Flat earth proven false
- Thread starter User Name
- Start date
Ah, but it does have everything to do with a spinning globe.
The statement that water seeks level is not technically incorrect. Water does not seek its own level. According to Pascal's principle, water seeks to distribute pressure uniformly throughout the liquid. This allows water to be used as a hydro-static level under certain conditions. When look at water spread over a globe then you must look at how gravity works. In its most simplistic explanation, gravity is a force that pulls everything towards the center of the Earth. This means that water, that does conform to whatever contains it, will be pulled around the outer surface of the globe. This is why it is important to have an accurate understanding of the scientific principles associated with the words that you use. You are using them incorrectly.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Why it's not relevant to what?
Yes, but that is what astro-turfing does: not only does it create a false sense of a peculiar community of like-minded individuals, (causing some people to suddenly question things they had never even thought to question before, like PJ), but it also draws out others who may have never felt they had a voice or a platform before. And now you suddenly have the sense of a more acceptable platform and a voice for something you've apparently held to be true for a longer time frame than this has been going on in the online community. You might think about the high probability that the supposedly now massive flat earth online community is much more likely what is fake, and computer generated, as opposed to satellite footage.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Gravity hunh?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
bump
Do you think that being obtuse is helpful to your position?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
bump
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I find it interesting that aside from the picture used to tag the video, which can be specifically selected, there are no city names in the video itself. Seems to me that a frame from the video was captured and some labels were inserted and it was used to tease the video. Seems to me that you are making much ado about nothing.
I watched the video three times and that image on the front screen does not appear to be in the video from what I could tell. There is one section where the US is upside down on the screen, (00:48 seconds), and you can see Florida at the top of the screen as the satellite crosses over it coming from the northwest, but there is no aurora in that shot because the satellite is moving toward the southeast. What is on the front screen may not even be labeled correctly either, (who knows, and who cares, if the shot is not even actually in the footage anyways?). Your objections seem pointless unless you can show the shot in the video where that front cover image is found and point out the cities for yourself. And if you are on a computer you can actually do all of that yourself, by stopping the video where you want to take an image from it and taking a screen shot, (typically the "Print Screen" key on your keyboard). Then you can paste the image of the screen shot into a simple paint program and do with it what you will, (for example, label the cities). But I do not even see the cover image anywhere in the video. It may also just be a composite for advertising effect with clouds, (perhaps some removed?), and the lightning and aurora added for the cover page of the video? Lots of videos do the same simply for a good looking cover page, (artwork, advertising). The burden of proof really lies with you anyways: how do you know the front cover image is supposed to be what you have assumed it to be? How do you know it has not been modified for advertising purposes? or that perhaps the cites might possibly have been mislabeled? or perhaps some things may have been "adjusted" to allow for a better presentation of some of the labels? etc., etc. Moreover if you can find that front cover shot anywhere in the video please post the time because I do not see that image anywhere in the video.
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You don't actually know what I assume it is.
You however have made a good case for false advertising at the very least. :BRAVO:
You've already said it was CGI so why would I not believe that you mean what you say about yourself and what you believe? and no, that would not be false advertising anymore than one of your favorite old vinyl album covers with a fake, imitation, drawing of your favorite musician or band on the front cover.
Bravo, many of your favorite musicians whose videos I see you posting so often are phonies and "liars like NASA" for false advertising on the front covers of many of their albums, cd's, and videos. Yeehaw! Burn those old albums you got stashed in your private collection, burn baby burn! :BRAVO:
Can you see where I may have assumed a little too much in what I just said and possibly learn from me by example? :chuckle:
You expect everyone to assume what you are saying, yet you don't like it when someone assume you wrong?
It isn't very nice, friend.
peace
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I wasn't the one who first posted it as proof against a flat earth.
Nice rabbit trail though.
Thou almost persuadeth me...... not. :crackup:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
You expect everyone to assume what you are saying, yet you don't like it when someone assume you wrong?
It isn't very nice, friend.
peace
What's not to like.
You're free to assume whatever....
You are the one who kept bumping your question because you thought you had some evidence to prove a "fake CGI" image on the front cover of that video. However I went and did more research and found out where the problem is: you have not paid close enough attention to the angle from which the image is taken. Kansas City does not appear in the front cover image because it is too far to the west and south. It really is just as simple as that: it is not in the image because it is not supposed to be in the image.
Maybe you can answer?Originally Posted by 1Mind1Spirit
Really, pretty ridiculous.
Where's Kansas City?
Hint: The info programmed into this computer generated imagery (CGI) was bogus.
We know Kansa City is north of St. Louis and south of Omaha.
Quite the imaginary imagery there, ay?
Where's Kansas City in the purdy picture?
I went and did what I already suggested you could do yourself and here is what I found:
Hope that helps.
What's not to like.
You're free to assume whatever....
Being vague is not nice, IMO.
peace
You are the one who kept bumping your question because you thought you had some evidence to prove a "fake CGI" image on the front cover of that video. However I went and did more research and found out where the problem is: you have not paid close enough attention to the angle from which the image is taken. Kansas City does not appear in the front cover image because it is too far to the west and south. It really is just as simple as that: it is not in the image because it is not supposed to be in the image.
I went and did what I already suggested you could do yourself and here is what I found:
Hope that helps.
Lol, I misspelled approximate in my second image file, but hey, it only took about ten minutes to do what I did.