It looks flat.
BS. We have been over this before.
The horizon means it looks round.
The only times it can "look flat" is when you cannot see the horizon, which results in it looking flat, round, cubic, dodecahedral, concave, convex, etc.
So that isn't a reason for thinking it is flat.
So why do you think it is flat?
Not sure, probably a disk.
The north pole is to the north. The south pole is to the south.
Yes, everywhere (except at the poles).
Impossible on a flat surface.
What of them? You don't think it'd be much easier to fake the moon landings than actually going?
With the technology of the time, no. It would be easier to go to the moon than fake it.
See, the difference here is that I can give reasons why I believe something. You're unable to do so.
Again, no you can't. All you can provide is pure bullshit.
You are yet to provide a justification for why you believe Earth is flat.
Meanwhile we have provided mountains of reasons for why we believe Earth is round, which you have been completely unable to refute.
Have you ever seen it not look flat?
YES!!!
Every time I have seen a clear horizon.
I have never seen it unambiguously look flat.
Every time where it has appeared in a manner that is consistent with it being flat, it was also consistent with it being round.
As I have asked before, have you ever seen it not look round?
I don't mean round as in a tiny ball, I mean round as in a roughly spherical object with a radius of ~6400 km.
I dismiss the globe lie because it doesn't seem to conform with what I observe on a daily basis.
Yet you are unable to explain how it doesn't conform. Instead all you can do is spout the same BS "it looks flat", even though it looks just like the "global lie" says it should look.
How about you give a coherent reply? I promise I'm not the one who looks stupid right now.
You might want to check that.
You very rarely give coherent replies, in the sense of replying to what has actually been said.
Instead you try and do whatever you can to weasel your way out of being shown to be full of shit.
I've given several reasons
No. You have provided one non-reason, which has been shown to be pure crap many times.
all you've done is make a demonstrably irrelevant point and claim one of my beliefs was "debunked".
You mean with his relevant post helping to indicate what a RE would look like, showing that you haven't seen it be not-round, and thus your "reason" is pure BS?
I would say that was relevant and it debunked your BS.
I can post pictures too.
We have been over this pathetic BS before (if not with you, with plenty of others).
Different cameras can make objects appear different colours, as can adjusting the white balance. Thus the different colours is a non-issue.
As Earth is round, the proportion you can see will vary with distance. As such, objects will appear to take up a different proportion of the visible section depending upon how far away you are. So the size is a non-issue.
And really? Bitching that pictures don't have video?
So what is the point of this photo? To show Earth really is round and you have no reason for your BS?
It's cheaper to fly people to the moon and back than bust out a camera and do it on set? Right.
Money isn't the only issue. The technological feasibility is another.
At the time, it would have been impossible to fake the moon landings with the level of realism that the real moon landings had.
I'm not a cartographer. Are you? I'm also pretty busy. Making a map would lose me potential money.
I already explained how you could easily make a rough map from a few simple observations, either by yourself or with the assistance of others.
It would be easy for the FES to make a map of Earth if Earth was flat.
I have reasons for my beliefs, while he (and you) aren't able to give any. Do you see the difference?
Yes, I do see the difference.
You lie and project your own inadequacies onto others.
We have given you loads of justifications for our knowledge that Earth is round. You are yet to provide a single reason to think Earth is flat.
For "reasons"? There is a lot of money that goes into those programs and most people wouldn't have to know.
No, so many people would have to know it isn't funny, and they would still be wasting loads of money on faking everything.
Money is not a viable justification.
And remember, it isn't just NASA, it is also numerous other entities.
So no, it isn't feasible in any way.
I've given several. If you can demonstrate that I haven't given any, I'll concede.
And just how do you plan on us doing that? Going through every single one of your posts and showing it lacks any reason?
The closest you have come is claiming it looks flat, which has been debunked.
I thought about it for awhile and reached, what I felt, was the only logical conclusion. That, and my brain wasn't yet fully formed in 2009.
And you haven't provided any justification for that at all.
Okay, so how does that, in any way, invalidate my point? Doesn't it mean that it is either flat or round?
Yes, if you never saw a horizon.
Occam's Razor. I see flat. Am I on a gigantic ball and only seeing a small portion, or am I just on something flat?
No. Occam's razor:
You see what could be flat, round or numerous other shapes.
So isotropic round object, or highly anisotropic non-round Object with preferred orientations.
Which is simpler?
The isotropic object.
would be laughed out of academia if they even attempted to fit any of their ideas or theories to a flat model.
Because it has been shown to not work, repeatedly with so many things it isn't funny. It has been shown beyond any sane doubt that Earth isn't flat.
It would be akin to someone trying to fit their ideas or theories to a model that has Earth made entirely of chocolate.
Why would they throw out that thing they've been, by your own admission, been working on for that long?
They would only do so if a better model came along that was better capable of explaining observed phenomena or was simpler.
FE doesn't match that.
What it proves, again, is that it is either a very large round ball or flat. Occam's Razor applies and eliminates the needlessly complicated choice. Flat wins.
You were going good until the end. Flat is the needlessly complicated choice due to the anisotropy required. Flat is eliminated. Round wins.
Simultaneously read ENaG and look out your window. Doesn't take a genius to put two and two together.
Yep, putting 2 and 2 together, and realising this whole FE nonsense is just a pile of pathetic garbage, such as all the garbage in that stupid book, clearly shown to be garbage by the horizon.
Seeing as I've already explained how the better explanation for the Earth appearing flat is that it's flat, the most likely explanation for sunsets can't be a round Earth.
Complete crap.
You baselessly asserted that was the better explanation, you did not explain how it was. Meanwhile I have explained how it is the worse explanation with Earth appearing consistent with being flat or round.
Regardless, you now have 2 things to contend with. Which is the better (or most likely) explanation for Earth appearing flat/round and sunsets.
FE is yet to provide a rational explanation, so it isn't even a case of which is a better explanation. It is a case of which has an explanation.
So no, not only can it be a round Earth, it is.
You just ignore everything I say about it, so it's clear you're not willing to have an actual debate or discussion.
Projecting again.
You are the one that continually ignores what people have said and just spouts the same refuted BS again and again, being completely unable to justify any of your claims.