- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Put it in context.
The Flat Earth points have been debunked.
Flat Earth has no video or photo evidence.
Now watch the video.
The sum of all things discussed and shown here has led to a serious defeat for Team Flat Earth. Then again, no one is really surprised by that outcome either.
Not Contrails
Here’s a stunning example of Altocumulus undulatus. Photo taken in Wellington New Zealand this morning, (not by me).
These Latin names of clouds sound quite fancy, but are relatively simple to break down.
-Alto comes from the Latin altus, meaning high.
-Cumulus means heap or pile in Latin, and refers to clouds that are formed by convection. Cumulus clouds look like fluffy heaps of cotton wool.
-Undulatus means wavy, and refers to the broad, parallel bands. In this case, they are perpendicular to the wind direction
So Altocumulus undulatus just means “pile-looking wavy high clouds”.
Hi Mike.
I took this shot from the same lookout that I took the Ruapehu shot, although it is about 20 years old I think.
As you can see, half the sun has gone below the Flat Earth disk.
How does the Flat Earth model explain this twice a day occurrence?.
I’m not sure we have covered this. Is it compression?
This is how not only the FE community explains it but also scientists explain it as well:
And it’s only a little over 5 min. It doesn’t have to be a long demeaning video to shed truth on a subject.
T8: How does the Flat Earth model explain this twice a day occurrence?
The sun goes in twice a day in NZ? 🤔
The flat earth model explains it the way any artist explains it. Perspective/vanishing point/horizon. Surely you don’t suppose these ceiling lights are getting physically lower in the distance, right?
The sun works the same way. It remains the same height above the ground, but the farther it is from you, the lower to the ground it will look… just like clouds. And if this hallway was long enough, eventually we’d see a ceiling light merge with the floor – which isn’t rising higher, but only looks that way due to perspective. This merger is called the vanishing point – and it is always on the horizon of the observer. So at some point, we’d see a ceiling light and the floor merge together – to where it appeared as if half of a ceiling light was above the floor, and half of it had sunk under the floor.
There are many tutorials online explaining perspective and horizon vanishing points, and how to incorporate them correctly into your artwork. Here’s a Google list of images regarding the subject… https://www.google.com/search?q=how+to+draw+perspective+vanishing+point&sxsrf=ACYBGNQVNED-vVv-H1otBazrINpFMpGPsg:1569075659625&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjl58SqjuLkAhUEip4KHY8GCZsQ_AUIEigB&biw=1384&bih=596&dpr=1.38#imgrc=_
And here are a couple of the photos on that page…
D4T: It doesn’t have to be a long demeaning video to shed truth on a subject.
Amen to that! So many of these flat earth “debunkers” are so condescending as they try to convince their indoctrinated that things are still okay despite all the evidence and real explanations we’ve been discovering. They are in “cover your ass” mode, and have found that the best way to keep people like T8 going along with the failed story is to talk down from a place of false superiority – thinking that if they can call the other person “stupid” enough and use big words, the actual stupid people will believe them and breathe a sigh of relief for the flawed model they love. Did you know that the term “conspiracy theorist” was actually invented by the CIA, which instructed the mainstream media to use it as a derogatory term for people uncovering lies of the government like the JFK assassination? And the propaganda worked like a charm for people like T8 – who insists that chemtrails are normal airplane exhaust… simply because the people who know they aren’t are “conspiracy theorists”. 😁 See? He wins simply on the fact that we are “conspiracy theorists”, and therefore automatically wrong when we present truth.
Anyway, there have been very few chemtrails since the 4th of July. Q-Anon made a post prior to the 4th saying, “look to the skies… it’ll be better than fireworks”. Somebody else says that this was because Trump was putting an end to the chemtrailing on the 4th. Who really knows the truth of all that, but I will say that since then, there has only been maybe 5 or 6 days where they sprayed here in Phoenix. And a lot of channels are talking about the same going on all over the U.S.A. It’s been so refreshing to see clear blue skies and normal puffy white clouds for so long! How’s it been in your neck of the woods?
I have noticed the decline of chemtrails also. I was talking about it just yesterday because of the beautiful Carolina blue skies here lately. Hopefully it will remain that way!
Josh 10:12-14 Then speaketh Joshua to Jehovah in the day of Jehovah’s giving up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he saith, before the eyes of Israel, `Sun — in Gibeon stand still; and moon — in the valley of Ajalon;’
13 and the sun standeth still, and the moon hath stood — till the nation taketh vengeance [on] its enemies; is it not written on the Book of the Upright, `and the sun standeth in the midst of the heavens, and hath not hasted to go in — as a perfect day?’
14 And there hath not been like that day before it or after it, for Jehovah’s hearkening to the voice of a man; for Jehovah is fighting for Israel. YLT
Some have to believe that when the Bible says that the earth does not move – it does. And when the Bible says that the Sun does move – it doesn’t. They even have to believe that the above Scripture cannot be true the way it is written.
Yeah… kind of silly for God to make the sun stand still when it wasn’t moving to begin with. Of course, that was just the mistaken assumptions of ancient goat herders who didn’t know anything about how the world really works, right? In which case, why on earth would we believe them about anything else they said? Was there really a flood that destroyed all flesh except those on the ark? Or maybe just a season of heavy rains that these ignorant ancients fabricated into a worldwide flood? And Lord Jesus, being just another uneducated dupe, spoke of the flood as a real event out of ignorance too.
These guys need to decide who they’re going to believe – because science falsely so called is 100% against the Bible on every account. If only someone would have warned us about that…
Yeah… kind of silly for God to make the sun stand still when it wasn’t moving to begin with.
Kind of silly to think that such references are not from our perspective.
My latest is 14 minutes long, and is easily understandable. I have used real world observations to refute the heliocentric model.
I await any questions or rebuttals.
Lol, resorting to refraction, the very thing Mike abhors. But honestly, the clear disappearing sun shows it dips below the horizon period.
And putting a glass in front of the sun can produce many effects. It depends on the shape of the glass or mirror you use. When I look at my reflection in a spoon it is upside down. Thank you for that Mike because you are now arguing against yourself who has in the past derided refraction as a poor excuse while I tried to tell you that moisture in the atmosphere will have some effect and unlikely to be zero refraction.
So now by your own argument you can understand why we see the sun in a slightly different position than it is in reality.
I think two things have been debunked. Mike debunks Mike on refraction, and the disappearing sun is so clearly happening from the bottom up that it is dipping below the horizon. Wasn’t it Mike who said that we should trust our own eyes with the flat earth and ignore the science that contradicts it? So why not trust your eyes then and just accept that the sun dips below the horizon thereby debunking the Flat Earth?
Hi Dig4Truth and MikeBoll,
Unless you can explain a longer sun cycle in NZ
all your efforts are in vain with me.Because on the outer edge of a disk, it cannot have a longer sun cycle
no matter how close to the edge the sun circles around it.Please attempt to Explain this problem
______________
God bless
Ed JRefraction is a real phenomenon. It doesn’t, however, lift hidden objects up and around the obstruction that is hiding them. I’ve corrected you like this a dozen times already. Will you really continue to purposely lie about me, saying I have some problem with the observationally proven effect of refraction? I have never flip-flopped about it. I have always said it exists and is real, but can’t project things up and over obstructions in a natural environment. And my assertion is irrefutable.
Let me know if you were able to understand the video – and how such a simple thing as comparing solar eclipses to lunar eclipses falsifies the entire heliocentric model.
Hi Ed, when you first start investigating the true nature of the world God created for us, it doesn’t take long to discover centuries of lies upon lies that have been passed from generation to generation. It is a tangled web, and takes considerable effort and research to untangle just one strand. Fortunately, there are thousands of us out there, each diligently working to untangle our own strands, and pass on what we’ve learned to others. But I’ve only been looking for a little over a year now, and there is a lifetime of new information that we’re all trying to learn in a very short time. The length of days in NZ is something that I haven’t looked into yet, and is very low on the list of things I still want to delve into. But if you watched my last video, you will realize that the model doesn’t work – even if I can’t personally explain what’s going on with days in NZ. And my avenue of exploration is just one of thousands.
So it’s basically like your’re saying, “Well, you’ve showed me where the firmament meets the earth, and I’ve touched it with my own hands… but until I can get an explanation for this NZ daylight thing, I’m still going to believe it’s a spinning ball in a vast vacuum of space.” 😉
That’s your prerogative, of course. As for me, there are already so MANY falsifications of the model, and I’ve been privileged to play a role in a few of them. I personally filmed lasers and mirrors from 18 miles away – when they would be under 155 feet of curvature if we lived on the ball they tell us. And I personally figured out that if selenelion eclipses (when sun and eclipsed moon are both in view at the same time) have to be explained by the unsubstantiated claim that we’re seeing the moon in it’s refracted position instead of it’s actual position, then the same must apply for solar eclipses. And if it applies for solar eclipses, then two people on earth, 3000 miles away from each other, can both see a solar eclipse at the same time.
So the model is already refuted 100 times over – whether or not I currently have an explanation for daylight hours in NZ.
Cheers
Hi Mike,
If the sun can’t be seen from the middle of America
on over to the middle of Asia (in a flat Earth sun/cycle),
then it would look like the sun would move much faster
for NZ and only shine a few hours a day (even in summer)see image
So the model is already refuted 100 times over – whether or not I currently have an explanation for daylight hours in NZ.
Cheers
No explanation = wrong model
Ed: No explanation = wrong model
Surely you can’t be serious… can you? Here’s a list of 10 things physics can’t explain… https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/physics-questions/
Does an inability to explain these things mean our entire model of physics and how they work is wrong? Or better yet… does the fact that YOU can’t personally explain something about the heliocentric model mean that model is wrong? Don’t be silly.
And don’t get it twisted… I have no control over your worldview anyway, and therefore care very little what you believe. I’m only presenting hard evidence. You can accept it for what it is, or pretend that because some particular person can’t explain some particular thing about some particular model, the entire model is wrong. Btw… the only model I have is the one given in scripture.
Sun rays
Another debunk thanks to the background image on my Windows PC.
Flat Earthers like to follow the angles of sun rays in order to locate the position of the sun and according to that logic, the sun is not 93 million miles away but much much closer. I am not sure if I have discussed this one yet beyond the parallel lines of a railway track that appear to converge in the distance, but here is a pic that shows how fickle following these lines really is. As you can see, moisture does magic things to light that would otherwise travel in straight lines.
As you can see, the sun must be no more than 100 feet above sea level. But I am willing to place a bet with you Mike that it much further away than that. What do you say, a $100 bet? Let’s se how confident you are in your own logic. I say the sun is more than 100 feet above sea level and you say by your own logic that it is below that.
I might as well cut to the chase as you won’t be willing to part with $100 and say, another debunk meaning another win for Team Globe.
What hasn’t been debunked yet? Or what is the main point left that hasn’t been debunked?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
