- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
I saw the ISS about a year or two ago.
In winter, the sky can be very clear and I have spotted many satellites. They are like stars but move very fast as you probably know. They are usually gone in minutes. One night I looked up and saw a huge light. It wasn’t nearly as big as the moon, but certainly say 5 or 10 times bigger than a star, but it moved fast like a satellite. It came to me that it had to be the ISS and sure enough, when I checked, it was scheduled to fly over our skies around that time.
T8, that’s a great comment. If we can combine the information that you just presented with what information Mike presented we can begin to see the solution.
As Gene correctly pointed out, the farther away objects are the smaller they appear to us. So if we know the size and distance of the ISS we can determine our ability to see it with the unaided eye. Do you agree?
Mike. most of your points about the earth being too small form the moon and comments regarding scale are moot because camera lenses can be wide angle to zoom. I love taking photos myself and you use the lens that captures all of the subject you want captured. So if I had the opportunity to photograph the earth from the moon, I would pull out a lens that made for the best shot and it wouldn’t be a reflection of what I could see with the naked eye.
Since the beginning of this discussion, I haven’t edged any closer to believing the earth is flat. The evidence seems poor and it requires that you throw out anything to the contrary which is a mountain of evidence. Of course, like anything there will always be things that are hard to explain, but that is never proof of anything, but that is the speck. So we have a speck vs a mountain.
A sane person would think, why not build a space ship that can orbit the earth and take videos of the earth so we can see once and for all if the Earth is a globe or flat. Well guess what, that box is ticked, but that gets thrown out as irrelevant because it must be a conspiracy. So the bottom line is, no matter the evidence, if it points not to a flat earth, it will be branded a conspiracy and so the debate becomes impossible to prove to Flat Earthers.
This is how it is and why I guess many here are not debating to the depth that Mike and Dig are. We know the score and the way this debate works. So we will pipe up once and a while and remind you guys of this evidence, but knowing full well what you will think of it. I guess you can now understand why other members here do not spend much time in this topic because they don’t take it seriously.
I guess if we had some members who believed in Ancient Aliens, they could debate you. It would be conspiracy buff vs conspiracy buff, and then we could come in and show a video of the globe earth once in a while.
Los Angeles from over 100 miles away…
What will T8 and the other globers do when they no longer have refraction as their get out of jail free card? Refraction? No problem with infrared, because it cuts right through the haze and atmospheric distortions. You can actually see the point where the ocean meets the beach… from 100 miles away! That point would be more than a mile behind the curve… IF we lived on a spinning ball 25,000 miles in circumference. AND you can see the mountains on the other side of LA!
Mike: What did those who wrote the scriptures and their contemporaries think they were made of? But more importantly, did those people consider them to be real, literal pillars that held up the earth and the firmament? Or did those people believe these pillars were upstanding members of the community?
T8: Scripture is not like a story book that anyone can understand. It is full of metaphors and parables because it conveys spiritual things and things that should be hidden from carnal as well as evil men.
Throughout history, men have believed in many different theories that they extrapolate from the Bible. I imagine that many have believed that the beast rising from the sea to be a literal monster making them afraid to sail too far. I wouldn’t put much credence into the scientific ideas of men in Antiquity. Knowledge hadn’t increased that much back then compared to now.Could you please just answer my question in an honest, direct, and succinct manner? Thanks.
T8: I would argue that the foundation for many things are his laws…
But how did the writers of scripture and their contemporaries understand the “foundation”, “pillars” and “firmament (hard sky)” we’re currently discussing? I just want an honest, direct, and succinct answer to the question I actually asked please.
T8: Just a quick question though. Do you believe in Bigfoot.
Let’s just worry about you giving honest, direct, and succinct answers to the question I’ve already asked before you start asking your own, okay? Thanks.
It is well noted that you think flat earth is silly and to be ridiculed. But your opinions stem from your indoctrination, not personally observable evidence, or even rational theory. And since your opinions basically amount to, “Ha Ha! You guys are stupid”, they’re not really worth the bandwidth it takes to post them.
How about a little less waxing philosophical and cramming condescending opinions down our throats over and over, and a little more just answering questions honestly, directly, and succinctly? Thanks.
T8: Mike. most of your points about the earth being too small form the moon and comments regarding scale are moot because camera lenses can be wide angle to zoom. I love taking photos myself and you use the lens that captures all of the subject you want captured. So if I had the opportunity to photograph the earth from the moon, I would pull out a lens that made for the best shot and it wouldn’t be a reflection of what I could see with the naked eye.
Here’s my claim: If this is a real picture of a huge earth behind a small moon…
It is impossible for a person on that small moon to take a picture of this tiny earth…
It seems that you’re claiming it is possible by switching camera lenses. I think your claim is the veriest nonsense, and absurd in the highest possible degree. The problem is how you could demonstrate such a thing. I guess you could find a situation like this, where the hut in the foreground is smaller than the mountain in the background…
Then you’d have to stand on that hut, showing the hut “horizon” or another person in the foreground, and see if you can make the mountain look tiny in the background. Do you think you could do that by switching lenses?
See what experiment you could come up with in your own town to demonstrate your assertion to us. Because without an actual demonstration, your claim will remain the mind boggling absurdity that it is now.
Come on man… look at the size if the earth in the top image. Do you seriously think a dude standing on that moon could take a picture of that huge earth and make it look like a tiny dot in the sky? Oh… and could he do it with a 40 degree camera angle when the earth is 80 degrees above his head? 🙂
T8: Since the beginning of this discussion, I haven’t edged any closer to believing the earth is flat. The evidence seems poor and it requires that you throw out anything to the contrary which is a mountain of evidence.
That last bolded part is your biggest problem. You truly believe that there is a mountain of evidence for the heliocentric model. Of course that is what you’ve been indoctrinated into believing, and you have not been swayed in the least by observational evidence or even God’s written word. So it’s not really a matter of our evidence (scriptural, theoretical, and observational) being “poor” – because you are unable to address a single piece of it. You just keep ignoring it or parroting the party line – but you can’t come close to refuting any of it. No, T8, this is simply a matter of you trusting the imaginary and completely baseless stories of God-hating men over your own God-given senses and even God Himself. That might put you in a precarious position, because…
John 15:22
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
Oh if we had only left you alone with your indoctrination. But now you know what the Bible actually teaches concerning our world, because we have come and spoken to you about it, and made it plain to you with scripture and evidence that anyone can observe for themselves. Will you be forgiven the sin of ignoring what we’ve made plain to you, simply because you “loved praise from men more than praise from God”? Only God knows the answer to that.
You’re biggest claim to fame is that there are mountains of evidence for the heliocentric model, right?
People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, in Scientific American, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally”, October 1995
Are you really sure about those mountains of evidence? Because surely a rocket scientist who co-wrote a book with the legendary cheek-typer Stephen Hawking wouldn’t be able to construct a universe with the earth at its center if there truly were these mountains of evidence that you assert, right?
T8, you are woefully ignorant on every matter we’ve discussed in this thread. I suggest you start asking sincere questions and learning instead of pretending you are looking down on us from a pedestal of supreme knowledge. Because in reality, you don’t have the foggiest idea of why you actually believe we live on a spinning ball… only that you’ve been told we do by people you know nothing about.
Only a fool answers a matter before hearing it. You have been answering for 151 pages so far, and you haven’t actually heard a single thing we’ve said. Time to get your priorities in line.
Oh, and don’t feel bad about not being able to address our evidence, because even prestigious scientists have that problem…
T8: Ignorance Abounds…
Let’s see if you can cherry pick only what you think is the best argument from the video, and present it to us in your own words. I’m betting you can’t. I’m betting the only thing you even know about this topic is how to do a search for “Debunk Flat Earth”, and post videos that you probably didn’t even watch, and which cover subjects you don’t even understand. Prove me wrong. Show us you’ve got what it takes to have a big boy discussion about a tough subject.
D4T: Did you not really understand Mike’s point? Really?
It’s very simple. If you cannot see an airplane of the approximate size of the ISS from 100 miles away why would you expect to see the ISS at more than twice that distance?
Well actually it was your point. I just stole it and ran with it. 😀
But a simple Google search would have told Gene that we can see the alleged ISS with the naked eye. They say it (and satellites) appear to be a plane flying by at a high altitude. Hmm… what if they ARE just planes flying by at high altitudes – sticking to a pre-arranged schedule to keep the indoctrinated sleeping?
I mean, we can see planes at cruising altitudes, right? Yet there’s no reason to think that being able to see a plane at 7 miles means we could see an object of the same size at 250 miles, right? And how about those satellites? Most of them are tiny compared to a commercial airliner. Yet we can see them at 250 miles too? 🙂
Come on, guys. If you can’t tell you’re being fed a pile of crap here, then you need to wake up.
Hey D, did you know that the ISS has rubber O-rings keeping the astronauts safe from the vacuum of space – and that they haven’t been changed or treated in any way for 20 years? Imagine that… I can’t get a rubber product to last 5 years in Phoenix, and the ISS O-rings have been surviving through temperature fluctuations from 250 above to 250 below – multiple times a day – for 20 years! Amazing! You can learn about it on this NASA fanboy’s video…
Watch the brilliant Don Pettit’s answer at the 2:43 mark. Epic!
Oh, and the last portion is that chick from the video you sent me, showing how to open the window panels with a knob. Notice how the movement of the panels has no relation to her manipulation of the knob. It’s like somebody just clicked a garage door opener, and the panels open and close in one continuous smooth movement irrespective of what she’s doing with the knob.
And this is on a video made by a famous NASA supporter!
ntent”>
Could you please just answer my question in an honest, direct, and succinct manner? Thanks.
I do not believe that pillars are suppose to ever mean literal physical pillars holding up the physical land just as I do not believe that the Roman Empire trampled the whole Earth even though it is written using those words. This is because words mean different things in different times. The whole earth and world means the Middle East. Further, many who wrote scripture probably didn’t understand it especially prophecy, but of those who understood what they were writing, I am taking it they understood the real meaning of pillar which is not physical.
Further, sometimes God shows us something physical (like a double edged sword coming from Jesus mouth) but you have to understand the true meaning of it. Scripture is not written in a way that the wicked or carnal will understand. It is hidden from them Mike.
It is well noted that you think flat earth is silly and to be ridiculed. But your opinions stem from your indoctrination, not personally observable evidence, or even rational theory. And since your opinions basically amount to, “Ha Ha! You guys are stupid”, they’re not really worth the bandwidth it takes to post them.
It comes from a huge body of evidence and even my experience of travelling round the world many times and living in New Zealand. But you say this large body of evidence is all fake and offer instead a conspiracy so big and hard to believe it defies reason. Worse, you offer no evidence of this conspiracy such as video of the 10,000 boats patrolling the Southern Ocean near where I live to fake yacht races that sail the Southern Ocean and get to destinations in a time much quicker than should be possible given the distances involved in a Flat Earth. I am being generous too as there are way more serious topics I could discuss, but prefer to keep it to things that I have some experience with. I would for example have to believe that the Antarctic Centre in Christchurch NZ is all fake and the flights that take off from there are fake and the Qantas flights that go direct over Antarctica is fake and many New Zealanders who have been to the New Zealand Antarctic Territory and people that I actually have met in real life that have sailed around the Southern Ocean defying the distances that the flat earth model would have us believe.
It is easier having this view you subscribe to Mike living in America, but if you traveled a bit, you would learn that the world is way different to what you think it is. I have heard that Americans are very ignorant about the rest of the world and I think this is generally true and I do not mean to insult but to tell the truth.
When a theory requires you to throw away and massive amount of evidence then that should in the least raise heavy suspicion. Evidence from and in the form of countless videos, photos, testimonies, the massive billion dollar space and satellite industries, Google, map makers, cartographers, tourism, airline industry, fishing industry, etc.
You are asking us to throw all that away because a few people took photos of far away photos that are supposedly not possible on a globe earth. Very cheeky because light can do all kinds of things like refract, reflect, skew, magnify, blur, etc. I have seen some of these effects with my own eyes, so you are always going to get those kind of days. And yet somehow this as well as a topsy turvey eclipse is suppose to compete with all this evidence for a globe? Are you for real? Yes you are for real and that is a worry.
Take my photo of Ruapehu Mike. That was the only time I ever saw that far, yet if it was just due to being a flat earth that allowed me to see it, then why can’t I see it on other clear days? So you too are forced to believe that something special happened to see the impossible, so no point laughing at that as an answer because it is your answer too. Further, I posted on your Mt Ruapheu video about how that mountain’s shape starts at 900 metres above sea level that is the tourist town at the mountains base is 900m above sea level. Yet you add this 900 metres in as missing when it is not there to begin with.
Mike, did you ever wonder why the Trinitarians we debated with were so dismissive of clear evidence? Now you know. Ask yourself why it is that you just write off massive amounts of evidence for a globe earth and you will have your answer as to why Trinitarians also throw away a massive amount of evidence.
Mike,.. you accuse us of not believing your BS, but fact is, it’s you who is not believing tons of apsolute proven facts backed up with proven evidence, by thousands of expert people in every aspect of you false presentations. That’s your problem, not ours, because we don’t buy into those false assumption your putting out there, trying to make us believe that imagined lie garbage, you call truth.
Peace and love to you and yours. …..gene
Mike, I’ve got rubber parts on my van that just flap in the wind and that is just from the relatively temperate conditions on earth! I can’t imagine small rubber o-rings that could last for decades in the extreme temperatures of “space”.
I don’t recall anyone addressing the issue of seeing the ISS or satellites yet. Wouldn’t this be an easy experiment that anyone can do? We know the size and the distance all that is left is to make a comparison from our everyday lives, like the planes flying overhead, to see if it should be feasible.
If, in the “mountain of evidence” of the globe earth there is one piece of evidence that can be demonstrated to be false, wouldn’t this warrant further investigation? Perhaps there are two or three false pieces of evidence, what then? Let it slide? Investigate further?
The video you posted of Mark Seargent makes this point very well. When scientists are confronted with false evidence of the globe as well as correct evidence for the FE they are strangely silent. Sometimes silence speaks volumes.
T8: I do not believe that pillars are suppose to ever mean literal physical pillars holding up the physical land…
But what did they believe?
T8: Further, many who wrote scripture probably didn’t understand it especially prophecy, but of those who understood what they were writing, I am taking it they understood the real meaning of pillar which is not physical.
So your understanding concerning the ones who wrote about the foundations and pillars of the earth, the firmament of hard glass, the fixed and stationary earth, and the sun, moon and stars moving around us on God-appointed circuits is: IF they took those things literally, they were short of understanding; and the ones who did have understanding knew those things were metaphorical, and not to be taken literally? Hmm…
Does it bother you in the least that your understanding is unique, and at odds with virtually every Biblical and secular scholar from the earliest church fathers until today? In fact, you might just be the only one in the history of the entire world to have that understanding.
I think it would have been more honest of you to stick with what you originally said: They were just explaining things the way they understood them from their ignorant goat herder mentalities, but we know better today.
At least then you were in the company of Kathi and all the other heliocentric-believing self-professed Christians who can see no other way of aligning what the Bible actually teaches with what they now “know” to be the truth of the matter. Ah, but then you had to deal with me asking why we would trust anything they wrote if they were just ignorant goat herders writing a bunch of erroneous crap from their own ignorant perspectives, right? And you also had to come to terms with the fact that God and Jesus said some of that “erroneous” stuff themselves, right?
And that surely couldn’t have set well with you. So now you’ve got your new unique understanding that you think saves you from all those problems, huh? I guess it’s true that pride can cause even the best of men to fall. And I guess that means there’s no use in me trying to use scripture to persuade you any longer.
Mike: …your opinions stem from your indoctrination, not personally observable evidence, or even rational theory.
T8: It comes from a huge body of evidence… But you say this large body of evidence is all fake…
What I say is that you cannot personally observe, test, or verify any of this alleged evidence.
T8: When a theory requires you to throw away and massive amount of evidence then that should in the least raise heavy suspicion. Evidence from and in the form of countless videos, photos, testimonies, the massive billion dollar space and satellite industries, Google, map makers, cartographers, tourism, airline industry, fishing industry, etc.
Which one of those on your list can you personally observe, test, and verify as having empirically proven the heliocentric model?
T8: You are asking us to throw all that away because a few people took photos of far away photos that are supposedly not possible on a globe earth. Very cheeky because light can do all kinds of things like refract, reflect, skew, magnify, blur, etc. I have seen some of these effects with my own eyes, so you are always going to get those kind of days. And yet somehow this as well as a topsy turvey eclipse is suppose to compete with all this evidence for a globe? Are you for real? Yes you are for real and that is a worry.
I am 100% for real, and you are right to be worried… but not for me. Let me try to explain why. For 150 years now, science has known for a fact that all dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, right? Science knows that their extinction was due to a huge meteor hitting the earth, right? Heck, science even knows exactly when and where it hit, right? And science knows these things due to a convergence of massive amounts of evidence from multiple disciplines within the unbiased fact-finding paradigm that is science, right?
So how many living dinosaurs would it take to disprove the “massive amounts of evidence”? Do you agree that only one living dinosaur would be enough to dismantle 150 years of “massive amounts of evidence” compiled by scores of the world’s best scientific minds in multiple fields of investigation? Can you see that only one living dinosaur would expose that 150 years of “massive amounts of evidence” for what it had always truly been – an unverifiable made-up story that just happened to be agreed upon by prominent men?
So how many pieces of observational, testable and repeatable evidence does it take to expose the heliocentric model for what it has always truly been – an unverifiable made-up story that just happened to be agreed upon by prominent men? That’s right… only one. So what does it mean that we’ve got thousands, when all it takes is one?
You brought up refraction again – because after all, what else can you do to deny the observational evidence? But there is no refraction in IR photography. So what will you do once the truth community starts photographing the Chicago skyline, Superstition Mountain, and Mount Ruapehu with IR cameras that cut through the haze and show the distant objects all the way to the bottom? Like this one of LA, from over 100 miles away…
With a regular camera, we wouldn’t have been able to see any of that. We’d just see a blue ocean blending into a blue sky, right? But with IR, we can see the ocean where it touches the beach – when it would be a mile behind curvature if we lived on a spinning ball. Or how about this one of the Cadillac Mountains…
They are only 1500 feet tall, and the shot is from 220 miles away with an IR filter. (Filters take quite a bit away from the image – which is why I and many others will be having their P900s professionally converted to actual IR cameras.) Those mountains would be 5.5 miles behind the curve if we lived on a spinning ball. The ludicrous idea that refraction can lift an object up over a curve and display it perfectly on the horizon is not going to save you any more, buddy. Because IR eliminates that rescue device altogether. The sun-worshipping, Bible-denying heliocentric model is near its end, because how many pieces of observational, testable and repeatable evidence does it take? That’s right… only one. And you’re about to see hundreds of thousands in the coming few years. And remember, observational evidence that there is no detectable curve to the earth is only one of dozens of empirically verifiable proofs we have at our disposal.
The selenelion and top-down eclipses are also empirically verifiable proofs against the heliocentric model that you cannot possible refute. See if you can follow along here. This is a diagram from a “debunk flat earth” source, explaining how we are able to see both the sun and moon in the sky during a total eclipse – because we’re actually seeing a refracted image of both objects being projected up over the curve…
First of all, how can you empirically verify that this effect can and does happen? You can’t. Nor do you guys consider that in order to see a refracted sun and moon in the sky, there must be a point when we transition from seeing the refracted images to seeing the real ones – or vice versa. For example, the image shows the real moon beyond the horizon and out of sight, and a refracted moon above the horizon that can be seen. But that means at some point during the night, the real moon that the guy was watching had to have set behind his horizon in order for the refracted one to be projected up over the curve, right? So he would have seen a real moonset, and then later on the refracted moon set. In fact, he would have had to see the real moon set, and as it was setting the refracted moon would rise in his sky to a certain height, and then set again or just disappear altogether.
T8, do you understand these things? Because I understand them clearly.
Same with the sun side of the diagram. If the sun in his sky is the refracted image – as the diagram portrays – then there must come a point when he sees the real sun also rise into his sky, right? At some point the refracted and the real sun must merge in order for there to end up with only one of them in the sky for the rest of the day. So have you ever seen the sun in the sky, and then another sun rising up behind it an eventually merging with the first one?
Okay, the other major problem is how his diagram shows a real sun and moon barely behind the horizon, and projecting refracted images of themselves up over the horizon. But that doesn’t align with what they say has to happen for a total lunar eclipse. In a total lunar eclipse, they say the moon and sun have to be pretty much directly opposite each other with the earth right smack dab between them. So this guy needs to move his real sun and real moon way down to where the earth is directly between them. And that would mean his refracted images of both are being projected up over the curve thousands of miles… not just the few miles his diagram implies.
T8: Further, I posted on your Mt Ruapheu video about how that mountain’s shape starts at 900 metres above sea level that is the tourist town at the mountains base is 900m above sea level. Yet you add this 900 metres in as missing when it is not there to begin with.
I believe that your image shows both the 2000 foot plateau and Mount Ruapehu itself. I believe the plateau is where the treeline in the foreground is. But let’s say we’re seeing only the mountain itself in your image. Here’s how that would work…
So you’re still looking at the bottom half of the mountain being hidden by earth’s curvature. And we can see by comparing your photo with closer photos that the entire mountain is there… none of it is missing in your photo. So the only help that will give you is changing my original claim that 2/3 should be missing to 1/2 should be missing. My original point will still stand just fine.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
