REALLY wanna comment here, but last time I did (in October) I received a 22 day ban... tho don't proclaim to be an FE'r? Just believe both sides make valid arguments- even without quoting the Bible.
What's wrong with a good argument, especially when God wins and (supposedly) authored the very Bible which Q has quoted on occasion?
Agreed, I do understand why they keep the topic to a minimum though because half the point is to draw in normies who will see this discussion and reject the whole as "conspiracy theories and flat earthers" where the truth isn't quite so simple.
Keep the topic to a minimum... perhaps... but NOT it's verified users only seeking truth. A 22 day ban was not only excessive but undeserved- and by one of my fave mods no less.
Rainbows (both inside and outside versions) are the result of sunlight being refracted through raindrops. It is the same phenomenon that allows a wedge of glass to split light into its spectral components.
You really don't know your Bible. The rainbow was supposed to be a covenant between God and man that He would not destroy the Earth by flood ever again.
There is nothing in the Bible about a "firmament" in the solid dome sense used only in Europe long after the days of Christ.
Other translations use the word "heavens" or "heaven." Don't confuse nuances of translation for Holy Writ. There is no "firmament" (solid dome). There is only atmosphere and outer space.
Then, my apology. I have run into so many people who point to "firmament" and argue it signifies a solid dome over the flat Earth, I thought you were referring to it in that way, relative to the other post. It was otherwise hard to grasp your point. (Could you clarify your point?)
Not wrong at all. How would you know something is "wrong," if everyday experience relies on it being true? Ever had an intercontinental telephone call? Ever seen weather photographs from space? You are confusing your own arrogant ignorance for correctness.
“The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church."
What the church says is not always the same thing as what the Bible says, unfortunately.
Magellan would have been referring to the Roman Catholic Church, which had drastically veered away from the Bible at this point. On the scientific front, they stubbornly held to Aristotle as gospel truth even when evidence suggested otherwise.
The adherence to Aristotle had to do with the geocentric view of the universe, not whether the Earth was flat. Gallileo argued for the heliocentric view, but there was no way to distinguish the two views, as they gave the same results. It took later work (measurement of stellar parallax) to determine the the Earth moved.
The Bible also did not say the earth is round. The Bible did insinuate the earth is more like a dome. Whatever... I'm here to read about vacc and such, we got more serious issues at hand.
People spend far too much time concerned about what others do and do not believe in and still try to keep people from using their OWN critical and logical thinking to come to their OWN conclusions on topics.
You can critically think all you want. If your critical thinking is wrong, it's still wrong. Facts don't care about your feelings or your beliefs on any subject.
The Bible doesn’t say the earth is a dome either. The firmament being a solid canopy is a modern invention.
Where the Bible is silent, reason and scientific evidence must be used, and all of it points to a spherical earth. The best explanation for the firmament, then, is that it is the solid crust of the earth. This crust used to be connected all the way around the earth and had an ocean of water trapped underneath it. Genesis records that God called the firmament “heaven” because Earth was supposed to be heaven, the place where God dwelled with men. And one day it will be that way again.
During the Flood, this crust ruptured, allowing the “fountains of the deep” to break out and cover the earth in water.
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Genesis 1 uses “firmament” and “firmament of the heavens”; two different phrases with two different meanings.
The Hebrew word rendered “firmament” is “raqia” a root word which means “to hammer or beat out with a hammer on an anvil”. What do you hammer out on an anvil? Metal, something both solid and dense. Firmament is used on its own to describe the action of days 2 and 3 of creation, where the firmament divides the waters. “Firmament of the heavens” used during the rest of the week to describe alternatively where the stars are created and the domain where birds fly. The word firmament by itself is not used to describe the atmosphere or outer space.
Combining this information with scientific data, the logical conclusion is the firmament is the solid crust of the earth, which used to have water both above and below. The firmament of the heavens then describes the atmosphere or outer space depending on context.
When the earth is stated to have foundations that don’t move, it’s referring to the fact that the crust had pillars that pushed through the subterranean water into the mantle, anchoring the crust to the mantle so it wouldn’t float around like a giant unstable water bed. The earth being “immovable” doesn’t refer to its lack of motion relative to other objects in outer space, it refers to Earth’s relative stability; the fact that it’s not going to randomly fall apart or blow up.
And you somehow have all seeing eyes and know what the globe or space looks like so you have the right to say it is factual earth is a certain way or form?
I know better to say "think mirror" when an individual try to stirr and divide the community by purposely picking on a subject and alienating those within the group who disagree w/ the collective, and you're one of those people.
I'll just consider it a Tuesday funny bait post and leave.
No, I have made multiple other observations about the world around me which prove Earth is not flat.
And I've considered the flat Earth arguments with an open mind, finding them to be of no substance. Every single person who pushes flat Earth is either deliberately lying (shill) or they are ignorant of basic, observable geoscience.
What other multiple observations? Because you can't see the curve from 150,000ft according to your God Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Even the camera in the Red Bull Drop from space showed a flat plane from that height.
Every pilot, flat plane, no curve.
I may not know what the true shape is but you certainly don't either.
No bro, the government would lie about an experimental jab that's killing children in the thousands but they wouldn't lie about space or the shape of earth. That's messed up.
Show 1 picture of the entire earth from space. Not a composite. You can't. It doesn't exist. A trip to the moon and back and not 1 picture of the Earth from space?
What they present to you is stitched together photos over laid on a sphere.
Mostly you're looking at CGI to be honest as it's much easier to fool you.
The photos are fake the photos are fake!!! So why dont you all contribute to a rocket build that actually proves your theories? I cant think of a single "conspiracy theory" where people arent actively trying to prove it. Hell, ill donate to build the rocket just to shut up the crazies. But it wont happen because every influential person in that group is a con man. What happens if they actually did successfully take the picture and proved themselves wrong? Would they come clean and admit they were wrong? I doubt it.
Well I was told i was a fool for believing covid was fake from day one. I stuck to my guns and will here too. I trust God and if I'm wrong... well. I won't be.
Theres a huge diffrence between those two topics. You could say that for literally any topic. "They called me a fool for believing oxygen is poisoning us but ill stick to my guns just like when i was right that one time in the past". Theres overwhelming evidence that covid was a sham, meanwhile theres overwhelming evidence that the earth is NOT flat. You just refuse to accept these things because you distrust authority. Thousands of peoples work involves observing space. If the earth was flat there would be A LOT of evidence to prove that. But there isnt. Youve got maps you made up and rocket launches that "mysteriously failed" as if the person diddnt sabotage themselves to keep the charade going. "Sorry guys the CIA shot my rocket down youll have to keep sending me money now".
They made his ... parachute fail... ok guys the CIA shot down the parachute so i cant recover any of the footage that i worked so hard to get. No use trying again.
Why dont yall launch the rocket, then watch it with a telescope to make sure you catch the CIA UFO that shoots the next parachute down. Soooooo many oppertunities to prove yourselves and yet all you guys seem to do is circle jerk over that "flat earth map" in a dark room and mutter "the firmament! The firmament!"
It could be a dome, a realm, or more land beyond the ICE WALL aka Antartica.
Just because it's flat, does not mean it has an edge. It's really hard to wrap our mind around it and we would need to unlearn everything we learnt since toddler.
It's difficult for sure.
Start by asking questions like why is nobody allowed in Antartica? But religious leaders and politicians were always visiting Antartica, an empty place. For what purpose?
Also, the whole world could be at war w/ one another, yet they all agree on ONE thing: Keep Out of Antartica.
I just want to see one picture of the impenetrable wall in Antartica that would prove flat earth. Or one picture of the dome close-up. How do they keep it clean? Does someone have to dust it? Sadly, I think these photos are likely stored next to Big Mike's maternity pics
David gave a particularly interesting example that I'd like to comment on:
He stated that due to the distance to and from stars as presented by the standard model that a star would not be bright enough to reach earth.
He insisted that it was a mathematical fact that the nearest star would not be visible at the distances that astronomers suggest.
So I checked because I'm an instrumentation and controls engineer and measuring light is something I do.
So a human eye can see a candle from 1.6 miles away and a candle gives off ~12 lumens of light.
Luminosity is measured from 2 feet away and a mile is 5280 feet. 1.6 miles is 8448 feet. So a human can see a canle in the night from 8448 feet away through atmosphere at see level. At that distance the luminosity from the candle is 13^(1/log2(8448)) - 1 = 0.21 lumens
now the sun is 35,730,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 lumens according to astronomical estimations based on the amount of light hitting earth. So how far would the sun have to be in order to be an equvalent brightness to a candle, through atmosphere at sea level?
Let's do math, we can reverse the formula with the approprate variables
35,730,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001^(1/log2(x))-1 = 0.021
x = 6.707 x 10^103 feet
That's 1.27 x 10 ^ 100 miles
the speed of light is 1.86 x 10^5 miles per second (1 light second) or 5.88 x 10^9 miles per year (1 light year)
1.27 X 10^100 / 5.88 x 10^9 = 2.16 x 10^90
That means that the sun will be apparantly brighter than a candle out to a distance of 2.16 x 10^90 light years.
Modern cosmology says the nearest star is only 5 light years away
Modern cosmology says the nearest galaxy is only 2.5 X 10^5 light years away
Modern cosmology says the amount of universe we can see with our telescopes so far only reaches out to 4.86 X 10^10 light years.
The sun will be appear to be brighter than a candle for a distance greater than the total distance light could have travelled since it's birth.
The sun will be brighter than a candle for so long that 10 new stars will live and die using material from the sun before that light thins enough to be outdone by a candle.
Because they are ignorant boobs, centuries behind the times. Hands-on proof of the roundness of the Earth was provided 500 years ago by Magellan. Outer space and pictures of the Earth are legion---from when there was no digital manipulation. The Holy Bible does not maintain a flat Earth, and Earth's roundness was known before the time of Jesus---who found no reason to remark against that fact. Our modern civilization is based, in part, on ocean travel, air travel, and space travel, around the Earth. NASA has not lied about any of this, and it is an irrelevancy because all the knowledge we have came before NASA was established. (A fact that is probably not known to the ignorant ones who think it all came from NASA.)
You win the Boob Prize. They exist, and have existed for a long time. (Maybe longer than you are old?) I have a print of a telemetered film photo taken from the first Lunar Orbiter mission in 1966. A complete Earth. Other such photos were taken from the Apollo missions. You can look them up on Google to your heart's content. Here's an example from the Apollo 17 mission, but there are many others.
https://bigbangprints.com/products/earthrise-apollo-17-landscape?variant=1032728719
We haven't obtained any raw photos since then because low Earth orbit is too low to see much of Earth. (Take a picture of your car...from a point of view 1 inch from a hubcap.) We have some photos from the Artemis I mission, if you want to look them up.
But what's your point? Photos are not necessary to prove the Earth is round. That was done 500 years ago by people who went AROUND the Earth. Can't get more definite than that.
This is where your ignorance sticks out like a sore thumb. CGI didn't come along until AFTER the Apollo program. All those Earth photos were from film photography.
What you don't understand is that, from low Earth orbit, it is NOT POSSIBLE to view the entire Earth. Do some geometry and figure it out. It is possible to take low altitude (several hundred kilometer) photography in strips, and use a computer to splice them together. That is what NASA is admitting. It is a synthesized image of a real thing. The recent Artemis I mission took a long-distance picture of the Earth.
But this is not a hill to die on. The roundness of the Earth was known before Christ (he never spoke against it), and proven physically by Magellan 500 years ago by circumnavigation. Centuries of sea travel---and then air travel---and then space travel---have only confirmed this fact. It doesn't stand on any NASA photographs.
They 100% have changed position, wdym?
What do you mean? They have changed position. In fact, they have a changed positions in an extremely predictable way . . .
Just because it's beyond your understanding doesn't make the world flat.
Who are you speaking for? Sounds like a personal problem that you've never resolved.
Curious as I don't know scripture regarding our living planet. But does anyone else see the manipulation in text by Ra to confuse?
REALLY wanna comment here, but last time I did (in October) I received a 22 day ban... tho don't proclaim to be an FE'r? Just believe both sides make valid arguments- even without quoting the Bible.
What's wrong with a good argument, especially when God wins and (supposedly) authored the very Bible which Q has quoted on occasion?
So I consider this topic Q related kek
Agreed, I do understand why they keep the topic to a minimum though because half the point is to draw in normies who will see this discussion and reject the whole as "conspiracy theories and flat earthers" where the truth isn't quite so simple.
Keep the topic to a minimum... perhaps... but NOT it's verified users only seeking truth. A 22 day ban was not only excessive but undeserved- and by one of my fave mods no less.
Q answered a very narrow question. I would have asked him a different way.
Q - is the earth as God describes it or as science describes it.
Better question would've been is the earth's plane level
Rainbows (both inside and outside versions) are the result of sunlight being refracted through raindrops. It is the same phenomenon that allows a wedge of glass to split light into its spectral components.
Gee wonder who designed that phenomenon.
Very true...
You really don't know your Bible. The rainbow was supposed to be a covenant between God and man that He would not destroy the Earth by flood ever again.
There is nothing in the Bible about a "firmament" in the solid dome sense used only in Europe long after the days of Christ.
Kent Hovind creation seminar explains all of this in a biblical yet scientific manner. Think its 8 hours long but well worth your time
Thank you for this. An hour deep on it. Will be working through it the next few days.
Glad to share, the first little bit is pretty dry but it gets very fascinating, promise!
For it is written.
Surely you understand that the bible speaks in parable and metaphor.
If not, I guess you'd only ever need 7 loaves to feed 4000
Other translations use the word "heavens" or "heaven." Don't confuse nuances of translation for Holy Writ. There is no "firmament" (solid dome). There is only atmosphere and outer space.
Believe me when I say I'm NOT confused...At All...
Where did I mention or where was it said in (Genesis 1:6-8) that I posted that the 'firmament' was solid??.... Don't make up shit...
Then, my apology. I have run into so many people who point to "firmament" and argue it signifies a solid dome over the flat Earth, I thought you were referring to it in that way, relative to the other post. It was otherwise hard to grasp your point. (Could you clarify your point?)
Nicely made up and wrong.
Not wrong at all. How would you know something is "wrong," if everyday experience relies on it being true? Ever had an intercontinental telephone call? Ever seen weather photographs from space? You are confusing your own arrogant ignorance for correctness.
The Bible doesn’t say the earth is flat, despite multiple attempts to twist its words to fit flat earth theory.
“The Church says that the Earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow of the earth on the moon and I have more faith in the Shadow than in the Church."
~ Ferdinand Magellan
What the church says is not always the same thing as what the Bible says, unfortunately.
Magellan would have been referring to the Roman Catholic Church, which had drastically veered away from the Bible at this point. On the scientific front, they stubbornly held to Aristotle as gospel truth even when evidence suggested otherwise.
The adherence to Aristotle had to do with the geocentric view of the universe, not whether the Earth was flat. Gallileo argued for the heliocentric view, but there was no way to distinguish the two views, as they gave the same results. It took later work (measurement of stellar parallax) to determine the the Earth moved.
He thinks he saw the shadow of the earth. He saw a shadow but has no proof it came from the earth.
pro-vaxxers: correlation!
but the big take away from that Magellan quote, is that "flat Earth" was actually an official Church position, not that long ago.
and yes, there are numerous verses in the bible that are used to support flat earth model.
The Bible also did not say the earth is round. The Bible did insinuate the earth is more like a dome. Whatever... I'm here to read about vacc and such, we got more serious issues at hand.
Maybe its round on one side, flat on the other.
People spend far too much time concerned about what others do and do not believe in and still try to keep people from using their OWN critical and logical thinking to come to their OWN conclusions on topics.
You can critically think all you want. If your critical thinking is wrong, it's still wrong. Facts don't care about your feelings or your beliefs on any subject.
This forum isn't about "vacc and such". It's about Q and what they have posted and theories about what they have posted.
The Bible doesn’t say the earth is a dome either. The firmament being a solid canopy is a modern invention.
Where the Bible is silent, reason and scientific evidence must be used, and all of it points to a spherical earth. The best explanation for the firmament, then, is that it is the solid crust of the earth. This crust used to be connected all the way around the earth and had an ocean of water trapped underneath it. Genesis records that God called the firmament “heaven” because Earth was supposed to be heaven, the place where God dwelled with men. And one day it will be that way again.
During the Flood, this crust ruptured, allowing the “fountains of the deep” to break out and cover the earth in water.
Isaiah 40:22
True it describes something that isn't a globe, Doesn't move, and has a firmament.
Heavens biblically is anywhere above earth.
Heaven and earth referred to together any times.
Firmament does not equal heaven.
Genesis 1 uses “firmament” and “firmament of the heavens”; two different phrases with two different meanings.
The Hebrew word rendered “firmament” is “raqia” a root word which means “to hammer or beat out with a hammer on an anvil”. What do you hammer out on an anvil? Metal, something both solid and dense. Firmament is used on its own to describe the action of days 2 and 3 of creation, where the firmament divides the waters. “Firmament of the heavens” used during the rest of the week to describe alternatively where the stars are created and the domain where birds fly. The word firmament by itself is not used to describe the atmosphere or outer space.
Combining this information with scientific data, the logical conclusion is the firmament is the solid crust of the earth, which used to have water both above and below. The firmament of the heavens then describes the atmosphere or outer space depending on context.
When the earth is stated to have foundations that don’t move, it’s referring to the fact that the crust had pillars that pushed through the subterranean water into the mantle, anchoring the crust to the mantle so it wouldn’t float around like a giant unstable water bed. The earth being “immovable” doesn’t refer to its lack of motion relative to other objects in outer space, it refers to Earth’s relative stability; the fact that it’s not going to randomly fall apart or blow up.
They get mad when u take their ball away
Not triggered, just working against the mass deception that is modern flat Earth theory.
In addition to being factually incorrect, it was deliberately seeded by bad actors. They want truth-seeking communities like GAW to look foolish.
The moon landings were fake, in case anyone was wondering
Here we go again.....
Nope, the landing happened.
The true purpose of the mission was concealed, and some of the footage we see is fake.
Spot on. I have always said this
I've believed similar, likely because the technology to get to the moon would be orders of magnitude beyond what would have been known at the time.
"False, moon landings are real. Programs exist that are outside of public domain."
And you somehow have all seeing eyes and know what the globe or space looks like so you have the right to say it is factual earth is a certain way or form?
I know better to say "think mirror" when an individual try to stirr and divide the community by purposely picking on a subject and alienating those within the group who disagree w/ the collective, and you're one of those people.
I'll just consider it a Tuesday funny bait post and leave.
No, I have made multiple other observations about the world around me which prove Earth is not flat.
And I've considered the flat Earth arguments with an open mind, finding them to be of no substance. Every single person who pushes flat Earth is either deliberately lying (shill) or they are ignorant of basic, observable geoscience.
What other multiple observations? Because you can't see the curve from 150,000ft according to your God Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Even the camera in the Red Bull Drop from space showed a flat plane from that height. Every pilot, flat plane, no curve. I may not know what the true shape is but you certainly don't either.
Does your observation include the fact that WATER DOESN'T BEND? lol
Good you have deceived yourself. Many do.
No bro, the government would lie about an experimental jab that's killing children in the thousands but they wouldn't lie about space or the shape of earth. That's messed up.
This. If the flat earth community were serious about their theory all they have to do is build a rocket. But they dont because they know its bs.
Show 1 picture of the entire earth from space. Not a composite. You can't. It doesn't exist. A trip to the moon and back and not 1 picture of the Earth from space?
What they present to you is stitched together photos over laid on a sphere.
Mostly you're looking at CGI to be honest as it's much easier to fool you.
Except for all of those photographs of the Earth that you conveniently claim were faked; meaning that you cannot be disproven.
The photos are fake the photos are fake!!! So why dont you all contribute to a rocket build that actually proves your theories? I cant think of a single "conspiracy theory" where people arent actively trying to prove it. Hell, ill donate to build the rocket just to shut up the crazies. But it wont happen because every influential person in that group is a con man. What happens if they actually did successfully take the picture and proved themselves wrong? Would they come clean and admit they were wrong? I doubt it.
Well I was told i was a fool for believing covid was fake from day one. I stuck to my guns and will here too. I trust God and if I'm wrong... well. I won't be.
Theres a huge diffrence between those two topics. You could say that for literally any topic. "They called me a fool for believing oxygen is poisoning us but ill stick to my guns just like when i was right that one time in the past". Theres overwhelming evidence that covid was a sham, meanwhile theres overwhelming evidence that the earth is NOT flat. You just refuse to accept these things because you distrust authority. Thousands of peoples work involves observing space. If the earth was flat there would be A LOT of evidence to prove that. But there isnt. Youve got maps you made up and rocket launches that "mysteriously failed" as if the person diddnt sabotage themselves to keep the charade going. "Sorry guys the CIA shot my rocket down youll have to keep sending me money now".
They did, freaking CIA clowns made his parachute fail.
They made his ... parachute fail... ok guys the CIA shot down the parachute so i cant recover any of the footage that i worked so hard to get. No use trying again.
Why dont yall launch the rocket, then watch it with a telescope to make sure you catch the CIA UFO that shoots the next parachute down. Soooooo many oppertunities to prove yourselves and yet all you guys seem to do is circle jerk over that "flat earth map" in a dark room and mutter "the firmament! The firmament!"
Eh, if you think the earth is flat, I challenge you to find the edge and send pictures.
Yes. Both find the edge and explain the 24-hour day at the South Pole.
Watch the videos, they aren't showing a 24 hour day. It's close, 18-20 hours, but they cut a segment and loop.
Challenge you to circumnavigate the globe and prove its round. Prove they told you the truth.
You're the one making a claim that counters prevailing knowledge, the burden of proof is on you.
It could be a dome, a realm, or more land beyond the ICE WALL aka Antartica.
Just because it's flat, does not mean it has an edge. It's really hard to wrap our mind around it and we would need to unlearn everything we learnt since toddler.
It's difficult for sure.
Start by asking questions like why is nobody allowed in Antartica? But religious leaders and politicians were always visiting Antartica, an empty place. For what purpose?
Also, the whole world could be at war w/ one another, yet they all agree on ONE thing: Keep Out of Antartica.
WHY?
Only idiots use the edge of earth line.
If its a dome you could get a pic of the wall at the edge.
You are a FE tard??
You have a good post history.
What do?
Stay on Q.
I just want to see one picture of the impenetrable wall in Antartica that would prove flat earth. Or one picture of the dome close-up. How do they keep it clean? Does someone have to dust it? Sadly, I think these photos are likely stored next to Big Mike's maternity pics
because they feel very unsafe something they learnt since birth would need to be unlearn
So I did that...
David gave a particularly interesting example that I'd like to comment on:
He stated that due to the distance to and from stars as presented by the standard model that a star would not be bright enough to reach earth.
He insisted that it was a mathematical fact that the nearest star would not be visible at the distances that astronomers suggest.
So I checked because I'm an instrumentation and controls engineer and measuring light is something I do.
So a human eye can see a candle from 1.6 miles away and a candle gives off ~12 lumens of light.
Luminosity is measured from 2 feet away and a mile is 5280 feet. 1.6 miles is 8448 feet. So a human can see a canle in the night from 8448 feet away through atmosphere at see level. At that distance the luminosity from the candle is 13^(1/log2(8448)) - 1 = 0.21 lumens
now the sun is 35,730,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 lumens according to astronomical estimations based on the amount of light hitting earth. So how far would the sun have to be in order to be an equvalent brightness to a candle, through atmosphere at sea level?
Let's do math, we can reverse the formula with the approprate variables 35,730,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,001^(1/log2(x))-1 = 0.021 x = 6.707 x 10^103 feet That's 1.27 x 10 ^ 100 miles
the speed of light is 1.86 x 10^5 miles per second (1 light second) or 5.88 x 10^9 miles per year (1 light year)
1.27 X 10^100 / 5.88 x 10^9 = 2.16 x 10^90
That means that the sun will be apparantly brighter than a candle out to a distance of 2.16 x 10^90 light years.
Modern cosmology says the nearest star is only 5 light years away Modern cosmology says the nearest galaxy is only 2.5 X 10^5 light years away Modern cosmology says the amount of universe we can see with our telescopes so far only reaches out to 4.86 X 10^10 light years.
The sun will be appear to be brighter than a candle for a distance greater than the total distance light could have travelled since it's birth.
The sun will be brighter than a candle for so long that 10 new stars will live and die using material from the sun before that light thins enough to be outdone by a candle.
David doesn't do math.
He insists and that's about it.
check out this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTUoD4K5aLc
Which part seems to clarify my criticism of his argument about luminosity and distance? Do you have timestamp?
NASA is reliant on hundreds of Billions on gov subsidies do you realize how easy it would be to create a few doctored pics and videos 😂
The Bible does not speak of a flat earth
Because they are ignorant boobs, centuries behind the times. Hands-on proof of the roundness of the Earth was provided 500 years ago by Magellan. Outer space and pictures of the Earth are legion---from when there was no digital manipulation. The Holy Bible does not maintain a flat Earth, and Earth's roundness was known before the time of Jesus---who found no reason to remark against that fact. Our modern civilization is based, in part, on ocean travel, air travel, and space travel, around the Earth. NASA has not lied about any of this, and it is an irrelevancy because all the knowledge we have came before NASA was established. (A fact that is probably not known to the ignorant ones who think it all came from NASA.)
There are no pictures of the entire earth from space. They don't exist.
You win the Boob Prize. They exist, and have existed for a long time. (Maybe longer than you are old?) I have a print of a telemetered film photo taken from the first Lunar Orbiter mission in 1966. A complete Earth. Other such photos were taken from the Apollo missions. You can look them up on Google to your heart's content. Here's an example from the Apollo 17 mission, but there are many others. https://bigbangprints.com/products/earthrise-apollo-17-landscape?variant=1032728719
We haven't obtained any raw photos since then because low Earth orbit is too low to see much of Earth. (Take a picture of your car...from a point of view 1 inch from a hubcap.) We have some photos from the Artemis I mission, if you want to look them up.
But what's your point? Photos are not necessary to prove the Earth is round. That was done 500 years ago by people who went AROUND the Earth. Can't get more definite than that.
"That picture and that picture and that photograph and that etc are all fake so I will always be right, blasphemers."
The pictures are cgi, they admit it
This is where your ignorance sticks out like a sore thumb. CGI didn't come along until AFTER the Apollo program. All those Earth photos were from film photography.
What you don't understand is that, from low Earth orbit, it is NOT POSSIBLE to view the entire Earth. Do some geometry and figure it out. It is possible to take low altitude (several hundred kilometer) photography in strips, and use a computer to splice them together. That is what NASA is admitting. It is a synthesized image of a real thing. The recent Artemis I mission took a long-distance picture of the Earth.
But this is not a hill to die on. The roundness of the Earth was known before Christ (he never spoke against it), and proven physically by Magellan 500 years ago by circumnavigation. Centuries of sea travel---and then air travel---and then space travel---have only confirmed this fact. It doesn't stand on any NASA photographs.
I believe neither, as both were created by common men with motivations.