- This topic has 6,414 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 2 months, 1 week ago by
.
- Posts
Gotta run an errand Mike.
But quickly, when what we say is the Earth’s shadow cast on the moon, what is that curved shadow on the moon in the Flat Earth model?
Nick: Hi Dig4,
Just the last to say ok we accept you have a point of view but we are bored of your stuff and want you to go away?
Of course you do. Nobody likes having their ball taken away, Nick.
T8: “They look natural with some distortion. Not too dissimilar to looking at a boat on or slightly over the horizon to be honest. The duck is half cut off and the pencil or pen is a little fatter. If you couldn’t see the original, then you could easily think it was a pencil with that width and the bottom half of the duck looks pretty normal. If I was shown just that, I would have guessed it was a duck. And if it quacks like a duck then its a duck.”
Looking natural and looking distorted are two different things, and that was my point. Thanks for confirming it.
T8, PLEASE READ EVERY SINGLE WORD OF THIS POST!
T8: And before you say, ‘Refraction is a cop out’, I would like to say that refraction is real, you know it is real, and it has to do with moisture in the atmosphere.
Yes, nobody denies that refraction is a real thing, and that it is caused by moisture in the air. Keep that in mind the next time you think we should be able to see across the entire flat earth, because that moisture not only distorts light, but prohibits you from seeing unlimited distances. Consider the diffused Plexiglas on your shower door. With one pane, you can still make out shapes on the other side. But now add another pane, and the shapes are barely discernible. Add yet another, and you’ll barely be able to make out colors on the other side. Then keep adding more and more of them, and eventually you wouldn’t be able to see even a very bright spot light through them. That’s how our air works too. The more of it you’re looking through, the less you’ll be able to see the things on the other side.
T8: That is the variable you need to consider and it is a real variable. No one denies that variable except perhaps Flat Earthers when it is convenient.
This is what irritates me about you lately. I’ve already used my precious time to locate, paste, and queue the Skunk Bay Weather Service time lapse to show you exactly what refraction will do. I had the video queued to a specific point, and said you only needed to watch 45 seconds of it to get the point. And apparently me spending half an hour of my time to prepare the presentation wasn’t worth 45 seconds of your time to watch just that specific part. Because if you had watched just the 45 seconds I queued up for you, you would have likely made a comment about it then, and you sure as heck wouldn’t be bringing the subject up now as if we haven’t already discussed it at length… as if you are teaching us something we didn’t know.
That being said, you make the further irritating mistake of twisting the story around. See if you can follow along and understand this time, so we don’t have to keep going through the same crap over and over…
- Yes, refraction exists.
- Yes, it distorts distant objects.
- No, flat earthers don’t deny it exists.
- No, it has never been demonstrated to lift an object up over a curve and plant it in the view of an observer.
- No, there is nothing “standard” about it, so the curvature calculator site you went to that has an allowance for “standard refraction” is a scam – since there couldn’t possibly be any “standard” amount in any given circumstance. Claiming there is a “standard” amount of refraction that must be accounted for is like saying there is a “standard” pattern that smoke takes when leaving a camp fire.
So get it straight, T8… flat earthers don’t deny refraction “when it is convenient” – or ever. Rather, the ball earthers invoke refraction “when it is convenient”. Ie: if we see 1800 feet of Chicago, and the ball earth formula says we should only see 200 feet of it, the ball earthers invoke 1600 feet of refraction out of thin air. If we’re seeing 2.5 miles of a distant mountain, and the ball earth formula says we should only be seeing 1 mile of it, the globers invoke 1.5 miles of refraction out of thin air. And if we’re seeing a lunar eclipse when the sun and moon are both in the sky, the ball earthers invoke however much refraction they need to claim that the sun and moon are really behind the curved horizon, and we are just seeing their refracted images.
But I feel I must reiterate this part… there has never, in the history of man on earth, been a test to confirm that our atmosphere can lift a hidden object up over the curve and to the eye of a distant observer. Since you didn’t have 45 seconds to spend on the Skunk Bay video, here some images that will help you learn a very valuable lesson…
The light from three different boats is refracted so much in this image that it forms a superior mirage of each boat. Notice that aside from being very hazy and distorted, the refracted images are upside down mirror images of the real boats. There isn’t a boat that had disappeared over the horizon, and a refracted image of that boat is being cast back up over the horizon to the eye of the observer. No, all three original boats are also visible to the observer. This is the case in every instance of refraction. If you can’t see the real object, then you can’t see its refracted image either. So while the ball earthers tell you that we don’t need to see the real object in order to see its refracted image, that is a bald faced lie. We always see both the actual object and the refracted one. And the problem for the ball earthers is that we couldn’t possibly be seeing the actual object from that distance, because it is hidden behind the horizon. So they just up and claim that the actual object we are seeing is the refracted object. In other words, they lie “when it is convenient”, because to do otherwise would be to admit that we’re seeing thousands of actual objects we couldn’t possibly see on a ball earth. I truly hope this sinks in this time… because I’m getting tired of saying it, and irritated that I even have to keep saying the same things over and over.
Now, think of the hazy distorted refracted images of those upside down boats on top of the real boats. Does this image of Chicago look anything like that?
And I’ll do you even one better. Here is an actual image of a refracted Chicago…
Notice how the buildings in the air are upside down refracted images of the actual buildings below them. Notice that in order to see the refracted versions above, we must also be able to see the real buildings below them. Notice that on the ball earth model, it is impossible to see the real buildings that we clearly see below the refracted upside down ones. Yet there they are… for all to see with their own eyes. And finally, notice how this image of Chicago is completely different from the one above it. The only refraction going on in the top image is right at the water line, causing the water to appear higher than it truly is. The top image is simply the skyline of Chicago from 60 miles away – a complete impossibility if we truly lived on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference. And because it is impossible on a ball earth, the globers have no choice but to just up and claim that the entire thing is a refraction of the real Chicago that is hidden over the curvature. How much “standard refraction” is there? Well, just enough to place the refracted image on the waterline so that it appears to be a real image of Chicago taken on a flat earth, of course. Because that’s how much “standard refraction” there always is, T8… exactly the amount needed to prohibit the distant object from being the actual object, but still place it right side up exactly where it would be if we were seeing the real think on a flat earth.
And finally, think back to the Wiki info you posted about how the light will refract down when the surface is colder than the air. Well, I posted some scientific info after that saying how in the spring, the water in Lake Michigan is colder than the air above it. So even that works against the ballers’ claim that Chicago is being refracted up over the horizon.
Now, who is really playing with refraction “when it is convenient”? Not us, dude. So please get your story straight.
T8, PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS POST. PLEASE ASK ANY QUESTIONS OR MAKE COMMENTS CONCERNING IT, SO I WON’T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME INFORMATION YET AGAIN. THANK YOU.
It disproves the heliocentric model that says the earth is what causes the shadows on the moon by coming between the sun and the moon.
Or you do not understand the science. Pretty sure if what you said was true, this would have been discovered ages ago.
Yes. My explanation is that the moon is its own light. It doesn’t rely on the sun to illuminate it, nor the earth to cast shadows on it. Here’s why…
That doesn’t explain the curved shadow you see on the moon.
The top-down eclipses prove that it can’t be the earth causing the shadow, so those designs are likely not shadows at all – but built in light/dark patterns that change to mark times and seasons.
Not many people will take that explanation seriously. You even posted a video of the moon that clearly showed its craters. What were those, a previous civilisation’s attempt to send rockets into space and hitting the second light?
So the lunar eclipse is not the shadow of the Earth on the moon, rather the moon which is a light turning off or kind of dimming itself. Maybe rebooting the light.
Wow, Mike. That is a desperate answer. First off, you have no proof and secondly, it is probably the best answer you could come up with if you reject the earth casting a shadow. Wow, I can’t see the world going for that explanation.
But if the sun is 93 million miles away, and the moon only 238 thousand miles, there is no way the sun could wrap around my side of the moon and light the entirety of the part facing the earth.
In all your examples, you take for granted that there is no such thing as atmospheric refraction etc. So there is zero moisture in the atmosphere if we are to believe your examples. Do you understand that the sun’s light is not only going in a straight line, but is also being refracted sufficient to explain many such things which you think are impossible.
The light of the moon is clearly not reflected sunlight, since direct sunlight is hotter than the shade, but direct moonlight is up to 10 degrees colder than the shade.
The moonlight does not cause an object to get colder. It’s the object in the shade that gets warmer. On a sunny winter’s day here in central NZ, it can get quite warm as the sun is quite hot given the clarity of the air and lack of ozone. At night though it gets real cold as warm air radiates back up. If there were clouds, it traps that heat and nights are noticeably warmer. Seeing the moon and the moon light clearly at night means there is a lack of clouds obscuring the view. I understand why you argue this point because the flat model makes it impossible for moonlight to be reflected sunlight, so you have to say it generates its own light and then you have to say that this light makes things colder, and then you have to say that eclipses are not shadows but just less light shining in the moon for that brief period. It all sounds a little primitive to me Mike.
Jehovah told us that He created two lights – the greater to govern the day, and the lesser to govern the night.
There you go being literal again and assuming that which is not written. Remember though, David under inspiration of the Holy Spirit said the sun rises, so you have to throw out the Flat Earth model now right?
It disproves the heliocentric model that says the earth is what causes the shadows on the moon by coming between the sun and the moon.
It disproves a Flat Earth. Further evidence that you need to throw away this stone age model of the universe.
I also took the cover image of the video myself… for a reason. If the sun is lighting the lower right part of the moon, and the moon is 238,000 miles up in the pitch black of outer space, then why can I see the unlit part of the moon from earth?
It is because light is not all direct. Refracted light, reflected light, etc can light up areas that are dark. They will be dimmer of course because refracted light is not as strong as direct light for obvious reasons. This is why we still see a brief period of daylight after the sun sets Mike. Refracted light still comes over the curve for a short time. Most of your arguments assume zero moisture in the atmosphere and zero refraction. If you include refraction, you then have a variable.
Science is not all bad Mike. Our conscience is science that we are born with. Science means ‘knowledge’ and Con means ‘with’. See that. We have science built in and that tells us it is wrong to kill. If you throw away science altogether, then you need to include your own conscience too. Yes in science there are false teachings. But the globe earth is not one of them and you have failed to prove it.
Hi Mike,
Wait.
Can anyone else see the Russian submarine in the shape of a horse lurking in the shallows of the beach?
Ths conspiracy stuff is real!
T8: “That is results ignoring refraction. So obviously, if the calculation is correct and the test genuine, then refraction is the answer. And before you say, ‘Refraction is a cop out’, I would like to say that refraction is real, you know it is real, and it has to do with moisture in the atmosphere. And what is that thing covering the earth surface in the video? Could it be abundant moisture I wonder. The video even showed distortion from moisture that changed within minutes. Obviously we are not looking at zero moisture. Look at the calculation I have posted here and read the first line. That is the variable you need to consider and it is a real variable. No one denies that variable except perhaps Flat Earthers when it is convenient.”
t8, do you see 8 to 12 feet of curvature in that video? Do you seriously think that there is 8 to 12 feet of refraction? Be honest.
Look at the video, does it look normal or distorted? Is the light being bent and distorted by 8 to 12 feet or is it a normal looking shoreline? Oh yes, you can even see the shoreline below the building! I could say that claiming refraction would be convenient but that would be kind of petty.
The variable of refraction
Yes, nobody denies that refraction is a real thing, and that it is caused by moisture in the air. Keep that in mind the next time you think we should be able to see across the entire flat earth, because that moisture not only distorts light, but prohibits you from seeing unlimited distances. Consider the diffused Plexiglas on your shower door. With one pane, you can still make out shapes on the other side. But now add another pane, and the shapes are barely discernible. Add yet another, and you’ll barely be able to make out colors on the other side. Then keep adding more and more of them, and eventually you wouldn’t be able to see even a very bright spot light through them. That’s how our air works too. The more of it you’re looking through, the less you’ll be able to see the things on the other side.
You vastly underestimate how far you can see. We see the stars in the firmament and while we hugely disagree as to their distances, even in your model it is probably some of the furthest objects. So at night, the sun has moved to the other side of the disk and is too distant to see, yet we can see these very lesser lights called stars quite clearly. Something doesn’t add up here Mike.
And you open this paragraph with “Yes, nobody denies that refraction is a real thing, and that it is caused by moisture in the air.” If that were true, then why do you show pictures of city skylines that are clearly missing the bottom section yet are visible when they are not supposed to be if there is zero refraction? Answer is refraction of course. This is why I say you deny it. If you accepted it or didn’t cherry pick when refraction can happen, then you have the answer, so no need to keep asking the question right?
This is what irritates me about you lately. I’ve already used my precious time to locate, paste, and queue the Skunk Bay Weather Service time lapse to show you exactly what refraction will do.
One example of refraction is not going to be the total explanation as to all it can do is it? Am I really suppose to believe that one video showing refraction is standard across all examples? Obviously it is a no brainer to consider that moisture percentage is never going to be exactly the same. The location of the viewer and the sun and moon is never going to be the same. And neither is the angle of light, the distance that we can see beyond the horizon, or the tide. This only shows me the picture more clearly. You watch a FE video and go, well that was more logical than I thought. So you watch another and say, hmm good points. Then you watch a third and say, it is possible. Then the fourth video increases the small convisction you have been fed by the previous videos and after multiple videos you think, well men have been wrong before about things. Most of the while, you are not looking at the other view and by the time others show videos or evidence that debunks these claims, you will hang on for dear life and wiggle out of it any way possible. In one example, you ask a question when you know the answer could be refraction. Or perhaps the answer is that the earth, moon, and sun are not always in the same plane. You never mention that and seem to give 2D projections only. Same with air routes. Always shown on a flat map that exaggerates distances of things because projecting a 3D globe on a 2D space is difficult.. I could go on, but I think you get the point by now.
No, it has never been demonstrated to lift an object up over a curve and plant it in the view of an observer.
You first have to believe in the Flat Earth and then when this phenomenon demonstrates the very thing you are talking about (objects being lifted or placed into view beyond the horizon), you just write it off as false because you believe the earth is flat. Not a scientific way to approach this Mike. It reminds me of the Dark Ages where a person who was accused of witchcraft was thrown into water. If they sank, they were innocent and if they floated, that indicated witchcraft. I have butted heads with others such as Trinitarians. They believe in the Trinity first and then extract the Trinity all over the Bible and even in nature.
And as for your cherry picked pictures, if genuine, they just show one example each. I notice you never show huge ocean liners going over the horizon just small boats this side of the horizon. For every picture you say proves a flat earth, I have access to thousands that show the Earth is a sphere. But then you will write all that off and expect me to believe that a dozen of so pictures explains everything at the expense of all other pictures that show otherwise. Try not to say that your cherry picked example explains everything and other examples that are contrary are wrong. No, why not just accept the obvious. No two examples are exactly the same, but the Globe Earth explains most of them easily and some of them while more difficult to explain can still be explained. Refraction nearly explains most of your questions I think and could even explain the eclipse video if that is a genuine video.
T8: Psalm 113:3
From the rising of the sun to its setting, the name of the Lord is to be praised!Strong’s Concordancemizrach: place of sunrise, the eastOriginal Word: מִזְרָח
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: mizrach
Phonetic Spelling: (miz-rawkh’)
Short Definition: eastDeuteronomy 3:27 …and north and south and east and see your eyes…Strong’s Exhaustive Concordanceby which came, as cometh, in coming, as men enter into, entering, entrance into
So the scripture you quoted really says… From the eastward position of the sun to its coming back in, the name of the Lord is to be praised!
You must have missed the point I was making. I wasn’t saying that English translations don’t use “sunrise” and “sunset”. I was saying I couldn’t find a case where the actual Hebrew or Greek words explicitly indicated a setting or rising of the sun. I hope you are able to find one, now that you’ve talked this trash to me…
Double standard & cherry picking shows weakness in argument
I further hope that if you don’t, you’ll apologize and openly admit your mistake. I say that because after Kathi thought she found a verse that says birds fly IN the firmament, five of you taunted me with “Ha Ha… now what, sucker?” posts. But when I showed that Kathi was mistaken, not a single one of you came back to apologize or acknowledge that – according to scripture and all ancient cultures – the firmament is a solid entity that separates the waters above from the waters below.
8 feet of refraction
t8, do you see 8 to 12 feet of curvature in that video? Do you seriously think that there is 8 to 12 feet of refraction? Be honest.
Of course it is possible that rer. We have a TV in our lounge that can be seen from the dining room table which is completely behind the TV and to the left. At night, a window reflects an image of the TV quite clearly so you can watch TV while eating a meal. And the sound is no problem because while the TV is completely hidden from ordinary view. sound is able to bounce off the wall and is heard clearly.
Light can reflect, bounce, refract, bend, skew, magnify, dim, and be absorbed. We see these kinds of effects all the time. We see white light turn into all the visible colours for example and refracted light could certainly show much more than 8 feet behind the horizon under the right conditions and often we are talking about rare conditions right?.
Physical vision is achieved when light enters our eyes and our brain makes sense of it and creates a picture. The eye doesn’t know if that light is refracted or what. It is up to the mind to determine that. If you have knowledge you may be aware that you are seeing an abnormal effect of some kind. Otherwise you just believe what you see. I saw Mount Ruapehu some 200 kms away. I believe it was Ruapehu and it was. I didn’t consider that it was actually beyond the horizon. When I look through a fish tank, I saw my younger son once. Of course he was on the other side of the tank. Not all is what it seems, but light does have lots of tricks up its sleeve. As long as you are aware of them, then you can determine what is going on. No benefit in pretending that light should always travel exactly in a straight line even though that is the norm.
So yes, light could possibly under some circumstances blow all our ideas about what can be visible. I remember reading of an extreme example where a supernova that was visible some years back. And it was the same supernova that was recorded some hundreds of years ago. The reason two time periods saw it was because some light traveled a more direct route while other light took a longer path. Given the huge distances involved, it amounted to a discrepancy of hundreds of years.
Surely you have heard that looking deep into the universe is looking back in time. But if you cannot accept modern science and discoveries about light and what it can do, then fine. You don’t have to believe it or understand the science behind it. You won’t be thrown into prison for your views right? But if you ask questions about light, the earth, and the moon, and stars, then I will answer them. If you don’t like the answers, then that is fine too. But I will answer them correctly to the best of my knowledge, so yes, I could see something with the aid of moisture refracting light some 6 feet below the horizon.
I don’t have a problem with science and the bible per se. Some of the greatest scientists were also great men of God. Faraday, Newton. Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Kelvin, Planck, etc. Of course there are also scientists I deeply disagree with. So, I don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater is what I am saying.
Sunrise and day meanings
You must have missed the point I was making. I wasn’t saying that English translations don’t use “sunrise” and “sunset”. I was saying I couldn’t find a case where the actual Hebrew or Greek words explicitly indicated a setting or rising of the sun. I hope you are able to find one, now that you’ve talked this trash to me…
Talking trash? lol.
You said:
Strong’s Concordancemizrach: place of sunrise, the eastI say:Psalm 113:3
From the rising of the sun to its setting, the name of the Lord is to be praised!Good, so place of the sunrise which is the east. That is the meaning it conveys. The east is where the sun rises. Or the sun rises in the east. No matter how you cut this, the sun rises. And it does. It rises from our perspective.Now we look at the word day the same word used in creation days.day, time, year
day (as opposed to night)
day (24 hour period)
as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
as a division of time
a working day, a day’s journey
days, lifetime (pl.)
time, period (general)
year
temporal references
today
yesterday
- tomorrow
Do you see where I am going with this. The sun rises in the east. But look at the creation day and all the possible meanings of ‘day’. It far outweighs the possible uses compared with sunrise. If we say one is literally a 24 hour day and the other just means east, then such a person is cherry picking the meaning that suits them at the time with no logical reason for doing so.
I never take such bias seriously and it stands out to me. And worse, while you say the creation is strictly 24 hours even though that word can mean ‘period of time’, you then say the sun is not rising or setting in that psalm. So you have to deny two meanings in one verse. The other word which you would assume means ‘west’ given your context doesn’t even mean ‘west’. This favours my argument as it means “to its setting” or “unto the going down”. Who is the sucker now? lol.
This is not the way to craft an argument to convince someone of something. It needs to be much better than that Mike. For now, I sit with the creation days being any period of time in God’s perspective, but that the creation event has 7 stages which are reflected in our week to remember this fact. And I hold this still because of research into the meaning of the word ‘day’. Here is a list of the way it is used in the NASB for example:
afternoon* (1), age (8), age* (1), all (1), always* (14), amount* (2), battle (1), birthday* (1), Chronicles* (38), completely* (1), continually* (14), course* (1), daily (22), daily the days (1), day (1115), day of the days (1), day that the period (1), day’s (6), day’s every day (1), daylight* (1), days (635), days on the day (1), days to day (1), days you shall daily (1), days ago (1), days’ (11), each (1), each day (4), entire (2), eternity (1), evening* (1), ever in your life* (1), every day (2), fate (1), first (5), forever* (11), forevermore* (1), full (5), full year (1), future* (1), holiday* (3), later* (2), length (1), life (12), life* (1), lifetime (2), lifetime* (1), live (1), long (2), long as i live (1), long* (11), midday* (1), now (5), older* (1), once (2), period (3), perpetually* (2), present (1), recently (1), reigns (1), ripe* (1), short-lived* (1), so long* (1), some time (1), survived* (2), time (45), time* (1), times* (2), today (172), today* (1), usual (1), very old* (1), when (10), when the days (1), whenever (1), while (3), whole (2), year (10), yearly (5), years (13), yesterday* (1).
Finally have a look at Malachi 4
1 “Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and the day that is coming will set them on fire,” says the Lord Almighty. “Not a root or a branch will be left to them.
2 But for you who revere my name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays. And you will go out and frolic like well-fed calves.
3 Then you will trample on the wicked; they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day when I act,” says the Lord Almighty.So the sun of righteousness will east with healing or rise with healing. Just accept that the sun rises from our perspective and the Flat Earth also accepts that the sun rises from that perspective. Neither the globe earth or the flat earth take the sun rising and setting literally as a truth from all perspectives. Effects have a cause and the bible is talking about the effect (the sun rises) and not the cause, which is the earth rotates as it orbits the sun. Simple as that.
Recap of discussed problems from above post
And remember, the morning and evening had no sun in your view for half or more of the week.
And what you would have as ‘west’ in sunset actually means ‘unto the going down’ which goes against the pattern of sunrise only meaning east in that verse.
Can you sort of see why we are not buying into your teaching on the Flat Earth?
Too many discrepancies and cherry picking of meanings. Just believe by watching lots of one sided videos.
It works like the Trinity. Start with the idea as the premise and extract it from scripture thereafter.
Reminds me of the Dark Ages. The so-called church persecuted all who didn’t believe in the geocentric flat earth, Trinity, and eternal hell.
I’m sorry Mike, but while we we were brothers in arms against the false doctrine of the Trinity in the past, I will always side with truth over any person (except Christ who is both). In this topic, I believe you are wrong. But also know that just because we disagree here and I may use strong language, that is no excuse to not consider each other as brothers and children of God because we believe in the fundamentals.
Birds flying in the firmanent
I further hope that if you don’t, you’ll apologize and openly admit your mistake. I say that because after Kathi thought she found a verse that says birds fly IN the firmament, five of you taunted me with “Ha Ha… now what, sucker?” posts. But when I showed that Kathi was mistaken, not a single one of you came back to apologize or acknowledge that – according to scripture and all ancient cultures – the firmament is a solid entity that separates the waters above from the waters below.
I remember when she quoted that and I said something along the lines of good work Kathi. I didn’t say what a sucker Mike is or anything similar. Secondly, I didn’t read anywhere that you disproved it. So I did a quick google which I am guessing is the verse that Kathi referred to. And you are saying it is not correct? I did read other translations and they talk about sky or the expanse of the heavens. So does this verse not mean firmament or what. I didn’t read your post where you supposedly debunked this.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
T8: “I don’t have a problem with science and the bible per se.”
That was a lengthy post but you did not answer my simple question; “..do you see 8 to 12 feet of curvature in that video?”.
Why not answer directly and honestly? Mike asked some crazy good questions and I will pick up on them as soon as I’m able to. But for now a simple answer would be appreciated.
Also, my quote of yours above brings up some interesting questions also. Hmm…
I shot this video of Mars last week from Tucson. I’m just doing a test to see how long of a clip I can insert into a post here.
[video width="1920" height="1080" mp4="https://heavennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/20-Second-Mars.mp4"][/video]
Doesn’t exactly look like the red planet NASA shows us, huh? Looks to me like just another star.
T8: “We have a TV in our lounge that can be seen from the dining room table which is completely behind the TV and to the left. At night, a window reflects an image of the TV quite clearly so you can watch TV while eating a meal.”
Can you tell that it is not the original tv screen? Does it look the same or different? If they were side by side could you tell them apart?
T8: “and often we are talking about rare conditions right?”
No, not really. As long as seeing conditions are ok, meaning that atmospheric conditions allow the distant object to be seen at all, then it will be visable every time. What is very telling is that a part of the bottom may be cut off by refraction at times and not at other times. This means that it is the refraction that limits the vision and not adds to it.
Under certain conditions which I would rare conditions because it is not the norm, an object can appear higher than normal but it is easy to tell that is the case because of the distortion or inversion.
So you honestly believe that you saw 8 to 12 feet of refraction in that video. Hmm.
By the way, the word for “rise” as in; “..the sun of righteousness will arise“, means to irradiate or shoot forth beams. Strongs: 2224.
D4T: That was a lengthy post but you did not answer my simple question; “..do you see 8 to 12 feet of curvature in that video?”.
Why not answer directly and honestly? Mike asked some crazy good questions and I will pick up on them as soon as I’m able to. But for now a simple answer would be appreciated.
Also, my quote of yours above brings up some interesting questions also. Hmm…
I see I’m going to have to take another tack here – for two reasons…
- T8 seems to be the only one even interested in discussing the world God created for us, and the centuries of deception that have indoctrinated the majority of the population. I appreciate that he is willing to even talk about it, and I have realized it’s not fair for us to pop into his world and start demanding explanations for this, that, and the other.
- I know he doesn’t have a lot of time to invest into this discussion – as is evident by all the posts we’ve made that he’s missed. So I’m going to slow my roll, and hit him with one point at a time… in the shortest possible posts I can manage. If he doesn’t see that point my way, there’s no sense beating him over the head with it. Instead, I’ll just move on to another point. Because I noticed during my brief discussion with Kathi that it really doesn’t matter to her that the earth was too small, in the wrong place, and pasted into that Apollo 17 image that also displayed a partly wet, partly dried American flag. She is going to see the earth as normal sized, in the right place, not pasted in, and not notice that the flag that is half wet and half dry. There is really no sense arguing over it for hours, as some people will be able to easily see these things when they are shown to them, and others are happy with the story they’ve become accustomed to, and will either not see these as issues at all, or will Google it and blindly accept the first explanation they find – whether it makes a lick of sense or not. Or whether it is even true, as was the case with the Apollo 17 explanation that the photographer was holding the camera down by his feet. This was clearly not true, since Kathi linked me to the event as it was recorded live, and the camera wasn’t even to the guys knees.
Do you listen to “The Flat Earth Podcast”? If not, you should. The guys not only bring up excellent common sense points, but they are hilarious. Anyway, they interviewed the son of an astronaut on the most recent one. He was a great guy, and it was a kind and friendly discussion. But when Jeran brought up the NASA image of the dark side of the moon crossing earth as an example of NASA CGI, he said he thinks it is real video footage. And he was sincere about it. So what really can you do at that point? You can’t force him to see that an 8 year old with Adobe Photoshop could have done a better job of faking this transit. He’s going to see what he wants to see, no matter how fake it looks to other people.
Anyway, here’s that footage. I’d be interested in hearing how the members of this forum view it. Real? Or CGI?
[video width="1920" height="1080" mp4="https://heavennet.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/NASA-Dark-Side-of-Moon.mp4"][/video]
D4T: Can you tell that it is not the original tv screen? Does it look the same or different? If they were side by side could you tell them apart?
D4T: By the way, the word for “rise” as in; “..the sun of righteousness will arise“, means to irradiate or shoot forth beams. Strongs: 2224.
Thank you.
T8: So at night, the sun has moved to the other side of the disk and is too distant to see, yet we can see these very lesser lights called stars quite clearly. Something doesn’t add up here Mike.
We can’t see the stars on the other side of the plane, T8. We can see the sun when it is over our part of the plane, and we can see stars that are above us on our part of the plane – when the sun is over another part of it.
It’s like you’re saying we can see the ping pong ball 50 feet away from us, so we should be able to see the basket ball 50 miles away from us because it’s bigger.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
