Conspiracy

Quote from: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 03:21:00 PM

Please post evidence of photos that NASA claims are actual single photos with "Duplicated clouds".

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/klP6Z1Ahqos/hqdefault.jpg

And the claim from NASA that this is a single photo instead of the computer model/composite image?

That is what i said....not ? It is almost like NASA did take a children's globe as in your example to figuer out perspective in space and how they would create their CGI image......nah they wouldn't, would they

No. You were indicating because they look different it mus be fake.

Even if they were faking it they wouldn't use a child's globe. Software already lets you model that.

But a REAL non cgi film of a spinning earth is out of the question,....is it ?

At real speed? No, because you wouldn't notice the incredibly slow rotation.
However, all a film is is a series of images.
We already have the images, so you can make your own film.

Quote

Please post these photos references to their source.

The 2011–12 Australian bushfire season was mostly active between September 2011 to March 2012 and caused most damage in the state of Western Australia, particularly in the South West. The state had been prepared and had expected an increased risk of bushfire following heavy spring rains as a result of a La Nina weather
The extent of the night lights in this area is also a function of composite imaging. These new images were assembled from data acquired over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012.[/b]]over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012.

So yes, it is taking pictures of bush fires, not just city lights.

If they were faking it, do you think they would have made that mistake?

Need more ? Or is accurate data of place and time not considered as proof ?
In april 2012 most of the fires were calmed down, but NASA pretends the whole Westcoast is on fire still.....
While reality says it was during september 2011 till march 2012 in the South West of Australia

And what about the section in October? Or do you think 2011-2012 was the only bush-fire season there was?

And no, that wasn't the hole west coast still on fire.

There are two proofs of a spherical Earth (orbited by the Moon and orbiting the Sun) that are free and available to the entire world:

1) We see circumpolar stars all year long, but other stars come and go annually. People who have the advantage of traveling between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres will notice different circumpolar stars rotating daily, but the annual change in some stars (constellations) but not others tells us that we are orbiting the Sun.
2) Eclipses are perfectly predictable using RE math and science, but FE models can't even explain them. Lunar eclipses ALWAYS happen during a full Moon, and solar eclipses ALWAYS happen during a new Moon. FE can't even come up with a decent explanation of he phases of the Moon. Those nonsense models show people being able to see different phases of the Moon on different places on the same night. Nope! Never happens.
Bonus evidence (I said two, but here's a third!):
The "spotlight sun" model means that the Sun would come into view (not rise) at a twenty-something degree angle, yet everyone can see it disappear below zero degrees (horizontal).

No need for NASA to know the sphere Earth. That's why people have known it to be a sphere for over 2,000 years.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 03:21:00 PM

Please post evidence of photos that NASA claims are actual single photos with "Duplicated clouds".

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/klP6Z1Ahqos/hqdefault.jpg

And what "Blue Marble" photo is that from?
The one that NASA stated on their website was a "composite" built up from data obtained from satellites in orbit too low to take the whole earth in one frame?
See more detail in Flat Earth Debate / Re: A scientific manor that Proves that the Earth has no Curvature « Message by rabinoz on April 20, 2017, 10:45:22 PM »

Quote

Don't you mean perspective and orientation. Continents looking different can be caused by distance (perspective) and the orientation.

The "perspective point" to cause that is simply distance!

That is what i said....not ? It is almost like NASA did take a children's globe as in your example to figuer out perspective in space and how they would create their CGI image......nah they wouldn't, would they
But a REAL non cgi film of a spinning earth is out of the question,....is it ?

• Photos from geostationary satellites are an apparently stationary earth! - funny that!
  
  
• Photos from EPIC on DSCVR do show the earth's rotation, but it is a bit slow - a bit like watching grass grow.
  This site lets you step through successive photos NASA, DSCOVR: EPIC, Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera
  
  and it's from your  favourite source of information  ! Hope you like it!
  But if you want if actually moving, here it is:

  A NASA camera aboard the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured a unique view of the moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth last month. The series of test images shows the fully illuminated “dark side” of the moon that is never visible from Earth. The images were captured by NASA’s Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC), a four megapixel CCD camera and telescope on the DSCOVR satellite orbiting 1 million miles from Earth. From its position between the sun and Earth, DSCOVR conducts its primary mission of real-time solar wind monitoring for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This animation features actual satellite images of the far side of the moon, illuminated by the sun, as it crosses between the DSCOVR spacecraft's Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) and telescope, and the Earth  - one million miles away. Credits: NASA/NOAA

Quote

Please post these photos references to their source.

The 2011–12 Australian bushfire season was mostly active between September 2011 to March 2012 and caused most damage in the state of Western Australia, particularly in the South West. The state had been prepared and had expected an increased risk of bushfire following heavy spring rains as a result of a La Nina weather

The extent of the night lights in this area is also a function of composite imaging. These new images were assembled from data acquired over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012.[/b]]over nine days in April 2012 and 13 days in October 2012.

So what proves that it is fake?
It is claimed that "extent of the night lights in this area is also a function of composite imaging"
Yes, I know the magic, all knowing eye of that totally unbiased critic dutchy thinks so!

Quote

You, like so many flat earthers, simply claim rubbish and when we look into it all we find is a flat earth YouTube video!

When you make accusations, back them up.

Need more ? Or is accurate data of place and time not considered as proof ?
In april 2012 most of the fires were calmed down, but NASA pretends the whole Westcoast is on fire still.....
You are such a gullible NASA fanboy.....btw the balck marble looks extremely fake, what else do you need ?

What on earth is a "balck marble" that "looks extremely fake"?

No, I'm not "a gullible NASA fanboy".
I simply fail to understand why ignorant NASAphobic conspiratards (Is that an apt description?) like yourself blame NASA for the belief in the Heliocentric Globe earth!

You are about 2300 years too late on the Globe part!
See Flat Earth General / Re: What really happpened to make the people think earth was round? « on: April 23, 2017, 07:26:17 PM »
and even a few hundred years BC some thought the sun was the centre of the solar system.

Aristarchus of Samos (310-230 B.C.). Proposed that the sun is at the center of the universe with Earth along with the other planets circulating around it. He estimated the distance of the sun from the Earth by observing the angle between the sun and the moon when it is exactly half full.

And the Indian mathematician Aryabhata (AD 476–550) proposed the heliocentric globe well before even Copernicus (1473 AD-1543 AD).

Thank you for correctly assuming my useless and obfuscating advice was directed at the OP. 

On the contrary, it is the most useful thing you have posted.

Quote from: Piesigma on April 24, 2017, 03:18:37 PM

Thank you for correctly assuming my useless and obfuscating advice was directed at the OP. 

On the contrary, it is the most useful thing you have posted.

Do you ever post anything useful? All you ever try to is denigrate other people.

Still, since you don't have a workable Flat Earth hypothesis you have to keep people sidetracked as long as possible.

Do you ever post anything useful?

Yes.

Still, since you don't have a workable Flat Earth hypothesis you have to keep people sidetracked as long as possible.

False.

Quote from: Piesigma on April 24, 2017, 03:18:37 PM

Thank you for correctly assuming my useless and obfuscating advice was directed at the OP. 

On the contrary, it is the most useful thing you have posted.

Thanks for recognizing the unfortunate utility of my posts.  As you have tacitly acknowledged my comment is of far more utility and significance than anything you have posted recently.  Thanks for helping me understand that although I was haphazardly trying to create the semblance of your uselessness, you have helped me to demonstrate my comments come nowhere near as useless and insignificant as yours.  I couldn’t have done it without you, my friend.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 06:03:49 PM

Do you ever post anything useful?

Yes.

Please refer me to something useful that you have posted!
You not in that "sheltered workshop" of the TFES.org now.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 06:03:49 PM

Still, since you don't have a workable Flat Earth hypothesis you have to keep people sidetracked as long as possible.

False.

Well justify your claim by posting a link to "a workable Flat Earth hypothesis" that explains at least the easily visible observations.
I'd list a few, but you'd complain that there were too many questions in the one post.

There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".
There are numerous things there that simply don't match reality, I'd mention Lunar Eclipses but you'd say "off topic".

Thanks for recognizing the unfortunate utility of my posts. 

You are welcome. Don't worry, round earth logicians never know when they are right or wrong anyway. Even a blind dog finds a bone occasionally.

As you have tacitly acknowledged my comment is of far more utility and significance than anything you have posted recently.

False. See above

Thanks for helping me understand that

No worries, I do it for roundies all the time.

I couldn’t have done it without you, my friend.

Maybe not today, but if you worked extra hard for a very long time, you may just get there on your own. Take care, friend!

Please refer me to something useful that you have posted!

You are already in the thread, friend.

You not in that "sheltered workshop" of the TFES.org now.

What? I am not what you are trying to say, but I was a member here long before anywhere else, so your comment is literally irrelevant. Maybe you should take your own advice about posting something helpful, because you certainly don't seem to.

Well justify your claim by posting a link to "a workable Flat Earth hypothesis"

I would suggest reading the wiki, FAQ, and doing a bit of lurking on the forum. It isn't perfect, but it is plenty workable.

There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".

Objectively false.

There are numerous things there that simply don't match reality, I'd mention Lunar Eclipses but you'd say "off topic".

It isn't like you ever stay on topic anyway. It is the round earth method. When you can't engage someone on the actual topic, you try to deflect to something else. Unfortunately that seems to happen in most threads. Oh well, it is not anything new.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 07:49:50 PM

There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".

Objectively false.

Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.

Quote from: Junker on April 24, 2017, 09:50:28 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 07:49:50 PM

There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".

Objectively false.

Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.

By "workable," we mean "accounts for as many or more observations than those that can be explained/predicted by RE math and science."

This includes (sorry if I'm wandering off topic, but "workable" is broad):
--eclipses including how their exact time of arrival and location can be predicted decades in advance
--flight distances
--ships, buildings, mountains, and the Sun disappearing from the bottom up
--northern circumpolar stars being different than southern circumpolar stars
--equatorial constellations change on an annual cycle while circumpolar constellations are there all year
--the time of sunset varies with altitude
--the "altitude" of the Sun and the angle of sunset
--phases of the Moon
--tides
--the fact that stars have a composition and temperature similar to the Sun
--motion of the planets, including the easily visible orbiting moons of Jupiter and how it was a mathematician who found Neptune using RE math and physics

Quote from: JackBlack on April 24, 2017, 10:12:36 PM

Quote from: Junker on April 24, 2017, 09:50:28 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 07:49:50 PM

There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".

Objectively false.

Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.

By "workable," we mean "accounts for as many or more observations than those that can be explained/predicted by RE math and science."

This includes (sorry if I'm wandering off topic, but "workable" is broad):
--eclipses including how their exact time of arrival and location can be predicted decades in advance
--flight distances
--ships, buildings, mountains, and the Sun disappearing from the bottom up
--northern circumpolar stars being different than southern circumpolar stars
--equatorial constellations change on an annual cycle while circumpolar constellations are there all year
--the time of sunset varies with altitude
--the "altitude" of the Sun and the angle of sunset
--phases of the Moon
--tides
--the fact that stars have a composition and temperature similar to the Sun
--motion of the planets, including the easily visible orbiting moons of Jupiter and how it was a mathematician who found Neptune using RE math and physics

Wait, but I can find RE explanation for those with a Google search... I was under the impression there is no one single workable hypothesis as of yet, merely a series of theories which defend different contentions.

You are welcome. Don't worry, round earth logicians never know when they are right or wrong anyway. Even a blind dog finds a bone occasionally.

Yes Junker that's true. Good boy. Keep trying, perhaps one day you'll become as intelligent as a blind dog and find yourself a bone too. That is a quite optimistic goal you have given yourself. See your content is improving.

False. See above

Now you are already doubting yourself?  Don't give up yet just take small steps if you have to. I believe in you, my friend.

No worries, I do it for roundies all the time.

Once again, thank you.  Note that you don't always have to look foolish for us flat earthers and roundies on this forum

Maybe not today, but if you worked extra hard for a very long time, you may just get there on your own. Take care, friend!

See my thank you above.  Good luck and keep aiming high.

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 25, 2017, 04:59:11 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 24, 2017, 10:12:36 PM

Quote from: Junker on April 24, 2017, 09:50:28 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 07:49:50 PM

There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".

Objectively false.

Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.

By "workable," we mean "accounts for as many or more observations than those that can be explained/predicted by RE math and science."

This includes (sorry if I'm wandering off topic, but "workable" is broad):
--eclipses including how their exact time of arrival and location can be predicted decades in advance
--flight distances
--ships, buildings, mountains, and the Sun disappearing from the bottom up
--northern circumpolar stars being different than southern circumpolar stars
--equatorial constellations change on an annual cycle while circumpolar constellations are there all year
--the time of sunset varies with altitude
--the "altitude" of the Sun and the angle of sunset
--phases of the Moon
--tides
--the fact that stars have a composition and temperature similar to the Sun
--motion of the planets, including the easily visible orbiting moons of Jupiter and how it was a mathematician who found Neptune using RE math and physics

Wait, but I can find RE explanation for those with a Google search... I was under the impression there is no one single workable hypothesis as of yet, merely a series of theories which defend different contentions.

Yes. My point is that RE explains all of that coherently and concisely. All of those things are easy to understand with RE, but FE has to come up with half-guesses for most things and confusing, contradictory nonsense to explain two observations at the same time. "Coherence" is not in their vocabulary, science is against their religion, and they don't care about math.

Quote from: ScintillaOfStars on April 25, 2017, 05:04:10 AM

Quote from: Jonny B Smart on April 25, 2017, 04:59:11 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on April 24, 2017, 10:12:36 PM

Quote from: Junker on April 24, 2017, 09:50:28 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on April 24, 2017, 07:49:50 PM

There is no "workable Flat Earth hypothesis" in "the FAQ", "the Wiki" or "Rowbotham".

Objectively false.

Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.

By "workable," we mean "accounts for as many or more observations than those that can be explained/predicted by RE math and science."

This includes (sorry if I'm wandering off topic, but "workable" is broad):
--eclipses including how their exact time of arrival and location can be predicted decades in advance
--flight distances
--ships, buildings, mountains, and the Sun disappearing from the bottom up
--northern circumpolar stars being different than southern circumpolar stars
--equatorial constellations change on an annual cycle while circumpolar constellations are there all year
--the time of sunset varies with altitude
--the "altitude" of the Sun and the angle of sunset
--phases of the Moon
--tides
--the fact that stars have a composition and temperature similar to the Sun
--motion of the planets, including the easily visible orbiting moons of Jupiter and how it was a mathematician who found Neptune using RE math and physics

Wait, but I can find RE explanation for those with a Google search... I was under the impression there is no one single workable hypothesis as of yet, merely a series of theories which defend different contentions.

Yes. My point is that RE explains all of that coherently and concisely. All of those things are easy to understand with RE, but FE has to come up with half-guesses for most things and confusing, contradictory nonsense to explain two observations at the same time. "Coherence" is not in their vocabulary, science is against their religion, and they don't care about math.

Sorry, I completely missed the sarcasm. Totally my fault. Carry on.

So let me see if I got this right: Physical Observer=InFlatEarth=Dutchy....Am I missing anybody?

Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.

Already done, friend.

Yes Junker that's true.

I am glad you agree with me. Seems you might actually be making progress.

Now you are already doubting yourself?  Don't give up yet just take small steps if you have to. I believe in you, my friend.

I am quite sorry if you are struggling with basic reading comprehension. I would suggest you browse over to rif.org and use some of their resources. Once you have worked on your issues, feel free to come back. If you need any help overcoming your challenges, just ask, friend!

Once again, thank you.

You are welcome. If you follow my advice, you may just overcome all of these issues of yours.

See my thank you above.

While you keep struggling with the very basics, you are at least polite. That will at least get you somewhere in the event the struggle to overcome your issues proves to be too great. Anyway, it has been fun. Do take care and report back on your progress, friend.

Quote from: JackBlack on April 24, 2017, 10:12:36 PM

Then provide this workable flat Earth hypothesis you claim exists.

Already done, friend.

where
because there is no workable Flat Earth Idea, all explanations are wrong and debunked

Quote from: Piesigma on April 25, 2017, 06:15:03 AM

Yes Junker that's true.

I am glad you agree with me. Seems you might actually be making progress.

Quote from: Piesigma on April 25, 2017, 06:15:03 AM

Now you are already doubting yourself?  Don't give up yet just take small steps if you have to. I believe in you, my friend.

I am quite sorry if you are struggling with basic reading comprehension. I would suggest you browse over to rif.org and use some of their resources. Once you have worked on your issues, feel free to come back. If you need any help overcoming your challenges, just ask, friend!

Quote from: Piesigma on April 25, 2017, 06:15:03 AM

Once again, thank you.

You are welcome. If you follow my advice, you may just overcome all of these issues of yours.

Quote from: Piesigma on April 25, 2017, 06:15:03 AM

See my thank you above.

While you keep struggling with the very basics, you are at least polite. That will at least get you somewhere in the event the struggle to overcome your issues proves to be too great. Anyway, it has been fun. Do take care and report back on your progress, friend.

where

In multiple threads on these fora, as a simple search will show.

because there is no workable Flat Earth Idea, all explanations are wrong and debunked

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 08:37:06 AM

where

In multiple threads on these fora, as a simple search will show.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 08:37:06 AM

because there is no workable Flat Earth Idea, all explanations are wrong and debunked

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

how about the effect of the curvature that you can see if you look across Lake Ontario to Toronto and you are not able to see the lower level buildings.

also what is with the thousand of videos and pictures from space.

The wiki says nothing about why constellations change throughout the seasons.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 08:37:06 AM

where

In multiple threads on these fora, as a simple search will show.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 08:37:06 AM

because there is no workable Flat Earth Idea, all explanations are wrong and debunked

Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claim?

Instead of asking where the evidence is for his outlandish claim, how about you provide some evidence of the outlandish claim that the earth is flat?  Oh, I forgot, you don't like to provide answers, you just like to talk down to everybody.

how about the effect of the curvature that you can see if you look across Lake Ontario to Toronto and you are not able to see the lower level buildings.

Have you read ENaG? This is pretty basic.

also what is with the thousand of videos and pictures from space.

What about them?

The wiki says nothing about why constellations change throughout the seasons.

What does that have to do with an alleged conspiracy? Do you know what thread you are in?

how about you provide some evidence of the outlandish claim that the earth is flat? 

If I made that claim, I would be sure to provide evidence for it. Did you actually read the thread?

Oh, I forgot, you don't like to provide answers, you just like to talk down to everybody.

False.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 09:02:10 AM

how about the effect of the curvature that you can see if you look across Lake Ontario to Toronto and you are not able to see the lower level buildings.

Have you read ENaG? This is pretty basic.

no i have not, what does that stand for?
ENaG?

i choose this example because i could observe it myself

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 09:02:10 AM

also what is with the thousand of videos and pictures from space.

What about them?

they prove the earth is a globe
[globe]

The wiki says nothing about why constellations change throughout the seasons.

What does that have to do with an alleged conspiracy? Do you know what thread you are in?

how about you provide some evidence of the outlandish claim that the earth is flat? 

If I made that claim, I would be sure to provide evidence for it. Did you actually read the thread?

Oh, I forgot, you don't like to provide answers, you just like to talk down to everybody.

False.
[/quote]

i have read this thread again completely and you have not given one explanation about anything.
everyone can check that and see that you are lying.

Can you make an attempt to properly use the quote feature? It would making reading your nonsense much easier.

no i have not, what does that stand for?
ENaG?

Earth Not a Globe. It is available in the Library right here on this very website.

they prove the earth is a globe
[globe]

False.

Can you make an attempt to properly use the quote feature? It would making reading your nonsense much easier.

i use it the same way you also use it
its not my problem if you problem with reading

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 10:23:45 AM

no i have not, what does that stand for?
ENaG?

Earth Not a Globe. It is available in the Library right here on this very website.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 09:02:10 AM

they prove the earth is a globe
[globe]

False.

please explain why all videos and pictures from space are wrong.
and also show us the evidence for that claim/explanation

please explain why all videos and pictures from space are wrong.

Given that I never said that, why would I attempt to explain it?

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 10:41:41 AM

please explain why all videos and pictures from space are wrong.

Given that I never said that, why would I attempt to explain it?

look a little up on your post.
i said that the videos and pictures prove that the earth is a globe, and you said that i am wrong.
now explain to me why i am wrong.

i said that the videos and pictures prove that the earth is a globe, and you said that i am wrong.

Yes, I know.

now explain to me why i am wrong.

That isn't how the burden of proof works, friend. It isn't up to me to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 11:17:16 AM

i said that the videos and pictures prove that the earth is a globe, and you said that i am wrong.

Yes, I know.

Quote from: Canadabear on April 25, 2017, 11:17:16 AM

now explain to me why i am wrong.

That isn't how the burden of proof works, friend. It isn't up to me to prove you wrong, it is up to you to prove your claims.

as i said the pictures clearly show a global earth.
now you would have to disprove that, can you show us pictures of a flat earth?