You actually have zero proof. Zero. You have cartoons. And that is all you've shown me. You haven't cited one single research paper. You just say space! And gravity! And what about all the other planets. You haven't given me one single citation other than a link to some cgi images of Antarctica from space, an imaginary place that doesn't exist. You seriously can't tell the difference between cgi and real?
Watching that video is going to be 100 times easier to understand because I know you've already got this image of flat earth in your head and it's wrong.
Not far wrong. The silly sun and moon do not work of course. (No sunrises/sets? No moonrises/sets?) You guys think you are so clever, but you are pathetic. Your ideas can be thrown out upon a moment's recollection of observed phenomena.
All the evidence is on my side. You have no evidence. If you had evidence, you could point to it. We entered the Space Age in 1957, but you aren't there yet. Actually, you are the one who cannot tell the difference between cgi and real photography. If you could, you would be able to pull NASA's plug. Go ahead.
Meanwhile, I have had a career based on solving problems involving the real, spherical Earth, including classified information.
Nasa even admits that they have no photographs. They are all images. No real unedited photographs. Idk how many times you need to be told that. Sunrise and sunsets work perfectly on a flat earth.
Did you even watch the video? You sound like a liberal cuck complaining about antivaxxers. Sorry I don't blindly believe people in power without them showing me proof. Same goes for a shit for brains on the internet bragging about his credentials lmao.
Prove that NASA admits they have no photographs. Are you telling me my photo reproduction from Lunar Orbiter 1 doesn't exist?
If the sun and moon are just traveling in circles above the flat earth, there is no occasion when they could rise or set. Unless you have a different motion in mind. Which is it? I sampled the video. The one guy was getting all excited about the way the sun sets in Afghanistan, or some such place (apparent shrinkage of the disk). The fact that this is probably the result of dusty air is lost on him (Mie scattering from dust would cause the sun's image to darken, and only the center of the disk would still be seen---the effect gets stronger as the light paths go through lower layers of the atmosphere). The effect does not happen elsewhere, as I can vouch for the many sunsets I have seen.
You sound like a guy whose only answer to a challenge is to call names and make insults. Especially when you don't have any credentials to substantiate that you know anything.
Interesting how you would explain a lunar eclipse. That can happen only if the earth is between the sun and the moon, but in the flat earth universe, the sun and the moon are on the same side of the earth. All these little details that come so easily to mind, but you fail to think of them.
Yeah nasa graphics designer Robert Simmon is on film admitting that it's all photoshop because it has to be. He gets strips of Data and has to create an image to closely match what people think it looks like. Yeah I'm telling you your photo reproduction of the lunar lander is fake.
The sun set works just fine. If you want to know more about it it's going to take more than a skip through a video. Took me weeks of research before I realized they were actually onto something. The sun isn't a ball of gas 93 million miles away, it's small local, and appears to be projected from outside the firmament. It's not gas, it seems to be more electric in nature. I'm assuming it's why the sky is blue, the electric nature of the sun excites nitrogen causing it to shine blue like the sky. It can only push so far.
You're under the impression light goes infinitely, it does not. There's a such thing as the inverse square law of light. And the atmos becomes opaque over long distances, and that varies depending on the weather conditions. Its like stacking a thousand panes of glass up. You can see through a few just fine but you couldn't shine a light through all 1000.
We can also scientifically prove that the distances at which your side says these stars are, would be impossible to see due to its angular size being so small. Even if light went these insane distances, it would be so tiny by the time it got here you literally couldn't see even the closest star.
There's a lot of holes in the heliocentric model that don't line-up with our actual observations. The globe brainwashing started when we were children. It's one of the first homework assignments you bring home from school, and have you never heard the whole "there is a globe in every, single, movie" thing? It's in movies and cartoons and every single thing we watch. It's not that people are lying, it's just everyone has been fooled.
I need you to try casting a perfectly crisp eclipse like we see using 2 or 3 different sized balls. You'll soon realize that in order to get an eclipse to work like what we see the object casting the shadow needs to have a flat edge. Flat earthers don't have all the answers to everything, a lot we are still researching and figuring out. We don't get 63 million dollars a day like nasa, we have to use our own money to conduct our own experiments. And it isn't exactly legal to be shooting off rockets or go adventuring to Antarctica all willy-nilly like. We are completely ok with saying "I don't know" because it's better than lying.
You actually have zero proof. Zero. You have cartoons. And that is all you've shown me. You haven't cited one single research paper. You just say space! And gravity! And what about all the other planets. You haven't given me one single citation other than a link to some cgi images of Antarctica from space, an imaginary place that doesn't exist. You seriously can't tell the difference between cgi and real?
Watching that video is going to be 100 times easier to understand because I know you've already got this image of flat earth in your head and it's wrong.
Not far wrong. The silly sun and moon do not work of course. (No sunrises/sets? No moonrises/sets?) You guys think you are so clever, but you are pathetic. Your ideas can be thrown out upon a moment's recollection of observed phenomena.
All the evidence is on my side. You have no evidence. If you had evidence, you could point to it. We entered the Space Age in 1957, but you aren't there yet. Actually, you are the one who cannot tell the difference between cgi and real photography. If you could, you would be able to pull NASA's plug. Go ahead.
Meanwhile, I have had a career based on solving problems involving the real, spherical Earth, including classified information.
Nasa even admits that they have no photographs. They are all images. No real unedited photographs. Idk how many times you need to be told that. Sunrise and sunsets work perfectly on a flat earth. Did you even watch the video? You sound like a liberal cuck complaining about antivaxxers. Sorry I don't blindly believe people in power without them showing me proof. Same goes for a shit for brains on the internet bragging about his credentials lmao.
Prove that NASA admits they have no photographs. Are you telling me my photo reproduction from Lunar Orbiter 1 doesn't exist?
If the sun and moon are just traveling in circles above the flat earth, there is no occasion when they could rise or set. Unless you have a different motion in mind. Which is it? I sampled the video. The one guy was getting all excited about the way the sun sets in Afghanistan, or some such place (apparent shrinkage of the disk). The fact that this is probably the result of dusty air is lost on him (Mie scattering from dust would cause the sun's image to darken, and only the center of the disk would still be seen---the effect gets stronger as the light paths go through lower layers of the atmosphere). The effect does not happen elsewhere, as I can vouch for the many sunsets I have seen.
You sound like a guy whose only answer to a challenge is to call names and make insults. Especially when you don't have any credentials to substantiate that you know anything.
Interesting how you would explain a lunar eclipse. That can happen only if the earth is between the sun and the moon, but in the flat earth universe, the sun and the moon are on the same side of the earth. All these little details that come so easily to mind, but you fail to think of them.
Yeah nasa graphics designer Robert Simmon is on film admitting that it's all photoshop because it has to be. He gets strips of Data and has to create an image to closely match what people think it looks like. Yeah I'm telling you your photo reproduction of the lunar lander is fake.
The sun set works just fine. If you want to know more about it it's going to take more than a skip through a video. Took me weeks of research before I realized they were actually onto something. The sun isn't a ball of gas 93 million miles away, it's small local, and appears to be projected from outside the firmament. It's not gas, it seems to be more electric in nature. I'm assuming it's why the sky is blue, the electric nature of the sun excites nitrogen causing it to shine blue like the sky. It can only push so far.
You're under the impression light goes infinitely, it does not. There's a such thing as the inverse square law of light. And the atmos becomes opaque over long distances, and that varies depending on the weather conditions. Its like stacking a thousand panes of glass up. You can see through a few just fine but you couldn't shine a light through all 1000.
We can also scientifically prove that the distances at which your side says these stars are, would be impossible to see due to its angular size being so small. Even if light went these insane distances, it would be so tiny by the time it got here you literally couldn't see even the closest star.
There's a lot of holes in the heliocentric model that don't line-up with our actual observations. The globe brainwashing started when we were children. It's one of the first homework assignments you bring home from school, and have you never heard the whole "there is a globe in every, single, movie" thing? It's in movies and cartoons and every single thing we watch. It's not that people are lying, it's just everyone has been fooled.
I need you to try casting a perfectly crisp eclipse like we see using 2 or 3 different sized balls. You'll soon realize that in order to get an eclipse to work like what we see the object casting the shadow needs to have a flat edge. Flat earthers don't have all the answers to everything, a lot we are still researching and figuring out. We don't get 63 million dollars a day like nasa, we have to use our own money to conduct our own experiments. And it isn't exactly legal to be shooting off rockets or go adventuring to Antarctica all willy-nilly like. We are completely ok with saying "I don't know" because it's better than lying.