- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
T8: “So I have proposed a number of times, that blending in of landscape on my side of the horizon coupled with atmospheric refraction magnifying and possibly bending the light coming from the mountain, could result in the photo I took. Of course you will just say that this is extremely unlikely, but may I remind you that to see the mountain is extremely unlikely, thus an extremely unlikely event took place. And think about this fact, if the Earth was flat, then why can you not see that mountain from that vantage point 99,99% of the time? You would say that the air was clear that day? But the air is clear a lot of days here. It seems to be that regardless of your belief, that a series of circumstances came together to allow this mountain to be seen. This is true from a globe earth or flat earth perspective. So no need to pretend that my explanation is unlikely and foolish.”
If the mountain can be seen at any time then that disproves the globe. If it can be seen at certain times then that supports the FE.
You can’t get something from nothing. If it can be seen at any time then it can be seen – period. However, on a globe it could not be seen at any time. Plus, if it were just “conditions” that allowed for it to be seen on a globe then those “conditions” would be evident as in distortion, inversion or angular irregularities. It looks like a normal mountain therefore no “conditions”. Therefore, FE is the best explanation.
T8: “Jesus is not God”
You do know that statement is heresy, right?
Now I get it, I thought you were a believer. But hearing that you do not think that the Messiah is God in the flesh kind of helps me understand the inconsistencies in your responses. I now believe that you can not discern truth from error. I knew something was off and now I understand.
Mike: “My newest… 3.5 minutes:”
That was great! The music was classic and I think others will mirror your video!
T8: “Concordance: “Stood Still”
Just to add to your knowledge “amad” means to cease what is being done at the time it is being done.
In other words if you were sitting down and you were to amad you would stand up. If you were standing up and were to amad then you would sit down. It is the opposite of what is happening at the time.
In context if the sun were moving in its circuit and then it would “amad” it would stop moving in its circuit.
This is evident in the war between Michael and his angels and satan and his angels. At one point Michael “amads” or ceases to fight for Daniel’s people Israel and thus begins the Great Tribulation or Jacob’s Trouble, a time like no other.
I want to revisit the heresy of Yeshua being merely a man. Yes, He had taken on flesh but His origin, or “eternalness” was not from flesh – it was God.
Eph 3:9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;
OK, that’s easy, God created all things!
Col 1:15-19 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him,
Well, that’s clear! Yeshua created everything – God created everything.
But there’s more, God “shared” His glory or fullness with Yeshua!
Isa 42:1,5,8 “Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.
5 Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk in it,
8 “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
If God will not give His glory to “another” then Yeshua must necessarily be the same and not “another”.
Col 2:8-9 See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
Lest anyone should think that God simply chose a really good man to be His Messiah then think again. The spotless lamb must be spotless! No sin or imperfection. But perhaps some man can be spotless. No. The Scripture says that He was without sin! Just a man? Absolutely not!
Rom 3:10 as it is written, “There is none righteous, not even one;
No man is righteous of his own. But Yeshua shared God’s glory, was a perfect sacrifice and created all things including man!
Just a man? Come on now, you would have to be a screaming liberal heretic to deny Scripture! But hey, that’s what the enemy wants.
Hi Dig 4,
While chasing the flat earth butterflies it seems you have fallen into the pit of idolatry.
Jesus is a man anointed by his Father God, not God.
To whit God was IN Christ reconciling the world to Himself.
2cor 5.19
Hi Dig4,
Peter said
’You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ and Jesus agreed saying the words came from the Spirit.
But you say the Spirit is wrong and he is God Himself. Seek the spiritual understanding of scripture and stop following men.
Please read this one page to see what I believe before judging me. I say this for your own sake not mine. You will not be able to refute it. But if you can, then you have done me a favor because I am not interested in defending my beliefs as right despite the evidence, rather that the truth will win out and make me a better person as I accept the revealed truth. I want to be a person without blemish. Go ahead and help me out and correct me on any of the points. That page has its own discussion, so you can correct me there rather than here. I look forward to what you can offer.
I want to revisit the heresy of Yeshua being merely a man. Yes, He had taken on flesh but His origin, or “eternalness” was not from flesh – it was God.
Yes of course his origin is God as is the case for all sons of God. The word son of God tells you his origin. He emptied himself, came in the flesh, obeyed his God and our God, and returned into the glory he had with God before the creation of the world. But yes, we can discuss this at the other topic place below.
If the mountain can be seen at any time then that disproves the globe. If it can be seen at certain times then that supports the FE.
You can’t get something from nothing. If it can be seen at any time then it can be seen – period. However, on a globe it could not be seen at any time. Plus, if it were just “conditions” that allowed for it to be seen on a globe then those “conditions” would be evident as in distortion, inversion or angular irregularities. It looks like a normal mountain therefore no “conditions”. Therefore, FE is the best explanation.
On a Flat Earth, if it cannot be seen at anytime, then how is it that on a very rare occasion can you see it?
Did you understand the point?
No matter what you believe, the photo is extraordinary because something special must have taken place to allow Mount Ruapehu to be seen from that distance. I have given my take on how this happened with the understanding that the earth is a globe, yet neither yourself or Mike have given me how this takes place on a Flat Earth.
How is it that you cannot see Mount Ruapehu from this vantage point if the Earth is flat, yet on a very rare occasion you can see it clearly? Atmospheric moisture or what? Please answer. “I don’t know” is a permissible answer.
Hi Mike. I thought there was a problem with your Youtube video embeds, so I checked your Youtube account and it is not there either. Now just found out that Youtube is down worldwide, so no need to panic.
T8: Your first point is a good one in your Youtube rebuttal.
They’re all good points.
T8: If you think that is the bottom of the mountain, then where is Ohakune? Yes, that town should be in the photo because it lies directly below the lower flanks of the mountain in view.
But I also addressed that in the comments of my video, didn’t I? I told you to go to a certain point in the video and tell me where Ohakune is in that photo – which was taken from the same basic angle, but much closer, right? You responded: “It doesn’t matter about the whatever mark in the video.” I could also send you to the 45 second mark, where there is an even closer photo of Ruapehu from the same angle that also doesn’t show Ohakune… but it doesn’t really matter because the photographic evidence makes my point either way.
T8: So now we have roughly 2000 metres of mountain to deal with and given that you cannot see Ohakune…
You haven’t shown that Ohakune should be in that particular angle of the mountain, but like I KEEP telling you, it doesn’t matter. For the love of God, this time please listen to what I’ve already posted twice here, and once on the comments of the video…
The peak of Ruapehu is 9176 feet above sea level. And Ohakune – which we’ll use as the divider between plateau and actual mountain – is 2000 feet above sea level. So let’s assume the actual mountain is the top 7176 feet of the total 9176 feet. Still with me? Okay, from a height of 700 feet, 123 miles away, 5473 feet should be hidden behind the curve of the earth. So if we subtract the 2000 feet of plateau from that figure, we still have 3473 feet of actual mountain that should be hidden behind curvature, right? And 3473 feet is pretty much HALF of the actual mountain, right? So like I said, even if we were to agree that your photo shows only the actual mountain and zero of the plateau, you still end up with the bottom half of the mountain that should be hidden behind curvature. And I ask again: Does it look to you like HALF of Ruapehu is missing in your photo?
Why can’t you understand this simple thing, T8? I’m GIVING you your unsubstantiated claim that your photo shows only the mountain and NONE of the plateau. And even after GIVING you what you asked for, we STILL end up with half of the mountain being over the curve of the ball earth!
Do you think that half of the mountain is missing in your photo?
T8: Further, as I have said before, I am not even sure these earth curve calculators are that correct for longer distances. I wouldn’t go and put all my faith in them. I posted a video where these calculations were debunked, but I don’t know if that debunking was true or not because I do not dedicate the same kind of time to this subject that you do.
The 8 inches per mile squared is spot on up to 200 miles. After that, it skews from the Pythagorean Theorem ever so slightly. For example, the casual formula gives 106,666 feet of drop at 400 miles, while the actual mathematical formula gives 106,976. So at 400 miles, we’re off by 310 feet out of 107,000. But here’s the thing, the casual formula actually helps the ball earthers, because when the numbers finally start diverging, the official mathematical formula gives MORE drop every single time. So for 400 miles, the official formula calls for 310 MORE feet of drop than the casual 8 inches per mile squared rule of thumb…
T8: So I have proposed a number of times, that blending in of landscape on my side of the horizon coupled with atmospheric refraction magnifying and possibly bending the light coming from the mountain, could result in the photo I took. Of course you will just say that this is extremely unlikely…
I say it is not just unlikely, but the veriest nonsense. What you’re saying is the same as the meteorologist said on the news concerning the Nowicki Chicago skyline photo. You’re imagining that the actual mountain IS over the curve where it’s supposed to be, but somehow this, that, or the other aspect of light has projected it back up over the horizon and placed it – in perfect form with no distortion – right on the horizon. Of course the only reason you (or that meteorologist) would make such an absurd and unsubstantiated claim is that the mountain/Chicago skyline is right there for anyone with eyes to see… WHEN IT’S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ACCORDING TO YOUR MODEL. Hey T8, what if the mountain in your photo IS the actual mountain, and you were able to see it because the earth is NOT a ball? Because those are your only two choices: 1) Light was playing games and projecting a mountain up over the curve and placing it perfectly on the horizon, or 2) We can see the mountain from that far away because the earth isn’t a ball after all.
Now keep in mind that yours is only one of THOUSANDS of photos just like it. We see LA from 120 miles away… all the way to the seashore. We see Mt. Canigou from 163 miles away. We see Chicago from 60 miles away. I’ve documented Superstition Mountain from 55 miles away. And the world record long distance photo shows Pic de Finestrelles from a whopping 275 miles away…
Pic de Finestrelles – Pic Gaspard / Ecrins | 443 km.
So, do you suppose the light just keeps refracting in such perfect harmony with every single photo we take of objects that should be hundreds of feet – even many MILES – over the curve of the earth? And that every time the object looks just like it would on a flat earth – as opposed to all jumbled up or upside down or a mirror image, etc?
You’re free to think that if you want… but it contradicts your statement: Mike, can I remind you of the fact that I am not here to be right, to win arguments, and to prove I am better than everyone else. I am here to discover truth.
Oh, and since 275 miles is the current record holder, I don’t think we have to worry too much about the casual formula versus the authentic formula. Because at 300 miles, the casual formula calls for 60,000 feet of drop, and the authentic formula calls for 60,101 feet of drop. Again, the difference is negligible. And again, the difference errs on the side of the ball earthers anyway.
T8: Please answer that last question. How if the Earth was flat, did I get a photo of a mountain that is too far to see with the naked eye or camera except on a very rare occasion?
It’s because of the atmospheric conditions you alluded to earlier. You’ve seen my Superstition Mountain from 55 miles away video, right? I can’t even see the mountain from 5 miles away many times. We have polluted the crap out of our atmosplane, and should consider ourselves fortunate to still be able to see a tree from a mile away. Imagine how clear the air was in the days of Adam or Abraham or David or even Jesus. You’d probably be able to see Ruapehu from 300 miles at ground level back then… who knows?
So again we’re left with two choices: 1) The air is occasionally clear and dry enough that we can see a mountain that is always there, or 2) Once in a while light refracts a mountain back up over the curve and allows us to see a mirage of it.
This GIF shows you which one it is…
That is Canigou from 163 miles away. People flock there to take these images a couple days each year – when the sun passes directly behind the mountains on its appointed circuit. But notice how the mountains “aren’t there” until the sun passes behind them. This is the same with Ruapehu. It is always there just like it was in your photo. And if the sun passed behind it a couple of times a year, you’d see it there each time it did so. But since that isn’t the case, you can only see the mountain – which is always there – during certain atmosplanic conditions.
T8: Rockets arching? lol.
Showing your ignorance again? Try watching the video so you know that of which you speak. I await your comments AFTER you’ve looked at the evidence, because as we all know…
Condemnation without investigation is indication of indoctrination.
Just trying to clarify, the clouds are moving around the equator region at approximately 1,000 + mph and they just drift by like a … cloud?
So, while waiting for T8 to tell me whether or not he finally understands that half of the mountain in his photo should still be missing – even if the photo shows ONLY mountain and NO plateau, I’ll address this one…
T8: EPHESIANS 4:26 – “IN YOUR ANGER DO NOT SIN”: DO NOT LET THE SUN GO DOWN WHILE YOU ARE STILL ANGRY,
1931
epiduo from 1909 & 1416 to set fully as the sun
Go DownI can see here in the New Testament that the sun set or going down of the sun is accurate. Except you do not believe the sun goes down. But I believe it, therefore it is I who believes and you who disbelieves right?
Not quite. Let’s see what the two Greek words from which epiduo comes mean…
Strong’s Exhaustive ConcordanceFrom epi and duno; to set fully (as the sun) — go down.
Epi is just a preposition, but duno has “enter” as its first definition…
Strong’s Concordanceto enter, to sink intoNAS Exhaustive Concordanceto enter, to sink intoThayer’s Greek Lexiconto go into, enter; go under, be plunged into, sink inAnd that’s notable considering that the Hebrew word translated into English as sunset is “mabo” – which means…
Strong’s Concordanceentrance, a coming in, enteringNAS Exhaustive Concordanceentrance, a coming in, enteringBrown-Driver-Briggsentrance, a coming in, enteringAnd that fits perfectly with Psalm 19 – which teaches about the sun coming out of its chambers, running its circuit across the heaven, and entering back into its chambers.So it seems to me that the NT verses translated as “sunset” also speak of the sun “going in”… just like the Hebrew verses do.T8, the idea of translation is to render the Hebrew and Greek words as English words and concepts with which we are all familiar. For example, the Hebrew word often translated as sunrise really means…Strong’s Concordancemotsa: a place or act of going forth, issue, export, source, springBut that word is also translated as “east”, since that is the direction from which the sun goes forth. So when the Hebrew context calls for “the direction from which the sun goes forth”, the English translators just render it as “from the east”. The word doesn’t really MEAN “east”, but it’s easier to convey the point in our language using “east” than “the direction from which the sun issues forth”. Likewise, the Hebrew and Greek words translated as “sunrise” and “sunset” don’t really MEAN those things, but those are the words most commonly used to describe the events in our language… especially when the translators and those for whom they translate are used to the heliocentric idea of the sun “setting” and “rising”. But it is very clear that the people who wrote the OT and NT were not familiar with this “rising” and “setting” concept, and “sunrise” and “sunset” are therefore two words that are forced upon the Hebrew and Greek scriptures by men who view our world very differently than the men who wrote the Bible.Admin: Hi Mike. I thought there was a problem with your Youtube video embeds, so I checked your Youtube account and it is not there either. Now just found out that Youtube is down worldwide, so no need to panic.
Does that mean you were trying to actually watch my rocket video? Did you succeed in doing so? Do you understand the point of it now? Can you refute the points I made in it?
Here’s my latest one. It’s only one minute long, and seems to confirm the atmospheric compression you alluded to concerning your photo of Ruapehu, and which has been verified to exist in dozens of other photos and videos…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
