I'm completely confused...

So couple of things...

1. I've been trying to read online and research both globe and flat earth aspects, what I cant seem to find is a consistency of flat earth "facts". For instance half of the flat earth community say, that the moon emits it's own light source, and the other half is saying that it gets it's light source from the sun. So which is it?

2. If the moon is emitting it's own light source, how do lunar phases work?

3. If the sun and moon are only a few thousand miles above us instead of the 93 million and 238,000 miles. How is it no one has ever photographed either one while In a high altitude balloon, or on a plane, etc.?

Run, run while you still can!

So couple of things...

1. I've been trying to read online and research both globe and flat earth aspects, what I cant seem to find is a consistency of flat earth "facts". For instance half of the flat earth community say, that the moon emits it's own light source, and the other half is saying that it gets it's light source from the sun. So which is it?

2. If the moon is emitting it's own light source, how do lunar phases work?

3. If the sun and moon are only a few thousand feet above us instead of the 93 million and 238,000 feet. How is it no one has ever photographed either one while In a high altitude balloon, or on a plane, etc.?

I think that you mean "miles" and not "feet" as in
Though many on YouTube do seem to claim much lower heights and some do claim to photograph the sun at very low altitudes.
This is,  of course, no problem on the Globe, because we know that the sun and moon both set behind the horizon.

The sun's height came up earlier and I answered with this post

There's no one FE model, multiple users hold to different ones. Some believe the moon reflects light, some believe it emits its own, and then there are a whole host of answers for  phases. Eg:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921470#msg1921470
(And check the contents at the top of that thread for other models, denpressure and DET both have their own models and explanations which'd take a lot longer to get to because there's more supporting theory).

High altitude balloons rarely go past 40km. FEers say the Sun's at 3000km. You'd barely notice a difference.

There's no one FE model, multiple users hold to different ones. Some believe the moon reflects light, some believe it emits its own, and then there are a whole host of answers for  phases. Eg:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71053.msg1921470#msg1921470
(And check the contents at the top of that thread for other models, denpressure and DET both have their own models and explanations which'd take a lot longer to get to because there's more supporting theory).

High altitude balloons rarely go past 40km. FEers say the Sun's at 3000km. You'd barely notice a difference.

FEers on this site say the Sun's at 3000 miles.

Yes, "you'd barely notice a difference" on a Flat Earth with the sun at 3000 miles,
but there are many "Flat Earth" interpretations of the sun being seen at much lower level.

Of course, they won't admit that they are seeing the sun on the globe, so they come up with all sorts of weird ideas about a much lower sun.

LOL No one has ever said "a few thousand feet" cause if so you are saying FE's are insinuating that our planes fly above the sun and moon which is obsurd as WE ALL KNOW planes that are commercial fly at 32- 38 thousand feet.... juuust a bit more than a few buddy... so I can really see why you are confused when you MAKE UP blanket statements like that hahaha FE models have said they are approx. 100,000 feet to 150,000 feet above. not 3000 LMFO pretty sure we would ALL burn to death if it was 3000 feet not to mention I don't think we said the sun or moon would only be the size of half an average state hahahaha so no "balloon rides" or "plane rides" would have you level enough to actually get a close up picture!!!

just figured I would correct your ignorance !!! again like Jane said, not all FE models are the same THEY ARE ALL THEORIES... just like SPACE AND ROUND EARTH... they are THEORY, yes NASA has released their OWN photos as fact, so that's why REGULAR people and scientists who believe in FE are the ones trying this theory...( just like you learn Theory of Space or Music Theory )

So couple of things...

1. I've been trying to read online and research both globe and flat earth aspects, what I cant seem to find is a consistency of flat earth "facts". For instance half of the flat earth community say, that the moon emits it's own light source, and the other half is saying that it gets it's light source from the sun. So which is it?

2. If the moon is emitting it's own light source, how do lunar phases work?

3. If the sun and moon are only a few thousand feet above us instead of the 93 million and 238,000 feet. How is it no one has ever photographed either one while In a high altitude balloon, or on a plane, etc.?

This place is more addicting than cigarettes and is worse for you...

just like SPACE AND ROUND EARTH... they are THEORY

No, thats actually a model which provides precise predictions and calculations about how our Solar System and the bodies involved behaves. How, for example, would you be supposed to predict the upcoming solar eclipse in the US (or any other eclipses) if it wasn't for a well researched and confirmed model of how our very planet looks like, additionally how the trajectory would be relative to the other bodies involved and then calculate the precise time, duration and position of the landfall of the Moons shadow on Earth?
The very moment any of the numerous FE theories out there come up with a similiar feat I'd raise an eyebrow, until then the SHM works just fine and continues to provide verifiable and precise proof to it's predictions.

Quote from: SGExtracts710 on August 01, 2017, 10:02:10 AM

just like SPACE AND ROUND EARTH... they are THEORY

No, thats actually a model which provides precise predictions and calculations about how our Solar System and the bodies involved behaves. How, for example, would you be supposed to predict the upcoming solar eclipse in the US (or any other eclipses) if it wasn't for a well researched and confirmed model of how our very planet looks like, additionally how the trajectory would be relative to the other bodies involved and then calculate the precise time, duration and position of the landfall of the Moons shadow on Earth?
The very moment any of the numerous FE theories out there come up with a similiar feat I'd raise an eyebrow, until then the SHM works just fine and continues to provide verifiable and precise proof to it's predictions.

Theory meaning there is something behind it, not saying everything is a guess... hence why I quoted Music Theory as well... there is a predictive way to read something using THEORY. Not that its just A Theory... hard to grasp the concept I guess over text when you cannot hear context. apologies!

The FE community seems to agree only on the notion that all the governments - and all the teachers and scientists - have been lying to all of us about the configuration of the planet.  They are not so agreed on the motive for this lying or how teachers/scientists get roped into it. 

The FE community might agree that the surface of the Earth is Flat but they cannot agree on what is below it, what is supporting it and what is supporting whatever is supporting the flat planet.  They cannot agree on whether the flat planet has a circular shape or not, or whether it spreads out to a great distance, or even to infinity.  Those who believe it spreads out to infinity cannot agree on what happens to the sun, moon, and stars when they seem to sink over the western horizon.  If they believe there is some sort of limit or edge to the flat planet, then they cannot agree as to where it may be located - altho it would seem to be in every direction if you go far enough.

The FE community cannot seem to explain why it is scientists who assert that the Earth is Round who are able to accurately predict eclipses of the sun and moon; something that Flat Earth believers seem incapable of doing.  The FE community cannot seem to explain a good deal of natural phenomena, such as why hurricanes in the Caribbean never cross over the Equator. 

Rather than explain or reconcile scientific data from satellite, or photographs from space vehicles and moon landings, Flat Earthers tend to denounce it all as a hoax and a fraud, but then (having offended and driven away any technically trained person) they raise some trifling issue requiring technical knowledge to impress the ignorant (an issue that a scientist might easily explain).

In short, the FE community is unscientific and unlogical, and it is no wonder that you, as a logical person, are confused. 

sounds good to me...

Yes I did mean a few thousand miles not feet, sorry for that.

And yea everything I read or see in a YouTube video says the sun is 3000 miles away.

For example
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/flat-earth-prediction-falls-flat/

https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

Each say 3000 miles

If you are looking to take part in an endless circle wank of a debate then make yourself right at home.

If, on the other hand, you are genuinely wondering what FE is all about and hoping for any kind of genuine discourse... Well, honestly don't waste your time.

The world is not flat. For every person that believes it is you will find a different argument/basis for their belief.

The Moonlight cools, where as the Sunlight heats up.

If the Moonlight was a reflection of the Sunlight, then you would expect for the Moonlight to also Heat up, but it does not.

Do a YouTube search for "Moonlight Cooling Effect" to see for yourself.

The Moonlight cools, where as the Sunlight heats up.

If the Moonlight was a reflection of the Sunlight, then you would expect for the Moonlight to also Heat up, but it does not.

Do a YouTube search for "Moonlight Cooling Effect" to see for yourself.

Yeah, that's a very scientific experiment!

Why didn't he show the hair dryer he used?

The Moonlight cools, where as the Sunlight heats up.

If the Moonlight was a reflection of the Sunlight, then you would expect for the Moonlight to also Heat up, but it does not.

Do a YouTube search for "Moonlight Cooling Effect" to see for yourself.

Stop posting utter idiocy! The clear night sky is much colder than the moon!
Try that same experiment when the moon is not in the sky.

On a clear night the moonless night sky is much colder than any object that might be used to shade the test objects.
The presence of the moon makes virtually no difference one way or the other.
In other words your experiments are quite useless.

I couldn't see it... so what is the experiment? To have two pots of water, one covered and one uncovered and see which one is cooler after a couple of hours of direct exposure to a full moon? I don't imagine the difference would be that easy to detect since the Moon is reflecting such a small portion of light than it is receiving. If your measuring devices are sensitive enough, you should be able to detect a slight change... I am speculating it would be a couple percentage points of a degree...

Instead of posting some Youtube video, why don't you do that experiment yourself... BACKYARD SCIENCE... I will  definitely respect you more if you posted your own science instead of posting someone else's.

So this brings me back yo my original question. Some say it reflects light some sat it emits it's own light source. Least with the globe theory everyone is on the same page with the same facts. It's not oh half believe this half believe that. Pretty hard to believe flat earth when you can't even agree on one simple thing such as the moon light. On a second note no one still hasn't answered my third question. Why is it every site I visit for flat earth it says the sun is 3000 miles above the earth surface but yet in here everyone says it much higher. What in the holy fuck. Sounds to me the flat earth community has nothing better to do than make up false assumptions of the "earth" and call it fact. If you guys are going to create a pile of shit least stand by your shit instead of changing it every damn day.

All you had to do was post 1 link to a reputable site I can read this info on and I've received nothing but bullshit answers from the flat earth community. Come on people are you for real right now?

1. I've been trying to read online and research both globe and flat earth aspects, what I cant seem to find is a consistency of flat earth "facts". For instance half of the flat earth community say, that the moon emits it's own light source, and the other half is saying that it gets it's light source from the sun. So which is it?

2. If the moon is emitting it's own light source, how do lunar phases work?

3. If the sun and moon are only a few thousand miles above us instead of the 93 million and 238,000 miles. How is it no one has ever photographed either one while In a high altitude balloon, or on a plane, etc.?

1.  I believe the moon reflects the suns light.

2.  See number 1

3.  There is at least one high altitude ballon video online that has the sun and the moon in the same video. Also there are tons of high altitude videos with the sun in view. Not sure what this proves/disproves. I saw the sun and moon in the sky together yesterday.

At only 3000 miles above the earth surface? If so please show me the video. They dont have to be in the same photo. I just want to see atleast one or the other at 3k miles above the earth surface like I'm reading the flat earth community believes.

And again there's that word believe. Like I said before, half of the flat earth community believe it emits it's own light source the other half believes it reflects the sun's light. Hell I can scroll through this forum alone and find half and half.

So this brings me back yo my original question. Some say it reflects light some sat it emits it's own light source. Least with the globe theory everyone is on the same page with the same facts. It's not oh half believe this half believe that. Pretty hard to believe flat earth when you can't even agree on one simple thing such as the moon light. On a second note no one still hasn't answered my third question. Why is it every site I visit for flat earth it says the sun is 3000 miles above the earth surface but yet in here everyone says it much higher. What in the holy fuck. Sounds to me the flat earth community has nothing better to do than make up false assumptions of the "earth" and call it fact. If you guys are going to create a pile of shit least stand by your shit instead of changing it every damn day.

All you had to do was post 1 link to a reputable site I can read this info on and I've received nothing but bullshit answers from the flat earth community. Come on people are you for real right now?

Well, just this morning I tried a very cheap and nasty version of this sort of thing.
I had a long strip of pine timber, a fairly good insulator, and put it so that one end was exposed to the sky and one end under cover.

After only 15 mins (it was early morning and getting too close to sunrise) I measured the temperatures of each end.
Sure enough, the exposed end was 2.0°C and the unexposed end was 5.7°C.

Did I mention that there was no moon in the sky!

My opinion is that the moonlight in this situation is a complete red herring. What is cold is simply the night sky.
During a sunny day, shade is much cooler than under the sun, but at night it is less cold in the "shade" than when expose to the cold sky.

The previous evening I simply pointed the IR thermometer at the night sky to read about -31°C.
The air temperature was much higher than this at about 10°C.
The air is, however, comparitively transparent and so we see some of the extreme "cold of space".
In other words the night sky is simply like a huge cold "heat sink".

But, my experiment was very rough and it does need performing under much more controlled conditions.
The main thing to test for is whether the presence of the moon has any measurable effect at all.

So couple of things...

1. I've been trying to read online and research both globe and flat earth aspects, what I cant seem to find is a consistency of flat earth "facts". For instance half of the flat earth community say, that the moon emits it's own light source, and the other half is saying that it gets it's light source from the sun. So which is it?

2. If the moon is emitting it's own light source, how do lunar phases work?

3. If the sun and moon are only a few thousand miles above us instead of the 93 million and 238,000 miles. How is it no one has ever photographed either one while In a high altitude balloon, or on a plane, etc.?

Obviously, there is a lot of information about the 'round' earth- since scientists have been experimenting and adjusting the theory starting sometime around 2400 years ago.

Flat Earth, as we know it, was a proposition of a guy in the 1800s.  He proposed a deviation from the scientific method that gives prominence to his own observations and apparently his own conjecture.  He used a telescope to see a friend of his farther away than he thought should be possible and conjectured that the earth was flat, and wrote a book including a map.

Since Flat Earthers do not believe in empirical evidence, there isn't a lot of consensus between them.  Most agree on the map the first guy made, but after that, they make wild conjectures about why it doesn't account for a lot of the evidence.  These range from wild conspiracy theories to the nature of reality (which is why these things don't add up).

Flat Earth doesn't qualify as a "theory" in scientific terms, since it doesn't predict what will happen.  When evidence contradicts Flat Earth, it is met with wild conjecture and speculation rather than revision of the core theory.

I find if kind of funny that Flat Earthers need to invent things like Aetheric disturbance that bends light, while completely denying the testable atmospheric refraction that accounts for the majority of 'evidence' in support of Flat Earth.

you forgot to sprinkle a little bit of Jesus in there too



Just a dash!

you forgot to sprinkle a little bit of Jesus in there too



Just a dash!

I was mostly talking about the OT.  But you can see the agendas of NT writers quite plainly.  For example, Matthew is writing to show that Jesus fulfills OT prophesies (he quote quite a few of them- one or two are not are part of lost works).

The Red Sea Scrolls are a bit exciting about this as well- we've found fragments of books that date back to before historians thought they were written (I can't remember if it was Luke or Mark that they found).

It also implies a conversion on the part of the Red Sea group.

I just found this interesting shill article...


http://stanforddailyarchive.com/cgi-bin/stanford?a=d&d=stanford19600205-01.2.7&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------

you forgot to sprinkle a little bit of Jesus in there too



Just a dash!

Study some science and stop being in a church and internet.