Why am I being scrutinized for quoting words other people have said, yet not the ones using obscene language?
I merely use the exact words they used as a point. Language usage is crucial in an argument.
Now, I believe that to be fair practice. Point out one instance where I have lied about anything.
This is why!"it should be obviously much smaller when it's lower in the sky"
How weak and pathetic that you can't even offer at least some plausible explanation to this huge hole in the flat earth model.
Maybe the size difference is...
Imperceptible.
Still up to your usual tricks of fabricating a story by very selective quotations!
When this was written Specifically, from noon to sunset the distance changes by the radius of the earth, 4,000 miles. This is four one thousandth of a percent of the solar distance. Imperceptible.
Sam Hill was obviously referring the very slight relative change in distance to the sun in Globe earth and not the size of the sun in the Flat Earth model!
I suppose once a deceiver, always a deceiver.
The evidence for the Flat Earth must be terribly weak if you need to prop it up with deceit like this.
and this:
But as Rabinoz says...
Storm Troopers would get you at Byrd Memorial, McMurdo, Antarctica !
N30 couldn't stop lying if his life depended on it!
Quoting "out-of-context" is exactly the same as lying!
As you very well know, what RABinOZ actually said was: I could have used Longyearbyen, Norway at Lat 78.2232° N, and Byrd Memorial, McMurdo, Antarctica at Lat 77.8478° S with similarly almost identical times and angles, but you might claim that the Storm Troopers would bet you at Byrd Memorial, McMurdo, Antarctica!
A big difference. What sort of a devious mind must you have to trawl everyone's posts looking for bits you can twist!
When you first started posting, we tried to answer your questions thoughtfully and to the best of our (limited) ability, but all we get from you is being kicked in the teeth.
If that's what it takes to argue Flat earth Theory, I'm so glad I don't have to be so low and deceitful to argue my point!
For the sake of other Flat Earthers who seem to be decent, honest people,
I almost hope you are actually just a "shill" trying to undermine the whole notion of a Flat Earth.
and
"the Es layer can reflect frequencies up to 50 MHz and higher."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere
It says there you can!
Lying by misquoting again! You couldn't lie straight in bed.
The quotation you dishonestly selected a bit out of context from was: E layer
. . . . . . .
Normally, at oblique incidence, this layer can only reflect radio waves having frequencies lower than about 10 MHz and may contribute a bit to absorption on frequencies above. However, during intense Sporadic E events, the Es layer can reflect frequencies up to 50 MHz and higher. The vertical structure of the E layer is primarily determined by the competing effects of ionization and recombination. At night the E layer weakens because the primary source of ionization is no longer present. After sunset an increase in the height of the E layer maximum increases the range to which radio waves can travel by reflection from the layer.
From Wikipedia, Ionosphere.
And even if your misquoting were true, satellite TV is not some sporadic event that might be explained by "However, during intense Sporadic E events, the Es layer can reflect frequencies up to 50 MHz and higher]."
And, as I said before, even "your diagram clearly shows 'RF Signals (MF, HF, VHF)' being reflected and certainly implying that higher frequencies (UHF, 300 to 3,000 MHz and SHF, 3 to 30 GHz) are not reflected."
By the way, when I made that post I knew that you, being the arch-deceiver around here, would drag that bit out of context.
You are making such a habit of this lying by misquoting that everybody is expecting you to it! It doesn't work anymore.
and
"So the map is excellent for studying the possibilities of global war"
None of what you are claiming makes any sense. What is your suggestive ".. hmmm..." meant to imply?
N30, you are so deceptive with your quotations that I has no hesitation accusing you of effectively outright lying!
The words "So the map is excellent for studying the possibilities of global war" were never my words and you know very well that they were never my words.
If you are so deceptive in your treatment of my quotes, am I to assume that we can trust nothing that you say?
Frankly I am sick of a deceiver like you posting here. You are simply proving yourself one who cannot be trusted.
What do you do in "real life"? Sell dodgy real estate or Ponzi investment schemes?
At least, quite unlike you, others arguing for a Flat Earth seem to be decent honest people, who genuinely believe in their cause.
N30 up to usual twisting the meaning of quotes by "selective editing"!
Real quote
I was actually thinking a flat-earth was possible and your arguments are valid(mostly), then I saw this video.
N30's "twisted quote"!
"I was actually thinking a flat-earth was possible and your arguments are valid..."
Real quote
btw, I'm not a government spy,
I really wish someone can explain why this video happens on a flat earth because having a flat earth excites me as that means there are unknown unexplored areas to be discovered
So please let me keep fantasizing =(
N30's "twisted quote"!
"I really wish someone can explain why this video happens on a flat earth because having a flat earth excites me..."
"So please let me keep fantasizing =("
"btw, I'm not a government spy..."
N30's "just so subtle" editing of quotes shows what a slimy deceitful creature he really is.
He'll wriggle and twist everything to suit his own agenda. He even does it to quotations from the internet, where he enlarges and boldens the bit he wants us to notice and then reduces the bits he hopes we won't notice.
Yes, we all abbreviate quotes, otherwise we'd outdo Sandokhan's walls of text, but I think is good practice to show the source of a quote and ellipses (. . . . . . . . . .) where parts are deleted.
Maybe in "real life" N30 is a journallist in some sensationalist publication, with his twisting of quotations everywhere.
and
"...reason to think that we don't live on a massive globe."
Haven't you got the message yet?
More dishonest editing of quotes! You couldn't lie straight in bed with your selective editing and biased highlighting in quotes.
I believe what I said was: Well, no we don't know and you have given us no reason to think that we don't live on a massive globe.
Haven't you got the message yet?
Carry on, we know the type of person you are now!
Now, do you know the sort of deceptive, out-of-context quotations I object to?
A "deceptive, out-of-context quotation" is one where you make it mean something other the author's intended meaning. That is your claiming that the person quoted stated something that they actually did not say.
That is simply lying by you.
Others have pointed the same thing out.