Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => The Earth God Made - Flat Earth, Geocentrism => Topic started by: AnthonyPadua on February 18, 2024, 07:53:53 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jyURPh1gIM
-
Must be refraction that causes this somehow ... or maybe it's a mirage.
-
I’m surprised that no one noticed that at the end of the video the obvious curvature of the Earth was easily seen, as demonstrated in my screenshot. It matches, almost exactly, the simulator he used. The guy used fuzzy footage with straight lines earlier in the video to try and discredit GE. It is understandably difficult to perceive the subtle curvature at the lower altitudes, but his downfall was the last footage he used.
-
I’m surprised that no one noticed that at the end of the video the obvious curvature of the Earth was easily seen, as demonstrated in my screenshot. It matches, almost exactly, the simulator he used. The guy used fuzzy footage with straight lines earlier in the video to try and discredit GE. It is understandably difficult to perceive the subtle curvature at the lower altitudes, but his downfall was the last footage he used.
You're kidding, right? You drew another line at an angle to the line showing the straightness and declared it curvature? It's tilted at an angle from perfectly horizontal, but it's still straight. At the time the craft (or, rather, its camera) were tilted from the 180 degree angle you drew on the picture. You just need to rotate the entire picture counter-clockwise at the same angle you have on your triangle to demonstrate the straightness.
-
I just rotated the entire picture 2.52 degrees counter-clockwise, the closest I could get it to perfectly level/horizontal using a straightedge against the side of my monitor screen. You simply created an optical illusion where the "drop" / "curve" was due to the fact that you drew the line directly across horizontal on the picture, assuming that the craft's/camera's attitude was perfectly level/horizontal. I'll assume that this was not deliberate deception on your part.
(https://i.ibb.co/fDVQRnf/image.jpg)
-
I just rotated the entire picture 2.52 degrees counter-clockwise, the closest I could get it to perfectly level/horizontal using a straightedge against the side of my monitor screen. You simply created an optical illusion where the "drop" / "curve" was due to the fact that you drew the line directly across horizontal on the picture, assuming that the craft's/camera's attitude was perfectly level/horizontal. I'll assume that this was not deliberate deception on your part.
(https://i.ibb.co/fDVQRnf/image.jpg)
You are absolutely correct, I stand corrected on this point. Do you happen to know the widths in miles that were used in the simulation as opposed to the footage he used?
-
You are absolutely correct, I stand corrected on this point. Do you happen to know the widths in miles that were used in the simulation as opposed to the footage he used?
No, and that would be one thing to look at the entire viewing angle of the image. You could argue for a bit of a curve on the left side there, but I think the blue beneath the line is just water, as you can judge by the amount of "haze" above the line.
I apologize for having been belligerent/hostile in my previous post. It's just a reflex from being attack as an insane lunatic on a regular basis regarding the FE view.
But I think that his bigger point that he didn't articulate or emphasize well was that there should also be a significant drop in the eye-level horizon. Again, that could be affected by the angle/attitude of the camera, but the image from the Red Bull jump capsule was fairly conclusive.
So the way I look at it is this. If you were to look from one side of Kansas to another, you would have a curvature drop of 120,000 feet (according to globe curvature math). Many amateur balloons seem to top off right around 120,000 feet. So the drop in altitude from one end of Kansas to the other should be the same as the 120,000 feet that those balloons go up to, and there's simply no evidence of such a drop in the horizon line from "eye level".
-
Right now, I'm looking at a distant moon near the horizon lit up from below. How is it possible on a FE?
-
Right now, I'm looking at a distant moon near the horizon lit up from below. How is it possible on a FE?
It isn’t possible to explain using the conventional FE model. This is exactly why I keep insisting that FE adherents need to come up with a model that actually works *before* they push their theory. What the common man can observe on a daily basis, how the sun rises and sets, lunar phases and cycles, solar and lunar eclipses, measurable distances between oceans and land masses, measurable distances between cities, etc., demands an explanation.
-
I apologize for having been belligerent/hostile in my previous post. It's just a reflex from being attack as an insane lunatic on a regular basis regarding the FE view.
I just saw this. No worries, I’m not one to hold grudges. 😀
-
It isn’t possible to explain using the conventional FE model. This is exactly why I keep insisting that FE adherents need to come up with a model that actually works *before* they push their theory. What the common man can observe on a daily basis, how the sun rises and sets, lunar phases and cycles, solar and lunar eclipses, measurable distances between oceans and land masses, measurable distances between cities, etc., demands an explanation.
The globe model needs explain why there is no measurable curvature and why we can see much further than globe calculations account for.
-
The globe model needs explain why there is no measurable curvature and why we can see much further than globe calculations account for.
Have you used a telescope, a telescopic camera, or used any other method to measure the lack of curvature yourself?
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75WQKcSES6E
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75WQKcSES6E
I haven't watch the video yet, but this guy is a buffoon, stumbling and bumbling, constantly getting basic facts wrong. But I'll have a look when I have some time.
-
Meh, very weak. Perspective and reflection can both easily explain the phenomenon. His attempt to debunk perspective had him holding up a cell phone with a light clearly above it (on a lamp pole) without the necessary perspective. Nor does light merely reflect off of oceans, but the entire surface of the earth reflects it, causing what's known as earth shine.
Finally, when planes are flying level, they actually fly with a one to two degree nose up deck or fuselage angle. And are the videos he's showing of planes during their ascent or descent? That's the time you're most likely to see planes.
Extremely inconclusive.
Perhaps he can address the engineer who used CAD to demonstrate that if the sun were setting behind the curvature of the earth we should see a shadow on the bottom of the clouds as it sets, from one end of the horizon to the other ... but that never happens.
He also strawmans the FE argument about the boats disappearing over the horizon. Eventually they will disappear whether the earth is flat or globe simply due to the convergence with the horizon, waves, atmosphere, etc. But experiments have repeatedly proven that ships can SEEM to disappear bottom up over the horizon but then can be brought back into view by zooming in. So the appearance of the phenomenon is largely due to the limits of our eyesight, which can be overcome with the right optics. Again, the FEs often take precise measurements to demonstrate that these boats should be hidden by the geometric horizon but can be seen anyway.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75WQKcSES6E
Great video!
-
It isn’t possible to explain using the conventional FE model. This is exactly why I keep insisting that FE adherents need to come up with a model that actually works *before* they push their theory. What the common man can observe on a daily basis, how the sun rises and sets, lunar phases and cycles, solar and lunar eclipses, measurable distances between oceans and land masses, measurable distances between cities, etc., demands an explanation.
Yes I want to see a model, too. Is anyone working on this?
-
Nor does light merely reflect off of oceans, but the entire surface of the earth reflects it, causing what's known as earth shine.
He mentioned that, yet the moon can't shine similarly?
Perhaps he can address the engineer who used CAD to demonstrate that if the sun were setting behind the curvature of the earth we should see a shadow on the bottom of the clouds as it sets, from one end of the horizon to the other ... but that never happens.
I already did, but I wouldn't mind seeing how he explains it. That was an imperfect simulation. A lot of variables were left out or an assumed given value, or not entirely to scale. Kind of like testing a full scale airplane design with a 12" model. You can scale the airplane down, but not the atmosphere.
-
This alone debunks the globe paradigm. The moon is an illuminating heavenly body -- not a rock ball of terra firma one can land on.
For that matter, how far away is Jupiter supposed to be? Yet it *glows* like a *star* in the night sky. It literally gives off light it's so reflective. And that light reaches us here, through Earth's atmosphere even, MILLIONS of miles away! think of how bright it must be up close. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from NASA's released CGI artist renditions of what "Jupiter" supposedly looks like close up.
A complete contradiction. So much so, that it falsifies the whole model -- in the mind of any logical man who can think for himself.
Are you aware of the INVERSE SQUARE law? A 3-dimensional object giving off light, heat, radio waves, or anything else is going to drop off EXPONENTIALLY with distance. Which makes sense if you think about it. Think of the size of the "sphere" that surrounds the source, as you go out 1 mile, 100 miles, 1000 miles, 1 light year, etc. It's losing itself exponentially, as it has to "cover" more and more ground as it spreads out.
THAT is Science. I'm the real scientist. NASA and their lackeys are pushing a RELIGION, not Science.
-
Yes I want to see a model, too. Is anyone working on this?
No you don't. You've already decided the earth is a globe, and there's no model that will satisfy you. This is just a fallacious form of attack.
You falsely beg the question that the globe model hasn't been falsified (it has) and then demand a complete (accurate down-to-the-centimeter map of some kind). There are models that have been articulated that explain many/most of the phenomena associated with the seasons, the movements of the stars and the planets.
This demand for a model is rooted in a combination of begging the question (that the globe model explains everything -- it doesn't, thus the reason for the FE movement) combined with a false dichotomy where if there isn't a complete perfect FE model (even though there isn't one for globe either), then the globe model must be true.
-
This alone debunks the globe paradigm. The moon is an illuminating heavenly body -- not a rock ball of terra firma one can land on.
For that matter, how far away is Jupiter supposed to be? Yet it *glows* like a *star* in the night sky. It literally gives off light it's so reflective. And that light reaches us here, through Earth's atmosphere even, MILLIONS of miles away! think of how bright it must be up close. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from NASA's released CGI artist renditions of what "Jupiter" supposedly looks like close up.
A complete contradiction. So much so, that it falsifies the whole model -- in the mind of any logical man who can think for himself.
So, close up, you are seeing the light reflected off 2500 sqft, but far away we see light reflected off 7 million square miles of surface area. That's what you are not getting Matthew.
I gave your you down thumb back, but it wouldn't count it.
-
Great video!
It's dreadful and pathetic, and the fact that you think it's "great" completely discredits you. We know that you refuse to objectively consider the evidence and that your applauding this idiocy as "great" is a clear example of your confirmation bias.
-
It's dreadful and pathetic, and the fact that you think it's "great" completely discredits you. We know that you refuse to objectively consider the evidence and that your applauding this idiocy as "great" is a clear example of your confirmation bias.
That statement could more or less apply to you too, at least as far as confirmation bias goes.
-
He mentioned that, yet the moon can't shine similarly?
It can. Does it? That's actually a problem with the globe explanation of eclipses, where the earth shine (which is supposed to be 41x brighter than moon shine) should prevent the moon from going completely dark during an eclipse.
-
That statement could more or less apply to you too, at least as far as confirmation bias goes.
False. Confirmation bias is a glober phenomenon. All FEs started out as globers, many of us initially thinking that FE was ridiculous. Matthew here relegated it to a sub-forum that had no visibility on the front page. But we actually gave FE a chance and looked at it with an open mind.
-
So, close up, you are seeing the light reflected off 2500 sqft, but far away we see light reflected off 7 million square miles of surface area. That's what you are not getting Matthew.
I gave your you down thumb back, but it wouldn't count it.
That graphic pertains to the alleged moonlanding. Given the inverse square law of the brightness we see from the moon, the astro-nots should have been absolutely blinded by the amount of light on the moon, and the entire scene should have been washed out with brightness.
-
That statement could more or less apply to you too, at least as far as confirmation bias goes.
True
-
That graphic pertains to the alleged moonlanding. Given the inverse square law of the brightness we see from the moon, the astro-nots should have been absolutely blinded by the amount of light on the moon, and the entire scene should have been washed out with brightness.
Yeah, it gets really complicated when you have both the inverse square law, and what I had just mentioned earlier to deal with, so lets not jump to conclusions and think we know for certain more than we really do.
-
False. Confirmation bias is a glober phenomenon. All FEs started out as globers, many of us initially thinking that FE was ridiculous. Matthew here relegated it to a sub-forum that had no visibility on the front page. But we actually gave FE a chance and looked at it with an open mind.
Wrong. Confirmation bias is based on what you believe or want to believe to be true at a given time.
It can. Does it? That's actually a problem with the globe explanation of eclipses, where the earth shine (which is supposed to be 41x brighter than moon shine) should prevent the moon from going completely dark during an eclipse.
But that light from the earth diminishes with the inverse square law, and again after the earth's light gets reflected off the moon, while the sun's light is more intense.
Does the moon go completely dark? Our eyes adjust based on the amount of light present, so do cameras to take a good picture. we don't know the ISO, shutter speed, and f stop of the supposed moon landing picture. Most cameras and our eyes don't have the dynamic range to watch an eclipse and simultaneously detect sufficient light from the moon.
-
FALSE.
Virtually ever Flat Earther used to be a "glober", and thus understands the globe position thoroughly and intimately.
But most current "globers" have a third-grade understanding of the official/Globe model on average.
I'm not making this up. Men like Austin Whitsitt (He spells it Witsit on his Youtube channel) have asked hundreds of people on the street, and most people can't tell you basic details about the globe model. They clearly "believe" like a religious zealot believes in his religion. It's a religion of men. Facts like: how far the earth is from the sun, what is the angle of tilt, etc.
They repeat (parrot) what their third-grade teacher told them, even simplified facts and ideas that have been debunked several times over, and that's it.
Interestingly, the average "flat earther" knows WAY MORE about the Globe system -- and yet each one believes the earth is flat. For those afraid for the flat model to be true, that should terrify you.
-
No you don't. You've already decided the earth is a globe, and there's no model that will satisfy you. This is just a fallacious form of attack.
You falsely beg the question that the globe model hasn't been falsified (it has) and then demand a complete (accurate down-to-the-centimeter map of some kind). There are models that have been articulated that explain many/most of the phenomena associated with the seasons, the movements of the stars and the planets.
This demand for a model is rooted in a combination of begging the question (that the globe model explains everything -- it doesn't, thus the reason for the FE movement) combined with a false dichotomy where if there isn't a complete perfect FE model (even though there isn't one for globe either), then the globe model must be true.
I want to see a computer generated video that shows me how the earth, moon, planets, and stars all work in this flat earth model. I want to see a computer generated video of how the sun sets and rises. I want to know why if the moon and sun are created with the same material, then why does the moon go through phases of light and the sun does not. It all just magically happens and we just have to trust that God just made it this way. If people can fake computer images of what Jupiter looks like through a telescope, then it should not be so hard to come up with a real computer model of flat earth. Matthew gave me an overwhelming list a videos that I don't want to comb through. I want you experts to give the video I ask for because it should be easy for you to find. Just one video at a time so I can process it.
Maybe start with the computer generated model of how the sun and moon work together lighting up the earth and giving us different time zones.
Everything I have seen has not been very convincing. I figured it should be easy for you to provide, yet you never do. Instead you just say I am attacking or I have a globe biased. Which I guess is a good way to make the conversation end, because nobody has apparently figured out how to create what I am asking for. Maybe flat earthers need to come up with computer created videos of the specific things I am asking for.
-
No you don't. You've already decided the earth is a globe, and there's no model that will satisfy you. This is just a fallacious form of attack.
You falsely beg the question that the globe model hasn't been falsified (it has) and then demand a complete (accurate down-to-the-centimeter map of some kind). There are models that have been articulated that explain many/most of the phenomena associated with the seasons, the movements of the stars and the planets.
This demand for a model is rooted in a combination of begging the question (that the globe model explains everything -- it doesn't, thus the reason for the FE movement) combined with a false dichotomy where if there isn't a complete perfect FE model (even though there isn't one for globe either), then the globe model must be true.
Another comment is that you are attacking your idea of me and then speaking to it like it is true. I am a scientific minded person, who understands things better by visual representation, rather than by a lot of words put together in audio or a docuмent. There are so many times I have posted here and asked hard questions only to have my character attacked. "Oh you have a globe bias." "Oh you are just trying to attack us." Wah Wah Wah. Again Ladislaus you are so ready for a fight all the time that you seem to resort to this kind of talk when you have decided that the person you are talking to is not worth your time anymore. Which is very frustrating to me, because sometimes I feel you have a lot of good information, but other times you seem to be overly emotional about a topic.
I guess we are all just works in progress. And only God know are true hearts. It just would be so much better if we gave people the benefit of the doubt then to just assume they are out to get us.
-
Falsification is independent of replacement.
If something is proven false or wrong, it's wrong. Regardless of whether or not you can replace it with another model or version.
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-earth-god-made-flat-earth-geocentrism/falsification-is-independent-of-replacement-74347/
-
Right. Much of the flat earth arguments are proving the globe is false. That’s step 1. A working model is step 2 (or even 4).
Much like an accountant who is analyzing a potentially fraudulent business. Step 1 is to prove the math is wrong and the accounts don’t add up. Once thats proven, then you’ve proven somebody is lying/stealing. But it would be unfair to immediately demand to know a) who did this, why and how? Those answers come after more investigation.
Even if you NEVER find out who/how they stole the $, you still know the $ is gone. Math proves it.
In the same way, All that’s known about globeism is that the science doesn’t line up. There’s major problems with the science and calculations.
Just because FE can’t be fully explained (this comes later) doesn’t mean globeism is true.
-
I want to see a computer generated video that shows me how the earth, moon, planets, and stars all work in this flat earth model. I want to see a computer generated video of how the sun sets and rises. I want to know why if the moon and sun are created with the same material, then why does the moon go through phases of light and the sun does not. It all just magically happens and we just have to trust that God just made it this way. If people can fake computer images of what Jupiter looks like through a telescope, then it should not be so hard to come up with a real computer model of flat earth. Matthew gave me an overwhelming list a videos that I don't want to comb through. I want you experts to give the video I ask for because it should be easy for you to find. Just one video at a time so I can process it.
Maybe start with the computer generated model of how the sun and moon work together lighting up the earth and giving us different time zones.
Everything I have seen has not been very convincing. I figured it should be easy for you to provide, yet you never do. Instead you just say I am attacking or I have a globe biased. Which I guess is a good way to make the conversation end, because nobody has apparently figured out how to create what I am asking for. Maybe flat earthers need to come up with computer created videos of the specific things I am asking for.
Great post. I’ve been asking the same thing from them for months and months, I get nothing. We observe those things that you mention on a daily basis and they can be easily explained through a global Earth model, but it seems impossible with a FE model. The only way I can see how the Flat Earth theory could work is if God preformed miracles on a daily basis with the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. He would also need to make it appear that the distances between oceans & continents and sizes of land masses could not be accurately measured or calculated. Personally I don’t believe that God would work in this fashion.
-
I want to see a computer generated video that shows me how the earth, moon, planets, and stars all work in this flat earth model. I want to see a computer generated video of how the sun sets and rises.
Gray said the above and the below.
Matthew gave me an overwhelming list a videos that I don't want to comb through.
:facepalm: You just want a quick answer with the work.
-
Gray said the above and the below.
:facepalm: You just want a quick answer with the work.
You left out this part: “I want you experts to give the video I ask for because it should be easy for you to find. Just one video at a time so I can process it.” :facepalm:
-
Anyone can stand on the east shore of a large body of water and look west at sunset. What he will see is the sun going behind the water. The sun will appear to actually sink into the water. I shouldn't have to describe this because we all know what it looks like, but imagine getting a large round cookie and dipping it slowly into a bucket of white paint. The cookie will disappear from the bottom upwards. First the bottom disappears, then the middle, then more and more of it will disappear until it is all gone.
How can it be behind the water if it is above the water?
(https://hdqwalls.com/wallpapers/big-sun-sunset-water-body-4k-sm.jpg)
-
Perspective.
I've never learned or though so much about perspective, field of vision, etc. until I started studying Flat Earth.
Study it. Knowledge is always good for you, regardless of one's beliefs about the shape of the earth.
Have you never seen a video of a camera set up 1 foot off the surface, filming a man walking down a bridge (away from the camera)? I never did either, before I studied flat earth. The man's legs will start to disappear. It's crazy, but a very real optical/perspective effect. It's how the world, and our eyes, work.
One thing I learned is that some people (invariably globers) are REALLY stupid on this and many other natural world topics. For example, they think you can see forever by default, and only the "curve of the earth" prevents us seeing for thousands of miles. Seriously? But I've heard real people say this with their own mouths.
Related to this, some idiots say, "If the earth were flat, you'd be able to see Europe and the Eiffel Tower from New York Harbor. Checkmate, dude!"
Have they never studied or thought about perspective, or spent a couple hours outside in silence in their whole lives?
Public schools today, I tell ya! A total failure.
The human eye IS limited in its visual ability. It has a limited angular resolution. It can only resolve objects out so far. And, there IS an atmosphere on the earth, which attenuates objects and even the brightest of lights (such as sunlight). That would be true on a globe OR flat earth.
Of course, those in-the-know are aware that modern public schools were created to form non-thinking, hive mind, uneducated, docile, normie, blue-pilled wage slaves. In that respect, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
-
The densest atmosphere/pollution is always closer to the ground.
I've seen the sun set, disappearing from the bottom up, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SKY, like several "inches" from my perspective above the apparent horizon. It was a hazy evening. The sun "disappears" when either the atmosphere and/or perspective makes it vanish (see: vanishing point).
Perspective explains it all.
-
When I thought about how we watch a plane fly it made more sense. If someone had never seen a plane before and they watched it until it disappeared, they'd think it was crashing into the horizon but we all know it keeps moving parallel to the earth.
This guy, p-brane, has some great (short) vids on perspective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Gx1vD1CRE
-
Question on bookmarks: Lately whenever I've bookmarked a thread it starts me off at page 1 whereas before I'd be taken to the last thing I'd read. Did I turn something off or something?
-
Perspective.
I've never learned or though so much about perspective, field of vision, etc. until I started studying Flat Earth.
Study it. Knowledge is always good for you, regardless of one's beliefs about the shape of the earth.
Have you never seen a video of a camera set up 1 foot off the surface, filming a man walking down a bridge (away from the camera)? I never did either, before I studied flat earth. The man's legs will start to disappear. It's crazy, but a very real optical/perspective effect. It's how the world, and our eyes, work.
One thing I learned is that some people (invariably globers) are REALLY stupid on this and many other natural world topics. For example, they think you can see forever by default, and only the "curve of the earth" prevents us seeing for thousands of miles. Seriously? But I've heard real people say this with their own mouths.
Related to this, some idiots say, "If the earth were flat, you'd be able to see Europe and the Eiffel Tower from New York Harbor. Checkmate, dude!"
Have they never studied or thought about perspective, or spent a couple hours outside in silence in their whole lives?
Public schools today, I tell ya! A total failure.
The human eye IS limited in its visual ability. It has a limited angular resolution. It can only resolve objects out so far. And, there IS an atmosphere on the earth, which attenuates objects and even the brightest of lights (such as sunlight). That would be true on a globe OR flat earth.
Of course, those in-the-know are aware that modern public schools were created to form non-thinking, hive mind, uneducated, docile, normie, blue-pilled wage slaves. In that respect, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
The opposite happens when you study globe earth. Study protestantism from protestant sources, and you just might become a protestant.
-
Just because FE can’t be fully explained (this comes later) doesn’t mean globeism is true.
I completely agree.
Those of us who believe that the earth is a flat plain have already accepted it as such, even without a convincing map or model. Sacred Scripture describes a flat earth plain, though not explicitly. I believe more in Scripture than in modern science. Modern science has become a religion unto itself.
I think that God may not want us to know how it all works (the shape of the earth, and the workings of the universe). Maybe I'm wrong, but He may just want us to be child-like and accept a simple and yet God-centered explanation for our earth. A flat earth plain, where it is obvious that the earth was created for mankind, seems to make the most sense to me.
-
Perspective.
I've never learned or though so much about perspective, field of vision, etc. until I started studying Flat Earth.
Study it. Knowledge is always good for you, regardless of one's beliefs about the shape of the earth.
Have you never seen a video of a camera set up 1 foot off the surface, filming a man walking down a bridge (away from the camera)? I never did either, before I studied flat earth. The man's legs will start to disappear. It's crazy, but a very real optical/perspective effect. It's how the world, and our eyes, work.
One thing I learned is that some people (invariably globers) are REALLY stupid on this and many other natural world topics. For example, they think you can see forever by default, and only the "curve of the earth" prevents us seeing for thousands of miles. Seriously? But I've heard real people say this with their own mouths.
Related to this, some idiots say, "If the earth were flat, you'd be able to see Europe and the Eiffel Tower from New York Harbor. Checkmate, dude!"
Have they never studied or thought about perspective, or spent a couple hours outside in silence in their whole lives?
Public schools today, I tell ya! A total failure.
The human eye IS limited in its visual ability. It has a limited angular resolution. It can only resolve objects out so far. And, there IS an atmosphere on the earth, which attenuates objects and even the brightest of lights (such as sunlight). That would be true on a globe OR flat earth.
Of course, those in-the-know are aware that modern public schools were created to form non-thinking, hive mind, uneducated, docile, normie, blue-pilled wage slaves. In that respect, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.
Perspective is interesting. I have read that when we look out to sea with the naked eye we can only see about 3 miles to the horizon, but as we go to higher altitudes we can see farther, but if we look at the sky we can see the moon 3000 miles (about 238000 miles away based on NASA) and the sun 3000 miles (about 91.4 million miles away based on NASA). So if we can see a light in the sky 3000 miles away, can we do the same thing from the top of a mountain with a light at some point 3000 miles away, has this been done? Shouldn't the airplane pilots from DC be able to see the lights in San Francisco?
-
I want to see a computer generated video that shows me how the earth, moon, planets, and stars all work in this flat earth model. I want to see a computer generated video of how the sun sets and rises. I want to know why if the moon and sun are created with the same material, then why does the moon go through phases of light and the sun does not. It all just magically happens and we just have to trust that God just made it this way. If people can fake computer images of what Jupiter looks like through a telescope, then it should not be so hard to come up with a real computer model of flat earth. Matthew gave me an overwhelming list a videos that I don't want to comb through. I want you experts to give the video I ask for because it should be easy for you to find. Just one video at a time so I can process it.
Here's a video made by the late Rob Skiba that shows some basics of FE. He shows a computer-generated model of the FE starting at about the 28:00 minute mark.
He was a protestant, but at least he wasn't anti-Catholic, that I ever saw. I don't care for his explanation of eclipses though. There's basic, useful info on this video.
Flat Earth for DUMMIES by Rob Skiba (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osBuCleQfdo)
-
Here's a video made by the late Rob Skiba that shows some basics of FE. He shows a computer-generated model of the FE starting at about the 28:00 minute mark.
He was a protestant, but at least he wasn't anti-Catholic, that I ever saw. I don't care for his explanation of eclipses though. There's basic, useful info on this video.
Flat Earth for DUMMIES by Rob Skiba (youtube.com) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osBuCleQfdo)
Thank you Meg. I will watch and process, but I am not sure people will want to know my thoughts. I will report back if I become a flat earth believer.
-
Not a flat earther yet. But look at this
(https://i.imgur.com/lKZpWoV.png)
The image is from the video Meg posted.
The image on the left is from 1/2 mile away. The image on the right is from 46 miles away.
The building starts about 20ft above the level of Lake Michigan. The building is 1451 ft. The curvature at 46 miles away is about 1411 ft, but then refraction would let you see more of the building. If it is flat you wouldn't be missing any of the building yet it seems that more than 500 ft is missing. Just something to ponder.
Here is a better picture of the tower.
(https://i.imgur.com/hLCnugl.jpeg)
-
More food for thought
(https://i.imgur.com/MIITz2i.png)
Or could it be the top of a surface cools faster than the internal temperature of what has been in the sun all day and looks like concrete?
-
A shaded area likely has objects near by enough to radiate heat stored from the sun, and those objects act as a wind break decreasing the cooling effect of airflow, so shaded areas might be warmer at night.
-
Some say satellites are weather balloons. Balloons are at the mercy of the wind. How can these weather balloons move faster than a high altitude airliner as I have observed a satellite doing? Why do they always move in such a perfectly straight line at a perfectly consistent speed? How did I observe 2 going opposite directions (nearly colliding even) if they are wind blown balloons?
-
Some say satellites are weather balloons. Balloons are at the mercy of the wind. How can these weather balloons move faster than a high altitude airliner as I have observed a satellite doing? Why do they always move in such a perfectly straight line at a perfectly consistent speed? How did I observe 2 going opposite directions (nearly colliding even) if they are wind blown balloons?
Well, it's absolutely not even disputed that NASA has many satellites that are in fact on balloons. I'm not sure calling them "weather" balloons is the correct term, but there are videos out there docuмenting the NASA satellite balloon program, where they talk about how many are balloons becase they're much cheaper. They have balloons that can stay afloat for decades, and some are absolutely gigantic. In addition, they go up to altitudes where they would not be buffetted by wind (or affected by the atmosphere).
Really, the only dispute is whether they're ALL balloons. Fact that many are is not disputed, and admitted by NASA. There are videos out there showing them launching these things (which are absolutely gigantic). In addition, not a few have crashed, with the balloons still attached, in various parts of the world.
As for what what you observed moving "fast", those could be anything.
-
Here's just one of many you can find out there. It's also true that NASA is the #1 consumer of helium in the entire world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQ-tMoAHkY