Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: happenby on September 01, 2017, 03:29:06 PM
-
Why are they lying to us? Go to Google Earth. View the globe at its smallest. Put the Artic on top. Swipe down one time and now the ANTarctic is on top. Swipe down again, the Artic is back on top. Now, place Africa in the center of your screen. Swipe one full swipe sideways, and swipe again. Africa does not return as it should if earth is a ball, but it takes another full swipe to bring Africa back to the center of the screen. A lie is never fully concealed but always evident for those who care to know. Earth is not a globe.
-
Nutt'n has stuck yet happenby... keep trying.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/you-throw-poop-like-a-girl-a-na-n-7-il-8103945.png)
-
Nutt'n has stuck yet happenby... keep trying.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/you-throw-poop-like-a-girl-a-na-n-7-il-8103945.png)
Only because you're afraid to look.
-
And where is the water on Google Earth? Why are oceans like clay? What are they hiding?
-
I don't think the word "proof" means what you think it means.
-
I don't think the word "proof" means what you think it means.
Ha, unless you tried it and saw.
-
the most Holy Bible states that the earth is indeed flat therefore it IS flat, so i agree with happenby on that one. However, i noticed that you are a women and your place isnt on the internet young lady. If you have time to be here then spend that time looking for a Godly husband or if you already have one, spend that time serving him
In the Church, yes. But..."To whom he said: I say to you, that if these shall hold their peace, the stones will cry out." Luke 19: 40
-
1 Corinthians 14:34. Women should be silent in the Churches. But false humility says: Don't speak the truth elsewhere, even if the men fail.
-
Titus 2:5 'to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.'
See women? It says AT HOME. Not on the internet. begone you rebellious wench
Are you always this obnoxious? Maybe you ought to go play a few rounds of tennis and cool down... just a friendly suggestion, you might not last long here otherwise.
-
Are you always this obnoxious? Maybe you ought to go play a few rounds of tennis and cool down... just a friendly suggestion, you might not last long here otherwise.
He's trolling all the threads, just put him on ignore
-
He's trolling all the threads, just put him on ignore
Yea, you're probably right... I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
-
Then I hope you leave before you lose your salvation by consorting with the unclean.
-
Guess we're still thinking "Zebra".
-
advise mass report: "tennisgαy104"
-
advise mass report: "tennisgαy104"
Once is sufficient.
Since Matthew is out doing "guy stuff", he's being banned by a woman! gasp!
-
Once is sufficient.
Since Matthew is out doing "guy stuff", he's being banned by a woman! gasp!
:applause: :applause: Thank you!
-
Once is sufficient.
Since Matthew is out doing "guy stuff", he's being banned by a woman! gasp!
As long as you're doing it from the kitchen or the laundry room. :"
JUSTKIDDINGDON'TKILLME!
Try not to get pie on the keyboard okay I'm shutting up now...
-
Once is sufficient.
Since Matthew is out doing "guy stuff", he's being banned by a woman! gasp!
Can we say this was a Joan of Arc moment?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03589/painting-joan-of-a_3589595b.jpg)
-
Can we say this was a Joan of Arc moment?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03589/painting-joan-of-a_3589595b.jpg)
Courtesy of Google Earth
-
Once is sufficient.
I first saw postings by that exemplary troll "tennisguy104" some time last night: 21 postings in only 3 hours of his first day on CathInfo, often condescending or rude. Did his "Reputation: +0 / -30" set any kind of C.I. record?
It seemed a cinch that overnight, one of CathInfo's distaff members would submit a report to our admins, so there seemed to be no need to rush in a report of my own before midnight. But I underestimated the speed with which someone would earn first-report honors.
Since Matthew is out doing "guy stuff", he's being banned by a woman! gasp!
Is that a great example of poetic justice, or what?
I do want to keep CathInfo irritations in perspective: I assume that operating the ban hammer is lower priority than whatever's not yet done on your Hurricane Harvey repair-list (but C.I. has a separate topic for news of the latter [†]
).
-------
Note †: <[url]https://www.cathinfo.com/general-discussion/hurricane-
-
Can we say this was a Joan of Arc moment?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03589/painting-joan-of-a_3589595b.jpg)
I'll never understand that one
-
I first saw postings by that exemplary troll "tennisguy104" some time last night: 21 postings in only 3 hours of his first day on CathInfo, often condescending or rude. Did his "Reputation: +0 / -30" set any kind of C.I. record?
He will be greatly missed.
-
1 Corinthians 14:34. Women should be silent in the Churches. But false humility says: Don't speak the truth elsewhere, even if the men fail.
There are some here who say Flat Earth Theory gives trads a bad name. I say blatant misogyny gives trads a bad name.
-
Why are they lying to us? Go to Google Earth. View the globe at its smallest. Put the Artic on top. Swipe down one time and now the ANTarctic is on top. Swipe down again, the Artic is back on top. Now, place Africa in the center of your screen. Swipe one full swipe sideways, and swipe again. Africa does not return as it should if earth is a ball, but it takes another full swipe to bring Africa back to the center of the screen. A lie is never fully concealed but always evident for those who care to know. Earth is not a globe.
I found this video which makes your point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Q2dMpeylk
-
I found this video which makes your point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Q2dMpeylk
Awesome. Thanks!
-
.
On one thing I can rely: flat-earthers will believe anything, so long as it doesn't challenge their golden calf laughable ridiculous flat-earthism.
.
-
Why are they lying to us? Go to Google Earth. View the globe at its smallest. Put the Artic on top. Swipe down one time and now the ANTarctic is on top. Swipe down again, the Artic is back on top. Now, place Africa in the center of your screen. Swipe one full swipe sideways, and swipe again. Africa does not return as it should if earth is a ball, but it takes another full swipe to bring Africa back to the center of the screen. A lie is never fully concealed but always evident for those who care to know. Earth is not a globe.
.
Put the Artic on top? What's the Artic?
.
Leave it to a laughable ridiculous flat-earther to accuse google earth of lying to us because the laughable ridiculous flat-earther doesn't know how to use the free feature.
.
No matter where you go on the google earth globe it takes more than two half-turns to go around the planet, because the image you see isn't half the planet. They're only displaying about 2/3 of the hemisphere, which you can easily see by the fact that North America takes up the entire face when it's only a portion of the globe.
.
If it were accurate, you would see all of Canada on the top, up to the Arctic Ocean, and you'd see half of Antarctica on the bottom. But in fact you don't even see half of South America, so the image isn't giving you the whole picture. It's FLAWED but it's a first attempt.
.
Maybe they'll come out with an improved version just to compensate for the shortcomings of narrow-minded viewers like yourself.
.
-
.
On one thing I can rely: flat-earthers will believe anything, so long as it doesn't challenge their golden calf laughable ridiculous flat-earthism.
.
Nothing Challenges the Flat Earth; God created the Flat Earth. You will not beat God.
-
.
Put the Artic on top? What's the Artic?
.
Leave it to a laughable ridiculous flat-earther to accuse google earth of lying to us because the laughable ridiculous flat-earther doesn't know how to use the free feature.
.
No matter where you go on the google earth globe it takes more than two half-turns to go around the planet, because the image you see isn't half the planet. They're only displaying about 2/3 of the hemisphere, which you can easily see by the fact that North America takes up the entire face when it's only a portion of the globe.
.
If it were accurate, you would see all of Canada on the top, up to the Arctic Ocean, and you'd see half of Antarctica on the bottom. But in fact you don't even see half of South America, so the image isn't giving you the whole picture. It's FLAWED but it's a first attempt.
.
Maybe they'll come out with an improved version just to compensate for the shortcomings of narrow-minded viewers like yourself.
.
Why would they need to come out with an "improved version" if they have all these pictures of the "globe" earth from various satellites?
If there was really a satellite 22K miles away filming the earth all the time it should be REALLY easy to put that footage into an interactive format.
-
Why would they need to come out with an "improved version" if they have all these pictures of the "globe" earth from various satellites?
If there was really a satellite 22K miles away filming the earth all the time it should be REALLY easy to put that footage into an interactive format.
.
Okay if you think you're so smart let's see you post a photo of your "flat" earth! :laugh1:
.
Anyone who thinks Google Earth is incapable of coming out with an updated version, speak now or forever hold your peace.
.
I have no idea why they did what they did, making the thing look like a view through a fisheye lens (notice if you will, the continents get larger when they're in the center of the circle -- oh, almost forgot, flat-earthers don't like to pay attention to details especially when they can't spin it to make their nonsense ridiculous golden-calf fantasy look more appealing somehow). But that's what's there until they get around to fixing it.
.
Hey -- if enough flat-earthers get all tied up in knots like this maybe they'll put the next IMPROVED version into the fast track. So go ahead and complain! You're encouraging progress!
.
-
Okay if you think you're so smart let's see you post a photo of your "flat" earth! :laugh1:
They can't, can they?
All the photo-shop artists are employed by NASA.... ;)
-
Why would they need to come out with an "improved version" if they have all these pictures of the "globe" earth from various satellites? If there was really a satellite 22K miles away filming the earth all the time it should be REALLY easy to put that footage into an interactive format.
Really, now?
To restore lost context, "they" are the infamously evil google.
"Why [...] an improved version"? Let's ponder some possibilities, most of which are not at all unusual:
• An overly ambitious project?
• A design that failed to scale up to produce a reliable ideal version?
• Inability to squeeze the ideal version of the product into the prescribed (i.e., target) amount of memory?
• Loss of key project staff, especially fascinating if punitive ejection for noncompliance with experimental or oppressive social agendas, most notoriously their rainbow dogma(ta)?
• Other failures that should remind academics and above-the-fray corporate management that successful software development involves a lot of art that can't be replaced by capital investment.
If you dismiss all of the possibilities above, there are probably at least a few of us CathInfo members who would greatly appreciate learning about your experiences with developing software for interactive computer graphics.
-
I don't really want to be involved with this debate, but I think the following video explains to everyone why Google Maps is not completely accurate to both flat-Earthers and spheric adherents (Yes, the video addresses Google Maps and other map formats, obviously):
https://youtu.be/kIID5FDi2JQ
-
I don't really want to be involved with this debate, but I think the following video explains to everyone why Google Maps is not completely accurate to both flat-Earthers and spheric adherents (Yes, the video addresses Google Maps and other map formats, obviously):
https://youtu.be/kIID5FDi2JQ
Satellites' do not exist; the whole video is debunked.
-
Satellites' do not exist; the whole video is debunked.
Pardon the obtuse smartassery, but this and other Dictionaries say you are wrong:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/satellite
Definition of satellite
Definition of satellite
satellite
adjective
I suppose everyone here can be a sort of satalite to something, vie definition #1
:laugh1:
-
Pardon the obtuse smartassery, but this and other Dictionaries say you are wrong:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/satellite
Definition of satellite
Definition of satellite
satellite
adjective
:laugh1:
I'm pretty sure adequate optics would do the trick as well, and just what the blazes was all that commo having to point at with minimal margin for error, or satellite TV for that matter?
"Hey kids, here's something you can try at home. Kick the dish during football or Oprah, and watch your parents turn colors. G'wan, it'll be fun."
Wait, lemme guess, "They" have some secret way faking that too.
-
Flat Earther logic: NASA is unreliable; bases a whole thread on Google Earth.
-
Flat Earther logic: NASA is unreliable; bases a whole thread on Google Earth.
Sir, threads on the flat earth here on Cathinfo are packed with proofs from Catholic sources, that is, not Google. Conversely, there are zero proofs of the sphere from Catholic sources. A clue.
-
Really, now?
To restore lost context, "they" are the infamously evil google.
"Why [...] an improved version"? Let's ponder some possibilities, most of which are not at all unusual:
• An overly ambitious project?
• A design that failed to scale up to produce a reliable ideal version?
• Inability to squeeze the ideal version of the product into the prescribed (i.e., target) amount of memory?
• Loss of key project staff, especially fascinating if punitive ejection for noncompliance with experimental or oppressive social agendas, most notoriously their rainbow dogma(ta)?
• Other failures that should remind academics and above-the-fray corporate management that successful software development involves a lot of art that can't be replaced by capital investment.
If you dismiss all of the possibilities above, there are probably at least a few of us CathInfo members who would greatly appreciate learning about your experiences with developing software for interactive computer graphics.
Yea, trying to square a circle, or vise versa in this case, is definitely an overly ambitious project. Google most certainly has not produced an ideal version, but a cartoon that looks like a ball, but is actually an elongated oval incompatible with the globe. With NASA atheists running the show, intent on enriching themselves and promoting a condemned (by the Catholic Church) theory, your attempts at exonerating them are shocking.
-
I don't really want to be involved with this debate, but I think the following video explains to everyone why Google Maps is not completely accurate to both flat-Earthers and spheric adherents (Yes, the video addresses Google Maps and other map formats, obviously):
https://youtu.be/kIID5FDi2JQ
Nobody watches videos. State your proof and get on with it.
-
Pardon the obtuse smartassery, but this and other Dictionaries say you are wrong:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/satellite
Definition of satellite
Definition of satellite
satellite
adjective
I suppose everyone here can be a sort of satalite to something, vie definition #1
:laugh1:
Not knowing what the argument about satellites is does not do your position any good.
-
Flat Earther logic: NASA is unreliable; bases a whole thread on Google Earth.
Totally misses the point.
-
I freely admit that I'm often dull as a dial tone, but can someone please explain to me how a representation is proof (logical term) of what it doesn't represent?
You're not a poopy head. I'm drawing in the stink lines now.
-
The business of satellites is all done from the ground.
-
I freely admit that I'm often dull as a dial tone, but can someone please explain to me how a representation is proof (logical term) of what it doesn't represent?
You're not a poopy head. I'm drawing in the stink lines now.
Read the threads. The proof is in the quotes of Popes, saints, scripture, Church Fathers and the Church.
-
.
Okay if you think you're so smart let's see you post a photo of your "flat" earth! :laugh1:
That's easy.
It's flat at every altitude: sea level, Everest, 20 miles by balloon. No NASA required to show it is FLAT.
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/flat-earth-horizon-flat.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&strip=all)
-
That's easy.
It's flat at every altitude: sea level, Everest, 20 miles by balloon. No NASA required to show it is FLAT.
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/flat-earth-horizon-flat.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&strip=all)
Neil is probably busy trying to figure out how to turn these Flat earth photos into CGIS'.
-
Neil is probably busy trying to figure out how to turn these Flat earth photos into CGIS'.
:facepalm:
-
:facepalm:
I'd bury my face too, if I believed about earth what Neil does.
-
That's easy.
It's flat at every altitude: sea level, Everest, 20 miles by balloon. No NASA required to show it is FLAT.
(https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/flat-earth-horizon-flat.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&strip=all)
.
When are you going to provide a picture of your "flat earth?"
.
We already know what the horizon looks like.
.
Where did they find scenes with a red line lower than the camera's level? Is that CGI or Photoshop?
.
In case you didn't notice the red line covers up the camera in the top version. Anyone can draw a red line on a picture.
.
I realize it was before your time I explained how I took surveying equipment to the top of Mt. Whitney (14,500 ft. elev., CA) and found that in every direction my level scope could only see the blue sky at my instrument level. Even nearby peaks were below the level line. The desert to the east over the White Mountains there was a good distance below my level line to the horizon.
.
You see, you can do anything you want with an illustration like the Photoshop images you have here, above. And if you don't know how to use a builder's level you won't know what you're looking at when you try to use it. That's why surveyors have to get a license to offer services to the public.
.
-
.
When are you going to provide a picture of your "flat earth?"
.
We already know what the horizon looks like.
.
Where did they find scenes with a red line lower than the camera's level? Is that CGI or Photoshop?
.
In case you didn't notice the red line covers up the camera in the top version. Anyone can draw a red line on a picture.
.
I realize it was before your time I explained how I took surveying equipment to the top of Mt. Whitney (14,500 ft. elev., CA) and found that in every direction my level scope could only see the blue sky at my instrument level. Even nearby peaks were below the level line. The desert to the east over the White Mountains there was a good distance below my level line to the horizon.
.
You see, you can do anything you want with an illustration like the Photoshop images you have here, above. And if you don't know how to use a builder's level you won't know what you're looking at when you try to use it. That's why surveyors have to get a license to offer services to the public.
.
The Flat earth horizon is clearly visible in these pictures. Notice the lack of curvature to every picture of the horizon. The red line is there just to confuse Neil.
-
ACTUALLY....
For those blessed with reasonable visual acuity, in the 3rd image of that set, you can CLEARLY see the horizon is slightly below the edges of that red line at the extremities, but is touching or maybe overlaying the line at the center. It's called curvature.
The other images are too fuzzy and variegated to determine squat.
:baby:
-
The Flat earth horizon is clearly visible in these pictures. Notice the lack of curvature to every picture of the horizon. The red line is there just to confuse Neil.
.
I will agree that the horizon is clearly visible but it's not a "flat-earth" horizon.
.
There is no lack of curvature until the Photoshop program takes it out.
.
Do you know anything at all about photography?
.
The red line is there to deceive the gullible like TiE. Careful you don't TiE yourself up in knots!
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstress-man.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2Ftied-up-in-knots-300x300.png&sp=b11bd020ac8c358cb11529ffff9ab1a4)
.
Still can't find a picture of your "flat-earth?"
.
Here. Let me help you out. Here is a picture of the earth, as flat as your computer screen!
.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/19/17/2F82A02E00000578-0-image-a-4_1450546910146.jpg)
.
Do you see the thin blue line at the horizon (which BTW is curved)? That's called the atmosphere.
.
Notice the word "sphere" in atmosphere. That's because the atmosphere is spherical in shape.
.
If the earth were "flat" it would be the atmosflat.
.
-
.
Regarding laser measurements taken from earth using reflectors that have been placed on the moon, it's an everyday activity.
.
Thousands of people have carried out laser experiments and anyone can do so. It is not remarkable at all. Observatories all over the world do moon measurements regularly.
.
Only the scientifically ignorant such as yourself are unaware of it. Lasers are used regularly for both distance and altitude measurement. Because of the speed of light being constant and the curvature of the earth and known radii, it is extremely accurate.
.
-
ACTUALLY....
For those blessed with reasonable visual acuity, in the 3rd image of that set, you can CLEARLY see the horizon is slightly below the edges of that red line at the extremities, but is touching or maybe overlaying the line at the center. It's called curvature.
The other images are too fuzzy and variegated to determine squat.
:baby:
The Flat earth Horizon is clearly seen. The Flat earth horizon has no curvature.
-
.
I will agree that the horizon is clearly visible but it's not a "flat-earth" horizon.
.
There is no lack of curvature until the Photoshop program takes it out.
.
Do you know anything at all about photography?
.
The red line is there to deceive the gullible like TiE. Careful you don't TiE yourself up in knots!
.
(https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fstress-man.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F08%2Ftied-up-in-knots-300x300.png&sp=b11bd020ac8c358cb11529ffff9ab1a4)
.
Still can't find a picture of your "flat-earth?"
.
Here. Let me help you out. Here is a picture of the earth, as flat as your computer screen!
.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/12/19/17/2F82A02E00000578-0-image-a-4_1450546910146.jpg)
.
Do you see the thin blue line at the horizon (which BTW is curved)? That's called the atmosphere.
.
Notice the word "sphere" in atmosphere. That's because the atmosphere is spherical in shape.
.
If the earth were "flat" it would be the atmosflat.
.
Neil likes to look through fish eye lenses.
-
ACTUALLY....
For those blessed with reasonable visual acuity, in the 3rd image of that set, you can CLEARLY see the horizon is slightly below the edges of that red line at the extremities, but is touching or maybe overlaying the line at the center. It's called curvature.
The other images are too fuzzy and variegated to determine squat.
:baby:
Stop confusing us with facts'n reezun'n stuff...
-
Neil likes to look through fish eye lenses.
Truth is Transitory can't see straight.
-
.
Notice the word "sphere" in atmosphere. That's because the atmosphere is spherical in shape.
.
If the earth were "flat" it would be the atmosflat.
.
Good Lord, you are stupid.
Notice the word "horizon"? It is named as such for the word "horizontal."
There is NO CURVE in horizontal, nor in the horizon.
-
I hope that this set of "Duelling Dimwits" is in jest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myhnAZFR1po
-
:applause: :applause: :applause:
That's the best part of this thread yet! Good point, accurate, and entertaining! "Play it again, Sam."
-
ACTUALLY....
For those blessed with reasonable visual acuity, in the 3rd image of that set, you can CLEARLY see the horizon is slightly below the edges of that red line at the extremities, but is touching or maybe overlaying the line at the center. It's called curvature.
The other images are too fuzzy and variegated to determine squat.
:baby:
Ok, one photo has slightly curved edges. That is not proof earth is a ball. Globalists refuse to discuss curvature by true testing testing because lasers, astrolabes, sextants, light houses, compasses, gyros, sundials, (insert name of measuring device here)etc, all prove there is no curvature commensurate with a ball earth 25,000 mi in circuмference. The ones who use pictures (even to the point of deception) to convince ppl earth is a ball, is NASA.
-
It's time to use what little you got, globalists.