• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

WHAT IF the Earth was Actually Flat?

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
38,240
Reaction score
61,669
Location
Qmerica

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536

Mujahideen

Owner Operator
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,167
Reaction score
28,452
Location
OTR
Where does space actually begin? What does it actually mean to be "in space"? ...apparently not much of anything, as no human has ever been there.

Originally "outer space" was defined by the claims of one Theodore von Kármán in the 1900s ...hence the Kármán line...which is about 50 miles up...though this is apparently flexible and is sometimes cited as up to 62 miles up. Today's more "enlightened" priests of scientism claim that's wrong and instead say "outer space" begins around 100 miles up(Neil DeGasBag Tyson), though NOAA.gov cites 73 miles up as the beginning of "outer space".

Today if you ask google you can find all kinds of wild answers to such a simple question. Many allege even that officially "space/time" doesn't even "officially" begin until 390,000 miles out! ...like well outside the moon's alleged orbit! The moon is literally WITHIN Earth's alleged "air sphere"! ...as are geostationary/geosynchronous satellites(22,236 miles).

View attachment 233425


Gosh, it's almost as though these priests of scientism assholes are just making shit up. Doesn't seem like they actually "know" shit. Wouldn't it be cool if they'd stop pretending as though they do? One would expect such a simple question to have a definitive answer...unlike hard questions like...can one see stars in space?

Atmosphere?
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
Yep, though I usually cite it as an "air sphere", the meaning is the same. The question is, where does this alleged "air sphere" begin directly contacting the alleged vacuum of space? ...which btw is provably impossible according to the accepted laws of physics...specifically the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The law of entropy is almost certainly the most hated law amongst ballers, as it contradicts huge portions of their spinning water ball fairy tales and cosmological gibberish.

Ballers tend to focus on edges, eclipses, and domes when attempting to ridicule flat Earth proponents, but seem blissfully unaware of the many problems with their own spinning ball Earth "model". When looked into with any scrutiny the alleged ball Earth model that's treated as though it's fact, suddenly becomes very wishy washy in nearly every way. ...in part since it cannot be accurately modeled physically...because grabbiton unicorns are seemingly very bashful.
 
Last edited:

BarnacleBob

Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor
Founding Member
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
19,060
Reaction score
43,087
That should surprise none. NASA and the rest of the military complex consistently assert that Earth is both flat and non-rotating.

Nothing like a generous supply of evidence from the aeronautical institutions with assumptions that support a flat nonrotating earth! That's quite a few credible examples!
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Nothing like a generous supply of evidence from the aeronautical institutions with assumptions that support a flat nonrotating earth! That's quite a few credible examples!
Man, you guys are about as gullible as a fruit fly.

Whoever made that vid is intentionally trying to deceive you, and you ate it up. Hook line and sinker. Lol

Everyone of those "examples" are from reports covering the point mass modeling of various aircraft and aeronautical systems.

For the woefully uninformed amongst us, here is a clue as to what I am referring to.

When doing the modeling for flight characteristics, why waste time and computing power by including things that have very little (if any) effect on local operations of the system being modeled?

Every example shown as proof in your misrepresented video is of old systems that were developed when there was much less computing power available to do such calculations.

So what they did was to not include such things as the coriolis effect (for example) so that valuable time was not spent calculating stuff of little to no value to the actual model.

Look at what those reports are about. The SR-71. The CH-53 helicoptor. Etc etc.
Ask yourself, when were those developed? Yep. Back when things were calculated using slide rules and early computers.

Again, you flat Earth folks just take shit at face value and run with it. No research, no real thought. Just eat up a buncha crap that a dishonest person spoon fed to ya. Lol
 

BarnacleBob

Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor
Founding Member
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
19,060
Reaction score
43,087
Man, you guys are about as gullible as a fruit fly.

Whoever made that vid is intentionally trying to deceive you, and you ate it up. Hook line and sinker. Lol

Everyone of those "examples" are from reports covering the point mass modeling of various aircraft and aeronautical systems.

For the woefully uninformed amongst us, here is a clue as to what I am referring to.

When doing the modeling for flight characteristics, why waste time and computing power by including things that have very little (if any) effect on local operations of the system being modeled?

Every example shown as proof in your misrepresented video is of old systems that were developed when there was much less computing power available to do such calculations.

So what they did was to not include such things as the coriolis effect (for example) so that valuable time was not spent calculating stuff of little to no value to the actual model.

Look at what those reports are about. The SR-71. The CH-53 helicoptor. Etc etc.
Ask yourself, when were those developed? Yep. Back when things were calculated using slide rules and early computers.

Again, you flat Earth folks just take shit at face value and run with it. No research, no real thought. Just eat up a buncha crap that a dishonest person spoon fed to ya. Lol
Joe, you continue to reference both myself & Solarion as flat earth earthers, when throughout this thread, both of us, Sol & myself have questioned both the flat & round hypothesis... Yet you completely avoid our interactions and go straight to the flat earth with your round earth theory, never allowing for any other discussion.... That nice Lil CGI blue marble you think this is, just isn't so.... But I get it, your defending your cult religion.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
Joking, though intelligent, is so completely indoctrinated by his own religious beliefs...which he falsely believes to be based in science, that he belittles anyone raising genuine questions. This is precisely the opposite of what a genuinely inquisitive scientific mind would do as skepticism of entrenched concepts is vital to maintaining objectivity.

Belief structures have no place in legitimate scientific discourse, else we'd all now "know" the Earth to be "a flat disc with upturned edges" and ball Earthers would be ridiculed...or worse. "Settled science" is an oxymoron and those that think otherwise are mistaking beliefs for knowledge.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Joe, you continue to reference both myself & Solarion as flat earth earthers, when throughout this thread, both of us, Sol & myself have questioned both the flat & round hypothesis.
Yet you both (and others) only post stuff that supposedly "proves" the Earth is flat.
....and that's why I say that honesty in the conversation is lacking on you guys part.


Where's all your round Earth evidence, if you guys are truly neutral on the issue?

Where's any falsification attempts for the flat Earth stuff you post?


Yet you completely avoid our interactions and go straight to the flat earth with your round earth theory, never allowing for any other discussion.
I don't avoid any of the flat Earth crap you guys post. It's all you post.

It's you guys who avoid addressing the points that destroy your flat Earth so-called proof.

As soon as your "evidence" is shown to be false, you guys drop it and shift gears to something completely unrelated.

How about trying to have an honest discussion for a change?
After all, it's you guys who keep insisting on trying to convince everyone else that it ain't round.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
he belittles anyone raising genuine questions
No, what I belittle is your blatant dishonesty in the conversation.
edited to add: along with your attempts to lure others into your delusions.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
IOW, I make valid points that counter your belief structures...eventually causing you to pull nonsense out of your ass.

...like joking's air sphere momentum savings account theory ...invented to ignore the problems with the ball Earth model and Newton's laws of motion.

"Newtonian gravity propagates at light speed...derp derp." ~joking You don't even know your own scripture.

I know, I know Joey...didn't happen right? ROFL

You fancy yourself a reasonable logical individual, but your mind is absolutely closed to anything that goes against your own belief structures. It's called cognitive dissonance...bruh.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
but your mind is absolutely closed to anything that goes against your own belief structures. It's called cognitive dissonance...bruh.
Quite the opposite, pal.

I've addressed every bit of your wacked out bs you post, while you ignore anything that shows you to be wrong.

If not, address why we can't see all if downtown Chicago in your pic you posted.

You don't address it because you are completely incapable of having an honest discussion about it.

You are as dishonest as anyone I have ever known.
....and you are proving that fact to everyone who looks at this thread. Well, everyone other than your flatard buddies. Lol
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
@solarion , you accuse others of ignoring falsifying data, but then do the same yourself.

That's being dishonest.


You falsely accuse others of not addressing all of your points, yet do the same of others data.

That's being dishonest.


You post so-called proof of your wacked out bs, but then refuse to acknowledge that so-called proof once it becomes painfully obvious that it actually proves you wrong.

That's being dishonest.


Do you have any honesty and integrity in you, at all?
 

newmisty

Transcending the 5 Elements
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
38,240
Reaction score
61,669
Location
Qmerica
@solarion , you accuse others of ignoring falsifying data, but then do the same yourself.

That's being dishonest.


You falsely accuse others of not addressing all of your points, yet do the same of others data.

That's being dishonest.


You post so-called proof of your wacked out bs, but then refuse to acknowledge that so-called proof once it becomes painfully obvious that it actually proves you wrong.

That's being dishonest.


Do you have any honesty and integrity in you, at all?
Thats exactly what I see too.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Thats exactly what I see too.
A lot of people darn well should see it, and come to the realization that if these folks logic and reasoning ability can be so irreparably flawed on this subject, that it likely extends into other subjects as well.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
@solarion , you accuse others of ignoring falsifying data, but then do the same yourself.

That's being dishonest.


You falsely accuse others of not addressing all of your points, yet do the same of others data.

That's being dishonest.


You post so-called proof of your wacked out bs, but then refuse to acknowledge that so-called proof once it becomes painfully obvious that it actually proves you wrong.

That's being dishonest.


Do you have any honesty and integrity in you, at all?
I did address it, hell we had an entire conversation about the photo right here...


Now about that atmospheric momentum savings account that you've avoided discussing since you made it up to ignore problems with your precious ball Earth model? About the FACT that you don't even know what gravity is?
You are as dishonest as anyone I have ever known.
You don't know a GD thing about me joking. You're just an easily triggered ball Earth zealot running around derailing any conversation here that causes people to question what you consider to be "settled science". You fancy yourself a self appointed "defender of science", seemingly oblivious of the fact that objective truth doesn't need to be defended.

I never claimed to know everything, and I don't pretend to know the shape of Earth and have said so many times. I claim only to know there are numerous problems with ball Earth theory and I seek knowledge. You're the one that's, as usual, hurling insults.

...now back to ignore with you.
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I did address it, hell we had an entire conversation about the photo right here...
More dishonesty! Is anyone reading surprised?

You absolutely did not address it. You ignored it once I pointed out that water was blocking the view of the lower portions of the buildings.
...same as every other flat Earth flattard on this forum has done when asked about it. Even your buddy @Silvergun ran away from the topic.

Again, you are dishonest and you are showing that fact to everyone on the board with each post you make on this subject.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Last edited:

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
The idea of a mud ball covered in air mysteriously spinning in unison at up to 1037 mph(depending on latitude) can sound like a reasonable theory...as long as it's viewed only superficially and without considering its impact on accepted laws of physics. The whole thing is allegedly held together by (now disproven) gravitational theory, most notably proposed by Isaac Newton in 1687. Yet this same man also wrote laws of motion that are plainly violated by this same spinning air covered water-ball theory.

An object in motion, stays in motion, unless acted upon by an outside force. Newton's first law of motion is plainly violated every time one envisions an aircraft maneuvering on an air covered water-ball rotating West to East at up to 1037mph. That is RELATIVE to another object(say an airfield), so those wishing to hide behind Einstein's gibberish needn't bother.

Even our resident self appointed pseudoscience cop knows this is a problem with ball Earth theory, that's why he invented "air ball momentum savings accounts" before realizing how ridiculous that sounds and refusing to comment further. Which he has done again in this very thread.

 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
Question. We can all agree, I think, that air pressure changes with altitude on Earth...yes? This is seemingly caused by increased air density at lower altitudes(more dense matter falls and less dense matter rises). Charted, it looks like this:

1637689695948.png

1637689715660.png


Some here and elsewhere have cited this observable fact as evidence of proof that gas pressure can exist without a container...specifically that gravity *IS* that container...we simply cannot observe that container as a human on the surface of Earth. For example, there's this post claiming precisely that, though there are many more examples on GIM2 and elsewhere.


Assuming this is true, then it would seem that within this claim is the assumption that air pressure is a result of gravitational "force". Assuming that's true, then wouldn't it mean also that gravitational "force" reduces as one rises...allowing for this gradient air pressure effect? ...and if that's true then how can gravitational "forces" still be the cited reason for air speed remaining constant throughout the alleged air sphere?

Reduced gravitational "forces" at higher altitude would result in lower angular velocity of the alleged "air sphere's" rotational velocity...yet that counters the ball Earth model. Help me out here ball Earth proponents.

Is this yet another example of "missing mass" disproving gravitational theory and therefore disproving ball Earth theory?
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Imagine a tall stack of bricks. Say 1000 of 'em.

Does the bottom brick experience the same amount of pressure upon it as a brick halfway up the stack? Or the same as the one on top of the stack?

No, they do not. Same as the air at sea level experiences the weight of all the air above it. The ones at the bottom are packed more tightly together. Ie: there's not enough room for all the air to be at sea level.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
...except your "pressure" is based upon gravitational forces in the ball Earth model. Everything about weight and mass has been re-written over time to include aspects of Cavendish's 1798 experiment "weighing the world" ...which includes the gravitational constant.

You ignored what I asked to re-interpret what I already said.
No, they do not. Same as the air at sea level experiences the weight of all the air above it.
1637699823181.png


Care to try again?

The trouble with the ball Earth model is that gravity is used to dismiss all the problems...while creating numerous other problems...such as allegedly consistent angular velocity in the alleged presence of declining gravity.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Care to try again?
Nope. Already explained it.

As usual, I can't understand it for you.
....and I was not really responding to you, but rather just posting for anyone who might read your flat Earth propaganda and possibly start thinking it might have merit.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
You explained nothing. You ignored yet another problem with the ball Earth model.

The air sphere's allegedly consistent rotational velocity throughout REQUIRES increased mass as air pressure declines...yet gravitational theory calls for lower gravitational "force" as two masses move apart(the inverse square of the distance between their centers). The exact same problem occurs on a large scale with regard to galactic rotational velocities. It is the impetus for the invention of theoretical "dark matter" ...eighty-eight years ago. Which was an excuse used at that time to again ignore the obvious problems with gravitational theory.

The problem is not that you cannot understand it for me, the problem is that you do not understand your own model...or your own gravity god.
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
You explained nothing. You ignored yet another problem with the ball Earth model.
As I said, I wasn't explaining it for you, as any explanation that might in any way lead to the Earth not being able to be flat, is completely lost on you.




The air sphere's allegedly consistent rotational velocity throughout REQUIRES increased mass as air pressure declines...yet gravitational theory calls for lower gravitational "force" as two masses move apart(the inverse square of the distance between their centers).
Does it? Your calculations are most likely off.


The exact same problem occurs on a large scale with regard to galactic rotational velocities.
Oh, now you're gonna tell us you believe in galaxies too?!? Omg. Lol


The problem is not that you cannot understand it for me, the problem is that you do not understand your own model...or your own gravity god.
I know enough to know the Earth is in fact spherical in shape.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
Yes, you're obviously very comfortable telling me lots of stuff you claim to know...even about me. What you don't seem adept at doing is actually providing any evidence for anything you claim to know, but plainly do not understand. This is not a response intended to address the question at all, it's simply you trying to salvage your own ego...followed by another assertion that you're committed to your own belief structures.
Does it? Your calculations are most likely off.
I know enough to know the Earth is in fact spherical in shape.
So I'll just go ahead and accept that you have no legitimate response to this problem with your own ball Earth model that you claim to know is a fact. "Your calculations are most likely off." is just evasion...like your unwillingness to back up your own claim that the air sphere has within it a mechanism to store momentum...which is a theory so ridiculously idiotic, I don't blame you for never addressing it again. If I'd said something so dumb, I'd probably try to forget about it too. lol
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
More super zoom photos that prove the Earth cannot be an oblate pear shaped spheroid 7917 miles in diameter. These platforms, photographed at an altitude of 8' are 6.08 and 10.10 miles from the photographer...yet the horizon clearly appears behind them.

1637797778776.png



Here a red head shows that Einstein's theory of general relativity is provably wrong. The entire video is interesting, though the destruction of Einstein's silly theory begins at 17:30.

 

Silvergun

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
1,106
Reaction score
1,839
Location
Commie-fornia

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
you have no legitimate response
Nope, that'd be you.

You are the one who posted the pic of Chicago, but then became unable to see it anymore due to your cognitive dissonance that causes you to not be able to see anything that shows that the Earth's surface has curvature consistant with being an ~8k mile dia sphere.




These platforms, photographed at an altitude of 8' are 6.08 and 10.10 miles from the photographer...yet the horizon clearly appears behind them.
Prove it. Prove that the pic is taken at those distances. It's easy to just say it is X number of miles, but you flat Earth guys are well known for intentionally mislaballing photos in order to spread your mind pollution.


I see your pic of an oil platform at an unknown distance and raise you by your own pic of Chicago that was taken from a known distance that even you agreed with.
.....and that clearly shows curvature consistent with what you say cannot exist. Yet there it is, right in front of you.

Willis Tower 2665-2.jpg


Where's all the missing buildings between the two arrows?
They are hiding behind the horizon that's made of water.


A child could see what this pic shows. Can you? Are you as intelligent as a child?
It is your pic after all, so you ought to be able to see it.

Even your buddy @Silvergun had to run away with his tail between his legs after a miserably failed attempt to address what this pic shows. Lol
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Here a red head shows
.....that she is completely wacked out of her mind.

It's astounding, the level of bs one must accept just to be able to falsely claim that the Earth is flat.

It's like willfully taking a pill that one knows causes insanity.
 

Zed

Argent
Midas Supporter
Mother Lode
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
21,922
Reaction score
24,939
This thread should be like two posts long...

Q: What if the world was actually flat?
A: It isn't, stop drinking and go home before you do something you will regret.
 

Zed

Argent
Midas Supporter
Mother Lode
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
21,922
Reaction score
24,939
Show me a real picture of the edge and the bottom, then we can talk.
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Sr Midas Sup +++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
11,781
Here's your picture;
trolls piling on.jpg

Trolls piling on when they can't bamboozle you with their fantasies...
 

Bigjon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,089
Reaction score
5,218
This thread should be like two posts long...

Q: What if the world was actually flat?
A: It isn't, stop drinking and go home before you do something you will regret.

Look at the bright side, some of our "best" trolls wasting their time in meaningless drivel.
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
Show me a real picture of of our round planet, then we can talk.
There aren't any. Just composite "images" created by a gumbymint agency that many here refuse to question. It's as though the past couple years haven't taught us that nothing governments say should be accepted without scrutiny.

The reason more and more people each day are questioning the mainstream theory of the shape of Earth, is that they observe falsifying evidence with their own eyes. When plain photographic proof is presented that Earth cannot be a water ball 24901 miles in circumference, ball worshipers typically ignore the evidence to attack the one presenting the proof...just as happens here. Problems with the spinning space fruit theory are always ignored...and rather than addressing the evidence those defenders of ball Earth instead attack a competing theory...in this case flat Earth. Anything to avoid addressing the evidence.

For instance, Joe King who constantly hurls insults at anyone daring to question his space ball religion, while carefully ignoring anything that proves his precious theory wrong. That's precisely why he keeps ignoring me when I ask for details about his air sphere momentum savings account theory.

Here are three problems with the spinning space pear model explained in this very thread. Where are the spinning ball proponents even addressing these problems with their model? Nowhere. Instead they simply ignore the problems and call the poster a troll. Why? If there's so much evidence to support the spinning ball theory, then this stuff should be easy.


Then there's plenty of photographic evidence...like the one just posted above. These platforms are located off the shoreline of Santa Barbara, CA and can be verified by anyone.

1637855869140.png

1637856046785.png

1637856562645.png


The bottom of these rigs should not be visible at this distance, and the horizon line should not be behind them. Consistently ignoring evidence and problems with gravitational theory to instead ridicule people that rightly question the spinning water ball model isn't much of a response...and it's merely resulting in more people questioning long standing pseudoscience. Keep up the good work ball worshipers! :)
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
they observe falsifying evidence with their own eyes.
No, we observe you posting known-to-be-false data, but presenting it as fact.

That's either dishonesty, or incompetence on your part.



ignore the evidence
No, that's what you do. You're obviously now ignoring your pic of Chicago that you said proves the Earth is flat.
....but once told what it really shows and you become willfully blind to it.

Anyone with an ounce of integrity to 'em wouldn't do that. It is your pic after all.


Problems with the spinning space fruit theory are always ignored while rather than addressing the evidence those defenders of ball Earth instead attack a competing theory...in this case flat Earth. Anything to avoid addressing the evidence.
Anything you have ever brought up on the subject has been addressed.


Like Joe King who constantly hurls insults
You're the one who started that shit. As long as you've been posting your bs on this topic in many different threads over the years and you are the one constantly calling others dumb and mocking them with your stupid "herp derp" comments.
Over the years I have received several PM's from several people noting my patience in trying to help you to see reality.


The bottom of these rigs should not be visible at this distance, and the horizon line should not be behind them.
They normally are not, but this is yet another case of you misrepresenting what a photo actually shows.

The guy who took the video that pic was pulled from, took it in order to show an example of atmospheric refraction. He also said that in normal conditions the horizon is obviously in front of the platforms.

So this is just another example of the lying deceitful ways of those in the flat Earth "community".




Consistently ignoring evidence


Says the guy who can't see this pic. Lol

Why can't we see all of downtown Chicago? It seems to be underwater.
....and where are all the missing buildings between the two arrowed buildings? They are not visible. Since you supposedly do not ignore falsifying evidence, please use your flat Earth "science" to explain for us, why we cannot see them in this pic.

Willis Tower 2665-2.jpg



If you cannot explain it, tell us again who is ignoring evidence. It ain't me, that's for sure. Lol
 

solarion

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
9,491
Reaction score
16,536
...he says while ignoring all the evidence on the same page as well as his own hair brained theory concocted to ignore evidence. ROFL

I've already addressed the photo you seem to think does not disprove your precious ball Earth theory. Hell, I even linked to a lengthy conversation between us about it. Now how about addressing anything in this thread? ...or how about addressing your 2018 theory about how the alleged "air sphere" mysteriously stores momentum for later retrieval. I mean, if proven, that's a ground breaking theory buddy! LMAO

Allow me to refresh your memory...

1637863982910.png



Easily one of the stupidest comments ever made by someone attempting to defend their belief structures. ...no wonder you haven't addressed the subject in over three years.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Show me a real picture of of our round planet, then we can talk.

Photos-Taken-From-Even-Higher-than-the-ISS-400x209.jpg


Taken by a civilian. One shot, not pieced together. Curvature clearly shown.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
12,698
Reaction score
16,326
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I've already addressed the photo you seem to think does not disprove your precious ball Earth theory. Hell, I even linked to a lengthy conversation between us about it.
That's a lie. You abandoned the conversation once you realized what it shows.
Edited to add: same as your buddy @Silvergun did. Lol



If you are honest at all, tell us why some of the buildings are not visible above the horizon and why we cannot see Chicago at ground level.