Flat Earth and NASA Deception

[A Realist]

From a Biblical perspective.. God.

God is on the other side. We are His footstool.

Wait a minute.....I thought it was water. Which is it. God or water? Or is God in the water? Or are we under a big dome at the bottom of a big sea and the Big Man is sitting on a boat floating on the big sea?

 

[JacksBratt]

It is frustration with obtuse ignorance and unwarranted condescension from people that simply reject that which does not feed their conspiracy.

I get frustrated with people too. I, however, to not resort to condescension and ridicule in order to deal with my frustration.

Not name calling, but a conclusion.

Yes, name calling, ridicule, condescension, is the action... based on a conclusion that is your personal assumption.

Oh my gosh, you totally put me in my place for asking 'rookie' questions that, amazingly, no FE crazy has an answer for.

I'm not even a FE believer and your questions are......FE 101 rookie questions... Let's try... shall we?

IF the earth really is FLAT, THEN it stands to reason that with sufficiently powerful photographic equipment, that it should not only be possible, but mundanely so, to take a photograph of a distant point on earth from a vantage point sufficiently high enough to see over obstacles.

Rookie assumption # 354-6....."We can see, through our atmosphere, indefinitely".

FACT: Our atmosphere has humidity changes, temperature deviations, dust, pollen, and other airborne particulates..... As a result, the distance that we can see... EVEN ON A BALL EARTH.. is limited. Especially close to the surface of water. Long range observations are met with distortion and obstructions of compounded air quality and particulates...

If we can take pictures of the moon from 240,000 miles away, surely one can take pictures of tall landmarks like Big Ben from a few thousand?

Rookie assumption #354-6B... "Assumption #354-6 is proven by the fact that we can see the moon clearly".

FACT: This is thinking of debunking the FE view using ball earth assumptions. That being that the moon is 240,000 miles away. On a FE it is, maybe, 3000 miles away, though atmosphere that is not close to the ground and therefore subjected to the conditions mentioned in the explanation for # 354-6

How does one do "research" on something that is so obviously false?

Research is research.... the data compiled, observations recorded and whether it is testable and repeatable that determine if the theory is "false".... Such a rookie.....

Since you fancy yourself an expert on the flat earth, how about you just explain why my question is a 'rookie' on that screams that I am ignorant of the "models" of a FLAT earth that somehow prevent one from doing the most obvious and simple proof that they are correct?

LOL. I am far from a FE expert... not even sold on the concept... I still know that your assumptions are FE 101 rookie questions.

Next... ask why someone hasn't fallen off the edge.... Please do this.

As an extra... why don't you give me one solid proof of the globe

 

[Spikey]

I see that you are new to this subject too.

For the record.. I am not convinced of the FE model. However, I have studied both and find that neither one is provable. Also, both have support.

You will have to be careful, however, many solid FE believers... well ALL FE believers.. started from where you are right now.... Just say'n.

Lol. Don't worry matey. I actually get out and about, the FE model is ridiculous and can easily be disproved.
If you would like me to take the flat earth apart for you let me know... I have time on my hands.

 

[JacksBratt]

Lol. Don't worry matey. I actually get out and about, the FE model is ridiculous and can easily be disproved.
If you would like me to take the flat earth apart for you let me know... I have time on my hands.

Actually, I have seen all kinds of people posting their "debunks" of the FE...

What I would really like to see is proof of the globe.. That would be a treat.

 

[Spikey]

Actually, I have seen all kinds of people posting their "debunks" of the FE...

What I would really like to see is proof of the globe.. That would be a treat.

In what direction does your water drain? Clockwise or anti clockwise? Are you in the Northern or Southern hemisphere?

 

[JacksBratt]

In what direction does your water drain? Clockwise or anti clockwise? Are you in the Northern or Southern hemisphere?

Not proof of a globe... I can make a drain go either way.... This is an old trick but not proof of our earth being a ball.

Oh... and not proof of flat.. not proof or disproof of anything to do with the shape of the earth.

C'mon.. you gotta have something more solid than that, if you are going to call people "crazy" for not agreeing with you.

 

[Spikey]

Not proof of a globe... I can make a drain go either way.... This is an old trick but not proof of our earth being a ball.

Oh... and not proof of flat.. not proof or disproof of anything to do with the shape of the earth.

C'mon.. you gotta have something more solid than that, if you are going to call people "crazy" for not agreeing with you.

I don't recall calling anyone crazy. But hey...
Eclipses, let's talk eclipses.

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't recall calling anyone crazy. But hey...
Eclipses, let's talk eclipses.

Yes, Eclipses are one of the great topics..

FE and globe earth both can explain solar eclipses.. right?

On either model, the moon simply passes in front of the sun.. Bada bing bada boom.

One problem. Any object, will cast a shadow of a size equal or larger than itself. Try it.. it's simple... in a dark room with a flashlight and any opaque object... Never can you get a shadow smaller than the object...
Thing is... with solar eclipses... the moon's shadow is tiny.... way smaller than what they say the moon's diameter is.

I find it curious, however, that the moon and the sun appear the exact... I mean the exact same size in our sky when they are so vastly different in distance and size.. But.... no proof of anything.. just a curious observation.

Now, with the lunar eclipse... this is more tricky for FE... How do you get a shadow of an earth on the moon? Fair question.

However, how do you get the shadow of the earth.....on the moon......when the sun has risen? Equally fair... equally impossible... equally observed and recorded. (Yep, full lunar eclipse while the sun is in the sky.. Get a grasp of that concept. Don't hurt yourself.

Globe believers, presented with this question.. automatically go to their favorite catch all excuse.... "refraction".... yawn... Not buying it.

So. this is a draw... for both models. something is going on that they don't know or aren't telling us.

 

[Spikey]

Yes, Eclipses are one of the great topics..

FE and globe earth both can explain solar eclipses.. right?

On either model, the moon simply passes in front of the sun.. Bada bing bada boom.

One problem. Any object, will cast a shadow of a size equal or larger than itself. Try it.. it's simple... in a dark room with a flashlight and any opaque object... Never can you get a shadow smaller than the object...
Thing is... with solar eclipses... the moon's shadow is tiny.... way smaller than what they say the moon's diameter is.

I find it curious, however, that the moon and the sun appear the exact... I mean the exact same size in our sky when they are so vastly different in distance and size.. But.... no proof of anything.. just a curious observation.

Now, with the lunar eclipse... this is more tricky for FE... How do you get a shadow of an earth on the moon? Fair question.

However, how do you get the shadow of the earth.....on the moon......when the sun has risen? Equally fair... equally impossible... equally observed and recorded. (Yep, full lunar eclipse while the sun is in the sky.. Get a grasp of that concept. Don't hurt yourself.

Globe believers, presented with this question.. automatically go to their favorite catch all excuse.... "refraction".... yawn... Not buying it.

So. this is a draw... for both models. something is going on that they don't know or aren't telling us.

I don't think you understand scale do you?

Doing experiments in your trailer doesn't cut the mustard. Are you familiar with magnetism?

 

[JacksBratt]

I don't think you understand scale do you?

Doing experiments in your trailer doesn't cut the mustard. Are you familiar with magnetism?

Sorry, can you explain what you are referring to here? This is not close to being evidence for or against anything....

 

[Spikey]

Sorry, can you explain what you are referring to here? This is not close to being evidence for or against anything....

I'm referring to scale. Distances of celestial objects don't work on the FE model. I'm talking seasons here, do you understand?

 

[JacksBratt]

I'm referring to scale. Distances of celestial objects don't work on the FE model. I'm talking seasons here, do you understand?

No, I don't understand because you have given nothing to indicate what it is you are talking about and what your evidence is to support it.

All you have done is ask vague questions and state vague ideas. That......is not science.

What about "scale"
What about "celestial objects"
What about "seasons"....... You have only stated words...

What..... Is......your.......proof.....of...... a....... globe?

 

[lasthero]

Thing is... with solar eclipses... the moon's shadow is tiny.... way smaller than what they say the moon's diameter is.

By the way, Moon's shadow can be tiny. In fact, it can be as smaller than 60 miles wide. You're not seriously going to assert that the Moon is only sixty miles wide, at most, are you?

Now, with the lunar eclipse... this is more tricky for FE... How do you get a shadow of an earth on the moon? Fair question.

Are you going to answer that question?

However, how do you get the shadow of the earth.....on the moon......when the sun has risen? Equally fair... equally impossible... equally observed and recorded.

No, it's not.

That only happens JUST when the Sun is coming up, and the Moon isn't fully eclipsed. It's only just the edge. And while you might not like the explanation, it does hold water - the refraction is what causes the reddish tint. It's the same thing that happens when a blood moon occurs. It's the same reason that the Sun look so red as it's rising and setting.

 

[JacksBratt]

By the way, Moon's shadow can be tiny. In fact, it can be as smaller than 60 miles wide. You're not seriously going to assert that the Moon is only sixty miles wide, at most, are you?

This is laughable and not even similar. This would be fine and dandy if the moon was much smaller, in our sky, than the sun. If... when we viewed the moon.. it was a small circle, within a larger circular sun....Then the video would be accurate. You would then have your famous penumbra... etc.

This is not the case. The sun, and moon, in our sight, are the exact same size...

Thus.. to do this little example the object has to be the same size as the light source... when viewed from the point of which the light hits the surface.....

Don't even try to tell me that you are not aware of this fact.

This is for people that cannot do simple critical thinking and use deductive reasoning.

 

[JacksBratt]

By the way, Moon's shadow can be tiny. In fact, it can be as smaller than 60 miles wide. You're not seriously going to assert that the Moon is only sixty miles wide, at most, are you?

I have no idea how large or small the moon is... I do know that it's shadow is very small compared to how large they say it is...

 

[JacksBratt]

Are you going to answer that question?

I have no answer to this question... That is why I said that it is a fair question.

No, it's not.

That only happens JUST when the Sun is coming up, and the Moon isn't fully eclipsed. It's only just the edge. And while you might not like the explanation, it does hold water - the refraction is what causes the reddish tint. It's the same thing that happens when a blood moon occurs. It's the same reason that the Sun look so red as it's rising and setting.

No, you are incorrect.. there are examples of this happening.. not to mention that any shadow of the earth ... on the moon... while the sun is fully visible in the sky... is totally impossible... So... Let's go with that....

Impossible... Period..... And.... sure... go ahead... you're thinking it... tell me it's "refraction" LOL

 

[lasthero]

This is not the case. The sun, and moon, in our sight, are the exact same size...

No, they appear to be. I can hold a penny to my face, and if it's at the right distance, it will cover up as much of my vision as my car. Doesn't mean the penny is a big as the car. The car is much farther away and bigger, and the penny is much closer and smaller. It's not a difficult concept.

I have no idea how large or small the moon is... I do know that it's shadow is very small compared to how large they say it is...

You're saying the shadow can't be smaller than the Moon, so if the shadow is 60 miles wide or less, than that means the Moon has to be 60 miles wide or less. Correct?

 

[lasthero]

No, you are incorrect.. there are examples of this happening..

Show them. Show an example of the Sun being FULLY RISEN - not just starting to rise, not just starting to set, but FULLY RISEN, up in the sky, clear as day - while the Moon is being eclipsed.

Impossible... Period..... And.... sure... go ahead... you're thinking it... tell me it's "refraction" LOL

I don't know why you're so skeptical of something you see literally everyday.

The Sun's light turns red as you watch it set or rise.

It's the same reason the Moon turns red during an eclipse. That's just one of the reasons we know the Sun's light is reflecting off the Moon.

It's refraction. 'LOL' is not an argument.

 

[patrick jane]

Tell Me Lies, Sweet Little Lies!

22 minutes and Worth It !!!

 

[JacksBratt]

Show them. Show an example of the Sun being FULLY RISEN - not just starting to rise, not just starting to set, but FULLY RISEN, up in the sky, clear as day - while the Moon is being eclipsed.



I don't know why you're so skeptical of something you see literally everyday.

The Sun's light turns red as you watch it set or rise.

It's the same reason the Moon turns red during an eclipse. That's just one of the reasons we know the Sun's light is reflecting off the Moon.

It's refraction. 'LOL' is not an argument.

Here is a site describing this "impossible site" and the "go to" explanation.. LOL.. "refraction"..

"For most places in the United States and Canada, there will be a chance to observe an unusual effect, one that celestial geometry seems to dictate can't happen. The little-used name for this effect is a "selenelion" (or "selenehelion") and occurs when both the sun and the eclipsed moon can be seen at the same time."

Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include 'Impossible' Sight


Here is a site/video that gives quotes from many documents and people, describing the phenomenon. It also states that the prediction of eclipses, often used as proof of a globe, is easy to calculate irregardless of the shape of the earth.