And let’s put you dumb argument about crappy photos to bed right now. Please read this slowly so we don’t have to listen to your long-winded pathetic rants about this.

If you zoom in to an area without close imaging to the ground like Antarctica, Greenland, and the area around my house, then what GE does is zoom in on the preceding higher image…[Read more]

Mike has failed
Mike, I don’t know where Google get their images from and I don’t care. Explain why Greenland has bad imaging. Lol. It’s staring you in the face, but whatever.

If this is all you have then you have failed to prove the flat earth. Admit it.

You have no photos of the disc or dome.

No explanation as to how I get from New Zealand to…[Read more]

Greenland and Antarctica have bad imaging in Google Earth
Why? Here are some possible reasons for those who claim to be wise and intelligent.

1. Antarctica is not a continent and the dome and ground interface here. The lizard reptile humans do not want us to know how special we are because we sit in a snow globe.
2. Greenland houses the entrance to…

[Read more]

Your argument that Google Earth doesn’t have 100% coverage of high-res closeups of every square inch of Earth proving Antarctica is off limits thereby proving the Earth is flat is certainly entertainment with much fodder for ridicule.

But try and be sober minded for a sec. Google Earth had zero of these particular images and now much of the Earth…[Read more]

Get over it. Google have their business reasons for adding the final layer of images in stages. You could probably even Google the answer if you were really interested in the truth.

Some parts of the Sahara Desert have as bad imagery as some parts of Africa.

Could it be that there is a pillar in the Antarctica that holds up part of the glass dome?

Thoughts?

Your point is still moot. I’m betting that covering every square inch of earth in High Res close to the ground imaging increases the database many times over than all other images at all other high altitudes combined. Simple as that really. Just be patient. I’m waiting for my house to get photographed and hundreds of penguins on featureless white…[Read more]

Your wasting your time with this line of reasoning because it is not only Antarctica that has bad imaging.

And do your own homework as to why there are less images closer to the ground than higher ones. I can think of a couple off the top of my head.

1. Satellite takes say one photo at a higher altitude. But dozens to hundreds more if they zoom…

[Read more]

Thanks for those post Ed J.

I noticed only Gene had posted so didn’t want to waste my time reading what is likely to be a load of rubbish. But like reading your posts except when you do the number thing too much.

5 times we saw too far debunked again
Following up on the response.

6 Times We Saw Too Far Utterly Debunked
The first mountain that we shouldn’t see is Ruapehu and we know that was debunked some time ago.

Now in one short and interesting video, we have 5 more mountains debunked.  Some of these mountains have been quoted as evidence to promote the Flat Earth by Mike.

Enjoy.

I feel…[Read more]

Do you suppose Google Earth can afford $2000 for their Loon program?

Do you mean that Loon program you use all the time?

Google get images from third party providers. Do you think it possible that they may not have every square inch of earth at the lowest altitude?

I’ve been using Google Earth almost at the moment they purchased it off Keyhole Maps and then made it free. All images were okay but then pixelated when you wanted to look at your house. Slowly but…[Read more]

Yes, that was part of my moon argument.  Why is it that my $500 camera can take fairly hi res photos of the moon from 240,000 miles away

Try zooming in on your pic to an area that would hypothetically fit 30 houses. What do you see? It’s called pixelation.

Your not reading my posts or you are just not smart enough to debate this topic. Read my lips.

Low res shots are high res shots that you are zooming in on. Screen capture a high res image from GE that shows streets and houses and zoom in on a house using photoshop. Notice that it now looks low res due to pixelation?

Btw, how high are the hills in the foreground of Ruapehu in your photo?  More or less than 900 meters tall?  Tick tock….

You can find that info out using Google Earth. Remember that from the coast, there is a gradual rise in elevation because the base of Ruapehu sits on a high plateau. Further proof of the high plateau is you get snow at gro…[Read more]

Are you seriously saying that these thousands of satellites can take good photos of everywhere on earth except Antarctica?

Wrong. I’m saying lots of places have bad quality low res shots and they are mostly low in population. Antarctica should fare worst given that it has zero citizens or close to zero. And it makes perfect sense.

Mike, it’s not a point related to Antarctica so what is being hidden in other areas like the area 8 live in.

And your point about high res and low res is moot. The reason for pixelation is mostly because some areas do not have low altitude satellite footage so you are zooming in on an image at higher altitude. And why is that?

My guess is it…[Read more]

Debunk Log
It’s a fact. the more humans there are, the greater the quality of images. It’s obvious. You can see it for yourself. Case closed. Another debunk.

I think all arguments are debunked. Anythings outstanding. And I am not talking about a particular lighthouse in England or whatever because obviously I cannot check every claim out. But…[Read more]

Contrary to what you might think Mike, Google doesn’t have satellites or take the photos themselves.  They get the satellite imagery from third party providers. Google Earth is wasn’t designed for UFO hunting or flat earth clues. My guess is satellite image providers concentrate their content on populated areas and less so in areas of zero p…[Read more]