It is not crap.
It is a legitimate statement of evidence and a response to a question.
It is crap.
It is in no way evidence that Earth is flat, specifically for the reason that the only instances where Earth "looks flat" also have it look round and very big.
If you wish to claim otherwise, feel free to provide a single instance where this is not the case, remembering that a flat Earth is effectively identical to the limit of a round Earth as it becomes infinitely large.
Lying?
Where?
All the times you claim it is flat.
Actually lie on a regular basis, due to necessity.
Nope, that would be you.
I have reality backing me up. I have no reason to lie.
When have I ever indicated I am an expert?
Every time you post, especially in terms of what you believe relative to horizons.
Nope.
No where in those posts do I indicate I am an expert.
For the most part, what I post is quite easy to understand and it does not require you to be an expert.
Only a sick fuck would think themselves capable of objectively conceptualizing reality within the confines of a world they so vehemently deny exists!
No, an honest, rational, intelligent person would as well.
A sick fuck would completely ignore it.
Part of understanding if a model is true (or likely to be true), compared to other models is to be able to understand these other models and consider what things would be like if each model was true.
This is what can lead them to so vehemently denying something; because they actually understand it and the implications of it and see that it does not match reality.
If what you were saying was true then you and all the other FEers would be completely incapable of providing any rational objection to the RE model as you would be completely unable to understand what it would be like.
I think a third grader would be capable of understanding very clearly exactly the type of bull shit you peddle on a daily basis.
Not everything. Sometimes the math used can be complex. But I do try to keep the FACTS and RATIONAL ARGUMENTS I present simple and easy to understand.
Yet you seem to fail, repeatedly.
Are you completely incapable of imagining how things would be if something was different?
Actually, no I am not.
Then why do you make such an insane claim that I must be completely incapable of doing so?
But why don't you offer how your statements and assertions on horizons/flat earth really fits with this "proof of contradictions," explanation you offer in defense of your postulates and statements...
I have numerous times in other threads.
Assuming Earth is flat (and ignoring mountains for simplicity), then the only edge is the edge of Earth itself.
Assuming no obstructions get in your way (like a building), you should be able to see to the edge, or to the extent of atmospheric visibility.
If you can see to the edge there would only be this edge as the horizon and nothing would ever appear to go over the horizon or set behind it.
If an obstruction got in your way, this would be clearly visible as the object, and entirely transient, with you capable of viewing a similar horizon without the object in your way.
If atmospheric visibility would be an issue the land would fade to a blur as you became unable to resolve it, similar to what happens in dense fog.
In reality, we can observe a sharp horizon a finite distance away, with that distance changing depending upon your elevation. Objects can appear to go over the horizon and set behind it.
This is a direct contradiction meaning the only assumption made must be wrong.
This means that Earth can't be flat.
A simpler version is merely comparing a prediction with reality.
For example, based upon the common FE model, on the equinox, at the equator, the sun should rise from the NE (or more specifically at 6 am solar time, the sun should be NE as it should never rise or set). The further north you go the closer to east it gets with it just not making it before the North pole. The further south you go the further north the sun should appear.
In reality, it appears due east.
Again, this is a contradiction that shows this FE model to be wrong.
There are plenty more examples like this I can show. Some against specific models, some against a FE in general (which doesn't ignore most of the world).
It is because of this knowledge which anyone capable of thinking can obtain, and observations from reality, that I conclude Earth is round.
Bull fucking shit!
As we will all soon see from your bumbling stumbling acrobatics you perform when attempting to offer your menial apologetic in response to your supposed, "proof by contradictions," exercise performed in support of your "horizons."
Nope, as you have seen from numerous posts of mine in the past, it is not bullshit.
Do you notice how unlike you, with your claims based upon pathetic assertions (where you just assert Earth is flat) and insults, mine are based upon rational arguments and evidence?
Nope.
I assert the Earth is flat because it looks flat.
Notice how you don't offer any evidence?
The best you come up with is that Earth looks flat.
You can't provide any example of how it looks flat, as doing so would either indicate that it actually looks round, not flat, or that it is incapable of distinguishing between Earth looking round and looking flat.
Do you have any actual evidence, or just this pathetic claim?
Everyone who read it or reads it from now on until they stop reading it knows it to be true.
They know my statements to be true, not your pathetic insults.
Very sound, very fundamental argumentation, to which in response, from you...
Nothing.
You ignoring it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Doing stupid things seems to be part of your repertoire.
Projecting again I see.