Supra: "used in academic or legal texts to refer to someone or something mentioned above or earlier."
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
I already clearly explained the prediction of both flat and globe earth and the failure of globe earth.
Apparently you have no answer.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
FAKE FACTS again Sir Dave?
In the global model (i.e., the real world that we live in) you CANNOT see the earth that is past the part that is OBSTRUCTED by the earth itself.
View attachment 26507
The part of the earth that we CAN see.... "rises up to eye level" based on perspective.... no problems at all.
The prediction of perspective is that the horizon line will stay at eye level even as we rise higher in elevation over a flat/level/plane making it possible for us to see further into the distance.
The location of the horizon according to globe earth is that it's a little below eye level. The prediction of the globe model is as we rise higher in elevation the further over the curved earth we can see. But the horizon would also sink lower and lower and not stay at eye level as in the flat earth model.
All video and photos at high elevation and in between show the horizon line to stay at eye level. The horizon never drops lower and lower the higher we go.
--Dave
No, we are looking down and not straight forward for the globe model. Your illustration even shows that.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
You're just confused as usual. Dave the "predictions" that you are stating are silly and probably created by a flat earth person trying to "prove" the unprovable.
The horizon in the global model is NOT "a little below eye level". It's wherever it is based on the orientation of the person looking.
Note that the section/segment of earth visible between an observer and the horizon on an IMMENSELY LARGE GLOBE is mostly FLAT. The curvature of the earth is extremely gradual, as you've been shown TIME AND AGAIN. Therefore, the difference in the two "models" in this regard are, for all practical purposes, IDENTICAL.
That you try to make them highly divergent is either naive or dishonest.
Right Divider
Body part
Invalid attachment (much like your "model").
Right Divider
Body part
Not understanding SCALE again Dave.
The vertical lines in that image would be thousands of times taller than the tallest mountains on earth!
Now you know why I keep an interest in flat earth. These predictions/arguments are irrefutable and can be backed up with visible, repeatable, empirical evidence in support of flat earth.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
Another ridiculous reply that did NOT, even in the SLIGHTEST, address what I wrote in the post being replied to.
For the segment of earth visible to an observer on the globe, the earth is EFFECTIVELY FLAT.
Therefore your false dichotomy of "predictions" is what scientists call bull poop.
I wonder.... in your opinion what force keeps the ISS afloat? It's no longer being propelled by rockets. Why doesn't it fall to the earth?
You use the "scale defense" like a get out of jail card.
If it is argued, and it is, that we are looking down already when we look out at the horizon of a curved earth, then that horizon would certainly be visibly dropping as we ascend and we would notice it. If we can see ships sink behind the curved horizon we could see the horizon drop farther below us as we rise to higher altitudes.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
You are a liar Dave. I have used it completely appropriately.
Those lines in the image would be, let me say in again in hopes you actually listen and check it out yourself, THOUSANDS OF TIMES HIGHER THAN THE HIGHEST MOUNTAINS ON EARTH.
Your silly idea of "eye level" is part of your problem.
That much is for certain.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Given my previous question, how do you think all this rigging of the data actually being received from space vehicles in orbit is taking place?
If the data received is, per your view, data that would properly show a flat earth, then how do those that want to "hide" this fact actually pull off the rigging of the data, to make it appear we have a globe earth? This data is not received by just one singular entity, rather it is accessible by many ground stations under the control of NASA, space equipment company developers, etc.
Can you just consider for a moment the scale of such a feat to make it appear that all data being sent is being intercepted by some organized cabal, manipulated, and then passed along to the ground receiving stations such that they remain unawares that the data has been manipulated? Such a world-wide capability stretches the laugh-factor of plain reason.
So how do you think this is being pulled off? Suggest some scenarios that incorporates the following:
1. You have no issues with space vehicles in low earth orbit
2. Said vehicles are transmitting telemetry data
3. The data is being received by numerous and heterogeneous organizations across the earth
4. The data received is actually "rigged" such that a space vehicle's actual sending of a flat earth data is disguised to show a global earth
5. The technology to "rig" transmitted data would have to encompass all the space-to-earth region of coverage given the disparate locations of receiving ground stations in step #3
6. None in step #3 are aware of steps #4 and #5
Of course, feel free to modify step #4 to assume a scenario wherein the space vehicle itself has been modified by the "riggers" before its launch into space.
Additionally, explain how someone on the ISS who looks out the window and sees a global earth is being deceived, e.g., (1) is a participant in the "rigging", or (2) the ISS window glass is has been altered such that the "globe" being seen and orbited is really just a "flat disk" of a sort.
AMR
Right Divider
Body part
Though I thoroughly agree with all of your post, I've love for Dave to start with how "flat earth orbits" work in the first place.
That we never went to the moon is what I'm arguing. I'm not questioning did we construct a rocket ship and not did we build an ISS station.
You would agree with me that we have fake news the question is do we have fake images from space of a curved spinning earth.
Because there is video from high altitude balloons that contradicts video from the ISS, I will argue and show by comparison that the photos and videos from NASA are faked/altered.
Building a case from the existence of a craft/ISS in space will not inform us about the authenticity of the video of earth it supposedly sends back.
--Dave
Right Divider
Body part
Without the craft/ISS there are no videos or pictures.
Unless you can explain how a craft/ISS can exist in the flat earth model, you have no reason to believe that there are images/videos from them.
Please start with the fundamentals and go from there.
How does an orbiting space craft work in the FEM?
If you want to argue that all telemetry, all data, and all images can never be faked, manipulated, controlled and programed to produce a faked preplanned result, then make that case.
But you can't assume that all that NASA informs us of is true just because of the technology and the numbers of people involved. How many technicians and agencies does it take to authenticate a project is no different to me than asking me how many Mormons does it take to prove Mormonism is true.
Someone who says they are seeing the globed earth through a window inside the ISS but not really is a paid actor. We have paid crisis actors who are used in fake news so the possibility that NASA has hired actors should not surprise you.
--Dave
- Status