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

a reply to: ignorant_ape

This is a good video start around the ten minute mark where it shows how on a flat earth we couldn't fly from Sydney to Johannesburg direct but we do.
Would love a flat earther to explain that one

a reply to: testingtesting

Wormholes.

Planes fly faster than we’re told.

Magic.

Goddidit.

That’s all I got.

a reply to: TerryDon79

You want a real laugh watch this guy lol.

a reply to: testingtesting

I had to stop after he said “religion of scientism”, while using an electronic device, to record videos, uploaded to the internet, all made and enhanced over the years by science.

a reply to: testingtesting

how the fook does a " thing " with its alledged qualifications manage to be so scientificallly illiterate ?

Never challenge a flat earther to a logic battle.

It's a never ending losing spiral. The whole theory is based on ignoring over 99.9% of the available evidence (ie, only looking at 0.0000000002% of the earth's radius.

With that amount of data, I could look at a red Ferrari and jump to the immediate conclusion that the entire world must drive red Ferraris.

[SNIP]



Mod Note: Political Trolling is ONLY allowed in the Political Mud Pit

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1

Where did you go to school? We learned that the Greeks used trigonometry to calculate the diameter of the Earth, and that the Egyptians who circumnavigated Africa were surprised when the Sun rose and set in the wrong places. Oh, and anyone who seriously thinks that the Earth might possibly be flat has either been cut off from civilization for their entire life... or is a moron.

It is based on measuring curvature, not childish insults.

You can perform the same experiment as Eratosthenes if you require direct proof. Pick a location in Canada and a location in Central America and you will see that the Earth is so curved that it can only be a sphere.

That assumes the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth, which is not a proven fact. Everything else is taken from that point.

Everyone was told about the world being a sphere. To consider it not a sphere, merits universal scorn and ridicule, shown at once. Forever, we will react in scorn, laugh at them, for merely thinking it!!


Now, when anyone considers it possible that the Earth is not round, it is based on knowledge, research, facts, lies, etc.

The only sphere without any apparent curvature, so what?


An ocean is flat, throughout. No curvature.

But you think oceans are not flat, anywhere, they're curved!


What is your 'proof' of this curvature, on oceans?

A ship shows the curvature, obviously!

The ship sails way off into the ocean, and finally disappears from sight, which is due to the Earth's curvature!!

No, the ship is still seen, due to greater magnification than human eye!

It didn't curve around anywhere, as it would have to curve, over that distance, if it was such a distance that SPHERE SUPPORTERS explained the ship dipped over the curve, and out of sight, which proves Earth is not at all flat!!....


After the telescopes proved the ships didn't sail out of sight, it proved there was no curvature of Earth.


YOUR side first claimed that ships sailed over the Earth's curvature, out of view. After the ship was still seen, as before, this proved your claim wrong. Since it proved there was no curvature.


Because it is a flat surface.

a reply to: turbonium1

That assumes the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth, which is not a proven fact. Everything else is taken from that point.

apart from the fact that you and other flat-tards simply ignore the evidence for the distance of the sun

IF the earth was a flat plane - to get Eratosthenes results - the sun would have to be 5000km above the plane [ basic maths - the same maths that gives Eratosthenes results in the first place ]

so which is it ?

do you believe that the sun is 5000km above a flat plane ? if so explain what distance the moon is

if not - please give your " correct " distance

also - at a tangent - another question for you to ignore // deflect :

that is the distance of polaris above your alledged flat plane ?

a reply to: ignorant_ape

also - at a tangent - another question for you to ignore // deflect :

Wasted.

Flat Earth is a CIA psyop...

originally posted by: fluff007
Flat Earth is a CIA psyop...

Towards what end/

a reply to: fluff007

citation required

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

That assumes the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth, which is not a proven fact. Everything else is taken from that point.

apart from the fact that you and other flat-tards simply ignore the evidence for the distance of the sun

IF the earth was a flat plane - to get Eratosthenes results - the sun would have to be 5000km above the plane [ basic maths - the same maths that gives Eratosthenes results in the first place ]

so which is it ?

do you believe that the sun is 5000km above a flat plane ? if so explain what distance the moon is

if not - please give your " correct " distance

also - at a tangent - another question for you to ignore // deflect :

that is the distance of polaris above your alledged flat plane ?

I do think the sun and moon are similar in distance, perhaps 5000 km away, or so.

These are the only two celestial objects related to Earth, appear to be almost the very same size?

One of the objects is 250,000 miles away, the other is 93 million miles away, yet they both appear to be the same size, from Earth??

All at random?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

That assumes the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth, which is not a proven fact. Everything else is taken from that point.

apart from the fact that you and other flat-tards simply ignore the evidence for the distance of the sun

IF the earth was a flat plane - to get Eratosthenes results - the sun would have to be 5000km above the plane [ basic maths - the same maths that gives Eratosthenes results in the first place ]

so which is it ?

do you believe that the sun is 5000km above a flat plane ? if so explain what distance the moon is

if not - please give your " correct " distance

also - at a tangent - another question for you to ignore // deflect :

that is the distance of polaris above your alledged flat plane ?

I do think the sun and moon are similar in distance, perhaps 5000 km away, or so.

These are the only two celestial objects related to Earth, appear to be almost the very same size?

One of the objects is 250,000 miles away, the other is 93 million miles away, yet they both appear to be the same size, from Earth??

All at random?

Put your finger up and cover the sun.

OMG! Your finger is bigger than the sun!

/sarcasm

a reply to: turbonium1

I do think the sun and moon are similar in distance, perhaps 5000 km away, or so.

then explain why observers 10000km apart [ thats 10 thousand kilometers - [ examples stockholm sweeden and capetown RSA ] ] - see a view of the moons near side that is ALMOST identical

basic maths [ plus image ] :



lunar libration [ only a small % of which is a function of distance ] allows us to view a collective total of 59% of the lunar surface over the entire lunar cycle

before replying - understand the above sentence -

a single viewer sees only 50% at any given moment - and the differences for simultaneous observers at differeing points on the globe = negligable

look at all the images of the moon taken from the earths surface - only in the gifs and movies illustrating libration is the difference easy to spot

you have just falsified your own claim - bravo

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

I do think the sun and moon are similar in distance, perhaps 5000 km away, or so.

then explain why observers 10000km apart [ thats 10 thousand kilometers - [ examples stockholm sweeden and capetown RSA ] ] - see a view of the moons near side that is ALMOST identical

basic maths [ plus image ] :

lunar libration [ only a small % of which is a function of distance ] allows us to view a collective total of 59% of the lunar surface over the entire lunar cycle

before replying - understand the above sentence -

a single viewer sees only 50% at any given moment - and the differences for simultaneous observers at differeing points on the globe = negligable

look at all the images of the moon taken from the earths surface - only in the gifs and movies illustrating libration is the difference easy to spot

you have just falsified your own claim - bravo

No, this confirms my claim.

On a flat Earth, the moon would look very similar to observers 10,000 km apart. Which it does.

On a spherical Earth, the moon should NOT look very similar to observers 10,000 miles apart. That's why they claim the moon is 240.000 miles away, to (try) accounting for it.

It also explains why we see the same side of the moon, no matter where we are, no matter when. Because the Earth is stationary, and flat, while the moon moves back and forth, across the skies, without rotating.

I mentioned how the Sun and moon appear to be virtually the same, exact size. They claim one is 240.000 miles away, the other is 93 million miles away. They are also the only two spheres within range of Earth, and view from Earth. No other spheres, but those two, 92 million miles apart from each other.....somehow appear to be virtually the exact same size from Earth!

If this was purely a coincidence, it would be one of the most amazing, incredible coincidences of all time. No other planets have ANY two celestial bodies that either are the same size, or appear to be the same size, if viewed from those planets. But why should they be, since they are all random, in shape, size, number.

So let's say Earth won the Solar System lottery, by sheer luck!

Winning it again, the very next week... is virtually impossible.

Because not only are the Sun and moon identical in size, and shape (not all moons are perfect spheres)...they are perfectly aligned with each other!!

When they have a total eclipse, of solar, or lunar.....it cannot be possible unless they are PERFECTLY ALIGNED.


To me, that is done by design, created. The perfect eclipse of our two celestial bodies shows everyone that everything WAS created, so life can exist. It should have been taken as a sign that we are special, unique, and it's not to be forgotten.

We once saw the Sun, and moon, as meant to be...

Now, it's all about grandiose lies.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1

That assumes the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth, which is not a proven fact. Everything else is taken from that point.

apart from the fact that you and other flat-tards simply ignore the evidence for the distance of the sun

IF the earth was a flat plane - to get Eratosthenes results - the sun would have to be 5000km above the plane [ basic maths - the same maths that gives Eratosthenes results in the first place ]

so which is it ?

do you believe that the sun is 5000km above a flat plane ? if so explain what distance the moon is

if not - please give your " correct " distance

also - at a tangent - another question for you to ignore // deflect :

that is the distance of polaris above your alledged flat plane ?

I do think the sun and moon are similar in distance, perhaps 5000 km away, or so.

These are the only two celestial objects related to Earth, appear to be almost the very same size?

One of the objects is 250,000 miles away, the other is 93 million miles away, yet they both appear to be the same size, from Earth??

All at random?

Put your finger up and cover the sun.

OMG! Your finger is bigger than the sun!

/sarcasm

If the sun is really 93 million miles away from Earth, and scaled down to match the exact size of a much smaller object, which is only 240,000 miles from Earth....aligned itself perfectly with the smaller object, which allowed the only eclipses known to exist, in our galaxy. And they are perfect eclipses, to boot!

What does science claim about it? 'All coincidence, we've done the math to prove it.' Almost anything is possible, okay?
Science hates to speak about things as 'coincidence' - because physics, chemistry, biology, maths, etc. are all based on facts, repetition, formulas, probabilities, etc.

But when science said that the highest probability of life on Earth was that chance, and coincidences, over a very, very, very long time, millions of years. When a magical soup of chemicals, plants, etc, - and Earth was just formed, a boiling hot soup was most common, then. And over millions of years, there were soups that boiled up life, out of nowhere. A perfect mixture of chemicals, and pond scum, algae, seasoned over 500 years, at 120 deg. minimum temperature. Then, mudpacks, and, finally, a long-extinct strain of bacteria, the 'secret ingredient' needed for creating life!


Anything but God, or higher power, can explain how life was ever created.

Probability supports that there is life beyond Earth. Which means that other life forms created everything on Earth, or even Earth itself, and created all life on Earth, too..

The spheres we see above us - are no accident. It is not realistic to think that two spheres, 93 million miles apart, eclipse perfectly. It is absurd to think it's even possible by random chance. To suggest it is most likely to have formed by random chance, is utter nonsense.

A design holds specific details, indications, and execution, that show whether it is by design, or random chance.

Do you think 2 vastly different spheres, 92 million miles apart, would be exactly the same shape, and size? And they would eclipse??

I

What reason would they lie about it?

They crave to rule the world.

And this means God is all a myth.

Earth and life were created from space junk, chemical soups.

Any signs of creation are 'coincidences'

Antarctica is off-limits, to all people.

Nobody owns Antarctica. It is not theirs to proclaim 'off-limits'.

Nobody lives there. They only work there, and go back home, afterwards.


When they say it's off-limits, it is obviously to keep a massive secret. No other reason for it.

I think the main reason they've recently made it 'off-limits' to all, is because we have technology to explore it now.

Commercial drones can fly 2-3 miles away, at least.

What if a drone flew into a dome, and videos were shown of it? There'd be mire people going to Antarctica, to see if it's true.

After it's proven beyond a doubt, it cannot be excused anymore.

a reply to: turbonium1

www.icetrek.com...

www.icetrek.com...

www.swoop-antarctica.com...

antarctic-logistics.com...

Let me guess, those don't count because you only get to see what They want you to see.