1

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar phsases.

« on: September 01, 2022, 09:22:23 AM »

No reply, interesting.

2

Flat Earth Debate / Lunar phsases.

« on: August 18, 2022, 03:37:38 AM »

How do Lunar phases work on a flat earth?

Different observers should see different parts of the moon being lit up.


While making the moon a disk would mean that observers not directly below it would observe it as being elliptical in shape.

Finally, Getting the observed phases wouldn't really work on a flat earth.
If the Earths and moon were a similar heights, then when they were close together you'd observe more then a fraction being lit up.

3

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar eclipses.

« on: August 18, 2022, 03:27:22 AM »

THe blood moon clearly shows that it can't be due to an object passing between the earth and the moon.

How is that so?

Because you can still see the moon.
And additionally we don't observe the star occulatios you'd expect to see.

4

Flat Earth Debate / Re: An explination for why people believe that the Earth is flat.

« on: August 17, 2022, 10:35:56 PM »

When you claim the path is a 'curve', it refers to the trajectory of a plane following the 'curve of Earth's surface', but the path flown is in a STRAIGHT line, in fact. You can't say it's a 'curved' path, it is actually a STRAIGHT path, that curves downward above a curved surface.

Taiwan and LA are at much lower LATITUDES than Alaska is, on your ball Earth, that's a fact, shown on any globe of Earth, indicated on all your ball Earth maps, and projection maps of the ball Earth, and you can look it up online, if you want to confirm it is a fact.

Those latitudes show both Taiwan and LA at much, much lower altitudes than Alaska, we don't even NEED to look at where they are on your Earth globes, or maps, to know what that means, for your argument.

The latitudes of those cities, make it impossible that they'd go near Alaska, being at a MUCH higher latitude than these cities are, that's why we know these paths are fake, made up, and sold as the 'real' paths of planes.

Anyone can look at their latitudes, to know they are fake. Otherwise, planes are flying way off course for no reason at all, to match these 'paths', but that's nonsense, of course.

So look at a globe, see where Taiwan, (or Taipei) is located on it, and where LA is located on it, and where Alaska is located on it, and see what each of their LATITUDES is.

If a plane actually was flying above a ball Earth, no higher than the latitude of LA, it would NOT have been near Alaska. Because Alaska is at a much higher altitude than Taipei and LA are, on the ball Earth model. They have no way to twist it, and no excuses for it- it's that simple.

Stop lying, you been shown over and over again that the quickest route on a globe does travel near anchorage.
Your latitude comment is not relevant.
For an extreme case two points on the northern hemisphere that differ by close to 180 degrees og longitudem, there the quickest route will travel very close to the notrh pole.

Seriously, why don't you just go to google earth and check what the shortest route is.

5

Flat Earth Debate / Lunar eclipses.

« on: August 17, 2022, 03:32:30 AM »

How do FE'ers explain Lunar eclipses?
Especially the blood moon, how can those be explained by a FE model.
THe blood moon clearly shows that it can't be due to an object passing between the earth and the moon.

6

Flat Earth Debate / Re: An explination for why people believe that the Earth is flat.

« on: August 13, 2022, 03:37:01 AM »

Of course it's all faked, you expect them to show the REAL flight paths, over a FAKE ball Earth? Get serious!


They claim that these paths are flown because it's the shortest distance between Taipei and LA, right?

It's easy to prove which route is shortest, with a basketball, or soccer ball.

If you have one, or some other ball, simply mark one point, and another point, on the exact opposite side, for the 'poles'.  Then, draw a line in the exact middle of each point, around the ball, as your 'equator'.

Now, mark Taipei just a little above the 'equator', and another point a bit higher, for LA. Like it's shown in your diagram.

Have you ever noticed that they never show both paths, in their diagrams? I've noticed it, and wondered why they don't show both paths, to compare their distances.

We'll know why they don't show both paths, with our OWN 'ball' Earth experiment....

Take a long strip of masking tape, and cut it into two thin strips, of equal length. Make sure it's longer than you need to span across the two cities on your ball.

Now, put one strip straight across the two cities on your ball, one point to the other point, directly. That path will slant slightly upward, from Taipei to LA. Cut the tape at each point, to mark it's exact length.

Now, put the other strip of tape on the first strip, and cut it to the exact same length.

Remove the second tape from there. Put the first end on Taipei, and curve it upward, while going across the ball, then curve it back downward, until it reaches the other point, which is LA.

Match it with the path on your diagram, being it is the 'real path', right?

You can use strings, to make a smoother curved path, if you like, just make sure they can stick to your ball, like tape does. Maybe put two-sided tape on one side of the strings.

Now you know why they don't show both paths on their diagrams. Not unless the map s distorted first, anyway. Now you know why we just use an ACTUAL sphere, to see what ACTUALLY happens.

This is so simple, so easy, why didn't anyone ever THINK of doing it before?

Because they don't tell you about it, you never think of it yourself, and never realize how they've brainwashed you to not think for yourself, when it comes to the ball Earth in space stuff!. And this surely proves it, I'd say!

For cities near the 'equator', like Taiwan, going to a city not much higher than that, it has less of an 'arc', than between two points higher up on the ball.

That's proven with your own 'Earth' ball, right?

Of course you claim the data is fake without any evidence.

If you actually use google earth, you can see that said path actually is the shortest route.
If you keep claiming otherwise, then back your claims up.
Use a globe or something equivalent.

https://i.imgur.com/Bxbl4ZD.png
There.

7

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What experiments can I do to prove that the Earth is flat?

« on: August 13, 2022, 03:32:28 AM »

A sample of Herschel's papers on Saturn..
In this paper, he claims

The issue are not his claims.
You are not merely doubting his claims and asking for evidence of them.
Instead you are positively claiming that he is lying and that what he claims is impossible.

to have seen a 'quintuple belt' on Saturn, which never moved at all, for 3 hours, and even for longer than that!

Where?
Don't paraphrase, show what he actually said.
Do you mean where he said "without any visible change"?
That doesn't mean it isn't moving.

And again, he is focusing on the belt, not the atmosphere.
And again, you are yet to demonstrate what his telescopes were capable of seeing.

I'm not saying they were lying to us, about Saturn, specifically, if there wasn't PROOF of it, from their own papers, documents, and records.

But you haven't provided proof.
You just assert that they are lying without proof.

In fact, after I'd seen all the videos of Saturn, which was moving constantly, endlessly, in every video

Using what instruments?
And again, there is an understanding of the atmosphere distorting the view.

I see you just ignored where he stated "The evening is not clear enough to observe changes in it, if there were any"

Do you still think they didn't lie?

Yes, and you are yet to provide evidence that they did.
Can you provide a video, from a comparable telescope, in comparable conditions?
Or can you just provide crap, from much worse telescopes, in much worse conditions?

Why would you ever believe his claims ARE true? He actually mentions using a telescope with about 260x magnification, he'd see SH&* compared to us today, and we don't see anything close to what HE claimed to see, that's for sure!

I'm simply looking at the evidence, what we can see, today, and compare it to what HE claimed to see, centuries ago, with inferior instruments than we have today.

And that's what proves he was lying, because of OUR seeing Saturn up close today, and we see Saturn is constantly, endlessly in motion. We do NOT see 'quintuple rings' on it's surface, which never move for 3 hours, it's in CONSTANT motion, never stopping at all.

If YOU want to prove he DID see that, or COULD HAVE seen that, after what YOU'VE seen, is constant, endless motion, whatever you believe causes it, is pure denial of the reality.

What makes you believe his claims WERE true, based on all of the valid, conclusive evidence?

You've never once seen Saturn NOT in motion, right? You've never seen any video of Saturn NOT in motion, either, right? You don't know of anyone who claims to HAVE seen Saturn NOT in motion, have you? If you have, there's no PROOF of their claims, right?

What makes you believe, or accept as true, anyone who makes a claim, or makes many claims, which are proven false, beyond any doubt?

You surely wouldn't believe this, in any OTHER case, if you realized what someone claimed to see, was complete BS, after YOU saw it, and everyone ELSE saw it, too, and was NOT like he claimed it was, in any way.

Herschel made many, many claims, held up many 'measurements' he made, and now, after everyone has SEEN Saturn, and filmed Saturn up close, you're actually supporting his BS claims as being true, as being 'not proven as lies'! 

What do you consider is proof, or evidence, of someone who is lying, or is not lying, or is probably lying, or is probably NOT lying?

If their claim is never confirmed as true, or false, by others, nothing can be proven, either way.

If we CAN confirm whether or not it's true, and we find it is NOT true, then we know it was a lie, a falsehood, same as we always have found with ANY OTHER false claims, proven by us to be lies, and falsehoods.

You're defending them, as if it's beyond you to accept they're liars, no matter what the proof may be. You're demanding to see them say 'We've lied to you about Saturn', in sworn statements in some sort of documents, or something, before you ever accept they're liars!

Yes, I'm sure anyone who has lied, would write it down on papers, and documents, but if they AREN'T liars, they don't write it down anywhere, or say it! 

I would strongly urge you, and everyone else, to read that document, and his others, at least, those which are on Saturn.

Then, look at how we see Saturn today, with the best telescopes we have, the best cameras we have today, with 3000x digital zoom lenses, and so forth.

What becomes very, very obvious to see, from all his 'measurements', and 'data', on 'lists', with figures on them, is all meant to impress those who read it, to appear as a valid, thorough, scientific 'document'!

It's complete crap, dressed up to look 'scientific', with figures in tables and lists....

That's why I said they're professional BS artists. Just look at any of these papers - the more crap put into it, the better it all looks, as they say!

And you keep making things up without evidence.
You keep making up things that you claim that he said, without any evidence of the fact.
Back up your claims.

8

Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Eruption from Space

« on: August 12, 2022, 10:25:16 PM »

OK, there was a small tsunami that nobody noticed among the normal waves at the surface of the sea.

The eruption caused tsunamis in Tonga, Fiji, American Samoa, Vanuatu, and along the Pacific rim, including damaging tsunamis in New Zealand, Japan, the United States, the Russian Far East, Chile, and Peru. At least four people were killed, some were injured, and some remain possibly missing in Tonga from tsunami waves up to 20 m (66 ft) high. Two people drowned in Peru when 2 m (6 ft 7 in) waves struck the coast.

At least 4 people noticed. 2 of which noticed 66' high waves. That seems to be slightly above 'normal' waves, don't you think?

I see no waves at all on the video. Only devastated areas due to a standard storm or hurricane.

Yes, because that is the devastation after the tsunami.

Also, why you didn't see the tsunami waves is because you live 10,000 miles away.

I'll stick with all of the news reports, science reports, and images/videos taken by witnesses of the eruption and resulting tsunamis and devastation before I listen to a lone crackpot conspiracy theorist.

Fake photos and videos do not impress me.

They are real regardless of what you think.
You assuming that they are fake simply shows that you are closed minded and are unwilling to listen to evidence.

9

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"

« on: August 12, 2022, 10:05:59 PM »

There’s also the fact the results for the strength of gravity are consistent.

If it were really due to magnetism. The results for the strength would be highly inconsistent.

10

Flat Earth Debate / Re: An explination for why people believe that the Earth is flat.

« on: August 12, 2022, 07:05:29 PM »

As I've already posted, and will again, below, this shows the REAL flight paths of planes, after they had to have emergency landings during their flights....

https://www.flatearthresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/covered16emergencylandingsprovingflatearth-191007025918_compressed.pdf


The case I'm referring to from this document, is the 2015 China Airlines Flight 008, from Taipei to Los Angeles. I'm specifically showing a route, that makes NO sense to take, over a ball Earth, but makes PERFECT sense, over the flat Earth.

You are wrong, yet again...

As you can clearly see here, the diversion of China Flt 8 was far shorter to Anchorage than to LAX:



Same flight from 8/4/22:







Lastly, your flight diversion document is not genuine because you haven't proved that it's genuine. It's all fakery, according to you. Remember? You said:

Again, YOU haven't proved they ARE genuine, to begin with.

Here's proof that the plane landed in Alaska...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/taiwan-plane-birth-1.3285844

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/article/flight-taiwan-diverted-anchorage-after-doctor-delivers-baby-onboard/2015/10/15/

Many more articles mention the same flight landing in Alaska, if you want to look for yourself.

So now that this is proven, let's look at the flight path itself...

Taipei is located at 25.0330° N latitude. Los Angeles is at 34.0522° N latitude.

And Anchorage, Alaska, is at 61.2176° N latitude.

See the problem now?

On a ball Earth map, or globe map, the plane would be nowhere CLOSE to Anchorage!!

The only logical explanation for this, is that the flight WAS on course, over the FLAT Earth, which IS the real Earth.

Here's another flight, in 2018, which landed in Alaska, while flying from Shanghai to New York...

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2138955/china-eastern-flight-shanghai-new-york-forced-land-alaska-after

"The China Eastern Airlines plane MU587 that took off on Friday evening was around eight hours into its scheduled 15-hour flight, when its crew made an emergency landing at Anchorage airport."

Shanghai is at 31.2304° N latitude. New York City is at 40.7128° N latitude. And of course, Anchorage is at 61.2176° N latitude.


Not yet convinced? Here's a flight from the Philippines to LA, which ALSO landed in Anchorage, Alaska, in 2012....

"CEBU, Philippines - The flight of an international passenger airline from Cebu for Los Angeles was diverted due to gradual depressurization and successfully landed in Anchorage, Alaska keeping all the passengers and the crew safe.

The Boeing 777-300ER has 288 passengers and 18 crew members on board."

https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/cebu-news/2012/11/20/869091/flight-la-diverted-alaska-midair-scare-hits-plane

The latitude of Cebu, Philippines, is only 10.3157° N!!

Look at your globe Earth map, and see where the Philippines is, and where LA is, and where ALASKA is!



https://www.fly4free.com/flight-deals/usa/non-stop-from-los-angeles-to-cebu-or-manila-philippines-from-467/

Here's a globe map showing where Hawaii is, in a direct path between the Philippines and LA, NOWHERE NEAR ALASKA, proving the ball Earth map makes no sense, from that one flight path, alone! Nor does it work on any OTHER flight path either, I've only mentioned a few examples.

https://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/oa62f6dd48.gif
 
You can't make up BS for this one!

More dishonesty, more lies, again you sure you lack of honesty. Your points have all been addressed, no address his.

11

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Observation directly disproves "Water always finds its level"

« on: August 08, 2022, 05:33:31 AM »

Cavendish used lead balls, which have magnetic properties, that's what caused them to attract together slightly.

If you believe it was due to 'gravity', then repeat this experiment with objects that have NO magnetic properties, like solid oak or walnut, or made of plastic, or anything without magnetic properties, and see if they attract together, or not.

Suspend a boulder in air with a crane, and put it near a mountain, and see if the boulder attracts to the mountain, or not.

Or, use those SAME lead balls, but cover them up with 2 or 3 inches of rubber, or plastic, and then see if they still attract together or not. They're the same objects, so there's no excuse if they don't attract together wrapped in rubber or plastic, right? If you really wanted to prove your magical force exists, why wouldn't you do that?

If I believed that 'gravity' existed, that's the FIRST thing I would do - make sure they aren't attracted by MAGNETIC force, and I'd use wood, or plastic objects, not metal objects, that's not being honest, at all. Even if it was an honest MISTAKE, I'd repeat my experiment with non-magnetic objects afterwards. This would be honest, and transparent.

But Cavendish wasn't honest, nor those who have done the same experiments, either. Why would THAT be? Any idea?

Lead is not magnetic.
The Cavendish experiment has been repeadetd many MANY times, with consistent results, not just consistent in that they measured attraction, but in the measures strength of the attraciton. If it were anything other then gravity, the results would not be consistent to the degree that they are.
The reason why lead is used is partly because of it's high density.

That experiment is just one of many.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

12

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What experiments can I do to prove that the Earth is flat?

« on: August 08, 2022, 05:24:48 AM »

Those pictures of stars are just the results of people not knowing how to use a camera properly.
https://flatearth.ws/p900-p1000

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What experiments can I do to prove that the Earth is flat?

« on: August 08, 2022, 05:18:52 AM »

There are tons of videos of rocket launches. That you aren’t satisfied with them is your problem.
If you don’t like any of them, why don’t you film one yourself.

14

Flat Earth Debate / Re: How fast does the sun move?

« on: August 07, 2022, 09:01:43 PM »

The fantasy (your claims are not reality at all) is that the sun is completing a longer path in the same amount of time meaning it is going faster.
So in your "fake reality", the sun is going faster.

But it's not going faster, as I explained.
It's all about visual appearance.

But it IS going faster, velocity = distance travelled / time.

So it must be going faster. It’s that simple

15

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Star trails don't match a flat earth,

« on: August 07, 2022, 08:23:44 PM »

Right, they always use a dome, with stars below that dome, which rotate above us on the ground, because that's what we all see, stars below Earth's dome, circling above Earth, that's why it works so well.

Imagine if they used nothing above us but a massive, endless area, with stars going every direction at random, to and fro -  that's your ball Earth, and it would be funny as hell to see it!!

They use a done because it’s the best method of simulating how stars on a spherical earth. I notice you cannot come up with a superior method.

16

Flat Earth Debate / Star trails don't match a flat earth,

« on: June 21, 2022, 10:59:22 PM »

Star trails don't match a flat earth would predict.

Here is an example photo.




While this is what they would look like on flat earth.

17

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Chelyabinsk and Tunguska Events

« on: June 18, 2022, 08:14:50 PM »

Just an atmospheric hydrogen/helium (potentially) ice blast from the build-up on the dome.

Hydrogen has a boiling point of 20 Kelvin, helium’s is even lower.

Additionally the Chelyabinsk meteor came down at an angle. Finally both Chelyabinsk and Tunguska resulted in a number of meteorites being found.

18

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Chelyabinsk and Tunguska Events

« on: June 14, 2022, 12:45:05 AM »

Simple, rocks and comets from space fall to the earth very fast, that’s how.

19

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's talk about gravity

« on: June 14, 2022, 12:37:23 AM »

All objects on Earth, originate on Earth, based on all of the evidence supporting it, over thousands of years on Earth as humans.

Someone still can't adequately and even remotely convincingly address the elephant in the room: Meteorites

- Millions of sightings
- 10's of Thousands of craters
- 10's of Thousands of recovered debris pieces

Too bad your initial premise is proven wrong time and time again. Oh well, your notions without evidence are inconsequential.

Ice hits and sinkholes.

They are not ice, meteorites are often found. The Chelyabinsk impacted came in diagonally, which isn’t something you can get from falling ice.

The craters do not look like sinkholes.

20

Flat Earth Debate / Chelyabinsk and Tunguska Events

« on: June 13, 2022, 08:22:40 PM »

How do flat Earthers explain the Chelyabinsk and Tunguska Events?

They make perfect sense on a round earth, but none on a flat earth.

21

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's talk about gravity

« on: June 13, 2022, 08:10:07 PM »

All objects on Earth, originate on Earth, based on all of the evidence supporting it, over thousands of years on Earth as humans.

Nope, wrong, meteors and meteorites exist.

For example the Chelyabinsk and Tunguska Events, which you are unable to explain, and keep ignoring when they’re brought up.


In addition, there’s the fact that if you take a rock from the surface and trave underground, that rock will still fall when dropped.

22

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's talk about gravity

« on: June 09, 2022, 08:23:17 PM »

And you still have no explanation for Chelyabinsk or Tunguska, guess we can count that as an admission of defeat.

I accept your surrender Turbo.

23

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's talk about gravity

« on: June 07, 2022, 08:56:48 AM »

And you still have no explanation for Chelyabinsk or Tunguska, guess we can count that as an admission of defeat.

24

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Observations strongly disagree with FE model

« on: June 07, 2022, 08:53:02 AM »

Turbo, you've been shown multiple examples of videos filmed from beyond they exclusion zone.

25

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Observations strongly disagree with FE model

« on: June 07, 2022, 08:51:57 AM »

Care to prove these lights never appeared?

For someone who falsely claims to care about evidence, you sure assert loads of BS with no evidence to support it.

Then show me that NASA told us where some rocket will soon 'appear', over northern parts of Idaho, or wherever, at 9:21 pm local time, next Monday night, or something like this, back then.

Go ahead, show me proof of that being done, or admit they didn't say s^^( about it for 40 years or more.

Here https://in-the-sky.org/satpasses.php?year=2022&month=6&day=7
Also https://spotthestation.nasa.gov

26

Flat Earth General / Re: Flight from Seoul to London Goes Above the Sea???

« on: June 05, 2022, 03:58:25 AM »

@JackBlack
You repeated the same stuff that I have explained these matters before. Try new, non BS stuff okay? 👌

@Smoke Machine

It's interesting if you show us your findings about curved east-west & north-south.

In my map, longitude and latitude lines are curved.

Covid pandemic gave proof that maps are wrong.

Mount Gede and Pangrango in reality is at right south direction from Jakarta.
While in the map both mountains lie at south due east.

Please, Danang. Surely you jest?

On a globe, North, South, East, and West, each curve downwards. Do you realise, nothing on your phew earth has ever been mapped?

Globe map grids is curved but its projection on maps is straight.
Phew map is flat, and its grid is curved.
Again it offers logic, not scaled yet.

I could have made the phew map ready by referring to timeanddate.com, but their data is not coherent, e.g. solar noon is not at exact 12.00 PM at longitudes with exact 15° multiplications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_time

27

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Observations strongly disagree with FE model

« on: June 05, 2022, 02:28:54 AM »

I prefer actual evidence, and if there isn't any, I don't believe it. There's the difference between you and I, in a nutshell.

Where's your "actual evidence" for a dome? I see you don't have any. Therefore, according to your statement, you don't believe there is a dome because there isn't any evidence. Got it.

 There's the difference between you and I, in a nutshell.

It's the same as David Copperfield when he made the Statue of Liberty appear to vanish out of existence, except you didn't know he was an illusionist doing a trick.

And if I asked to see what is behind him, see it from other angles, and places, you'd say I don't have any evidence it's a fake, because I'm not allowed to see behind the curtain, from all viewpoints, same as your 'rockets' aren't allowed to be seen anywhere else, when they vanish from all sight, after the first 3-4 minutes!

Worst of all, your only excuse is that rockets veer off like that, to gain enough 'speed' for 'orbit' around Earth, to reach 'space', etc...

But other rockets have flown straight up the whole flight, and it's been filmed from the ground, just like all the others have been filmed from ground, when veering off out of all view, and they ALWAYS show these videos, until the rockets fly out of view.

They've never shown us the videos from ground of rockets going straight up until out of view, for some reason. Any idea?

The GoFast rocket was filmed from the ground, and from the rocket. They cut off the video from the ground, while it was in full view. So why don't you explain why they would cut the video off?

It’s already been explained that the restricted zones are for safety reasons.

You have been shown videos from the other side of the restricted zone. Why aren’t they good enough?

28

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's talk about gravity

« on: June 05, 2022, 02:22:32 AM »

Light, heat, sound. Simple transfer of all that kinetic energy into other forms.

The problem its you ignore anything you can't refute like  any of the the following which all blow away your notion of a dome and denial of space:-

Numerous videos showing falling meteors such as the  Chelyabinsk meteor.
The fact that the ISS and numerous other satellites can be seen by anyone who has a mind to go out at the right predicted time on a clear night.
The fact that meteor showers are predictable and can be viewed by anyone who again has a mind to go out and see them. Its no secret.
The fact that large near earth objects are routinely tracked and photographed by amateur astronomers around the world. Hardly a month goes by that a new one is not found!
The fact that all the planets along with their moons can be viewed with anyone with a telescope, explain that.
The fact that most planets and moons, like our own, show evidence of being struck by asteroids or comets at one time or other, just like the earth.
Explain how various videos made by amateur astronomers have shown Jupiter being hit by comets


How do you explain these when they can be witnessed and confirmed by anyone. You calling them BS proves you have no have no answer and just goes to show just how wrong you are about everything you appear to believe in.

You bang on about NASA but forget NASA were not first to launch a satellite nor were they first to put either a man or woman into space. That was done by the USSR. Are they involved in your cover up as well? Though to be fair they no longer exist in that form.

There are a number of countries/agencies who have launched satellites into space are you claiming the following are all involved in your imagined conspiracy?

Soviet Union
United States
France
Japan
UK
European Space Agency
China
India
Israel
Ukraine
Russia
Iran
North Korea

Every evidence free claim you make is preposterous you have no proof for anything you say. All you can do is claim anything you don't like is either made up, faked, lies or BS, which is an irony as they can all be applied accurately to everything you say.

Your argument about how many people, how many countries, would have to fake their own rockets, or create their own fake images of things 'out in space', nobody else can see, but them, and other countries claim to see them, too.

All of these countries that say they have seen the same thing, as other countries 'saw', sells their whole fairy tale story as something credible, and true!

It's about how many would know about being faked, which you don't know, nor does anyone else know, nor is it at all relevant to the truth, which is all that matters here, anyway.

The evidence, or lack of it, is all that matters, period.

There are a vast number of amateur photos of the other planets out there, you don’t need a massive telescope to see what the planets look like. You could even buy a telescope yourself.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: Flight from Seoul to London Goes Above the Sea???

« on: June 01, 2022, 07:41:22 AM »

The trouble with this "model" is that it screws up bavigation in the North.
The fact is that ships do sometimes travel through the artic ocean, there are many research bases, and there are inhabited area that experience midnight sun.

And your map is very poor quality.

30

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Let's talk about gravity

« on: May 29, 2022, 05:07:19 AM »

The streaks of light that fizzle out in air, you mean?

That's your idea of massive energy?

Where would this energy be, after they all fizzle out within the air, then?

Like I thought, No explanation from you, concession accepted.

And "fizzle out"? The  Chelyabinsk meteorite had affects consistent with a release of 400-500kt of energy.
The Tunguska had affects consistent with a release of 3-20MT, It flattened over 2000 square kilometers of forest, how did that happen?