Search results

I don't make the graphs, but they need to be exaggerated in order to make their point because of the scale involved, as you have pointed out. The horizon line from our perspective always hits us in the middle of our eyes as we look straight/level/parallel to the ground beneath us. Since it is...

Let begin the video presentations of earth from high altitude balloons. What do we see? Make your comments. Enjoy. --Dave

You circle a target you don't orbit it. --Dave

In the globe model it is said we actually look down at the horizon and it is always illustrated that way. I don't know what the calculation is but you can see the prediction from the second pic that the higher up you go the farther down you will be looking at the horizon. --Dave

I told you already: 1. Perspective 2. Atmospheric density 3. Horizon refraction --Dave

The question is not how or who receives data, it's can we rely on the images NASA supplies us with about the globe and space. I explained to you why I won't go along with your train of thought. You'll just have to understand that apparently God has not predetermined that I should do so. --Dave

or·bit ˈôrbət/Submit noun 1. the curved path of a celestial object or spacecraft around a star, planet, or moon, especially a periodic elliptical revolution. The title of the video misuses the word orbit. Th plane in the video is circling not orbiting. --Dave

AC-130 Spectre Gunship Orbiting Ok, I watched the video, but how does it show orbiting? --Dave

You're assuming there are spacecraft that are "continually orbiting" a globe. You and nobody else can prove that. We have been bouncing radio signals off the "Ionosphere" for years so perhaps we have been bouncing phone and GPS signals as well. Perhaps the Ionosphere is the top of the Dome...

No, as per reasons already given. --Dave

My comment was not in response to your post. My criticism is of NASA/ISS not your experiment. When asked how to answer your experiment I have answered with how Flat Earth deals with how the sun works on the flat earth in respect to perspective, atmospheric refraction, and atmospheric density...

I stand corrected on my terminology. I should have originally said, "or anything else that is circling at low earth altitude". I see my mistake thanks for pointing it out. --Dave

The whole flat earth movement is built on images that provide visible empirical evidence for a flat earth. If you want to destroy flat earth you must attack their evidence and their arguments in support of their claim. The globe earth has also been presented through visuals of one kind or...

Orbit presumes globe, it cannot prove what it assumes to be true. An orbit over a flat earth by definition is not possible anyway. Seeing a fast high altitude blimp of a craft streaking across the sky does not prove it's orbiting. And we cannot verify what is powering it or how long it's been...

The globe earth is proven true through the images supposedly from space from NASA. You're arguing from a conclusion drawn from it's premise--circular reasoning. Seeing a tiny blimp of a craft flying fast and high across the sky tells me anything about it. Everything we say about it would be...

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