Here's the bottom line. When people like Marion or Stanley have dug their heels in, it's probably a fruitless argument. Nothing we say will ever convince them. You have to have an open mind and then honestly look at the evidence. If not, you just filter stuff out based on confirmation bias.
I was a geocentrist but believed that we lived on a sphere. But then some people here started posting about Flat Earth (and that eventually got moved into its own subforum).
I was extremely skeptical at first, but I decided to at least have a look at the evidence with an open mind. After all, we've been lied to about nearly everything else, so it's not theoretically out of the question that this too is a deception.
So I started looking, at both sides of the issue, and after looking for a while, I was a bit shocked ... myself having been programmed with globe propaganda my entire life. So I kept looking and looking. I got to a point where I stated that I "lean[ed] Flat Earth." I was about 60% for Flat Earth and 40% against. In point of fact, what remained was mostly the emotional reluctance caused by the brainwashing. From an actual evidence perspective it was about 90% flat and 10% globe. And I did honestly look at both sides. I looked at the debunking sites and the anti-debunking sites (debunking the debunkers). Almost every time, the FE folks were able to expose the "debunking" as deception and lies, often outright fraud. There's so much evidence of NASA faking ISS and spacewalk footage that it's laughable. And the occult and Luciferian/Satanic ties of NASA are undeniable.
So it was about 3-4 months ago that I realized that I have no actual rational argument left against the flat earth and in favor of the ball earth. So I'm squarely in the flat earth camp. I'll keep open about it, but I want to see some real evidence, not the tired old specious "logic," emotional reactions, insults, etc. Sorry, but I don't trust anything that comes from NASA or the space agencies. I don't consider that evidence by any stretch.
Probably the BEST argument I do see out there has to do with the face of the moon appearing to be almost the same from every perspective (except inverted in the Southern hemisphere). But the moon definitely is not a rock 260,000 miles from the earth. You can see stars and blue sky right through it. We don't have any idea what causes what appear to be "features" on the moon. There's one guy who did some fascinating work and asserts that the features on the moon (the darker areas) are actually a reflection of the earth off the firmament. He actually took that and used it as a flat earth map and plotted out recognizable points on it and demonstrated that the ratios correspond exactly to the relative distances between those places on earth. Not sure if I buy that, but it could in fact be anything. And I find it ludicrously implausible that we see the same face of the moon for centuries because the moon's rotation is synchronized to the SECOND with its revolution around the earth. To me that's borderline absurd. Even if it's off by one second, the face of the moon would have changed gradually over the years. So that leave me with the conclusion that the moon is not some rotating sphere but something altogether different. What it is, I don't really know. Rest of the planets, before they're touched up by NASA look more like blurry lights, and I've seen pictures of electrical phenomena in water that are identical to what the planets look like through a normal telescope.
But that ONE thing does nothing to overcome the clearly observable fact that we can see too far. And it doesn't explain why the atmosphere stays put adjacent to the alleged vacuum of space. And there are dozens of others things that don't make sense on the globe/ball paradigm that make perfect sense on a Flat Earth. I've seen hundreds and hundreds of real evidence from Flat Earthers and mostly just nonsense and even outright deception from the globe earthers.
Topic: Is refusing to accept an "obvious fact" a sin of lying? (Read 71030 times)