- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 2 weeks ago by
.
- Posts
Where is your verifiable proof that one object is “on the near side of the horizon” – as opposed to another object that isn’t?
Mike. If the boat is on the near side of the horizon, then it explains it. It is small, so would be easy for it to disappear. What you are doing is saying this small boat is on the other side of the horizon and you ignore the videos of ocean liners and tankers going over the curve. That is what I call cherry picking to suit your already made up conclusion and agenda. But I prefer to let the truth win and the small boat vs the bog boat leads me to this conclusion.
Further, what is more likely? That the small boat is over the horizon itself or the space industry, satelites, southern air and sea routes, and Antartcica are all fake or a small boat that disappears out of view is on the near side of the horizon.
Given the weight of evidence it is you that needs to ask the question, not me.
Here is the question you need to ask:
Where is your verifiable proof that the boat is on the near side of the horizon?
T8: 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.
Glad to see you’ve finally admitted to learning something on this thread. Bet you always thought they were real photos, huh?
T8: In the meantime, look at these satellites images of the beautiful planet called Earth.
If the ones I posted (that you always believed were real) are actually CGI, what makes you think the ones you posted aren’t CGI? How can you personally authenticate any of them as real photographs, T8? Because I guarantee you I could spend an hour or two with that “One Year On Earth” time lapse, and find a bunch of cloud formations that they used over and over again… along with other anomalies. That’s the thing with NASA… for 52 million dollars a day, you’d think they’d have much better CGI. So not only are they stealing our money with space frauds – but we’re not even getting movie quality CGI for it. Here are two official NASA photographs of Jupiter. See if you can spot the problem…
Let me know, okay?
Um no. The moon doesn’t have a glossy finish. I have walls in the house that are a matte finish or wallpaper. Lights do not reflect of the walls. If I painted them with a gloss paint. then I would likely see this effect.
T8: 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.
Let’s do that in the debate thread, so I can keep you focused.
Gene: Mike….you misquoted scripture concerning God’s elect…
I copied and pasted it from Bible Hub.
Gene: But you see Mike it is, not possible to decieve the very elect…
That’s not what it says, but it’s irrelevant since neither you nor I are among the elect – which means we can be deceived. I was for years, and you still are.
Gene: 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…
So you believed those 8 pictures were real, then found out they were CGI, and are now appealing to the millions of other photos that you believe are real? Hmm… Gene, if you didn’t know the other 8 were fake because NASA passed them off as real, how exactly do you know any of the other ones actually are real? How could you personally verify that any particular image was a real photograph from space?
Gene: My father years ago told me people are gullible…
True dat.
Gene: Look up chim-trails, and you will see what i am saying, i know a person personally who believes that.
Well now you know two people who know chemtrails are real. Btw, the government is finally admitting it. They call it “geo-engineering”, and they have been doing it since the Vietnam conflict. They say they’re spraying the skies with aluminum oxide, barium, and strontium to make a haze that lessens the sunlight and slows down global warming. But it is very real, and only a blind follower of liars would think these chemtrails are normal plane exhaust… especially when plane engines have been so finely tweaked since the 80’s that they don’t leave a trail at all. Here’s my one minute video of a day they hit us fairly hard in Phoenix…
And at the risk of making your head explode… 9-11 was a controlled demolition designed and carried out by our government (well… by those who really run our country and the rest of the world.) Aluminum airplanes don’t slice through steel girded concrete buildings like a hot knife slicing through butter… only to have the nose cone come out the other side intact. 🙂 But 9-11 and chemtrails are for another thread.
Kathi: 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.
And what would that matter? Would the direction the moon was moving (up or down in the diagram) change the shadows on position 2 or position 4? No. The part closest to the umbra will always receive the shadow first, and the part farthest away will always remain lit the longest before entering the umbra. Doesn’t matter if it’s moving up, down, from the left or from the right in any given diagram or experiment.
Kathi: 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.
I was going to buy a globe for my video, but they were expensive. Had I known that this concept would be so confusing, I would have. But now that I know people can’t understand just by using a couple of balls…
… I will indeed buy a globe and do the experiment you suggest. But Kathi, it doesn’t matter what angle the second ball takes as it moves behind the first one. It can come in from the left, from the right, from the top, or from the bottom. The part that gets shadowed first will ALWAYS be the part that enters into the shadow first. And if from my perspective standing atop a ball earth, it was the bottom of the moon entering the shadow first, then it must be the bottom of the moon that gets shadowed first. I seriously didn’t think this would be so hard. But I will try to find a globe at a pawn shop tomorrow, and do your experiment.
Mike: Where is your verifiable proof that one object is “on the near side of the horizon” – as opposed to another object that isn’t?
T8: If the boat is on the near side of the horizon, then it explains it.
LOL. You can’t use the thing you’re trying to prove (a curved horizon) as evidence that the observation proves the thing you’re trying to prove. I think they call it begging the question.
- The horizon is curved.
- Zooming a boat back in means it’s on this side of the curve.
- That the boat is on this side of the curve proves the horizon is curved.
It’s like what you guys do with refraction…
- The earth is a ball.
- We can see the entire mountain from 200 miles away.
- Therefore the mountain must be hidden behind the curve, and we must be seeing its refracted image.
Or…
- The heliocentric model is correct.
- We can see the sun and moon above the horizon during a total eclipse.
- Therefore, the sun and moon must really be over the horizon, and we must be seeing their refracted images.
Anyway, we’ll take this up in the debate thread too.
You laugh?
Yes Mike. The weight of evidence is firmly stacked on one side and it is not the Flat Earth side.
I posted a later video showing a small boat on the near side and a large tanker on the far side.
Why is that video and other videos of big boats half invisible not good enough, but a small boat is?
Your evidence is the speck and the globe earth is the log.
My money is on the log not the speck.
Besides, the speck doesn’t even prove a flat earth or disprove a globe earth. It merely could be interpreted at pointing that way, but also pointing the other way.
Regardless, the last video I posted shows both in the same shot.
Explain that without resorting to saying it is fake.
And you have posted not one piece of evidence that Madagascar exists. Thus we conclude it is not a real place right?
T8: Um no. The moon doesn’t have a glossy finish. I have walls in the house that are a matte finish or wallpaper. Lights do not reflect of the walls. If I painted them with a gloss paint. then I would likely see this effect.
Come on man… really? Light doesn’t reflect off your matte finish walls? And although the ball in the image doesn’t look “glossy” to me (especially in the top right photo), do you really think it would make a difference? Do you really think if we painted that ball with flat gray paint, it would illuminate like the moon, and not have a hot spot or a darkening towards the edges? Because if you do think that, let’s put a little money on it. Then I will paint one of the foam balls I bought for my video with flat gray (or any paint you designate), and I will do the experiment myself. Remember, the goal is to get the ball to have an even edge to edge “glow” like the moon does.
What say you? Is it a bet?
T8: This video demonstrates it.
The video has “Why We Not See Bottom” plastered across it. Thankfully, you have now learned enough from the golf cart experiment I did with my Dad to answer the guy’s question, right? Lol. Anyway, we’ll get into the boats on the debate thread. That way when I show you the big boats being zoomed back in again, you won’t be able to keep spouting the same thing over and over. Oh, and you’ll finally have to answer my question about how high the boat has to be off the water to be considered a “small boat” as opposed to a “big boat” that isn’t on “this side of the horizon”.
Yeah baby… then we’ll finally be able to start getting somewhere. Can’t wait!
T8: Your evidence is the speck and the globe earth is the log.
In that case…
Matthew 7:5 New Living Translation
Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye.
Get rid of that log, T8. Then you’ll be able to see well enough to help me with the speck. 😀
Hi Dig4truth,
you wrote:
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.
The answer: The moon phase for July 6 is the half moon phase, that is why it is half lit even during the day. It is on its way to the new moon phase coming up on July 12th.
https://www.timeanddate.com/moon/phases/
Moon Phases for Cleveland, Jul 6, 2018 – Jul 27, 2018
Third Quarter New Moon First Quarter Full Moon 
July 6 3:50 amJuly 12 10:47 pmJuly 19 3:52 pmJuly 27 4:20 pmI hope that helps!LULOL. You can’t use the thing you’re trying to prove (a curved horizon) as evidence that the observation proves the thing you’re trying to prove. I think they call it begging the question
You can if there is a huge body of evidence for something. While one piece of evidence on its own cannot absolutely prove it, with the sheer amount of other evidence, it helps draw the obvious conclusion.
Funny how for you, a small boat must be far enough to be behind the curve and the large boats not the case, but surface refraction. Anyone with common sense would have the small boat closer than you think and the large boats showing the curve.
As for the video I posted, you can see it is one sweep of the camera. And hello, the small boat has no surface refraction, but the big boat does. Lol. Honestly, this is clearly bias at work. I thought you were a truth seeker. But that comment about the video shows what your priority is and that is to be right at all costs.
Tell you what though, it never works out well when you delude yourself or you ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Man up. Face the evidence and see where it leads. Be brave.
Mike,
you said:
And you can search 1-31-18 eclipse from Phoenix, and you’ll find local news sites that have collections of photos sent in by local Phoenix residents, and some of them are top-down, while others are side-to-side.
Could you send me the link to the local news sites. I couldn’t find them. Thanks!
LU, sadly that didn’t help. If both the sun and moon are way up high in the sky relative to my position then the moon should be entirely lit up. There would nothing to cast a shadow on it.
Hi Kathi,
Here’s the AZ Central site…
It has a slideshow of 18 photos half way down the page. And here’s the ABC 15 site…
https://www.abc15.com/news/news-photo-gallery/rare-super-blue-blood-moon-in-arizona#id
Photos 10,11, and 12 are of particular interest. But notice how even in Phoenix, some people saw a top-down eclipse, and others saw it eclipse from one side or the other. How can that be? How could my sister watch it eclipse from the side, while a mere 14 miles away, I saw it eclipse from the top? And here are some compilation photos from around the country…
In the first two, you can see how the shadow of the earth progresses from top to bottom. And as one is standing on the earth and looking up into the sky to see the moon, you have to wonder how the shadow from the earth can be even farther above your head than the moon is. And it seems as if the sun must be shining under or through the earth to light the bottom of the moon. This last one from Pittsburgh explains it quite well…
The moon is setting on the earth. In what scenario could the sun be lighting the bottom, while the earth that the moon is setting on is shadowing the top? How can the earth that is eclipsing the top not also eclipse the bottom? How can the sun that is lighting the bottom not also be lighting the top?
It’s like the sun must be shining under the earth to light the bottom only… but that can’t be because this photo was taken at 5:50 am, and you can see that day is breaking. The whole thing is bizarre to me.
I have a challange for everyone. If you can spend 25 minutes watching the beginning of this video you will see the reason why this is such an important topic and how it is producing much fruit for the kingdom.
It it is an interview with Rob Skiba which many of us on both sides have used for information.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
