Flat Earth

[sirazimuth]

is this really a FULL discussion if the earth is flat or round......

its a globe, round as F***

just gonna spare you guy's some time

Who the fuck is this guy?

I see what you did there....

[1714903820]

1714903820

[1714903820]

1714903820

[1714903820]

1714903820

[1714903820]

1714903820

[Astargath]

is this really a FULL discussion if the earth is flat or round......

its a globe, round as F***

just gonna spare you guy's some time

Who the fuck is this guy?

I see what you did there....

Some fucking bitch from the Wall Observer Gang. I don't think he knows how things work in here.

[sirazimuth]

Some fucking bitch from the Wall Observer Gang. I don't think he knows how things work in here.

Wall Observer Gang??  who the phuk are they? never heard of em.

[notbatman]

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/94869ff6a850d342c6c84966fa2c5783.jpg
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71512.0
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/76000/76261/ISS029-E-031270_lrg.jpg

What about that mr nut bat job man?

Funny how all the straight shadows you show us are when the Sun is at a low angle, close to the horizon. Funny how all the shadows cast on the ground are at 90° to the Sun. You're making false claims with long distorted shadows cast at an angle. There is no problem with these shadows on a flat Earth, the Flat Earth Society is a fucking shill organization, NASA is full of shit and, metabunk is run by Jews!



I've got documented, observable, testable, repeatable proof the Earth is measurably flat with the sextant, the Sun and the horizon. This empirical proof is corroborated by the straightforward photographs I've posted showing the Sun is a close, small object over a flat plane; the Sun rays are provably divergent.

[Vod]

I've got documented, observable, testable, repeatable proof the Earth is measurably flat with the sextant, the Sun and the horizon. This empirical proof is corroborated by the straightforward photographs I've posted showing the Sun is a close, small object over a flat plane; the Sun rays are provably divergent.

Sorry bozo, but you don't know what "proof" means.

You are not smarter than the people at NASA.  They have more intelligent thoughts in their first hour of waking than you do all week.

Please, show some more pictures of rockets curving to go into orbit.  Why do they never hit your imaginary dome?

 

[Vod]

Funny how all the straight shadows you show us are when the Sun is at a low angle, close to the horizon.

That's funny.  I thought you said the sun didn't drop close to the horizon?   

Your flattard map shows the sun wouldn't fall below 30 degrees before it "faded" out of view.

I think bozo just slipped and admitted he is lying.

 

[Astargath]

Funny how all the straight shadows you show us are when the Sun is at a low angle, close to the horizon.

That's funny.  I thought you said the sun didn't drop close to the horizon?  

Your flattard map shows the sun wouldn't fall below 30 degrees before it "faded" out of view.

I think bozo just slipped and admitted he is lying.

 

  I was just about to say. This guy logic is absolutely amazing, it's not the first time he admits he is lying.

Also, more ships disappearing bottom first.

[sirazimuth]

I've got documented, observable, testable, repeatable proof the Earth is measurably flat with the sextant, the Sun and the horizon. This empirical proof is corroborated by the straightforward photographs I've posted showing the Sun is a close, small object over a flat plane; the Sun rays are provably divergent.

Then go publish your brilliant findings for peer review instead of obsessing with asinine pictures of fruit and other silliness in a bitcointalk thread ffs.
Maybe you will win a nobel prize for proving all of science has been wrong for... oh idk... 1000 years or so?
I'm not holding my breath though....

jeeezus dude, replying to your drivel is like shooting fish in a barrel.

[notbatman]

^^^ not an argument

@Astargath, good work trying to bullshit everybody with an image of a ship being squished by atmospheric compression, obscured by perspective and behind a narrow band mirage. I also believe that's a but of sea-swell I see, it looks a bit "choppy" with the white crests on the waves. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with the sunset image that doesn't load.

[Vod]

@Astargath, good work trying to bullshit everybody with an image of a ship being <MAGIC>, <MAGIC> and <MAGIC>.

^^ Not an argument.   Nothing you type makes any sense dude...

Why don't you answer the questions we ask you? 

Why isn't the sun purple in the morning, and red at night?

How do you explain people regularly flying through your dome?

 

[Astargath]

^^^ not an argument

@Astargath, good work trying to bullshit everybody with an image of a ship being squished by atmospheric compression, obscured by perspective and behind a narrow band mirage. I also believe that's a but of sea-swell I see, it looks a bit "choppy" with the white crests on the waves. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with the sunset image that doesn't load.

''atmospheric compression'' That's a new one, what the fuck is that supposed to be exactly? I can see the ship perfectly fine, you can see every detail of it.



That's a mirage, in my picture you don't see any of that. How do you explain it?

[notbatman]

You guys are all full shit, totally, completely and utterly full of shit. Images of ships in the distance subject to multiple atmosphereic distortions doesn't prove the globe, it doesn't debunk empirical evidence of a flat earth like the sextant. You show me a picture of a mirage and tell me I need to believe your illusion, how about you go shoot youself in the head instead?

I've got proof, I've got a mountain of proof. The science, math and evidence is with me, the globe has nothing but  an impending violent death.

[—]

The real question is : Does it really matter if it's a disc or a globe?

It is neither as it is a open-ended 4D torus. A horseshoe type magnet, poles not open-ended but facing each other.


4D probably the best explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4URVJ3D8e8k

[Astargath]

You guys are all full shit, totally, completely and utterly full of shit. Images of ships in the distance subject to multiple atmosphereic distortions doesn't prove the globe, it doesn't debunk empirical evidence of a flat earth like the sextant. You show me a picture of a mirage and tell me I need to believe your illusion, how about you go shoot youself in the head instead?

I've got proof, I've got a mountain of proof. The science, math and evidence is with me, the globe has nothing but  an impending violent death.

Your math is wrong, as previously shown, you are full of shit and can't accept basic proof because of your intellectual dishonesty, the ship is clearly hidden and there is no effect, you can see details of the ship and the horizon perfectly fine, no mirage and no distortion, you need glasses? I have a video of it as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0ObTd7DLMw

Which atmospheric distortion is that? The curve?

[presduterte]

You guys are all full shit, totally, completely and utterly full of shit. Images of ships in the distance subject to multiple atmosphereic distortions doesn't prove the globe, it doesn't debunk empirical evidence of a flat earth like the sextant. You show me a picture of a mirage and tell me I need to believe your illusion, how about you go shoot youself in the head instead?

I've got proof, I've got a mountain of proof. The science, math and evidence is with me, the globe has nothing but  an impending violent death.

[notbatman]

^^^ you need to make that flicker a bit so it induces epileptic seizures.

[Astargath]

^^^ you need to make that flicker a bit so it induces epileptic seizures.

Also, if I measure something to be 32' does that mean its the same as the sun? Or how does it work?

[notbatman]

...
Also, if I measure something to be 32' does that mean its the same as the sun? Or how does it work?

Are you measuring "angular size" or "apparent size"?

Consider the following:

1. The horizon is an object.
2. The vanishing point is a point on the horizon line.
3. The vanishing point is the result of convergence on a plane.
4. A sextant measures angles between two (2) objects.
5. Angular size requires two (2) separate measurements.
6. Angular size is measured from the vanishing point. i.e. horizon<object
7. Angular size never changes as it is a measure of physical distance.
8. One (1) minute of arc equals one (1) nautical mile.
9. The sides of an object are objects in their own right.
10. Apparent size only requires one (1) measurement.
11. Apparent size is measured from the viewer. i.e. eye<object
12. Apparent size changes with distance to the viewer.

So lets measure "angular size" and measure the Moon; its angular size is 32'. Is it the same physical size as the Sun?

If your answer is that I claim the Sun & Moon are projected holograms and not physical objects then it's time to find some rope for yourself because, I am referring to the physical distance they occupy.

You have to be on plane, this is how it works. If you're on a globe (and it can only be a globe no matter what) then none of this works, angular size can't even be measured. The whole concept of measuring distance based on an angle is a ridiculous concept worthy mockery on a globe. Do you see, can you understand?

[Vod]

I've got proof, I've got a mountain of proof.

Any child looking at a pile of presents will say the same thing about Santa Claus.

Your parents obviously never told you he was just a fairy tale.

 

[Astargath]

...
Also, if I measure something to be 32' does that mean its the same as the sun? Or how does it work?

Are you measuring "angular size" or "apparent size"?

Consider the following:

1. The horizon is an object.
2. The vanishing point is a point on the horizon line.
3. The vanishing point is the result of convergence on a plane.
4. A sextant measures angles between two (2) objects.
5. Angular size requires two (2) separate measurements.
6. Angular size is measured from the vanishing point. i.e. horizon<object
7. Angular size never changes as it is a measure of physical distance.
8. One (1) minute of arc equals one (1) nautical mile.
9. The sides of an objects are objects in their own right.
10. Apparent size only requires one (1) measurement.
11. Apparent size is measured from the viewer. i.e. eye<object
12. Apparent size changes with distance to the viewer.

So lets measure "angular size" and measure the Moon; its angular size 32'. Is it the same physical size as the Sun?

If your answer is that I claim the Sun & Moon are projected holograms and not physical objects then it's time to find some rope for yourself because, I am referring to the physical distance they occupy.

You have to be on plane, this is how it works. If you're on a globe (and it can only be a globe no matter what) then none of this works, angular size can't even be measured. The whole concept of measuring distance based on an angle is a ridiculous concept worthy mockery on a globe. Do you see, can you understand?

And why can't you measure angular size on a globe? Do you even know how those concepts came to existance? They are used in astronomy