[Cypher9]

It may not prove it categorically but it would suggest that it's likely. Wouldn't it? Why wouldn't we live on a ball like the planets seen through telescopes?

[Tron]

I still maintain that the earth is flat and looks like other galaxies.   Galaxies look flat, so I can sort of use the same logic as Planeteers.

[Cypher9]

I still maintain that the earth is flat and looks like other galaxies.   Galaxies look flat, so I can sort of use the same logic as Planeteers.

It sounds like you believe our earth is in motion or have I got that wrong?

[scomato]

I still maintain that the earth is flat and looks like other galaxies.   Galaxies look flat, so I can sort of use the same logic as Planeteers.

The earth looks like galaxies? It might help you to know what galaxies actually look like - here's an ultra high resolution photo of Andromeda our nearest neighbor.

https://esahubble.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/

Last time I checked the Earth wasn't made up of millions of stars and it definitely isn't 220,000 light-years wide.

What's more, not all galaxies are as neat and uniform-looking as others. Some are visibly in the middle of colliding with one another.

[Tron]

[/quote]

It sounds like you believe our earth is in motion or have I got that wrong?
[/quote]

Yes, I believe it spins just like our Galactic neighbors do. 

[Tron]

I still maintain that the earth is flat and looks like other galaxies.   Galaxies look flat, so I can sort of use the same logic as Planeteers.

The earth looks like galaxies? It might help you to know what galaxies actually look like - here's an ultra high resolution photo of Andromeda our nearest neighbor.

Thats a great photo.  but we haven't any photos on whats beyond the "event horizon".  To me it looks like a Flat Planet, with a central Sun, and smaller illuminating bodies or planets rotating around it

https://esahubble.org/images/heic1502a/zoomable/

Last time I checked the Earth wasn't made up of millions of stars and it definitely isn't 220,000 light-years wide.

The earth has many stars in the sky, whats at a galaxies center is less understood.
 And yes, assuming its 220,000 wide changes things a bit.  But if it was 22,000miles wide then can you see my point?  Just how sure are we of a galaxies size when looking up at the sky?
 this is the Flat Earth Society we're chatting in

What's more, not all galaxies are as neat and uniform-looking as others. Some are visibly in the middle of colliding with one another.

Not every planet is alike, same with galaxies.   As an aside, colliding galaxies are pretty amazing.  But having two Habitats slowly join doesn't sound impossible to me.

[Tom Bishop]

The galaxies are cartoons - https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

[Kokorikos]

The galaxies are cartoons - https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

My understanding is that the wiki article lists some of the problems of the galaxies in order to challenge the predictive power of the Newtonian and Einsteinian theories.
It offers nothing on what galaxies actually are.

[Pete Svarrior]

It may not prove it categorically but it would suggest that it's likely. Wouldn't it? Why wouldn't we live on a ball like the planets seen through telescopes?

There are 5 pieces of furniture in my dining room. 4 of them are chairs. Therefore, the 5th piece must also be a chair. I mean, this may not be a categorical proof, but why would an undefined object be different from the 4 I've already defined?

[Cypher9]

It may not prove it categorically but it would suggest that it's likely. Wouldn't it? Why wouldn't we live on a ball like the planets seen through telescopes?

There are 5 pieces of furniture in my dining room. 4 of them are chairs. Therefore, the 5th piece must also be a chair. I mean, this may not be a categorical proof, but why would an undefined object be different from the 4 I've already defined?

Assumptions have known to be wrong though.

[Clyde Frog]

It may not prove it categorically but it would suggest that it's likely. Wouldn't it? Why wouldn't we live on a ball like the planets seen through telescopes?

There are 5 pieces of furniture in my dining room. 4 of them are chairs. Therefore, the 5th piece must also be a chair. I mean, this may not be a categorical proof, but why would an undefined object be different from the 4 I've already defined?

Assumptions have known to be wrong though.

Sure, it may not prove it categorically but it would suggest that it's likely. Wouldn't it?

[SteveRossi1216]

The Globalists have messed with our heads since the beginning of our time.
It is difficult to discern real from unreal. However, it sure seems like the canopy above the firmament
displaying stars is just that, a display. The concept of space was created for us. Roswell and aliens were created for us.
The other planets are just part of the display interlaced within a less complex rotation.

[Tom Bishop]

The galaxies are cartoons - https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

My understanding is that the wiki article lists some of the problems of the galaxies in order to challenge the predictive power of the Newtonian and Einsteinian theories.
It offers nothing on what galaxies actually are.

It shows that the galaxies are not as envisioned. They don't behave as they should in many different ways. Compared to the conventional belief of Galaxies, they are cartoons. This is not generally publicized, the problems are often ignored or only murmured about, and it takes a lot of research to just dig it out.

Come back in a few years and you will find similar articles on the Sun and Planets too. It is being put together piece by piece. The entire sky is a fantasy cartoon.

[Cypher9]

It may not prove it categorically but it would suggest that it's likely. Wouldn't it? Why wouldn't we live on a ball like the planets seen through telescopes?

There are 5 pieces of furniture in my dining room. 4 of them are chairs. Therefore, the 5th piece must also be a chair. I mean, this may not be a categorical proof, but why would an undefined object be different from the 4 I've already defined?

Assumptions have known to be wrong though.

Sure, it may not prove it categorically but it would suggest that it's likely. Wouldn't it?

It would but we're going for certainty - is the earth a ball or not. 'Likely' doesn't really cut it.

[Clyde Frog]

It may not prove it categorically but it would suggest that it's likely. Wouldn't it? Why wouldn't we live on a ball like the planets seen through telescopes?

There are 5 pieces of furniture in my dining room. 4 of them are chairs. Therefore, the 5th piece must also be a chair. I mean, this may not be a categorical proof, but why would an undefined object be different from the 4 I've already defined?

Assumptions have known to be wrong though.

Sure, it may not prove it categorically but it would suggest that it's likely. Wouldn't it?

It would but we're going for certainty - is the earth a ball or not. 'Likely' doesn't really cut it.

I literally used your words in my response. I'm not sure how the irony in your reply got lost. OK let's back up then. Your thread title: "Do the images of planets prove we live on a globe?" And the answer: No. Not it does not prove any such thing, not by a long shot, and I'm not sure you are using the word "prove" correctly if you even suspect otherwise.

[Kokorikos]

It shows that the galaxies are not as envisioned. They don't behave as they should in many different ways. Compared to the conventional belief of Galaxies, they are cartoons. This is not generally publicized, the problems are often ignored or only murmured about, and it takes a lot of research to just dig it out.

Come back in a few years and you will find similar articles on the Sun and Planets too. It is being put together piece by piece. The entire sky is a fantasy cartoon.

It also shows that when scientists find new evidence that debunk their theories they try to find new theories that match to the new evidence. Also, the issues described in the wiki article were put forward by the scientists themselves so I do not see how one can say that they are not "generally publicized".

Saying that the sky is a fantasy cartoon is so extraordinary as a claim that very strong evidence is needed to support it.

[Cypher9]

I literally used your words in my response. I'm not sure how the irony in your reply got lost. OK let's back up then. Your thread title: "Do the images of planets prove we live on a globe?" And the answer: No. Not it does not prove any such thing, not by a long shot, and I'm not sure you are using the word "prove" correctly if you even suspect otherwise.

Thanks for your input. Do you know of any photos taken using a telescope that shows the features of a planet? Are they even available?

[Clyde Frog]

I literally used your words in my response. I'm not sure how the irony in your reply got lost. OK let's back up then. Your thread title: "Do the images of planets prove we live on a globe?" And the answer: No. Not it does not prove any such thing, not by a long shot, and I'm not sure you are using the word "prove" correctly if you even suspect otherwise.

Thanks for your input. Do you know of any photos taken using a telescope that shows the features of a planet? Are they even available?

I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything, but you can find all sorts of pictures taken using a telescope - just open a new tab and head over to Google. Again though, images of things that are not Earth are not going to help prove what shape the actual Earth is.

[Cypher9]

I'm really not sure what this has to do with anything, but you can find all sorts of pictures taken using a telescope - just open a new tab and head over to Google. Again though, images of things that are not Earth are not going to help prove what shape the actual Earth is.

Yes, but do you know of any that are genuine photos as opposed to paintings? When I was looking for them I couldn't tell what was and what wasn't a painting.

[scomato]

The funny thing is, we have telescopes and cameras pointed at Earth! Many dozens of them. Some do sweeping orbital scans of the planet, some are far enough away and in geostationary orbit that it can snap the whole planet in single frame. Himawari 9 provides such photos over the earth over Australia and Japan. From over 22,000 miles away it produces an incredible full disc image of the Earth every 10 minutes. The best part of seeing the earth from a geostationary position over an entire 24 period is that you can see the reflection of the sun on the ocean, it's spectacular. Really hammers home the sense that we're all just out here riding a wet blue bowling ball through space.

https://giant.gfycat.com/TimelyHorribleCottonmouth.mp4

https://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/data/himawari/sat_img.php?area=fd_


For supporting evidence that the images are not fake, here is the same photo taken at the same time from an older satellite. If these were fake it would mean that the Japanese space agency is actively faking images in real-time, with perfect knowledge of cloud patterns, at dozens of frequencies, to produce a perfect simulation of what the world currently looks like from above Australia! That would be an incredible feat of technology. Not only that, but all of the data from all of these must be faked in real-time too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Earth_observation_satellites)