The Flat Earth "conspiracy" and a glaring error by those who suppport it...

a reply to: Itisnowagain


I did. What do you consider to be "real" images? Please don't wave your arms about and shout "CGI".

Compared the two, employed critical thinking. Conclusion drawn: One is correct and the other one is the droolings of a FE loon.

Why, if you do not trust the President, the FBI etc do you trust this bloke?

Are you a creationist? Most FE's seem to be. Are you?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Itisnowagain

What do you consider to be "real" images? Please don't wave your arms about and shout "CGI".

The video that is presented that shows the other side of the moon and the earth behind it has no satellites in it and no stars - how can it be just a video shot from a camera.
The images that are being presented as real are produced on a computer - no camera needed.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
Are you a creationist? Most FE's seem to be. Are you?

What is your definition of a 'creationist'?
What are you? If you are not a creationist?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

check out this website, it's great for super basic questions
www.google.com

check out this website too
en.wikipedia.org...

He probably means that.

Actually, let me quote it for you, you need all the help you can get.

Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation",[2][3] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.

a reply to: Itisnowagain


A creationist is a creationist - it is in the dictionary so I don't need to draw up my own definition.

Why would I be one?

Again, why, if you question everything you are told, do you so blindly believe idiots on YouTube?

a reply to: oldcarpy

So what are you if you are not a creationist?

a reply to: Itisnowagain


Bloody hell - I give up.

a reply to: Itisnowagain


I'll tell you what I am - I'm off home.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Are you a creationist? Most FE's seem to be. Are you?

Well, you seem to be stereotyping. Creationist are stupid and so are FEs.
So what do globers stereo typically go for if they are not creationists?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Itisnowagain


I'll tell you what I am - I'm off home.

Well take care and have a lovely day.
Thanks for the chat.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I think a Human created Earth. You tell me what I am. You seem to think it matters. Troll. According to the dictionary, it's not a Creationist. The word "Divine" seems to be an important part in that if you read a little more about it.

I'll now provide you evidence because I'm not as hackish as the off comments of YouTube, I'm very straight forward.

Bombs in general is our evolutionary trait. We understand them, we like to build them, we use them to power our homes and our cars, and from it's creation of in combat explosives, it has remained the most prevalent part of Human evolution at this point. Even the Cavemen themselves dreamed the Stars would be the Final Frontier, this isn't a new thought. Bombs however, are actually so far ahead of the power of travel that it won't matter for us as a species, nor will it matter for any species that travels through space without an understanding of bombs.

You see, the effect of chain-reactions in large scale is a wet dream to people that are dealing with bombs. And generally speaking, that's what our Universe is comprised off, off-scale exploded energy,(AKA: A Big Bang). The Human race as a species at the moment could easily blow up the entire planet at a moments notice of challenge, and many times over. With largescale quantum chain-reactions, we could easily destroy our entire Universe at our current point. We are good with bombs, and surrounded by TNT. But the goal of bombs for us isn't just to destroy everything.

This would be moments from the creation point itself, our ability to destroy ourselves, but you will find because of some dumb law about energy, you cannot scale a new Universe of matter at the same size. So God is big, but that's about it. Other than that, he probably wore and acted whatever would colloquially a "scientist" would be on the other side. He would be a Giant, but only relatively. It's also impossible to traverse these dimensions. So he has effectively created a simulated Universe inside of what he himself is in, that being likely a simulated Universe.

Flat Earth is a dead meme because it is difficult to prove the Earth round for an amateur. But not for a pro... You need to be asking bigger questions if you want the meme YouTube$$$ Revenue to come through, like is the Universe Round or Flat? Care to explain that to me? Or do you just end at guiding us to flat earth like the rest? The goal there is obviously nothing but anarchy. I'd rather build a bomb. I doubt that strategy is sustainable, there aren't any Round-Earth revenue YouTube channels that rely on that aspect to 'continue the fight' like Flat-Earth. This is the largest clue that it's a scam, bro, it's only one side completely in on the conspiracy, and a bunch of debunkers on the other. If it was truly up in the air, there would be million-dollar round earth channels too, but there just simply isn't because newsflash, duh that would be stupid, everyone knows the earth is round. So who is the largest chance at lying on YouTube? The guy with 600 million hits and 5,000 YouTube videos on the matter, and millions of dollars made, or all the solo people debunking them like once or twice for free...? Based on the least amount of physics possible(Human psychology and greed) you should be able to already tell something is wrong with all these videos.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

You obviously missed it the first time so I'll try again: there are many thousands of photographs and moving images taken of Earth, and the moon, in space, that are not CGI.

I have a large amount of them in original publications from the 1960s. They are not CGI. If the only problem you havewith images of a spherical Earth from space is that they are rendered on a computer, then why aren't you happy with those?

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

So why do all the recent presentations have to be CGI?
With all the technology available now surely we could see some 'real' footage in real decent quality - that's all I am saying.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Our Optical technology is DECENT...

The main reason is size. They've left earth to capture a scale image of the Earth at the correct distance...once?

It was still round.

It was also still CGI, anyway, because the purpose of the scientific photos is to be accurate...Optics is not always optimal for an accurate picture, you can barely get people to smile at the correct time, such a shot is only impossible to achieve because of accessibility. So our technology is not superior. Taking thousands of photos and making one photo of them is barely worth mentioning the difference of blatant "Computer generated Image", it's almost inaccurate to attribute what they did to that. Photoshop is more accurate.

It's also a lot more digitized age stuff. NASA had a team to photoshop the photos before they were taken, if that makes it any less suspicious to you, to everyone else that's kind of obvious. They didn't "CGI" them in secret. Huge detail....

Or maybe they did

At the very least, evil people don't take the time to learn Photoshop, is what I'm trying to say. Very boring and nerdy, almost 10 years classes in and I still suck.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

So why do all the recent presentations have to be CGI?
With all the technology available now surely we could see some 'real' footage in real decent quality - that's all I am saying.

It is real and it is decent. Your decision that it is somehow substandard does not make it so. The modern medium for photography and film is digital. It does not require developing and takes up no space. Just because it is in binary format does not make it any less genuine a representation of reality than chemicals on a piece of paper.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

I would really like an answer to my question for Flat Earthers - if you would be so kind as to answer , as you have all the other posts that are back and forth I would really appreciate it... Because it really is fundamental to the outcome of the 'debate' for lack of a better term - here.... its on page 46 of this thread but heres it in a nutshell.

My Only Question to ANY Flat Earther
Is If you found out the earth was flat today, how would that change your life ? Literally daily How would that change your life?

We'd still be flying the same airline routes and walking and driving and living. It would mean not much would change that I can see Other than they get to say they are right, now, theres no honour in that though.

Im not sure how to link to my original post but I expand a little on it there..

Cheers mate

Have The Best Day
themuse

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Itisnowagain

And how do they stop boats getting to the ice wall?.

Who says they do?

Are you saying that boats are therefore going off the sides of the world????

Good grief, this site gets worse by the day.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Itisnowagain

And how do they stop boats getting to the ice wall?.

Who says they do?

Are you saying that boats are therefore going off the sides of the world????

The question was 'how do they stop boats getting to the ice wall?'

As far as I know boats can get to the Antarctic ice wall.

Why would that imply that boats go off the sides of the world?

a reply to: Indigent

It's a well known fact that any fish eye lense will distort an image to give it round borders.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Itisnowagain

And how do they stop boats getting to the ice wall?.

Who says they do?

Are you saying that boats are therefore going off the sides of the world????

The question was 'how do they stop boats getting to the ice wall?'

As far as I know boats can get to the Antarctic ice wall.

Why would that imply that boats go off the sides of the world?

Ah, the ice wall. I can sell you a piece of that, you know. $2,000 per square foot. Very exclusive deal, you can trust me.

Two questions -

One, why is it that you can fly from Australia to South America in the same time that it takes to fly from Australia to South Africa, when according to the FE map it should take twice the time?

Two, is this genuinely your position or are you just trolling us?