect sunlight from the side facing Earth, opposite the Sun far behind it, and we have proof of that, right here.

The moon is actually the SOURCE of that light, not a sunlight reflector of yet another of many fantasy stories told us as a truth, and now, is proven to be pure nonsense.

LMAO!!

Sorry...

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: turbonium1
The moon could never reflect sunlight from the side facing Earth, opposite the Sun far behind it, and we have proof of that, right here.

The moon is actually the SOURCE of that light, not a sunlight reflector of yet another of many fantasy stories told us as a truth, and now, is proven to be pure nonsense.

LMAO!!

Sorry...

If you believe sunlight swerves around the side of the moon facing towards the distant Sun, then it flips around,, and hits the OTHER side, facing Earth,,,, that's your fantasy land. I prefer the reality, myself.

a reply to: turbonium1

Let’s start small. One by one.


Again. How can a point high above a flat plane go below the plane’s horizon when that object is viewed from a prospective above the same plane. Please provide geometry proof.

The only answer why the sun for example would ever go below the oceans horizon is to the fact the earth is a sphere.

Another example, the sun in the flat earth model should always be visible from Mount Everest.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

The moon is actually the SOURCE of that ligh

Then why does it have phases?

Why are we tracking objects actively broadcasting from the moon’s orbit, and broadcasting from the moons surface. All realities on how far away the moon really is, and it’s size.

How are your arguments full of lies not a sin in the mind of your god?

a reply to: turbonium1

Your ever growing list....

So. You are being purposefully intellectually dishonest. AGAIN!

So. One more to the list that shows spherical earth / heliocentric is reality.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC
Earth's Curvature and Battleship Gunnery
Phases of Venus
Third party verification of Sputnik
Third party verification of moon missions
Third party / amateur verification of satellites in the hundreds. If not thousands

Star parallax

Stellar parallax

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Stellar parallax is so difficult to detect that its existence was the subject of much debate in astronomy for hundreds of years. It was first observed in 1806 by Giuseppe Calandrelli who reported parallax in α-Lyrae in his work "Osservazione e riflessione sulla parallasse annua dall’alfa della Lira".[1] Then in 1838 Friedrich Bessel made the first successful parallax measurement, for the star 61 Cygni, using a Fraunhofer heliometer at Königsberg Observatory.[2][3]

a reply to: turbonium1

f you are going to reply to me - please address what i actually wrote its very simple - i even used an scaled illustration of the visibility of the dubia burj tower - to demonstrate in an earlier therad

flat earthers CLAIM the sun is 5000 km above a flat plane - this is demonstrably falsified - using basic mathematics

such a body - would be visible everywhere on thier alledged flat earth map - 24 / 7

also its angular size would be different - at various points

lastly - its bserved angular movment - 15 degrees / hour - which is identical at any point on the globe - would only work at the true north pole - in a flat earth environment

now answer the points - as written - not your idiotic strawman or tangential rants

a reply to: turbonium1

How Do Flat-Earthers Explain the Equinox? We Investigated.
By Brandon Specktor

First Published 1 year ago

www.livescience.com...



Is that … possible?

This explanation has its problems. For starters, a sun circling 3,000 miles (5,000 km) above a flat Earth would never actually "set," even at the most southern latitudes. YouTube user Wolfie6020, a globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated this by building a scale model of the flat-Earth-style sun as it would be seen from Sydney on a vernal equinox. As shown in his video, the sun (actually a drone carrying a ping-pong ball) never dips below the horizon, even at its farthest point from the observer.

Moreover, during an equinox, the sun appears to rise due east and set due west everywhere on Earth except at the poles. For this to hold true on a flat Earth, where some cities are physically many times farther away from the sun than others, the sunlight would have to bend at hundreds of different angles simultaneously. That's the only way it could appear as if it was always coming from the east. YouTube user Flat Out, another prolific globe-Earth proponent, demonstrated the impossibility of this explanation using simple computer simulations in 2017.

So far, no flat-Earth model has been able to resolve these problems.

a reply to: turbonium1

The flat earth fantasy is dead, skinned, dissected, head mounted as a trophy on the wall of heliocentric reality.

Only the only thing left to flat earthers is sniveling lies.

And posting in the garbage bin of a conspiracy site.

What forum is this again.....

Im curious... what is the source of this light emanating from the moon?

did God install a light bulb when he made the heavens and the earth?

perhaps its his radiant power?

a reply to: turbonium1

Turb to help you see the rockets on the flight paths posted already use one of these
fhometools.com...

only 30 bucks.

a reply to: Akragon

its " magic " - dont ask abouut the magic

is the least sanity sapping answer

a real answer from a genuine flat earth proponent - will make your head hurt

and a follow up question to yours :

why phases - why is the moons light not constant ?

ccording to flat earth proponents - the moon orbits a " track " above the equator * , as does the sun if this is true

* for simplicity i ignore the anual magic drift between the tropicss

1 - why does the moon not have a 1 year cycle of observable sunrise // sunset points - just like the sun , instead it has ............. [ left blank to encourage googling ]

2 - why 2 observers at the same longitude - but one @ N45 , the other @ S45 - see the moon with a near identical face

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Akragon

its " magic " - dont ask abouut the magic

is the least sanity sapping answer

a real answer from a genuine flat earth proponent - will make your head hurt

and a follow up question to yours :

why phases - why is the moons light not constant ?

haha.. no im genuinely curious...

anything that's happening out there can be duplicated here... I really want to know where they believe said light is coming from... considering the moon is a rock covered in dust as far as we know...

of course we also know turbo knows nothing about anything related to science... let alone how light actually works..

I've already posted a demo of how the phases of the moon work... can't remember if he replied though....

I was probably laughing too hard