MD, those terms I used for most of you (slaves, sleeping, fools) are not nice.
Understand that it was never my intent to talk to anyone that way about this topic.
If you go back and look at the Rod of God thread, you'll see that I was called into the thread by Scott, and as soon as I put up a couple of posts so that people could see where I was coming from, I was met with intense attacks and vitriol.
I actually took it for quite awhile, because I know what this topic does to people.
But after people continued to approach me this way, I assume they want this kind of abusive dialogue, so I return the favor.
People won't look at the issue, so those terms I used (slaves, sleeping, fools) are appropriate.
For just ONE example, look at the lunar wave that I posted 4 or 5 times.
It's important for people to see it -- so I tried to have them see it.
I doubt that Felix ever looked at it.
Very few people commented on it, and those who did posted some of THE most wack and irrational takes I've ever seen on any topic.
It is an unwillingness to LOOK at something objectively.
So that is why I realized that it is cognitive dissonance we have going here.
People are SO deeply indoctrinated into what they think they already know that they are not able to even begin to try to process the idea that they might be wrong about the information they have long assumed to be true.
And there is also the factor that this topic attacks the religion people have adopted.
The religion of "science."
The topic threatens people, and hence, they deliver the kind of response I've gotten on the topic.
How not to be a slave?
Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
Only through Jesus Christ will people be free from their captivity.
I know my identity.
The world has nothing to do with me.
People are SO deeply indoctrinated into what they think they already know that they are not able to even begin to try to process the idea that they might be wrong about the information they have long assumed to be true.
Jsc wrote:There are many ways to demonstrate that the earth is not flat, including the many people who have circumnavigated the earth, but you reject all of that. What would it take for you to accept that the earth is round?
Do an experiment.
Get a very good zoom camera.
Down along the Lousiana coast, south of N.O., there would be many places where you could go to waterfront and look across 20, 30, 40 miles (or whatever) to land on the other side of the water.
Find a structure on the other side of the water that's height can be verified.
Jsc wrote:You can stand on the beach and watch a ship slowly go below the horizon and then disappear. Then once it does that, go up to the 2nd floor of the hotel, and you can watch it go below the horizon and disappear again. Then go up to the 4th floor and do it again, and so on.
Jsc, the ball earth is a fantasy.
It requires magic, such as the idea that standing water bends.
Nothing is going over a horizon.
It's merely perspective.
The distance these light go in this pic isn't very far, but notice how from our point of view, they get lower and lower as they go.
If these lights were extended further, they would sink so that we could not see them at all.
Would they be going under the curvature of the earth?
lol
If your perspective theory is correct Pop, a ship should never vanish from site with a strong telescope. Or someone standing in Key West should be able to see the Tampa St Pete skyline with their telescope.
Explain why this doesn't work.
Moving Sale wrote:I really are a fucking POS.
Softball Bat wrote:
I am the dumbest motherfucker ever to post on the board.
I assume it's because the atmosphere has some much clutter in it.
The higher you go, the less clutter there is.
If you're in a city and look up at the stars, you can't see nearly as many (and nearly as clearly) as you can if you remove yourself from the clutter by going to a desert or up to a mountain.
In the clear of a desert or mountain, you can see MUCH more and much more clearly as you look up at the stars.
You can point a telescope UP to the sky and you don't have to fight clutter.
But if you point it horizontally and try to look at something in the distance, you are obfuscated by atmospheric clutter.
Why don't you guys stop wasting your time with me and DO the experiment to SHOW me that your model is correct.
I don't BELIEVE your model.
It's a crock of shit.
I've posted numerous examples (pics and videos) which clearly show that the curvature necessary for your model is NOT THERE.
The curve is not there.
So show me that it is.
Do as I asked Jsc.
Find a bay or a body of water.
Get your zoom camera and find a target over the water.
Document where exactly you are so that we can see that it is legit.
Show us how much of your target is under the earth's curvature.
Trees close to us are tall.
Then shorter, shorter, shorter... finally gone.
Poptart, you just shot yourself in the foot with that photo.
In your first example of the streetlights, you made the parallel of them seeming to go down, like a ship on the horizon. In this photo, the tracks seem to go uphill. It's known as a vanishing point. Horrible attempt to rationalize your silly and irrational views. Please, don't try again. You're just embarrassing yourself.
poptart wrote:You can point a telescope UP to the sky and you don't have to fight clutter.
But if you point it horizontally and try to look at something in the distance, you are obfuscated by atmospheric clutter.
That's what I think.
Atmospheric clutter. Yeah. That's the ticket.
You have some serious cranial clutter.
Joe in PB wrote:
Yeah I'm the dumbass
schmick, speaking about Larry Nassar's pubescent and prepubescent victims wrote:
They couldn't even kick that doctors ass
Seems they rather just lay there, get fucked and play victim
Jsc wrote:So again:
how do you plan on proving that the earth is flat; and
what would it take for you to accept that the earth is round?
Jsc, I've posted multiple pics and videos showing that the earth curvature of your model ----> IS NOT THERE.
If you're interested in the truth, why is it that you ignore this?
If you're interested in TRUTH, shouldn't this raise your eyebrow?
Shouldn't you say, "Wow, this is kind of interesting. I want to know what's going on here?"
Of course you should.
There is a problem with your model.
Well, there are a LOT of problems with your model.
poptart wrote:Why don't you guys stop wasting your time with me and DO the experiment to SHOW me that your model is correct.
I don't BELIEVE your model.
It's a crock of shit.
I've posted numerous examples (pics and videos) which clearly show that the curvature necessary for your model is NOT THERE.
The curve is not there.
So show me that it is.
Wrong. You have posted a link to curvature math and then photos and videos that show parts of buildings are not visible at some distance. You have given us plenty of reason to doubt the math you linked us up to, but nothing that proves the curve isn't there. In fact many of the photos and videos you have linked us up to appear to show that there is some curvature. Why hasn't one of these flat earth videographers shown us that all of the buildings in Toronto are visible via a telescope from across the lake?
Why also do these videographers and other "experts" refuse to discuss Southern Hemisphere flights? Or those that do ignore flights that exist?
Moving Sale wrote:I really are a fucking POS.
Softball Bat wrote:
I am the dumbest motherfucker ever to post on the board.
Jsc810 wrote:Pop, where is the edge? As I've stated, I will fund the expedition to it if it proves that the earth is flat.
Also, what would it take to prove to you that the earth is not flat?
Please respond to these questions.
I've said this many times in the other thread (RIP)... It is up to pops to PROVE the Earth is flat since he is only one of a few that have that opinion. He needs to prove his videos and pictures are not propaganda by a whack job group of idiots... like himself.
Jsc, first... "no edge found" would not make your model correct.
Second, I don't have a death wish.
Third, it's my opinion that it may not even be possible for man to get to the edge.
By Creator's wisdom.
It may be so far away that we can not even get there -- even by plane.
Jmo.
Fourth, maybe man could get to the edge, I dunno.
Jsc wrote:Also, what would it take to prove to you that the earth is not flat?
I'm not here to prove the earth is flat or any other shape.
But what I've shown over and over that there is a huge problem with the current model.
THAT is the issue.
As posted on page 2 of this thread...
poptart wrote:This video is a bit long, but in one sense, he did a very nice job with it.
He very meticulously demonstrated how the earth curvature of the current model is simply NOT there.
This is not surprising at all.
It's the norm.
It has already been shown over and over -- and it will be shown over and over as more and more people discuss the issue.
People with a willingness to look on their own, rather than go by what a book (or someone else) has told them, will continue to do such experiments -- and they will document them.
If you are of the thinking that this issue is just going to die, you better think again.
The curve is not there.
Period.
The video here shows very plainly and factually that there is something VERY wrong with the current model.
To put it mildly.
There is nothing do debate about this video, although globers still do.
lol
LS wrote:You have given us plenty of reason to doubt the math you linked us up to, but nothing that proves the curve isn't there.
What is the earth curvature rate on your model?
I have no clue. I do not have an advanced mathematics degree.
But my previous question still stands and it is a killer for you and your flat earth brothers. Why didn't the guys taking the photos of Toronto also show us the base of those Toronto buildings via a telescope? If the lower floors were visible they would have shown us and that would prove there was no curve over 30 plus miles. Problem is those lower floors are not visible even via telescope which is due to the curvature of the earth.
Moving Sale wrote:I really are a fucking POS.
Softball Bat wrote:
I am the dumbest motherfucker ever to post on the board.
poptart wrote:What is the earth curvature rate on your model?
LS wrote:I have no clue. I do not have an advanced mathematics degree.
But my previous question still stands and it is a killer for you and your flat earth brothers. Why didn't the guys taking the photos of Toronto also show us the base of those Toronto buildings via a telescope? If the lower floors were visible they would have shown us and that would prove there was no curve over 30 plus miles. Problem is those lower floors are not visible even via telescope which is due to the curvature of the earth.
1. No need for an advanced mathematics degree.
All that is needed is not to be willfully ignorant, which you clearly are.
This is 2015, and the earth curvature rate is very easily found in many places on the internet.
It was posted by me 2 months ago on page 4 of the other thread and yet people still CHOOSE to flail around and act like it's not there.
Ridiculous.
2. In the video I posted on this page (and previously on page 2 of this thread), the maker uses no math formula, anyway.
He puts things to scale and FACTUALLY shows that the earth curvature is not there.
It's the same thing I have shown over and over.
This is common knowledge now to anyone who chooses to look at it objectively.
I could show these things to a 2nd grader and they would get it.
You have cognitive dissonance.
3. It is simply refraction which causes a portion of the lower parts of objects viewed over water to be cut off.
The curvature needed for your model to be correct is simply -----> NOT THERE.
It's not even close.
Explained very well by Jeff Grupp in this video.
First 20 minutes or so...
Might be more convincing if it was coming from someone who actually knew what "refraction" was.
So... and I'm having a hard time typing while laughing... light can curve, but the surface of water can't?
That's really what you're going with for "proof"?
Seriously, dude -- a trip back to hiogh school might do you some good. You should probably start with the remedial classes, since the junior high shit didn't sink in.
pops believes that it's much more plausible that multiple (often warring) governments, throughout their revolutions and various regimes, have, for 500 years, been actively engaged in a conspiracy to actively disprove the Bible (this includes the Vatican), without so much as one person spilling the beans...
this is more likely than a couple of tards on Youtube being full of shit.
Jsc wrote:Pop, it is not necessary to rely upon a model to prove that the earth is round. Starting in 1519, people have circumnavigated the planet. It has been done in boats, blimps, planes, and space ships.
This is not proof of the globe.
You could "circumnavigate" a flat earth.
Has anyone circled the globe N-S, going over both poles?
Link?
Jsc wrote:What would it take to prove to you that the earth is round?
I guess you haven't noticed, but your globe model has been torn to shit in here over the least couple of months.
We already know that this...
err...
I mean... that... err...
ummm....
Or one of those, or whatever fantasy earth NAZA trots out for us to buy into, is NOT our round earth, Jsc.
The earth is not a sphere, 25,000 miles in circumference.
The necessary curvature for that has been show over and over and over and over and over again to simply not be there.
Back to the drawing board.
Circle the globe N-S going over both poles, and I would believe the earth is a sphere.
