They've lied to the world about the stars

Because ‘seeing’ did mean the same as visibility, and still does

So you are back to repeating the same pathetic lie?
Even after you put a date to the alleged change, and had that shown to be a blatant lie?

only changed the meaning for astronomy 10 years ago

So you just change your lie to another lie?
After you "year or two" is shown to be pure BS, you lie to everyone by claiming it was 10 years ago.
All while having absolutely nothing to support your dishonest BS.

Those lies are yours, everyone here can find those lies in this thread, far back.
Another classic narcissist behaviour, when caught in lies, when proof is about to be shown to others of your lies…
Btw, I figured you might try this after i told you I’d show your claims again. That’s not good for you, so rather than actually admit you were lying, which a narcissist would rather kill themselves before admitting to their many lies….
You chose the only other option than the truth, to admit you lied about it all, is never an option for you…
A narcissist will say their claim IS true, not a lie, like a murdered filmed committing a murder will deny he killed anyone to his deathbed, or his execution, in some states and countries.

There you go projecting yet again.
And the above is a direct example of that.

You directly lied to everyone by claiming the meaning was changed a year or two ago.
Then when provided clear evidence of that meaning 10 years ago you just change your lie.
You don't even you lied to everyone. You just take it in your stride.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds.

I guess we are back to the simple question then:
Can you show a single shred of integrity for once in your pathetic, dishonest, subhuman, shit flinging existence by admitting they don't mean the same thing, at least not to astronomers; and without any BS strings tied to it?

Until you can bring yourself to admit that, any further discussion on it is pointless.

So admit they don't mean the same thing, or get lost.

Ive already told you they now don’t mean the same thing

But they did mean the same thing when you lied about what it meant back then

Ive already told you they now don’t mean the same thing

But instead of just admitting that outright, you keep trying to attach it to so much convoluted BS.
And even now, you still contradict that:

Because ‘seeing’ did mean the same as visibility, and still does, to 99% of the world.

So they still mean the same thing, or don't they?

Get your story straight, and stop changing it.
Every time you change it and contradict yourself, you are just demonstrating to everyone how much of a worthless, lying, subhuman POS you are.

Seeing as I'm reading this, I'd might as well make my thoughts on the matter visible.

This is 64 pages of dogshit.

Hahahah

Their claims are certainly dogshit, that’s why

Their claims are certainly dogshit, that’s why

Then why have you been completely incapable of showing any fault with them, and doing whatever you can to avoid your burden of proof?

No, you just keep on saying there’s no proof that their claims are lies or made up, that’s nothing but your denial of the truth, as you cannot accept any truths in plain sight as being true.

There’s nothing worse than when someone like you, refuse to accept all the evidence they made it all up, because we’d have seen something EVEN SUGGESTING THERE ARE DISTINCT MULTIPLE RINGS IF THEY MIGHT BE TELLING THE TRUTH AT ALL.

A last gasp saying the far superior telescope showing nothing even a bit indicating there’s multiple distinct rings is really bad for your liars, so you spewed out the biggest crap ever told, the amazing iPhone excuse!!

Yet somehow, you think you’re idiotic iPhone excuse needs no proof from you to support such ridiculous crap?

After seeing that video is not going to show any distinct multiple rings if it was shot by the worlds best cameras, nothing will make your liars claims come to be true!

No, you just keep on saying there’s no proof

Because you are yet to provide any.
I have explained why what you have provided is not proof.
You have made claims about what they allegedly said, and not backed up those claims.
The one time you tried to back them up for a significant claim of yours, it was shown you were lying, and the source you claimed showed that they claimed that in fact did not show they claimed that.
Likewise, you have appealed to evidence which cannot tell if their claims are true or false.

So I have honestly said you have provided no proof, because you haven't.

And for loads of time in this thread, instead of providing proof of your claims, you instead deflect and demand others prove you wrong.

There’s nothing worse than when someone like you

I get it, you hate people that refuse to accept your baseless BS and lies.
But unlike you, I care about the truth.
And I'm not stupid or gullible enough to believe your pathetic BS.

because we’d have seen something EVEN SUGGESTING THERE ARE DISTINCT MULTIPLE RINGS IF THEY MIGHT BE TELLING THE TRUTH AT ALL.

You mean like the stacked images which clearly show them, which you just dismiss because "that isn't how our eyes see"?

A last gasp saying the [shoddy iphone footage clearly repeatedly trying to autofocus] showing nothing even a bit indicating there’s multiple distinct rings is

just yet another example of your desperation.

I provided a link to where YOU can buy a telescope to make the observations yourself.
You then lied by claiming no one had provided such a link, and that you couldn't buy one.
You then made excuses for why you shouldn't.

I'm not going to accept your crap which cannot support your claims, just because you are unwilling to get what would actually support your claims.

So you can either provide evidence that shows your claims are true, or you can have them continued to be dismissed as the baseless garbage they are.
Baseless garbage, from pathetic, lying, low-life, subhuman scum, that decided to deflect to these claims of these long-dead astronomers, because you couldn't back up your baseless BS.

We don't need telescopes, cameras or any optical devices too see thar stars must be very, very far away compared to distances on the Earth. The reason is that no matter where we are on the Earth, the shapes, sizes, and relative positions always look the same. Their orientations vary with location, and their positions in the sky vary with time, but wherevere we go on the Earth, they will never look distorted, contracted or dilated. This is impossible if the stars are near the Earth, so therefore, thet must by very, very far away compared to Earthly distances.

We don't need telescopes, cameras or any optical devices too see thar stars must be very, very far away compared to distances on the Earth. The reason is that no matter where we are on the Earth, the shapes, sizes, and relative positions always look the same. Their orientations vary with location, and their positions in the sky vary with time, but wherevere we go on the Earth, they will never look distorted, contracted or dilated. This is impossible if the stars are near the Earth, so therefore, thet must by very, very far away compared to Earthly distances.

You are discounting the FE firmament and any projection or lensing affect that it may produce.

Quote from: Erland on October 08, 2025, 03:02:44 PM

We don't need telescopes, cameras or any optical devices too see thar stars must be very, very far away compared to distances on the Earth. The reason is that no matter where we are on the Earth, the shapes, sizes, and relative positions always look the same. Their orientations vary with location, and their positions in the sky vary with time, but wherevere we go on the Earth, they will never look distorted, contracted or dilated. This is impossible if the stars are near the Earth, so therefore, thet must by very, very far away compared to Earthly distances.

You are discounting the FE firmament and any projection or lensing affect that it may produce.

Flat Earthers often talk about projections, reflection, refraction etc. but they have never been able to produce a coherent mathematical of how that would work.

You are discounting the FE firmament and any projection or lensing affect that it may produce.

There exists no projection or lensing effect that nullifies any and all perspective shifts.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 08, 2025, 03:13:59 PM

You are discounting the FE firmament and any projection or lensing affect that it may produce.

There exists no projection or lensing effect that nullifies any and all perspective shifts.

That's not relevant to my point.  The point I'm making is that claiming victory after a couple of short paragraphs shows short sightedness by ignoring arguments that can or could be presented, regardless of whether or not those arguments are flawed or have significant gaps in their logic.

Quote from: Torve on October 08, 2025, 04:31:13 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 08, 2025, 03:13:59 PM

You are discounting the FE firmament and any projection or lensing affect that it may produce.

There exists no projection or lensing effect that nullifies any and all perspective shifts.

That's not relevant to my point.  The point I'm making is that claiming victory after a couple of short paragraphs shows short sightedness by ignoring arguments that can or could be presented, regardless of whether or not those arguments are flawed or have significant gaps in their logic.

We have not seen those arguments that can or could be presented.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 08, 2025, 07:36:44 PM

Quote from: Torve on October 08, 2025, 04:31:13 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 08, 2025, 03:13:59 PM

You are discounting the FE firmament and any projection or lensing affect that it may produce.

There exists no projection or lensing effect that nullifies any and all perspective shifts.

That's not relevant to my point.  The point I'm making is that claiming victory after a couple of short paragraphs shows short sightedness by ignoring arguments that can or could be presented, regardless of whether or not those arguments are flawed or have significant gaps in their logic.

We have not seen those arguments that can or could be presented.

And you are most likely not going to see them unless you research them yourself.  The few actual Flat Earthers on this forum aren't likely to respond to your claims, as there is little to no substantive content within your post worth rehashing out the subject matter that have been posted numerous times.

If you want to engage in debate on a subject, research the flat earth topics that exist on it, find and pull out their reasons as a point of discussion and then post to discuss/debate/debunk.  Making singular claims will get you no response and waste space and more importantly time.  If that's too difficult to do, than you should have stayed lurking as a guest.

Quote from: Erland on October 09, 2025, 03:14:41 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 08, 2025, 07:36:44 PM

Quote from: Torve on October 08, 2025, 04:31:13 PM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on October 08, 2025, 03:13:59 PM

You are discounting the FE firmament and any projection or lensing affect that it may produce.

There exists no projection or lensing effect that nullifies any and all perspective shifts.

That's not relevant to my point.  The point I'm making is that claiming victory after a couple of short paragraphs shows short sightedness by ignoring arguments that can or could be presented, regardless of whether or not those arguments are flawed or have significant gaps in their logic.

We have not seen those arguments that can or could be presented.

And you are most likely not going to see them unless you research them yourself.  The few actual Flat Earthers on this forum aren't likely to respond to your claims, as there is little to no substantive content within your post worth rehashing out the subject matter that have been posted numerous times.

If you want to engage in debate on a subject, research the flat earth topics that exist on it, find and pull out their reasons as a point of discussion and then post to discuss/debate/debunk.  Making singular claims will get you no response and waste space and more importantly time.  If that's too difficult to do, than you should have stayed lurking as a guest.

I think that if you refer to arguments that can or could be presented, then you should present them, or at least link to them. If I would look through the FAQ and many posts here, it still wouldn't be clear if the possible arguments I find are the ones you meant.

We don't need telescopes, cameras or any optical devices too see thar stars must be very, very far away compared to distances on the Earth. The reason is that no matter where we are on the Earth, the shapes, sizes, and relative positions always look the same. Their orientations vary with location, and their positions in the sky vary with time, but wherevere we go on the Earth, they will never look distorted, contracted or dilated. This is impossible if the stars are near the Earth, so therefore, thet must by very, very far away compared to Earthly distances.

Except they are now being seen close enough to show they have distinct features, distinct motions, distinct colours, or no colour but white or blue or so forth, and  it’s past any more of their bs excuses saving their fairy tale, the putrid lies will burn to ashes, once and forever afterwards..

Except they are now being seen close enough to

You mean complete imbeciles or morons think they have been seen close, showing they don't even understand what that would mean.

And then these morons/lying scum when pressed to justify their pathetic BS deflect to the claims of others.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 10, 2025, 10:18:57 PM

Except they are now being seen close enough to

You mean complete imbeciles or morons think they have been seen close, showing they don't even understand what that would mean.

And then these morons/lying scum when pressed to justify their pathetic BS deflect to the claims of others.

You’re one of the morons and lying scum who are going to see your fairy tale ripped to shreds and you’ll never excuse it again.

Remember that star I posted here on a video clip? It showed details and extremely fast rotation of a star which constantly changed shape, while the basic details stayed in the same positions.

But you just keep bleating on about this being an effect of atmosphere and or wrong camera settings which make the star look and move like this!

It’s easy to say whatever bs you want about this, but unless you actually prove this is ever close to possible from your excuses, to right ahead and actually prove your bs for once!!

And you already know you’ll never be able to do it, not even close to it.

You just keep lying about what it is, like a complete idiot

You’re one of the morons and lying scum

Nope, that would still be you.
I'm not a moron, so I'm not just going to accept your pathetic BS.
And I care about the truth, so I will call you out on your pathetic BS.
Including your absolutely pathetic attempts to demand others prove you wrong.

Remember that star I posted here on a video clip?

You mean the blurry, out of focus crap?
The crap you couldn't defend at all, so you fled from it by bringing up the claims of long dead astronomers and accuse them of lying to try to shift the burden of proof?

Yes, I remember that complete and utter failure from you.

Remember how I also asked you for something which could easily demonstrate that you were correct?
Video, shot from 2 devices (ideally different devices) at the same time, from different locations, showing the same features moving in the same way; which you refused to do because you know it will show you are wrong.

So keep on lying to everyone, you just further demonstrate how pathetic and desperate you are.

And if both of the videos showed the same details and motions of the same star or ‘planet’, as much as possible to be the same, because they’d be different from two different points anyway, but close as possible from two separate points…

This would actually convince you that the star itself has those details on it, and really is in motion as seen in both videos?

And if both of the videos showed the same details and motions of the same star or ‘planet’, as much as possible to be the same, because they’d be different from two different points anyway, but close as possible from two separate points…

This would actually convince you that the star itself has those details on it, and really is in motion as seen in both videos?

That depends on how long the video is.
If you just have 1 second, of carefully picked clips to try to align them, then no.
But if you have a minute showing the exact same features in the exact same location, moving the same way, then yes.

Also, appealing to different points getting a different view just further causes problems with your model.
Constellations that are visible appear the same, regardless of where you are, with the same angular size, and no distortion.
So why the constellations be the same, but not an individual star?

And tell me how you’d ever know for sure, if my videos weren’t edited by me to look the very same way for a star?

I’m playing out what could be done, if I wanted to, if I needed to, if they weren’t the same, or if they were the same, and showed them to you being the very same, nothing edited or altered at all!!

Why would you tell me you’d accept my two videos showing the same things of a star, being called a liar over and over by you all the time?

Yet now after saying I’m a liar, all the time, for almost everything I’ve ever said here, you would accept my videos if they match up, as proof of my argument?

On what basis, would you accept it as proof? Specifically, why would you accept it from someone you repeatedly call a liar?

And tell me how you’d ever know for sure, if my videos weren’t edited by me to look the very same way for a star?

I see you are just making more excuses.

I have told you what you need, but rather than provide it, you just look for any excuse to continue spouting pathetic BS with absolutely nothing to justify it.

Actually, all you’ve told me is that I’m a liar, countless times, over and over again, then you ask me to film the same star from two different points at the same time, claiming you would accept this as proof of my argument being the truth, that you would admit to being wrong about it, entirely change what you thought was true, is not true!

You make up excuses for everything now, but not for this!  Amazing bs story

Actually, all you’ve told me is that I’m a liar

Yes, repeatedly.
As you have demonstrated that repeatedly.
And even now, instead of trying to defend your BS, you just come up with more excuses.

Going to admit you have no basis for your claim that they lied about the stars?

Or will you continue with more BS?

They lied repeatedly. No doubt about it.

Look at how they described things they claimed ‘to see’ on Saturn, many many times over the years.

That’s not a mistake or flaw, it will be seen as they described, or they are lying about it all.

It’s one or the other, true or lies, actually seen by them, or was entirely made up by them as a work of fiction, posing as the truth!

Like I’ve already said to you, they clearly understood and knew how convincing it would look to everyone else if they describe it in detail, claim to repeatedly see such details on Saturn, which is exactly what they did here…

Anyone who read their very specific descriptions of such remarkable views of Saturn, if they left a general or basic description, it’d be ok.

But they’ve lied and we know it

They lied repeatedly. No doubt about it.

There is plenty of doubt. And absolutely no actual reason to think they lied.
Just look at how desperately you deflect from your burden of proof.

But they’ve lied and we know it

No, you don't know it. You baselessly assert it with no evidence to support it because you are desperate for them to be lies for your pathetic fantasy to be true.

The very obvious and clearest reason to know for sure, that they did in fact lie about this, without any shred of doubt at all, is after we’ve seen Saturn close up, and even much closer than they ever dreamed of seeing some day in their own future!

I’m not going to look at all our videos of Saturn, many that show Saturn close up, with 300x more magnification than they had back then, with one vastly superior telescope to theirs, showing no multiple distinct belts or even close to such a feature on Saturn.

Amusing that you try to excuse what Saturn looks like through this vastly superior telescope to theirs, as your denial it’s valid evidence that they lied…

I’m certain that you must know, that these multiple distinct belts they lied about seeing on Saturn, would certainly be shown on Saturn through this far superior telescope if it really was there at all, we can obviously see there’s nothing that an ioo or hone can do to remove all traces of multiple distinct rings on Saturn if they were really there at all!!

Just never can admit it, you’re a sad case indeed