Not taking into account the countless years of scientific data and observation that prove the Earth is actually round
Not taking into account the few years of mediocre, non scientific "fact" that has been put out there with this recent "fad" that the earth is flat.
What in the actual hell is the point and/or benefit of the government and world leaders trying to cover up a possible flat earth? If it was flat, don't you think we would be right here on /b/ knowing it was. Right now I would be posting in conspiracy thread stating that the earth is actually round.
>>701090232 >>implying I've never been high enough to see the earth's curvature >implying you have
>>implying satellites are propaganda >implying they aren't
>The bigger question is; >>"Why haven't we been back to the moon?" >>"Why did most of the astronauts turn super religious, upon arrival back to earth?"
To add to that: >How did NASA manage to lose 14,000 reels of telemetry data? >How did NASA manage to lose the original footage? >How is it possible the crossheirs sometimes underlap in their images? >How were they able to get there and back, safely, in 1969 with computers about as "powerful" as an ordinary pocket calculator?
The earth is round bubs, and there's ayyyy lmaos on the moon. There's a tomb in Mt. Vesuvius. The world leaders sacrifice children in robes at Bohemian Grove. Obama was created in a test tube. >Prove me wrong
By that I mean what the ayyy lmao 's came in on. You know? Thousands of years ago when they helped us build the pyramids, cause we all know those would be impossible to build without knowledge of rudimentary electricity.
>>701091165 I'm not sure what you're getting at overall in that post but I'll humor you about being a pilot. There's no reason not to believe you've at least flown in an aircraft before if you say you have. But isn't it possible that while you think you're seeing the curve of the earth what you're actually seeing is the curve of the window of the plane? Afterall, are not all plane windows inherently curved in order to conform to the shape of the plane itself, be it because of the fuselage or otherwise?
>>701090641 No one is questioning why, because we all know their purpose is for other science or communication. Nobody except you gives a shit about trying to prove something that's already impossible to sanely even consider denying. You're a tard.
Here's the deal: there are two types of Flat Earthers: trolls, and literal Bible interpreters. Somewhat surprisingly, we usually encounter the latter on /b/. They have the freedom to make shit up (lie) because truth and understanding are not their goals, and they end the arguments with "prove me wrong." By disavowing any science put forward and continuing to make shit up, they "win" by attrition. It is simply impossible to keep up with having to explain away the barrage of the violations of the most basic principles of geometry, math, science, and logic. They aren't interested in critical thinking or putting in the requisite effort to do the science. Proofs are tossed aside, or they may not even respond when they can't fabricate anything that would pass even their own red-faced test. They are blind to 3D visualualization. They concentrate on believing what their leaders tell them, and will not allow any sense to mar their fractured perception of the universe. There is simply no arguing. It's like trying to paint over mud. You just end up with a dirty brush.
>>701091637 Burden of proof is on you that it is. Also that pic only provides further evidence against modern astronomy: notice the hotspot on the clouds? How could possibly happen if the sun is 93,000,000 miles away? You can follow the angle of the light up to its source and see that the sun must be much closer for that to happen.
>>701091786 >Nope, the general belief is that the Earth is round. >Science and physics backs this up >small minority of population believes it is flat >small minority thinks it is majorities responsibility to reprove what is already proven >small minority calls majority dumb faggot, still not providing any discernible evidence that backs up their claim >small minority is dumb faggot.
>>701090641 >everything we build for flight, rockets, satellites, etc. is based off earth curvature. hurr the earth is flat. >competitive shooting at long distance requires taking curvature of earth and gravity into account. hurrrrrr earth is flat.
>>701089716 Everything is a god damn conspiracy to you americans. But when it is reality just like syria conflict, suddenly its all balonies to you. Only cavemen believe the earth is round. Galileo didn't die for dumbasses to still believe the earth is flat.
>>701092009 Nah, see you're looking at this through the lens of modern times only. You have to keep a proper perspective: for thousands of years, FE was accepted as truth. It is only recently, in the last 500 years or so, that the ball earth theory rose to prominence. So basically your whole point and everything you said, but in reverse, is in fact the reality of the situation. Congratulations, you disproved your own argument.
>>701091853 It has nothing to do with the "angle of light", those are pretty much identical because of the distance, like you've noted. It's the angle the light is hitting the Earth because the Earth fucking curves away. In fact, if the Earth was flat, that "hotspot" would be everywhere. The fact that it is round is what makes it look that way. You've actually managed to disprove your own argument. Congratulations
>>701092409 If the moon is a solid, spherical, physical body that we can land on then how come it is possible to sometimes see the blue of the sky through it? Why do clouds sometimes appear behind it? And why does the entire thing apparently reflect sunlight, inconsistent with known examples of spheres reflecting light in which only a small spot of light is reflected off the sphere?
>>701092643 >The proportions are all wrong, Consequence of projection of a flat earth to cover the requisite longitudes. Another good reason to disavow flat Earth. But for giggles, why don't you provide a flat Earth diagram that's "correct?"
And you're entirely missing the argument regarding sunrise/set.
>>701092033 You never proved your theory. That is, the theory of everything asserted by modern astronomy. Modern astronomy has absolutely convinced the world that nothing that is obvious is true: >it is obvious that the earth is flat, yet they say it is curved >it is obvious that the world is motionless, yet they say that it moves >it is obvious that the heavens revolve around us, yet they say it is us that revolves >it is obvious that the stars are stars, yet they say the stars are suns >it is obvious that the sun is bigger than the stars, yet they say the stars are bigger than the sun >it is obvious that the sun and moon are the same size, yet they say the sun is 400 times larger >it is obvious that Earth is the only planet, yet they say there are over a septillion planets >it is obvious that up is up and down is down, yet they say it is not so
Of course, none of these statements should be taken literally as facts. The point is that modern astronomical theory runs contrary, and in many cases directly opposite to everything that is clearly observable to the individual. Thus it is their burden to prove that what is not obvious is true. And if you look into the matter they clearly have failed to do so, despite the widespread acceptance of the theories posited by the field.
I have a question for people on both sides of the argument - if the earth was flat, would it really matter? I think i'd say "neat" and get back to my life because flat earth or not I still have shit to do
>>701092676 >>701092676 >>Where would it end? Nobody knows. Some speculate there's some sort of dome, possibly an invisible, electromagnetic one; others that Earth is an infinite plane, possibly with other such circles all divided by huge ice fields/walls. >>Why does gravity exist? Protip: it doesn't. >>Why is the government lying to us? To hide God. Big Bang theory turns all of us, including you, into insignificant, meaningless haphazard consequence of a random, inexplicable cosmic accident. Therefore nothing we do matters: it's okay to live the life of a wageslave degenerate in service of our corrupt masters because life is meaningless. >>Why did scientists say its spherical and nobody said it isn't? Wat.
>>701093475 >If the sun were 3100 miles away and only 34 miles across Do you have any idea what the sun would look like if it were that small at that distance? Jesus you flat earth people are so bent down in pulling numbers out of your ass to prove a bullshit argument you can't even stop to consider the logical implications first. That's like looking across the continental United States and saying a small city on the other side would be the size of the sun
>>701090901 You can put a camera at the edge of space and see the curvature of the earth with a damn balloon. Whole thing including a means of tracking and recovering the camera is under a thousand bucks total.
Flat Earth is just a thought experiment that was better before the internet. Too much available data now to even jokingly try to argue it (which was the game, try to come up with an argument for something you KNOW to be wrong for the sake of learning how to form better arguments)
>>701093306 Fuckin hell. I'm OP and if the thread wasn't moving so fast maybe I would. I don't even have time to look at them, as it is I'm still like 20 posts behind. /b/ moves too fast for serious discussion.
>>701093475 It proves seve4ral things: 1) the creator of the meme didn't put the time in to spell Eratosthenes properly, 2) Is uneducated enough to not know the experiment involves a well and a tower. 3) Doesn't realize that although just two points may not define a sphere (as in your diagram), more points would, (and have done) because the difference of shadow lengths would deliver a different set of lengths. 4) Could have followed through but didn't, to determine how high up the Sun should be if the Earth was flat, thereby coming up with a hard figure. It'll take some time for me to work that out, but don't want this to 404 before posting. But it's 7.2° for 1/50 the Earth's circumference (just under 25k miles for ballpark).
>>701094293 Do what I do - prepare your text, and post it when this bullshit comes around again. It's the same stuff, all over. Except there's never *any* proof on the part of the flat-Earthers that stands up.
Fuck off philosophers, go back to fucking cave and sing ooga booga with your monkey friends. There is no proof therefore it's fake and gay. This was confirmed by scientists 2000 years ago. Your stupid is making my brain cry.
>>701094198 What's stupid about it? You're just a faggot. I posted valid ideas and answered anon's question and you chime in with, "th-th-thats dumb!" Thank you, jackass, for your brilliant contribution to the discussion. Now get out.
>>701094596 Good question good sir, and a common one. On the proposed model, West is clockwise and East is counter clockwise. Thus circumnavigation is still possible. The "edge" is Antarctica, which forms a ring of ice around the entire perimeter.
If the Earth was flat and the Sun hovered above it and moved in a great circle around the pole, you would see a difference in motion most marked at times of rise and set. Place yourself on the equator during the equinox. At rise, the Sun would appear somehow and from north of the equator, with movment to the right/south (following its circular path), its horizontal motion diminshing over the course of the morning. As it reached overhead (Noon) it would be moving most quickly and straight east-west. After Noon it would appear to slow down and begin its drift right (north), and farther along it loses the vertical movement (never setting) while gaining the drift to the right and magically disappearing.
That of course, is not what we see. The Sun rises due east, transits straight up, and sets due west all at a constant angular speed all along its path, which is apparently straight up, over, and down, because in this geometry you (not a distant pole) are at the center of a circle it appears to trace.
Also, a close-proximity Sun would increase in brightness from invisible at "rise" to its brightest at Noon and back again to invisible at "set" in the course of one day. The graph of the intensity of the received light would vary by the square of the distance of the Sun. This means the increase/decrease in brightness would vary most radically around Noon. Again, we don't see that. We see the Sun remain more or less constant in brightness during the day, with a good accounting (and weather-dependent) for its dimming when near the horizon due to atmospheric opacity.
>>701094982 Prove the theory of gravity then. Hint: you can't.
How can anything, by virtue of its mass alone, cause a force which pulls other objects towards its center? Think about how absurd that sounds. Why would that happen? What causes it? There is no explanation. There are no demonstrable examples of this happening with any other object sans planets themselves (allegedly).
>>701095153 The theory of gravity is very easily proven. Simply drop something, or observe moons orbiting a planet.
I think you mean we can't explain exactly how it works, which is true. Science can't explain WHY it works yet. However, we know enough about it and its workings to provide undeniable proof that it does in fact exist.
>>701095589 I don't know what you're talking about - ships reappearing with binoculars, but here are some photos and videos for further study on that, using Chicago as seen from across Lake Michigan. https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-flat-earth-theory-14-ways-the-flat-earth-theory-is-false.t7148/
>>701095589 Simple: the boat had not yet quite reached the horizon; whatever lens you were viewing it with prior didn't have the capacity to follow the boat to the very edge of the horizon. Limitations enforced by equipment are common in science. If you're serious about it, sink some money into a high-quality telescope, long-distance camera etc. and repeat.
>>701095818 >the best explanation that we have. Nonsense.
The best explanation for what, exactly? Everything you can't explain, maybe.
But couldn't the reason things fall be more simple than that? If you put something in a medium, be it air or water or whatever, and that thing is heavier than the medium it is in, then it will fall. It's simply an inherent property of density.
How does gravity simultaneously emit enough force to hold the world's oceans to the earth's crust and conform them to its curve (water always finds its level), yet still remain weak enough to allow bugs and birds to take off and fly through the air?
>>701096143 It's a matter or aerodynamics. Bugs and birds aren't very dense, and their wings have high enough surface area relative to the attached creature that,awith the proper application of force, the creature is able to force the air particles underneath its wings downwards, thus propelling the creature in the opposite direction the air particles have gone.
>>701095354 >Let's say tomorrow that all over the world it is acknowledged that the earth is flat. How does that actually change daily life?
NASA will have some explainings to do. Contractors like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing etc. will drag them into an unprecedented class action lawsuit.
Every astronomy department of any major university will close. If you are an astronomy professor or theoretical physicist and shit, you will forever lose your job because you never figured out we don't live on a fucking ball.
Just have a little patience and i assure you the shit WILL hit the fan. More and more people are waking up to the truth.
And the best part is once you realise we live on a level plain, there's no going back to the globe.
>>701096827 It doesn't matter; it isn't about that. The problem is the reason the ship disappears, supposedly, is because it is obscured by a wall of water. No amount of zoom should be able to restore the ship into view.
>>701097143 Whether or not that's true is beside the point. NASA themselves admit to photoshopping their own images, including the blue marble pics in question. Funny how they never make a point of mentioning that fact in all the textbooks throughout the world in which such images are depicted for millions and millions of children to see, though, huh? Totally not like the blue marble pics were hugely influential in the minds of all who viewed them growing up over the generations or anything.
>>701097141 There are two reasons the ship might disappear: one is the wall of water, another is the lens that you're viewing it through isn't powerful enough. Same reason people disappear as you take off in an aircraft. They're still there for now, the lenses in your eyes just can't focus on them.
>>701097141 And it doesn't. If anything remains to be seen, looking at it through a scope will reveal only the top part of the ship. Did you even go to that web site? >>701096086 https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-the-flat-earth-theory-14-ways-the-flat-earth-theory-is-false.t7148/
>>701089716 Let's see... The horizon curves away from you when you look out into the ocean. If you look at ships for long enough, you can see them slowly sink below the horizon, giving the appearance that they're actually sinking. If the Earth was not curved, the ships would be constantly visible, and not give off the appearance of a submerging ship. What about timezones? How can it be 12 AM in one place and 12 PM in another? That would not be possible with a flat Earth. What about shadows? If you put to massive sticks in the ground in separate locations, their shadows will be different in length, as well as direction to some degree. This would also not be possible with a flat Earth. The two shadows would be identical. What about the visibility of stars? As you approach the equator, more stars become visible, and other stars you could previously see vanish below the horizon. As you move away from the equator, those stars dip below the horizon, another stars become visible. On a flat Earth, this would not happen. Neither would seasonal constellations and stars. How about other planets? You could use a relatively cheap telescope and view other planets within our solar system, and they are CLEARLY round. Also, your view distance changes as your elevation increases, which also supports a rounded Earth. If the Earth were flat, your distance of visibility would be constant, regardless of elevation. The higher up you are (let's say you're on a very tall tower), the further you can see, as your elevation counters the curvature of the Earth.
>>701089716 And the lunar eclipses and cycles? What about that? We know for an absolute fact that the shadow on the moon is caused by the Earth blocking portions of the sun's light from reaching the moon, causing a darkened spot. That shadow is CLEARLY round. Chunks of the moon aren't vanishing during non-full moon periods of the lunar cycle either, because you can clearly see the dark parts if you look at the moon with a telescope during a phase where the moon isn't fully lit up. Op you are stupid
>>701097471 Yeah but if it's a distance of only a few miles, even, then the object should be at least partially hidden. I have seen videos of people performing this proof, and it suggests the Earth is flat.
>>701098086 Well right off the bat, I'd say his elevations are radically off. I just took a look at a random spot along the spine of Middle Anacapa, and USGS reports 2100 feet. https://mappingsupport.com/p/gmap4.php?ll=34.040444,-119.842580&z=16&t=t4
>>701092820 You do realize that despite the relative proximity the moon has to earth, there is enough distance between the two for Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune to fit in the gap.
>>701099521 Alright, let's put that idea to one side. A flat earth model still doesn't explain things like time zones, seasons, the movements of tectonic plates and why it can be day/night at the poles for months at a time.
>>701100060 Are we reading the same thread? >>701099249 It cherry-picks one example of one explanation given by one flat earther, rather than simply stating this is something flat earth can't explain. Pretty biased infographic.
I 'm talking about the 3,00 mile hump as the one example. If you mean the cherry-picking the whole lunar eclipse thing, this is a fundamental problem with FE hypothesis, and cannot be dismissed. This is a recurring phenomenon viewed by over half the world (because of its duration) at a time.
>>701100257 I agree - I was addressing a FE "proof" that some vidiot posted about seeing distant islands off Santa Barbara. His "proof" involve using numbers that were wrong from the get-go. Maybe confuse meters with feet. That's about how far off it was.
>>701094476 I used the figures from the "proposed scenario", you fucking mongoloid. And then I took those same parameters and put them in terms of geologic distances so I really drive home how fucking ridiculous that scenario would be. Obviously still not enough to penetrate your thick skull though
>>701100865 So if it has one flaw the whole theory is automatically bunk? So if nothing else, the lunar eclipse is good enough proof for you that means the Earth is round? What about the many flaws in round earth theory that round earthers can't address? Why do you not apply the same reasoning to your own model?
>>701096466 It doesn't go over the curve, it simply goes out of range of your device's capability. So when you use a more capable device, the range is extended. As long as your device is sufficiently powerful, there will come a point after which the ship will disappear and increasing your device's power will not make it reappear. You fucking douche
>>701101296 >As long as your device is sufficiently powerful, there will come a point after which the ship will disappear and increasing your device's power will not make it reappear. Nigger what does that even mean? That doesn't make sense. Did you misword it or are you just retarded?
>>701101296 >it simply goes out of range of your device's capability. No, it literally doesn't according to round earth. Curve is measurable and increases exponentially. No matter the zoom, there quickly comes a point at which an object should be completely hidden by the curve.
>>701100927 The lift (aka upward force) from the air changes direction as you slowly revolve around the Earth. So the plane, whose wings depend on this lift, change as well, without having to redirect the path of the plane manually.
It's all centrifugal force. All the pieces fit together. Remember the entire planet was under water. Sea shells on top of mountains. This is why. Could never happen with flat earth. Where would the water go?
>>701101157 not that anon, but that one flaw IS determinant, because the lunar eclipse can not happen in FE while in RE is posible... it's not a matter of a miscalculation or insufficient proof, it just disproves the flat earth model... even in case the earth isn't round, there is no way a lunar eclipse could happen in any flat earth model
>>701101493 I was trying to explain things in retard terms, sorry I don't have a lot of experience doing that so it may have come off as confusing. Most people can use common sense to see why what the post was saying was just wrong
>>701101548 So the constant upward force changes direction and becomes... downward force? What? If lift is upward force and a plane is always being lifted then it is always going upward, there can be no change in direction of that force by definition.
>>701096466 That doesn't actually happen, you're retarded for believing it does. When it goes over the curve, it does so regardlesss of the device you're using. If you think it went over the curve and then you zoom in with a scope and it's still there, it never actually went over the curve and you're just too stupid to tell the difference between something going over a curve and something getting too small to see
>>701097372 >Whether or not that's true is beside the point. NASA themselves admit to photoshopping their own images, including the blue marble pics in question. Funny how they never make a point of mentioning that fact in all the textbooks throughout the world in which such images are depicted
Virtually every image on the planet is "photoshopped". Contrast, light, areas are tweaked. Hell, even before Photoshop existed, details were enhanced or edited in the darkroom, or with airbrush.
Trying to add the word "photoshopped" to everything simply shows your ignorance of what photography entails, and what a composite image is.
>>701101787 This explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon. For the Sun’s light to be casting Earth’s shadow onto the Moon, the three bodies must be aligned in a straight 180 degrees.
>>701101157 >So if it has one flaw the whole theory is automatically bunk?
Oh - that's a loaded statement. It depends on what the claim is, what the proof for it might be, what the argument and proof against it might be, and how it changes the fundamental principles of the underlying hypothesis. In this case yes, this one scenario is enough, unless there is a counter argument that can support the original notion.
> So if nothing else, the lunar eclipse is good enough proof for you that means the Earth is round?
It's powerful, but it it isn't alone. We have five more arguments to consider as well, all of which are explained in a spherical-Earth scenario.
>What about the many flaws in round earth theory that round earthers can't address?
Sorry - what? Have I missed something here? What flaw have you pointed out that wasn't countered with something like or actually, "It's CGI" or "It's a conspiracy" or "you lack proof" which is then ignored?
>Why do you not apply the same reasoning to your own model?
I do - I just haven't seen anything that dispels spherical Earth.
>>701101911 >So the constant upward force changes direction and becomes... downward force? Yes, because by changing direction, the only possible thing I could have meant was a complete 180 degree flip.
>always going upward, there can be no change in direction Are you retarded? That's the whole point. It can always be upward AND change if "upward" means away from a curved Earth. For fuck's sake, just draw a circle on a piece of paper with lines going straight out from the center. Do they always go the same direction? No, but they are still always going "upward" from the surface of the Earth. Only in a bullshit flat earth model would "upward" always be the same thing.
>>701101709 why has nobody seen the firmament or taken a photo? why is it not common knowledge? why is there a pole spread around the whole disc when people have been there and aerial photos have been taken of both poles?
>>701102175 >This explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon. Care to show me?
>>701102046 Not true if you know its distance from you. As I already said, if it's more than a few miles depending on the object it should be at least partially obscured. Your answer doesn't account for that fact.
>>701102337 It's 2016, we supposedly landed human beings on the moon what -- 45 years ago? Yet there still to this day exists no proper pictures of Earth from space. Why is it still so hard for them to take a picture of Earth that isn't photoshopped? This should raise serious, huge red flags for anyone with half a brain. And throw everything else they've told you into doubt.
>>701102429 Are you even trying to stay within the context of the discussion? Whenever the object first starts to become obscured, and I mean ACTUALLY obscured, not "my naked eye can't see part of it but then I zoom in and it's there, but I refuse to accept the fact that my eyes can't see as well as a scope", it will be obscured at any magnification
>>701102863 >It's 2016, we supposedly landed human beings on the moon what -- 45 years ago? Yet there still to this day exists no proper pictures of Earth from space.
Except for all the ones you are conveniently ignoring, like the "earthrise" photo, or the Apollo 17 Blue Marble, which is not a composite, or any of the thousands of photographs taken by people in Low Earth Orbit, all of which you are conveniently forgetting?
>>701102045 >I like to get nitpicky over irrelevant details so I can be a contrarian asshole even though it makes no difference in the context of the discussion You must be so proud of the fact that you got to point that out to someone!
>>701102175 > lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon. For the Sun’s light to be casting Earth’s shadow onto the Moon, the three bodies must be aligned in a straight 180 degrees.
Yes, that's true. And it does happen. And the Sun and the Moon are simultaneously visible only if you are at the Earth's terminator (you see sunrise or sunset). And the Moon would only be visible if partially eclipsed because in full eclipse, it would not be able to shine brightly enough to see against a twilight-lit sky.
Oh hey! I just happen to have taken such a shot in 2015! Pic very much it.
>>701102175 >This explanation is rendered completely invalid due to the fact that lunar eclipses have happened and continue to happen regularly when both the Sun and Moon are still visible together above the horizon.
Said Anon, pulling a claim right out of his ass.
please, show me a lunar eclipse where the sun is not either just setting, or just rising, and the moon is not at the EXACT opposite side of the horizon.
ie, a lunar eclipse happening with the moon visible at midday.
Good luck. No such thing exists, and is physically impossible, regardless of your unfounded claims.
>>701103478 I figured that might be a little too complex for you. It's kind of a catch 22, to explain to you why you're so retarded requires that you not be so retarded as to understand the explanation. Not a lot of ways around this unfortunately
Please, exaplin to me exactly how much experience you have with faking photographs, and how exactly you know that they are faked, when you yourself claim that we've never seen a real photo, so you cant tell what a real one would look like, to compare it to?
Here we go, the Apollo 17 Blue Marble photograph, the original image. Straight from NASA's servers. Tell me how it is "obviously" faked.
(or should I say, Tell me what paranoid delusions make you think its not real.)
>>701104177 >how exactly you know that they are faked NASA admits it.
>>701104177 >so you cant tell what a real one would look like, to compare it to? Obviously neither can you, if you didn't know NASA admits to faking their own images and you believed they were real.
>>701104177 >Here we go, the Apollo 17 Blue Marble photograph, the original image. Yeah, the one and only, taken in 1972, that they claim is legit from outer space and not edited in any way. Cherry-picked as fuck, for one thing. Second, why is that the only allegedly genuine picture they have provided in all that time?
>>701104565 >all flatearthers are completely incapable of understanding any amount of reason Nice generalization asshole, do you really believe there are hundreds of thousands of real human beings out there just going through life completely unable to understand anything? You're retarded.
>>701104259 Found the CIA >i'm the argentino that have seen the 3-month-infinite-sunlight that you flatearthers claim doesn't exist No you haven't seen 3month infinite sunlight, you are a lying piece of shit.
>>701104438 Take an orange. Draw a face on the front, ears on the side, hair on top, sides, and back.
Now draw the whole orange on a piece of paper. You may even peel the orange to flatten it and help you. Therein you see the problem with drawing a sphere on a flat surface. You have to "rubber-sheet" something to make it happen. Your diagram is flawed in such an elementary fashion that it has to be classified as a troll.
Can someone who believes we went to the Moon in the 60s and 70s explain how NASA says its too dangerous to leave Earth's atmosphere today despite all the advances in technology over the last several decades. Did we regress? A pretty raggedy looking piece of equipment got men back and forth in the 60s. Surely we can do better now.
>>701104820 do you really believe there are hundreds of thousands of real human beings out there just going through life completely unable to understand anything? Hundreds of thousands of people believe in flat earth? Jesus christ man, at least provide a citation if you're gonna make a statement that horribly depressing. That's just sickening.
But... yes, I do believe that anybody who is stupid enough to reject such an abundant amount of proof in favor for circular logic and optical illusions must be beyond any sort of reasonable ability
>>701104852 well, in fact it wasn't 3 months because the irizar left when there were 17 days of sunlight... but yeah i'm a lying piece of shit because i'm trolling you and your theory with something I've seen, not like you who's talking with internet references
>>701105362 This proves you don't understand reason yourself and are projecting your own stupidity onto flat earthers. It's foolish to believe that so many people would succumb to a movement based on absolutely no reasoning, or purely, as you put it, "optical illusions and circular logic." Yes, people in general are stupid but there must be some way, some reason why the movement has gained so much traction. That is because it does, in fact, raise several intriguing and compelling points. It must in order to be as successful as it is, or it wouldn't be. You have probably never looked into the subject seriously, and the entirety of your contribution to this thread has come from that initial, knee-jerk reaction everyone has to the idea ot flat earth at first. In short, educate yourself.
>>701105633 >The result was the Kola Superdeep Borehole and a drill-depth of more than 7.5 miles (12 kilometers). To put that in perspective, Kola descends further than the deepest point of the ocean, which lies at nearly 6.8 miles (11 kilometers). The borehole is located on the Kola Peninsula of Russia. nobody knows, we only dug almost 8miles
>>701104641 >how exactly you know that they are faked >NASA admits it.
No, it does not. Stop talking bullshit.
Or to put it another way: Citation? Please find a citation from NASA stating that the Blue Marble photograph taken by astronauts on December 7, 1972, at 5:39 a.m. EST is fake.
You wont, because it is a single photograph, taken on a used a 70-millimeter Hasselblad camera with an 80-millimeter Zeiss lens, on Kodak Film stock.
Stop talking bullshit you have no knowledge of.
>Obviously neither can you, if you didn't know NASA admits to faking their own images and you believed they were real.
NASA does not "admit" such, and as such, your entire idea is based on a fallacy.
>Cherry-picked as fuck, for one thing. Second, why is that the only allegedly genuine picture they have provided in all that time?
Because you are conveniently ignoring every single other image, such as Earthrise, that contains the earth too.
Furthermore, it is one of the few good shots when the sun was directly behind the ship, unlike the other Apollo missions where the visible hemisphere was only partly illuminated.
And incidentally, the reason there are very few post-apollo should be pretty obvious: those are the only missions in the history of mankind with crews that have gone above low earth orbit. Photos from the ISS, Skylab, Shuttle missions, etc, do not have the entire earth in shot because they are too low. Same reason you arent going to be able to take a photo of your back yard, and the neighbour's in one shot, from standing on a chair in the middle of your yard, pointing down at your feet.
>>701105281 >explain how NASA says its too dangerous to leave Earth's atmosphere
In what way? The ISS is above the Earth's atmosphere and has several people on board. I think you're missing something.
>Did we regress?
I think this discussion proves yes, but... It's not the technology that lacks. It's the funding versus return. We were in a space race that served as a proxy war against communism. Once the technology was proven, the science was adequate to answer several questions, the people got restless and moved from "ho-hum" to "Feed the poor!" and we stopped.
>>701105736 It proves that faith in the Bible and its literal interpretation will override all proof. There is a culture fomented by certain "religious" leaders (who have a very real financial stake in this) to scare the living shit out of people and into having them follow their way or the Hell way. Get them early enough, and you can traumatize them into submission for life. Those are the people who no longer have use for thinking. They follow.
>>701105923 I suspect FEs are using the Blue Marble stated composite image as the example for all photography ever made anywhere. This image is often confused with the Apollo 17 image, which as I understand it, is the first full-Earth taken in a single frame by a person from space.
>>701105736 >it's foolish to believe that so many people would succumb to a movement based on absolutely no reasoning You've got to be fucking joking. It happens literally everywhere all the time, what do you think religion is? This movement is gaining traction only because people like to feel special by going against something that's widely accepted. But instead of the Enlightenment or something like that where people were combating blind dogma with science and reason, you're actually doing the opposite. You're pleading people to join you in throwing hundreds of years of scientific advancement out the window by providing easily disprovable and cherrypicked "inconsistencies" that actually make perfect sense once you put a little thought into them. You are part of a movement that is actually REGRESSING our species. You ought to ashamed of yourself
>>701105923 >Please find a citation from NASA stating that the Blue Marble photograph taken by astronauts on December 7, 1972, at 5:39 a.m. EST is fake. You must not have read the part about cherry-picking. I meant in general, the vast majority (all others except for the one in question) are admittedly faked by NASA. I'm not going to spoonfeed you, look it up yourself, you'll see.
>>701105923 >Stop talking bullshit you have no knowledge of. >ending a sentence with a preposition Good job.
>>701105923 >NASA does not "admit" such, and as such, your entire idea is based on a fallacy. They seriously do though.
>>701105923 >Because you are conveniently ignoring every single other image, such as Earthrise, that contains the earth too. I already posted an image which proves the Earthrise has to be fake. You are conveniently ignoring that, while falsely, ironically and hypocritically accusing me of doing the same.
If you believe we actually went to the moon you're just a plain idiot and there's really no hope for you, sorry.
>>701105989 >Can someone who believes we went to the Moon in the 60s and 70s explain how NASA says its too dangerous to leave Earth's atmosphere today despite all the advances in technology over the last several decades.
NASA does not say anything of the sort.
What NASA says is that the Van Allen Belt is more of a danger in terms of radiation damage than they previously thought. As such, they need to develop BETTER technologies to allow longer-term habitation above low earth orbit altitudes
In the Apollo launches, they literally went around the problem by launching north, and curving around the most powerful areas of radiation (the equatorial belt), so passing through weaker areas, and doing so very fast - only there for a short while - See image here for a simple version of what they did - the line being the route taken.
That is not a solution for long-term orbiting in the VA belt regions of space where someone would be inside the belt areas for hours, days, or even years - which would be highly dangerous.
>>701106607 Actual quote, "But strangely enough, there's left in the world today, an area as big as the United States that's never been seen by human beings, and that's beyond the pole, on the other side of the south pole, from [little? I can't quite make that out] America. And it's uh, I think it's quite astonishing that there should be an area as big as that unexplored."
So he's describing a large area that is on the continent of Antarctica that lies near the pole but lies towards Africa.
It's not difficult to understand, if you try a little and listen.
>>701106923 >In the Apollo launches, they literally went around the problem by launching north,
They did not launch north. I have no idea where you get that. Anyway, at the time no-one knew what happens in the Van Allen belts. It's one of those risks that test pilots take (and a reason that the hoaxers are such a disgrace).
Turns out, the passage through the belts isn't great, but the time spent in them is brief. What's bad is that they are a protective shield from general cosmic radiation. That's very unhealthy, and the structures of the craft are not very robust in that regard. Until some sort of shielding can e devised, long-term exposure is still a health risk. The ISS orbits inside the belts.
Thread replies: 303
Thread images: 57
Thread DB ID: 75192
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at [email protected] with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.