- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
Um no. I don’t think anyone thinks the bushes are being hidden by the curvature of the Earth.
I find this a bit disingenuous. It’s like that small boat that appears when you zoom in. The boat is on the near side of the horizon and disappears because it is too small. But going over the curve can be demonstrated with large boats like ocean liners.
Now back to the bushes. They are on the near side of the horizon too. Near side of the horizon doesn’t discount the fact that things can over the curve and disappear from the bottom up. Similarly, because we perceive the Earth to be flat with our natural senses and the sun rises and sets, this doesn’t discount the heliocentric globe earth model. In fact that model explains it all beautifully and you can make solid predictions with it. Something that truth tends to allow.
Mike, you have me experimenting with my camera a lot more now. This was taken in the weekend. The air is very clear this time of the year. I will probably go out to the main southern coastline when I get the chance and see if I can do a boat going over the horizon. This vantage point has the South Island in the way. That is a distance of about 80 km away. What does this prove? Nothing yet.
Mike, you know these 2d graphs / models you put up. You realise they are not entirely accurate. For a start distances and sizes are all wrong. They are shown this way to demonstrate the point. Otherwise if you scaled everything, it would be too hard to see them. Further, 2D misses out a whole other dimension. I remember watching a video that shows the tricks Flat Earthers employ. It seems you use some of these methods or point to videos that use these methods. Not sure if you realise how deceptive some of these are.
I wouldn’t for example be surprised if the topsy turvy eclipse was simply a logical view you get depending on your location. It stands to reason after all that if you can see a perfect eclipse, then someone north of you will see a partial eclipse and someone below you too. Except the person above and the person below would also see things differently. That could explain your video.
Mike….all those pictures are of the earth at different times and years, haven’t you noticed the coludes are different as well as where the land masses are. Why would anyone think they are not actual photos of the earth. But that only a tip of the iceberg of tons of evidence produced by astronauts, ISS, MOVIES , PICTURES millions of them. You haven’t produce any not one reason for a coverup conspiracy theory yet. Man Mike, you are way out there brother. It’s better you come back to reality now or no telling how far out there you will go.
Mike there are no conspiracies going on about space travel and photos of the earth from the moon, the math does actually work, if you exceed the pull of gravity you certainly do become weightless as i personely experienced. You have been given tons of proof here and every where else, its time to pull away from those wack jobs you are following . IMO
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
T8: Remember when I said that I wouldn’t post that often due to being busy… So be patient.
I’ve been patient. There are simple YES or NO answers I’ve been waiting for since page 2 or 3 of the thread. On the other hand, you don’t owe me anything here. You could be like the majority of HN members and just pretend like this thread (and issue) doesn’t even exist. Ignorance is bliss, after all, and this thread attacks deeply entrenched long-held beliefs. I’m sure that is very uncomfortable for most people… especially those who consider themselves Bible-believing Christians. It’s a tough pill to swallow when you find out you really haven’t been believing the Bible all these years. Plus, it’s a lot easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.
You could be like Jody, who hasn’t stepped foot on this thread. You could be like David and Andrew, who have only popped in to ask a question or two. BUT… if you are going to come here and post “debunking” videos, make unsubstantiated claims you can’t verify, ridicule me and call me disingenuous, then you damn sure need to be man enough to stand and defend yourself. Understand? If you don’t have the time to discuss, then either ask a few questions or remain silent. But it’s BS for someone to come to the thread and make tons of bogus claims, and then completely ignore the verifiable evidence that those claims are bogus. I mean, who do you think you are… Nick?
So if you don’t have time for the main thread, then please make time for the debate/hot seat version. There is a very simple question waiting for you there. Please answer it posthaste.
Hi Mike,
Do not hold your treasured ideas too close to your chest as you might take our rejections personally
Happy to see you go and find others to frustrate, dominate and berate.
It is your precious baby.Close the door behind you.
T8: I don’t think anyone thinks the bushes are being hidden by the curvature of the Earth.
Fantastic! So on what, exactly, do you base your conclusion that the bottoms of these buildings are being hidden by the curvature of the earth?
Could it not be the same exact effect that caused the bottoms of the bushes to disappear? It’s a serious question, and deserves a serious, honest, and direct answer.
T8: I find this a bit disingenuous. It’s like that small boat that appears when you zoom in. The boat is on the near side of the horizon and disappears because it is too small. But going over the curve can be demonstrated with large boats like ocean liners.
Interesting… because I find it disingenuous that someone would keep making the same claim that I’ve already refuted at least three times.
- Where is your verifiable proof that one object is “on the near side of the horizon” – as opposed to another object that isn’t?
- What size (from water level to top) must a boat be in order to disappear out of view while still “on the near side of the horizon”?
- I have shown you all different sizes of boats “disappearing over the horizon” – only to be zoomed back into view. I even showed the sun being zoomed back up into the sky – and surely the sun is bigger and further away than any boat, right?
Of course you’ll ignore these again. But at least now I have some recourse with the debate thread. That is… if you are man enough to stand and defend your erroneous claims over there. That still remains to be seen.
T8: Mike, you know these 2d graphs / models you put up. You realise they are not entirely accurate. For a start distances and sizes are all wrong.
Yes T8… I am fully aware that I cannot represent a sun that is 93 million miles away from an earth that is 238 thousand miles away from the moon. Thanks for pointing out the obvious that there doesn’t exist an “entirely accurate” model of the alleged solar system anywhere on earth. Of course you ignore the fact that I’ve used images from Google Earth, timeanddate.com, and a bunch of heliocentric science sites to illustrate the event. And yes, all of these guys realize that the earth isn’t the size of a computer screen, and that the moon isn’t the size of a quarter a few inches away from the earth.
But as I’ve said many times already, it doesn’t have to be the earth, the moon, and the sun. Anyone can do the experiment in their own home. All you need is one light source and two balls (or objects of any shape). In fact, you can use your own head as one of the objects. Of course you won’t, because it is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled. But on the off chance that truth is what you’re after, here’s the steps you need to take…
- Stand with the back of your head in line with the lamp or flashlight.
- Hold a ball in your outstretched arms in front of you, so that it is level height with your head.
- Turn your feet in a semicircle (either direction) until the ball you’re holding goes from 100% lit by your light source to partially shadowed by your head.
- Note which part of the ball receives the shadow from your head first (ie: the part closest to your head, or the part farthest away from your head)…
Simple experiment, right? Now, if you are turning your body to the left, it will be the left side of the ball that receives the shadow from your head first, right? And as you continue to the left until part of the ball comes out of your shadow and into the light, it will be left side of the ball that receives the light first, right? Now turn the other way and notice that as your head starts to shadow the ball when you’re turning to the right, it will be the right part of the ball that gets shadowed first. And as you continue turning, the right part of the ball will come out of the shadow and into the light first, right?
Now hold the ball up high above your head, and bring it slowly down until your head starts to shadow the ball. Of course it will be the bottom of the ball that gets shadowed first, right? The top will remain in the light, while the bottom is shadowed by your head, right? Now put a little Lego dude standing upright on your head and facing the same way you are. Bring the ball from high up (fully lit) to low (partially shadowed by your head). What would the Lego dude see? Well, the same thing as you see. He would see a fully lit ball, and then he would see the ball become progressively shadowed by your head from the bottom up, right? He would never see a fully lit ball, and then the ball become progressively shadowed from the top down, right?
And what about the Lego dude standing upside down under your chin? Who cares? All we care about is whether the Lego dude standing upright on your head could EVER see the ball going from fully lit to progressively shadowed by your head from the top down. And Lego dude could never see such a thing, because such a thing is physically impossible. It simply cannot happen.
T8, this isn’t rocket science. This is a matter of one light source and two balls. And if one ball drops from high to low to the point that it starts to become shadowed by the other ball, the shadow cannot possibly occur from the top down, leaving a lit bottom and a shadowed top. Well guess what? I was the Lego dude standing upright on the top of one ball while the other ball supposedly dropped – from high to low- into the shadow of the ball I was standing on. And I saw the second ball become progressively shadowed by the ball I was standing. But it became shadowed from the top down – not the bottom up as is the only physical way it could have happened.
Is this really that hard of a concept for you and Kathi? Does it really take all this hemming and hawing and searching Google for anything you can think of? Here’s another “official” website diagram of a lunar eclipse…
Can you see any conceptual difference between his diagram and mine above? In fact, let me flip it so it matches the orientation of mine…
Don’t we have the same second ball dropping down (or from right to left if we imagine we are looking down from on top of the diagram like in mine)? Isn’t the concept identical to what I drew? For example, could the bright and dark parts on his #2 be reversed? Of course not. Could the bright and dark parts on his #4 be reversed so that it was light on top, and dark on the bottom? Of course not.
So try not to make this so complicated and hard to understand. It’s simply a single light source and one ball blocking that light from another ball… just like the ball of your head blocked the other ball in my diagram. And in this flipped “official” diagram, would Lego dude standing on the top of the earth ever be able to see position #2 as bright on the bottom and shadowed on the top? Of course not. Is it necessary to know what another Lego dude standing upside down on the bottom of the earth would see? Or another Lego dude standing sideways on the side of the earth? Not at all. The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not Lego dude on the top of the earth could ever, in a million years, see that moon eclipse from the top down (as in shadowed on top and still bright on the bottom). And it is impossible.
I sincerely hope you can understand, not only the concept, but the simplicity of the answer. And the answer is that I was Lego dude on top of the earth, and I saw the moon eclipse from the top down – a complete and utter impossibility in the helical model.
T8: I remember watching a video that shows the tricks Flat Earthers employ. It seems you use some of these methods or point to videos that use these methods. Not sure if you realise how deceptive some of these are.
How could I be aware of these “tricks” when all you do is make unsubstantiated claims about such things, but never actually name one of them so we can discuss it? Or when you do bring one up (like small boats disappearing on “this side of the horizon”), you won’t stand and defend your claim so I can show you how easily it is debunked.
Really T8, how many feet from water line to top of boat is a “small boat” that will disappear “on this side of the horizon”? I’ve asked a dozen times, and you’ve answered zero times. Only a fool let’s his mouth write a check that his ass can’t cover. Please either stand and defend your claims or remain silent.
Gene: Mike….all those pictures are of the earth at different times and years, haven’t you noticed the coludes are different as well as where the land masses are. Why would anyone think they are not actual photos of the earth.
Thank you Gene for your direct answer to my question. As for why I don’t think they are actual photos, I’m pretty sure North America doesn’t sometimes take up a small part of the earth (2007, for example), and other times take up half of it (2012)…
Besides, I watched the interview with the NASA graphic artist Rob Simmons who explained how he creates these images from strips of data and his own artistic imagination. You could watch it too, if you really cared about truth over pride…
Note at the 4:42 mark he says, “It is Photoshopped, but it has to be.” Anyway, now you know that you have been deceived into believing these were actual photos of the earth from space – when they are really just paintings. What other things might you have been deceived about? Only open-minded investigation will tell you – and so far you don’t seem to want any part of that.
Okay, you answered my question, and I will answer yours…
Gene: Mike…The question was if you were given a ride on the ISS, and saw that the world was truly round, would you believe it? Would that proof cause you to become a atheist?
There is honestly no way I will ever believe the earth is a ball, Gene. If I were shown “undeniable” evidence from space or whatever, I would keep two things in mind…
- The MK Ultra Project with which government agencies have been thoroughly brainwashing people for decades. (Think “The Manchurian Candidate”)
- For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
I am by no means one of the “elect”, Gene. And if there will be signs and wonders so powerful that they will deceive even the elect, then they have to be some pretty dang convincing deceptions. So even if I found myself on the ISS looking at a spinning ball earth, I would know that one of these two things (or both) were going on – and I wouldn’t believe my own eyes/brain.
But, for argument’s sake, let’s say I was on the ISS watching the ball earth spin around… and I believed it was real. In that case I would know immediately that people like you, T8, and the vast majority of self-professed Christians today are right, and that the Bible isn’t meant to be taken seriously on many, many points. I would agree that King David and all the others were only describing the world from their own perspective, without knowing what it was really like. I would have no choice but to accept that even God and Jesus were ignorant about the real world – or that ignorant Bible writers put false words into their mouths.
The difference would be that I would sadly acknowledge that the Bible is a bunch of stories written by ignorant sheep herders who were trying their best to explain the world from their own flawed perspective and falsely attributing words and teachings to God and Jesus, and therefore not the inerrant word of God that I had come to believe. And that acknowledgement would cause me to turn away from the Bible as my highest authority, and relegate it to a nice book of interesting stories – any of which may or may not have any relation to reality.
I would never become an atheist, because only a fool could believe that our world and the wonderfully complicated things in it made themselves by random accidental processes. After all, I didn’t believe in the God of the Bible until right before I joined HN – so for only about 10 years or so. And during that time as a non-believer, I never fell for the big bang evolution stories. But, I would have to start searching for the one who created me – having learned that it likely wasn’t the God of the Bible.
Anyway, don’t worry about me because I know for a fact that the world is exactly how God, Jesus, and the writers of scripture have described it. And I base that, not only on the authority of the scriptures, but on observational evidence that anyone with two eyes and half a brain can see any time they care to look.
You can too, Gene. All you have to do is want to look for it.
Gene: It’s better you come back to reality now… its time to pull away from those wack jobs you are following.
I appreciate the sentiment, Gene, but I am convinced that, for the first time in my life, I am living in reality instead of following wack jobs. Put it this way… if I’m wrong, then I’m in the great company of God, Jesus, King David, Job, Samuel, Ezekiel, etc, etc, etc. Let God be true and all men liars. Not one jot or tittle will disappear from the law and the prophets until all things have been accomplished. Jesus stood by the “imaginative stories” told by the “ignorant sheep herding OT writers”, Gene. I will stand with him and them until the end.
Come stand with us.
I was at one of my accounts today and just finished up when the security guard came up; James, a great conversationalist and well admired person at the Cambell School of Law, when I noticed that the sun sun was way up high and the moon was too.
I asked James why the moon was only half lit up when the sun was so high in the sky being 10:00 AM. He didn’t have a clue and to be honest I didn’t either.
So here I was with the sun just two hours from being directly overhead and the moon was approximately the same angle in the sky if not more. But the moon was only half lit!
What was casting a shadow on the moon? It could NOT have been the earth! Was it even a shadow? What if the moon absorbed light and then glowed according to the pattern that it was lit up by, kind of like a glow in the dark material? A phosphorescent material stores up energy and is released relatively slowly in the form of light.
That would make more sense than what I was seeing with my own eyes. God gave me my eyes and has given me understanding, why waste it on man’s attempt to thwart the Creator?
TBH Mike, your comments about these images proves nothing about a globe or flat earth. It just proves that it is hard to take an image of the whole earth as these are composites. Satellites are not usually far out enough and most rockets which are few that head to other planets were designed and paid for research on those planets, not the Earth. That said, there are some satellites that take images of the whole Earth. But that is not good enough for you, so I am sorry about that. There is not much we can do for you because it is too costly to pay for a satellite ourselves. However, if there are really millions of Flat Earthers, then why don’t they get together and prove it for themselves. I am willing to bet some people who do not believe in the Flat Earth would donate just to help those people out.
In the meantime, look at these satellites images of the beautiful planet called Earth. There are more than a few. Denying these and saying they are all a hoax is tantamount to denying Madagascar. None of us have been there right and none of us know anyone who has been there? So it is a hoax, it doesn’t exist. Even Hollywood is in on the conspiracy by releasing an animation called Madagascar just to brainwash little kiddies. lol. Obviously most people are not paranoid enough to believe that the Globe Earth is a conspiracy of epic proportions. We believe these images are what Earth looks like, not from our perspective, but from a perspective way further out.
Hi Mike,
I am not so sure that your obsession is as heartily approved of from on high as you might imagine.
There is more important work to be done.
Mike.
Post me the single biggest evidence for a Flat Earth besides your rendering of the scripture and I will focus on that.
While I am doing the hard yards on that, I would appreciate some evidence from you as to why you think Madagascar exists.
Mike….you misquoted scripture concerning God’s elect, scriptre says,
Mark13:22
Mat 24:24, “for there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, (If it were possible) They shall decieve the very elect.But you see Mike it is, not possible to decieve the very elect, why?, because they have the “spirit of truth” abiding in them. These deception fall on those who have not the spirit of truth in them. Those who love not the truth, and because they don’t love the truth , GOD shall send unto them strong delusion, that they should believe a Lie….2 Ths 2:10-11.
Those 8 pictures of the earth you posted are just a tip of the iceburg of the million of photos, and movies of the earth in orbit, this earth is being observed from space 24/7 everyday and has been for years and years, from ISS, and other satilites hundreds if not thousands of them, even eye witness by astronauts. To deny all that evidence, only goes to show how gullible you FLAT EARTHERS really are.
My father years ago told me people are gullible, and in my life i have seen that to be true, especially with conspiracy theorists, their minds are suspicious about every thing, tending to rejuect all sound truth, their suspicious of everything, thinking there is underlying deception going on, so they are always suspicious of things, comming up with other views, like the vapor trails from airplanes being chinicals being dumped on us from the government to reduce the population in countries.
Look up chim-trails, and you will see what i am saying, i know a person personally who believes that.
Peace and love to you and yours. ….gene
Speaking of the moon, why is there such a distinct terminator line rather than a defused light and dark area that gradually goes from light to dark?
Just thinking out loud.
Come to think of it, why would a ball be lit like that in the first place? Wouldn’t it have a hot spot and just fade out?
Mike,
you said in response to this diagram:
Don’t we have the same second ball dropping down (or from right to left if we imagine we are looking down from on top of the diagram like in mine)? Isn’t the concept identical to what I drew? For example, could the bright and dark parts on his #2 be reversed? Of course not. Could the bright and dark parts on his #4 be reversed so that it was light on top, and dark on the bottom? Of course not.
Mike, what you aren’t getting is this, when the moon goes from the bottom of the elliptic plane instead of from the top of the elliptic plane which is does once a month, the numbers would start at the bottom instead of the top. It’s simple.
Mike,
your post from this comment:
Okay Kathi, I see that you are stumped. I’ll make one more attempt, using Google World and the timeanddate.com diagram. First up is Google World, with Phoenix centered in the middle and the sun and moon added in…
That post and diagrams AND presumptions are not making any sense. Don’t you have a globe on a stand to see where Phoenix is. The tilt of the axis doesn’t ever change. Put a light source (not a flashlight) on one side of that globe on a stand and shine it towards the globe, that would be one season. Place the light source on the other side of the globe, that would be the opposite season. Your eclipse was in the winter. Find Phoenix on the globe and stick a straight pin on it. That is you. Now line up the moon directly on the other side of the light source 5 degrees below the imaginary elliptic plane and bring it towards 5 degrees north of the elliptic plane. Turn Phoenix slowly towards the sun and stop. That would be the beginning of the sunrise. The sun would be behind you, the moon would be ahead of you and up a little but not much and certainly not completely overhead.
D4T: What was casting a shadow on the moon? It could NOT have been the earth! Was it even a shadow?
Hey D,
This lady shows what’s supposed to be happening based on the helical model. You can start at 1:00 in…
It starts off making sense, until she gets to around the 180 degree mark (at 2:11 in the video). At that point the “moon” is full, but the “sun” is at the back of her head. So if you were standing on her right ear, it would be like 6 or 7 in the morning… not 10 or 11. So while I made a rookie mistake with timeanddate.com during my discussion with Kathi, this full moon in the daytime thing is far from resolved. I just slapped these together for a quick visual aid…
So very close to sunrise or sunset, I can sunderstand the moon being full while the sun is also in the sky. But what about further away from sunrise and sunset, like 10 am or 2 pm…
At those times, the sun is high up in the sky from us, and 93 million miles behind the moon, which is also high up in the sky from us. How can the light from the sun (which is behind the moon) light up the part of the moon that is facing us? I took some videos a couple of weeks ago at work – with the sun and the moon both very high in the sky and close to each other. I’ll try to edit them down to make a good presentation of something I feel is impossible if the sun is what’s lighting the moon.
D4T: Speaking of the moon, why is there such a distinct terminator line rather than a defused light and dark area that gradually goes from light to dark?
Just thinking out loud.
Come to think of it, why would a ball be lit like that in the first place? Wouldn’t it have a hot spot and just fade out?
Why yes… yes it should. Even Rob Simmons (the NASA graphic artist who creates those paintings of planets that Gene thinks are real) has enough sense to put a hot spot on his work…
Check out that huge hot spot over Baja California and Mexico. Likewise, if the moon was really being lit by the sun, it would look like this to us…
There is no way an external source can light a ball evenly from side to side – as we observe the moon to be lit. The moon is its own light, just like the scriptures tell us.
This is just another one of the thousands of proofs that debunk the helical model – but that we can’t ever get to because after 135 pages, we can’t even come to an agreement that the size and shape of the earth can’t be determined with a couple of shadows! 😀 I’d love to talk about how the equatorial heat pattern has no relation to the path the earth orbits the sun, or why we have summer based solely on a slight tilt when we’re 3.5 million miles farther away from the heat source, but the Antarctic isn’t a tropical paradise when it’s 3.5 million miles closer and has the same tilt. There are a hundred things I’d love to bring up, but to paraphrase Jesus…
If you don’t believe me when I show you simple proofs that anyone can can see with their own eyes, how will you believe me when we get into more complicated mental constructs?
Anyway, glad you decided to think out loud. 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
