- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Mike, all your arguments have been debunked.
So I think it is time to end this.
Your either regurgitating the same old debunked BS, or coming up with new hypothesis that are just plain stupid.
You lost buddy.
The cosmos testifies to the eternal nature of God
Glory to the Most High.
If you have any doubt as to how great God is, then look up.
Mike, the answer to your drone, BS, is that a drone fly’s by using a “barometer” that is in it, better known as a barometric altimeter, that has been set by manufactures at sea level. JUST LIKE AN AIRPLANE DOES. So it travels by barametric pressure you set it at, by your controller. So you can’t set it to fly in a “straight line” not even possible.
Mike, your , BS, has been again debuncked, now lets see if you can admit it, for a change?
Peace and love to you and yours Mike………gene
Compare the dark, dingy, illuminated part of the moon in the photo Pretender posted above with how bright the illuminated moon looks from earth…
Now apply the Inverse-Square Law of Light – which says that each time you halve the distance, the brightness is 4 times greater.
Said simply, the moon on its surface would be MILLIONS of times BRIGHTER than we see it in the sky from 238,000 miles away. Yet this astronaut was walking around on dingy gray dust? I truly wish you guys would simply THINK for even a second.
Surely you guys can at least understand the CONCEPT, right? If someone is shining a flashlight towards you from a mile away, can you read a book by its light? No? What if he moved a mile closer and shined the flashlight from a foot away? Now could you read your book?
That’s the Inverse-Square Law of light, fellas. The closer you are to the light source, the brighter the light will be.
And what you guys believe is that a light source that is almost blinding from 238,000 miles away from us would amount to a dingy, gray, non-bright surface if we travelled 238,000 miles closer to it and touched its surface.
Only an idiot would still believe such nonsense after it has been pointed out to him.
Also, if the “observable universe” was truly 93 billion light years across, and Satan’s Spider-Webb telescope hasn’t detected the waters above the heavens in all that distance, just imagine how far away the rain that fell on Noah came from when God opened the floodgates of heaven to flood the earth! 😎
Gene: Mike, the answer to your drone, BS, is that a drone fly’s by using a “barometer” that is in it, better known as a barometric altimeter, that has been set by manufactures at sea level. JUST LIKE AN AIRPLANE DOES. So it travels by barametric pressure you set it at, by your controller. So you can’t set it to fly in a “straight line” not even possible.
Gene, you are wrong – as usual. The drone retains its level by gyros, just like airplanes do. A gyro is rigid in space. That means if you start it spinning at ground level at any airport, it will retain that level for as long as it is spinning – no matter the inclination of the body of the plane that surrounds it.
So if the plane ascends at a 45º angle, the gyro within still remains horizontal with ground level at the airport. If the plane flies straight up at 90º, the gyro remains level with the ground of the airport. If you bank the plane hard left, to where you’re virtually sideways in the air, the gyro still remains perfectly level with the ground of the airport.
So to use Danny’s image from yesterday…
The plane leaves the airport at the top, the gyro is level with the ground of THAT airport. If the plane is pointing straight down, like at the right of the image, the gyro STILL stays level with the ground of the airport that it took off from. If the plane is pointing straight up, like at the left of the image, the gyro STILL stays level with the ground of the airport it took off from.
Now here’s the thing… the pilot ascends to cruising altitude, and then keeps the plane flying “straight and level” (a pilot’s terminology) until his destination. And “straight and level” will ALWAYS refer to the level of the airport he took off from. So in reality, a pilot leaving the airport at the top would fly straight and level right off into space if we truly lived on a ball – following the red dashed lines at the top right of the image.
So the only thing you are correct about is that the drone works by a 3-axis gyro just like an airplane does.
Secondly, if airplanes and drones automatically adjust their levels and headings due to barometric pressure, then how can they ascend at all? Is the pressure the same everywhere on earth… at all altitudes?
What if the plane or drone flew through a high pressure area? Would the controls automatically make the aircraft dive down lower, trying to find the exact barometric pressure it took off from? I sure hope a plane never hits a high pressure area right before it’s about to barely fly over the top of a mountain! Because the controls would dive the plane trying to find lower pressure and crash it right into the mountain!
Same with my drone if I take off from the side of a mountain. If I fly through a low pressure area, will my drone automatically gain more altitude until it reaches the same exact pressure from which it took off?
Nonsense!
Thirdly, the experiment involves me flying the drone very close to the water level for a max of 5 miles. If we live on a ball, at the end of the 5 miles the drone will be 16.7 feet higher above the water. Is there enough change in barometric pressure in 16 feet to force the drone down a mere 16 feet, where the pressure is significantly different?
I did the preliminary test yesterday at Tempe Town Lake. The lake itself doglegs, and so I could only go 2 miles before the drone was around the dogleg and blocked by bridges and buildings. I lost connection and the drone activated its “Auto Return To Home” function, and flew back to me. But I have the video of that 2 miles, and while I should have been 2.5 feet higher above the water at the end than at the beginning of the trip, I was the same height above the water as I was when I started the journey.
In fact, the drone has an obstacle avoidance system that won’t let you crash into things – including the ground. So I took off with the controller showing that I was 1.5 feet from an obstacle beneath me (the surface of the lake), and that same warning was there at the 2 mile point. That means I started at 1.5 feet above the water, and ended at 1.5 feet above the water. If we lived on a ball, after only 1 mile, I would have been more than 2 feet above the water, and at the 2 mile mark I would have been 4 feet above the water (no more proximity warning on the controller).
So it was a successful preliminary test, and I will develop the methods and equipment from there. I plan to find a body of water that’s about 5 miles from shore to shore. I’ll be on one side with my zoom camera, trying to keep the drone in view as long as I can. Another person will be on the other side with my other zoom camera, trying to record the entire flight. And if we live on a flat earth, my drone will arrive at Person 2 at 1.5 feet above the water, just like it was when it left me. If it’s a ball, the drone will arrive at Person 2 at a height of 18 feet above the water.
Gene: Mike, your , BS, has been again debuncked, now lets see if you can admit it, for a change?
This is really rich coming from you – the “man” who actually attempted to claim that water being ABOVE the thing the luminaries are IN doesn’t require that water to also therefore be ABOVE the luminaries that are IN the thing the water is ABOVE.
In other words, you were willing to intentionally lie and present yourself as an idiot who doesn’t understand the concepts of “in” and “above” just to avoid admitting that your cloud theory was debunked by the Bible itself.
And now this same “man” suggests that I need to admit something “for a change”? Too freaking rich. 😅😂
Pretender: There were people in Greece that knew better than him. That was BC way before Mike’s BS.
It’s so funny that it’s “Mike’s BS” – when EVERYONE in the ENTIRE world KNEW we lived on a flat plane with luminaries that moved over us like a giant sky clock until the early 1900’s… about the same time Charles Lyell began telling us the world was hundreds of millions of years old, Charles Darwin began telling us that we evolved from primordial swamp gasses, and Albert Einstein just up and did away with the aether because both Aries’ Failure and the Michelson-Morley experiments proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that we lived on a flat and stationary plane. Lorentz even came up with his infamous “Lorentz Contraction” theory because of Michelson-Morley.
What is the “Lorentz Contraction” you might ask? (Well, THINKING people would ask… not Pretender and Gene.) The experiment showed through a spinning table with mirrors and a laser that the earth doesn’t move, but the aether moves around us. So Lorentz suggested that the spinning of the table must have caused the steel arm of the apparatus to SHRINK during the experiment, thereby giving only the IMPRESSION that it was the aether, and not the earth, that was doing the moving.
Do you understand that? Einstein just up and ELIMINATED the aether that had been accepted as a staple of all science up until that point (and is still very much needed and used today), and Lorentz just up and postulated that spinning a table can cause a piece of metal to physically SHRINK – just to avoid the actual results of the experiment!
Yet you say that the world in general had already accepted and known that we lived on a spinning ball before Christ ever dwelt on earth? When Copernicus didn’t even present his model – the very BASIS for the current heliocentric model – until 500 years ago… 1500 years AFTER Christ?
Is that REALLY an argument that you want to make, Sparky? 🙄
Pretender: So why can’t the earth be a sphere too just as the other planets are.
Did you even know that the word “planet” comes from the Greek “planétés” – the word Jude used in 1:13 to describe the wandering stars?
Jude knew that these “wanderers” were STARS, Pretender. So much for everyone “knowing” about a spinning ball earth orbiting the sun in a vast universe of billions of other “suns” before Jesus came to earth, huh?
And how did you determine that these wandering stars are “spheres”? Here’s what they look like in actual telescopic photos from earth…
I’ve even got a lot of my own footage of them. This is what stars REALLY look like. They are flashing, twisting, gyrating lights in the sky.
Pretender: Mike,
Have you brought back the sun yet?
What is the speed (range) of the sun using the extreme shapes possible for the dome. You can use math,
You believe in flat earth, yet refuse to even tackle such questions.You are simply lying. I HAVE tackled those questions. And a person truly seeking truth would quote what I’ve already repeatedly said on those matters, and then try to debunk my answers with his own comments that are directly related to those answers.
You are clearly not such a person, Pretender.
Pretender: It proves you are not interested in finding out the truth and prefer to cling to lies rather than face reality.
Now you are simply projecting (the act of projecting the things YOU are doing onto someone else who ISN’T doing those things).
I’ve explained to you about why the “tilt” of the earth couldn’t possibly be the reason for the seasons… and you run away like a scared little girl.
I’ve explained how a pressurized atmosphere can’t possibly exist next to the most powerful vacuum every imagined by man… and you run away like a scared little girl.
I’ve PAINSTAKINGLY explained what the Bible actually teaches for a year… and you run away like a scared little girl.
I’ve offered to have in depth discussions on virtually every claim from every stupid meme you’ve copied and pasted here… and you run away like a scared little girl from all of them.
Just yesterday, I offered to have an in depth discussion on how we’ve come to “know” the distance to and size of the sun. Crickets from the scared little girl.
I requested your opinion on a drone experiment I’m proposing. Crickets from the scared little girl.
And even worse than running away like a scared little girl is when you TRY to debunk my arguments and expose yourself as a clown who believes that gravity only attracts to a certain point, and then repels – among your many other completely nonsensical beliefs.
And even worse than that is when I finally fight through all your diversions, avoidance, and nonsense and CORNER you with one of my points you’ve been running away from like a scared little girl – you have zero problem just flat out LYING!
Only an intentional LIAR would say that waters being above the very thing the luminaries are in doesn’t require those waters to also be above the luminaries that are IN the thing the waters are ABOVE!
Just think of all the ways you tried to AVOID the actual issue…
1. Maybe it doesn’t really say the waters are ABOVE the raqia! Um… yep, it does.
2. Maybe the raqia is the first heaven, which is the space between the sea and the clouds! Um… that would mean that the luminaries are also between the sea and the clouds, because they are IN the raqia.
3. Maybe there’s more than one raqia! Um… it’s is called THE raqia (always singular and always preceded by the definite article) all throughout the Bible, and many times even called THE raqia OF heaven.
4. And finally, in the most cowardly concession you could muster without actually coming out and conceding like a real man… Well maybe there ARE waters “above” the luminaries like the Bible says after all – but I won’t commit to any such thing unless James Webb and Scientism tells me it’s true, because I openly trust Scientism more than I trust God’s own words! Um… that would mean that the waters God flooded the earth with came through billions of light years of a huge vacuum to reach the tiny insignificant ball we live on. But thanks for the ONLY acknowledgement I ever wanted from you when I told you I’d bring you to your knees at the beginning of this thing.
You see, early on in this thread, you PROUDLY admitted that Scientism is more truthful than the Bible because it was written by ignorant goat herders who WEREN’T inspired by God, but who were just explaining things the way their ignorant minds understood them way back in the dark ages.
But then you started LYING and trying to pretend that you never said that, and that the Bible and Scientism don’t contradict each other on anything. So I had to painstakingly SHOW YOU how many things they DO contradict each other on – while you just kept playing games and presenting completely nonsensical theories out of thin air (Satan put Jesus in a spell so that he only thought he could see all the kingdoms of the world from a high mountain, the plural “six days” could somehow mean 6 periods of DIFFERING extremely long time periods, a “circle covered by a tent of stars” could be a sphere surrounded by a “spherical tent”, the sun and moon stopping in the middle of the sky to give Joshua MORE daylight could be a solar eclipse that made things DARK for a measly 3 minutes – even though the sun was in one place in the sky and the moon in another, etc).
So this debate has so far been a smashing success for me. Because not only have you already acknowledged at least three times that the writers of the Bible were WRONG (which is all I wanted), but I also got to expose you as a fool, a clown, a liar, and a scared little girl throughout the entire process.
Danny commented on this thread for the first time about 3 short months ago. His comment was to basically ask you just how stupid I must be to believe in a flat earth. Remember?
Berean jumped in about that same time.
And in the course of 3 short months, both of these people, who thoroughly believed what you do and should therefore have been on your side, have called YOU out for your deception and juvenile behavior.
They walked in thinking that you were some brilliant and respectable guy – and that I was some crazy loon who needed to have my head examined. And within 3 months they have both called YOU out – MULTIPLE TIMES – for your dishonest and very disrespectable behavior.
What does that tell you, Sport?
Pretender: Blood Moon happening now
I can see it now and it proves two things.The moon doesn’t produce its own light because the earth’s shadow is blocking most of the moon and eventually the whole moon.
The shadow of earth clearly shows curvature.
I love arguing for the truth because it so easy and you always win.And how exactly does it PROVE those two things, as you’ve claimed? Are there absolutely zero other possible reasons for the phenomenon? What other possibilities have you considered, tested, and falsified to the extent that your current theory (the earth is blocking light from the sun) remains the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation?
Clearly you don’t understand how science works – or that you’d have to be omniscient like God and know EVERYTHING in order to know that your current understanding of what’s happening during lunar eclipses is the ONLY POSSIBLE explanation for the phenomenon.
I’ve already told you that it doesn’t take a curved object to produce a curved shadow on a ball. The curve of the ball itself makes the shadow appear curved – even if the object causing the shadow is a straight edge.
Of course, you misunderstood what I was teaching you and assumed that I was agreeing that eclipses ARE caused by something making a shadow – when you and I have already talked at great length about this early on in the thread and you should therefore already KNOW that I don’t subscribe to that hypothesis.
I was merely educating you about shadows so you don’t keep repeating the erroneous claim that “only a curved object can make a curved shadow”.
That being said, what about selenelion eclipses – deemed by Scientism publications like Space.com themselves as “an IMPOSSIBLE eclipse”?
A selenelion is when both the moon and the sun are in the sky during a lunar eclipse. So if the sun and the moon are above the earth – how can the earth be causing the shadow on the moon?
Also, how about eclipses where the “shadow” moves from the top to the bottom? If the earth is causing the “shadow”, then it must start at the bottom of the moon and progress to the top – not the other way around.
I can talk for days about eclipses. I produced an entire series on the subject on my YouTube channel.
So again, this is a subject I’m WILLING to talk to you about in great length… but only an honest truth seeker would be willing to do that, right? And you’re simply not one of those, right?
Pretender: Mike, this cult could be what you are looking for?
I was already in the cult you are currently in. I didn’t take even a second to think for myself about so many things that are just plain obvious to me now. Really Mike? Planes are flying sideways and upside-down around a ball? Really Mike? We can somehow look from the ground and tell that some lights in the sky are giant fireballs that dwarf the sun, and others are balls of rock or gas? And we can tell that they are millions and billions and trillions of miles away from us? And we can tell that our little insignificant rock has actually been hurtling through space in four directions at once at many millions of miles per hour for 4.5 billion years – yet the same stars are in the same exact place in the sky, year after year, for thousands of years?
I was simply not thinking for myself – being led around by blind guides, and trying to make excuses for how the Bible could be so wrong about so many things – just like you today.
But then I left that cult. Now I’m a Biblical Earther and have come to realize through actual science, observations that anyone can do by themselves, and God-given common sense that the Bible was right about everything all along.
I’m still (very faintly) hopeful that you and Gene will get to that point some day. In the meantime, other people ARE considering the scriptures and the science and the common sense things I’ve presented, and have started to think for themselves too. They have either left, or are in the process of at least questioning the cult they grew up in – no fault of their own.
I can only lead thirsty horses to the water. Whether they drink or not is entirely up to them.
Pretender: 8K view of our star
Spherical and no evidence of uppity and downity.So why can’t the earth be a sphere too just as the other planets are.
Can you reason?
Lol. Join the dots.
Do you SERIOUSLY believe those artists’ illustrations are actual photographs? SERIOUSLY?
Can you reason? Lol. Join the dots.
Pretender: Radar is limited by the curve of the earth
Did you know: Because radar signals travel in straight lines, the distance from which a ships radar can detect another ship or boat is limited due to the curvature of the earth. Simple deduction tells you that the Earth is round.The part I bolded and underlined is 100% true. Unfortunately for you, there are dozens of examples all throughout history where the radar signals travel hundreds of miles farther than they could if we lived on a ball.
Would you like to see some examples and discuss the subject? Or would that be something only a real truth seeker would be interested in doing?
Let me know.
Danny: Yes, I just wanted to remind you that you already lost this debate.
And I wanted to tell Mike that I’m praying for him.Goodbye, Pretender.
Thanks Danny! It’s good to see that the much more accurate name I gave this clown is sticking. 😂
Pretender: Let me remind you that on the flat earth model, it is impossible for the earth to cast a shadow on the moon.
I don’t believe the patterns on the moon are a shadow at all. But hey… what happened to the curve of your ball earth in the top middle and top right images? 😁😂🤣
Berean: Dan.12
[1] And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.[2] And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
[3] And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
[4] But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.
…and knowledge shall be increased.
MeShould still SEE in what CONTEXT Daniel wrote these lyrics….
certainly not regarding scientific knowledge BUT RATHER “BIBLE PROPHECY KNOWLEDGE”….AND THAT IS A WHOLE ANOTHER STORY.Yes Berean, it is abundantly clear that it is spiritual and scriptural knowledge that will increase. It’s not talking about some day being able to see a plant cell under a microscope.
Pretender: I see. So the earth is still flat Berean?
Gene: Berean……Seems every time you open your mouth , you prove how actually nieve and ignorant you truly are.
What is wrong with you guys? You used a scripture out of context to make a (false) case that the Bible foretold that we’d learn more about science in the future. Berean then CORRECTED you by explaining that the scripture you were MISUSING didn’t have anything to do with science.
And then, instead of addressing what Berean was actually TEACHING you, both of you knuckleheads just skim over it and go right into personal attacks against Berean himself. Who does that?
I’ll tell you who… people who can’t stand and defend their arguments in a valid and righteous manner, and so they have no recourse but to attack the messenger.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” – Socrates
It’d be nice to see you guys at least TRY to address Berean’s actual point. Make your own case for why the scripture he quoted IS about scientific knowledge. Try to gird up your loins like a man and defend yourselves for once instead of immediately resorting to calling people names – thereby showing everyone that you CAN’T defend yourselves!
In short, you two should try behaving like MEN for a while. We’ve all already seen more than enough of your scared little mean-girl behavior.
That being said… let’s talk about verse 3 of the passage Berean quoted…
[3] And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.
What exactly does that angel mean when he says the wise will shine as the brightness of the firmament, and that those who lead others to righteousness will shine as the brightness of the stars?
Sounds to me like the firmament itself is bright, and the stars are even brighter. Does the angel mean that the wise will shine as bright as “the space between the sea and the clouds”? And why do you think the angel (who obviously knows the shape of our physical world) would say “THE raqia” – as if there is only ONE of them?
What are your thoughts on the matter, guys? Do you have any to offer? Or will you just ignore me and immediately resort to name calling as usual?
Pretender: Berean, the point is however, that knowledge has increased regardless of that scripture.
Walk me through it…
1. You say Moses used “raqia” because he knew it meant “expanse”, and therefore he knew all about the heliocentric model.
2. But then you say the 70 Hebrew Bible scholars who produced the LXX thousands of years later MISTAKENLY used the Greek word “stereoma” that refers to a solid object, because they were ignorant of the heliocentric model and thought the earth was flat.
3. And then you say that the phrase in Daniel applies to scientific knowledge about our world.
So did scientific knowledge INCREASE between “heliocentric Daniel” and the “flat earther LXX scholars”?
Are you able to consider – just for a second – that “raqia” DOES INDEED refer to a solid structure, and that’s exactly WHY the 70 Hebrew LXX scholars translated it with a Greek word that ALSO refers to a solid structure?
Or will you stick with your “Moses and Daniel were smart, but then the LXX scholars became stupid as knowledge INCREASED” argument? 🤔
Gene: Proclaimer…….I also believe in free speech, but i also believe in acountability of what a persons says and also holding him or her responsible for what they says . You can’t aford to let this site be the source of such stupidy, that it eventually effects the whole site in a negitive way brother
Pretender: Mike, all your arguments have been debunked.
So I think it is time to end this.
If somebody came to MY site spouting a bunch of unscriptural and untrue crap, I’d just put that sucker in his place. I’d hit him with Scripture A… BAM! Then a right across the jaw with Scripture B… WHAP! And then a good old one-two jab in the nose with Scriptures C and D… KNOCKOUT!
I would make it all out in the open and abundantly clear that anyone coming to spout nonsense on MY site better damn sure be prepared to stand and defend that nonsense, or get knocked out so hard that even newbies to the thread who aren’t even really interested in the subject matter would be calling that sucker a loser, a deceiver, a coward, etc.
Of course this is YOUR site, not mine. So you are free to continue on with your plan of…
1. Run and hide like a cowardly scared little girl.
2. Call lots of names when you can’t offer a valid rebuttal to the other guy.
3. Make up a bunch of completely illogical crap off the top of your head that nobody in their right mind would accept as rational.
4. Continually change the name of the thread to something you think is somehow insulting to the other guy.
5. Continually threaten to completely censor or ban the other guy so that he can’t keep demonstrating that he has truth on his side and is completely destroying you.
6. Post a bunch of copy-and-paste memes that you don’t even understand – and then loudly declare intellectual superiority and victory because you hit “copy” and then “paste”.
Of course, your way will likely end up with the newbies and casual readers who aren’t even interested in the topic calling YOU a loser, a deceiver, a coward, etc.
Oh wait… 🤣😎
Pretender: I want to cut all ties with him for sure and need to think of the best way to deal with this timewaster.
What is it with you and Gene and your incessant accusations that I’m wasting somebody’s time? Do you guys REALLY believe that me posting anything on any thread REQUIRES you to read it, let alone spend time responding to it?
People are simply having a discussion. If you’re not interested in this discussion, then don’t even click on this thread anymore. Nobody is forcing you to spend even one second of your time here, are they?
Look at all the completely BIZARRE things Carmel has been posting here for years. Are you REQUIRED to either respond to all of his posts or ban him?
What about the nonsense Gene has been posting about preexistence and free will for more than a decade here? Are you, Pretender, REQUIRED to either respond to all of those posts or ban him?
I had a nice little thread about the “Many Gods of the Bible” that served its purpose spectacularly. Were you REQUIRED to respond to my posts in that thread, Pretender? Because you didn’t, right?
How about the nice little chat I’ve got going with Jodi about preexistence right now? Or my ongoing discussion with Kathi about her “Yahweh Unity” doctrine? Are either of you REQUIRED to even read those threads – let alone spend any of your time responding to any of the posts therein?
Of course not. So then what is it about this thread that REQUIRES both of you to read or spend time responding to even a single post here?
That’s an honest question for which I’d love an honest answer from both of you. (Remember that any answer you give must logically also apply to those other people and those other threads – otherwise you’re a hypocrite.)
I look forward to an explanation from each of you as to how one single thread on this entire site is the only one that REQUIRES you to “waste your time”. Thanks.
(Btw Pretender, I DID cut ties with you completely for 2 years after this thread exposed you as the deceiver and prideful idiot that you are 4 years ago. Remember? Now if only I could reveal the SECRET of how I did that. Oh that’s right, I just ignored you for 2 years and didn’t respond to a single thing you said. So I don’t really think it should take an intelligent man lot of time to figure out how he could “cut all ties with a timewaster” on a forum. Just do what I did to you if that’s what you really want.
Of course that’s NOT what you really want, is it? You don’t want to cut ties with me. You want me SILENCED altogether so I can no longer expose you as the fool you are, and your unbiblical worldview as the lie it is, right?
I think God would appreciate you being HONEST about what it is you really want.)
I don’t believe the patterns on the moon are a shadow at all. But hey… what happened to the curve of your ball earth in the top middle and top right images?
Silly man. It looks flat to you because your eye is comparing it to the curve of the moon. Rest assured, if the bottom of the moon was a square instead of a crescent, then you would see curvature. There is little difference between the 2nd and 6th frames, just inversion, a change of angle, and the 2nd show shot having a blurring between light and shadow compared with the 6th shot.
It’s funny how you guys do not understand curvature on big objects though. It looks flat so it is flat is not how you do science.
You really need to find a better mission in life than spreading this foolish conspiracy theory. Of course, you are free to say what you want, but for the website’s sake, it is better to have quality posts than rubbish bottom of the barrel stupidity. Further, I think you have had all the time in the world to convince us that the world is flat. You only succeeded in convincing low IQ people who are not that honest. An honest low IQ person would be wise enough to avoid your snake oil spiel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
