Search results

That's backwards. And I've explained that clearly. --Dave

I told you no, and why. --Dave

Something said to orbit assumes a globe. The question is about the images the ISS sends, are they faked or not? A craft in the sky proves nothing. Seeing it does not inform us as to how it's powered or how long that particular craft has been up there, or that the earth is a globe. It's the...

I'm not going to be diverted away from the debate about images. I told you why. I'm not ignoring you questions, you're ignoring my answer. --Dave

You're asking "leading questions", and I already know where you're headed with this. We have to prove globe before we can have orbit. The images prove the globe to all of us here on earth, the images are the debate. --Dave

I know that flying around and orbiting are not the same thing. Just because a craft is called an orbiter doesn't mean it's orbiting. Is it possible that we have ways to power craft through space without liquid fuels? The ISS and any other craft are not proof of a globed earth. We all rely...

A craft can simply be flying inside a flat earth dome instead of flying around a globe. The story the ISS tells is consistent with the images it sends back of a spinning earth with a curved horizon but these images are inconsistent with images from high altitude balloons of a motionless earth...

If you want to argue that all telemetry, all data, and all images can never be faked, manipulated, controlled and programed to produce a faked preplanned result, then make that case. But you can't assume that all that NASA informs us of is true just because of the technology and the numbers...

That we never went to the moon is what I'm arguing. I'm not questioning did we construct a rocket ship and not did we build an ISS station. You would agree with me that we have fake news the question is do we have fake images from space of a curved spinning earth. Because there is video...

You use the "scale defense" like a get out of jail card. If it is argued, and it is, that we are looking down already when we look out at the horizon of a curved earth, then that horizon would certainly be visibly dropping as we ascend and we would notice it. If we can see ships sink behind the...

Now you know why I keep an interest in flat earth. These predictions/arguments are irrefutable and can be backed up with visible, repeatable, empirical evidence in support of flat earth. --Dave

Eye level means looking parallel to a flat plane. --Dave

No, we are looking down and not straight forward for the globe model. Your illustration even shows that. --Dave

The prediction of perspective is that the horizon line will stay at eye level even as we rise higher in elevation over a flat/level/plane making it possible for us to see further into the distance. The location of the horizon according to globe earth is that it's a little below eye level. The...

I already clearly explained the prediction of both flat and globe earth and the failure of globe earth. Apparently you have no answer. --Dave

Supra is neither an explanation nor an argument. --Dave

The globe model fails its own prediction, deal with that. --Dave

Globe earth still fails it's own prediction. Deal with that. I've explained why we can't see the sun or anything else far into the distance of a flat earth. You can call this reasoning perverted but that does not destroy the argument. --Dave

Yes, it's easy to fake/photoshop/CGI the imagery. Regardless if we are under the dome of a flat earth or surrounded by a protective atmosphere over a globe, we still can fly around in it, take pictures, make equipment for that purpose for NASA. --Dave

If the horizon stays at eye level the higher we go we have evidence for flat earth. If the horizon drops lower and lower below eye level the higher we go we have evidence for a globe. Globe earth fails it's own prediction. All photo and video show the horizon staying at eye level up to the...