- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Why are constellations rotated differently to observers at the same latitude but on three different continents in the southern hemisphere within a single 24 hour period?
Dig?
Mike?
Game, set, match?
A plausible explanation was already given to you. Since you cannot remember or comprehend it that is not our problem.
Now where is the curve? GAME OVER!
The Theory of Everything
What if the earth was a 3D triangle. That would explain the flat ground and also the ability to circumnavigate and see different star rotations.
Something to consider.
A dome inside a dome
Wow, you guys go on about how bad refraction is, and then you give us the dome inside the dome perspective. Let’s look at this objectively instead.
See those 3 guys below? They should see the same stars in the same rotation if they are all on the same latitude and looking south. But reality differs to this proposition, so either reality is wrong or the flat earth is wrong. Which is it? Must be flat earth right?
I will repeat this in a different way in case you cannot grasp it. I can see the Southern Cross here in the NZ night sky. How come each of these 3 hypothetical persons can see it too, but rotated differently within a 24 hour period.
Again, look at the diagram and imagine the dome spinning the fixed stars toward the edge of the disk. Why would the Southern Cross be rotated differently for each of these observers looking in the direction you see pictured?
I’m still waiting for this answer. Are you stumped?
Your videos do not prove a flat earth. They mostly attempt to fault the globe earth. But then you are corrected meaning you have zero proof of the flat earth. Your next move is to argue something else as to why the globe earth is wrong and the pattern repeats. Never are we shown the actual model for the flat earth that explains all observations. Only the heliocentric globe earth model can do that.
But let’s imagine for a sec that the earth was flat and flatties just didn’t have enough science to explain it into a seamless theory. Then why would the globe model if wrong explain everything? What would be the chances that a lie explained the truth 100%?
This is getting serious now. Someone just died over this.
Mike,
I will wait for Dazza or someone else to debunk this latest video from you and I will post the debunk video as my rebuttal.
Electron rocket launch from New Zealand (1/30/2020)
More proof that the Earth is a globe and the Southern Hemisphere is not what you guys pretend it is.
Still waiting for Team Flat’s video of the disc.
Listed below are several posts that debunk flat Earth claims made by Mike Boll on his YouTube channel…
- You know you are over the target when people not only make debunk videos about you, but dedicate a website to it.
- Seven of the eight videos listed concern one topic, where I and my friend Rich spent hours filming the moon one night, and were convinced that the moon did a rapid counter-clockwise rotation. But the rotation on his camera did not match the degree of rotation on mine, and so there is evidence that user error (camera movement) may have occurred. Since I am not a liar or an intentional deceiver, I no longer claim that the moon rapidly rotated, and I have removed all my videos associated with that claim because the evidence stands against it.
- The eighth “debunk” video on the list has already been thoroughly debunked by me in a follow-up video that I’ve already posted here on HN. I originally uploaded it to YouTube, but then Dazza, the “debunker”, contacted the owner of the balloon footage I used and told him I was using his footage to promote flat earth. The owner then filed a copyright claim against me, and YouTube removed both the original, and my video debunking of Dazza’s “debunk” video. My original video used a SINGLE STILL SHOT of the owner’s footage, which clearly and undeniably falls under the Fair Use Act. My second “Dazza debunked” video used a still shot and 7 seconds of live footage – again clearly and undeniably acceptable under Fair Use. I appealed to YouTube multiple times, but because they are already censoring flat earth videos and their creators, my appeal – though lawful – fell on deaf ears. Dazza even appealed multiple times on my behalf, and YouTube ignored him also. So I uploaded my “Dazza debunked” video to Vimeo, and posted the link here a couple of weeks ago for T8. Did he watch it? Will he? Probably not, so let me mention here just ONE of the many points I used to debunk Dazza’s rebuttal… https://youtu.be/U-f63VAwZpo?t=21 In this video, the most famous ball earther of all time says that Felix Baumgartner, who set the record for a high altitude parachute jump at 25 miles, would NOT have seen curvature, and explains that the curvature in the video footage of his jump was due to fish-eye camera lenses. The Little Piggy balloon footage that I used maxed out at 23 miles… so 2 miles LESS. So Dazza argues until he is blue in the face that the Little Piggy curvature is legit – while I argue that it is due to the wide angle Go-Pro camera lens. Neil DeGrasse Tyson agrees with ME – that even 2 miles HIGHER than the Little Piggy went, the horizon of the earth would be flat. And like I said, that was only one of 7 points I used in that video to debunk Dazza’s rebuttal video that is on the list of “Mike Boll Debunked” videos t8 posted. Unfortunately, thanks to Dazza ratting me out and YouTube’s policy on censoring anything to do with flat earth, only a few people got to see my debunk video.
- I notice a certain Mount Ruapehu video is absent from that list. Apparently, whoever made the list didn’t feel as strongly about Dazza’s “debunk” of that one as t8 and Dazza did.
- I currently have 95 videos on YouTube, including 15 recent ones concerning the angles to the sun and the moon, and how they don’t work in the heli model. Where are the “debunks” of those? Dazza hasn’t even made a comment on any of them. Interesting.
So I’ll go on making videos when I can, and globe proponents will keep on claiming to debunk them. And those with open minds will seriously consider the info provided in my vids, and the debunk vids, and come to their own conclusions. On the other hand, people with closed, indoctrinated minds will ignore any info in my vids, and just blindly accept whatever is said in the debunk videos – without even understanding it – because the latter tells them what their ears are already itching to hear.
Flat earthers have been taking long distance photos for years now… showing distant mountains like Ruapehu, distant cities like Chicago, and distant mirror flashes and lasers like the 18 mile ones that I captured, which would be absolutely impossible if we lived on a ball. But the globe proponents have continually claimed – without a single SHRED of evidence – that “refraction lift” raises distant objects and light sources up and around the curvature and places them perfectly on the horizon so that people on the other side of the curve can see them looking exactly as they would if the earth was flat. As if nature itself plays tricks to convince us that we live on a flat earth when in reality we live on a spinning water ball.
But many don’t realize there is another side to this story. Most have by now learned that if we lived on a ball with a circumference of 25,000 miles as we’re told, the undeniable mathematical formula for curvature would be 8 inches per mile squared. So at a distance of one mile, 8 inches of the distant object would be hidden behind the curve of the ball. At two miles, it would be 32 inches hidden. At three miles, 72 inches, or 6 feet would be hidden behind curve. And so on. But the other side of the story is the distance TO the horizon. By the same formula (as can be verified by any online curvature calculator), the horizon itself must follow the same mathematical rules. So if you Google “how far away is the horizon”, you’ll find all kinds of “globe sources” telling you that for an average person standing on a beach, the horizon is about 3 miles away from him/her. And this MUST be the case in the globe model, since at that distance, the curve of the ball IS the horizon that you can no longer see around. So any online curve calculator will not only tell you how much of a distant object should be hidden behind the curve… it will also tell you how far away the actual horizon would be at whatever eye/camera height you enter in. So if we can prove that the horizon itself is well beyond the maximum distance it could be based on the mathematics of a ball with a circumference of 25,000 miles, then the earth cannot possibly be a ball with a circumference of 25,000 miles.
The big difference with these observations is that the globe proponents no longer get to appeal to their completely unsubstantiated “refraction lift” claims that “loom” distant objects like Chicago and Ruapehu up and around the curve. My friend Ben is one of the first to make this realization, and here is his most recent example…
The video is only 3 minutes, but since many won’t even invest that short amount of time into learning truth, here are 3 screenshots that tell you all you need to know…
Okay, you all can check the figures in any online earth curve calculator you choose. If the camera height is 3 feet above the water, according to ball earth math, the horizon IS the physical curve of the earth and MUST BE 2.1 miles from the observer.
The distances to these platforms are well documented, and easy to verify for yourself.
So how can it be that the horizon is WELL BEYOND even the platform that is 9.4 miles away? Remember that the 2.1 mile horizon distance isn’t negotiable. On the globe earth, it isn’t some arbitrary figure that we can just pick and choose. It MUST BE 2.1 miles away, because that is the distance at which the curve of the earth would prohibit an observer with a height of 3 feet from seeing past. The earth itself would curve away from the observer at that distance. Yet you can see the horizon in both of these shots… well beyond the 2.1 mile MAXIMUM that it would HAVE TO BE if we lived on a ball with a circumference of 25,000 miles.
Only this time, “refraction lift” cannot save the globe proponents. Slam dunk. Game over. The earth is obviously, observably, and Biblically flat and stationary.
So Mike doubles down with videos arguing over a spec while ignoring all the planks. Lol.
Mike, God hands people over to delusion when they push hard enough for it. That is how much he respects your free will. Be careful what you wish for.
Here’s a video I watched recently. While I am not a fan of this guy, he does do a good job of debunking Flat Earth claims.
I would like you to debunk what he says, unfortunately for you, he has you stumped so you will need to ignore it and go back to arguing over specs and getting your math wrong.
Enjoy!
I declare victory to Team Globe.
Any other subjects you guys want to discuss?
#1 We do not all agree to that map.
#2 See answer #1
#3 Humans have had thousands of years to “observe” the paths of the stars. Predictions can therefore be made from observations only.
#4 Straw man argument. Atmospheric conditions do not allow unlimited viewing.
#5 This phenomenon has been explained and demonstrated. There is no need to accept his conclusion.
#6 He lacks the understanding and demonstrable evidence to make this conclusion. Again, this phenomenon has been explained and demonstrated.
#7 The math and degree of angles makes the globe model eclipses questionable. (See Mike’s videos)
#8 Pictures and videos have been taken from as high as civilians can go and in each case where a non fisheye lens was used the horizon appears flat as a pancake.
#9 Flight paths fit the FE model better than the spinning globe.
#10 Simply an appeal to authority. Many scientific experiments have been done and support something other than the globe model that is currently taught. (Unless he does not count NASA and the CIA as “scientific” then their disclosure of viewing the earth as FLAT and NON-ROTATING for their testing of flights for aircraft and rockets. This should be evidence that they believe it to be true; as evidenced by the last video that I posted.)Speaking of NASA and other top USA agencies as well as Russia’s equivalent to NASA, why do they all assume a flat non-rotating earth for their math to work? Why would they even entertain the concept of a flat earth for their equations if it wasn’t true? It certainly wouldn’t be to make the math easier. After all, we are talking about rocket science here and math is not a problem for them. So why?
Here’s another subject for you.
I think you’ll enjoy watching this and realizing that we couldn’t have been in space simply wrapped up like a kitchen leftover.
So now there are two topics for you to discuss, why use a flat non-rotating earth for scientific research and how could it be possible to survive in the vacuum of space in just 2 sheets of tinfoil?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
