Is the Earth Flat? - Some Evidence Presented

[lilpixieofterror]

Nope.

And you have nothing but claiming "Helios" have no evidence.

Deluded fantasies by Medieval-brained fideist nutters are not evidence, except perhaps for a schizophrenic.

Medieval intellects believed the earth was round too. You have to go back before the Romans and Greeks before you start to find a major society taking the idea of a flat earth seriously.

[klaus54]

Medieval intellects believed the earth was round too. You have to go back before the Romans and Greeks before you start to find a major society taking the idea of a flat earth seriously.

Yeppers.

I get the "Geo" and Flat-Earth threads confused.

Yeah, I wonder how JM got the F-E thing in his craw, since it was not a view of the Church at the time JM's watch stopped in the 13th Century.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yeppers.

I get the "Geo" and Flat-Earth threads confused.

Yeah, I wonder how JM got the F-E thing in his craw, since it was not a view of the Church at the time JM's watch stopped in the 13th Century.

Yep, he's not just 500 years behind science now, but now closing on 2,500 years behind science now. If you're going to be wrong, might as well be very wrong.

[Sparko]

Dispersed cloud shadows and dispersed, variable angled light rays through clouds are evidence for a close, small sun. The long distances seen on shore lines is evidence for a flat earth. The model accounts for these physical observations and posits that the sun lights up what is observed to light up.




Others think otherwise than you. Your evidence?



The following series of pictures of the sun from a plane show the sun's size reduces. The reduction in sun size is not accounted for in the global earth, Helio model. As the Helio model says te sun is about 93 million miles away, the sun's size should not change much at all over the day, for the earth-sun distance doesn't change much. The setting sun is evidence for a close sun that changes size as it orbits away from the viewer and not a large, distant sun.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13063[/ATTACH]
Picture 1

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13064[/ATTACH]
Picture 2

[ATTACH=CONFIG]13065[/ATTACH]
Picture 3

JM

add glare to the list of cluelessness guys. see? nobody is that stupid for real.

[Sparko]

Only see islands off Italy.

JM

thats what i said. derp. kinda blows your 'perspective' excuse out of the water (pun intended)

[Sparko]

why can you see stars on the horizon but not the sun when it is over italy? the stars are further away and smaller than the sun, right?

[Raphael]

I currently have not researched this area. So I don't know all the details. You could fly to the south pole in the flat earth model and you could return to other countries such as Australia, NZ, SA etc.

How. A flat earth has no south pole.

The relative position of the sun and moon in relation to the viewer on a flat plane. Some information on the moon phases is given in this video from T11:40

Your model of the earth presented in the OP shows a flat earth with sun and moon orbiting roughly over the equator every 24 hours. Using that model and the explanation above, an observer on the north pole would always see a full moon, and an observer on the southern most point would always see a new moon. (also the model fails to explain why I cannot always observe the sun on a flat earth.)

What's the problem here? Please explain.

Using the models you presented in the OP, how do Lunar and Solar eclipses occur?

What's the problem here? Why would tides not able to be explained on a flat plane?

What causes the tides on your flat plane? On a spherical world it's the moon's gravity. On your model, how do they occur?

Evidence for your claim?

I presented it in post #8 of this thread
But this article here details it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/tr...t-flights.html

Evidence for this?

I presented a graphic of it in post #8 of this thread
On the 17th September 2015, at 10:55 NZST there was an 8.3 quake in Chile. On the 17th September 2015 at 23:50 the tsunami reached the Chatham Islands (roughly 12 hours.)
This is roughly the same length of time it to reach the US.
On the model in the OP, you have the US roughly 1/4 to 1/3 the distance it is to NZ. How does this occur given the model presented in your OP?

CPD_j3ZWcAEQdux.jpg

http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/reso...-beach-threat/
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...thquake-q11138

FEer's claim the photos are merely composites and not real. they have examples of earth globe pictures from NASA showing USA with different sizes. Such evidence along with other photographic anomalies lend support to photo claims being questionable. Some FEer's believe the satellites do not exist, because of the high temperature in the upper atmosphere and other forces casing so much damage to the object that they could not function in such an environment.

some evidence of fake photo-shop of a earth picture is given below T4:59 some of the clouds are clearly fake.

I can observe satellites, and even the space station using binoculars and telescopes. We can track them on radar. Claiming they don't exist is absurd.

We have photographs taken on the moon clearly showing the earth is a sphere (and don't try that claptrap that maybe the moon landings are fake, I have already presented evidence showing that film technology at the time was unable to produce fake footage.)

The satellite referenced in the HelioCentrism thread clearly shows a spherical earth.

The weather balloon would show a flat earth. Evidence has already been presented on this thread from a balloon showing a flat earth and a close sun. The curvature of the earth from a balloon would appear from distortion caused by a fish eye lense.

It doesn't and other photographs taken by the same camera rigs demonstrate that they are not using a fisheye lense. As I pointed out you can purchase all the gear yourself and send one up.

[lilpixieofterror]

We have photographs taken on the moon clearly showing the earth is a sphere (and don't try that claptrap that maybe the moon landings are fake, I have already presented evidence showing that film technology at the time was unable to produce fake footage.)

The moon landing was actually faked on Venus.

[Raphael]

The moon landing was actually faked on Venus.

Rubbish, novels by Isaac Asimov prove that Venus has massive oceans. (I enjoyed the Lucky Starr series when I was a kid)

[lilpixieofterror]

Rubbish, novels by Isaac Asimov prove that Venus has massive oceans. (I enjoyed the Lucky Starr series when I was a kid)

It was done on one of the islands, on Venus.

[Raphael]

Add to the list of what John' flat earth model needs to be able to explain:

The observed transits of both Mercury and Venus across the face of the sun.

[DesertBerean]

John Martin...your observations about the planes climbing to 30,000 ft yet not adjusting to follow the curve of the earth...has me scratching my head. Haven't you ever seen a ball? Planes are adjusting to MAINTAIN their altitudes relative to the surface of the earth all the time. Nothing mysterious about that.

[JohnMartin]

But not Italy itself?

When it's sunny in Italy, is it sunny in the U.S. as well?

Wrong context again.

JM

[JohnMartin]

We have photographs taken on the moon clearly showing the earth is a sphere (and don't try that claptrap that maybe the moon landings are fake, I have already presented evidence showing that film technology at the time was unable to produce fake footage.)

No. You only provided a link to a video of a commentator who made claims about film in relation to the moon landings. That's all he did. The comments are only convincing if you do not account for any counter responses and all the other remaining claims against the moon landings. The evidence for men landing on the moon is far from convincing. The evidence against men landing on the moon is far more convincing.

Apparently the photo of the earth from the moon shows the earth to be smaller than expected. The earth's radius is 3.6 times larger than the moons radius. When seen from the moon, the earth should be proportionately larger than what was apparently photographed from the moon.

Some also think the Apollo mission shows a fake earth from the pod.

NASA is guilty of some serious fraud.

JM

[klaus54]

Wrong context again.

JM

No it 'snot.

Here's a very simple question with unambiguous context...

How does the Sun rise and set when it's "orbiting" a flat Earth? It should be visible through its entire daily "orbit".

Also Raphael had a basic question about transits of Venus and Mercury on the Sun.