Are incapable of free thinking and using logic and reasoning
Every time I offer evidence for the "spinning ball of water" theory to a FE I get crickets. For example:
How does one explain the fact that boats go over the horizon? People say "its the vanishing point" like its somehow proven because one C_A agent put out a document that said it is. I've lived near the ocean for decades. I've seen it happen myself countless times. Is my own personal experience "brainwashing"? You can throw a stone and find a thousand videos and experiments that show it.
How about Foucault's pendulum? Not one single FE'er has ever had a response to that other than "its a lie," as if that is a reasonable rebuttal to anything. Foucault's pendulum is not about the Earth as a sphere, but the model of what a pendulum would do on a spinning sphere. The precession of the pendulum is accurately predicted by your latitude. I have performed the experiment myself. Here is someone else doing a similar experiment. Anyone can set up this experiment.
A shill who either gets paid to spread disinfo
People that disagree with you and present evidence to the contrary of your beliefs are not "shills", they are people who disagree with you and present evidence to the contrary of your beliefs. Treat them as such by addressing the specifics of their arguments with your own evidence and logical arguments.
brainwashed AF
I don't give a fuck what the truth is. I follow the evidence. I have offered two arguments that have never been reasonably rebutted. I'll settle for just one. Show me how Foucault pendulum experiments can be correct on a flat earth with some sort of physical explanation (preferably with math as well) and I will consider your rebuttal.
I'm not an FE enthusiast by any means, but I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it- same with the sun after it had gone 'below the horizon'- zoom in flat lensed and up it popped! Thought I was seeing things.
I can't address any other points I'm afraid fren, it really was a very quick segue from usual research, it just stuck in my noggin for some reason.
Not trying to rock the boat (as it were), nor argue a convincing standpoint on FE, just thought it may interest you.
I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it
You can find just about any "camera" evidence you want for just about anything. I consider this to be meaningless. It is too easy to create any evidence you want.
As for the specifics of your argument however; the problem with finding those types of evidence is, light doesn't travel in a straight line. It can be bent by different densities of air/water (or by other diffraction gratings). You can find all sorts of anomalies like that because of these well studied phenomena (I myself have done those experiments).
Physics gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of this type. It gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of any type regarding FE. Physics says that FE is not possible. Do I trust physics? Not even a little bit, despite being a trained physicist. What I do think though, is that it gives a really good argument. Any argument in support of FE HAS to address the really good arguments from physics in a meaningful way or their arguments hold no water.
You can't just go around claiming something, and citing a source that has evidence of C_A origins (Eric Dubay) and expect anyone who has really studied the subject and done real experiments on the subject to give their word any validity when they can't even address the actual evidence in support of a globe.
6 months from today you and the globalist elites will be on the opposite side of the sun at a distance of 186 million miles away.... If the the sunny side of your imaginary ball earth is day then the opposite must be night. I must have some fucking pretty good eye sight, because I have been watching the same stars night after night, month after month, for year after year... Do the math and reconcile....Thats 186 million miles in the OPPOSITE direction.......Capeche?
This is really difficult to explain without sitting in front of you with a globe and a mock solar-earth system, so you can see the actual field of view.
Because the Earth is tilted on its axis with respect to its orbit, and because the Earth is rotating, you actually get a larger than 180 degree field of view if you count the entire nights viewing. In addition, unless you are on the equator, your night sky won't change all that much as you go around the sun.
If you are in the northern hemisphere the stars directly above the axis of rotation (North Pole) will always be due north. That is why Polaris never changes, no matter the time of day or the season. Those stars around Polaris also stay relatively the same throughout the night and the seasons, but as you go further away from Polaris the variance increases. Nevertheless, you get a lot more of the sky than you might think (if you think of all the sky you see throughout the night), You just see different constellations (further away from Polaris) at different times of the night depending on the season.
Far away from the North Star (assuming you are in the northern hemisphere) things do change up quite a bit as the seasons change. There are some constellations that the Northern hemisphere people will never see (Southern Cross e.g.) and the same for the Southern Hemisphere.. On the equator you get the most variation in the night sky, getting to see all the constellations that everyone sees, but for less of the time each year. The further you are away from the equator the less variance you will see. At the pole for example, the stars never change, though since you can't even see them for several months in the summer, its difficult to realize that during that time.
Here is a video that might help you understand, though it really isn't great. If I find a better one I will share it with you so you can understand orbital field of view on a tilted rotating sphere in orbit around a shining object (the sun) that obfuscates the sky half the time.
Every time I offer evidence for the "spinning ball of water" theory to a FE I get crickets. For example:
How does one explain the fact that boats go over the horizon? People say "its the vanishing point" like its somehow proven because one C_A agent put out a document that said it is. I've lived near the ocean for decades. I've seen it happen myself countless times. Is my own personal experience "brainwashing"? You can throw a stone and find a thousand videos and experiments that show it.
How about Foucault's pendulum? Not one single FE'er has ever had a response to that other than "its a lie," as if that is a reasonable rebuttal to anything. Foucault's pendulum is not about the Earth as a sphere, but the model of what a pendulum would do on a spinning sphere. The precession of the pendulum is accurately predicted by your latitude. I have performed the experiment myself. Here is someone else doing a similar experiment. Anyone can set up this experiment.
People that disagree with you and present evidence to the contrary of your beliefs are not "shills", they are people who disagree with you and present evidence to the contrary of your beliefs. Treat them as such by addressing the specifics of their arguments with your own evidence and logical arguments.
I don't give a fuck what the truth is. I follow the evidence. I have offered two arguments that have never been reasonably rebutted. I'll settle for just one. Show me how Foucault pendulum experiments can be correct on a flat earth with some sort of physical explanation (preferably with math as well) and I will consider your rebuttal.
How do you explain how the 80 mile long suez canal was dug without calculating for earth curvature
OK, a few thoughts on this.
I don't give a fuck. I have presented arguments against FE and again, no one is willing to address my arguments.
How do you?
Why do you think it wasn't?
The evidence suggests it was first dug a very long time ago by people who knew just as much about such things as we do now.
I'm not an FE enthusiast by any means, but I think they said in a recent piece the horizon/ship could be seen with a flat lens (no fish eye) Nikon-900 camera (90x zoom or something I think they said)- after it 'disappeared' over the horizon when he zoomed in you could still see it- same with the sun after it had gone 'below the horizon'- zoom in flat lensed and up it popped! Thought I was seeing things.
I can't address any other points I'm afraid fren, it really was a very quick segue from usual research, it just stuck in my noggin for some reason.
Not trying to rock the boat (as it were), nor argue a convincing standpoint on FE, just thought it may interest you.
You can find just about any "camera" evidence you want for just about anything. I consider this to be meaningless. It is too easy to create any evidence you want.
As for the specifics of your argument however; the problem with finding those types of evidence is, light doesn't travel in a straight line. It can be bent by different densities of air/water (or by other diffraction gratings). You can find all sorts of anomalies like that because of these well studied phenomena (I myself have done those experiments).
Physics gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of this type. It gives perfectly reasonable explanations for all observations of any type regarding FE. Physics says that FE is not possible. Do I trust physics? Not even a little bit, despite being a trained physicist. What I do think though, is that it gives a really good argument. Any argument in support of FE HAS to address the really good arguments from physics in a meaningful way or their arguments hold no water.
You can't just go around claiming something, and citing a source that has evidence of C_A origins (Eric Dubay) and expect anyone who has really studied the subject and done real experiments on the subject to give their word any validity when they can't even address the actual evidence in support of a globe.
6 months from today you and the globalist elites will be on the opposite side of the sun at a distance of 186 million miles away.... If the the sunny side of your imaginary ball earth is day then the opposite must be night. I must have some fucking pretty good eye sight, because I have been watching the same stars night after night, month after month, for year after year... Do the math and reconcile....Thats 186 million miles in the OPPOSITE direction.......Capeche?
This is really difficult to explain without sitting in front of you with a globe and a mock solar-earth system, so you can see the actual field of view.
Because the Earth is tilted on its axis with respect to its orbit, and because the Earth is rotating, you actually get a larger than 180 degree field of view if you count the entire nights viewing. In addition, unless you are on the equator, your night sky won't change all that much as you go around the sun.
If you are in the northern hemisphere the stars directly above the axis of rotation (North Pole) will always be due north. That is why Polaris never changes, no matter the time of day or the season. Those stars around Polaris also stay relatively the same throughout the night and the seasons, but as you go further away from Polaris the variance increases. Nevertheless, you get a lot more of the sky than you might think (if you think of all the sky you see throughout the night), You just see different constellations (further away from Polaris) at different times of the night depending on the season.
Far away from the North Star (assuming you are in the northern hemisphere) things do change up quite a bit as the seasons change. There are some constellations that the Northern hemisphere people will never see (Southern Cross e.g.) and the same for the Southern Hemisphere.. On the equator you get the most variation in the night sky, getting to see all the constellations that everyone sees, but for less of the time each year. The further you are away from the equator the less variance you will see. At the pole for example, the stars never change, though since you can't even see them for several months in the summer, its difficult to realize that during that time.
Here is a video that might help you understand, though it really isn't great. If I find a better one I will share it with you so you can understand orbital field of view on a tilted rotating sphere in orbit around a shining object (the sun) that obfuscates the sky half the time.
You sound just like a lefty