- This topic has 6,416 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 2 days ago by
.
- Posts
Cool. I look forward to it. It’s a video of you bringing the sun back right? After it has fully set. Should be able to do it if the earth is flat. And livestreams are best because you cannot photoshop it. It would be proof to all that the video is not doctored. Let the truth be known.
They shut down my thread on the BioLogos website last week. It went like this…
Good job.
While this site allows your nonsense, it doesn’t mean that you can go there and ruin their reputation.
This site allows your nonsense because it is here to find the truth and expose the lies.
Whereas, that website probably has a different mission.
Judging by the name, it is probably too good to cater for the likes of Flat Earth.
I mean come on Mike.
Imagine watching a serious science programme and then them discussing Flat Earth in a serious manner.
Proclaimer: Genesis 1:7 is simply telling us that God created this space between the waters on the surface of the earth and the waters up in the heavens which are thought to be the clouds.
Gene: Mike……only an idiot would not know that the waters of this earth are indeed seperated from the waters (clouds) of the sky.
There were waters called “the deep”. God created the raqia to DIVIDE/SEPARATE those waters into two different portions. The raqia divided the waters BELOW the raqia from the waters… now listen very closely… ABOVE the raqia.
There are no “waters” IN the raqia. There are only waters BELOW it… and ABOVE it.
God later created the sun, moon, and stars and placed them IN the raqia.
So let’s recap…
1. The sun, moon and stars are INSIDE the raqia.
2. The waters (“the deep”) were divided into two parts – one of which is now BELOW the raqia where the sun, moon and stars are – and the other of which is now ABOVE the raqia where the sun, moon, and stars are.
So what is IN the raqia? Sun, moon, and stars. What is NOT in the raqia? Waters.
The waters are divided into two parts BY the raqia, with one part of the waters BELOW it, and the other part of the waters ABOVE it.
Since clouds are clearly not ABOVE the raqia, IN which the sun, moon, and stars run their circuits, clouds cannot possibly be the waters ABOVE the raqia.
I fail to see what’s so hard about this, guys. Luminaries are IN the raqia, and waters are both above and below it – but not IN it.
Please acknowledge that your cloud theory has been debunked by the Bible so we can move on. Thanks.
There are no “waters” IN the raqia. There are only waters BELOW it… and ABOVE it.
God later created the sun, moon, and stars and placed them IN the raqia.
Mike raqia / sky / heavens can explain the realm where birds fly, the place of celestial objects and the dwelling place of God. Context will help determine which one.
I think of the word sky. If I look up to God, I might look up into the sky. I look up into the sky when a bird flies above. Same word but big difference in context.
Try to think of raqia as that which is above. It is not a precise altitude.
God’s dwelling place is not exactly where the birds fly. As for being exact or scientific, think of Paul who was caught up into the third heaven. Maybe he had an understanding that raqia / sky / heaven had three layers or realms.
I hope this helps sort out the confusion for you.
Mike…….You keep getting dumber and dumber, well did Jesus say, “the last state of that man is worse then the first”. Keep playing around with stupidity, the more stupid you become Mike. When i think of the “weak” minded people, who buy into all these conspiercy theories out there, it really saddens me Mike, to think how far off from “reality” peoples minds can get. Sad!
I did not say the above to try to put you down Mike, fact is i actually like and care about you.
Peace and love to you and yours………gene
Proclaimer: Mike raqia / sky / heavens can explain the realm where birds fly, the place of celestial objects and the dwelling place of God… Try to think of raqia as that which is above. It is not a precise altitude.
Okay. Now what are the waters ABOVE the raqia? However you want to describe the raqia, there are waters BELOW it, and also waters ABOVE it.
So if you want to call it “sky” – then what are the waters ABOVE (not IN) the sky?
If you want to call it “expanse” – then what are the waters ABOVE (not IN) the expanse?
If you want to call it “firmament” – then what are the waters ABOVE (not IN) the firmament?
If you want to call it “heaven(s)” – then what are the waters ABOVE (not IN) the heaven(s)?
Psalm 148:4… Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
God placed the sun, moon, and stars IN the raqia, which He named “heaven”.
I’m asking you and Gene what are the waters ABOVE the heavens, ie: ABOVE the sun, moon, and stars.
We know they can’t be clouds. So what are they? Where are they?
Gene: Mike…….You keep getting dumber and dumber… Keep playing around with stupidity, the more stupid you become Mike.
Gene, all you have been offering here are insults that say much more about you than me. Instead of just continually calling me dumb and stupid, why don’t you just tell me what THE BIBLE means when it says there are waters ABOVE the place where the sun, moon, and stars were set?
PSALM 148:4… PRAISE HIM, YOU HIGHEST HEAVENS, AND YOU WATERS ABOVE THE HEAVENS!
Gene, what are these waters ABOVE the heavens? Thanks.
Proclaimer: Would a donut earth work for you dabbs?
Hey, maybe you’re onto something! Remember how I showed you last week that we must live on a cylinder, since the ships disappear over the curve after a few miles straight ahead of us, but the same person can look left to right for hundreds of miles and the horizon is nothing but a straight line? Maybe earth IS a donut! That would explain my guy (the X) seeing the ship disappear over the curve in front of him (red line), but also being unable to see even an inch of curvature when he scans the entire horizon left to right (green line).
In short, a donut actually fits the observational data much better than a ball does. Well done, Proclaimer. I’ll give Donut Earth a closer look. 😉
Beginning of my presentation…
Proclaimer: Below is a video of a boat that is completely invisible, unlike this sun. But I argue that it was brought back because it was never over the curve to begin with.
If the boat was never over the curve to begin with, then why was it hidden completely out of sight? What you’ve unwittingly done is proclaim that objects can disappear from view WITHOUT requiring them to be going over a curve. And they ALWAYS disappear from the bottom up… even when there is no curve. Here are a couple of photos from a test I did with my Dad and his golf cart over 4 years ago…
My Dad was less than 100 yards away from me on a perfectly flat road. But look at the tires of the cart. And notice how the cart itself seems to be floating above the road. This is what looking through air for a long distance does. All of us have seen this effect happening to cars on a highway. The road turns to “water” and the car starts disappearing into that water from the bottom up.
These are the bushes that were behind Dad’s cart. Notice the “ghost haze” that blocks the bottom of the bushes. The bushes are not actually behind any tangible barrier that is prohibiting me from seeing the bottom of them. It’s just that the atmosphere is thick and full of moisture, and is creating a mirage of “ghost haze” that blocks the bottom of the bushes.
Now imagine what this would look like if the bushes were a boat at sea, and the “ghost haze” was the color of the sky and the water. Instead of this grayish-white ghost haze, there would be a blue ghost haze. And that would make the “boat-bushes” appear as if they were disappearing from the bottom up into the sea. And if someone’s mind was indoctrinated from youth to “see” a certain thing they are expecting to see (a la Shatner expecting to see a curve), then that person would see this same effect as the boat-bushes going over a curve from the bottom up.
(Link to the 2.5 minute video… https://youtu.be/1d1ajNmfy_w )
Okay, so moving on…
The top image is a superior mirage – when a mirror image of an object appears upside down above the actual object. The golf cart image in the previous post showed an inferior mirage – when a mirror image of the tires appeared upside down below the actual tires.
The bottom image in this meme is the Chicago skyline taken from 55 miles away. On a ball earth, the very tippy top of the tallest building in Chicago would be over 200 feet below the curve of the earth, meaning we wouldn’t be able to see ANY of Chicago. But there it is in the photo, right?
And this photo was causing so much controversy that a meteorologist even went on live TV to explain that, “What you’re seeing here is a mirage.” Here is a 58 second clip of that broadcast…
Watch the entire thing. You see the guy claiming that Chicago is actually “beyond the horizon” and you could only see it “from much higher, up in space”. So there’s no question that on a ball earth, you could NOT see Chicago from Grand Mere State Park in Michigan. But is it a mirage of Chicago like he says?
Well, look at the upper image of the boat again. A superior mirage is an upside down mirror image of the actual object – not a right side up copy of the object.
Now notice the graphic behind the meteorologist while he’s talking. It shows the curved ball earth with the real Chicago behind the curve, and then not just one mirage, but a BUNCH of them on top of each other. What?
He knows that a simple superior mirage would not show Chicago right side up. So the graphic is suggesting that there was an upside down mirage of Chicago, and then that mirage miraged again to a right side up version, which miraged again to an upside down version, which then miraged another time to provide the right side up version that the photo showed.
Why so many mirages miraging? Because superior mirages are not thousands of feet above the object itself. And based on a ball earth, the Chicago we are seeing in the photo could STILL not be seen even with a single mirage of the original upside down superior mirage. That mirage of the mirage would STILL be behind the curve of the ball. And so to retain the ball earth, they had to pretend that Chicago miraged, then the mirage miraged, then the second mirage miraged, and finally the third mirage also miraged.
And after all of that miraging, Chicago ended up perfectly on the horizon – with absolutely no distortion like you see in the golf cart tires, the “boat-bushes”, or the actual superior mirage of the ship above.
1. In order to see a mirage at all, you must also have line of site to the actual object.
2. A mirage does not mirage again – let alone 4 different times!
3. A mirage is always distorted, and is right above or below the actual object – as this next image of Chicago, taken on a less clear day by the same photographer – shows…
Nowicki even took a time lapse of Chicago where you can see the mirage above Chicago distorting and floating in and out of view…
I have my video queued to the spot, and you need only watch for about 30 seconds…
So the only question is whether or not you are gullible enough to believe that a superior mirage of Chicago can mirage again, then again, then again to present a perfect, undistorted image of Chicago on the horizon. If you believe that, you are indeed very gullible. If you don’t, then Nowicki’s famous Chicago photo is undeniable proof that we don’t live on a ball.
But Nowicki’s photo was only the beginning. In the seven years since then, flat earthers have taken THOUSANDS of images that undeniably show objects that would be many thousands of feet, and even many MILES behind the curve if we lived on a ball. And the response is always the same: “What you’re seeing here is a mirage.”
But don’t worry, then came the “Black Swan”…
Before getting to the “Black Swan”, I wanted to show just one more undeniable proof that the earth can’t possibly be a ball…
There is a mountain off the coast of France called Canigou. Most of the year, you cannot see it from France. But twice a year, when the sun sets directly behind it, thousands come to take photos and videos of Canigou silhouetted by the sun. Canigou’s highest peak is 9136 feet above sea level…
If we lived on a ball, the highest tip of Canigou would be hidden behind 1161 feet of earth curvature…
And refractions (aside from being upside down) don’t form silhouettes. The sun would blow right through a refraction. Whereas you can clearly see from the image that the sun is being blocked by a SOLID object, ie: Canigou itself. And not just the tippy top of Canigou, but by a majority of it!
So people with eyes to see film the sun setting over Canigou and say…
(Link to my video… https://youtu.be/avmWv2m_FK8 )
Oh, I forgot this important point about that Chicago skyline…
Do you see that grayish-white line between Chicago and Lake Michigan? Yep… it’s the same grayish-white ghost haze you can see blocking the bottom of my boat-bushes in that golf cart photo. And just like the ghost haze didn’t mean the boat-bushes were disappearing over a curve, neither does the ghost haze in this photo mean that Chicago is partly behind a curve.
In the ball earth theory, the horizon is a defined and tangible line where the earth starts curving away from you so that you cannot see the ground beyond the point of the curve anymore. In reality, the horizon is a matter of perspective, visual acuity, and the haziness of our atmosphere. The horizon is the the point at anyone’s eye level where the earth and sky meet. And when you’re horizon is a long ways away, you’re looking through layer after layer of atmospheric dust, moisture and haze.
Think of it like looking through a pane of glass. You can see beyond the glass really well. But now add another pane. And another. And another. And thousands of more of them to where you’re looking through 5000 panes of glass. Now you’re not going to see what’s on the other side of them very well at all, are you?
That’s the effect of looking at the distant horizon. We’re not just looking through one “pane” of dust and haze – but through MILES AND MILES of “panes” of dust and haze. There is a point when the compounded “panes” of dust, moisture and haze will simply no longer allow you to see anything through them.
In the ball earth theory, where the horizon is a tangible line beyond which you can’t see, the horizon would drop lower and lower below you as you gained altitude. But in reality, the horizon is always at our eye level, as these images show…
Notice how, at the very height of the Red Bull “space jump”, the horizon is at eye level from inside the capsule. Of course the cameras outside the capsule have very wide angle lenses, and so make a small portion of the state of New Mexico look like it’s a ball. But on a ball earth, the horizon would not rise up with the capsule as it gained altitude. It would get lower and lower as you rose. I’ll find a video to show that better, and post it later.
Don’t worry, Proclaimer… I’m getting to your sun argument. But I need to take a break and do some things right now. I’ll continue the presentation later today or tomorrow.
I scanned your latest ramblings only to find that you haven’t brought back the sun. I thought the video titled ‘Challenge Accepted’ was it. When viewed, it turned out to be the same old BS you peddled here at the beginning of this topic. So no proof and no repentance either. Dissapointing Mike.
In light of that I decided to answer one question and this was the first one that I noticed.
If the boat was never over the curve to begin with, then why was it hidden completely out of sight? What you’ve unwittingly done is proclaim that objects can disappear from view WITHOUT requiring them to be going over a curve.
Obviously a small object will dissappear if it is far enough away. If a marble is moved away from you, it will dissappear before going over the curve. Obviously you agree. So that means other small but bigger objects will be the same.
As for these boats you see in flerfer videos however, I have noticed they make them dissappear in wide angle lens mode meaning that they could still be visible to the human eye.
But I guess there are boats small enough to dissappear regardless. It’s no big deal Mike. It’s reality. Accept that things can dissappear without going over the curve due to size. Of course this won’t ever be the case for the sun, so please focus on that.
DEBUNK STATUS: Debunked.
DEBUNK DIFFICULTY: Easy.
I’ll question you about various points in my presentation when I’m done with it. Right now I’m just waiting to hear what the waters ABOVE the raqia (ie: ABOVE the place God set the sun, moon and stars) are. What are these waters ABOVE the sun, moon and stars, Proclaimer?
What you’ve unwittingly done is proclaim that objects can disappear from view WITHOUT requiring them to be going over a curve.
Nice takedown of yourself Mike. What you’ve unwittingly done is debunk yourself. Lol Do you not believe that the sun dissapears WITHOUT going over the curve?
Lol.
#BRINGBACKTHESUN
I’ll question you about various points in my presentation when I’m done with it.
Anything but bringing back the sun aye Mike. Lol.
I’ll continue my presentation tomorrow. In the meantime …
Proclaimer, what are the waters above the place where God set the sun, moon and stars?
Flat Earth Paganism
The Bible does not teach that the Earth is flat. The Bible says that the Sun rises and goes down, not round in a big circle under a dome. There is no dome. The firmament is the open expanse of heaven wherein birds fly according to Gen.1:20. No dome, no flat Earth just a beautiful, glorious globe, the way God made it according to the laws of physics which He set forth when He founded the universe.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
