Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
But then I objected because it i known the Earth can't be round, NASA is just lyng to usI don't follow your logic, NASA lies hence the Earth is flat even though the experiment that was invented millenniums ago which was supposedly proven the Earth to be spherical was a success?
Big bang doesn't and evolution still don't add up. How exactly life manifested and our world created is a mystery. But evolution as an origin of life and big bang as cosmogony is clearly not the answer. We could through sound science and evidence one day understand, but as of now we are practically in a dark age for reason and logic in our study of the universe. It is a monstrous structure built upon a flimsy, creaky foundation.If i was a creationist that believe the big bang and evolution, i would say "Why would it makes sense? Our tiny human mind cannot comprehend the ways of God creating our world through the big bang and evolution."
That entire wikipedia article is written as apologetic propoganda. Nothing more, nothing less. I read it and was astounded by the obvious bias and lack of any factual evidence to back up the refutations.You said you don't want to prove anything to any of us here, then don't try to undermine us by doing an ad hominem attack.
If something as obviously faked as the moon landing is impossible to make you guys even consider a possibility, than it really is a waste of time discussing flat earths and other stuff with your little av club's worth of posters.
You have to understand, to me, accidental origin of life sounds just as stupid to me as you apparently believe creationism to be. Seemingly logical, realistic people somehow decide to suspend their disbelief when they chose the big bang and evolution against all logic and evidence.Then tell me this, would it be logical to say God made the big bang and evolution to be all of this?
Just to be clear, the moon pulling on one side the Ocean, somehow makes the Ocean on the other side of the world rise as well?Remember this:
Debunked by the fact that it DOESNT even make a mark on the moon, along with many other technical faults. You guys do not even believe your eyes and are blinded by your indoctrination in school.You're making it seem like we haven't explained it a billion times already, duh we probably did it just 100 million times.
Tell 10 of your friends "I argue with flat-earthers on the internet." and share your results.
Fuck the flat earthers
You know what they say "When arguing with an idiot, any outside observe can't tell which is the idiot"
Most online flat Earthers i know are American (i can tell by their usage of miles), they have freedom of speech don't they?
God these guys are retarded
The Flat Earth society are meant to be a joke, no one there actually believes the Earth is flat
I personally suspect that they don't actually honestly believe that the Earth is flat... they are just claiming this in order to be kooky and annoy people, because they like attention.
Have they ever seen mountain, canyons and something like that?
Of course the Earth is round, they must be abnormal then.
I would leave them be and let Darwinism sort things out
ok
Btw I'll just leave this here too.Here's a better version of it
It was sarcasm. I was taking something you obviously consider to be some kind of widespread phenomenon of people locating, looking at, and photographic specks of light, and showing that it isn't nearly as common as you think. I'm sure I could go to satellite watching specific forums, that have about 6 active members to learn more about these specks of light, but an overwhelming majority of people just take it for granted that they exist and can be seen.Actually you can blame google for that, here's a dozen photograph of the ISS from the ground
That's the kind of blind trust I can't fathom. Most people are just willing to accept whatever is told to them without doing the research or having the first hand experience to verify it. Not that I haven't been guilty of that in the past.I did research this, i looked through many website tracking the ISS and i saw it on my location just on time like the website predicted,
These flat Earthers should be a sci-fi writers, i saw a model explaining perihelion and aphelion
How is the sun visible for over 14 hours?
Not only is the area of the FE Southern HemiPlane (at 1,885,000,000 km2) much greater than the area of FE Northern HemiPlane (at 628,000,000 km2) the intensity of sunlight in the Southern summer is 6.9% than in the Northern Summer.
Hence during its summer the FE Southern HemiPlane receives about 3.2 times the energy the FE Northern HemiPlane receives during its summer.
Something does not seem to be right with this Solar model that can put out 3.2 times as much energy in the Southern Summer as in the Northern Summer - who "turns up the wick"? And if the sun stays at the same height how does this energy spread over THREE time the area?I'll leave you to draw you own conclusion as to the logic of all this!
Well, to be fair, there are plenty of other satellites they could look at. Geostationary sats aren't always the easiest to notice.Look at the flat Earthers responses http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4554.0
I am not a believer but I am still curious while not being hostile.Well this is kinda done by both sides hundreds of times already, with each other arguing about the camera lenses and perspective stuff. We can't get anymore notable evidence from this one more time.
I feel we can prove that the earth is round with one of these balloons, http://sentintospace.com/products-page/balloons/ultimate-balloon-3000g/#ad-image-0.
These are rated to go to 40km above the earth before popping, attach a Go pro and a GPS (we know GPS's work). When the balloon pops find the Gopro and look at the images for yourself. People have already done this but when you do this you can know no conspiracy has taken place.
Post the images, unedited please, on the forum and we can discuss them. If the earth is round you shouldn't be able to see antarctica at either end, if you can only see a portion of the earth an it drops off then it is round. (not that it will still look like a flat disk, as viewing a sphere through 2D image will give a disk.) what's important is the proportion of the earth you can see and what the atmosphere looks like. Also any images of the sun would be great!
UPDATE I finally FOUND ONE IT HAS STARSI finally took my time to watch the video, i noticed the surface feature of the Moon is not visible, meanwhile most NASA pictures do show surface/atmosphere features of the planets/moons. Most ground picture of the full Moon showing surface feature also doesn't show stars.
EDIT I say, without understanding the implications, this IS A MAJOR IMPORTANT VIDEO
Finally found one. Hell of a Spring Break, getting into FE and all.
Also sorry for large font, just edited post because this is the single most significant piece of research I've found in my entire life ~at least so it feels... so far. Probably means nothing, ultimately, but this is something that has been driving me nuts. Feel free to ignore the music and text of the video, just the night time launch is enough (why doesn't nasa or anyone have this?)
it's very easy to accept whatever garbage you're given.This is what i get instead of appreciation for taking my time to search and compile that list?
Looks like 100x100pxNope of all the pictures in the list, the smallest resolution is 256x256
black boxes with white specks.Have you seen what the moonless clear night sky looks like?
LORRI images from the New Horizons spacecraft show lots of stars, "some" even visible in low exposureQuote from: UnionsOfSolarSystemPlanet link=topic=4809.msg92960#msg92960Most NASA pictures are low exposure, some of them actually does show stars that are hard to see.
All of their high exposure photos do show stars.
Can you show me some of these photos, not composites, that show stars?
I'd admit both side have bias, i did research why this photo is real, not why it's not. I could say it's real without cite my claim just like what you did, but if you ask for proof, why should i be the one who give you proof?That's not a real photo.And you have proof of this claim?
It's actually a well-known fact. I invite you to do your own research, as UOSSP should have before he even bothered posting it.
main issue is, why are NASA pictures showing no stars, if commercial videos show them.Most NASA pictures are low exposure, some of them actually does show stars that are hard to see.
That's not a real photo.Irrelevant, the OP was asking why don't we see stars in NASA's pictures containing sunlit planet, but in fact the Blue Marble does contain some stars when zoomed in. And if the Blue Marble was a fake, why the heck would they even bother put the stars that are hard to see anyway? They could just say no stars because low exposure.
Well you do know that it isn't accurate, but you still try to use it to your advantage.Let's review the OP's question
Looking at the flat earth map the distance between NZ and South America is hugeThe OP is referring to AEP, which is commonly used by TFES wiki.
