Author Topic: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying? (Read 70991 times)

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #600 on:** December 12, 2021, 12:33:53 PM »

Marion,
When you see holy pictures which show the world as a globe, have you ever asked yourself these questions?

1. If the earth is round and if this sphere is meant to represent all of God's creation and His dominion over it, then where are the heavens/firmament/universe?
2. Didn't God also create the heavens/firmament/universe? So why does the sphere only represent earth alone?
3. Or...does the sphere represent ALL of creation: earth, heavens, firmament, planets?
4. Why does Scripture refer to earth by saying "on earth" (i.e. as in, "on land")? Why does Scripture always refer to "in heaven" (i.e. heaven is above land)?
5. Why does Scripture refer to the "firmament of heaven"? Is it implying that heaven is part of the earth (i.e. flat land/dome model)?
6. Does God have no dominion over the heavens? Does God have no dominion over the universe/planets/stars?
7. If He does have dominion over these, why are they never shown in drawings, paintings, descriptions? Why is only the earth shown?

Or...is it possible that when people say that the world is a sphere (not that the earth is a sphere), that the word "world" includes a flat land, the heavens, the firmament, planets and stars...all in one dome-shaped, sphere-shaped, globe-shaped environment created by God?

Marion · « **Reply #601 on:** December 12, 2021, 12:50:49 PM »

Quote from: bodeens on December 12, 2021, 11:21:26 AM

Have you gotten a ham radio license yet? If you have a General Class license or better multiple forum members could do NVIS/NHIS experiments. I think NHIS/NVIS could potentially move the arguments on this forum forward one way or the other.

A ham radio operator explains why the map of the flat earth crowd is flat wrong. Maybe some CI members can verify what he says.

The flat earth: what ham radio operators know by WF6I (a.p.o.i.)

Marion · « **Reply #602 on:** December 12, 2021, 01:14:39 PM »

Quote from: Marion on December 12, 2021, 12:50:49 PM

A ham radio operator explains why the map of the flat earth crowd is flat wrong. Maybe some CI members can verify what he says.

The flat earth: what ham radio operators know by WF6I (a.p.o.i.)

He also explains how ham radio folks confirm the distance to the moon as given by astronomers.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #603 on:** December 12, 2021, 01:29:45 PM »

Quote from: Marion on December 12, 2021, 12:50:49 PM

A ham radio operator explains why the map of the flat earth crowd is flat wrong. Maybe some CI members can verify what he says.

The flat earth: what ham radio operators know by WF6I (a.p.o.i.)

It's interesting that in the first 90 seconds, he handily demolishes all the facile globe-earth arguments that you and your cohorts have already tried.

. So I'll give him that much. I'll listen to the rest later.

At the same time, Exalt wireless a couple years ago boasted of a record microwave transmission of over 100 miles across the Mediterranean. But ... microwave is known to be line of sight, which is why this record is so impressive (vs. radio waves which can travel thousands of miles). They forgot to do the curvature math that would have show this to be impossible on a globe (their towers were 50 feet high).

Marion · « **Reply #604 on:** December 12, 2021, 01:37:08 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 12, 2021, 01:29:45 PM

It's interesting that in the first 90 seconds, he handily demolishes all the facile globe-earth arguments that you and your cohorts have already tried. . So I'll give him that much. I'll listen to the rest later.

At the same time, Exalt wireless a couple years ago boasted of a record microwave transmission of over 100 miles across the Mediterranean. But ... microwave is known to be line of sight, which is why this record is so impressive (vs. radio waves which can travel thousands of miles). They forgot to do the curvature math that would have show this to be impossible on a globe (their towers were 50 feet high).

Again strawmen.

I'm looking forward to read your comment after you have understood how he destroys your position.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #605 on:** December 12, 2021, 01:41:46 PM »

So claiming that ham operators have "direct" experience is silly. They operate their equipment even if they don't understand how it works exactly.

At the end of the "ground wave" section, as far as I've gotten, he claims that ground wave "follow the ground" and so they don't prove flat earth. What, so these waves can now bend around the curvature of the earth? I didn't know that radio waves could bend magically. Is it gravity that keeps them hugging the ground?

He also opened the article talking about "luminiferous ether", which nearly all scientists today reject. Because of Michelson-Morley, they had to reject the notion of light travelling through a medium, creating the myth of the only example of waves that do not required a "medium" in which to travel. But that's a side issue.

So, in terms of ground waves, please explain why they hug the earth around a curve. He simply assumes that because they're called "ground" waves. Maybe they're "ground" waves only because they travel straight and therefore stay near the ground ... on a flat earth. I'll listen to the rest later.

Do you know that amateur radio operators have done experiments bouncing radio waves off the moon (and received them back)? How does that happen from 260,000 miles away? I've seen the math done. By the time these waves COULD come back, assuming it were possible, the earth would have rotated many miles and therefore the waves would not have come close to their return target.

LORAN was a line-of-sight navigation system developed during WW2 and it worked over many hundreds of miles, when it shouldn't have. nαzιs had a line-of-sight targeting system that the lead British scientific advisor stated could not work due to the curvature of the earth and given that they were line-of-sight. Well, they got bombed by the nαzιs with this targeting system.

Matthew · « **Reply #606 on:** December 12, 2021, 01:43:09 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 12, 2021, 01:29:45 PM

It's interesting that in the first 90 seconds, he handily demolishes all the facile globe-earth arguments that you and your cohorts have already tried. . So I'll give him that much. I'll listen to the rest later.

At the same time, Exalt wireless a couple years ago boasted of a record microwave transmission of over 100 miles across the Mediterranean. But ... microwave is known to be line of sight, which is why this record is so impressive (vs. radio waves which can travel thousands of miles). They forgot to do the curvature math that would have show this to be impossible on a globe (their towers were 50 feet high).

I haven't chimed in as a Ham yet, but although I'm Extra Class and very "into it" in many ways, the fact is that I can't spend that many hours on this hobby per week or per month, a lot of that time has been allocated to non-operating activities, and I've only been a Ham for 2 years.

Time spent building antennas, organizing my shack, building shelving, sorting through stuff, dissecting old stuff, watching videos about building radios, and dozens of other subjects don't add 1 iota to my experience *operating* ham radios. I actually spend very little time "operating". There are some hams like that, they're more into the technology and building things, solving problems, getting set up.

That having been said, I have heard a few things in my travels that would raise Flat Earth-inclined eyebrows.

1. References to mystery, or "I can't explain it" when it comes to direction and/or distance. "You just have to try it. I've had ______ happen and that shouldn't be possible, but it is. So just try it."

2. They do teach that line-of-sight VHF/UHF radio goes slightly "beyond line of sight" for some reason. I remember wondering why it curved with the earth just a bit but then stopped "for some reason" after some arbitrary distance. If VHF which normally is completely line-of-sight were able to propagate "ground wave", it should keep going, esp. if the ground is the right material (clay rather than sand) and you start with a high enough power level.

3. There are various atmospheric phenomena blamed for unusual or above-average propagation -- including 2 meters VHF. On a semi-regular basis, you can talk on 2M (with the right modes, and the right antennas) to different states -- sometimes several states away. These atmospheric phenomena include: Sporadic "E", tropospheric ducting, temperature inversions, etc.

Dankward · « **Reply #607 on:** December 12, 2021, 01:45:17 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 12, 2021, 10:45:57 AM

You and most globers simply take it for granted that various "phenomena we can observe with our very eyes" prove their position. But these are entirely falsified by actual experiments conducted by the Flat Earthers. I don't see the globers going out making videos by the hundreds, taking measurements, etc. They just beg the question and take it for granted that the "phenomena" back up their position. They're content with statements like yours above.

No, I was stating that there are no explanations for certain observations in the FE model. This makes globe Earth the better model, and FE the worse one in these regards.

Quote

Just one example. Glober after glober starts with the old "ships disappearing over the horizon" nonsense as their first go-to proof. But the FEers actually go out there and demonstrate that even when they might APPEAR to disappear, they immediately return to view when you zoom in with a good camera, like a Nikon P900. I have yet to see a video by a globe earther demonstrating the contrary. There was one attempted by (I think it was) PBS or National Geographic, using a helicopter descending below the horizon, and that was proven to be a fake. They simply reversed the film, as the FE group pointed out that an exactly identical flock of birds flew by both when the copter was going "down" and when it was coming back "up". Why did they have to fake the video?

All globers would have to do is to convincingly falsify something like the Rowbotham experiment. Track a small boat on film and watch it disappear when globe math indicates that it should. Then zoom in to maximum magnification to show that despite the magnification it's still gone. But the FEers have literally hundreds of videos which show the opposite result, that they remain visible for miles and miles after globe math indicates they should have disappeared.

They do disappear. While idealistic calculations might be off by a few miles due to refraction and what not, all objects do in fact disappear in the distance. That's why you can't see Mt. Everest from New York even with the strongest telescope (one that can resolve craters on Mars, for example, or distant nebulae), or see a ship sailing across the atlantic.

Ships disappear the same way that these pylons disappear. It's not perspective. Not fisheye. It's a curve.

Do you think you can see the socket of those pylons that disappear below the water line when you zoom in? You can't. Do you think you can see the full body of a ship that's far out? You can't, it's partially occluded by the curved water surface, as clearly shown in this video. This is not perspective, because if it was, zooming in / magnifying would reveal the full object again.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #608 on:** December 12, 2021, 01:49:38 PM »

Ponchetrain has been debunked 100 times. Don't you see the distortion in the image not very far out?

This effect has been repeatedly duplicated by flat earthers on level ground over a short bride with various things like bicycle riders riding away from them.

Meanwhile, there's that bridge in China (can't remember the spelling) where it goes on for a record length and there are pictures that make it look like it's completely straight.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #609 on:** December 12, 2021, 01:53:55 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on December 12, 2021, 01:45:17 PM

Do you think you can see the socket of those pylons that disappear below the water line when you zoom in? You can't. Do you think you can see the full body of a ship that's far out? You can't, it's partially occluded by the curved water surface, as clearly shown in this video. This is not perspective, because if it was, zooming in / magnifying would reveal the full object again.

And you don't see the wavy blurring of the image right out of the gate? There's obviously high water vapor and moisture impeding the view. There's no indication of how far out they are and what the limits of the magnification are for whatever it is that they're using to view it. Even video equipment has limits. Unless there's data regarding things like distance, moisture/humidity, the equipment they're using, etc. ... it's totally useless. Flat Earthers are usually careful to docuмent all these details. So another epic fail.

I could find an post 100 where they docuмent everything they're doing, from how high the camera is off the ground, use maps to show how far the target object is away, do the curvature math, and often take temperature and humidity readings, and objects are clearly visible way past what earth curvature would allow.

But you see, refraction and visual distortion due to humidity, etc. only exist when it's a Flat Earther making the case, never when a Glober is doing it. I've seen FEers actually show examples of exactly this kind of distortion due to humidity levels but then showed the distortion go away on a different day when there was lower humidity. FEers take the time and the effort to docuмent things, while the globe earth stuff, the little there is, is lazy and makes all kinds of assumptions.

Marion · « **Reply #610 on:** December 12, 2021, 01:55:24 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 12, 2021, 01:41:46 PM

So claiming that ham operators have "direct" experience is silly. They operate their equipment even if they don't understand how it works exactly.

At the end of the "ground wave" section, as far as I've gotten, he claims that ground wave "follow the ground" and so they don't prove flat earth. What, so these waves can now bend around the curvature of the earth? I didn't know that radio waves could bend magically. Is it gravity that keeps them hugging the ground?

He also opened the article talking about "luminiferous ether", which nearly all scientists today reject. Because of Michelson-Morley, they had to reject the notion of light travelling through a medium, creating the myth of the only example of waves that do not required a "medium" in which to travel. But that's a side issue.

So, in terms of ground waves, please explain why they hug the earth around a curve. He simply assumes that because they're called "ground" waves. Maybe they're "ground" waves only because they travel straight and therefore stay near the ground ... on a flat earth. I'll listen to the rest later.

Do you know that amateur radio operators have done experiments bouncing radio waves off the moon (and received them back)? How does that happen from 260,000 miles away? I've seen the math done. By the time these waves COULD come back, assuming it were possible, the earth would have rotated many miles and therefore the waves would not have come close to their return target.

LORAN was a line-of-sight navigation system developed during WW2 and it worked over many hundreds of miles, when it shouldn't have. nαzιs had a line-of-sight targeting system that the lead British scientific advisor stated could not work due to the curvature of the earth and given that they were line-of-sight. Well, they got bombed by the nαzιs with this targeting system.

Sidetracking, sidetracking, sidetracking.

Why not first watch the whole video, and then address the main points? You didn't even get what the main points are!

Ladislaus · « **Reply #611 on:** December 12, 2021, 01:58:35 PM »

Quote from: Marion on December 12, 2021, 01:55:24 PM

Sidetracking, sidetracking, sidetracking.

Why not first watch the whole video, and then address the main points? You didn't even get what the main points are!

Not sidetracking. I'll watch it when I have time. But I noted that it's of interest that he himself debunks the same crap arguments you and your buddies have started with, agreeing that they don't prove globe earth. I'll get to the rest later.

BTW, have any of you guys viewed the "Mountain of Evidence" video I posted?

As is typical of the intellectually dishonest, you ignore all the evidence against it and simply try to post your evidence, and then demand that everyone watch it and refute it or else they declare victory.

What about watching OUR videos, of which there are literally hundreds?

Marion · « **Reply #612 on:** December 12, 2021, 02:01:33 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 12, 2021, 01:58:35 PM

Not sidetracking. I'll watch it when I have time. But I noted that it's of interest that he himself debunks the same crap arguments you and your buddies have started with, agreeing that they don't prove globe earth. I'll get to the rest later.

BTW, have any of you guys viewed the "Mountain of Evidence" video I posted?

As is typical of the intellectually dishonest, you ignore all the evidence against it and simply try to post your evidence, and then demand that everyone watch it and refute it or else they declare victory.

What about watching OUR videos, of which there are literally hundreds?

Again strawmen! Whom do you call my buddies?

Stubborn · « **Reply #613 on:** December 12, 2021, 02:06:43 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 12, 2021, 01:53:55 PM

And you don't see the wavy blurring of the image right out of the gate? There's obviously high water vapor and moisture impeding the view. There's no indication of how far out they are and what the limits of the magnification are for whatever it is that they're using to view it. Even video equipment has limits. Unless there's data regarding things like distance, moisture/humidity, the equipment they're using, etc. ... it's totally useless. Flat Earthers are usually careful to docuмent all these details. So another epic fail.

I could find an post 100 where they docuмent everything they're doing, from how high the camera is off the ground, use maps to show how far the target object is away, do the curvature math, and often take temperature and humidity readings, and objects are clearly visible way past what earth curvature would allow.

I dunno Lad, 15 years ago I spent 2 weeks with my boss at his condo right on the beach in Melbourne Beach, FL. He was on the 2nd floor so he was well above the water and he had a really, really nice telescope. I remember a few times looking through it and seeing things very blurry like the video, but I also saw large freighters that were far out there very clearly disappear under the horizon.

My boss said that at the surface, you can see straight for like 30 miles or so (I can't remember the exact number), after that, whatever your looking at will disappear under the horizon due to the earths curvature, which I myself witnessed. To this day I have never had any reason to doubt it, or even think about it for that matter lol

Marion · « **Reply #614 on:** December 12, 2021, 02:19:54 PM »

Quote from: bodeens on December 12, 2021, 11:21:26 AM

Have you gotten a ham radio license yet? If you have a General Class license or better multiple forum members could do NVIS/NHIS experiments. I think NHIS/NVIS could potentially move the arguments on this forum forward one way or the other.

Bodeens, go to the next beach, where you can see the sun set and disappear below the horizon, then call a friend in Australia and ask whether it's been getting dark there, too.

If the earth is flat, then the whole earth should be dark after sunset.

Author Topic: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying? (Read 70991 times)

Pax Vobis

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Marion

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Marion

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Ladislaus

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Marion

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Ladislaus

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Matthew

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Dankward

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Ladislaus

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Ladislaus

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Marion

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Ladislaus

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Marion

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Stubborn

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?

Marion

Re: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying?