Flat Earth

[joerogers8]

Serious question.  

Does the 2012 image bother you guys at all compared to the 2007 & 1997?  Mainly the size of North America.

The 2002 image also has cloned clouds.  Check it out on a blown up image.  Hard to see on that image.

I believe the earth is flat now, I'd like to see a meteorologist try to explain this. I bet they'd mumble about weather patterns, pictures taken at different times of "day" and different months based on the direction of the axis of the "earth". I'd disregard anything they said because about 3 weeks ago, they told me to expect a sunny day, but it was slightly cloudy...bastards... I guess some photographers while we are at it to help clear up the whole issue of contrast and things with "alleged" light sources in different positions. I don't think those pictures are proof the earth is round, there are so many better fakes out there.

Maybe we should compare photos taken by NASA, JAXA, CSA, UK Space, CNES, CNSA and Virgin Galactic, and Spacex to see if they are all consistently shopped.

*tiny side note, I'm not being snippy at you joe, just thought your question was a good jumping off point for a joke*

No problem.  Like I said I love your posts.  They get me to research.

I don't think there is any way around the 2002 official image with clearly cloned photo shopped clouds.   Forget about the NASA employee that created them admits to it.  It's right there for all to see.  I'm surprised these images are being defended by the heliocentric guys here.  These are so obviously fake that if they are taken seriously and defended then that says a lot.  If we can't agree on the fact that these images or fake I can't wait to see the shit flinging in the next 600 pages.  Should be epic.  

[1713503926]

1713503926

[1713503926]

1713503926

[1713503926]

1713503926

[1713503926]

1713503926

[1713503926]

1713503926

[SaltySpitoon]

No problem.  Like I said I love your posts.  They get me to research.

I don't think there is any way around the 2002 official image with clearly cloned photo shopped clouds.   Forget about the NASA employee that created them admits to it.  It's right there for all to see.  I'm surprised these images are being defended by the heliocentric guys here.  These are so obviously fake that if they are taken seriously and defended then that says a lot.  If we can't agree on the fact that these images or fake I can't wait to see the shit flinging in the next 600 pages.  Should be epic.  

People get too polarized on this type of issue. I don't know for certain that the photos were edited, but you know what, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that they were. Like I said, it wouldn't surprise me. I don't need to fight tooth and nail over the photos. That said, its not like this is a picture of bigfoot, and then claiming its real despite being shopped. Its more like photoshopping a picture of a deer. The now prettier picture of the deer will get more people to go awww, look at that! But even knowing that they made it look nicer, it doesn't make me question whether deer are real or not. The same thing holds true for me here.

Proving gravity is a whole lot more difficult than proving the earth is round. I can only prove gravity by saying that no matter what it will always act the way that we predict it will act based on our current understanding of it. I can't point to a battery or a guy pushing as a source. At this point, I don't really need to say the earth must be round because of "x, y, and z" I can just say. Here you go, get on a plane, or try this high altitude balloon experiment for yourself. Don't trust that the lens in videos wasn't one that would create curvature? Fine, do the experiment yourself with whatever lens you'd like. Just make sure you are aware of the effects of the lens you are using. I don't care in the slightest about the people who want to believe whatever they want for their own reasons, I do care about trying to give satisfying answers to people who actually care. I'm definitely not going to stick around to try to change anyone's mind, but if I think of any cheap home experiments you can do to help draw your own conclusions from, I'll be sure to swing by and post them.

Best of luck with your own discoveries. Maybe you'll confirm what I believe, maybe you'll find anomalies. Its really a win win. If you can prove something that goes against physics as it is now, you'll win a bunch of money, get some equations named after you, and a nobel prize. Be sure to buy me a drink if an experiment I suggest gets you there.

[notbatman]

So I've been trying to discuss the #1 proof the Earth is a globe, Eratosthenes experiment with three or more sticks. Now if I'm going to be publicly shamed and called a liar for claiming the Earth is flat and, my money taken by threat of force and given to NASA then shouldn't we see if this claim is true first?


Progress so far:

1. We are able to establish and agree on the experiment setup, three sticks in three cites with three shadow angles and one of the sticks is directly under the Sun at noon.

2. We are able to agree that the angles measured are fact.

3. The first issue encountered is accounting for atmospheric refraction in regard to the angles, the globalist wants to claim it's zero but can't prove it.

4. The second issue encountered is the distance to the Sun, this is where I bring in empirical measurement via a sextant and the globalist ends the discussion with the statement that it's established and known that the Sun is 93 million miles away and mocks the sextant comparing it to measuring the Sun with a ruler and claiming it's 15 inches away.

5. The third issue that wasn't even addressed (with the exception of Vod claimed who claimed the hot-air balloon photo I posted was fake) is the angle of the sunlight rays hitting the Earth; on a globe they're parallel and on a plane they're divergent.  

This is where we stand, discussion mocked and ended without resolution; money taken, called a liar.



Here's that photo again:

[suchmoon]

I bring in empirical measurement via a sextant

You talk about it. You don't really "bring in" anything. So how exactly does sextant prove whatever it is you're proving?

[notbatman]

I bring in empirical measurement via a sextant

You talk about it. You don't really "bring in" anything. So how exactly does sextant prove whatever it is you're proving?

If you have an object, lets say a coin is it reasonable to claim that you can prove its diameter with a ruler? The sextant is a ruler that measures angles and if one distance is known we can triangulate an unknown distance. I can measure the distance to the Sun with a sextant and it's about 3,000 miles with a margin of error of about 250 miles. This measurement has been repeated, confirmed and documented countless times. If I'm not mistaken even NASA will admit to this measured distance (it's confirmed and documented) but do some mental acrobatics with claims about the atmosphere and say the Sun is really 93 million miles away instead.

[joerogers8]

I bring in empirical measurement via a sextant

You talk about it. You don't really "bring in" anything. So how exactly does sextant prove whatever it is you're proving?

If you have an object, lets say a coin is it reasonable to claim that you can prove its diameter with a ruler? The sextant is a ruler that measures angles and if one distance is known we can triangulate an unknown distance. I can measure the distance to the Sun with a sextant and it's about 3,000 miles with a margin of error of about 250 miles. This measurement has been repeated, confirmed and documented countless times. If I'm not mistaken even NASA will admit to this measured distance (it's confirmed and documented) but do some mental acrobatics with claims about the atmosphere and say the Sun is really 93 million miles away instead.

If they believe the official 2002 blue marble image is real and not CGI (even though NASA admits it's CGI) how will they be able to figure out the sextant?  They are actually mocking people that are calling this fake.  I don't think your going to get anywhere with the sextant.  Hell, why is there a hot spot on the earth?  Odd the moon doesn't get that. 

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/786/blue-marble-2002/

[Vod]

I can measure the distance to the Sun with a sextant and it's about 3,000 miles with a margin of error of about 250 miles. This measurement has been repeated, confirmed and documented countless times

The sun is 93,000,000 miles away and that has been proven as fact. 

If it was 3,000 miles why, we would be overcome with radiation and the sun would fall into the earth.  So you lie again. 

 

P.S.  Can anyone else notice when notaman doesn't take his medication for a day?

[joerogers8]

I can measure the distance to the Sun with a sextant and it's about 3,000 miles with a margin of error of about 250 miles. This measurement has been repeated, confirmed and documented countless times

The sun is 93,000,000 miles away and that has been proven as fact. 

If it was 3,000 miles why, we would be overcome with radiation and the sun would fall into the earth.  So you lie again. 

 

P.S.  Can anyone else notice when notaman doesn't take his medication for a day?

How did you go about proving the sun is 93 million miles away?

[—]

See this article your can ensure world is flat or around

https://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round

Lol, did not even bother to check link if it claims to prove in 10 ways it is "round".
The end of my knob is round too.
Flying space pizza is round also.
"Blue Marble" version is round, so it the oblate Sphere model.
The real shape of Earth is round.
The hollow Earth model is round.
The Gleason version
The Orlando-Ferguson is debatable
its proven round
....


Every "blue marble" is some artists imaginary version and has nothing right.
People travel every second of every day and prove distances time and time again.

The Circumference at the parallels:
0° (Eq) ~40k km
22.5° ~30k km (30020)
23,5° 29580 km
33° 25360 km (Sydney to Santiago by Plane 11,372 km)
45° ~20k km
55° 15568 km
64° 11564 km (South Magnetic Pole)
67.5° ~10k km
78.75° ~5k km
80°  4448 km
86°  1780 km (North Magnetic Pole)
As Crow fly Moscow 55 N 37 E to Vladivostok 43 N  131 E = 6453 km (on Train-track 9289 km, one week travel)

Sun Distances
from Equator  3180 km
at the Tropics (Can, Cap) ~3500 km
at 45°  ~2800km

The one thing and only one thing the oblate spheroid version has correct, is the distances.

This is not the real shape of earth, proven.

[notbatman]

I can measure the distance to the Sun with a sextant and it's about 3,000 miles with a margin of error of about 250 miles. This measurement has been repeated, confirmed and documented countless times

The sun is 93,000,000 miles away and that has been proven as fact.  

If it was 3,000 miles why, we would be overcome with radiation and the sun would fall into the earth.  So you lie again.  

 

P.S.  Can anyone else notice when notaman doesn't take his medication for a day?

How did you go about proving the sun is 93 million miles away?

He proved it by triangulation, however he doesn't engage in or condone the use of empirical measurement, nope Vod shuns and mocks such practices and relies exclusively on the word of NASA for his distance to Venus when making the calculation.

[suchmoon]

if one distance is known we can triangulate an unknown distance

Which distance is known?

[notbatman]

if one distance is known we can triangulate an unknown distance

Which distance is known?

Well, if you're on the beach you could use a lighthouse as the known distance.

[BADecker]

Just remember. On a FE, if the sun were 3,000 miles above you when it was directly overhead, perspective and triangulation require that your buddy who is 3,000 miles away from you, sees the sun at only 70% of the diameter that you see.

Since this doesn't happen, but rather the sun is the same size for both of us, we are not on a FE.

[notbatman]

Just remember. On a FE, if the sun were 3,000 miles above you when it was directly overhead, perspective and triangulation require that your buddy who is 3,000 miles away from you, sees the sun at only 70% of the diameter that you see.

Since this doesn't happen, but rather the sun is the same size for both of us, we are not on a FE.

This may be possible given the correct atmospheric conditions. If you've ever reached up to grab a rope or a ball while underwater you'll recall that it isn't where it seems to be and is often larger than it should be. The atmosphere has a similar lensing effect on celestial light sources like the Sun and Moon with refraction and magnification.

The Sun and the Moon are projected lights and if you were to travel to 3,000 miles you would find a high-voltage mirrored surface. The mirror consists of a nickel-iron oxide layer on a long grain damascus type steel substrate. This golden curved mirror is part of an electro-mechanical holographic projection system that projects all of the celestial objects.

The lights in in sky are just that, lights; they're not hydrogen bombs, giant heavy balls or any other kind of massive object.

[af_newbie]

Just remember. On a FE, if the sun were 3,000 miles above you when it was directly overhead, perspective and triangulation require that your buddy who is 3,000 miles away from you, sees the sun at only 70% of the diameter that you see.

Since this doesn't happen, but rather the sun is the same size for both of us, we are not on a FE.

This may be possible given the correct atmospheric conditions. If you've ever reached up to grab a rope or a ball while underwater you'll recall that it isn't where it seems to be and is often larger than it should be. The atmosphere has a similar lensing effect on celestial light sources like the Sun and Moon with refraction and magnification.

The Sun and the Moon are projected lights and if you were to travel to 3,000 miles you would find a high-voltage mirrored surface. The mirror consists of a nickel-iron oxide layer on a long grain damascus type steel substrate. This golden curved mirror is part of an electro-mechanical holographic projection system that projects all of the celestial objects.

The lights in in sky are just that, lights; they're not hydrogen bombs, giant heavy balls or any other kind of massive object.

Hey, chief, let me guess, you came up with the nickel-iron oxide layer after you read the labels on the batteries that power your cabin in the woods?

This is hilarious.  Seriously, high-voltage mirror, long grain Damascus type steel substrate, electro-mechanical holographic projection?

Is there anything else we need to know?  Keep going...LOL

I should have gone to study Psychiatry, it would have been more entertaining than Electrical Engineering.

[BADecker]

Just remember. On a FE, if the sun were 3,000 miles above you when it was directly overhead, perspective and triangulation require that your buddy who is 3,000 miles away from you, sees the sun at only 70% of the diameter that you see.

Since this doesn't happen, but rather the sun is the same size for both of us, we are not on a FE.

This may be possible given the correct atmospheric conditions. If you've ever reached up to grab a rope or a ball while underwater you'll recall that it isn't where it seems to be and is often larger than it should be. The atmosphere has a similar lensing effect on celestial light sources like the Sun and Moon with refraction and magnification.

The Sun and the Moon are projected lights and if you were to travel to 3,000 miles you would find a high-voltage mirrored surface. The mirror consists of a nickel-iron oxide layer on a long grain damascus type steel substrate. This golden curved mirror is part of an electro-mechanical holographic projection system that projects all of the celestial objects.

The lights in in sky are just that, lights; they're not hydrogen bombs, giant heavy balls or any other kind of massive object.

The problem with your thinking, here, is in measurements.

When you observe the diameter of the sun or moon, on the horizon, with precision measuring instruments, their diameters are barely different than when they are overhead, or when they are viewed from 3,000 miles away from ground zero. Because of the greater distance to the horizon from ground zero than only 3,000 miles, there should be a far greater difference in size appearance... but at least measurable. Yet there isn't this size difference. In order to make this all correlate, you will have to come up with all kinds of fanciful FE theory that has never been proven, and probably can not be proven.

[notbatman]

Just remember. On a FE, if the sun were 3,000 miles above you when it was directly overhead, perspective and triangulation require that your buddy who is 3,000 miles away from you, sees the sun at only 70% of the diameter that you see.

Since this doesn't happen, but rather the sun is the same size for both of us, we are not on a FE.

This may be possible given the correct atmospheric conditions. If you've ever reached up to grab a rope or a ball while underwater you'll recall that it isn't where it seems to be and is often larger than it should be. The atmosphere has a similar lensing effect on celestial light sources like the Sun and Moon with refraction and magnification.

The Sun and the Moon are projected lights and if you were to travel to 3,000 miles you would find a high-voltage mirrored surface. The mirror consists of a nickel-iron oxide layer on a long grain damascus type steel substrate. This golden curved mirror is part of an electro-mechanical holographic projection system that projects all of the celestial objects.

The lights in in sky are just that, lights; they're not hydrogen bombs, giant heavy balls or any other kind of massive object.

Hey, chief, let me guess, you came up with the nickel-iron oxide layer after you read the labels on the batteries that power your cabin in the woods?

This is hilarious.  Seriously, high-voltage mirror, long grain Damascus type steel substrate, electro-mechanical holographic projection?

Is there anything else we need to know?  Keep going...LOL

I should have gone to study Psychiatry, it would have been more entertaining than Electrical Engineering.

Are you able to find a meteorite and examine it closely? What's it made from? How would you describe it's structure? What colour is the oxide? Did it fall out of the sky?

The Jews have fed you nothing but bullshit your entire life you gullible fool, they've created a delusional idiot.

I claim the lights in the sky are lights in the sky, you claim they're heavy balls and giant bombs. Who's fucking insane?

[Vod]

I claim the lights in the sky are lights in the sky, you claim they're heavy balls and giant bombs. Who's fucking insane?

I think the general consensus is that you are, notaman.  :/

The sun provides light AND heat, from thermonuclear explosions.   If it were any closer than 93,000,000 miles, we would be fried.

Also, we have traveled 3,000 miles above the earth - 100x farther in fact.  There is no dome.

This may be possible given the correct atmospheric conditions. If you've ever reached up to grab a rope or a ball while underwater you'll recall that it isn't where it seems to be and is often larger than it should be. The atmosphere has a similar lensing effect on celestial light sources like the Sun and Moon with refraction and magnification.

That is caused by the speed of light in different densities.  Light does not reflect travelling in the air. 

 

[notbatman]

^^^ Just fucking kill yourself already, you're a fucking retarded dishonest sack of shit. Where did I make claims about reflection?? Tell me mr sack of shit where? We're not even discussing mirages yet they reflect and mirror. You're fucking stupid, choke on your own vomit and die.

Why can't you provide some proof the Sun is a giant spherical bomb millions of miles away? Because you're full of shit and it's a ridiculous claim that's why. I provide facts and evidence to back my claims, yet you call me a liar and tag me a scammer when I can prove what I say and you can't? Just fucking die a horrible death, you should be banned then decapitaed with a rusty hacksaw for abusing the trust system. The trust system is not intended as tool to punish anybody who doesn't believe NASA and their fraudulent images and science.

[Vod]

^^^ just fucking kill yourself already, you're a fucking retarded dishonest sack of shit. Where did I make claims about reflection?? Tell me mr sack of shit where? We're not even discussing mirages yet they reflect and mirror.

You're fucking stupid.

Sorry, refraction, not reflection.

I'm sorry the truth is upsetting you, but we're known these facts for a thousand years...

Mirages prove gravity exists, too.  

Why can't you provide some proof the Sun is a giant spherical bomb millions of miles away?

Been proven thousands of times.   If you aren't too angry to read:
https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-prove-that-the-sun-is-93-million-miles-away