Is Our Earth FLAT and Motionless, Not a Spinning Globe?

[Winston]

@Aron
I have a question for you that no one dared to answer yet.

Here is Blue Marble II, taken in 2002, which NASA admits is a composite image taken by many satellites, and not a true photo.



Now, look what happens when you zoom in on this image....... Get ready to be stunned......



See what's in those squares and circles? Yes, that's right. The sections in them are IDENTICAL, which means whoever put this together used the CLONING TOOL IN PHOTOSHOP!!!!!!!!!!!! BUSTED!!!!!!!! Is your spine tingling yet? lol

If you've ever used Photoshop, you'd know that the cloning tool can replicate image sections, just as you see above. For more info on those two alleged Earth images, see here:

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/1 ... is-a-fake/

Why would NASA need to use the cloning tool to copy and paste identical cloud sections like that? Why? Are they really that lazy? Or did their graphic design artist get lazy and try to use shortcuts, thinking no one would notice?

@Ghost any explanation? I asked this on page 23 of this thread but everyone chickened out and didn't bother to address it. For some reason some people cannot admit that NASA lies or hoaxes stuff.

Finally, check out this NASA photo of a small Earth in the background behind an astronaut. Notice what happens when you take this photo and turn down the hues and saturation in an image editing program. Look in the upper right corner. Yes, you got it! There is an UNNATURAL UNEVEN SQUARE around the little Earth in the background, which means that NASA ARTIFICIALLY PASTED IT IN!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!! So much for your faith in the integrity and honesty of NASA!!!!!!!!!! Look who's laughing now! LOL



So you gonna be honest and admit that all this is very damaging or what?

[Winston]

@Aron
Can you answer this mystery? No one else I asked had any explanation. If the moon is 1/4 the size of the earth, then shouldn't the earth be four times bigger from the moon's sky than the moon is from the earth's sky?



Also if there's no up or down in space, then how do you explain this:



Oh and check out what Einstein said:



Also, how do you explain this discrepancy about the stars?







Also, how do you explain these crepuscular rays?

[Winston]

@Aron
Do you believe all these NASA images of the earth are real? If so why do they all look different and artificial? Do you see the discrepancies? And do you think these discrepancies are perfectly normal, natural and consistent? lol

[Aron]

@Winston

Some more questions for you.

1. If the earth is moving in orbit at 67,000 mph, and the solar system is moving around the galaxy at 500,000 mph, then why are the stars in the same place every night? Why is polaris the north star always fixed in the same spot for thousands of years? That makes no sense. The stars should not be the same every night. And polaris should have moved long ago.

2. If earth is moving around the sun, then when it gets to the other side every 6 months, why don't you have to change 12 hours on your clock?

3. Do you understand that the government lies a lot? About stuff like the JFK assassination and 9/11 and thousands of other things? If so why do you always take what they say on blind faith?

I suppose I should've clarified even more than i did earlier about my anti government views. I do believe some conspiracy theories about the government, but i don't just believe anything because it's a conspiracy theory. Yes I believe 9/11 and the JFK assassination were conspiracies, it's why JFK's guard left the back of his car right before the shooting took place. But even if i didn't believe those conspiracy theories it's not like that makes me some closed minded person who can never be right on anything. There are other conspiracies like the Gulf of Tonkin incident used to start the Vietnam war which are basically admitted now and right out there in the public records by the government.

OK for point 1:
The galaxy is rotating too in synch with the solar system that's moving around the galaxy and these stars you're looking at tend to be in the galaxy. Also, while 500'000 MPH sounds really fast from our points of view as humans, the size of the galaxy is utterly absurd, so 500K miles is the tiniest little bit of distance in it that does not actually change the angle that you would be looking at the stars with to any noticable degree by the human eye. Movement through the galaxy takes an extremely long time, so long that seeing any noticable changes is usually beyond what can be noticed in one human's lifespan. But due to historical records, we know that the constellations have slightly changed over the last few thousand years.

Point 2:That's an interesting question, from what I read the answer is supposed to be that we do actually have to adjust but it's built into our clocks being based on the solar day.


3:Already answered and no i do not just 'take everything on blind faith' which you keep saying for some reason even after i already showed you reasons i believe these things.

See what's in those squares and circles? Yes, that's right. The sections in them are IDENTICAL, which means whoever put this together used the CLONING TOOL IN PHOTOSHOP!!!!!!!!!!!! BUSTED!!!!!!!! Is your spine tingling yet? lol

If you've ever used Photoshop, you'd know that the cloning tool can replicate image sections, just as you see above. For more info on those two alleged Earth images, see here:

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/1 ... is-a-fake/

Why would NASA need to use the cloning tool to copy and paste identical cloud sections like that? Why? Are they really that lazy? Or did their graphic design artist get lazy and try to use shortcuts, thinking no one would notice?

Maybe as they were compositing the different photos together the design artist made a mistake with the small parts in between the satellite photos and did just get lazy and pull out the clone tool. That doesn't require it to suddenly be a conspiracy.

Finally, check out this NASA photo of a small Earth in the background behind an astronaut. Notice what happens when you take this photo and turn down the hues and saturation in an image editing program. Look in the upper right corner. Yes, you got it! There is an UNNATURAL UNEVEN SQUARE around the little Earth in the background, which means that NASA ARTIFICIALLY PASTED IT IN!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!! So much for your faith in the integrity and honesty of NASA!!!!!!!!!! Look who's laughing now! LOL

For all i know that square could have just been pasted in by the 'editor' who supposedly just analyzed it and revealed a flaw.

What i have noticed so far is that if i prove something you ignore it like it doesn't have an effect or you admit maybe that it proves something but then continue on as if that isn't too important. And since i am proving things that debunk the general principles of the whole flat earth model, and you are pointing out random things that you think show a photoshopped photo or whatever else, you are kind of just reaching for things that justify something being wrong while i'm going with a model that is consistent with way more evidence. You seem biased towards the idea that there has to be a conspiracy going on here although you would also have bias just because you have said you are semi convinced by flat earth for a while now so going back on it now would mean you were just wrong all along.

Can you answer this mystery? No one else I asked had any explanation. If the moon is 1/4 the size of the earth, then shouldn't the earth be four times bigger from the moon's sky than the moon is from the earth's sky?

https://claborastro.files.wordpress.com ... ollo-8.jpg
I'm pretty sure it depends on the camera lens how big the earth would look. As you can tell with this Earthrise photo the earth looks quite a bit bigger than in that other photo. And significantly larger than the moon usually looks from earth. In a supermoon the moon can look bigger but that doesn't mean it actually grew in size. Either way, the earthrise photo has the earth significantly bigger, probably 2x at least, compared to how big the moon usually looks in the skyline. Since the moon is nine earths away in distance you wouldn't expect the earth to look so massive in its skyline as that theory pic you posted shows, that would mostly fit if it was like a satellite in orbit that was 1 or so Earths away in distance.

Also if there's no up or down in space, then how do you explain this:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronom ... video.html
These ones are not going up from below the horizon. But if you look towards the top of the picture, you can definitely tell some of these meteors are going 'up' from the viewers perspective away from the radiant point where they diverge. If you went 5 miles directly backwards and looked at that same thing from 1 Horizon behind this person shooting the photo(AKA, none of the shooting stars are in your field of view yet and are blocked by the horizon for now), that 2nd person would eventually see those ones going 'up' from the horizon into their field of view.

Remember when i showed you a picture of Anti-Crepuscular rays earlier, the ones that come from BELOW the horizon? This isn't that different. Both of these things don't fit the flat earth model at all.

Is that a fake quote from einstein? Are you 100% sure it is real?

The meme you posted after that ignores that the constellations have slightly changed over the last few thousand years.

Polaris is ridiculously distant from earth. It doesn't seem like it moves because the earth essentially always remains the same distance from it, its orbit around the sun makes no significant difference in distance at all.

I already explained the Crepuscular rays earlier and showed you how 99% of the time, if Crepuscular rays converge to show the Sun is nearby, that is inconsistent with the FE model as the Sun only floats over a rare few spots of land on the earth in that model.

Edit:Here is a picture that will show you just how obviously wrong flat earth is on this Crepuscular ray belief. It's the path of the sun on the flat earth model.
https://i0.wp.com/flatearthdeception.co ... =482%2C482

If you look at the spots the sun is directly hovering over, there are very few. And actually most of the path is over ocean. The red line of the sun's path goes over a few spots in africa, a few spots over South America, and then maybe 1 or two spots in the Phillipines. I doubt most Flat Earthers even realize this, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the sun to be near as they calculate in their model. And even if this photo i use isn't the right flat earth mode and the small ring of the sun's circuit goes over different places, there's still a 99.9% chance any given Flat Earth argument on crepuscular rays could never be on the ring the sun is actually supposed to be on in the flat earth. Now we can prove this because crepuscular ray pictures usually have the sun being supposedly above a cloud or something with its position calculated by the angle of the rays and finding the vanishing point, so there's no way Flat Earthers can argue it's actually very far away and still on its predicted sun circuit ring.

Another important point is that the sun is moving very very very fast in the Flat Earth model, enough to circle around its circuit in 24 hours. So the sun if it actually was directly overhead of you would literally just zip past you in an instant. You would not have these long periods of time to witness crepuscular rays, where it seems like the sun is just staying over some individual cloud for a long period of time allowing a nice photo to be taken of it.

So when people assume crepuscular rays show it is behind some cloud 5 miles away that has a 99.9% chance of being impossible on the flat earth model. Also, the most common flat earth models say the sun is 3000 miles up or something so the positions the crepuscular rays would predict it to be at are wrong.

It's obvious those photos of earth are zoomed in to different degrees. Obviously North America does not actually cover 50% of the planet or whatever as the dishonest Flat Earther posting that meme made it seem like NASA is saying with that photo.

Something I have noticed about Flat Earth as a movement is they spend most of their energy trying to discredit the globe model rather than upholding their own as focusing on flat earth for too long reveals it is obviously stupid. Why is the earth Flat? "Goddunit" is the usual answer, and so is the answer for why the sun and moon float, or 'what is outside of the dome?' and many other things. Or what does the Flat earth rest on top of? Why do we see very Round looking planets in the distance like Mars or Jupiter?Also you can just get a telescope yourself, we do not get all our pics of these planets from NASA. How come Jupiter has rings that seem to very much fit the theory of gravitation? Why is the Dome magically invisible? What material is the dome made out of and how does it support itself with no structural supports over such a big distance? They turn all of their questions on the 'enemy' model and not their own since they have to make up excuses for supporting flat earth and they are flimsy ones. Like the Invisible Black Sun Eric Dubay believes in, that's invisible 99% of the time and conveniently covers up the sun at certain times to explain eclipses.

[gsjackson]

@Winston

@Aron
Hold your horses. How can I reply to your posts right away? The universe puts new stuff on my plate everyday. I can't get to a lot of stuff, especially trivial stuff like this.

Normally i would agree with you but when you post in this thread again and specifically ignore me, instead making a generic post about a flat earth t shirt to everyone else, it makes it seem like you're ignoring me. Maybe you forgot about the thread and didn't want to respond to a long post, but either way I posted that last post mainly so later posters in this thread, whether they are you or someone else, do not just post Flat Earth comments without addressing anything i said and skip over the arguments.

We are going around in circles. I told you earlier, gravity is a theory, even if there is a formula for it. You cannot demonstrate in a lab that the mass of an object creates a force that pulls smaller objects to it. So they say gravity works only with large planetary bodies, not with rocks, boulders or mountains. I told you, it's a story and theory. You take it on faith. It's not provable or factual. It's just an explanation. And yeah they can add any ad hoc explanation to make it fit, even ad hoc that is made up out of thin air. Doesn't mean it's true. You don't get that do you?

I am not a physicist and it's not like I can demonstrate all the details of universal gravitation to you and its mechanics. But there are experiments you can make to provide evidence for gravity that are somewhat reasonable even with just a common sense analysis that doesn't look at the detailed science. Smaller objects do fall to the ground, which fits with the theory of gravity and it seems intuitive enough to me that this finally offers a consistent explanation both for how the planets move and how small objects move. Which used to seem like separate things that couldn't be explained with one unified theory.

Earlier on it would have been harder to directly prove gravity but now we have satellites out orbiting the earth that you can see with a telescope you buy yourself so it's pretty well demonstrated that non planetary objects do get affected by gravity. There are objects like the moons of planets which at certain sizes are always spheroids no matter what, this is pretty good evidence of gravity. If gravity wasn't pulling these objects together and smoothing them out, for all we know there could be spiky planets or a lot of planets that look like asteroids and are very rough and uneven with big bumps that go far beyond the surface. But there aren't any, gravity smooths them out because all the mass attracts the other mass. Anyone with a telescope they can buy themselves can see these planets, gravity seems like a reasonable explanation for their shape. And that's just one of a million ways in which gravity can be shown.

Do you also believe in dark matter and dark energy too? Or multiple universes? Just because physicists say they must exist? Again, that is all ad hoc.

I am not convinced in Parallel Universes. They're far more abstract and unproven than the theory of gravity. As for dark matter and dark energy, i have no idea. But gravity is a lot more intuitive and common sense than these ideas and you can see examples of gravity all over the place.

Do you believe in the big bang theory too? Just because it's official and in textbooks, even though there's no proof for it? Even though explosions create chaos, not order? What happens when an atomic bomb is dropped? Does that create life? lol

I'm actually not so sure about the big bang theory for one viable reason, there is no known mechanism for the massive expansion of space to slow down so significantly rather than continuing in its exponential burst of expansion. I don't know how the origin of the universe, if there was any, would have worked, but given the current rate of expansion it might make more sense for the universe to just have gradually expanded over time at a steady rate. But at least the people proposing it have some sort of idea how it might have happened and just try to base it on evidence. Better than those Creationists for sure. Who happen to be the main people behind the Flat Earth theory, very biased people who have an agenda to reject and suppress any contrary evidence that goes against their beliefs, like how the Church treated Galileo for disproving their Geocentrist dogma which was just a substitute for their obviously disproven Flat Earth dogma they used before that.

Do you believe in macroevolution, just because academics say so, even though they haven't a shred of evidence for it? If so see here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=30590&p=310754#p310754

Macro evolution is just an extension of normal evolution. It's not like i've lived long enough to watch a species macro evolve but the fossil record evidence seems reasonable enough as a proof.

I told you already, the earth is moving only in the solar system model, not in reality. There's simply no proof at all that the earth is in any kind of motion. Show me objective proof.

As the earth moves there are changes in what stars are visible due to things like the sun getting in the way or the moon just getting in the way. If we had a colony on another planet that would be the most obvious evidence, as you could then just watch a recording of an observed earth moving in the distance, but we don't need to.

When you open a can of coke, do you notice how the can is immediately depressurized? That's because a vacuum adjacent to air and atmosphere is immediately filled. They cannot coexist adjacently.

I already said how the atmosphere gradually thins out as you go higher up, everyone knows this, mountains have less air. There's no sudden shift to vacuum. Also jet fighters require oxygen mask if they go high enough up because the atmosphere thins out. It won't all suddenly depressurize, gravity pulls it down.

How do you know space is a vacuum? Have you been there? How do you know there isn't a dome barrier or firmament? Why do all rockets fly sideways into space, never straight up? Not even one rocket can reach space flying straight up. Why? Isn't that odd?

Unfortunately i haven't been to space. But i can tell there isn't a dome barrier. Rockets do not fly sideways or straight up, they are sent upwards like this:
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/unive ... space.html
It's because they're supposed to get into orbit so a curved path would make sense. Otherwise you would overshoot orbit and have to maneuver back down into orbit and waste fuel.

For why there isn't a dome barrier, can you explain the engineering mechanics of such a big barrier, that has no structural supports? A big dome like that would collapse. And there's no good explanation of how it got there other than "Goddunit". Also, why is the dome invisible?

Have you heard of Operation Fish Bowl in the 1950's? Why do you think they call it "fish bowl" if there's no dome? Why would they explode missiles in the sky if there were no dome?

Never heard of it. Supposedly it's a nuclear test. They explode missles in the sky to test the nukes presumably. Blowing up a magical invisible floating dome with an invisible ocean above it waiting to drown humanity would be stupid anyways.

About the blue marble photo, NASA says all earth photos are photoshopped. Remember? They said that on TV. Haven't you seen the science programs?

That's a misquote some flat earthers you listened to made. The specific earth photos which are composed of a ton of satellite pics, are photoshopped, but the photoshop is just connecting a ton of photos of different sections of earth together into one big composite. They don't just make it all up.

The point is, why during 6 Apollo moon missions did they only snap ONE photo of earth? The one you see in textbooks that shows Africa on it. You didn't answer that.

They had the Earthrise photo too. That's two photos. As for why, who knows? You not having every question of yours about any Space related phenomenon does not make the earth flat and does not make physics stop existing.

About Antarctica. Well if you take a plane tour, you are not in control of where you go. The tour company is. As long as they comply with the government they are allowed to run those tours. They are very expensive too. Only a few can afford them.

Yeah but as i mentioned before you could still prove flat earth wrong if you took one of those tours at the right time. If you are above antartica and it is sunny when flat earth map says it should not be sunny in this location at this time due to the floating magical sun being on the other side of the grid it goes on, that's solid evidence against flat earth. Shouldn't Eric Dubay or other big flat earthers have enough money to do this?

What no one is asking is this: What's to stop a private plane owner from taking his plane in Australia or New Zealand or Chile and flying south to Antarctica? If he tried that, would he be met by jet fighters ordering him to turn around? No one is asking this question for some reason. People seem to be stupid.

No idea. I haven't looked up anything about what would happen there.

If gravity is so consistent then why doesn't it pull the Moon down into Earth? Why is it in a perfect consistent orbit?

Well, it may not eternally stay in the same orbit forever. But in human time span it wouldn't matter. For example scientists say the earth will eventually be pulled into the sun and burn up within billions of years or so, so orbits technically aren't necessarily eternal. But the details of why would be that as the Moon is pulled towards the earth, its rotational speed around the earth is enough to keep it from hitting. If it had a lot more mass this would probably change and the moon would crash into earth destroying all life. Fortunately for everyone that hasn't happened.

My point about religion is that academic science claims that they are not sure how life began but they are sure God didn't do it. So God is not an option or possible answer. How can they be sure God didn't do it? Why do they rule it out? Out of their bias of course.

I agree with you that many academics can be biased about many things. All academics as a rule reject anything paranormal regardless of the evidence. That said the mainstream Christian idea of God does not make sense. AKA, an omnipotent guy who can do anything with a snap of his fingers, and is all benevolent, but does not do anything about the world. You may have a different idea of God but generally scientists are not just going to invoke God when they do not have other explanations.

Do you claim science is objective and neutral? lol

The scientific establishment can have major biases like their financial interest. But the scientific method makes total sense and science as a whole should not be seen as bad just because some scientists are biased.

Why are you so pro-establishment?

I really wouldn't say I am...I generally have a lot of anti-government views as i said in another thread. I'm against compulsory education and think most of the modern education system is just a system of manipulation that destroys students intrinsic motivation. The modern system of work is basically wage slavery and the economy as a whole is based on maintaining cyclical consumption of random new goods rather than addressing human needs. The establishment tends to justify a lot of oppressive things. Even its routine denial of anything 'supernatural' actually ties in very much with how the establishment view rejects free will and sees humans as objects that need to be manipulated with punishments and rewards through incentive systems rather than independent beings with their own desires and needs. So in a lot of ways i agree with you about being anti establishment.

Who do you think created this universe then? You said you are no longer atheist right?

I don't think it was an act by an individual, or at least i've not seen evidence for that.
At some point consciousness arose, or it always existed in some form, but either way more conscious beings
and species arose in the universe one way or another. The christian God doesn't really seem like a viable explanation
for all this.

The sun doesn't need to be far away to dip below the horizon, as long as the earth is a globe,
any object can move to the other side, regardless of how far away it is.[/quote]
Sorry what point did you respond to here? I don't remember. But since the earth is a globe you do need to move some distance
before you are no longer visible. The earth's curvature has to block line of sight between you and the thing you're looking at.
But if you put your head right next to the ground the curvature is going to get in the way more quickly because you're at a lower
angle. While if you are a satellite up orbiting the earth you see way much more.

Good point about the crepuscular sun rays. But do you have any proof that the suns rays are straight and parallel?

I don't own a space satellite or some other method of proof to instantly show you. There's probably proof i can look up
but i haven't done that yet.

Well Eric Dubay says that there are documented times when during an eclipse, you can see the sun and moon in the sky at the same time that the sun is being eclipsed by a black object.
He said it's a third object called a black sun.

But regardless, that doesn't prove the sun must be 93 million miles away.

He can say that if he wants I guess. Since there kind of has to be something in the way. But it's not like that makes the flat model make any more sense, if he wants to improve the flat model he should include the expected position of this Black Sun at any given point in time as the sun and moon move around the model and check for consistency with observed locations and times of eclipses. In other words he would make up an excuse to try to make it fit if he can.

Also the moon does not look 237,000 miles away either. It looks closer than that. Maybe it's a disc shaped object or a projection, not spherical?

The sun doesn't look that far away either but that doesn't mean it's close. Eyes are not telescopes. Do you really want to believe it's a floating disc...It's about as reasonable as a magically floating sphere that circles a track floating above the flat earth that floats in space or is motionless for some reason but really it doesn't make sense.

The two main leaders of the flat earth movement, Eric Dubay and Mark Sargent, are not Christians. So there are many non-Christians in the movement too.

Btw I'm not arguing for a flat earth. I'm just saying that academia and NASA cannot be trusted and have their agendas.
The top astronomers are quoted as saying that heliocentrism is a philosophy, not a scientific fact.
Science openly states that we are insignificant in the universe and there's no room for God. That is a philosophy, not fact or science.

Those two guys are still basing their movement off something originally made up as a Christian excuse. So it doesn't change that something that was made up as an excuse by Christians, somehow is supposed to be the exact truth. Which astronomers and where did you get the quote?

Scientists obviously do have some degree of belief in the materialist norm but that doesn't make science invalid. Similarily paranormal phenomenon can exist without that proving the 'Goddunit' idea many people have about history.

I don't have an official position on gun control. There's no inconsistency there. I don't like vaccines and I don't like guns either, so why would I support either one?

The point is vaccines are generally wrong not just due to the vaccine adjuvants introduced intentionally to make them destroy the immune system, but the fact that they are imposed by force against people's will. Gun control, which should just be renamed gun confiscation, is the same, it's imposed by force on people. The moral principle is anti freedom in both scenarios.

Why would I want every random stranger around, including every nutcase, to have a gun? What if he loses his temper or gets possessed by the dark side or demon or entity or goes mad, and starts shooting everyone? What if you get into a bar fight and the guy pulls a gun on you while drunk? Like in Wild West movies? Why is that a good thing? Why would I want that?

Do you really believe people just get randomly possessed like that? Also gun freedom advocates are not saying everyone should have their own AK 47 and full industrial complex war machine ready to go to take over the rest of the country if they feel like it, along with their own Recreational Nukes if they so wish. Generally people supporting gun rights are saying guns that are not fully automatic, AKA not able to kill loads of people in a few seconds in a room or crowd on a whim, should not be confiscated. Also no not literally any person should be allowed to get a gun, gun rights activists agree on this part too. Although the Democrats in the government want to deem people they do not like like those in the truth movement mentally unsound or use some other excuse that would let them be banned from gun use with new laws.

There are laws against drinking in a bar while carrying a gun concealed or open carry, this isn't the Wild West anymore. You can't even legally
drive drunk let alone have a gun while drunk, and i don't think most of these people in the truth movement think driving drunk should suddenly
be legal now.

Would you want to get on a plane where people are carrying guns and could blow out the window and kill everyone on board?

No, not really...Taking guns away temporarily on a plane isn't the same as confiscating them permanently. Also it's obvious why they are confiscated on planes it's the same as having an AK47 in a crowded room where you could easily kill everyone in a few seconds. Most people in the truth movement would not want to make fully automatic guns legal.

What if I support banning guns for both civilians and for policemen? Would that be inconsistent?
In Britain, the cops did not historically carry guns either. I don't know about now, but that's been the tradition. What if that was the case in America too?

Why are guns a religion in America? Even if I liked guns, I wouldn't want them to become a religion. That's stupid.

Yet everyone in the truther and patriot movement follow this gun religion like sheep and never question it. Including Mark Passio. I'm glad David Icke doesn't talk about it much.

See more in my gun control thread if you wanna discuss it there:
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=27307

Banning guns for the civilians and also the police theoretically would prevent the police from abusing their power but you have to look at the details. Since in Europe and countries like Britain what that means is people are left open to criminal migrants who bring in guns due to EU policies. Talking about theoretical scenarios doesn't help address the real cases of gun control where it has definitely not worked. Also the police get to use guns in Europe, Britain is one of a few exceptions where most of the police do not have any guns.

I see nothing wrong with normal individual civilians having guns, you can't equate responsible gun ownership to the Wild West. It's a valid self defense tool. Although guns work as a deterrent for civilians to not be oppressed by 1 or 2 policemen they are not going to beat a SWAT team and they are not going to beat the military industrial machine for sure if the government declares martial law.

Overall this whole gun debate does not address some systemic issues though. Which i guess i should have addressed earlier in this thread. One is that the military industrial complex and its need to constantly have new wars to maintain cyclical consumption of goods and continue capitalism is a serious threat to any country and the whole planet in general, guns or no guns. I agree with you that there are problems in the gun culture. Americans become complacent in assuming things are not so bad if they have a gun when that is not really the case, and the government could definitely kill them all if the wrong things happen. Like if a lot of gun carrying drones are allowed to get mass produced that can then just kill any American the government wants to kill with little possible retalliation.

As for why people even need guns, it's because they have good reason to fear crime or oppression, but that's the situation we're in with society as it is. I do not believe that in an ideal society anyone would even carry guns, although they'd probably be allowed to. In a much more ideal society the underlying issues like crime and oppression would be obsolete because the society would be addressing people's needs in as open source and non-hierarchical of a way as possible, nobody would have much incentive to steal if their needs were met. That said we are not there yet, and the establishment overall is not moving in that direction and will not as long as capitalism continues as it is now.
[/quote]

I don't have time right now to weigh in on flat earth, but on macroevolution you refer to "the fossil record" as evidence that speaks for itself, and dispositively. It would be great if you would take whatever you think that fossil record is and see how it stands up to Eric Dubay's debunking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H85QzFpTS6U&t=2889s

My understanding of the fossil record is that it not only fails to prove macroevolution, it pretty much disproves it through the glaring lack of transitional fossils.

[Aron]

@gsjackson
I'm watching the part where he tries to explain away evolution from fish to land animals as impossible, he is just ignoring obvious facts.He does not realize that through gradual micro evolution fish could become able to survive near land more often and for longer, there are fish today which prove this transition. These fish have bottom fins that are supported by bones, which is what is suspected to be the reason they were able to evolve into eventually having better and better bottom fins for moving on land that at some point resembled feet.
https://www.thoughtco.com/tetrapods-the ... er-1093319

It's not just the Fossil Record that proves evolution, there are living species today which give us evidence of how it happened back then, evolution does not mean that old species disappear.

[Aron]

Since @Adama the dumbass, the main one who promoted Flat Earth BS here, seems to no longer be posting in this forum I am hoping this thread is dead now and nobody on the site is going to defend flat earth again when it's clearly proven wrong. @Winston by not responding this long has shown he does not have an answer on how flat earth could be true and same goes with @gsjackson .
So plz people do not advocate this Flat Erf nonsense...It just makes you look really stupid when you say it...

Every time you hear a Flat Earther spout a few random Flat Earth points that they copied without thinking from some con man like Eric Dubay please ask them to turn their critical eye towards their own Flat Earth beliefs to see how long they last. If they question the principles that the flat earth universe is supposed to operate by they will figure out it quickly falls apart and doesn't make sense.

[gsjackson]

Since @Adama the dumbass, the main one who promoted Flat Earth BS here, seems to no longer be posting in this forum I am hoping this thread is dead now and nobody on the site is going to defend flat earth again when it's clearly proven wrong. @Winston by not responding this long has shown he does not have an answer on how flat earth could be true and same goes with @gsjackson .
So plz people do not advocate this Flat Erf nonsense...It just makes you look really stupid when you say it...

Every time you hear a Flat Earther spout a few random Flat Earth points that they copied without thinking from some con man like Eric Dubay please ask them to turn their critical eye towards their own Flat Earth beliefs to see how long they last. If they question the principles that the flat earth universe is supposed to operate by they will figure out it quickly falls apart and doesn't make sense.

You're very young, aren't you? This thread thrashed itself out for over two years before you showed up. I glanced over some of your posts and saw that they added nothing new and demonstrated no familiarity at all with flat earth arguments. Just pretentious word salads that made no compelling arguments. If you want to engage with people arguing for a flat earth, go to the thousands of youtube videos and join all the debunkers hurling their zingers -- like "you're a dumbass." Adama still posts under another name, but doesn't have time for sophistry.

[Aron]

@gsjackson

So your goal posts for me to meet if i want to convince you are that I must convince the many people in youtube. The channel owners already invested into profiting off the Flat Earth movement who have a monetary incentive to reject any evidence against their theories even if the theory is wrong. Specifically the owners of big flat earth channels like Eric Dubay or jeranism. These people will never learn as it would make them lose a lot of money to go back on their flat earth views. While the type of people posting in comments on any given video that you want me to argue with are extremely variable from video to video and could randomly disappear any moment, it's far less reliable in a large forum type like Youtube to know if you have convinced anyone at all than here where there are a limited number of posters and you can tell who is who.

I realize that even if someone disengages from a conversation their views could easily remain the same. And there are cases where the person who stops talking is ultimately right and just gets tired of talking. None of this changes the facts against Flat Earth though and shows the position to be rationally valid. As i did earlier in the thread by debunking all of winston's main Flat Earth arguments.

Yes I know that people argued in this thread long before i posted in it. Why do you think I mentioned Adama as an old poster in the first place, I am trying to narrow down who among current posters who I have talked to so far about the subject, believes in Flat Earth or is unsure about the topic. If he posts under another name then I wouldn't know. Here's a list of what i can tell so far. Sorry if I placed you wrongly in the Flat Earth camp when maybe you are simply in Group 1 and are not convinced either way.
People who are skeptical of normal cosmology and are semi convinced by some Flat Earth arguments:
Cornfed
Winston
People who seem to be Flat Earthers:
gsjackson
People who believe the Flat Earth theory is false:
Aron
Moretorque


I shouldn't need to go through all the arguments listed in this entire 70 page thread for you to be convinced. You could take the effort to reference the ones that convince you, as Winston did, so i can go through them and disprove them. But you don't seem willing to engage in any dialogue here and don't want to take the effort to possibly change your views. For someone claiming i am a sophist spouting word salads you were awfully unspecific and did not reference any specific flaws in what i said or any examples of my word salad to prove your point. Please do that in your next response if you're going to keep saying it, so i am not just sitting here responding to a substance-less post once more.

Also to address your upsetness about me saying Adama is a dumbass, I guess i should reference his fundie Christian beliefs. So if you don't share those Christian beliefs you can see where i'm coming from here that he is clearly a dumbass in that way, fundamentalist Christians are closed minded and cannot update their belief systems when proven wrong. They are all about obedience to authority regardless of right and wrong since that's what their religion tells them, obey God or go burn in hell forever and be tortured. How does that not fit the dumbass accusation I made? Maybe that is not specific enough a word to precisely describe Adama's issues in the best of ways, but it's true enough.

[gsjackson]

Put me in the first category, with a strong lean toward FE. Truthseeker is a flat earther. There are lots of other globalists who have put in a dyspeptic appearance on this thread. It is, after all, the conventional wisdom.

You cannot convince me that the sun is 93 million miles away. You cannot convince me that the earth is spinning around 1,000 mph at the equator, while it hurtles through space at 66,000 mph, in a solar system that is traveling 1.3 million mph, or whatever it is. You cannot convince me that I can see stars that are trillions of miles away. You cannot convince me that the earth curves eight inches per mile squared when I have looked out over an expanse of 120 miles and seen no curve, and looked down from 35,000 feet and seen no curve. You cannot convince me that the big bang is anything but science fiction.

No less an eminence than Stephen Hawking has said that the Ptolemaic system and the Copernican system explain the known facts equally well. You're not going to convince anybody on this thread of anything unless you bring something new, and I don't know what that would be. Going over the same old ground -- blah. Not to discourage your eagerness to engage on an interesting and obviously important topic, but I think everybody here is worn out beating on it in this forum. It got kind of nasty at times.

[Aron]

@gsjackson

Put me in the first category, with a strong lean toward FE. Truthseeker is a flat earther. There are lots of other globalists who have put in a dyspeptic appearance on this thread. It is, after all, the conventional wisdom.

Well at least you are not a 'full' flat earther, whatever that means. Although you do seem to believe a lot of their points which is unfortunate.

You cannot convince me that the sun is 93 million miles away. You cannot convince me that the earth is spinning around 1,000 mph at the equator, while it hurtles through space at 66,000 mph, in a solar system that is traveling 1.3 million mph, or whatever it is. You cannot convince me that I can see stars that are trillions of miles away. You cannot convince me that the earth curves eight inches per mile squared when I have looked out over an expanse of 120 miles and seen no curve, and looked down from 35,000 feet and seen no curve. You cannot convince me that the big bang is anything but science fiction.

OK it seems like your main argument here is personal experience which you interpreted as proving flat earth. How do you know you were looking over a 120 mile expanse? I guess i need to check for you how much of a curve you're supposed to see at 35'000 feet and if it's to a degree where it would be obvious. But i'm pretty sure your standard commercial airliner doesn't go so high that it is an infinitely obvious curve. Although you could see it at plenty of heights if you tried and scientifically measured it in detail with the right equipment without just eyeballing it.

No less an eminence than Stephen Hawking has said that the Ptolemaic system and the Copernican system explain the known facts equally well. You're not going to convince anybody on this thread of anything unless you bring something new, and I don't know what that would be. Going over the same old ground -- blah. Not to discourage your eagerness to engage on an interesting and obviously important topic, but I think everybody here is worn out beating on it in this forum. It got kind of nasty at times.

I'm going to have to ask where you got your source on that one since what is probably going to happen if i take a few minutes googling this claim about stephen hawking, is i'm going to find Stephen Hawking himself saying it's a fake quote, that you heard from a flat earther who copied the claim from another one all the way back to someone who originally lied. Also Ptolemy while he was not right about astronomy he did not claim Flat Earth, he only claimed Geocentrism and those are not compatible positions. I guess some Flat Earthers out there will use geocentrist arguments sometimes when they think they only serve to disprove Round Earth, and say the evidence for Geocentrism they present is wrong,but Geocentrists in general certainly didn't think so. And to me when the flat earthers do this they undermine themselves since then they get people to think critically about a model that is incompatible with modern cosmology. They would need to be careful about doing this since if people learn certain aspects of geocentrism are wrong for the reasons modern astronomy claims they will then figure out flat earth is wrong too. A delicate illusion so to speak.

Well I'm not trying to be nasty. But i wonder what exactly is required to make new points here, the main Flat Earth arguments are things like Eric Dubay's many claims and those of the Flat Earth society. Ultimately it's going to revolve around the same central issues of astronomy and what we know about the earth. If you could just say which Eric Dubay points i need to try to disprove that would help. Or if it's not that, then what else. Crepuscular rays, the Flat Earth version of eclipses, the motion of the stars, or whatever else it is.

If you don't want to argue about it, I get that that doesn't mean you've changed your mind. If Adama was here I would give up eventually if he 10 times in a row did not really respond to anything i said in a coherent way and just repeated the same thing, while adding in his fundie beliefs and telling everyone who doesn't believe them to burn in hell. So I sort of get your point in the context of long discussions in general. I just don't see why you're on the other side of the discussion this time.

[Moretorque]

Radar proves the earth is round, there is no reason too insult Adama in such a way. He is a direct pipeline to God you know......

[gsjackson]

Real quickly:

I could see Mt. Lassen and Mt. Shasta, and everything in between from an overlook in the Sierras. It's 120 miles between the two mountains. That's supposed to be over a mile and a half of curvature. None is visible.

When ascending in an airplane the horizon continuously rises to eye level. On a clear day in the Southwest at cruising altitude you can see 100 miles in either direction. No curvature.

I don't recall the video, but I'm pretty sure I heard Hawking himself speak those words, and recently (that is, on a recently circulated FE video). It's been alleged by several flat earthers that he did.

[Aron]

@gsjackson

How high up is the overlook? Something you should be aware of is you were on top of a mountain. And on mountains you can see over a lot more curvature because you're at a higher altitude.

The horizon does not 'rise' to eye level. The reason it looks that way is because you are not so high up that you no longer see a horizon AKA you are in orbit. That's how high up you have to be for the horizon to disappear.

Airplanes fly higher than mountains are at in altitude so it's no wonder you see far. Here's a calculator saying how far you're supposed to be able to see. Tell me the cruising altitude and i'll check if what you said is compatible.
http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

Well you have no video to reference so here is what probably happened:The Flat Earthers cherry picked some quote where Hawking's describing the opinion someone else has and later in the video he says why he's against it, but they leave that part out. Somewhat similar to what they did in misquoting NeildeGrasse Tyson about the 'pear shaped' earth, although in that case they just left out how he said that it's only very very slightly pear shaped/fatter on the equator and to a human's eye it still looks like a perfect sphere.

[gsjackson]

@gsjackson

How high up is the overlook? Something you should be aware of is you were on top of a mountain. And on mountains you can see over a lot more curvature because you're at a higher altitude.

The horizon does not 'rise' to eye level. The reason it looks that way is because you are not so high up that you no longer see a horizon AKA you are in orbit. That's how high up you have to be for the horizon to disappear.

Airplanes fly higher than mountains are at in altitude so it's no wonder you see far. Here's a calculator saying how far you're supposed to be able to see. Tell me the cruising altitude and i'll check if what you said is compatible.
http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm

Well you have no video to reference so here is what probably happened:The Flat Earthers cherry picked some quote where Hawking's describing the opinion someone else has and later in the video he says why he's against it, but they leave that part out. Somewhat similar to what they did in misquoting NeildeGrasse Tyson about the 'pear shaped' earth, although in that case they just left out how he said that it's only very very slightly pear shaped/fatter on the equator and to a human's eye it still looks like a perfect sphere.

I wasn't on a high mountain. I'm not even sure it was still the Sierras that far north. I was at elevation, but probably not over 5,000 feet. I don't know what "see over a lot more curvature" means. I was probably 40 miles away from a line directly connecting the two mountains, and if there had been a mile and a half of curvature I would have noticed it.

I don't know what your second paragraph means.

That calculator is bogus. It says the horizon is 7.2 miles away at 35,000 feet. WTF? From an elevation of 4,000 feet here in Tucson I can see Mexico 60 miles away, so I'm pretty sure I can see further than that at 35,000.

OK, a pear-shaped object that looks like a perfect sphere. Right. Guess NASA reminded Tyson afterwards that the "photos" they've been producing have been of perfect spheres. We can all speculate about what was in videos we haven't seen, but what's the point? Obviously, Hawking opted for the Copernican theory, but I suspect he was correct that the Ptolemaic system lines up geometrically just as well, with the advantage that it doesn't have to invent ludicrous distances -- such as the sun 93 million miles away, and the stars quadrillions -- to make it all work out. You know, you can get a look at the sun from 35,000 feet up too, and it looks decidedly closer than on the ground. In the Andes they will tell you not to stay out in it very long if you go up another few thousand feet because of the greater intensity. Is that distance really going to make such a difference if it's 93 million miles away?