1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Map

« on: May 22, 2016, 02:39:58 PM »

Magnetic north, compass points and distances are simply a distraction if you have no map.

If you would have actually read my post, you would know that all I said is magnetic north has nothing to do with rhumb lines. Geoblue said rhumb lines explained how compasses work on a flat earth. They don't. That was my point on magnetic north and compasses in its entirety.

As for distances, Geoblue also made a false claim about map comparisons, based on ignorance of the fact that long/lat are always an accurate way of knowing where you are. That was my point. However the existent map is arranged, it will have to line up with actual distances.

Essentially, Geoblue didn't have a firm grasp on principles of navigation and so, yes, the things he was saying "were simply a distraction" from his not having an accurate map of a flat Earth. Then again, most pro-FE debate here really is just a distraction from the earth not being flat.

You have no map.

Make a Map or stop wasting your time.

Oh, yes I do. I have a map. I have a real nice map. It's called a globe. And it works, everywhere.

So you're absolutely right; FEers can prove the earth is flat if they make a working map reliant on this fact. If making an accurate map of a flat earth is impossible, there is no flat earth. Until they've done this, they're wasting their time.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Antarctic Ice Wall DEBUNKED!

« on: May 22, 2016, 12:17:36 PM »

Same question for you as a round Earther. What makes the Earth rotate?

Newton's First Law of Motion.

What proof do you have for the cause of rotation or is it an unproven theory?

If I understand angular momentum correctly, the proto-planetary disk theory of the creation of the solar system would explain it just fine. If two dust particles are moving at roughly the same speed and attract to each other by gravity, the one closer to the sun will slow down as it moves outward and the further one will speed up in its orbit, creating spin. This then continues on and on and on until you have a spinning planet.

Of course, that theory hasn't been definitively proven, because we weren't around for the creation of the solar system. If you think we need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt exactly how it came to be, you're wrong. We have a decent idea, proto-planetary disk theory was once an educated guess and it's reasonably supported by observations of the solar system. The fact that we don't have a video of it happening doesn't mean it's not true. Even if that theory were untrue, it doesn't mean Earth isn't spinning.

If you doubt the very fact that it's spinning at all, check out how gyrocompasses work.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: in the flat earth concept there is vacuum? and other questions

« on: May 22, 2016, 12:05:18 PM »

Why is it that a small vacuum made by a vacuum cleaner can suck air upwards in defiance of gravity but the vacuum of space doesnt suck the air off of the earth

Because suction itself does not exert any force. When a vacuum cleaner is running, it physically uses an impeller to push the air out of itself, and the air outside pushes inward along with any dirt and debris. Suction is only an imbalance of pressure, not a force. Pressure in a fluid pushes equally in all directions, and if it's unimpeded by a lesser pressure somewhere else, that's the direction it'll go.

The vacuum of space is only the lack of that outside pressure inward on Earth. It's not going to pull anything off the surface of Earth. It's only atmospheric pressure that pushes air outwards towards space, and gravity's pull is enough to counteract it.

I have no idea what I'm talking about

This post is yet another "proof" 100% reliant on fallacious personal incredulity, and not valid reasoning for believing the earth is flat. If you're going to try to point out a hole in the heliocentric model of a round earth, highlight a hole in the model, not a hole in your understanding of it.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Map

« on: May 22, 2016, 11:51:24 AM »

You just dont get it. Today globe maps work perfectly with all compass based instruments. Look for explanation for "RHUMBLINE" to get example how compass would work on flat earth. That is the main thing. COMPASS and how to read it.

Rhumb lines are based on an angle with the meridian lines, which radiate from the geographic North Pole. Magnetic North is not dependent on geographic North, so rhumb lines have nothing to do with compasses.

Im tired. Do you have any idea how hard is it to make a map from start. How many people, how much money, not to mention how many working hours. At least few years and that is for professionals.

All those professionals, the many people with notable funding who poured their time into mapping the world, the people who took the initiative "to make a map from start", all agree the earth is round. All our marvelously accurate maps are dependent on that assumption. Only those that don't understand the maps or obvious clues about Earth's shape have a hard time accepting it.

GPS is also based on compass positions and distances (globe model) and so not suitable.

GPS is not based on magnetic North, but because the satellites orbit Earth, they're not suitable. Because GPS's very existence defies FEF.

I just don't get how you can't understand that maps that have different position of North and South can never be comparable. That also count for GPS, positions and courses.

They are comparable. If you measure in degrees longitude and latitude, and measure the map with these rather than just visual space, technically every map is accurate as long as they stay true to the true long/lat of the locations on it. The position of North and South really doesn't matter if you're reading the map right, it's just that some maps are easier to read than others. For example, polar azimuthal projections are more accurate at their respective poles, Mercator is more accurate at the equator, and a globe is more accurate everywhere.

If I can see an island 150 miles away no mirage or such crap can convince me that curvature is what they say it is.

That statement is perfectly reasonable, but it's conditional on being able to see an island 150 miles away, presumably from the surface. Seeing as that's not really true anywhere, why does it matter, and why question that curvature blocks your line of sight?

You've justified your belief in a flat Earth only with declaring your lack of understanding of its shape, passing the task off on the "professionals" who do know what they're doing and do believe the world is spherical. You've failed to provide an accurate FE map made by experts. You've failed to give those non-existent Flat-Earth-theorizing cartographers an excuse. You've failed to even show globes to be inaccurate maps, so you're on the fast track to nowhere here.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Re: FE believers let me change your life

« on: May 22, 2016, 11:15:44 AM »

Ok. Lets look at Australia's moon right now. Giving the time difference of 8 hours from Seattle, it's 315 right now here, 815 am right now in Austrailia. There moon rose at 636am. In Seattle the moon rose at 604am. So the moon is in both skies at this very moment. If the earth was flat this would be impossible right?

Australia is not where you think it is. That's how.

How come navigators have known exactly where Australia is for centuries based on round-earth-centric maps and techniques? Do you really have any evidence to prove their methods were wrong and explain how they just ended up where they wanted to go?

Its at a 96.4 waxing gibbious in Seattle, France, Africa, where ever you live guys. We all see the same phase and moon side.

Seems this would present a problem for the RE as well...but I need to look at it a little more.

No, on an RE the phases are caused by the relative positions of Earth, the Sun, and the moon--the phases themselves will be the same. The only thing different would be the apparent variation in the rotation of the moon phases with latitude, which is also explained perfectly fine by the heliocentric model.

Further more how can I be looking at this side of the moon while Sydney can to at this very moment? Why isn't South America seeing the dark side? Never mind the fact that If the moon was 30 miles up, Austrailia and the US. could not see the same moon according to There own FE maps.

You assume the moon is a spherical rock floating in space.  That's why.

Actually, assuming the moon is a spherical rock floating in space is why we "benighted roundies" understand it and its effects so well. But to "assume the moon is a spherical rock floating in space" is not a part of Flat Earth Fantasy or required to disprove that fantasy, and was not even a part of his argument.

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity

« on: May 22, 2016, 11:05:27 AM »

Yes, I asked for proof, knowing that it is an impossible request.  You also knew it was an impossible request, you even said my request was confusing you, but you still offered a wikipedia article that added no value to the discussion what so ever.  I then made a smart ass post hoping that you would get the hint, and then you just kept crying and crying over and over.  What is it that I am supposed to understand? 

You're shitposting because you're shitposting.

Am I supposed to understand that you are mad because I gave you a warning earlier for repeatedly quoting yourself?  Am I suppose to understand this hurt your feelings and now you are very upset?  I understand all of that.  What I don't understand is why you have the emotional stability of a 5 year old child.  That is what I do not understand.

*proceeds to shitpost*

You're certainly off your A-game in this thread.

7

The Lounge / "Null Hypothesis" webpage and FE reference

« on: May 22, 2016, 10:57:30 AM »

Just stumbled upon this today while touching up on statistics. I saw a term I didn't recognize, "null hypothesis", and followed the link.
http://www.statisticshowto.com/what-is-the-null-hypothesis/

Turns out that. . .
1. The concept itself is highly relevant to FE discussion. According to the concept of the null(-ifiable) hypothesis, if something is wrong it can be disproved; if an idea is to be replaced, it must be disproved. This itself is debated often by FEers (who must (dis)prove what).
2. The article's author used the Flat Earth Society as an example of failure to adequately establish one's ideas.

Just thought I'd post it here.

8

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 'Flat Earthers', come here, and you shall become a 'Round Earther'

« on: May 20, 2016, 06:32:50 AM »

Hopefully it has a thin base, thick based pizzas are a travesty.

Well, now it's proven... Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Legba was right about you for once. Only an AI could be ignorant enough to say this; you're not real, Jimmy.

Go to Rome.  Eat a pizza.  Get back to me.

I had not idea I was meant to be an AI, I have legba on ignore.

1. Can't afford to go to Rome.
2. He says a lot of people are AIs.
3. Same here.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: ANTARCTICA IS A JOKE!

« on: May 20, 2016, 06:25:02 AM »

IMHO the joke is how good Jroa is at coming out of nowhere with no setup and somehow derailing a thread that was never on the tracks to begin with.

I mean, I've seen the posts myself where he says himself he doesn't believe the earth is flat, and I know he's just a troll posting here for kicks, but I'm really kinda starting to respect how good he is at it.

You speak about a man who made 20 000 posts on a forum supporting an idea he doesn't believe in and do not feel pity for him?

I pity the mindset, but am impressed with the ability.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Earth Is Not Spinning

« on: May 20, 2016, 06:17:58 AM »

Wikipedia says commercial jet aircraft generally cruise at around 500 m.p.h.  I flew from the northeastern united states to china, which is about half way around the world.

Nasa also says the Sun, relative to the earth, is not moving.  In other words, they claim when the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, it is because the earth is spinning west to east.  So, my flight from northeastern united states should have encountered, after take off, a earth that was spinning away from the plane at around 1,000 m.p.h.  The plane cruises at around 500 mph.  So, the planes combined speed should have been about 1500 m.p.h., on its way to China and should have taken a little over 8 hours.  However, on it's way back to the states, it would have encountered an Earth spinning away from it at around 1,000 m.p.h.  So, it's combined speed should have been around a negative 500 m.p.h., since the earth is supposed to spin about twice as fast as the plane flies.  Thus, flying backwards from China to the states and taking about 24 hours to arrive in America. 

Well, your first mistake was to think your plane was travelling 500mph relative to the Sun. That's 500mph relative to Earth's surface. From there, basic relative motion will clear up any misconceptions.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Help for FEers - dual Earth model

« on: May 20, 2016, 06:09:19 AM »

Once again you say the old FE maps are wrong but dual model is the right one..

Equatorial telescopes. On a Dual Earth people near the equator still wouldn't be able to see the stars of the other hemisphere. Also, the same edge distortions exist, just to a lesser extent.

mind you those phases on the moon have a nice curve on them, I will once again reitterate they believe the moon rotates..show me this. Because I can show you it doesn't by taking a photo of it everyday for a month and you will see the dark spots are and always have been in the same location relative to earth. Tital lock.

Yes, the moon has the same rotation period as its revolution period, because of tidal locking.

Cause the moon orbits earth our gravity keeps the moon from rotating.

You used tidal locking to claim the moon can't rotate, and have absolutely no idea what tidal locking is.

Tidal locking (also called gravitational locking or captured rotation) occurs when the gravitational gradient makes one hemisphere of a revolving astronomical body constantly face the partner body. This effect is known as synchronous rotation. A tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.

If you're going to try to disprove something, do please have a clue what you're talking about.

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: ANTARCTICA IS A JOKE!

« on: May 19, 2016, 05:44:23 PM »

so what are we laughing at?

Now we are laughing at you.  Do you work hard at being a clown, or does acting like a goof come natural to you?

IMHO the joke is how good Jroa is at coming out of nowhere with no setup and somehow derailing a thread that was never on the tracks to begin with.

I mean, I've seen the posts myself where he says himself he doesn't believe the earth is flat, and I know he's just a troll posting here for kicks, but I'm really kinda starting to respect how good he is at it.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: PROOF that NASA is Satanic!

« on: May 19, 2016, 05:36:09 PM »

Oh no, yet another logo has two lines forming an angle, absolutely everyone is a Satanist

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking FET Sunset is Optical illusion

« on: May 19, 2016, 05:27:22 PM »

But same goes with spherical earth. The sun should appear smaller the further you move away, ie. the earth turn and sun sets. Then why it stays the same size?

From noon to sunset, that's only a quarter of a turn of the earth. That means you're only about 4000 miles farther away from the sun, on top of the 93 million miles from the Sun to Earth. 4000 / 93000000 = a 0.000043% difference. That's not really going to be noticeable.

This Sun is FAR FAR away - QED.

Get a lightbulb or even just an orange or baseball. Put it on the opposite side of the room. Get a basketball. With your eye as near to the basketball as possible, create a "sunset" over the "horizon". Does the lighbulb/orange/baseball shrink in size?

It is totally different if instead of being some 93 MILLION miles away the Sun is ~10,000 mi away and ~32 mi in diameter at noon. The change in the size of the Sun would be noticeable.

Flat Earth Fantasy dictates that the Sun is 3000 miles away actually, so, even worse.

Then there's the fact that with a spotlight effect, there's no way the sun could be touching the horizon and still be visible. On top of that, the distance required for a sunset in the manner described by FE is way to big. So, long thread made short, a simple sunset still stands in defiance of Flat Earth theorists.

by spotlight they mean it's not a light ball which eminates in all direction. (I think) it's like a lightbulb in an enclosure

Yes, it's basically just limited so it goes (more or less) directly down; that's required for night and day to work on a Flat Earth with the Sun overhead. At sunset, though, light comes "sideways"--impossible with any level of consistent spotlight.

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Admission that they don't use satellite for internet

« on: May 19, 2016, 05:17:45 PM »

The purpose of chemtrails is not even slightly debatable to an intelligent, well informed mind.

It is, which is why I'm confused on your conclusions.

It took chemtrails for Legba to confuse you? You're either a brilliant man, or more nuts than all of the Amazon, if you've understood him until now.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 'Flat Earthers', come here, and you shall become a 'Round Earther'

« on: May 19, 2016, 05:12:40 PM »

Hopefully it has a thin base, thick based pizzas are a travesty.

Well, now it's proven... Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but Legba was right about you for once. Only an AI could be ignorant enough to say this; you're not real, Jimmy.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking FET Sunset is Optical illusion

« on: May 19, 2016, 05:08:56 PM »

But same goes with spherical earth. The sun should appear smaller the further you move away, ie. the earth turn and sun sets. Then why it stays the same size?

From noon to sunset, that's only a quarter of a turn of the earth. That means you're only about 4000 miles farther away from the sun, on top of the 93 million miles from the Sun to Earth. 4000 / 93000000 = a 0.000043% difference. That's not really going to be noticeable.

This Sun is FAR FAR away - QED.

Get a lightbulb or even just an orange or baseball. Put it on the opposite side of the room. Get a basketball. With your eye as near to the basketball as possible, create a "sunset" over the "horizon". Does the lighbulb/orange/baseball shrink in size?

It is totally different if instead of being some 93 MILLION miles away the Sun is ~10,000 mi away and ~32 mi in diameter at noon. The change in the size of the Sun would be noticeable.

Flat Earth Fantasy dictates that the Sun is 3000 miles away actually, so, even worse.

Then there's the fact that with a spotlight effect, there's no way the sun could be touching the horizon and still be visible. On top of that, the distance required for a sunset in the manner described by FE is way to big. So, long thread made short, a simple sunset still stands in defiance of Flat Earth theorists.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: 'Flat Earthers', come here, and you shall become a 'Round Earther'

« on: May 19, 2016, 06:11:29 AM »

the only spacewalk video I looked at had a strap that showed signs of buoyancy ie being underwater

1. As I explained in that thread, there's enough other sensible assumptions as to the motion of that strap that the strap's motion doesn't prove the spacewalk was real or fake.
2. "the only spacewalk video I looked at" If you want to disprove spacewalks you're going to need to dig a little deeper than that.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Debunking FET Sunset is Optical illusion

« on: May 19, 2016, 05:37:17 AM »

I'm new to flat earth idea and one of the first questions i am wondering is how sunrise n sunset happen on a flat earth. I was at a train station and see a cone shaped announcement speaker. They say that the sun is like a spotlight which only shines some limited area. So there must be something that limit it. If the source of light is enclosed in solid cone (like the speaker i mentioned) this may explain sunrise and sunset. See, if you are right under it and look at it, you can see the light. If you move far away and look at it, the shape will change from circle to ellipse to line then eventually dark. How's that?

https://pictures.woont.com/furniture/8/Established-Sons/7/Torch-Light-Cone-500/Established-Sons-Torch-Light-Cone-500-106422.XL.jpg

That, and the sun just can't get far enough away over a flat Earth to touch the horizon by means of perspective. Someone did the math once and it would actually have disappeared into a point due to perspective before it even appeared to touch the horizon. And would be physically impossible for it to go below.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Van Allen Belt = THE "DOME"

« on: May 14, 2016, 01:01:05 PM »

you are comparing pitcures taken a foot from something with pictures taken hundreds miles from the earth?
ARE YOU FOR REAL?
the effect you're using only works with close objects.
NASA, PLEASE FIRE HIM.
HE'S AN ASS.
MORE MIRROR CLIMBING PLEASE. I'M READY.

It doesn't matter if the difference is 1 foot to 5 feet with a globe of a diameter of 0.5 feet or 1,000,000 kilometers to 5,000,000 kilometers with a globe of a diameter of 500,000 kilometers, the effect is pretty much the same. It's the scale that changes.

I'm no idiot, it's you, you're simply a liar. how much do they pay you to act like that?
you're all telling a whole lot of a shitpile of the worst possible crap! lies, lies and lies!
you think I'm a moron? you think anyone with a decent brain won't understand that you're telling a bunh of lies!?

It's just plain angles though. . .

in a few posts I've learned that antartica is free to go for anyone anyday, anyone can go there without any kind of permission or limitation, there's a lot of people there! NEuro-Disneyland! (talk about freemasons and false information and subliminal message...) whoah! WRONG.

There's limitations so people don't get themselves killed and waste government resources salvaging the bodies and equipment, and they can obtain permission once the government knows they're not a bunch of unprepared idiots.

THIS IS SPARTA... NO, WAIT, ANTARCTICA!
DOES IT SEEMS TO YOU A FREE LAND?

HELLOOO, this is planat earth... well, actually, a ROCK...
let's rock! dunno where you are "guys", here it's saturday night so kiss my ass goodbye for a while!
let's party, you NASA assholes!
let me be your guest... your dj...
" alt="" class="bbc_img" />

The treaties concerning Antarctica do not prohibit anyone from exploring there.

Those government claims to a sector of Antarctica allow for official federal research bases to do their own thing in Antarctica. Anyone is allowed to visit any base whatsoever, though if they want to go check out some other country's research bases they should give advance notice, especially if they're military. Basically, it's only to help ensure that everybody has their own place to do their own thing and nobody damages the environment and ruins it for everyone. . So yes, it does look like a free land to me.

This post was the most cringeworthy "Hey, look, an incomplete view of a concept, I'm going to cherrypick what I want, assume everything else is a lie, and make fun of it all" post variant I've seen here.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: mythbusters faking a curved horizon

« on: May 14, 2016, 12:16:00 PM »

Clearly a different camera from the obviously different resolution, contrast, and color absorption,


Not sure what you're even trying to prove here.

Many more curved horizon pictures there too!

Yes. There are. And they're not all due to debilitating fish-eye distortion.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the earth is flat then how can night and day happen?

« on: May 14, 2016, 12:07:18 PM »

The sun could totally be flat, and a mirror.

Oh, is that why we always see it face on, no matter the time? And why it's been shown to rotate?

Personally I cannot see the sun at all from about 8pm until some godawful time in the morning.

Rotation =/= revolution
They're separate concepts, though both are observable facts of nature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_rotation

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: mythbusters faking a curved horizon

« on: May 14, 2016, 11:22:38 AM »

If you look at the image of Felix baumgartener at 100,000 feet it shows less curvature,so it has to be the lens doing it.

The horizon is at the right position in each image to cause that level of distortion, with a fisheye lens.

First off, there's not all that much less curvature in the image of Baumgartner.
Second, the horizon is not in the right position to cause that level of distortion if it were flat, the curvature is off-center. If it were flat it would be centered, because it's only the fish-eye effect making it curved, and the distortion of a fish-eye lens is, well, always centered in the lens.
Third, are you sure that's a fish-eye lens? I'd personally suspect that if they were trying to take a picture of a human being from that close, they wouldn't want fish-eye distortion and would use a different lens.

Edit: If it weren't a fish-eye lens in the Baumgartner picture, that would also explain why the curvature looks about the same at the higher altitude.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: mythbusters faking a curved horizon

« on: May 14, 2016, 11:12:18 AM »

If the fish eye was so bad it turned a supposedly flat horizon into a curved one, how about the airplane fuselage (or maybe it's the window frame?) at the bottom right corner of the video. It looks pretty straight to me (orange line). The fish eye should have made the fuselage look curved like the green line. It is actually curved a little bit, but in the opposite direction. How do you explain that?

If I understand correctly, what hello_there is getting at here isn't that there's no fish-eye, but rather that there's no way the level of fish-eye distortion alone could not make the earth appear that curvy.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Give me your top ten proofs for a flat earth

« on: May 14, 2016, 09:48:57 AM »

or a satanist

is this a joke?

Tragically, no.

So when are these flat earthers going to get their own satellite and some pictures to prove their theories? Seems like it be very easy to get all the flatearthers that are serious about their theories to come up with the cash for a satellite and find the edge and take some pics? So every country is lying to us all the different countries with all their spy satellites but not 1 pic of flat earth? lmfao!

They don't believe in satellites. Too busy trying to debunk their existence, seeing as satellite images show the earth as spherical.

26

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the earth is flat then how can night and day happen?

« on: May 14, 2016, 09:45:19 AM »

Still waiting for answers from the FEers. Where are you guys anyway? Don't let NewtSmooth answer those questions for you. Regarding your interests, he's not really good at it 

Is anyone any good at it?

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Van Allen Belt = THE "DOME"

« on: May 14, 2016, 08:55:16 AM »

you are comparing pitcures taken a foot from something with pictures taken hundreds miles from the earth?
ARE YOU FOR REAL?
the effect you're using only works with close objects.
NASA, PLEASE FIRE HIM.
HE'S AN ASS.
MORE MIRROR CLIMBING PLEASE. I'M READY.

How do angles work

A camera angle has a certain view of an object from a distance of d.
The photographer finds a model of the object with a scale factor of x:1.
The photographer takes a picture of the model from a distance of d/x.
The images are the same.

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Transit of Mercury

« on: May 14, 2016, 08:41:04 AM »

Why the hell did you want the information??

For the lulz.

Also, if by "justifying your belief that dots in the sky blah blah blah" you mean repeating every second post I make the same stuff I already said and you ignored, then no, I'm not terrified to do that, it's just that they were right the first time. Repeating them is a waste of time.

So you are also fluent in Gibberish.

Thank you for that information.

Well, maybe you're not fluent in English, because it's not gibberish.

Also, I find it concerning that you think me being Greek is funny. I mean, I know 4 year olds find everything funny, but not to that extent.

He's not going to grow up, why are you still here

29

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Van Allen Belt = THE "DOME"

« on: May 14, 2016, 08:34:41 AM »

You cant come here and make wild claims without backing them up.

Sure he can! He already fits right in here at the Flat Earth Society.

Oh my god people, calm down! Why does everyone here have to be so hot-headed?

Anyway, here's the Dropbox link to the pictures I was talking about:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bvzfzykjs9fwuow/AABEbJ-2PJwW3mQiQ75eALCCa?dl=0

One is taken with a 70mm lens, and the other with a 24mm lens. As you can see, America looks way larger on the one taken with the 24mm lens. In fact, the difference becomes even more pronounced the larger the focal length difference is. A 200mm and a 16mm lens will produce amazingly different results.

In addition to this, look up what a composite image is. While they're incapable of producing an accurate globe, a picture of a particular region made from an orbital composite image will be pretty accurate.

but it's not your fault, you're trying to defend the undefendable and the liars.

Typical "You're wrong because I'm right" attitude.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: If the earth is flat then how can night and day happen?

« on: May 14, 2016, 08:12:13 AM »

Not a single flat earther has answered any of the questions yet, so I want to add to their confusion here.

• Why does the sun act like a spotlight? A glowing body should radiate it's light to all direction. If you want it to act like a spotlight, what is blocking the rest of the light?
• What is keeping the sun to stay up there and not falling to the earth?

If you ask these kind of questions to round earthers, we can answer them pretty easily and without having to dodge the question or changing the topic. That's because we know the truth and we are not shills.

1. Perhaps a parabolic reflective lampshade?
2. With a 3000-mile intangible lamppost, on an amphibious intangible scooter.