PART 2: The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[JudgeRightly]

I've posted these videos before but due to the avalanche of flat earth craziness that has been posted here lately, I'm posting them again.

The guy in the videos is not nice to flat-earthers. In fact, he's down right insulting but he does actually make the arguments and he makes them extremely clearly and presents them in a manner that even a child can follow them and understand fully why flat-earthers who aren't convinced by them deserve to be insulted.

So don't whine about the insults, just pay attention to the arguments!


In the four videos he covers pretty well all of the flat-earther's main arguments. Any one of these videos should be all anyone needs to see in order to drop the flat-earth nonsense but he doesn't stop with one video, he just keeps power driving the flat-earth silliness into the ground until it gets almost tiresome.

One last thing. As I said, I've posted these before. To date, so far as I am aware, not one syllable of anything resembling a substantive response to any of the arguments presented in these videos has been offered on this thread or anywhere else on this web site and there certainly should have been if the proponents of the flat-earth model were as objectively searching for the truth as they claim to be. Either that or they should have acknowledged that they cannot offer any such substantive response and, being convinced that the earth isn't flat, allowed these videos to end the discussion altogether.

Count this as your 2nd chance....

https://youtu.be/JgY8zNZ35uw

https://youtu.be/TeMooNFtFJk

https://youtu.be/EJ0EKJWyl_g

https://youtu.be/1rmXP4Q2ZpI

[MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION] [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION] [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] [MENTION=7959]WizardofOz[/MENTION]
and all those who were in the previous thread...

Welcome to part two of the the infamous thread, "The earth is flat and we never went to the moon, started by DFT_Dave.

Let's discuss the videos presented by Clete in his post which I quoted above and go from there.

 

[patrick jane]

[h=1]FLAT EARTH ADDICT 05 : 121,000 feet Little Piggy Cam High Altitude Balloon Flight[/h]

4 minutes - look closely when the balloon levels out every several seconds - the earth is flat, sshhhh :shut: . . .

 

[Tambora]

@DFT_Dave @patrick jane @Clete @WizardofOz
and all those who were in the previous thread...

Welcome to part two of the the infamous thread, "The earth is flat and we never went to the moon, started by DFT_Dave.

Let's discuss the videos presented by Clete in his post which I quoted above.

In the first video Clete posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgY8zNZ35uw&feature=youtu.be

You are going to have to dismiss the language and focus on the points made.
(There is name-calling and some words that TOL usually considers to be profanity.)

One of the points made is that the UN would have to have 10 thousand patrol boats stationed every 10km on the inner circumference of Antarctica on the flat earth model.

I think that is bunk.
With the use of technology such as radar, satellites, etc., we don't have to have that tight of patrol anywhere.

 

[Right Divider]

FLAT EARTH ADDICT 05 : 121,000 feet Little Piggy Cam High Altitude Balloon Flight



4 minutes - look closely when the balloon levels out every several seconds - the earth is flat, sshhhh :shut: . . .

You just continue to lack understanding of SCALE and appearance.

121,000 feet is about 23 miles. The earth is about 7,918 miles.

So that elevation is ONLY about ONE THIRD of ONE PERCENT of the earth's diameter. sshhhh.....

 

[DFT_Dave]

I was asked to start a new thread, not anyone else.

I want this taken down.

--Dave

 

[WizardofOz]

I was asked to start a new thread, not anyone else.

I want this taken down.

--Dave

What difference does it really make? Besides, go ahead and start one if you prefer to

 

[DFT_Dave]

What difference does it really make? Besides, go ahead and start one if you prefer to

We were told by Sherman we could only have one thread on this topic. I was asked if that was ok with me. I said ok and that I would start the new one.

I don't want to start this way. The flattards videos have profanity and it mocks belief in God. The vedios cover way too much all at once, that is not a way to conduct a debate. There are various subjects under this topic and they can only be addressed one at a time, and this time more in depth.

We can only show one video at a time, which is good. This debate is not going to formed around what I consider obnoxious and profane videos that are filled with mockery.

--Dave

 

[patrick jane]

We were told by Sherman we could only have one thread on this topic. I was asked if that was ok with me. I said ok and that I would start the new one.

I don't want to start this way. The flattards videos have profanity and it mocks belief in God. The vedios cover way too much all at once, that is not a way to conduct a debate. There are various subjects under this topic and they can only be addressed one at a time, and this time more in depth.

We can only show one video at a time, which is good. This debate is not going to formed around what I consider obnoxious and profane videos that are filled with mockery.

--Dave

The videos I post don't have profanity and are or will be short. We still can't edit though? Is this part two? Never mind, we can edit. Will you start a new thread Dave, for part 2?

 

[DFT_Dave]

The videos I post don't have profanity and are or will be short. We still can't edit though? Is this part two? Never mind, we can edit. Will you start a new thread Dave, for part 2?

Sherman was very clear about having only one thread on this topic so I will wait to hear from him. Everyone who posts on this thread saw what he said and knew I was going to start the new one.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

I was asked to start a new thread, not anyone else.

I want this taken down.

--Dave

We were told by Sherman we could only have one thread on this topic. I was asked if that was ok with me. I said ok and that I would start the new one.

I don't want to start this way. The flattards videos have profanity and it mocks belief in God. The vedios cover way too much all at once, that is not a way to conduct a debate. There are various subjects under this topic and they can only be addressed one at a time, and this time more in depth.

We can only show one video at a time, which is good. This debate is not going to formed around what I consider obnoxious and profane videos that are filled with mockery.

--Dave

Does it really matter who starts the thread?

If you don't want to address the videos, (either because you can't or you won't), then address this:

The following screenshots were taken in a game called Star Citizen, on the moon of a gas giant. (and yes, the moon of this gas giant is significantly smaller than earth, only a few tens of thousands of km diameter). If I recall correctly, the scale of the celestial bodies is about 1:3 or 1:4 of our earth. So 1 meter in game would be about 3 or 4 meters in real life.

These three images were taken with my ship just a few meters above the surface of the moon, which in game is, in fact, a sphere. I have my view in freelook, so I can look around without moving my ship. Notice how the horizon is flat? Take a ruler to it if you don't think it's flat, it's extremely flat.

Now, these three images were taken at about 10,000+ m above the surface of the moon (which is, again, many times smaller than the earth, so the scale is smaller). All I did was ascend vertically, I did not move horizontally nor did I pitch or roll. The only change is my altitude.

The last photo is me looking almost straight down at where I was near the ground, 10,000+ m below. Notice how the horizon is curved?

I can assure you, the entire sphere of the moon was loaded in, and the only thing obstructing view of it was the ground beneath me.

The horizon in the first three photos is a few km away, but the horizon in the next two are much farther. Yet they are the same moon.

So why is the horizon flat in the first three, and curved in the next two?

Because when you're extremely close to a sphere, then the area immediately around you is, for all intents and purposes, flat. But when you move away, it's basically like you're zooming out from it.

Dave, hold a ball in your hand at arm's length. It's round right? Now, as you watch the edge of the ball, move it closer to your head. It's horizon seems to flatten out, yes?

Now move it away, it starts to curve, right?

On the ball of the earth, Dave, we're so close to the earth that it seems flat, but when we start gaining altitude, it's as if we're zooming out to get the big picture of the earth, and the horizon starts to curve. But in order to see the horizon start to curve, one must be extremely high up in altitude.

So Dave, how could it be that from close to the ground, the horizon is flat on a sphere?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Sherman was very clear about having only one thread on this topic so I will wait to hear from him. Everyone who posts on this thread saw what he said and knew I was going to start the new one.

--Dave

I got tired of waiting.
[MENTION=12969]Sherman[/MENTION]

 

[DFT_Dave]

I got tired of waiting.

Too bad, it just shows your disrespect for Sherman and me.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

Too bad, it just shows your disrespect for Sherman and me.

--Dave

QUOTE=JudgeRightly;5205836 Does it really matter who starts the thread?

If you don't want to address the videos, (either because you can't or you won't), then address this:

The following screenshots were taken in a game called Star Citizen, on the moon of a gas giant. (and yes, the moon of this gas giant is significantly smaller than earth, only a few tens of thousands of km diameter). If I recall correctly, the scale of the celestial bodies is about 1:3 or 1:4 of our earth. So 1 meter in game would be about 3 or 4 meters in real life.

These three images were taken with my ship just a few meters above the surface of the moon, which in game is, in fact, a sphere. I have my view in freelook, so I can look around without moving my ship. Notice how the horizon is flat? Take a ruler to it if you don't think it's flat, it's extremely flat.

Now, these three images were taken at about 10,000+ m above the surface of the moon (which is, again, many times smaller than the earth, so the scale is smaller). All I did was ascend vertically, I did not move horizontally nor did I pitch or roll. The only change is my altitude.

The last photo is me looking almost straight down at where I was near the ground, 10,000+ m below. Notice how the horizon is curved?

I can assure you, the entire sphere of the moon was loaded in, and the only thing obstructing view of it was the ground beneath me.

The horizon in the first three photos is a few km away, but the horizon in the next two are much farther. Yet they are the same moon.

So why is the horizon flat in the first three, and curved in the next two?

Because when you're extremely close to a sphere, then the area immediately around you is, for all intents and purposes, flat. But when you move away, it's basically like you're zooming out from it.

Dave, hold a ball in your hand at arm's length. It's round right? Now, as you watch the edge of the ball, move it closer to your head. It's horizon seems to flatten out, yes?

Now move it away, it starts to curve, right?

On the ball of the earth, Dave, we're so close to the earth that it seems flat, but when we start gaining altitude, it's as if we're zooming out to get the big picture of the earth, and the horizon starts to curve. But in order to see the horizon start to curve, one must be extremely high up in altitude.

So Dave, how could it be that from close to the ground, the horizon is flat on a sphere?/QUOTE

 

[DFT_Dave]

QUOTE=JudgeRightly;5205836 Does it really matter who starts the thread?

If you don't want to address the videos, (either because you can't or you won't), then address this:

You started this thread with videos that say the earth is not flat and we went to the moon. That's the opposite of what I stared.

It matters to me, the direction I want this topic to go is not the direction you or Clete want it to go, so my thread will be stated by me in the direction I intend for it. I expect this to be respected or I will ask for the original thread to be used. I was not having a problem with the editing so I was willing to start part 2 for all of you who wanted to edit.

--Dave

 

[patrick jane]

QUOTE=JudgeRightly;5205836 Does it really matter who starts the thread?

If you don't want to address the videos, (either because you can't or you won't), then address this:

The following screenshots were taken in a game called Star Citizen, on the moon of a gas giant. (and yes, the moon of this gas giant is significantly smaller than earth, only a few tens of thousands of km diameter). If I recall correctly, the scale of the celestial bodies is about 1:3 or 1:4 of our earth. So 1 meter in game would be about 3 or 4 meters in real life.

These three images were taken with my ship just a few meters above the surface of the moon, which in game is, in fact, a sphere. I have my view in freelook, so I can look around without moving my ship. Notice how the horizon is flat? Take a ruler to it if you don't think it's flat, it's extremely flat.

Now, these three images were taken at about 10,000+ m above the surface of the moon (which is, again, many times smaller than the earth, so the scale is smaller). All I did was ascend vertically, I did not move horizontally nor did I pitch or roll. The only change is my altitude.

The last photo is me looking almost straight down at where I was near the ground, 10,000+ m below. Notice how the horizon is curved?

I can assure you, the entire sphere of the moon was loaded in, and the only thing obstructing view of it was the ground beneath me.

The horizon in the first three photos is a few km away, but the horizon in the next two are much farther. Yet they are the same moon.

So why is the horizon flat in the first three, and curved in the next two?

Because when you're extremely close to a sphere, then the area immediately around you is, for all intents and purposes, flat. But when you move away, it's basically like you're zooming out from it.

Dave, hold a ball in your hand at arm's length. It's round right? Now, as you watch the edge of the ball, move it closer to your head. It's horizon seems to flatten out, yes?

Now move it away, it starts to curve, right?

On the ball of the earth, Dave, we're so close to the earth that it seems flat, but when we start gaining altitude, it's as if we're zooming out to get the big picture of the earth, and the horizon starts to curve. But in order to see the horizon start to curve, one must be extremely high up in altitude.

So Dave, how could it be that from close to the ground, the horizon is flat on a sphere?/QUOTE

Fake images and footage.

Sent from my SM-J327T using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Fake images and footage.

Sent from my SM-J327T using Tapatalk

Really, PJ?
There isn't any footage, even.

 

[patrick jane]

Really, PJ?
There isn't any footage, even.

JR, it's a GAME for Pete's sake. This video is much better, it asks good questions.

The GREAT FLOOD on the FLAT EARTH

From Video : Does the Biblical Flood even make any sense in the globe model? How much water would it even take to cover the tops of the mountains anyway? What about the old "water vapor canopy model?
11 Minutes - Fascinating -

 

[patrick jane]

[h=1]The Four Cardinal Directions of our Enclosed World..?[/h]

From Video Description : Recently I went back and started re-reading the Book of Enoch, and as I did I was brought face to face with a question that had occurred to me before, but now seemed quite impossible to ignore. I share this question in this video, and invite everyone to share whatever insights or thoughts you might have on this...


15 Minutes - It's a Good One

 

[JudgeRightly]

JR, it's a GAME for Pete's sake. This video is much better, it asks good questions.

The GREAT FLOOD on the FLAT EARTH

From Video : Does the Biblical Flood even make any sense in the globe model? How much water would it even take to cover the tops of the mountains anyway? What about the old "water vapor canopy model?
11 Minutes - Fascinating -

PJ, game or not, it shows that even on a sphere, the horizon can be flat when close enough, which blows the flat earther's argument that "flat horizon = flat earth" out of the water.

If I was making the claim that the images I took were of the earth/reality, then you would have a leg to stand on. But I clearly stated at the beginning of that post that the images were from a game, and that the scale is different. But even so, it's still evidence against a flat earth, because as I said above, flat horizon does not equate to flat planet/moon.

Remember what I said above, about how when you're close to a sphere, the horizon can appear flat, but as you zoom out it starts to curve?

Take a look at this portion of a picture from https://www.highend3d.com/3d-model/moon-8k-3d-model (you may need to click on the image and zoom in a bit, as it's a cropped portion of an 8K photo):

That's a flat edge, yes?

Now look at the full photo (you'll have to go to the website because the photo I chose is too large; it's the last image in the series), the edge is curved yes? The above image is a small portion of the image below, zoomed in. This is what I was trying to show with my screen-captures of SC above.

A flat edge/horizon doesn't mean that something is flat. It can mean that, but not 100% of the time, because it can also mean that you're not far enough away from something to see the curve.

 

[JudgeRightly]

[h=1]The Four Cardinal Directions of our Enclosed World..?[/h]

From Video Description : Recently I went back and started re-reading the Book of Enoch, and as I did I was brought face to face with a question that had occurred to me before, but now seemed quite impossible to ignore. I share this question in this video, and invite everyone to share whatever insights or thoughts you might have on this...


15 Minutes - It's a Good One

in other words, the flat earther's claim that "flat horizon means flat earth" is just a form of confirmation bias.

And no, I probably won't watch your video, because it's on a non-canonical book of the Bible.