Debunking Flat Earth

[Kylie]

OK, if it is "proven" (tongue in cheek because I'm not convinced that either model has been "proven")

What is your proof... I say this because when some people start really looking at the "proof" on which they base their belief in the globe... they end up questioning the model.

OK and nobody else chime in on this. I know I have debated this with many of you for days on end.. I just want to see what Kylie is using as a proof of their view. So, let's let them tell it their way.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

That video is garbage.

I'll just link to some one else's calculations as it would be a waste of time to re-do them all...

Explained: 443 km distance- mountains visible.

It's funny how the photo in question is a world record holder, a record distance that corresponds exactly to what we would expect on a globe Earth.

NASA must be destroying evidence of the photos of objects at a greater distance that we'd expect to see on a flat earth.

Edit: Woops, just realized BB has already linked to this.

So the photographer would have to be angling the camera downwards at least 30 degrees to make the shot. But that's not the case, is it?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

What photos? My mother was a pro photographer and I'm pretty good with a camera myself, and I've never seen any photos that are incompatible with a globe earth.

The photos of the actornauts I linked at #874. That was the sub-topic on which I believe we were enjoying an exchange.

But if you want a flat earth photo, go to #987, and then just above here at #1082 in answer to the alleged 'debunk'. How could you take that photo on a globe without pointing the camera downwards?

And anyway, if you have such evidence, why do you resort to name calling like a five year old?

What name-calling? 'Like a five year old' would fall into that category.

 

[46AND2]

So the photographer would have to be angling the camera downwards at least 30 degrees to make the shot. But that's not the case, is it?

You know that image is not drawn to scale, right?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

< shrugs > Sorry it got so complicated (the myths about 'hell' the last many centuries).

Have you ever seen A GRAVE? (where someone is buried)

If so, that matches many of the places in the Bible where "hell" is printed. It does not mean the same in the original as it does in English Bibles nor in Western ways of thinking.

Sounds like a prime opportunity for some universal salvation preaching Jeff. Sure they'll go to hell, but that ain't the end of the story. Jesus is the saviour of all mankind, especially those who believe, it's his mission, and the mighty right arm of God will not be defeated! Every knee will bow, Jeff, once the veil is lifted and all nations see the glory of God. Jesus holds the keys to hades and death, and the radical absolute love of God will melt every heart and change every mind. From God proceeds all things, and to Him all things shall return. Selah.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You know that image is not drawn to scale, right?

Nonetheless, some downward angle would be necessary, would it not?

 

[46AND2]

Nonetheless, some downward angle would be necessary, would it not?

Yep. And they do. I'll show you a video after work where a guy uses survey equipment to make sure the camera is pointing directly ahead. It doesn't point to the horizon. You have to tilt the camera down to get the horizon in the crosshairs.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Yep. And they do. I'll show you a video after work where a guy uses survey equipment to make sure the camera is pointing directly ahead. It doesn't point to the horizon. You have to tilt the camera down to get the horizon in the crosshairs.

The same horizon that doesn't curve along the x-axis?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Nevermind

 

[46AND2]

The same horizon that doesn't curve along the x-axis?

Nah, the one that, curiously, doesn't maintain eye-level.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Nah, the one that, curiously, doesn't maintain eye-level.

Eye-level isn't fundamental. Level, however, is.

Compare these:

You'll need to go to around 0:48 on this one for the height.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So the photographer would have to be angling the camera downwards at least 30 degrees to make the shot. But that's not the case, is it?

What is your evidence that the camera was not angled down when taking the photo?

 

[Kylie]

The photos of the actornauts I linked at #874. That was the sub-topic on which I believe we were enjoying an exchange.

But if you want a flat earth photo, go to #987, and then just above here at #1082 in answer to the alleged 'debunk'. How could you take that photo on a globe without pointing the camera downwards?

Somehow I doubt you have a proper knowledge of geometry and cameras.

What name-calling? 'Like a five year old' would fall into that category.

"Name calling isn't fair!" cries the person who has included name calling in every one of his posts that I've seen.

 

[Kylie]

Nonetheless, some downward angle would be necessary, would it not?

Yes. And you do realise that camera lenses have a certain field of view, and if that downward angle is within that field of view then it will still be visible in the image even if the camera was perfectly level?

 

[Jimmy D]

So the photographer would have to be angling the camera downwards at least 30 degrees to make the shot. But that's not the case, is it?

Where do you get 30 degrees from?

Have you got no response to the figures presented in the link?

The figures that demonstrate that demonstrate that you video is bunk and explain why more distant objects can’t be seen?

 

[JacksBratt]

My issue is that Christians teach children that god is going to send you to hell because you told a lie etc.

Whichever hell you decide....

As for children, or anyone, being "sent" to hell by God..

That is not true...

We are all going to hell.. period.. due to our choices and actions.. as we are not pure and sinless, a prerequisite for heaven.

GOD..... came to save us from it...

Nobody is "Sent" to hell.... That is the devils lie.

However, this is a topic for another thread, good to see you are open to debate it but... another thread.

 

[JacksBratt]

Foucault pendulum.

LOL this picture is what I expected.. It has been proven to be pasted into that shot.... Many times... but.. expected.. thanks.

 

[JacksBratt]

Foucault pendulum.

Oh yes.. the Foucault pendulum that needs a mechanical force to keep it moving and has been seen to reverse it's motion during an eclipse..

This is the only and final "go to" that I have had it boiled down to, with many people that I have debated with here on CF...

The Foucault Pendulum is not the nail in the coffin of FE like many would like... It is the last bit that some have to hang on to though.

However the other experiments trump it.. The Michelson Morley experiment and Airy's Failure, to name two.

 

[JacksBratt]

I highly doubt this. And even if you can name a few people who did that, if their faith is anchored on something as obviously false as FE, it's likely to crumble when they learn the truth.

Doubt it all you want.. truth cares not.

The Bible doesn't say the earth is flat. You can interpret metaphors in it to say that, but then you'd also have to believe that it also has four corners, rain comes from bottles in the sky, Jesus is literally a lion, a lamb, bread, water, and various other things...

The bible doesn't say that it is a sphere, spinning or moving in any way..... Your point?

 

[JacksBratt]

...

Ok. Then how about testing the roundness of the earth by an Argument from Analogy: the other objects near and far in our solar system are all round, and there, by that simple fact, I'm going to assume that the earth is round too.

Yep, heard that before.. However, a billiard table is flat.. but all the balls are round... It's a common but poor assumption.... If we are created by a great designer... the shape of one object does not determine the shape of the other.. but.. I understand the assumption.

A child, living in a mansion, who never ventures outside but overlooks from their window a slum below... should they assume that they live in the slum as well?