[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/x/ - Paranormal



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: file.png (562 KB, 860x684)
562 KB
562 KB PNG
I have 4 questions for you. Please try answering them. Keep in mind, i'm not 100% a flat earth denier. I simply have some questions i haven' been able to answer elsewhere.
1. Look up at the night sky. You see stars, planets, etc. that aren't within the earth's radius. How do you explain the existence of them?
2. On a somewhat similar note, if the earth is moving at 9.2m/s upwards, is the rest of the universe moving along with it?
3. What is it that keeps the earth moving perfectly straight upwards? Shouldn't it tip over from uneven mass on different parts?
4. How do you explain GPS? It's a system that tracks the movements of devices connected through it, supposedly with sattelites. But since satttelittes could only work on a round earth, how does it work?
>>
>>22028125
>1. Look up at the night sky. You see stars, planets, etc. that aren't within the earth's radius. How do you explain the existence of them?
What are you claiming stars and planets to be? I don't know what they are, and I'm not going to make up some bullshit story like the big bang to explain them.
>2. On a somewhat similar note, if the earth is moving at 9.2m/s upwards, is the rest of the universe moving along with it?
The earth isn't moving.
>3. What is it that keeps the earth moving perfectly straight upwards? Shouldn't it tip over from uneven mass on different parts?
The earth isn't moving.
>4. How do you explain GPS? It's a system that tracks the movements of devices connected through it, supposedly with sattelites. But since satttelittes could only work on a round earth, how does it work?
Satellites can work on a flat earth, just not by using "gravity". GPS can also work using towers that triangulate. You can also bounce radio waves off the "ionosphere". There are satellites on weather balloons too.
>>
File: bedford-level-768x768.jpg (154 KB, 768x768)
154 KB
154 KB JPG
>>
>>22028476
>GPS can also work using towers that triangulate. You can also bounce radio waves off the "ionosphere".
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave
>VHFsignals with frequencies above about 30MHz usually penetrate the ionosphere and are not returned to the Earth's surface.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals
GPS operates at 1575.42 MHz
Satellite TV is measured in the gigahertz.
>>
>>22028125
Can someone tell who was the popular Flat Earther youtuber who was identified as CIA
Been looking for it but can't find anything
>>
>>22028483
You can bounce radio waves of a certain frequency from the "sky", who is to say that 1575.42 MHz isn't just another one of those frequencies that they've covered up as being satellites?
>>
>>22028504
>if I shine a light underwater at night, it reflects off the surface
>>
>>22028489
Mart boylan
eric dubay
flat earth and other hot potatoes
>>
>>22028504
I'm not sure what you're saying? The limit that ionosphere bouncing works at is roughly 30MHz. Signals above that simply won't bounce back. You can clearly measure from a proper receiver that the GPS signal you are receiving is in fact in the ballpark of 1500MHz, which completely rules out skywave propagation. Satellite TV confirms this even further as that uses signals in the gigahertz.
>>
>>22028518
Wait, do you actually believe that satellites are orbiting the earth at 1000s of miles per hour, and are compensating for time dilation as per Einstein's relativity?
>>
>>22028476
If you say that earth is not moving, do you implicate that gravity is holding us on that "flat earth" ?
So if that was the case, gravity wouldn't pull us "downwards", but rather to the center of mass(north pole).
>>
>>22028536
It is well documented that GPS satellites account for time dilation, otherwise they would not be able to maintain their accuracy. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
>>
>>22028535
So firing a radio wave towards the sky at a frequency of 1500MHz won't bounce back?
>>
>>22028539
What about an infinite earth?
>>
>>22028555
No. If you want to go against all of accepted science then you're welcome to try and broadcast such a signal and have a friend receive it in a different location. I'd be interested to see your results.
>>
>>22028549
>GPS satellites account for time dilation
But do you realise this is mathematically impossible? Why? Because there are too many variables at play in the real world. The atmosphere is constantly changing in both density and temperature. So called "satellites" are constantly changing speed and elevation slightly as they supposedly "orbit".
>>
>>22028576
How do satellite phones work then?
>>
>>22028578
>But do you realise this is mathematically impossible?
No, it is very much mathematically possible. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in not only GPS but GLONASS, BeiDou and Galileo. Just because you can't understand the science behind it doesn't mean it isn't real.
>>
>>22028585
It sends out a signal at 1600MHz which penetrates the ionosphere as expected, is picked up by a satellite which relays it on to the nearest satellite to the person you're calling which then broadcasts the signal down to said person.
>>
>>22028125
1. Where else would they be?

2. Hypothetical question

3. Also hypothetical

4. Radio towers
>>
>>22028598
>Radio towers
>>22028483
>>
>>22028125
>flat earth denier.

That's not a term. There are spherical-earth-deniers. And then there are normal, reasonable people.
>>
>>22028521
Thanks anon been looking for this
>>
>>22028586
>No, it is very much mathematically possible.
You think you can account for time dilation in the dynamic, random, physical world, purely with mathematical equations? Don't you realise that any error will compound to the point of GPS being useless?
>Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in not only GPS but GLONASS, BeiDou and Galileo.
Nothing weird about so much money and effort being invested by the American government/military for the benefit of every nation to have GPS...
>Just because you can't understand the science behind it doesn't mean it isn't real.
You understand it do you?
>>
>>22028594
So the signal does bounce, only it bounces off a satellite, is that correct?
>>
>>22028623
>You think you can account for time dilation in the dynamic, random, physical world, purely with mathematical equations? Don't you realise that any error will compound to the point of GPS being useless?
Here is a good document that goes into how they deal with atmospheric refraction. I suggest you read it.
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1719
>>
>>22028629
No, not really. It is received by one satellite and relayed onto another. The term "bouncing" is sometimes used as slang for this process, but the signal isn't physically bouncing off the satellite.
>>
>>22028640
>Here is a good document that goes into how they deal with atmospheric refraction. I suggest you read it.
Jej, doesn't explain it all. Do you agree that the atmosphere is random? Do you see the issue?
>>
>>22028672
>doesn't explain it all
Yes it does, if you want even more detail I suggest you do your own research into it, I'm not your personal assistant. Why don't you contact someone who is involved in GPS and see if they'll give you a look at their error correction algorithms? The burden of proof is on you to disprove GPS satellites so I trust that you'll put the effort in. Goodbye.
>>
>>22028672
>>22028623
https://earth-planets-space.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/BF03352518
>>
>>22028646
>No, not really. It is received by one satellite and relayed onto another. The term "bouncing" is sometimes used as slang for this process, but the signal isn't physically bouncing off the satellite.
Jej, how would you know the difference?
>>
>>22028694
The difference between what?
>>
>>22028689
>Yes it does, if you want even more detail I suggest you do your own research into it, I'm not your personal assistant.
Erm excuse me. You can't start having a debate about GPS and then when challenged simply claim it's not your debate any more.

Does the atmosphere change dynamically, yes or no?
>>
>>22028717
>Does the atmosphere change dynamically, yes or no?
Yes, and we can model and predict this change the same way we can predict the weather fairly accurately over short timescales. Did you read both the documents in their entirety?
>>
>>22028717
>having a debate
You've yet to put forward a viable alternative for satellite-based GPS
>>
>>22028692
Can you explain what that article is talking about? If you think it supports the idea of orbital satellites accounting for time dilation you are greatly mistaken.
>>
>>22028701
You claim satellites emit a received signal to each other which then gets emitted back to the earth. Proof?
>>
>>22028740
Did you even skim the article? It's clearly to do with atmospheric correction, not time dilation.
>>
>>22028724
>we can model and predict this change the same way we can predict the weather fairly accurately over short timescales. Did you read both the documents in their entirety?
I don't think you quite understand how many variables are involved.
>>
Reminder that there NO photographs of any of the thousands of satellites supposedly in orbit
>>
>>22028750
Jej shifting the burden of proof. You're the one claiming satellites don't exist, so prove to me how both satellite phones and GPS work in areas of absolutely no cell coverage given that we've already ruled out ionosphere bouncing for either.
>>
>>22028756
I don't think you understand how big satellites actually are
>>
>>22028727
You've yet to prove that satellite-based GPS is viable.
>>
>>22028754
Are you saying we can't accurately predict the weather for very short timescales?
>>
>>22028536
yes. maybe? idk. sure, whatever.
>>
>>22028761
See
>>22028757
>>
File: vO7lRZ7.png (56 KB, 621x702)
56 KB
56 KB PNG
>>22028761
You're the one going against pretty much every accepted piece of information on satellite navigation tech, it's up to you to disprove it, not for him to prove it.
>>
>>22028759
Trick question, they don't exist.
>>
>>22028751
>It's clearly to do with atmospheric correction, not time dilation
What does the "atmospheric correction" correct?
>>
>>22028757
>You're the one claiming satellites don't exist
I claim they don't exist in the way you think they do. You have no evidence they exist as you believe them to.

If there are machines in the sky relaying signals around, then they are near enough stationary, or moving slowly, they are not very high, and are not launched by extremely expensive rocket launches.
>>
>>22028762
There's a difference between accurately "predicting" the weather for very short timescales, and accounting for the infinite dynamic variables involved in a radio wave propagating through the atmosphere.
>>
>>22028765
*pats head*
>>
File: 1490327331278.jpg (72 KB, 540x960)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>22028825
>>
>>22028770
Do satellites operate using Newtionian or Einsteinian physics?
>>
>>22028828
Who was Wernher Von Braun?
>>
File: proof.png (415 KB, 597x597)
415 KB
415 KB PNG
>>22028125
>i'm not 100% a flat earth denier
So you are a round earth apologist then? Fuck you OP. The Earth is flat. Just look out the window and tell me how many balls you see. FLAT.
>>
To everyone claiming the earth is stationary:
What keeps it stationary?
>>
>>22028894
Why do you assume it needs to be "kept" stationary?
>>
>>22028916
I'll admit, that's a good point, and i can't provide a reason for why it needs to be kept stationary.
Another question then.
All other flat earthers have claimed that the earth is moving 9.2m/s upwards, and that's why we fall down when jumping, among other things. What explanation for this do you have with a stationary earth?
>>
>>22028943
Who claimed that? I don't think I've seen that claim by anyone before. The earth is stationary, that's the consensus flat earth opinion
>>
>>22028960
Then what makes us fall down after jumping?
>>
>>22028943
>All other flat earthers have claimed that the earth is moving 9.2m/s upwards
No they don't. Most "flat earthers" are shills/agents for the retarded dome model, but they still claim the earth is stationary.
>What explanation for this do you have with a stationary earth?
Why is one necessary? If I claim that a helium balloon is curved, do I need to explain why it flies up when let go to prove it is curved?
>>
>>22028962
What would make them not? Why would they float?
>>
>>22028965
..what?
How does that analogy make any sense?
I'm asking you to provide an explanation for a phenomenon that can be explained on the globe model.
To answer your question, the helium floats because it's lighter, and makes a sphere because that's the shape that most easily concentrates mass.
According to the globe model, we fall down because the combined mass of the earth exerts gravitational force. But since you don't believe in gravity this won't work for you.
>>22028969
According to the globe model, we fall down because the combined mass of the earth exerts gravitational force. But since you don't believe in gravity this won't work for you.
>>
>>22028975
Density could account for 100% of what we can observe. Not saying it does with certainty there are electromagnetic theories too
>>
>>22028987
Density is how tightly something is put together. That doesn't explain why i fall down after jumping.
The fact that your best explanation is just theories proves how dumb all this shit is.
>>
>>22028975
>..what?
>How does that analogy make any sense?
>I'm asking you to provide an explanation for a phenomenon that can be explained on the globe model.
This is pseudo-science. You can explain anything you want about "models". Zeus explains how lightning bolts are formed, that is basically your argument.
>To answer your question, the helium floats because it's lighter, and makes a sphere because that's the shape that most easily concentrates mass.
Not my point. How do you prove the shape of a helium balloon?
>According to the globe model, we fall down because the combined mass of the earth exerts gravitational force. But since you don't believe in gravity this won't work for you.
I'm afraid "gravity" isn't a force in your model, you're thinking of Newtonian "gravity".
>>
>>22028997
gravity is a theory that has never been proven even though we've had hundreds of years to do it. not a good theory
>>
>>22029001
You STILL haven't explained why i fall down after jumping.
A helium balloon makes the shape that spreads energy the most efficiently: A sphere. The same phenomenon is why the earth is round.
>>22029009
It's a theory that works with our established understanding of the universe and has never been shown to conflict with it.
>>
File: febrainlet.png (109 KB, 555x585)
109 KB
109 KB PNG
Imagine unironically believing the Earth is flat in 2019
>>
>>22028809
>>22028790
Burden of proof is on you to prove that they are not orbiting the earth and that they are "stationary" and "not very high"
>>
>>22028759
Oh give me a fucking break. So u can see them moving across the night sky but their not visible from the iss.
>>
>>22029044
No photograph of a satellite in orbit exists. We are told they do. I've never seen one. Nobody I've ever met has seen one. Burden of proof is on you bud
>>
>>22029046
why would they park the ISS in an orbit that close to satellites? that would be extremely stupid.
>>
>>22029046
>So u can see them moving across the night sky
Through a telescope providing you know exactly where to point it yes. They are on average the size of a bus. How the fuck do you expect someone on the ISS to see one with their naked eye? Do you have absolutely no sense of scale?
>>
>>22029032
>You STILL haven't explained why i fall down after jumping.
There are invisible hands over us at all times. When we jump, we push against the hand, but the hand pushes us back down.
>A helium balloon makes the shape that spreads energy the most efficiently: A sphere. The same phenomenon is why the earth is round.
Are helium balloons actually spherical though? How would you prove the shape? It begins with 'm'.
>>
>>22029055
>No photograph of a satellite in orbit exists.
Wew lad. https://youtu.be/DNZV2e-fgPU
>Burden of proof is on you bud
No it's not, and no matter how many times you insist this it is not true. You are the one going against general consensus therefore you must provide solid proof that any and all technology that relies on satellites is actually achieved through other means. I'll wait.
>>
>>22029037
Do you unironically believe the big bang theory?
>>
ISS with Endevour docked over earth. (2 Satellites) taken by Paolo Nespoli from the Soyuz TMA-20. May 2011
>>
>>22029070
Helium balloons aren't inherently spherical. But in that environment they become spherical.
>>
File: PIA18165_large.0.jpg (85 KB, 1200x800)
85 KB
85 KB JPG
Hubble Space Telescope
>>
File: STS41D-37-050.jpg (30 KB, 514x477)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
Telstar 302
>>
File: STS41D-36-034.jpg (38 KB, 521x478)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
SBS 4
>>
>>22029071
>Wew lad. https://youtu.be/DNZV2e-fgPU
These cannot be the kind of satellites you believe exist. I've seen these lights in the night sky before with a naked eye. They move a lot slower in real time obviously, and their path across the sky is not perfectly straight, they deviate slightly from left to right as they move forward, you can notice it slightly in the video.

It would be impossible to see such a small object so far away, and its path across the sky couldn't deviate as it does.
>>
>>22029084
How do you prove the shape of something? It begins with 'm'.
>>
>>22029142
Are you referring to mass?
It influences the way somehing is shaped, yes
>>
>>22029147
>Are you referring to mass?
Try again.
>>
>>22029152
what is this family feud? just tell us what the survey says already.
>>
>>22029158
MEASURE.

Where are your empirical measurements of physical curvature? End this debate right now.
>>
>>22029163
where are your empirical measurements of an edge?
>>
>>22029136
>I've seen these lights in the night sky before with a naked eye
Why the fuck do you think a naked eye observation is going to be of any use when trying to analyse satellites in the sky? Why do the geostationary satellites remain in place when the rotation-compensator is enabled? Why can we accurately predict and observe the ISS like as shown in the video? You're really reaching at this point, I've shown you more than enough proof.
>>
>>22029163
See
>>22028478
>>
>>22029170
I've never claimed an "edge".
>>
>>22029136
>>22029171
Also again I'd like to reiterate that the burden of proof is on you. You are the one going against general consensus therefore you must provide solid proof that any and all technology that relies on satellites is actually achieved through other means. Until you can do this you have absolutely no argument.
>>
>>22029180
then where are your empirical measurements of an infinite plane?
>>
File: 1543974713818.jpg (60 KB, 512x640)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
I am impressed at the way the OP is tearing the flat earth 'believer' (I still don't believe they're not pretending to be retarded) a new one. Not because of his timely and scientifically accurate answers, but at how calm he is in the face of someone that is either irritatingly dumb or just pretending to be.
From this thread, I learned that some flat earth proponents:
Don't believe in gravity
Don't believe in satellites
Don't understand GPS
Don't believe in any celestial bodies other than the Earth
Don't believe we can model the weather in short time scales, within limited regions, to a decently accurate degree
Believe that 'the ammount of variables' on a finite system is literally infinite rather than simply very large
Are apparently incapable of defending their own model and rely on attempting to wear others out by continuously asking for proof for things readily available to anyone with access to the Internet while simultaneously never submiting any supporting data
Are actually ashamed that they cannot justify their beliefs, but are too proud to admit that they are either extremely stupid, or an extremely weak attempt at trolling, or both.

Fascinating.
>>
>>22029109
>>22029104
>>22029092
>>22029079
only sauce on those is nasa. one source is not science, nasa won't provide raw photographs that could properly be analyzed. they don't exist
>>
>>22029194
>Are apparently incapable of defending their own model and rely on attempting to wear others out by continuously asking for proof for things readily available to anyone with access to the Internet while simultaneously never submiting any supporting data
>Are actually ashamed that they cannot justify their beliefs, but are too proud to admit that they are either extremely stupid, or an extremely weak attempt at trolling, or both.
Great summary. I wouldn't even mind debating with these retards if it was in good faith and they were genuinely interested in learning "the truth", but they're clearly either trolling or extremely set in their ways and so resort to dishonest tactics like the ones you listed in order to maintain the illusion that they're "winning" in their own mind. It's sad really.
>>
>>22029214
Provide what I listed in >>22029183 or fuck off because otherwise you have absolutely no argument.
>>
File: 54ad10c6.jpg (5 KB, 207x240)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>22029214
>n-no photo of satellites in orbit exist
>gets shown multiple photos and ways to observe satellites using ground-based telescopes
>b-but NASA
lmao you are dumb
>>
>>22029219
>believe this thing you've never seen because most people do

nope
>>
File: 2vcnA5R.jpg (156 KB, 1000x1000)
156 KB
156 KB JPG
>>22016947
>>
>>22029231
Not how debating works, sorry kid. The burden of proof was on you and you failed to provide therefore you have lost. Anything further you try to say that isn't "solid proof that any and all technology that relies on satellites is actually achieved through other means." is a non-argument and will get no response from me.
>>
TIME CUBE.
>>
>>22029214
NASA has public websites with literally hundreds and raw photos.

get back on your turnip truck you hillbilly
>>
>>22029171
>Why the fuck do you think a naked eye observation is going to be of any use when trying to analyse satellites in the sky?
My point is they cannot be the kind of satellites you believe in. Can you confirm how far away and how big the average satellite is in your belief system?
>Why do the geostationary satellites remain in place when the rotation-compensator is enabled?
Why isn't the "geostationary satellite" followed for most of the video? It isn't geostationary, the camera is following the "satellite" but can't for too long as the horizon will be shown, proving it is not geostationary.
>Why can we accurately predict and observe the ISS like as shown in the video? You're really reaching at this point, I've shown you more than enough proof.
Observe the "ISS"? What exactly are you observing? Did you know that magicians are real? You can observe them.
>>
>>22028125
>>22026591
>>
>>22029216
I seriously admire the patience you showed for so long. I had earlier reached the conclusion that flat earthers are being purposefully dishonest about their so-called beliefs because they never argue in good faith, never supply any arguments and several simple questions like the way GPS works or why do Sunsets exist (which we can see every day) tear them apart immediately. They often claim the Sun to be a small ball in the sky at a very low height, kept afloat by unspecified forces, that rotates around the North Pole. If this were so, Sunsets would not exist, the Sun would simply appear infinitesimally smaller in the sky as it receded. Instead, it seems to hide behind the horizon. This confuses the flat earthers.
>>
>>22029292
>My point is they cannot be the kind of satellites you believe in. Can you confirm how far away and how big the average satellite is in your belief system?
Burden of proof is on you. >>22029183
>>
>>22029309
Not to mention the sun would change angular size when viewed through a solar filter throughout the day which it doesn't, which completely destroys the local sun meme that their model is so dependent on. https://youtu.be/cXtT21fE2os
>>
>>22029183
That's not how it works. The made up Eratosthenes (anagram = sees not earth) assumed the earth was spherical based upon assumptive observations of shadows and an assumptive view of a large and far away sun.

The burden of proof is on you to show this. Observation is only one part of the scientific method, now we want to see measurements, tests and repeatable measurements/tests that support a curved surface.

Nothing else matters. Can you provide this fundamental evidence?
>>
>>22029317
They never explain the source of the Sun's energy. Stellar nucleosynthesis that is possible due to the insane pressure in the Sun's core is only possible due to gravity, which doesn't exist in their strange model.
>>
>>22029324
We're not talking about curvature retard, we're talking about satellites and you're deflecting because you know you can't provide the proof that you are required to provide in order to back up your ludicrous claim. You can prattle on about the same exact FE points we've gone through thread after thread but it doesn't matter because that's not what we're talking about here and therefore it is not a valid argument.
>>
what about that dude who walked across Antarctica? I supposed he just circumnavigated the edge of a disc and thought he was going across a continent.
>>
>>22029185
>then where are your empirical measurements of an infinite plane?
Not possible. But open up Antarctica for free exploration. No one (supposedly) owns it, so what's the issue?
>>
>>22029332
I kinda don’t think the sun’s actually 93 million miles away.
>>
>>22029335
the issue is that anon was asking for proof of something as if that would prove him right, even though he can't provide the same proof he's asking for.
>>
>>22029324
>we want to see measurements, tests and repeatable measurements/tests that support a curved surface
Literally the second post in the thread you dumb fuck
>>22028478

>>22029335
>muh Antarctic treaty
Only applies to military. Have you ever actually TRIED to go to Antarctica or are you just going to keep spouting this tired talking point? You'll claim that it's impossible to go without putting any effort into actually verifying this yourself.
>>
>>22029340
I've already explained why a local sun is not possible >>22029317
>>
>>22029313
All I need to do is disprove the satellites you believe in, I don't need to offer an alternative.

You seem to think that wrong things are still right because there's no alternative. Ridiculous.
>>
>>22029324
When sailing off to the ocean, ships crossing the horizon dissappear from the bottom up as they become hidden by the curvature of the earth. They do not shrink from view into nothingness as in a flat plane going off to infinity.

In a flat Earth, you could point a laser at the top of Mt. Everest from anywhere.
In the FE model, Solar and Lunar eclipses are physically impossible.
>>
>>22029317
Ooops, high elevation shows you wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55lAZjzY0ik
>>
>>22029352
How can it be a coincidence that the sun and moon appear to be the exact same size?
>>
>>22029360
>I don't need to offer an alternative.
Yes you do, otherwise you are contradicting yourself when you pull out your phone and use GPS to navigate somewhere. Prove that every satellite based technology is achieved through other means and explain in great detail how these other means work or else you have lost this ridiculous debate.
>>
Nothing is real, it's an AI universe. Game over.
>>
>>22029333
>We're not talking about curvature retard, we're talking about satellites
I think you'll find that you're using "satellites" as evidence for a curved earth, otherwise why would you bring them up?

The real reason you bring them up is because you have zero empirical measurements of physical curvature. NONE. Game over.
>>
>>22029364
>this retard again
Look at the horizontal diameter, it doesn't change. The squashing on the vertical diameter is clearly due to refraction, unless you're now saying that the sun turns into a fucking oval as it moves away from you.
>>
>>22029375
you can't use that to say game over because you don't have empirical measurements of flatness or even of an edge, nor of an infinite plane.
>>
>>22029344
First step to prove an infinite plane wrong is to open up Antarctica for free exploration. An infinite plane can never be proven right, but can be proven wrong (in a way).
>>
>>22029375
>I think you'll find that you're using "satellites" as evidence for a curved earth, otherwise why would you bring them up?
We're having a debate about whether or not satellites are real. If you want to participate in this debate go ahead and supply me with >>22029183, otherwise you are just deflecting because you do not have an argument.
>>
>>22029375
>The real reason you bring them up is because you have zero empirical measurements of physical curvature. NONE. Game over.
I like how you're still ignoring the second post of the thread.
>>
>>22029379
how about 1000 miles of flatness?
>>
>>22029379
See
>>22029347
>>
>>22029347
>Literally the second post in the thread you dumb fuck
>>22028478
THAT IS OBSERVATION BASED ONLY. I want empirical measurements of physical curvature, do you know what that means?
>Only applies to military. Have you ever actually TRIED to go to Antarctica or are you just going to keep spouting this tired talking point? You'll claim that it's impossible to go without putting any effort into actually verifying this yourself.
It sounds like you know what you're talking about, you must have been to Antarctica yourself and freely explored. How was it?
>>
>>22029396
>It sounds like you know what you're talking about, you must have been to Antarctica yourself and freely explored. How was it?
Again with the deflections, I'm not the one here going against the consensus by saying the Earth is flat. If you want to use the lie that you literally cannot visit Antarctica in your arguments then it's up to you to verify this by actually attempting to go.
>>
>>22029367
>How can it be a coincidence that the sun and moon appear to be the exact same size?
I have witnessed several Solar eclipses in my life (which are impossible in the FE model) and even when they are aligned, the Sun's corona is still visible around the silhouette of the Moon. So, to say that they "appear to be the exact same size" is a gross exaggeration, which turns your supposed 'coincidence' into simple hubris on your part in conceding that you're wrong.
>>
>>22029396
>empirical measurements
Do you know what empirical means?
>>
>>22029361
>When sailing off to the ocean, ships crossing the horizon dissappear from the bottom up as they become hidden by the curvature of the earth.
More observational bullshit. MEASURE THE WATER'S SURFACE. Boats disappear due to an optical illusion caused by the evaporation water off the SURFACE OF THE WATER.
>In a flat Earth, you could point a laser at the top of Mt. Everest from anywhere.
Yes, because commercial laser are just that powerful, and propagate through air with no distortion.
>In the FE model, Solar and Lunar eclipses are physically impossible.
What is the moon and sun in your flat model?
>>
>>22029368
Can you prove that satellites are as small and as far away as you believe them to be?

I can disprove this due to the fact they are visible to the naked eye and a telescope.
>>
>>22029412
>More observational bullshit. MEASURE THE WATER'S SURFACE. Boats disappear due to an optical illusion caused by the evaporation water off the SURFACE OF THE WATER.
Wrong. Why does increasing our altitude allow us to see objects that have gone over the horizon even though the distance between the observer and the object has actually INCREASED?
>>
>>22029407
Well one interesting thing is that with a Nikon p900 or p1000 you can actually in on moon really close. Surprisingly close.
>>
>>22029417
You're deflecting again. Until you provide >>22029183 you are not actually furthering your stance in the debate.
>>
>>22029417
>I can disprove this due to the fact they are visible to the naked eye and a telescope.
How does this disprove the fact that satellites are small and far away? How much detail of these satellites could you resolve with your eye?
>>
>>22029379
Does your "infinite plane Earth" also possess infinite mass? Why doesn't the Universe collapse into a singularity, since your insane model clearly exceeds the critical mass density?
>>
>>22029424
Are you trying to say something here or something?
>>
>>22029447
Never mind.
>>
>>22029447
Why does the sun appear fucking huge during sunrise and sunset in some locations?
>>
>>22029469
I'm not sure what you mean, can you provide some solar filter video evidence of this phenomenon?
>>
>>22029412
>More observational bullshit. MEASURE THE WATER'S SURFACE. Boats disappear due to an optical illusion caused by the evaporation water off the SURFACE OF THE WATER.
Can you provide empirical evidence for this extremely wild claim? Why does the boat dissappear fron the bottom up? Why is it that if I go up a lighthouse I can once again see the ship even as it is sailing farther away?

>>22029412
I don't believe in a FE model, you do. (Or rather, pretend to believe. I refuse to accept you are dumb enough to.)

>>22029424
I would adore a photo of Neil Armstrong's footprint on the Moon, if you would be so kind to use your powerful camera to zoom in on the oh-so-close natural satellite of Earth.
>>
Right that's it it's 4:26AM here so I'm clocking out for the night. Be sure to leave your replies in this thread or the next FE thread that pops up and I'll answer them in the morning
>>
>>22029473
>>22029469
Like this.
>>
>>22029478
The Moon’s too small right now to do that. You couldn’t see foot prints even if there were any.
>>
>>22029376
If you're going to claim refraction causes the vertical size to decrease, then I will claim refraction causes the horizontal size to increase.

Problem is, the refraction is caused by local air etc. We experiment and understand refraction using local objects/light. A local sun fits nicely with this. Your schizo 93 million miles away giant helium/hydrogen Jesuit sun worshipping sun is pathetic.
>>
>>22029497
Good thing the thread will still be here in 24 hours. Go ahead and photograph a 300km stretch of Lunar coast between Maria and Terrae. I like the contrast of white sediment with basaltic rock and the signs of magma rivers in a glorious past.
>>
>>22029378
5 US states have been empirically measured to be flatter than a pancake.
>>
>>22029517
you forgot to link to proof of these empirical measurements.
>>
>>22029380
>We're having a debate about whether or not satellites are real.
You brought up satellites in a flat earth thread because? Because your fantasy idea of them supports your Jesuit globe? Prove your fantasy idea of them exists first.
>>
>>22029502
>local sun fits nicely with this
A local sun doesn't fit with anything. What is the source of energy of the local Sun?
How do you explain Sunsets? If the Sun is local and thus inside the Earth's magnetosphere, why aren't we being fried to death by ionized solar winds?
>>
>>22029386
>how about 1000 miles of flatness?
What about it? That's finite.
>>
>>22029404
>If you want to use the lie that you literally cannot visit Antarctica in your arguments then it's up to you to verify this by actually attempting to go.
FREE EXPLORATION. I know you can go on shitty limited tours. Do you have any issue with Antarctica being open for free exploration?
>>
>>22029488
Its called a ZOOMED IN PICTURE the sunrise never actually looks that large no matter where you are. The photographs are taken so that it looks cool, but in reality it looks the same everywhere. Same with the moon, it never actually covers up a shit ton of the sky like it does in pictures but filters and lenses are used to make it look like that.
>>
>>22029410
You don't have any, what a surprise.
>>
>>22028125
Round-Earther here.

1: Cognitive dissonance.

2: 9.2m/s
Firstly, if that's what you think gravitational acceleration is, you're close but not quite there. 9.8m/s^2 is closer. And that is acceleration, not a constant speed.

So flat earth theorists believe that the earth moves at a constant speed, but cannot fathom that this rate changes as something falls. That is, the meters per second-squared (or per second per second) means that after one second, the rate of fall is 9.8m/s. After two seconds, that speed has increased again by 9.8m/s, so 19.6m/s. This acceleration increases, save wind resistance, and ultimately an object's terminal velocity.

Additionally, flat earthers can never answer "up" in relation to what, besides the ground. There is no external reference, which means they can never answer whether that "up" is in a constantly straight line or gradual curve like some sort of orbit. Of those who believe in an expansive universe, but a near-earth sun, they have no answer as to why our perspective of the stars does not change at a much more rapid pace, as our position relative to them constantly changes.

3. I have never heard one of them answer this. I shall munch popcorn.

4. "It's a conspiracy!"
To what ends?
"To convince you the earth is round so they can control you!"
>>
>>22029418
THE DENSEST WATER EVAPORATES OFF THE SURFACE OF THE WATER. THE HIGHER YOU GO, THE LESS DENSE THE EVAPORATED WATER, THEREFORE THE LESS OPTICAL EFFECTS.
>>
>>22029523
>You brought up satellites in a flat earth thread because? Because your fantasy idea of them supports your Jesuit globe? Prove your fantasy idea of them exists first.
He asked about GPS, which you have failed to answer. You cant ask him the things you're failing to answer. Stop deflecting or admit defeat. You're getting buried alive under a mountain of reason and making a jackass of yourself.

Answer my questions regarding the local Sun and objects crossing the horizon.
>>
>>22029430
Everyone sees you're the one deflecting. What a shame.
>>
>>22029441
>How does this disprove the fact that satellites are small and far away?
How small and far away in your fantasy?
>>
>>22029542
It really doesn’t matter anymore I guess.
>>
>>22029542
Is the fact that the Sun in that picture is sinking below the horizon due to the curvature if the Earth also edited in with filters?
>>
>>22029443
>Does your "infinite plane Earth" also possess infinite mass? Why doesn't the Universe collapse into a singularity, since your insane model clearly exceeds the critical mass density?
There's no such thing as "infinite mass", it's meaningless. "infinity" and "mass" are oxymoronic.
>>
>>22028125
1. They are points on the dome, not sure how you are working the earths radius into this
2. The earth is not moving.
3. The earth is not moving.
4.Triangulation from nearbye cell towerd
>>
>>22029562
No. OP is destroying you.
>>
>>22028125
1. How did ancient civilizations build pyramids, stonehenges, etc that aligned perfectly with the cosmos for thousands of years

2. If we're moving 9.2 M/S upwards we shouldnt even be able to jump, let alone hover. but "muh gravity" can just explain everything you cant recreate, right?

3. We're an infinitely expanding universe. Were on the universe.

4. You really think they couldnt use GPs from satellite towers? we got to the moon in the 60s, we can have GPS towers in 2000s.
>>
>>22029578
Glad to know that you're admiting your own cognitive dissonance. So your flat Earth is what, now, infinite or does it possess an edge?

>>22029580
Why are there constellations visible from one hemisphere but not the other, if all stars are static points in a static dome in static flat world?
>>
>>22029478
>Can you provide empirical evidence for this extremely wild claim? Why does the boat dissappear fron the bottom up? Why is it that if I go up a lighthouse I can once again see the ship even as it is sailing farther away?
Do you accept that the ocean evaporates? Do you accept that the evaporation will be at its densest as it leaves the surface of the ocean? Do you accept that water droplets reflect/refract/distort/mirage light it is in front of?
>I don't believe in a FE model, you do. (Or rather, pretend to believe. I refuse to accept you are dumb enough to.)
You're trying to argue against flat earth, how can you do that without some kind of model?
>>
>>22029522
https://news.ku.edu/2014/02/06/research-if-you-think-kansas-flattest-us-state-youre-plain-wrong
>>
>>22029587
>1. How did ancient civilizations build pyramids, stonehenges, etc that aligned perfectly with the cosmos for thousands of years
They don't align perfectly, only roughly, and they use the same tool we do: mathematics.

>2. If we're moving 9.2 M/S upwards we shouldnt even be able to jump, let alone hover. but "muh gravity" can just explain everything you cant recreate, right?
So.. You're proving the OP correct in that Flat Earthers make no sense?

>3. We're an infinitely expanding universe. Were on the universe.
This does not answer the question asked.
It has nothing to do with it, in fact.

>4. You really think they couldnt use GPs from satellite towers? we got to the moon in the 60s, we can have GPS towers in 2000s.
So you're admiting that satellites exist and so the flat earth model falls... flat?
>>
>>22029046
The ISS orbits at 254 kilometers. Most satellites are well above that height, especially if they're set in geosynchronous orbits. Either way, you're asking why someone on a space station moving thousands of miles an hour has trouble spotting a satellite that, at it's largest, is the size of a small base in an airspace that covers thousands of square miles. Imagine if I took you to a field of tall grass and asked you to spot the sewing needle somewhere in there.
>>
>>22029633
Bus, not base
>>
>>22029526
>A local sun doesn't fit with anything.
Except for its light interacting and refracting locally. As well as its rays being observed as crepuscular by our own perspective. And its symbiotic relationship with the moon, the moon being way more local than the sun in your schizo Jesuit model.
>How do you explain Sunsets?
A combination of perspective as it moves further away, and refraction through the different densities of the air.
>If the Sun is local and thus inside the Earth's magnetosphere, why aren't we being fried to death by ionized solar winds?
Because that's based upon a schizo belief of what the sun is/its properties.
>>
>>22029610
>Do you accept that the ocean evaporates?
Sure.
>Do you accept that the evaporation will be at its densest as it leaves the surface of the ocean?
We both know you don't even understand what you just typed.
>Do you accept that water droplets reflect/refract/distort/mirage light it is in front of?
Slightly, still not accounting for the fact that if I gain altitude, I regain vision of tge ship. Unless you now want to say that me going up stairs causes water 3km away to spontaneously condense.
>>
>>22029586
the cognitive dissonance runs deep.

you see, it all started with a mustard seed. "what if there's more than meets the eye here?" OP thought to himself as he looked up into the sky. "but what about school, and the various other authorities on what 'life' is? what did they teach you?" asks the proverbial devil on the shoulder. OP could recall, but...they never taught him about this feeling. He was too busy mindlessly copying and pasting all the information given to him, in one ear and out the other. The times when OP could've seen the wonder and inspiration scientists draw from their calculations, he was too busy wondering why he had to sit through those dumb classes. That doubt is where the fractal began, "these people were supposed to show me the truth, and yet they couldn't. who can I trust now?" "only yourself, and those you agree with" said the devil.
>>
>>22029640
how does perspective turn the sun into a half circle as it goes down?
>>
>>22029640
Oh really? Regale us with how your flat Earth Sun works.
What is it's source of energy?
What is this symbiosis you claim it has with the moon?
And, most importantly, when are you going to actually pick up a book or admit that you're a fool?
>>
>>22029559
>He asked about GPS, which you have failed to answer. You cant ask him the things you're failing to answer. Stop deflecting or admit defeat. You're getting buried alive under a mountain of reason and making a jackass of yourself.
Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Let me put it this way. What makes it impossible for GPS to occur on a plane earth?
>>
>>22029586
Globalists are extremely intelligent.
>>
So why do flat earthers think we're being lied to about the size of the earth?
I'm all for the government lying to us with shit like 9/11, but what the fuck is the point in lying about stars/planets etc
>>
>>22029656
This reads like a description of the flat Earther the OP is debating. You know, the one who paid no attention in classes, likely dropped school and now fails to answer simple questions?
>>
>>22029609
>Glad to know that you're admiting your own cognitive dissonance. So your flat Earth is what, now, infinite or does it possess an edge?
An infinite plane is the same as no shape, but it has to be flat. Infinite spheres cannot exist.
>>
>>22029673
ye. I was agreeing with whomever I responded to.
>>
>>22029645
>Sure.
Good.
>We both know you don't even understand what you just typed.
What happens to evaporating water as it rises? Does it expand? Therefore become less dense?
>Slightly, still not accounting for the fact that if I gain altitude, I regain vision of tge ship. Unless you now want to say that me going up stairs causes water 3km away to spontaneously condense.
So you expect an optical illusion will remain when looking directly through the densest evaporating water etc, compared to increasing altitude where the evaporation is less dense, and you're able to see over the densest evaporation etc? Have you ever seen what looks like water on tarmac during a hot day? Does it disappear as you increase altitude?
>>
>>22029663
>Let me put it this way. What makes it impossible for GPS to occur on a plane earth?
Let us ignore the name 'global' positioning system for the sake of what little sanity you may hold. GPS works due to satellites in geosynchronous orbit being at relatively the same spot in the sky relative from the Earth, allowing triangulation of position using any 3 of the satellites. Now, you don't believe in satellites, and so the OP asked you to suggest an alternative, which you have been dodging ever since.

>>22029670
I disagree, I don't care much for globalism. Unless you meant 'people who believe in round Earth model', in which case, I still disagree because people may hold beliefs which they cannot justify (such as Flat Earthers) and their intelligence is unrelated to the strength of the theory. That said, every flat Earther in the 21st century has been shown to be amazingly stupid and easy to sweep aside with reason.
>>
>>22029658
>how does perspective turn the sun into a half circle as it goes down?
It doesn't, that's refraction.
>>
File: 14year-arino.jpg (48 KB, 500x375)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
the stupid in this thread is too much. it's causing physical pain.
>>
>>22028125
>Keep in mind, i'm not 100% a flat earth denier
>>22028623
>Nothing weird about so much money and effort being invested by the American government/military for the benefit of every nation to have GPS...
>>22028756
>Reminder that there NO photographs of any of the thousands of satellites supposedly in orbit


can we hit pause on the LARP for a second and just admit that this is all for the lulz and none of you are retarded enough to believe any of this?
we can go back to having fun on the LARP afterwards but I just want to make sure we're on the same page
שגדכ
>>
File: 592.jpg (5 KB, 207x200)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>22029629
>So you're admiting that satellites exist and so the flat earth model falls... flat?
>>
>>22029542
the moon shows up behind clouds sometimes though
>>
>>22029671
I'd love to know their motivations too, but honesty is not the flat Earther's forté.

>>22029686
An infinite plane definitely is not the same as 'no shape'.

>>22029710
Son, your theory is bullshite. You're going way too far to try to save face when the best available move for you would be to drop the act, learn some humility, and maybe take the opportunity to ask actual meaningful scientific questions. Nobody cares if you're wrong as hell. OP started this thread, you engaged him, and he eviscerated you with reason.
If, by weird chance of fate, you truly believe everything you wrote in this thread, I recommend you seek treatment for schizophrenia and/or that you inhibit yourself from engaging others online until you attend and finish high school.
>>
>>22029660
>Oh really? Regale us with how your flat Earth Sun works.
All you want is stories, which is what your Scientism belief is based upon. All I know is it is there, and has a symbiotic relationship with us/the earth/and moon.
>What is it's source of energy?
Again, you want a story. I don't have a clue. I don't even know if it has a "source of energy".
>What is this symbiosis you claim it has with the moon?
The same one it has in your Jesuit model. Solar/lunar eclipses, the phases of the moon, both have an analemma. They seem like opposites.
>And, most importantly, when are you going to actually pick up a book or admit that you're a fool?
I guarantee I know more about your schizo model than you do. Enjoying your sun worship? Awkward...
>>
>>22029671
>but what the fuck is the point in lying about stars/planets etc
It's a religion for atheists.
>>
>>22029757
get a girlfriend
>>
>>22029727
I sure hope this is a LARP as I refuse to acknowledge some people are actually this stupid but I start having my doubts about that one persistent flat Earth advocate
זה כל כך מתיש
>>
>>22029757
You keep saying 'Jesuit model'. What do you mean by this? Several sefer actually refer to a plane Earth with four corners. If anything, round Earth is an Ancient Greek and Hellenistic view.
>>
>>22029686
>An infinite plane is the same as no shape, but it has to be flat. Infinite spheres cannot exist.

What? Are you claiming the earth is a 2-dimensional plane with no mass?
>>
>>22029713
>GPS works due to satellites in geosynchronous orbit being at relatively the same spot in the sky relative from the Earth, allowing triangulation of position using any 3 of the satellites. Now, you don't believe in satellites, and so the OP asked you to suggest an alternative, which you have been dodging ever since.
Well parroted. Can you at least admit that you have this on faith? This will test your intellectual honesty. You claim I don't believe in satellites. This is a straw man. I don't believe in your belief of satellites. I have no reason to think they don't have technology that can perform like the satellites you believe in, but at the same time, I have no reason to believe they are in a geosynchronous orbit after being launched from a rocket. That seems like a colossal waste of time and money for a military that no doubt has better methods.
>I disagree, I don't care much for globalism. Unless you meant 'people who believe in round Earth model', in which case, I still disagree because people may hold beliefs which they cannot justify (such as Flat Earthers) and their intelligence is unrelated to the strength of the theory. That said, every flat Earther in the 21st century has been shown to be amazingly stupid and easy to sweep aside with reason.
Oblate spheroidians will change the world. They are savants, standing on the shoulders of giants (and Jesuits).
>>
File: 1364401848602.jpg (32 KB, 400x400)
32 KB
32 KB JPG
praise the lord i finally see the light. THE EARTH IS FLAT. never again will i be enslaved by the shackles of illuminati mind games.
>>
>>22029727
I truly believe that the heliocentric model is bullshit - essentially sun worship. Regarding the earth's "shape", I don't know yet. The flat domed model is retarded, the globe works better than it, but the globe has not been proven. Best bet at the moment is a flat torus in 3-sphere.

All I want is free exploration of Antarctica and we can end this once and for all. Globecucks should be wanting this too. NO ONE OWNS IT, SO WHO IS MAKING THE RULES?
>>
>>22029829
>I don't believe in your belief of satellites.
Rrrriiight...
>I have no reason to think they don't have technology that can perform like the satellites you believe in,
That is acceptable.
>but at the same time, I have no reason to believe they are in a geosynchronous orbit after being launched from a rocket. That seems like a colossal waste of time and money for a military that no doubt has better methods.
You seem to severely underestimate how useful it is for any human to be able to pinpoint their location in the surface of the planet. You know what's even better? Having everyone use this system so that you may pinpoint anyone's location on the planet - and they are giving you their position willingly. If you can't appreciate a technological marvel that is extremely useful to the average Joe while doubling as a global wallhack for military purposes, I don't know what to tell you.
Also consider that satellites aren't easy to assault/modify for most people. What better than having your super high tech completely unreachable to curious hands?
>>
File: 1546547394333.jpg (95 KB, 960x632)
95 KB
95 KB JPG
>>22029838
>>
File: flatearthdinosaurs.jpg (73 KB, 960x824)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
>>22029855
>>
>>22029848
>heliocentric model
No sane person believes the Sun is the center of the Universe. Are you accessing the Internet from the year 1352?
>>
File: 1545490897241.jpg (29 KB, 480x360)
29 KB
29 KB JPG
>>22029857
>>
>>22029752
>An infinite plane definitely is not the same as 'no shape'.
Explain how it's a shape.
>Son, your theory is bullshite. You're going way too far to try to save face when the best available move for you would be to drop the act, learn some humility, and maybe take the opportunity to ask actual meaningful scientific questions. Nobody cares if you're wrong as hell. OP started this thread, you engaged him, and he eviscerated you with reason.
Oh really? So observations done over long stretches of evaporating water won't do anything? Your reasoning is incredibly sound.
>If, by weird chance of fate, you truly believe everything you wrote in this thread, I recommend you seek treatment for schizophrenia and/or that you inhibit yourself from engaging others online until you attend and finish high school.
You believe you're a child of stardust and I'm the schizophrenic? I'm university educated (not that it means much), so your snarky comments are not based in reality. Sounds like you might be schizophrenic, I seriously suggest you book an appointment with someone to get it sorted.
>>
So is the flat earth a disk, or a cylinder that stretches into infinity?
>>
>>22029768
No u
>>
>>22029790
Look up all of the Jesuit astronomers/scientists or astronomers/scientists influenced by Jesuits that has led to the globe/heliocentric model. The big bang theory was also created by a Jesuit/Catholic priest.

Heliocentrism = Jesuit sun worship. Just look at the Jesuit logo.
>>
>>22029812
Dimensions don't exist. Mass doesn't exist. These are metaphysical abstractions.
>>
this thread is just a bunch of homeless men calling other homeless dudes broke ass niggas

stop being a retard and don't listen to a bunch of rambling hicks on youtube about how they're right and hundreds of years of science are wrong
>>
>>22028125
1. Those and planets are ethereal.
2. nigga we're not moving
3. we're not moving
4. ground based radio antennas
>>
>>22029079
>>22029092
>>22029104
>>22029109
I bet you think star wars is real life
>>
File: flat-earth.jpg (1.08 MB, 1141x1071)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB JPG
>>22029865
>>
>>22029905
>Those planets are ethereal

No, they're solid objects

>We're not moving

Then what force makes objects fall down?

>We're not moving

Then how do you explain proven movement

>ground based antennas

Can't explain GPS. You get GPS in the middle of the ocean, no line of site with ground based antennas
>>
>>22029852
>Rrrriiight...
Is your belief of what satellites are taken on faith or not? Stop dodging.
>That is acceptable.
Correct.
>Having everyone use this system so that you may pinpoint anyone's location on the planet - and they are giving you their position willingly. If you can't appreciate a technological marvel that is extremely useful to the average Joe while doubling as a global wallhack for military purposes, I don't know what to tell you.
This just tells me the world superpowers are working together behind the scenes. It's the only way a "G"PS system could exist.
>Also consider that satellites aren't easy to assault/modify for most people. What better than having your super high tech completely unreachable to curious hands?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55lAZjzY0ikbraz
>>
>>22029861
The solar system you blithering idiot. The one where the planets (your other Gods) orbit around.
>>
>>22029937
>Is your belief of what satellites are taken on faith or not?

You can see satellites with your own two eyes

>GPS satellites requires superpowers to work together?

Why? Any one country with launch capability can launch several satellites and have a GPS system all to their own. That's how it worked in real life.
>>
>>22029911
I fucking knew the ugly sky babies were working with the giga dragon to destroy mankind's ships so that nobody could prove ball earth curvature. I fucking knew it.
Everything is falling into place.
>>
File: nasa sun maintenance.jpg (49 KB, 552x806)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
>>
>>22029194
>Don't believe in any celestial bodies other than the Earth
they dont even believe anything is celestial!
>>
File: ALEX JONES ART.jpg (136 KB, 768x576)
136 KB
136 KB JPG
>>22029629
Why the FUCK couldnt satellites exist if the earths flat? Use some common sense. The space above the earth is still "space." The different in global and flat earth is that space exists all around and under us in globe. Flat, space, aka the aether, is above us.
>>
>>
>>22029973
because satellites work because they are in orbit. orbits do not work if the earth is flat
>>
>>22029973
>Why the FUCK couldnt satellites exist if the earths flat?


Satellites require gravity. Gravity is what makes satellites go around the earth. The same force would make a flat plane collapse into a globe.
>>
>>22029979
whoa chicago is sinking into the bay!!!! why is the illuminati covering up such a great disaster???
>>
>>22029946
>You can see satellites with your own two eyes
How big and far away are they?
>Why? Any one country with launch capability can launch several satellites and have a GPS system all to their own. That's how it worked in real life.
Surprisingly easy, don't you think?
>>
>>22029983
dipshit how would planes work on flat earth and why would the airforce use flat earth maps in ww2 lol
>>
>>22029973
>he thinks satellites are continuously burning fuel to fly around
>>
File: space-Earth-curve.jpg (34 KB, 540x540)
34 KB
34 KB JPG
>>
File: moon_.jpg (24 KB, 480x480)
24 KB
24 KB JPG
>>
>>22030026
>he thinks satellite towers arent a thing
flat earthers arent saying satellites arent impossible. theyre saying theres no fucking pictures of the thousands in space
>>
>>22030019
>how big and how far away are they

Depends on the satellite. Some are big, some are small. Some are two hundred miles up, some are 25,000 miles away. All of these things you can measure yourself by triangulation. It requires very simple high school level mathematics.

>>22030022
>how would planes work on flat earth

They wouldn't. Flat Earth doesn't work with any kind of physics.

>why would the airforce use flat earth maps in ww2

They didn't. First off, the Air Force didn't exist in WW2. The Navy flew airplanes, and the Army flew different air planes. The Air Force wasn't created until after the war.

Second, the Army and Navy used flat projections of the globe earth. They took the curvature of the earth into account. There's no such thing as a working flat earth map. lol.
>>
>>22030043
but he's wrong because there are pictures in this thread.
>>
>>22030047
nothing works in fucking gravity theory either moron but you blindly believe it too lol
>>
>>22030049
all CGI renderings of individual satellites. theyre bigger than school busses, crowds of thousands could be seen even from all that far away.
>>
>>22030054
No. Things work perfectly fine with gravity. With simple gravity, you can predict events hundreds of years before they ever happen.

You might not understand how gravity works, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

You don't need blind belief in gravity, you can go and measure it for yourself.
>>
>>22030057
Millions of people see satellites every night.

Most are about the size of a beach ball or smaller.
>>
>>22030054
things fall down at certain speed, acceleration and direction, it makes sense, its gravity. on FE things fall down, but when put next to earth things dont worn, they dont exists, nothing makes sense anymore. flats are stuck in medieval
>>
>>22030047
>Depends on the satellite. Some are big, some are small. Some are two hundred miles up, some are 25,000 miles away. All of these things you can measure yourself by triangulation. It requires very simple high school level mathematics.
How big and far away is the average satellite?
>>
File: gravity-meme2.jpg (67 KB, 853x526)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>
>>22030065
"Average" satellite is hard to define. There's two broad classes.

There's satellites in low earth orbits, which is about 150 miles to 1000 miles. Then there's geosynchronous satellites, like GPS, weather, and TV satellites, that ar eabout 25,000 miles away. Most satellites that are still in orbit are in parked in "graveyard orbits" that are a few thousand miles past that.

Most satellites are only a meter or so across. The ones that are easy to see tend to have big solar panels that have a lot of area but not a lot of volume.
>>
>>22030057
you don't even believe that yourself, so i won't accept it as a valid argument.
>>
>>22030072
This is hard for Flat Earthers to understand, but trillions of tons of water ways more than birds. Also, birds have wings they can flap.
>>
>>22029737
fuck, I laughed
>>
>>22030081
>ways

I try to believe there are some smart people on this board, but time and time again I’m disappointed.
>>
File: 1458659296590.jpg (18 KB, 204x202)
18 KB
18 KB JPG
>>22030088
yeah, flat earth is the thinking man way
>>
>>22030059
>You don't need blind belief in gravity,
even einstein couldnt perfectly prove it lol
e=mc squared is flawed and was mass propduced propaganda from israel
>>
>>22030103
>it takes faith to drive your car if you don't now how the electronics in it work, and can't describe internal combustion. sorry i couldn't come in to work today, but i didn't believe that it would drive and what do you know the thing didnt move.
>>
>>22030103
No, Einstein could prove it. It's easy to prove gravity. What Einstein did had nothing to do with proof.

If there's a flaw with E = Mc^2, by all means, tell us what it is. Please show your math.
>>
I refuse to believe there is real flat earthers. It's all a giant troll
>>
>>22030127
i wish that were true, but some of them are real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gHbwT_R9t0
>>
File: 1402934878252.jpg (16 KB, 200x196)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>22028125
1. They could be anything.
2. Theres a dense mass below Earth that provides uniform gravity.
3. See #2
4. The satellites move through wormholes on the edge. Space "wraps around".
>>
>>22029502
>If you're going to claim refraction causes the vertical size to decrease,
Even flat earthers agree on this one bud
>refraction causes the horizontal size to increase.
Can you draw some ray diagrams of this? How is it that the horizontal size is refracted in such a way as to perfectly cancel out the "moving away" of the sun? Why doesn't the sun change angular size from other points throughout the day? According to your model it should be dramatically bigger at noon and gradually decrease in size throughout the day, which is not what we observe when looking through a solar filter. It only begins to "decrease" in size suddenly at sunset because of some vertical axis refraction.
>>
>>22029539
>FREE EXPLORATION.
Have you tried to mount an expedition? I've heard other people have and have had no problem deviating from whatever "tour" path you mention. Why don't you confirm this for yourself?
>>
>>22029544
You don't understand what you're talking about mate. I've already provided plenty.
>>22029488
I'm calling bullshit on that picture, looks extremely fake and is obviously not "taken" through a solar filter.
>>
>>22029552
Great, now show to me using a proper calculation and gathered evidence that the decrease in air density as you increase altitude directly counteracts the increase in distance from the observer to the object as you raise altitude. You can ask /sci/ for help on this one if you're not good at that sort of stuff.
>>
>>22029640
>rays being observed as crepuscular
CREPUSCULAR
https://youtu.be/cTPLqbl-HGY
RAYS
https://youtu.be/jhDpvfnVD3Y
ARE
https://youtu.be/euUAO8mViyM
PARALLEL
https://youtu.be/T4dzXOBY3C0
>>
>>22029829
>I don't believe in your belief of satellites.
Luckily for the rest of the world, it doesn't fucking matter what you believe in. GPS is real and works. It is a widely accepted fact that they use satellites to work. Until you can provide a viable alternative as to how this system could be faked with other means your argument is dead in the water.
>>
>>22029868
>I'm university educated
Wew fucking lad what's your degree in?
>>
>>22029502
>>22030588
Also, refraction caused by a density gradient causes the sun to "squish" on the vertical axis I think we can agree. How then does a completely separate type of refraction only affect the horizontal axis? What sort of density gradient would cause the size to remain constant and not squash in one direction? How come we can see the sun not changing its horizontal size anywhere on Earth? Is this horizontal density gradient everywhere at once?
>>
>>22029079
>>22029092
Not even a sliver of landmass here, do they take these pictures above the pacific on purpose?
>>
>>22030727
>International Space Station as seen from Space Shuttle Atlantis in this July 2011 photograph
>>
File: 9504243_orig.jpg (248 KB, 943x1000)
248 KB
248 KB JPG
Hopkins Ultraviolet Telescope
>>
File: maxresdefault2.jpg (301 KB, 1536x1292)
301 KB
301 KB JPG
STS-45
>>
>>22029848
>All I want is free exploration of Antarctica and we can end this once and for all.
Goddamnit I am getting so tired of seeing this misinformation being spread around.
Barring a relatively small portion where travel is restricted due to scientific or environmental considerations, travel to and exploration of Antarctica is in no way banned. Seriously, just Google 'how to book a flight to antarctica'. It's just that you're traveling to a freezing desert continent that has a population density of, at best, .0035 people per square kilometer. It's dangerous. That being said, I keep hearing flat earthers say they wont believe till they see with their own eyes. Well, you people can apparently pull together enough money to form your own conference, how about you put together enough money to form your own Antarctic expedition? No one's going to stop you.
>>
>>22031028
i guess their parents aren't willing to fork out the cash for a trip to a frozen wasteland of death. good for them.
>>
File: ISSatjuno.jpg (281 KB, 701x539)
281 KB
281 KB JPG
>>22030734
>>
>>22031099
you suck at photoshop
>>
File: elonrover.jpg (377 KB, 1472x823)
377 KB
377 KB JPG
>>22031107
imagine if i had a billion dollar budget what propaganda i could put out
>>
File: 27o7mi.jpg (83 KB, 620x349)
83 KB
83 KB JPG
>>
>>22031165
huh, imagine the actual constructive things you could do with it instead.
>>
Please, can we all just acknoledge that all flat earthers are either trolls or larpers and stop talking about it?
>>
How could a laser level work on ball earth? Lasers stuck to the curve? Refraction?
>>
File: rendering_1077.jpg (371 KB, 1471x1865)
371 KB
371 KB JPG
>>22031190
space is fake, look at raw pics
these are all from high earth orbit telescopes
https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/raw-images/raw-image-viewer/?order=earth_date+desc&per_page=50&page=0
>>
>>22031203
did you know that they were publishing magazines about flat earth bullshit back in the 1800s? or that they have conventions now where they're actually serious about it?
>>
File: OBS_0001_md.jpg (602 KB, 1650x1060)
602 KB
602 KB JPG
>>22031209
>>
File: 1437509227548.gif (1.74 MB, 360x359)
1.74 MB
1.74 MB GIF
>>22031206
>points laser directly at the screen
you asshole , those can damage your eyes!
>>
>>22031209
How can space be fake if you admit that telescopes can orbit the earth?
>>
File: download (4).jpg (12 KB, 227x222)
12 KB
12 KB JPG
>>22031264
they orbit the circle above the flat plane, like a balloon in the wind
>>
>>22031270
What keeps them from falling down?
It can't be like with actual sattelites where they're moving sufficiently fast enough to bypass the earth on their way down. Wouldn't work on a disc.
>>
>>22031270
What stops them falling to the ground? What about the photos you linked makes you think space isn't real? Can you address >>22029183
>>
File: Image013.jpg (951 KB, 2400x1600)
951 KB
951 KB JPG
>>22031270
with balloons or planes
>>22031215
>>22031273
https://spacenews.com/shutdown-grounds-nasas-airborne-observatory/
>>
File: facepalmcarl.jpg (30 KB, 500x375)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>22031270
that's not how orbiting works, anon.
>>
File: 1540498742592.png (404 KB, 599x470)
404 KB
404 KB PNG
>>22031283
by orbit i mean traveling a circular path over the flat earth not fake gravity orbit around an imaginary ball
>>
File: DguESH1UcAApO3Y.jpg (49 KB, 720x710)
49 KB
49 KB JPG
>>
>>22031290
So how do geosynchronous satellites work?
>>
>>22031299
Wow wtf at last I truly see. NASA has been lying to us about the saturation of the globe all this time #researchGreyEarth
>>
File: 2018 Sat Balloon2.jpg (292 KB, 1360x1686)
292 KB
292 KB JPG
>>22031300
balloon network
>>
File: 1358601841849.png (266 KB, 640x400)
266 KB
266 KB PNG
>>22031290
orbit. ffs anon. LOOK AT THOSE BIRDS ORBITING AROUND IN THE SKY.
>>
File: thewall.jpg (269 KB, 3823x2149)
269 KB
269 KB JPG
>>22031302
research how north america grew 1/3 its size
>>
>>22031315
>research
>>
>>22031310
How many balloons are there? How come they can never be spotted out at sea where you can clearly get GPS signal? What is their range? What is their altitude? How do they refuel?
>>
>>22031315
Research how focal length and basic photography works you nonce
>>
File: bluemarble.jpg (31 KB, 480x360)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>22031326
they arent photographs
>>
File: ngus2k7mjmm01.jpg (512 KB, 2400x2400)
512 KB
512 KB JPG
>>22031338
You are an idiot.
https://qz.com/192700/the-guy-who-created-iphones-earth-image-explains-why-he-needed-to-fake-it/
>>
File: russiaChecksyourhomework.jpg (484 KB, 1782x1669)
484 KB
484 KB JPG
>>22031340
why would they need to fake it if they can take pics on mars
>>
>>22031350
>why would they need to fake it
Did you read the article? It was a composite image made of images from a satellite orbiting the earth. Because of the nature of this orbit there were invariably gaps in the final composite which Simmon then filled in. He specifically stated this when he published the photo and never tried to pass it off as a fully singular unedited picture of the earth. The picture I posted here >>22031340 is a full picture of the earth if you're really looking. The reason we don't have that many of these full pictures is because you need to be incredibly far away from the Earth to get it all into frame.
>>
>>22031350
>he appeared to be joking, as he smirked and shrugged while answering
Do you even read the pictures you post here?
>>
File: circles.jpg (270 KB, 1232x1169)
270 KB
270 KB JPG
>>22031368
so low orbit pics stitched together because they cant leave low earth ORBIT, why dont they take a real pic
>>22031371
is the mission to check if usa went a joke too
>>
>>22031384
>so low orbit pics stitched together because they cant leave low earth ORBIT, why dont they take a real pic
I already provided you with a "real" pic you idiot. >>22031368
>is the mission to check if usa went a joke too
Russia apparently are mounting their own mission to the moon, but the statement that it was to "verify the US moon landings" was a joke and every single article that quotes Dmitry Rogozin on it says he was joking about that part.
>>
File: 1508614838149.png (565 KB, 600x610)
565 KB
565 KB PNG
>>22031394
BUT THATS JUST WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK
>>
>>22031384
>>22031401
Here's some photos from the Japanese Himawari 8 geostationary satellite
https://youtu.be/t6YfEkLR_Ho
>>
File: moonisclose.jpg (72 KB, 942x1178)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>22031394
thought it was suppose to be an oblate spheroid, looks like a perfect circle
>>
>>22031401
>BUT THATS JUST WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK
Not sure if you're the original Anon or that's a joking response but either way the point is invalid until we get actual confirmation from someone in the Russian space program that the mission will be verifying the US landings
>>
>>22031406
http://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/equator/
>The Earth'sdiameteris also wider at theEquator, creating a phenomenon called anequatorialbulge. ... The Earth'sdiameterat theEquatoris about 12,756 kilometers (7,926 miles). At thepoles, thediameteris about 12,714 kilometers (7,900 miles). The Earth'sequatorialbulge is about 43 kilometers (27 miles).
You are an idiot. How do you expect to be difference of 27 miles when the total diameter is roughly 7,900 miles?
>>
File: virgingalacticwhichone.jpg (212 KB, 1200x1344)
212 KB
212 KB JPG
>>22031405
obvious cgi, look at the highlight on the ball
>>
>>22031417
this guy makes me want to rip my own face off every time he posts
>>
>>22031417
You are an idiot who doesn't understand even the fundamentals of photography. This is the last link I'm going to spoon-feed you. I suggest you watch it so you can avoid embarrassing yourself in future.
https://youtu.be/cHhDhYeYf2Q
>>
File: onlyonaPlane.jpg (509 KB, 1370x1548)
509 KB
509 KB JPG
>>22031425
>>
>>22031433
Again, you are an idiot. The CGI renders on the top of the image are nowhere near to scale and therefore are meaningless. Not to mention the "line" of sunlight along the sea IRL actually "follows" you as you walk along the beach, pointing in the same direction at all times. I'm sure I don't need to explain to you how that wouldn't work in your top left render, right?
>>
File: fakenasa.jpg (353 KB, 1813x1813)
353 KB
353 KB JPG
>>22031394
they lie
>>
File: 1478517079800.gif (987 KB, 229x176)
987 KB
987 KB GIF
>>22031433
it cracks me up every time you use that picture of 3-D modelling software (CGI) to try and prove that the earth is flat while decrying nasa for using CGI to prove the earth is round.
>>
File: dryandflat.webm (748 KB, 720x576)
748 KB
748 KB WEBM
>>22031439
light changes properties when you scale it larger? How do you know that light is 93 million miles away
>>
File: 1526957217924.jpg (142 KB, 852x480)
142 KB
142 KB JPG
>>22031451
cant show light on curving water because it doesnt exist
>>
>>22031446
>The US Ambassador under the Nixon administration, J. William Middendorf II, presented a large piece of petrified wood to former Dutch prime minister Willem Drees “to commemorate the visit to the Netherlands of the Apollo-11 Astronauts Neil A. Armstrong, Michael Collins, Edwin E. Aldrin jr.” Most likely, either Ambassador Middendorf or Willem Drees, neither of whom were lunar geologists, misidentified that rock as ‘moon rock’. It had nothing to do with NASA or the Apollo astronauts, apart from the fact that it was given to commemorate their visit, part of their Goodwill World Tour following the successful Apollo 11 lunar landing and surface exploration (‘moonwalk’).

>The real Apollo 11 samples that were officially presented to Queen Juliana of the Netherlands on behalf of the Nixon administration are now in storage at the Boerhaave Museum in Leiden. They are four tiny dark grey grains about the same size as rice grains, encased in lucite.
There are plenty of ACTUAL moon rock samples that have been independently verified to be actual moon rock, but hoaxers like to focus on this one misconception to mislead people.
>>
>>22031456
>light changes properties when you scale it larger? How do you know that light is 93 million miles away
I have already explained in my post why the sunlight is not local. You can't use a model that is not an accurate representation of what the accepted model is in order to debunk the accepted model.
>that video
Not taken through a solar filter and therefore useless. If you had actually read the thread above you would see that the sun does not change angular size throughout the day, ruling out a local sun. >>22029317
>>
File: startrails.jpg (162 KB, 1200x800)
162 KB
162 KB JPG
>>22031457
>the curve doesn't exist
literally the second post ITT >>22028478
>>
File: moonrocksarelost.jpg (264 KB, 927x1590)
264 KB
264 KB JPG
>>22031459
>>
I like how this idiot keeps moving on to different shitty arguments as his previous ones get debunked, he's going to run out if he keeps this up
>>
File: 0010203045857.png (53 KB, 413x379)
53 KB
53 KB PNG
>>22031469
if nasa never made it to the moon anyway why would they pretend to lose moon rocks? you're entertaining as fuck.
>>
File: 1538002520828.gif (194 KB, 600x447)
194 KB
194 KB GIF
>>22031474
they lost everything because its all bullshit so they had to cover it up, them losing their evidence is proof?
>>
File: file.png (2.17 MB, 1920x1280)
2.17 MB
2.17 MB PNG
>>22031469
http://www.collectspace.com/resources/moonrocks_goodwill.html
Here is the list of all accounted for goodwill moon rock samples. Funny how no one claims all these are petrified wood.
>>
>>22031476
>they lost everything
They didn't though.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/
>>
File: globeisalie.jpg (101 KB, 450x271)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
>>22031478
regular rocks, doesnt prove they are space rocks
>>
>>22031476
if it's bullshit then what did they lose and why did they pretend to lose it?
>>
>>22031484
>regular rocks
Why don't you hire a geologist to verify this then? Because they have been verified many times by geologists all over the world to be actual moon rocks. I'd like to see you prove them wrong.
>>
>>22031483
they lost the telemetry data, raw video and schematics, the most important stuff that could prove they went
>>22031485
>>
>>22031493
he probably thinks geologists are also an illuminati hoax operation.
>>
File: 1476781174552.jpg (9 KB, 222x293)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>22031494
how is video the most important stuff that can prove they went when you claim all their videos are CGI?
>>
File: cgi.webm (2.92 MB, 1280x720)
2.92 MB
2.92 MB WEBM
>>22031499
how can you see stars through the earth here, moon landing isnt cgi its studio filmed by kubrick and that latter by coppula
>>
File: laughing89572346.gif (2.65 MB, 320x240)
2.65 MB
2.65 MB GIF
>>22031505
then why does it matter if they lost the footage?
>>
>>22031494
>they lost everything
Here are detailed mission reports for all six moon landings.
Apollo 11 - https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionReport.pdf
Apollo 12 - https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/A12_MissionReport.pdf
Apollo 13 - https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a13/A13_MissionReport.pdf
Apollo 14 - https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/A14_MissionReport.pdf
Apollo 15 - https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/ap15mr.pdf
Apollo 16 - https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16_MissionReport.pdf
>>
>>22031511
Left out 17
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_MissionReport.pdf
>>
File: spacelarpers.jpg (1.6 MB, 2997x2248)
1.6 MB
1.6 MB JPG
>>22031511
>>22031509
it doesnt, just helps the sleepers realize its all fake
>>
>>22031505
They're clearly not stars, it's dust on the lens or window. You can see at 40 seconds in the actual stars. Notice how the stars remain fixed relative to the earth but the dust moves with the camera. It's like you don't even watch the stuff you post.
>>
>>22031519
Could also be dead pixels. The sensors in digital cameras are known to degrade faster aboard the ISS due to the higher levels of radiation they're exposed to.
>>
>>22031518
Every time you post something you get BTFO and then move on to another topic. You have been shown time and time again to have a clear lack of understanding on whatever "evidence" you put forth.
>>
File: 1525445541134.jpg (2.05 MB, 3840x2880)
2.05 MB
2.05 MB JPG
>>22031519
>>22031524
dust and dead pixels, looks like the layers on the cgi rendering failed
>>
>>22031511
>we lost all of the telemetry, schematics original film and blueprints
>here's a pdf summary, don't worry about it plebs
>>
File: laugh324093467ghae.png (111 KB, 247x248)
111 KB
111 KB PNG
>>22031518
then why would they pretend to lose it? if they faked it once they can fake it twice and just remake it. holy shit this is hilarious.
>>
>>22031532
>looks like the layers on the cgi rendering failed
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Furthermore, why would they even post the video if their supposed "CGI" had failed? You need to actually think here.
>>
>>22031533
I guarantee you didn't even attempt to read one of those PDFs in its entirety.
>>
>>22031540
He's a retard who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, there's no point in trying to reason with him. He's set in his delusion and no amount of debunking of his own shoddy "evidence" will convince him otherwise because he's not actually here to learn anything.
>>
File: puppetshow.webm (2.95 MB, 1280x720)
2.95 MB
2.95 MB WEBM
>>22031541
it was live
>>22031540
they fake ISS all the time
>>
>>22031557
>it was live
If they were faking it why would they show it completely live?
>muh ISS webms
Already completely and utterly destroyed your nonsense in the previous thread.
>>22012531
I'd like you to explain to me how they faked this 50 minute long tour of the ISS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes
>>
File: Ck3WS_7WEAAVEJq.jpg (67 KB, 904x564)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>22031558
look at the cuts, they filmed in a zero g plane and spliced the video together, no cut longer than can be filmed in zero g descent, you can hear the jet engines
>>
>>22031564
>look at the cuts, they filmed in a zero g plane and spliced the video together, no cut longer than can be filmed in zero g descent, you can hear the jet engines
So there should be a splice every 25 seconds correct? Then point them out to me. If NASA apparently makes so many video mistakes with the ISS as you'd have people believe with your webms then this should be an easy task.
>>
>>22031564
Your image is retarded. The moon is not a polished surface and the sun is not a few meters away from the moon. Apply yourself.
>>
>>22031564
>>22031575
There should be 120 splices by the way
>>
File: ezgif-5-a95fc925d7a6.gif (3.79 MB, 420x242)
3.79 MB
3.79 MB GIF
This is not possible on a globe
>>
>>22031591
Meaningless without distances involved. I can show you just as many videos of ships disappearing over the horizon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nUFLLUahSI
>>
>>22031591
Source that the boat is more than 3 miles out?
>>
File: moonrover.jpg (48 KB, 498x384)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>>22031585
they mix in cgi wire work, look at the shower part when they work with water, they have to cut alot
>>
>>22031605
>wire work
Nope, he moves through multiple compartments and seamlessly inverts his orientation multiple times throughout the video. Show me the 120 splices.
>>
File: Clipboard01.jpg (92 KB, 720x705)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>22031611
same way they film this, who do you think developed this tech
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbPfNJwp9XY
>>
>>22031615
>the same way the film this
A film with cuts every few seconds and noticeable CGI? Not gonna cut it bud. If NASA apparently make so many mistakes with their CGI as you show in your webms, you shouldn't have any problem spotting them in the video I posted. If they used a zero G plane like you claim, then show me the splices every 25 seconds.
>>
File: Co-OwCCWIAAiDYV.jpg (63 KB, 639x634)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
>>22031624
the iss tour isnt live
>>
>>22031628
And? Show me evidence of CGI in the tour.
>>
>>22031628
>only possible on a flat earth
Why?
>>
File: DeoYik7WAAAtsSZ.jpg (86 KB, 960x647)
86 KB
86 KB JPG
>>22031631
nasa made it
>>
>>22031637
>nasa made it
So show the evidence of CGI in the video.
>>
File: 1525563628679.jpg (260 KB, 1600x806)
260 KB
260 KB JPG
>>22031633
curve a mirror and see if it makes the same image
>>
>>22031637
>>22031628
Why don't you try going to Bolivia and zoom in on the horizon?
>>
>>22031639
Get me a 28 square mile mirror and I'll be happy to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFj7gNh3yOM
>>
File: wtc-lines.jpg (324 KB, 1600x1163)
324 KB
324 KB JPG
>>22031639
>>
File: Screenshot (54).png (1.31 MB, 1366x768)
1.31 MB
1.31 MB PNG
>>22031639
.
>>
File: Cjud56CW0AAG3ht.jpg (98 KB, 629x634)
98 KB
98 KB JPG
>>22031643
objects get smaller and reach a vanishing point due to perspective what would that prove
>>22031649
viewing angle causes this, the horizon actual position is where the line is,
>>
>>22031657
>objects get smaller and reach a vanishing point due to perspective what would that prove
So zooming in would bring them back into view. If you can show in Bolivia an object that has gone over the curve being "brought back" by zooming in, then you'll have some proof on your hands
>>
>>22031657
>viewing angle causes this, the horizon actual position is where the line is
No it does not. The horizon is well below where the lines converge. Where the lines converge is eye level, there is no other explanation for it.
>>
File: FLATEARTHMEME.png (26 KB, 788x790)
26 KB
26 KB PNG
amidoinitrite?
>>
>>22031657
>crepuscular rays
Already debunked >>22030602
>beam of sunlight over water
Already debunked >>22031439
>water always finds its level
Already debunked >>22028478
>>
File: 1525310618820.jpg (100 KB, 600x600)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
>>22031667
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MxUqv50fnA
>>
>>22031673
>muh refraction
So why does increasing your altitude allow you to see things that have gone over the horizon?
>>
File: DrpyG0wVAAA9urP.jpg (54 KB, 540x960)
54 KB
54 KB JPG
>>22031681
higher viewing angle
>>
>>22031673
Why are the wind turbines in that video apparently chopping up the water?
>>
>>22031683
>higher viewing angle
If you increase your altitude, the distance between you and something that has gone over the horizon actually increases. This is an absolute fact. So why can we then see that object reappear when we increase our distance from it?
>>
File: 1520499238502.png (59 KB, 450x440)
59 KB
59 KB PNG
>>22031685
optical effects of perspective
>>
>>22031691
Nope, the video is zoomed in therefore perspective wouldn't cause this effect. You are simply throwing words down now that you don't understand. Here is a video by an artist who has been using perspective in his art for over 20 years explain how perspective actually works. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp7Lic5vh9E
>>
File: 1526248825823.jpg (198 KB, 794x800)
198 KB
198 KB JPG
>>22031695
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIMBbc1NP-I
>>
I like how he's completely given up trying to disprove the ISS footage kek
>>
File: Dv27tWKWwAY9YXa.jpg (64 KB, 750x298)
64 KB
64 KB JPG
>>22031697
prove its not cgi
>>
>>22031696
Doesn't mention the height of the buildings or account for refraction
>>
>>22031702
Not my job. You're trying to shift the burden of proof. You initially claimed it was a zero G plane, and then you claimed it was CGI. You have provided no proof for either of these claims.
>>
File: phases.jpg (187 KB, 1066x1600)
187 KB
187 KB JPG
>>22031710
theres evidence they use wires, why ignore evidence when its against you belief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBhAZLUmn2w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8-SSDbOhnQ
>>
>>22031744
>theres evidence they use wires, why ignore evidence when its against you belief
So show it in the video I posted. Stop deflecting.
>>
>>22031748
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kv4dqIUJoM
>>
>>22031744
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBhAZLUmn2w
You can see at eight seconds that the other end of the cord he is not holding begins to move towards the ground. This is because the ISS is performing a course correction. Because they are in freefall, and the bottom end of the wire is not stuck to the ground, as the ISS makes the correction the "ground" moves up to meet the bottom end of the wire. When the astronaut lets go of his end of the wire it starts to be affected by this course correction too as it is no longer tethered to him
>>
File: cgibluescreen.webm (2.9 MB, 1280x720)
2.9 MB
2.9 MB WEBM
>>22031758
or its all fake
>>
>>22031756
You can deflect all you want with these videos. I and other people ITT can still see you for the idiot you are because you have yet to provide any proof that they used CGI, wires or a zero G plane in the 50 minute long ISS tour I posted. I know you'll continue to spam videos of "invisible wires" to make yourself feel better but it doesn't change the fact that you have utterly failed to provide proof of your assertions and have therefore lost the argument.
>>
>>22031765
They are not the same videos. That is not being used for chroma keying, otherwise it would not have the white grid on it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCO_4UFINBQ
>>
File: DvFJtwwXgAUI0Es.jpg (28 KB, 426x426)
28 KB
28 KB JPG
>>22031768
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6XeELc3QH8
can you prove its not cgi, i provided lots of evidence it is
>>
>>22031780
>can you prove its not cgi
Again it's not up for me to prove. You're trying desperately to shift the burden of proof because you know there's no other way out of this argument.
>i provided lots of evidence it is
No you didn't. You have yet to provide any evidence shown in the tour video that they used CGI to fake it. I have shown you time and time again to be a deceptive idiot in this thread, and every time you just ignore it and act like it never happened.
>>
File: flight.webm (3 MB, 682x384)
3 MB
3 MB WEBM
>>
>>22031848
No solar filter. Already debunked above.
>>
File: CvzZjC4WcAIO8zb.jpg (53 KB, 540x659)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>22031792
their mistakes get caught when they live stream they had plenty of post production to clean up any mistakes
>>
>>22031865
>image
I've already told you to look at this video because you clearly have no understanding of barrel distortion. >>22031425
>>
>>22031865
So you're admitting you can't find any evidence of CGI at all. Got it.
>>
File: DbH_WCmUwAA7F9P.jpg (55 KB, 1008x672)
55 KB
55 KB JPG
>>22031889
do you have video of the transition i cant find it
>>
File: yefe.jpg (727 KB, 1743x1104)
727 KB
727 KB JPG
>>22031896
so you cant prove its not but theres evidence of them using wires, cgi, augmented reality, got it
>>
File: images(1).jpg (9 KB, 225x225)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>22031861
You don't need to put a filter over things to see how they really are. All this freemason shit it the same, "don't look for yourself, trust us". Stupid
>>
>>22031968
>You don't need to put a filter over things to see how they really are.
Yes you do, you are a fucking retard. The sun is really fucking bright, you absolutely cannot see its true size without using a solar filter. If glare isn't an issue then why don't you stare at it for a few minutes?
>>
>>22031937
>so you cant prove its not
I can't prove that it's not? Are you asking me to prove a negative? The burden of proof is on you and solely you to prove that the video is using CGI. Your attempts to shift this burden are pathetic and expose you for the fool you are.
>>
>>22031968
>All this freemason shit it the same, "don't look for yourself, trust us". Stupid
Why don't you buy a solar filter and test it out for yourself you lazy faggot? You're the one trusting a load of easily debunked image macros without actually verifying them yourself. Idiot.
>>
File: img_0478.jpg (493 KB, 1800x1800)
493 KB
493 KB JPG
>>
File: 1967to2018.jpg (129 KB, 1080x720)
129 KB
129 KB JPG
>>
>getting BTFO so hard you don't even directly reply to anyone anymore and just spam retarded image macros and infographics
yikers
>>
>>22032062
Makes sense. Flat Earthers are literally the mental equivalent of homeless guys that scream at fire hydrants.
>>
File: NASA Plans 2005.jpg (629 KB, 1904x1895)
629 KB
629 KB JPG
>>
File: 1386912558543.jpg (8 KB, 200x156)
8 KB
8 KB JPG
ITT:
>Tards trying to disprove gravity
>Tards trying to disprove Literal technology they use everyday, including GPS
>Tards trying to disprove their literal shitposting machines, including satellites and internet
>Tards trying to disprove science
>Tards trying to disprove physics ""muh infinite mass""
>LARP creating new theories, without proof
This was some real deep shithole here...
>>
File: dometrump.webm (817 KB, 720x480)
817 KB
817 KB WEBM
>>
File: maxresdefault(4).jpg (50 KB, 1280x720)
50 KB
50 KB JPG
No curve!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE
>>
>>22032083
Literally meaningless video unless you provide distances involved. The boat isn't far enough out to have gone over the horizon. We've been through this about 10 times already.
>>
File: images(2).jpg (9 KB, 275x183)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
Localized sun rays you can see with your own eyes outside every day

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jtV4jao4qnA
>>
File: images (21).jpg (27 KB, 739x415)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>another flat earth thread
DEJA VU
I have been in this thread again
Higher on the curve
And I know it's my time to link proofs
Calling you, and your thinking is a mystery
Standing on my feet
It's so hard when I try to be me, whoaaa
DEJA VU
I have just been in this time before
Higher on the LARP
And I know it's a proven fact
Calling you, and the earth is a spherical
Standing on my feet
It's so hard when I try to accept it, yeahhh
>>
File: 1526961479199.jpg (289 KB, 584x433)
289 KB
289 KB JPG
>>22032134
Based Initial D poster
>>
>>22032113
I've lost brain cells reading through your fucking posts, I swear.

The video this guy posted literally showed how the curvature of the earth blocks the sun's light from hitting clouds that are on the opposite end of the curve. No fucking shit, the clouds that are on the farside of the apex of the curve are going to be darker.
>>
>>22032150
I'm convinced he's trolling at this point. Either that or he's literally sub-80 IQ
>>
File: images.png (12 KB, 408x450)
12 KB
12 KB PNG
>>22032113
You are pic related by this point, no offense
>>
File: maxresdefault(3).jpg (69 KB, 1280x720)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
No matter how high you go the earth remains flat and the horizon is at eye level

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2RATP53l9MA
>>
>>22028476
If it’s not moving why doesn’t the gravity of earth pull everything toward the center of the disk at a higher rate the closer you get to the center?

Also if you’re going to use gravity doesn’t exist against my first question and the earth isn’t moving how do we experience being drawn “downward” towards it?
>>
>>22032213
I think you need your eyes checked mate. If you pause the video at any point where the horizon line intersects the center of the frame (eliminates barrel distortion) you can clearly see a curve
>>
>Earth is a sphere
>Earth is a flat disk
>Earth is a sphere
>Earth is a flat disk
>Earth is a sphere
>Earth is a flat disk
>Earth is a sphere
>Earth is a flat disk
>Earth is a sphere
>Earth is a flat disk
>Earth is a sphere
>Earth is a flat disk
>Earth is a sphere
>Earth is a flat disk
>Earth is a sphere
>Earth is a flat disk
FUCKING PICK ONE ALREADY
>b-but someone has to be wrong!
>h-how can I prove that I'm superior to everyone else?!
>#flatearthmasterrace
>#sphericalearthmasterrace
Fucking KYS
>>
>>
>>22032260
You're literally just reposting images that have already been posted in this thread now. Are you a bot or something?
>>
>>22032260
What is with the “Water always finds its level” thing?

Flat earth is literally for people who want to feel special and have a really hard time with anything on a super large scale and relative motion.

Also what does the government have to gain by lying about the shape of the earth? The only people with an actual stake in this shit are the flat earthers, globe earth people have nothing to lose if it’s a globe or flat. They’re just a lot more evidence that it’s a globe
>>
File: IMG_4318.jpg (207 KB, 1920x1080)
207 KB
207 KB JPG
>>22032270
theres more than one responding
>>
File: maxresdefault (2).jpg (70 KB, 1280x720)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
Airys failure proves the earth is stationary
>>
File: hqdefault.jpg (41 KB, 480x360)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>
>>22032341
>Airy's failure
Nope
https://youtu.be/j6GuBnDK9SQ?t=33
>>
>>22032348
Please look up the definition of a scientific theory
>>
File: 1546572975045.jpg (77 KB, 489x645)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
>>22032361
>>22032364
>>
>>22032341
Here is Globebusters themselves actually proving the 15 degree an hour rotation
https://youtu.be/TMG5P1LRHYU?t=240
>>
>>22032376
Are you going to address the fact that you blatantly lied about Airy's experiment or not?
>>
File: DavlT3TX0AAJ46T.jpg (16 KB, 500x393)
16 KB
16 KB JPG
>>22032383
your video just inserts your own beliefs of gravity
>>
>>22032386
So you're admitting you didn't actually understand what Airy's experiment was about and that you just jumped on it without actually looking into it?
>>
File: 2qzn5e.jpg (36 KB, 450x452)
36 KB
36 KB JPG
This entire thread
>>
File: Do9CDasUcAEY4tV.jpg (111 KB, 1200x800)
111 KB
111 KB JPG
>>22032395
if the earth moved you would get a different result, look at the experiment
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspl.1871.0011
>>
>>22032405
>stop showing people how retarded my false experiments and "proofs" are
Nope, catch me in the next thread flattie
>>
File: file.png (1.84 MB, 1080x1080)
1.84 MB
1.84 MB PNG
>>22032410
>Aether was the hypothetical material that fills the region of space. It was assumed to be the medium that allows light and gravity to propagate in space. Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, some experiments were carried out to prove if the aether exists.

>Flat-Earthers (and geocentrists alike) often use the results of these experiments to support their case that the Earth is stationary. But they are wrong. These experiments were conducted to prove if the Aether theory, or if one of its competing hypotheses —like the Special Relativity— better explains reality.

>In 1871, George Airy attempted to measure the drag of light that would change the stellar aberration of light by using a water-filled telescope, instead of an air-filled one. His observation did not indicate the change exists and does not support the Aether drag hypothesis, hence the popular name “Airy’s failure.” It does not support a flat & stationary Earth as the underlying phenomenon —the annual stellar aberration— can only occur if the Earth is in motion around the Sun.

>The Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 proved that if the Earth is in motion, then Aether could not exist. This experiment alone cannot confirm if the Earth is or is not in motion, but that does not stop flat-Earthers. The fact that the Earth is in motion had to be concluded from other observations.

>Georges Sagnac in 1913 conducted an experiment where he rotated his interferometer. He concluded the Aether exists, but only because he was unaware of what we call now the Sagnac effect. This effect is used today in optical gyroscopes, and cannot possibly be utilized had the Aether theory is correct.

>The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment (1926) was a very large interferometer designed to detect Earth’s rotation by measuring the resulting Sagnac effect. The experiment was successful and confirmed the angular velocity due to Earth’s rotation.
>>
File: Fallen_Astronaut.jpg (516 KB, 1306x1306)
516 KB
516 KB JPG
>>22032428
>2019 no proof its a ball
>>
>>22032376
If you’ve studied physics you know this is ridiculous
>inb4 spoonfed science
Stop trying to refute something you don’t understand. Make up your own language for describing physics phenomena, then use it to disprove what we already have
>>
>>22032459
Flat earthers themselves measured the rotation with an extremely accurate $20,000 laser gyroscope
>>22032379
>>
File: 646.jpg (17 KB, 600x450)
17 KB
17 KB JPG
Pee is stored in the balls
Lava is earth's pee
Which proves that earth is indeed, a sphere
Flatearthers, BTFO
>>
File: terrastronot.jpg (19 KB, 236x236)
19 KB
19 KB JPG
>>
>>22032515
#ResearchPeeMagma
>>
>>22032531
>The only thing we had with the capacity to carry humans beyond LEO was the Saturn V rocket. (We can and do still send unmanned spacecraft - which are far lighter - to other planets using smaller rockets.) Unfortunately, we no longer have what is needed to build them.

>The last Saturn V launch was over forty years ago. They were last manufactured almost fifty years ago. Due to how the manufacturing was so spread out, the blueprints are a mess. Half of them are missing and most of what's left are illegible. Most of the factories that manufactured the parts and put them together have closed, often when the companies that owned them shut down or merged, the tools and equipment that were used thereby lost or destroyed. The launch equipment and the computers used to control them are gone or obsolete.

>Without question though, the greatest loss are the men who designed, manufactured, stacked, and launched them. They all retired long ago. Many are now dead. A man who was thirty in 1969 is almost 80 now.
>>
>>22032474
lol I remember that. They picked up the 15° an hour rotation after they said they wouldn't, then the idiot says it's picking up "Celestial Energies/Motions/whatever" and starts building these containers to "shield" the gyro, and keeps coming up with the same result.
Even then the dishonest fuck wouldn't admit he was wrong
>>
File: butt_earth_theory.jpg (132 KB, 711x713)
132 KB
132 KB JPG
>>22032515
Also earth's butthole is located at Antarctica
Ice is literally earth's shit
While magma is the pee
It all makes sense now, based anon
>>
File: rfe.jpg (585 KB, 1319x849)
585 KB
585 KB JPG
>>
>>
>>22032215
Still waiting on this flat earthers
>>
>>22032775
relative density
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rm5D47nG9k4
>>
>>22032792
Relative density relies on gravity to work. In a zero gravity environment more dense things don’t sink relative to less dense things, because nothing is causing them to sink.

So is it gravity or is it moving upwards, because your relative densitargument relies on one of them
>>
>>22032792
Then how do metal objects and large stones rest on topsoil? By your reasoning, most of the objects in our cities ought to sink into the ground because the materials that comprise them are more dense than the soil beneath their foundations.

Also, how the hell do you explain the tides then? Nothing about that motion makes any sense without gravity, and if gravity straight up doesn't exist, even the supposedly floating and moving sun above the earth would have no influence on tidal shifts.
>>
File: DwoY6HSXcAA86iu.jpg (56 KB, 1200x595)
56 KB
56 KB JPG
>>22032824
tides are caused by tidal nodes, magnetics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjwcLg4hvs4&t=3063s
>>
File: gazer.jpg (356 KB, 2553x1413)
356 KB
356 KB JPG
>>22032811
at what altitude can i drop you out of a rocket and you wont fall to the ground, the point where fake space starts
>>
>>22032872
Research sidereal days you stupid cunt
>>
>>22029900
abstractions of what?
>>
>>22032856
Kek, ignore the first part but alright.

Well, the magnetic field of the earth is generated by the Dynamo Effect which is a result of magma moving beneath the earths crust, which by all accounts you would also disagree with ever happening.

Doubly so, how the hell do magnets move water? Their isn't nearly enough metallic content in any major body of water for the magnetic field of the earth to move the water like the tides indicate. This would also assume the metallic particulates of the water wouldn't just gather with each other (Since you love relative density so much which >>22032811
pointed out doesn't even work the way you interpret it without gravity) and move as massed sediment on the Ocean floor.

>>22032872
I really hope you're a troll man. Because at the point that you start saying shit like "fake space" you ought to be questioning the validity of what you've been sold.
>>
I've never come across a flat earther on this site who is currently studying or has qualified in any sort of useful STEM degree
>>
>>22032977
>I've never come across a flat earther on this site who is currently studying or has qualified in any sort of useful STEM degree
You mean by just reiterating "facts" from a textbook, onto a piece of paper?
>>
>>22032872
So what’s outside of the “dome” around the flat earth? Is it just nothingness? How can you tell
>>
>>22032996
Ask me how I know you've never done a STEM degree
>>
>>22032996
Unlike yourself who just regurgitates falsehoods from poorly-compressed image macros onto a Taiwanese herbal remedy forum?
>>
>>22033002
starplane
>>
>>22033045
Why wouldn’t you not fall in the star plane then? And what’s outside of that? Are you saying the entire universe is a bunch of slightly less dense layers with the earth at the middle?
>>
File: Dt6CbUPVsAAiMW6.jpg (66 KB, 624x793)
66 KB
66 KB JPG
>>22033055
ill let you know when i get there
>>
>>22033059
That’s really your answer?
“Lol I got no proof yet but I’m right! All the proven theories that work mathematically easily aren’t real, but my no movement no gravity density theory is right and I’ll build a fucking rocket with my no money to enter the star plane to prove it!”
>>
File: cosmicegg.jpg (97 KB, 1460x1364)
97 KB
97 KB JPG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRsWN79jZNU&t=950s
>>
File: 1547275645900.jpg (643 KB, 800x3784)
643 KB
643 KB JPG
>>
>>22033144
Flat vegetables are real, everything is flat, have you ever even looked at things?
>>
Did OP just post this so he could laugh at all the retards that think the world is flat ?
>>
File: 1453667717915.jpg (127 KB, 800x800)
127 KB
127 KB JPG
>>22033156
>>
I think FE is a fascinating exercise in how you can argue for the the most fucking stupid point ever provided you are stubborn and dishonest enough
>>
>>22033194
kek it's been a long time since I've seen this image
>>
File: UPPERATMOSPHERE.jpg (302 KB, 3182x1876)
302 KB
302 KB JPG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XIn89TxZS0



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.