Dr. Michael Heiser has died

[LTS TRN 2]

What mewling bullshit.

Obviously the satellite isn't the subject of the photo, but the round earth below. Is that also fake? If so, by whom, and why? Don't pretend that you've patiently explained it before. What a weasel you are.

And as for your repeated nonsensical gibberish about water, explain why it alone would not obey the laws of gravity?

And explain why the polar regions are so cold while the equatorial regions are so hot.

I realize your pathetic attempt to explain lunar eclipses does not portend well for your abilty to provide any such explanations.

[Softball Bat]

Obviously the satellite isn't the subject of the photo, but the round earth below. Is that also fake? If so, by whom, and why? Don't pretend that you've patiently explained it before. What a weasel you are.

NASA openly tells us that the pictures they show us are... images.

They are composites, or CGI.

This is not some new revelation I am claiming.
It is an open fact.


I don't understand your question about water and gravity.


I assume the "polar" regions are cold because as the sun moves over the flat earth it does not venture north or south enough to warm those areas.
This is not difficult.


Regarding the lunar eclipse, again, what you are proposing requires the earth to be in motion.
Post your proof that the earth is in motion.

And along with that, you'll need to prove that water can cling to the outside of a flying, spinning ball. lol
Show us the experiment where water curves over distance.

If people would just stop to think about it, they would realize the globe is completely absurd.

Oh well.

[Roach]

Taking a closer look at the satellite in the sky pic, some bullshit is afoot.

Adjusting the gamma levels of the pic reveals discontinuities in dark space areas. AKA Cut and Paste satellite image.

And just for fun to where is the high gain dish antenna pointing? Perhaps a satellite, but not to earth. And the solar panels are apparently not oriented toward the sun. And they have the reflection of clouds in them but from the camera's orientation we would see space.

Apart from the flat earf argument, this pic is not a photo from space.



And the original pic looks like it came from nato, then wiki, used there as an "illustration" Nice source of "facts" there LTS.

[LTS TRN 2]

Focus. Why would water not obey gravity, but everything else would? You keep insisting that water should not obey the laws of gravity. But you never say why. What's your argument against gravity? And why shouldn't lawn furniture and lighter things than water also be spun off? And we notice you try to slip in nonsense such as "prove that water curves over distance." No one has suggested that water "curves" in the first place. Your syntax is a
(intentionally) muddled mess.

As for NASA "images," why do think they would fake a round earth image? Why would anyone want to hide the fact if they discovered he earth was in fact flat? Again you don't offer any explanation--or even the slightest curiousity.

Here's another hole in your nonsense--how come compasses work? How come the magnetic force generated by the earth's rotation upon its pole accurately attracts the needle on a compass to point due north?

As for proving the earth is in motion--or rather your blustering ignorance in dismissing Copernicus due to your religious beliefs--well that ship sailed five-hundred years ago. Why do you suppose your "faith" in the Torah somehopw holds any scientific validity at all? Again you don't say.

What an asshole.

[Softball Bat]

Focus. Why would water not obey gravity, but everything else would? You keep insisting that water should not obey the laws of gravity. But you never say why. What's your argument against gravity? And why shouldn't lawn furniture and lighter things than water also be spun off? And we notice you try to slip in nonsense such as "prove that water curves over distance." No one has suggested that water "curves" in the first place. Your syntax is a
(intentionally) muddled mess.

If the earth was a flying, spinning ball, all things would fly off of it, not only water.

One really has to shut off their mind in order to swallow the globe earth lie.
It is ridiculous in the extreme.


On your globe earth, the curvature rate is 8" per mile squared.
So if a lake is 4 miles across, there is more than 10 feet of water curvature from one end of the lake to the other.

As for NASA "images," why do think they would fake a round earth image? Why would anyone want to hide the fact if they discovered he earth was in fact flat? Again you don't offer any explanation--or even the slightest curiousity.

I have posted about this before.
I don't have time right now to give this the answer it deserves, so give me a few days and I will do so again.

[Rootbeer]

When I quit posting 13 years ago we were having this exact same argument. Sorry I brought it up, everyone.

[LTS TRN 2]

Focus. Why would water not obey gravity, but everything else would? You keep insisting that water should not obey the laws of gravity. But you never say why. What's your argument against gravity? And why shouldn't lawn furniture and lighter things than water also be spun off? And we notice you try to slip in nonsense such as "prove that water curves over distance." No one has suggested that water "curves" in the first place. Your syntax is a
(intentionally) muddled mess.

If the earth was a flying, spinning ball, all things would fly off of it, not only water.

One really has to shut off their mind in order to swallow the globe earth lie.
It is ridiculous in the extreme.


On your globe earth, the curvature rate is 8" per mile squared.
So if a lake is 4 miles across, there is more than 10 feet of water curvature from one end of the lake to the other.

As for NASA "images," why do think they would fake a round earth image? Why would anyone want to hide the fact if they discovered he earth was in fact flat? Again you don't offer any explanation--or even the slightest curiousity.

I have posted about this before.
I don't have time right now to give this the answer it deserves, so give me a few days and I will do so again.

So you just slither and weave like the bottom bitch faggot you are?

Why do you focus on water if you're actually claiming that gravity itself doesn't exist? You appear oblivious that it is precisely the speed of rotation per the mass and density of the sphere which creates the respective gravitational field. Are you in denial of gravity itself? Yes or no.

As for your idiotic calculation of 8" per mile squared, this is sheer gibberish and of course you can't support your claim.

As for asking me to go try and watch departing a ship with a telescope, this is where you go right over a cliff. Seriously, you are a total fraud--and i mean that you're an imposter to the Music Man level of logical chicanery required to actually promote a Flat Earth argument. And that's what I've been encouraging you to provide--to step up your game. But no, it's just the tedious--and thoroughly spread cheeks gay--coy bullshit.

Well, it's over. We gave you a chance, and you failed. :doh:

[Softball Bat]

Why do you focus on water if you're actually claiming that gravity itself doesn't exist? You appear oblivious that it is precisely the speed of rotation per the mass and density of the sphere which creates the respective gravitational field. Are you in denial of gravity itself? Yes or no.

I don't deny that things that are heavier than air fall to the earth.
I deny that water (or other things) cling to the outside of a flying, spinning ball.

As for your idiotic calculation of 8" per mile squared, this is sheer gibberish and of course you can't support your claim.

It happens to be a fact.
I know much more about your globe than you do.

The rate of curvature on your globe is 8" per mile squared.

https://www.davidsenesac.com/Informatio ... sight.html

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-ca ... t=imperial

[LTS TRN 2]

Fuck you, you're done.

[Innocent Bystander]

When I quit posting 13 years ago we were having this exact same argument. Sorry I brought it up, everyone.

Nikka, no you ain't.

If the earth was a flying, spinning ball, all things would fly off of it, not only water.

Explain.

[Softball Bat]

This is the Gravitron ride...








The ride can rotate at a maximum frequency of 24 rpm. It reaches that frequency in less than 20 seconds,
due to the 33 kW 3-phase motor. At this point, the riders are experiencing centrifugal force equivalent to
three times the force of gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitron


In contrast, the earth is said to rotate at .000694 RPM.

lol



There isn't really much for me to explain, is there?

[LTS TRN 2]

Except you're not accounting for the difference in size of an amuesment park ride of about twenty-feet and a planet of several thousand miles.. :doh:

[Softball Bat]

The earth is said to have a circumference of about 25,000 miles.


I guess you are making the claim that waters curve around a ball earth, and are pinned to it, just like the children are pinned on the Gravitron ride.

The children wear no belt or safety harness of any type, because it is a given that they are rendered immobile by the extreme force being exerted on their bodies.

is that how it feels to you on earth?
Is that how it seems the waters are behaving?



... as a delicate little butterfly easily lifts its whispy body off the grass and freely flutters away.

lol

[LTS TRN 2]

The carnival ride exists within the earth's gravitational field. You're trying to be clever. Why? You're obviously a moron--by virtue of your stated belief in the Torah and the Flat Earth features you've inferred thererin.

Your whole tedious argument has already shot dead, skinned and stuffed, and hanging on a wall. And that occurred when you insisted that the earth is flat and therefore a departing ship could theoretically be observed with a powerful telescope all the way to China. That's your "logic," and you're officillaly the Village Idiot. :doh:

[Softball Bat]

Your whole tedious argument has already shot dead, skinned and stuffed, and hanging on a wall. And that occurred when you insisted that the earth is flat and therefore a departing ship could theoretically be observed with a powerful telescope all the way to China.

Nope

I have never posted that, and I certainly do not think that.

[Kierland]

When I quit posting 13 years ago we were having this exact same argument. Sorry I brought it up, everyone.

It’s always lurking in the ether.

[LTS TRN 2]

Your whole tedious argument has already shot dead, skinned and stuffed, and hanging on a wall. And that occurred when you insisted that the earth is flat and therefore a departing ship could theoretically be observed with a powerful telescope all the way to China.

Nope

I have never posted that, and I certainly do not think that.

But it's obvious in your claim of a flat earth that this would be the case. Of course you didn't say it directly--because you're a mewling botton-bitch faggot who likes to be coy.

[mvscal]

Your whole tedious argument has already shot dead, skinned and stuffed, and hanging on a wall. And that occurred when you insisted that the earth is flat and therefore a departing ship could theoretically be observed with a powerful telescope all the way to China.

Nope

I have never posted that, and I certainly do not think that.

Then what actually do you think? LTS is correct. On a flat earth, you could see everything with a powerful enough telescope and, just by the way, we do have telescopes powerful enough to do that...unless of course you think those are fake, too.

[Softball Bat]

The law of perspective, which is briefly explained in the Eric Dubay video I posted on this page of the thread, is still in effect if one is using a telescope.
If a person is standing at 0 elevation, he will still not be able to see extremely far using a telescope.
As one would zoom the telescope more and more, objects would gradually become more and more blurry, and then disappear completely.

Elevation of the observer (person with the telescope) would be the key issue.
If the observer were to go to a high elevation and use a telescope, he would be able to see further, but the law of perspective still does not go away.

Beyond that, using a telescope to look at the sky is different than using a telescope at ground (or sea) level, because the earth is full of "ground clutter" that greatly inhibits sight.
The sky has less (much, much less) clutter.

[LTS TRN 2]

Bullshit. A telescope sees clearly--and a poweful one, let alone a radio telscope--will see clearly regardless. And if the earth was flat anything could be viewed--from Australia to Greenland--on a straight line. The pathetic suggestion that visibility would become blurred and disappear is asinine, and just another example of your febble act.

[Softball Bat]

If someone is at, or very near ground level, objects that are the same height, such as the streetlights in this photo, will gradually sink toward the horizon the further they are away from you.
This is basic perspective.

Using a telescope will allow someone to see further, but it will not negate basic perspective.
And as I noted, ground clutter will also hinder one's ability to see.
So there will be a limit as to how far one can see, viewing ground level to ground level (or sea level to sea level), telescope or not.

In order to see extremely far with a telescope, a person would need to move a very high elevation.

People can use a telescope and see things very far away in the sky, because they are not hindered by the limitation of perspective.


I must say at this point that you (and mvscal) struggle with things that are very rudimentary.

[LTS TRN 2]

"Basic perspective" does not apply to a radio telescope--which alleviates any nonsense about fog or flocks of birds that might block the view. Further, if a departing ship was in fact moving across a flat surface, it could be tracked by sonor devices, or even lasers--which would not work once the ship in fact had sunk beneath the horizon. That is, the laser beam will not bend--and therefore should theoretically be able to keep a shiny red laser dot on the back of the ship all the way to China. But of course this is completely impossible. Because the earth is a globe.

And that's checkmate.

[Softball Bat]

Buy a laser, take a friend, and go to a fairly large body of water.

Send your friend to the other side of the lake, fire the laser across the water and see if you detect 8" per mile squared of curvature.


I have posted about the Fecore laser experiments numerous times on this board.

7 laser tests over water on 7 different days in 7 different locations (distances) in 7 different weather conditions.

NO CURVATURE FOUND in any of the 7 tests.


Nobody here seemed at all interested.


Oh well...

[Softball Bat]

I have more than adequately done my part.

The ball is in your court.

You can link us to the experiment showing how water can cling to the outside of a flying, spinning ball.
Or link us to the experiment measuring curvature (8" per mile squared) over a body of water.


The globe zealots always think they can just assert things, and it makes them true.

It truly is a mental disease.

[LTS TRN 2]

Of course there's no curvature in the laser beams because they don't bend. Just as radio waves require satellites to be sent around the globe because they also don't bend. If the earth was flat, merely a powerful enough transmitter could send signals directly anywhere on the planet without satallites. But because of course the earth is a globe we require satallites.

What part of "checkmate" don't yoyu seem to understand? :doh:

[Softball Bat]

Of course there's no curvature in the laser beams because they don't bend.

Yes.

The laser is fired across a sizeable body of water.
If the laser is seen across the body of water, the curvature for your fairy tale globe is not there.
As was the case in all 7 of the fully documented SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS.

121 pages, fully documented.

http://walter.bislins.ch/blog/media/FEC ... ersion.pdf

But because of course the earth is a globe we require satallites.

Another fairy tale.

If NASA (or others) was sending things up to space, LONG AGO we would have seen a video of the full trip -- from ground to space.

"Here is our rocket. It is launched, and here is the full, unedited journey to space. Cool, isn't it?"

Scour the internet and find such a video.

Get back to me on that.

[LTS TRN 2]

C'mon, man..even Gibberin' Joe makes you look like a weaselly little faggot tryng to be...clever? You keep mentioning "clutter" as a reason for a powerful telescope (theoretically so, not necessarily one presently available) being unable to see all the way to China--since it's a flat and straight line after all. And we notice this rhymes with "butter," which we can assume your boyfriend uses to make his cock disappear and then reappear from your ass. Your subtext deceives you. :wink:

As for your latest out on a limb desperate attempt to grasp at anything--and this time it's declaring that satellites don't exist--well, I admit you're a mildly amusing sort of carnival geek.

And here's those Indians demanding to get in the game...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTKIWTMMj8w

And even the locals want a peek.. :wink:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QsEPEhq5yk

[Softball Bat]

You keep mentioning "clutter" as a reason for a powerful telescope (theoretically so, not necessarily one presently available) being unable to see all the way to China--since it's a flat and straight line after all.

"Ground clutter" inhibits viewing, and more-so the closer to ground level you are.
This is a known fact.

But the main reason why it won't work to use a telescope to see to China is because of the law of perspective.

If you want to see very far using a telescope, you need to point it to the sky, where perspective does not hinder the viewer.



The Indian launch is par for the course.

They show the rocket go up for a while, then they cut it off and switch to -----> a cartoon.

But yeah, that rocket went to space.

Trust them.

rotf...

[LTS TRN 2]

C'mon, man ...just say it..don't just plead for more butter, tell us all on this palsied thread right now as March arrives and BHM allegedly ends, that satellites are fake, and that the nations of the world are all in on a conspiracy of pretending the world is round--hence the need for the fake satellites...

[Softball Bat]

There are no space satellites, because there is no such thing as space.

When I have adequate time I will (once again) explain why "they" have been lying to you about the shape of the earth.

[Softball Bat]

Wernher von Braun, a nazi, and the father of the U.S. "space" program, tells you what's up from his grave stone.






Psalm 19:1 - The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork .



Yes, there is a firmament.




Why do "they" lie to us about the shape of the earth?

For the great bulk of human history, the prevailing (by far) view has been that the earth is flat.
Only in relatively recent times has that shifted to a view that the earth is a sphere.

When rockets were able to be sent up very high, around the middle of the 20th century, it was verified to those sending the rockets up that the earth is in fact enclosed.
The firmament stopped the rockets.

At that point, those sending the rockets up had a choice to make.
Tell the general public that the earth is enclosed, or continue with the globe deception.
They chose the deception.

Why?

Two main reasons.

1. To deny God
2. For money

Looking at #2 first, the taxpayers give NASA over 50 million dollars a day.
Think of that.
And it's been like that for many decades now.

NASA builds rockets (and other things) and they launch them, for sure.
But they also show you MANY things that are DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.
They show and tell you things that are BLATANT LIES.
I have repeatedly shown these things on the board.

Other counties also send rockets up, as they have also learned how to deceive and fleece the ignorant citizens.
I have also posted DEMONSTRABLY FALSE things, for example, that the Japanese and Chinese space programs put out for public consumption.
They are frauds, man.

So it is a money grab. A scam.

"Yeah, poptart, but too many people would have to be in on a conspiracy this big."

No.
Nearly all who work for NASA (or affiliated organizations) just do the job that they are supposed to do within their department.
They don't know what only the relative few at the top of the chain know.
They are just schlepping at their jobs, cashing their paychecks, and carry on with their lives.
Departmentalization.

When I lived in Houston, I had a friend who was a NASA consultant.
He didn't know jack shit about the big picture.
He just knew what he was doing in his own job in his own little department.

We've all been indoctrinated into into a globe understanding from our earliest years.
They put a globe in your kindergarten classroom and tell you that you live there.
And every day we are bombarded with images of the globe, or words that say "globalization," etc.
Globe, globe, globe x infinity -- all of our life.

And very few ever stop to question whether or not the globe even makes sense.

Well, I'll tell you.
It DOES NOT.
It is a total joke.
There are some on this board who read my posts and strongly suspect that I am right, but they are afraid to speak up.

It is like the ultimate taboo to say the globe is false.


Then on to reason #1 why "they" lie to us about the shape of the earth.

To deny God.

If the earth is flat, stationary, and enclosed, it is very hard to deny that there is a creator.
But if the earth is just a random rock, among billions of such rocks flying around in the universe, then denying God is much easier.
Earth is just a random rock, and you are just a random globe of DNA that originated as sludge in the bottom of a pit of water.

"Religion" had the upper hand on "science" up until a few hundred years ago.
But then "science" gained the upper hand, and people began to feel smart and enlightened.
They pendulum swung toward "science," and those in this camp mocked those who held to traditional "religious" views as unenlightened rubes.

Those who sent rockets up and found out the truth of the firmament did not want to allow "religion," or "God," once again gain the upper hand, so they lied.
And then set up NASA to help perpetuate the big lie.
And that's how it has gone down for many decades now.

They tell you bullshit, they show you bullshit, while you pay them a lot of money.
They are dicking you in the @ss.
They laff at the ignorant public.

You like?


There is much, much, much more, and I am sure some reading this are already enraged, and full of questions and protests.
They just love that gosh dern globe so much.



Free your mind.

[LTS TRN 2]

When you have "adequate time"? You mean when you're done gently tending the wounds to your anus?

And now you're buns up splaying your tossed loins and throtteled bottom..and referring to Vernher Von Braun? And then writhe and jerk the peepee while spilling into a spiel abbout "God" and the Torah?

How disgustng can you get?

[mvscal]

Free your mind.

From what? Mathematically verifiable fact? Detailed nautical rutters from the 16th century and forward that are impossible on a flat earth? Basic astronomical observations?

You are completely whack.

[Softball Bat]

Mathematically verifiable fact?

Post it.