- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
T8: “Why do you do it then with regard to sunset and sunrise. In both models the sun doesn’t literally rise and set. Both models explain it as perspective from the viewer. A little common sense goes a long way.”
And this is a point in your favor, how?
T8: During a Blood Moon, if you were standing in the right place, you would see the Earth’s shadow cast fully on the moon right giving that reddish glow. And if you were close to that location but perhaps north or south of the exact location, then you would see a partial shadow right and by extension of that, part of the light would shine through. Good so far? So what happens if you move exactly opposite to that non exact position that showed the light coming through. Reason would suggest the light would be on the opposite part of the moon.
The light can only be on the part the sun is hitting, so you couldn’t go to the opposite side (where the sun isn’t hitting) and see any lit up part at all. I’m trying to get my head around what you’re saying. Imagine this shaded light bulb is the moon, with the lit part down, and the eclipsed part up…
Even if the sun could light the entire bottom hemisphere of the moon at one time, why would looking at it from another perspective change it to the top being lit and the bottom shaded?It’s over guys!
Another scientific experiment. Over a mile of alleged curvature (that is seen on the plane earth) and 4,454′ with refraction! And if you watch to the end he has a comment about that too.
Mike, I’ve heard you ask for an explanation of the eclipse of the moon from the top down a number of times. Have you gotten an explanation yet? Or even a guess?
All I can say is that it doesn’t seem remotely possible on a globe. Anyone?
T8: I haven’t got time to analyse this, but here is someone who took the time to do it.
You do realize that none of the images your source used are the Nowicki skyline image, right? Before over-analyzing them, let’s first agree on one simple fact…
Not one bit of any of those actual (as opposed to refracted) buildings would be visible from 60 miles on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. Here is an ABC meteorologist explaining the Nowicki photo…
Quotes from the 57 second video:
- What you’re seeing here is a mirage…
- We typically would not be able to see this from the Lake Michigan shore…
- Chicago’s behind the horizon, we should not be able to see it…
So I’m not asking you right now to rule out a refraction mirage. I’m merely asking if we can agree with quote #3 above – that we should not be able to see Chicago from that distance, because it is behind the curved horizon.
Can you agree to at least that much?
Hi Dig4,
All over?
Not possible for you guys.
You are locked into a perpetual game whose only aim is to be irrefutable.
Not right but irrefutable.
vanity vanity..
Hey Nick, play along here. Can you agree with the “expert” that says “Chicago is behind the horizon, we should not be able to see it”?
Hey Nick, here’s another clue; if you don’t believe that it is a mirage then you don’t believe in a ball earth. Come to grips.
Even when we have a believer and a teacher of the biblical truths that has documented his evidence with a video of the entire voyage to prove that it is not a mirage you still don’t believe? Or even consider? That sounds more like an agenda than a quest for truth.
Nick, I know you like to come in an attack someone’s spiritual credibility without presenting any points of facts but this time you have to answer to the evidence. So which is it, your agenda or the facts?
D4T: Mike, I’ve heard you ask for an explanation of the eclipse of the moon from the top down a number of times. Have you gotten an explanation yet? Or even a guess?
All I can say is that it doesn’t seem remotely possible on a globe. Anyone?
T8 posited a theory yesterday – but I couldn’t really get a grasp on what he was saying. Kathi seems to have bailed. I think she saw my video and realized she was in over her head. I’m hoping that she’s been silent because my video got her researching flat earth, and she’s holding off until she investigates it a little more. But I think it’s more reasonable to assume that she’s like my Mom, who accepts that she can’t refute the evidence, but point blank said she doesn’t want to live in a world where everything she’s believed is a lie, and therefore would just rather not know about it. 🙂 I guess Mom’s in the long line…
Anyway, I asked T8 for clarity, and we’ll see what he comes back with. In the meantime, I’m trying to get some agreement on the Chicago photo – just so we all have a jumping off point to go into the refraction/mirage part of it.
Hey, that Isle of Man video is a great one. I watched it a while back, and you’re right… there’s just no getting around the fact that we can see much, MUCH farther than we would be able to if the earth was a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. We can see over a MILE more than we’re supposed to… and that’s with adding Meta Bunk’s ludicrous “standard” refraction figures!
An image refracted around the sphere an entire mile, and it still looks like a normal mountain range? Amazing! It’s also amazing how that magical refraction keeps happening just when they need it to, in the exact amount they need it to, and in any weather conditions… even the ones where the light is supposed to be refracting down, like the Nowicki photo and the selenelion eclipses. 😀 Funny how we never see Chicago or a distant mountain range refracting way up above the horizon – so it looks like a distorted ghost image of itself floating in mid air. They only refract just enough to come over the ball and rest right on the horizon where they look exactly like we’re seeing the real thing. 🙂
I gotta tell you, D, I never in a million years would have expected such resistance and complete avoidance from this bunch… especially T8. I can’t get him to address the x versus y axis point that makes all his other “boats disappearing over the horizon” stuff null and void. He says he doesn’t have the time to do the math (that I already did step by step for him) on seeing a 737 from 369 miles above him. And there are other points we’ve both made that he either hasn’t seen, or has just ignored.
I hope he eventually slows down with his “this debunks everything the flat earthers say” videos, and starts to have a calm and honest discussion about the evidence we’ve been showing him. For me, all it took was a couple of photos to see that something was wrong. I didn’t buy in hook, line and sinker, but I was honest enough with myself to say, “You know, you guys are on to something here. We clearly shouldn’t be seeing those objects from that great a distance. Something’s a little fishy here, and I need to look a little closer into this.”
Of course, once I looked into it, and saw that the only explanation was “standard refraction” – that just happens to make everything appear as it would if it was the real thing being seen over a flat earth, there wasn’t much else to consider concerning those photos. And then I was off and running on pressurized systems existing adjacent to vacuums, gyros, eclipses, heat travelling 93 million miles through a vacuum, (when I own a vacuum sealed drink container for the sole reason that heat and cold can’t escape through it), the fact that no engineer factors in any curvature when building railroads or canals, the absurdity of believing we can see stars that are multiple quadrillions of miles away from us, the fact that the moon gives off cold light, the realization that the Bible has been a flat earth book all along, and hundreds of others that we haven’t even gotten to yet.
Anyway, I just listened to the audio version of “Kings Dethroned” today. It was written in 1922, and the author demonstrates clearly how the heliocentric model was put together in the first place, and the flawed experiments they did since that time to promote it. Give it a listen…
D4T: Hey Nick, play along here. Can you agree with the “expert” that says “Chicago is behind the horizon, we should not be able to see it”?
Yeah Nick. The entirety of your contributions in this thread have been snarky, condescending ad hominem attacks. Why not join in the actual discussion for once?
Ed: Hi Mike,
No …Corrupted perversions of God’s word mean NOTHING to me;
here’s what Micah 5:2 actually says:“But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose
goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” (Micah 5:2)Here is the gist of what the verse says:
The Spirit of Christ came From eternity to Bethlehem:
This prophecy is fulfilled in the following verse…“For unto you is born this day in the city of David
a Savior, which is Christ the Lord.” (Luke 2:11)Its as simple as that!
Hebrew doesn’t have a word for “eternity” or “everlasting”. Even the famous Psalm 90:2 says God is from “days of old” to “days of old”. This is how the AKJV translates the same word in Genesis 6:4…
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.
Surely the giants weren’t “from everlasting”, right? Anyway, I this isn’t the place for a “KJV Only” debate. I’ll just point out again that in Micah 5:2, Jehovah says all three of these things about the “one” of whom He is speaking…
- Will come forth from Bethlehem.
- Will rule Israel.
- Originated in the distant past.
All three things must apply to the same subject, because Jehovah applied all three of those things to the one He called “one” (or in your KJV version, “he”).
You can try to change what Jehovah Himself said, and pretend like He was applying a couple things to one subject, and another thing to a different subject, but it’ll all be for naught in the end, because Jehovah knew what He was doing when He applied all three things to only the one subject.
T8: “Why do you do it then with regard to sunset and sunrise. In both models the sun doesn’t literally rise and set. Both models explain it as perspective from the viewer. A little common sense goes a long way.”
And this is a point in your favor, how?
Because it refutes your point that our view of the sun circuit etc is wrong because we argue our model creates these observations based on perspective because your theory relies on perspective too.
Pointing out the obvious now. If we are wrong for doing this as you argue, then your model is wrong too for the same reason. Remember that God judges with the same measure you judge by.
So now that we both use perspective to explain our models, we can safely drop this point from the discussion.
How is this a win for the globe earth? Because you can’t use the perspective argument vs the literal argument anymore without being hypocritical. If you don’t get that after this post, then obviously you are not capable of having a fair discussion on this and that will demonstrate to us how you came to believe this Flat Earth thing in the first place. That is, it would paint your thought processes in a bad light.
T8: Flat Earthers have been debunking flight paths for some time.
What the flat earthers have done with success is show that flights like these really do exist…
… while flights like these do not…
Notice in the first one how the stopover makes perfect sense on the flat earth map, but no sense on the globe. It is the same for the second one, and yet these flights truly exist. The explanation is that they head that far north just to fill the seats on the plane. Really? By the time you took the 20 people to America or Dubai to pick up more passengers, you could have already had those 20 people in Australia using the same amount of fuel. 🙂
T8: Because it refutes your point that our view of the sun circuit etc is wrong because we argue our model creates these observations based on perspective because your theory relies on perspective too.
Does scripture actually say anywhere that the sun “sets” or “rises”? I haven’t done an exhaustive investigation, but I just checked the Hebrew and Greek on about 20 verses that are translated in English as “sunrise” or “sunset”, and the Hebrew and Greek words mean things like “pass”, “go in”, “east”, “sun”, “west”, etc. So I guess if you are the one trying to make a point out of this, you need to find a scripture where they explicitly and unequivocally say the sun “rises” or “sets”.
Nothing to see here folks
Flights like that Mike are two flights designed to fill each plane up with passengers. Not enough demand for direct flights obviously. Done flights like this many times. Lots of people disembark at the first stop and heaps of new people embark.
Further, try running some of these flights on a globe and they ain’t as bad.
I have flown from NZ to Colombia a couple of times. One time multiple stops through the US and Canada then down to South America. Definitely the long way, but nothing to do with a flat earth. Rather, each leg was cheap given all seats sold and these flights were simply combined into one ticket.
Supply and demand, not a flat earth.
Partial eclipses
Mike, I don’t know much about eclipses, but my point which may be naive was to say that at a certain location on a certain hour of a certain day, you can view a blood red moon. I saw one a few years back. So my idea was a simple one. If you moved north of the eclipse so that you viewed a partial eclipse, then how would that look? Then move south where you get a partial eclipse and what do you see? Is the light shining through exactly the same? I doubt it. Is the light shining over the top of the moon for one person and the bottom of the moon for the other? Maybe.
If not, then what exactly do both partial eclipses look like. Obviously they won’t be the same right?
“Satan is trying to get us to focus endless hours of our time on this smoke and mirrors, garbage, we have undeniable proof, ton of proof, that proves the earth is indeed round. ”
But Gene according to your theology Satan is only doing God’s will to show forth his righteousness correct? Don’t blame the devil! 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
