Flat earth theory?

a reply to: turbonium1

oh dear - we has been through all this before - you just run way from previous explainations - and regurgitate the same spew 4 months later

thats the only magic here

ETA :

your utter inability to address the principle of COG [ centre of gravvity ] and aerodynamic lift are the crux of your delusions ovver level flight

oh and your VSI delusions NEVVER explain WHY you expect it to report a divve - when altitude does not change

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin

So you dispute it? Please post your flat Earth map and tell me the distance between the two cities.

Hey! That's the fist time you have asked me a question. Bravo!

Yes: am questioning your statement that you are in possesion of proof, and truth.

Don't have a FE map.
Why do you 'believe' that am looking at one?

a reply to: Nothin

So basically you refuse to answer the question because your answer will end the debate and flat Earth will be proven impossible.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Only remember you asking one question, and it was answered.
Was there another question that was left unanswered?

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: Nothin

Keep reading .

Okay.
Are we to assume that you are not willing to defend your three photos, and answer the 7 questions?

a reply to: Nothin

The question is what's the distance between Sydney and Santiago.

a reply to: Nothin

I've posted six different pictures and one video. Is it safe to assume you don't want to address all of them ?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin

The question is what's the distance between Sydney and Santiago.

Don't know. Do you claim to know?
If so: what can you use as proof to convince us that your anwer is true?

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: Nothin

I've posted six different pictures and one video. Is it safe to assume you don't want to address all of them ?

We have already started with the 3 pix that were addressed.
So how about it?

a reply to: Nothin

Prove that particular camera had a fisheye lens. I bet you can't .


You've already lost your position by your refusal to discuss all of the evidence presented .

a reply to: 14377

You are the one who posted the 3 pix in question, and claimed they are proof.
Your claim is challenged: please prove the absolute undeniabilty of those pix, or we are left to doubt their authenticity.
Pix are not truth. You merely believe they are truth.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: 14377

You are the one who posted the 3 pix in question, and claimed they are proof.
Your claim is challenged: please prove the absolute undeniabilty of those pix, or we are left to doubt their authenticity.
Pix are not truth. You merely believe they are truth.

I supplied three pictures as evidence. You made the same old boring unfalsifiable's statement "it's a fisheye lens". The onus is on you to prove it was a fisheye lens . Until then my evidence stands .

Keep in mind I won't move off this point. Until you admit you can't prove it .

a reply to: 14377

Please provide the link to that quote.

a reply to: Nothin


Now you're saying you didn't say fisheye lens? What a minute I went back and looked I retract that statement. You claimed they were altered or Photoshop. Again prove it .

a reply to: 14377

Ok: so far we have found one false statement, as it was made by you. Thanks for the retraction.

Didn't claim they were photoshoped at all, was mentioned in the braoder scope of questioning their authenticity.

a reply to: Nothin

Actually I presented evidence. You made various claims you can't back.

If you're just guessing or the claim is your opinion say so.

My evidence stands and it's up to you to refute it with actual evidence .

Keep in mind unless you present some alternative facts I win.

I will address your post when you actually have something to put on the table .


Ta ta

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: Nothin

"Yup" OK let's see it ?

Ok: sorry but edited that line out, as it was a reply to your post, before you edited it.

Didn't claim that they were photoshoped, so no proof is needed.

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: Nothin

a reply to: Nothin

Actually I presented evidence. You made various claims you can't back.

If you're just guessing or the claim is your opinion say so.

My evidence stands and it's up to you to refute it with actual evidence .

Keep in mind unless you present some alternative facts I win.

I will address your post when you actually have something to put on the table .


Ta ta

Between the two of us, only you have made claims. At least 2 false ones so far.
Have made no claims, so You claiming that have made false ones, is again fabrication, and yet another false claim.

Your "evidence" is not accepted, it was challenged.
Your refusal to that challenge, (those 7 questions), has us stuck here.

a reply to: Nothin

Still can't prove your point I see. ;-)

originally posted by: 14377
a reply to: Nothin

Still can't prove your point I see. ;-)

What point?
Why do you keep fabricating things?
Why have you have never addressed the beginning of our exchange?