[fliggs]

I will answer two of your questions. Curvature. yes, you can see it and it has been witnessed about a gazillion times. But I have noticed that FEers cant see it no matter how pronouced. We see it from aircraft - but FEers dont. We see it from space, but FEers dont. We see it on very large fat areas, but FEers dont.  So yes, billions of people have seen the curvature.

What were the conditions which you have seen it from an aircraft? Do you know what would be required to notice curvature assuming a round-earth? Also, where do you see it on "very large fat areas?" I am actually interested in your response. This goes back to my previous statement that many of you round earthers don't understand your own model, but sure to like to repeat things they've heard from others. I'd like for you to prove me wrong.

Low IQ.  It is an observation that FEers tend to be poorly educated and of below-average intelligence and/or have mental health challenges. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Going to need some evidence for this one, champ.

If you can find me a prominent scientist who is a FEer I will retract that claim forthwith.  ad when I mean scientist I mean university educated and qualified, not some self-proclaimed 'scientist' with a year 8 education

This request is irrelevant. Other than satisfying your own arbitrary conditions, it is also a logical fallacy.

So far, there is only one person I have seen in this thread guilty of what you are claiming, and that is you. It seems you have some issues with projection. You might want to work on that. You should also work on providing evidence for your bold claims, otherwise it is simply nonsensical conjecture.

Like shooting fish in a barrel.  if FE had any credbility as a viable alternative model, there would be at least ONE reputable scientist who supports it or gives it credence. All I asked is that you show me ONE.  But naturally you declined.

So you have no evidence for your claims. Gotcha

And my claim is that Flat Earthers are of low IQ and poorly educated. Now if you wish to dispute that then show me evidence that disproves it. For the vast majority of people, belief in FE itself is evidence of poor education and low IQ.

You really don't understand how burden of proof works, do you? It isn't my job to provide evidence to counter your baseless, nonsensical claims. It your job to prove your claims. Of course you can't prove it, so you try to deflect. I do appreciate you showing everyone that you lack a grasp of simple logic, though.

Over to you to see if you can offer any evidence or proof to counter my claims.  I dont expect much for the aforementioned reasons.

Sorry friend, you've failed again. I would suggest doing some research to understand the basics of how logic works. You clearly don't understand it, and your failures are making you look worse with every post. Good luck, friend!

Ironic that you talk of 'burden of proof' and then talk about FE while providing ZERO proof. At least my hypothesis has no evidence of being wrong.

[juner]

Ironic that you talk of 'burden of proof' and then talk about FE while providing ZERO proof.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claims. You have literally proven my point that many round earthers don't understand their own model well enough to criticize someone else's.

At least my hypothesis has no evidence of being wrong.

Your "hypothesis" has no evidence at all, because you refuse to provide any. You simply make baseless claims and then deflect when called out.

[fliggs]

Ironic that you talk of 'burden of proof' and then talk about FE while providing ZERO proof.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for your claims. You have literally proven my point that many round earthers don't understand their own model well enough to criticize someone else's.

At least my hypothesis has no evidence of being wrong.

Your "hypothesis" has no evidence at all, because you refuse to provide any. You simply make baseless claims and then deflect when called out.

I simply asked you to provide PROOF or at least significant evidence. This is a classic Flat Earth position: deny all round-earth evidence and then provide zero proof of your own.

I am quite happy to debate, but debate what? Mere claims without any evidence and a mountain of contrary proofs?

[juner]

I simply asked you to provide PROOF or at least significant evidence. This is a classic Flat Earth position: deny all round-earth evidence and then provide zero proof of your own.

Proof or evidence for what? You are the one making claims and then dodging all requests to provide evidence.

I am quite happy to debate, but debate what? Mere claims without any evidence and a mountain of contrary proofs?

You should try debating, then. Your position thus far has been to make claims with no supporting evidence, followed by you essentially saying "prove me wrong." That isn't how debates work at all.

[fliggs]

I simply asked you to provide PROOF or at least significant evidence. This is a classic Flat Earth position: deny all round-earth evidence and then provide zero proof of your own.

Proof or evidence for what? You are the one making claims and then dodging all requests to provide evidence.

I am quite happy to debate, but debate what? Mere claims without any evidence and a mountain of contrary proofs?

You should try debating, then. Your position thus far has been to make claims with no supporting evidence, followed by you essentially saying "prove me wrong." That isn't how debates work at all.

I claim the earth is a sphere. AS supporting evidence I cite the existence of satellites, the 10 million photos of the earth... as a sphere. I claim boats disappearing over the horizon. I claim air travel times as evidence.

Now. YOU provide some SOLID evidence for your flat-earth hypothesis.

PS.  it is absolutely unacceptable to simply claim that all photgraphic evidence is faked as you will undoubtedly do. if you want to try that stunt then you have to actually provide evidence that they are faked and not merely claim it. Also, you cannot claim that a telescope will brings ships back from over the horizon without actual proof.

over to you...

[juner]

I claim the earth is a sphere.

Yes you have, and you've provided no evidence to support that claim.

AS supporting evidence I cite the existence of satellites

You haven't cited anything. You've made another claim with no evidence.

the 10 million photos of the earth... as a sphere.

Citation needed.

I claim boats disappearing over the horizon.

Yet you still provide no evidence to support your position. You do well at making claims, though.

I claim air travel times as evidence.

Air travel times exist in both models. You're really not very good at supporting your points, even anecdotally (as it's established you never provide evidence for your claims).

Now. YOU provide some SOLID evidence for your flat-earth hypothesis.

I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ and wiki. Those resources offer infinitely more evidence than you have put forth so far.

PS.  it is absolutely unacceptable to simply claim that all photgraphic evidence is faked as you will undoubtedly do.

As I will undoubtedly do? Where have I done that? You're attacking an argument I never made. Do you know what the term for that tactic is? You should because you do it an awful lot...

if you want to try that stunt then you have to actually provide evidence that they are faked and not merely claim it.

Given that I've made no such claim, this is literally irrelevant. You really need to brush up on basic logic.

[fliggs]

I claim the earth is a sphere.

Yes you have, and you've provided no evidence to support that claim.

AS supporting evidence I cite the existence of satellites

You haven't cited anything. You've made another claim with no evidence.

the 10 million photos of the earth... as a sphere.

Citation needed.

I claim boats disappearing over the horizon.

Yet you still provide no evidence to support your position. You do well at making claims, though.

I claim air travel times as evidence.

Air travel times exist in both models. You're really not very good at supporting your points, even anecdotally (as it's established you never provide evidence for your claims).

Now. YOU provide some SOLID evidence for your flat-earth hypothesis.

I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ and wiki. Those resources offer infinitely more evidence than you have put forth so far.

PS.  it is absolutely unacceptable to simply claim that all photgraphic evidence is faked as you will undoubtedly do.

As I will undoubtedly do? Where have I done that? You're attacking an argument I never made. Do you know what the term for that tactic is? You should because you do it an awful lot...

if you want to try that stunt then you have to actually provide evidence that they are faked and not merely claim it.

Given that I've made no such claim, this is literally irrelevant. You really need to brush up on basic logic.

ah very nice.  EXACTLY what I expected of course. You have zero understanding of the basis of logic, of evidence and of course and infants understanding of science.

It is quite fascinating to hear you say that a 'citation is needed' for the existence of photos of the globe.  It is a bit like asking for evidence for the existance of Australia - which you probably deny anyhow.

'Stupid is as stupid does' (you should get that on a tattoo for yourself)

[fliggs]

I claim the earth is a sphere.

Yes you have, and you've provided no evidence to support that claim.

AS supporting evidence I cite the existence of satellites

You haven't cited anything. You've made another claim with no evidence.

the 10 million photos of the earth... as a sphere.

Citation needed.

I claim boats disappearing over the horizon.

Yet you still provide no evidence to support your position. You do well at making claims, though.

I claim air travel times as evidence.

Air travel times exist in both models. You're really not very good at supporting your points, even anecdotally (as it's established you never provide evidence for your claims).

Now. YOU provide some SOLID evidence for your flat-earth hypothesis.

I'd suggest reviewing the FAQ and wiki. Those resources offer infinitely more evidence than you have put forth so far.

PS.  it is absolutely unacceptable to simply claim that all photgraphic evidence is faked as you will undoubtedly do.

As I will undoubtedly do? Where have I done that? You're attacking an argument I never made. Do you know what the term for that tactic is? You should because you do it an awful lot...

if you want to try that stunt then you have to actually provide evidence that they are faked and not merely claim it.

Given that I've made no such claim, this is literally irrelevant. You really need to brush up on basic logic.

Actually I have read the wiki... I contains ZERO proof of a flat earth. Iti is full of conjecture and thoughts based on an absolute misunderstanding of science and observation.

I await you ACTUAL compelling evidence for a flat earth and know absolutely that you will not provide it.  You are if nothing else, predictable.

[juner]

So you have no evidence, then. Gotcha.

I'll ask that you don't continue to derail threads with your nonsense. You're either trolling or being intentionally obtuse at this point. Either way, it isn't conducive to discussion and you've failed to support a single claim you've made so far in this thread.

If you want to debate, then make a point and support it with evidence.

[fliggs]

So you have no evidence, then. Gotcha.

I'll ask that you don't continue to derail threads with your nonsense. You're either trolling or being intentionally obtuse at this point. Either way, it isn't conducive to discussion and you've failed to support a single claim you've made so far in this thread.

If you want to debate, then make a point and support it with evidence.

Picture of a round earth. AKA evidence. If you can do better with an ACTUAL photo of your flat earth then go ahead.

[juner]

And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:

[fliggs]

And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:

You think this is my first time at bat?  Each of those photos were taken with different cameras. Astonishly (to you) weather and cloud patterns are all different on each day. And colour saturation is a factor of all cameras as you would know if you ever used one.


BUT I PROVIDED evidence.

Now it is YOUR turn to proved evidence FOR a flat earth.  Not debunking a round earth but actual credible evidence FOR a flat earth.

Over to you where you will either run away, debunk a round earth evidence or make some outlandish statement and think that is evidence.

I await your next silly mis-step.

[fliggs]

And there ARE actual videos of the earth spinning but guess what... an entire rotation takes 24 hours and therefore video that clearly shows rotation would be very slow and very boring.

And you'd just say it was fake anyhow...

[juner]

Astonishly (to you) weather and cloud patterns are all different on each day.
And colour saturation is a factor of all cameras as you would know if you ever used one.

Nice hand waving. You're good at making excuses, that's for sure.

BUT I PROVIDED evidence.

No, you didn't. You literally have not in any posts so far and I don't expect you to start anytime soon, based on your current tactics.

You provided a picture, that's it. If you want to claim that it somehow supports your argument, you will need to prove its authenticity and integrity. Given your lack of ability to apply simple logic, I look forward to see you attempt this.

Now it is YOUR turn to proved evidence FOR a flat earth. 

Did I claim the earth was flat in this thread? Once you figure that out, you should research the terms "evidence" and "burden of proof." If you still need help after that, just let me know. I don't usually hold the hand of round earth logicians this much, but I'll make an exception for you since you've been failing so hard thus far.

Not debunking a round earth but actual credible evidence FOR a flat earth.

I would suggest reviewing the FAQ and wiki. It's clear you have no understanding of the FE model (or the RE model for that matter)

Over to you where you will either run away, debunk a round earth evidence or make some outlandish statement and think that is evidence.

Ah yes, closing with another strawman. You really are good at committing logical fallacies. Too bad you aren't that good at basic logic, critical thinking, or debating.

[fliggs]

Forget it loser. You are just like every other flat-earther - stupid beyond measure.

[juner]

Forget it loser. You are just like every other flat-earther - stupid beyond measure.

Finally, the ad hominem. The hallmark of a defeated round earther who has given up. I'm sorry you don't possess the knowledge or capability to handle an adult debate; I'm sure if you work on it you may make some progress in the future. Good luck!

PS - one last warning for low content and personal attacks in the upper fora before the next, more lengthy vacation.

[Berserk]

you'll def have to hand it to FET as the most common map seems to look the same throughout the years. just missing the clouds and stuff...

[Rama Set]

just missing the clouds and stuff...

And the adherence to reality.

[andruszkow]

And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:

Not a valid point.

Making that point using this image is evidence that you don't understand basic geometry.

Those photos are taken at different distances.

[juner]

And you can confirm this is an unedited image? Those blue marble photos look so different over the years:

Not a valid point.

Making that point using this image is evidence that you don't understand basic geometry.

Those photos are taken at different distances.

What isn't a valid point? I think you are confused. I'd suggest going back and reading again but that never seems to help you.

I simply asked the user I was responding to if he could confirm that the image was unedited. The only other thing I said is that earth looks different in the images from the compilation I linked. Are you suggesting that they don't look different?