Flat Earth No Dome No Stars

[InChristAlone]

Matthew Boylan google.

Here is his credentials:
"surface expert photo realist painter large scale/ composer performer/chemist, herbalist healing consultant, engineer, architect, interior designer, carpenter, explorer portrait artist, doctor, scientist, political expert , historian"

Hm... not at all fishy! And according to the interwebs he hasn't presented a single piece of evidence from his time free lancing at NASA. Sure go ahead take his word that he's a whistleblower.

 

[Daniil]

Here is his credentials:

If I was fired from my main job, I would also have such a list.

 

[Daniil]

It is not on me to come up with the alternative map or imagine it in my head. We already have complete sky mapping of the stars based on actual observations in different parts of the world. I have no need to try to find a new explanation.

Pssh, and you dare to accuse someone here of ignorance.

 

[Daniil]

Hm... not at all fishy! And according to the interwebs he hasn't presented a single piece of evidence from his time free lancing at NASA. Sure go ahead take his word that he's a whistleblower.

And how would you like to prove it? Make a request to NASA? lol.

 

[InChristAlone]

If I was fired from my main job, I would also have such a list.

Basically a resume that's made up.

Pssh, and you dare to accuse someone here of ignorance.

Ignorance? Because I would rather refer to actual astrological maps that are verifiable with my own eyes and then verifying with a friend in Australia that she sees different constellations than relying on my imagination of what a flat earth might look like?

And how would you like to prove it? Make a request to NASA? lol.

Anyone can say they worked for NASA. Doesn't make it true. And if it was doesn't mean they weren't just hired to draw a picture. I mean could you have some skepticism of weird people on the internet at least a little? Might do you well in life.

 

[Daniil]

Because I would rather refer to actual astrological maps that are verifiable with my own eyes and then verifying with a friend in Australia that she sees different constellations than relying on my imagination of what a flat earth might look like?

However, it does not bother you that you can see the lighthouse from the distance at which it should be under water. Does it bother you that you can fly by plane from Argentina to Australia and make an emergency landing in Alaska? You are not confused by these photo shootings. You are already doing well.

I have already explained to you about Australia.

 

[Daniil]

Anyone can say they worked for NASA.

Once again, what should a person do to prove this? Theoretically, how to do it? Steal a flat Earth map from NASA's office?

The fact of the matter is that if he posed a real threat, he would have been dead for a long time.

 

[Quelsatron]

Ok show me an object over curvature without seeing the curvature or a tilt. You can draw a diagram or do it on a small scale.

The tilt of an object at say, 35 kilometers (far beyond the horizon for most things except radio masts and oil platforms) is 0.35%. That would be the angle of the hour hand on a clock 00:00:38. The tilt is there but it's for all intents and purposes imperceptible and lost in swaying noise.

 

[Soren]

Why, because NASA said so?

During a solar eclipse, the Moon covers the Sun.

No because basic observation says so. Forget NASA imagine it does not exist. Go back to ancient Greece or mesopotamia, or any civilization that ever observed the stars, none of them observed a second moon.

No that is a lunar eclipse. A solar eclipse is when the earth gets between the sun and the moon.

 

[Soren]

The moon doesn't prove we live on a sphere.

Hilarious response. I present evidence that shows the moon does prove the earth is round and your response is the equivalent of a child sticking his fingers in his ears and closing his eyes.

Shows the pointlessness of further debate. You cannot argue someone out of a cult like belief. You don't believe in flat earth based on logic and reason it is clearly based on feelings and emotions as is the case with so many ideologies.

Good luck with your delusions. Hope you break out of them one day.

 

[Jing]

The tilt of an object at say, 35 kilometers (far beyond the horizon for most things except radio masts and oil platforms) is 0.35%. That would be the angle of the hour hand on a clock 00:00:38. The tilt is there but it's for all intents and purposes imperceptible and lost in swaying noise.

Ok so can you just show me an object over the curvature without seeing the curvature?

 

[Jing]

Hilarious response. I present evidence that shows the moon does prove the earth is round and your response is the equivalent of a child sticking his fingers in his ears and closing his eyes.

Shows the pointlessness of further debate. You cannot argue someone out of a cult like belief. You don't believe in flat earth based on logic and reason it is clearly based on feelings and emotions as is the case with so many ideologies.

Good luck with your delusions. Hope you break out of them one day.

You never presented evidence

You ignore observations like not being able to see a curvature even though science tells us a ship goes over the curvature about 3 miles out.

 

[Soren]

You never presented evidence

You ignore observations like not being able to see a curvature even though science tells us a ship goes over the curvature about 3 miles out.

Again you're literally ignoring the evidence! I'm literally going HERE HERE IS THE EVIDENCE and you're just saying no, that doesn't exist, that is not evidence so there is nothing to disprove.

- How is the same face of the moon observed everywhere on earth? Go and look at a anything in the world and then stand at a different angle or position, guess what what you see with your eyes changes.

- How do you explain the different stars you see depending on where you are in the globe? Your explanation that what you see changes because you're far away does not hold water. Why is that the case for the stars but not the moon?

Your rejection of any evidence that is presented to you is something you'd expect form a follower of scientology. It is the equivalent of saying to someone 2+2=4 and them going "that's not proof, nah nah nah nah naaahhh"

Seriously seek help.

Here is one more for you that you will also completely ignore because your belief is not based on logic but emotion possibly you have some supressed childhood trauma you're trying to heal from I don't know but good luck and I'm sure you will just ignore this but here it is anyway...

 

[Quelsatron]

Ok so can you just show me an object over the curvature without seeing the curvature?

It's been posted several times in this thread. Being obtuse isn't a valid debate technique, it just makes a person come across as stupid.

 

[Soren]

It's been posted several times in this thread. Being obtuse isn't a valid debate technique, it just makes a person come across as stupid.

They are sticking their collective heads in the proverbial sand. I'm starting to think/hoping they're trolling because if not it means they have serious issues.

 

[Jing]

It's been posted several times in this thread. Being obtuse isn't a valid debate technique, it just makes a person come across as stupid.

Where ? I can't see anyone who has posted something over a curvature without seeing the curvature?

 

[Jing]

Again you're literally ignoring the evidence! I'm literally going HERE HERE IS THE EVIDENCE and you're just saying no, that doesn't exist, that is not evidence so there is nothing to disprove.

- How is the same face of the moon observed everywhere on earth? Go and look at a anything in the world and then stand at a different angle or position, guess what what you see with your eyes changes.

- How do you explain the different stars you see depending on where you are in the globe? Your explanation that what you see changes because you're far away does not hold water. Why is that the case for the stars but not the moon?

Your rejection of any evidence that is presented to you is something you'd expect form a follower of scientology. It is the equivalent of saying to someone 2+2=4 and them going "that's not proof, nah nah nah nah naaahhh"

Seriously seek help.

Here is one more for you that you will also completely ignore because your belief is not based on logic but emotion possibly you have some supressed childhood trauma you're trying to heal from I don't know but good luck and I'm sure you will just ignore this but here it is anyway...

Because you just can't understand, you need to know every little detail , I'm happy not having to know every little detail about stuff I don't exactly know how the moon works neither do you.... I'm not sure why it's hard for you to understand why you would see different stars depending on location? Look at your ceiling ok? Put something representing stars on the left side maybe the shape of a circle now put something else representing stars on the right side maybe a square , walk to the left and look up now walk to the right and look up that's how you see something different. . . . Not hard lmao... crazy how your brain couldn't think of this, this is why you can't understand this because you need governments to think for you , you can only repeat what they say you have no original thought.

Yh if you are going to be rude then I guess we end this here because it shows you have lost.. funny how its everyone who believes we live on a sphere is so rude just shows how unstable they are. Can't even hold a debate lol no wonder you believe we live on a sphere.

 

[Daniil]

the moon does prove the earth is round

The moon does not prove this because:
1) If the moon reflected the light of the sun, there would be a glare on it, as in the photo. There is no glare. The reality is the moon shines by itself.
2) As one Russian blogger noted, the "phases of the Moon" do not correlate with the position of the Moon relative to the Sun. Actually you can often observe how the part of the Moon facing the Sun is darkened.

 

[Soren]

The moon does not prove this because:
1) If the moon reflected the light of the sun, there would be a glare on it, as in the photo. There is no glare. The reality is the moon shines by itself.
2) As one Russian blogger noted, the "phases of the Moon" do not correlate with the position of the Moon relative to the Sun. Actually you can often observe how the part of the Moon facing the Sun is darkened.

Again this is completely wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to start. You clearly did not watch the video that I shared about how the moon proves the earth is round because unless you have an answer to the points raised in that video then you're simply dodging the issue and presenting another equally absurd argument to avoid responding to the criticisms. It is amazing how every single flat earther follows the same path. Ignore, deflect and then bring up some other absurd "proof".

Why would there be a glare on the moon? Explain to me the scientific principals of light that dictates that there would HAVE to be a glare on the moon. When you illuminate a room with a light bulb does everything have a glare? Ever heard of the concept that different materials have different absorption and reflective levels of light?!

Again you seem to accept in point 2 that the moon is round because there is a part of the moon facing the sun. If that is the case explain to me how no matter where you are on the earth you see the SAME face of the moon. This would be IMPOSSIBLE in a flat earth, take any circular object place it above you and walk further towards it or perpendicular to it, you see a completely different part of it but NOT with the moon we always see the same face no matter where you are in the world.

Am done with this thread no one here is interested in logic, reason or truth just enforcing their own delusions. Good luck to you all I hope you wake up one day.

 

[Daniil]

Again you seem to accept in point 2 that the moon is round because there is a part of the moon facing the sun

I have already answered this to you. The moon is far away. Place the Moon along the Antarctic circle and the Sun, which is higher than the Moon, and sometimes goes BEHIND the Moon. Why do I have to repeat myself?

Why would there be a glare on the moon

No comments.

When you illuminate a room with a light bulb does everything have a glare

The thing is that you can play with a flashlight as much as you want, and you will never get such a picture as we observe with the Moon.