The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[Clete]

Evidence of flat earth from high rise balloon video

I have watched hundreds of videos from high altitude balloons. Despite the use of a Go-Pro fish eye lens that distorts the horizon with a curvature that does not exist they all have the same characteristics.

1. The horizon in all directions rises up with the balloon to eye level as it should if the earth is flat.

It actually doesn't but the difference is tiny because the balloon isn't very far off the surface of the Earth in comparison to its size. The Earth is a very big sphere and even if the balloon is very high in relation to the size of a human being, its still quite close in relation to the size of the Earth and thus the drop in horizon would be difficult to perceive without special equipment and it would altogether imperceptible from looking through a gopro camera lens.

2. The entire earth below looks flat.

This is essentially just repeat of the point one. It is the curvature of the Earth that would cause a drop in the horizon and the Earth looks flat from up close for the same reason that the drop in horizon is mostly imperceptible. In short, that reason is that the Earth is really big and by comparison, anyone in the atmosphere is quite close to the surface.

3. The earth shows absolutely no motion whatever.

Neither does the dash board of your car while your driving down the road. The atmosphere is, generally speaking, moving along with the surface of the Earth as it spins on it's axis. It is, of course, also moving relative to the surface (i.e. weather patterns and wind, etc) but these motions are on a micro level in comparison to the macro level of movement along with the surface as the Earth spins. This is how a hurricane and spin over basically one spot over southern Texas over a period of four days.

In short the lack of motion is only relative to those in the atmosphere just as the lack of motion of the dash board in your moving car is only relative to those in the car.

4. The sun looks close and small and moves while the earth remains motionless.

Again, this is essentially a repeat of the previous point except for the bit about the apparent size of the Sun. But not even flat earthers deny that a large Sun that was very far away would look like the Sun looks in our sky and so I'm not sure how any of this supports the idea of a flat Earth.

Empirical evidence is hard to refute.

Interesting that you present perceptions as empirical evidence.

Do you know what empirical evidence is?

The reason why empirical evidence is so important is precisely because it is valid REGARDLESS of our perceptions. What you've presented here is the opposite of empirical evidence.

The actual empirical evidence shows that the horizon does in fact drop with altitude as does the angle of the Sun above the horizon and that the Earth does NOT actually look flat from above. You need to do actual measurements with instruments that don't use a brain that interprets visual cues. Sextants don't care whether it "looks" like whether the horizon has drop, it just measures that it has. Cameras don't care whether the Earth is flat or round, they just don't focus the same on areas nearer the horizon as it does on areas near a point straight down. This is the difference between empirical evidence and a person's personal perceptions of the way the Earth seems to look through what you admit is a wide angle lens.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Interesting that you present perceptions are empirical evidence.

Do you know what empirical evidence is?

The reason why empirical evidence is so important is precisely because it is valid REGARDLESS of our perceptions. What you've presented here is the opposite of empirical evidence.

:thumb:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Welcome back Dave!

Thanks. Good to be back!

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, it's just completely wrong and shows that you do not understand basic high school physics.

If you understand physics so well then please explain it.

So far you haven't explained anything.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

If you understand physics so well then please explain it.

So far you haven't explained anything.

--Dave

Gravity is a force that is well known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity
So is inertia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

There is nothing inherent in the laws of motion or gravity that make an elliptical orbit strange or unusual.

Since you seem to think that it is, you need to explain why.

 

[Clete]

I believe it is very possible and likely the earth is flat with a dome as the Bible says it is. There's no "absolute proof" for the heliocentric model. And cosmology is not now, and has never been, based on logic alone, a premise has always been required.

You, and everyone who believes in the heliocentric model thinks flat earth has been completely and absolutely refuted much in the same way atheists think they have refuted the existence of God. But I'm not so easily convinced by either group.

There have been many proofs presented in this thread that the Earth cannot possibly be flat that you haven't even bothered to address, nevermind refute. And I mean it when I say PROOF! And yet you refuse to allow simple reason to persuade your mind.

WHY?

I invite you to read my post #3462 and respond to it. I'll just repost it here so you don't have to go looking for it...



For those of you who are Christians and who hold to this nonsensical idea that the Earth is flat, in spite of the several indisputable proofs that have been presented in this thread, I would like to ask you to consider just why you refuse to allow plain reason to persuade your mind. I'm not interested in having you present an answer to that question to me. The question is for your own consideration and benefit.

These are not matters of opinion. This is not a debate akin to whether you prefer a traditional worship service or a more contemporary style of Sunday mornings services. There are plenty of well meaning and very thoughtful and rational people on both sides of that issue and neither side is right or wrong in any absolute sense. That's because your preferred style of worship is an opinion. It may be more weighty than whether you like the taste of peas or whether you like your fried eggs sunny side up or otherwise but it is still, more or less, a matter of opinion.

Whether the Earth is flat, however, is not a matter of opinion at all. The Earth is either flat or it is not. Opinion simply does not come into it. You can be on one side or the other of the debate but regardless of which side you take you can only either be right or wrong. There is no inbetween. This is known as the law of excluded middle. It is a fundamental fact of reality that any truth claim is either true or it false and cannot be both at the same time and in the same way. This even applies to opinions! It is either true or it is false that I think that coffee tastes like poison. Someone else may disagree with my assessment of coffee's flavor but it doesn't change the fact that I think it tastes like I just committed suicide by having swallowed it.

Now, the shape of the Earth is a matter of fact and as such, there will be certain observable characteristics that we can use to test to see whether it is one shape or another. If this kind of thinking does not work then there is no way to know anything and by calling such thinking into question you undermine everything else you claim is real, not the least of which is the existence of God and the death, burial and resurrection of His Son, which is no less than the totality of the Christian faith!

And so, I ask you again, why do you not permit the application of clearly understandable logic and reason to persuade your mind? What is it that you think you're protecting? It isn't the Christian faith! It isn't the Bible! It isn't the honor of your Lord and Savior! On the contrary, it is just the exact opposite of that. Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Is the truth contradictory? Is the truth irrational? Certainly not! The laws of logic and reason exist precisely because of God’s rational nature! Indeed they are His nature!

Never does God admonish us to turn off our minds, to stop thinking and simply believe something mindlessly. On the contrary, God says to us “Come now, and let us reason together." In fact, when the author of Hebrews defines faith for us, what concepts does he employ? Mindlessness? Belief without evidence? NO! Just the opposite! Faith is all about substantive evidence and, more specifically, it is our response to that evidence, our willingness to be persuaded by the evidence that is all around us and, perhaps most importantly in this context, it is the willful rejection of that evidence that condemns the ungodly.

Romans 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.​

For those who have read this post and remain unconvinced that a rejection of sound reason and logic is a rejection of God Himself and the whole of the Christian faith, I urge you to read the following article. Perhaps hearing it from someone other than me will help get it to penetrate.

The Nature & Necessity of Logic

by Craig S. Hawkins


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

What about it? It's utter nonsense. And it's disgusting and wicked that some idiot would make such picture. It mocks the deaths of these seven brave souls. If Christa McAuliffe is alive she never told her family.

https://www.seacoastonline.com/article/20160128/NEWS/160129042

View attachment 26761View attachment 26762View attachment 26763View attachment 26764

Here are picture comparisons of Judith Resnik--Astronaut and Law Professor

Is Judith Resnik Astronaut and Law Professor the same person?

In this video we can hear Astronaut Resnick speak in an interview.

In my next post we can hear Professor Resnick speak on a video.

In the picture comparisons we look for facial similarities; hair, teeth/smile, nose, and hand gestures.

In the video comparisons we look for voice similarities, hand gestures, facial expressions.

The question is can we see enough similarities between the two women that give us the possibility of them being the same person, or not.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

:thumb:

Interesting that you present perceptions are empirical evidence.

Do you know what empirical evidence is?

The reason why empirical evidence is so important is precisely because it is valid REGARDLESS of our perceptions. What you've presented here is the opposite of empirical evidence.

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience. --Wiki

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Here is professor Resnik speaking. There are a few more video on line of both women speaking and in the comparison of both we look to see if there is a reasonable possibility that both women could be the same person.

---Dave

 

[The Berean]

View attachment 26761View attachment 26762View attachment 26763View attachment 26764

Here are picture comparisons of Judith Resnik--Astronaut and Law Professor

Is Judith Resnik Astronaut and Law Professor the same person?

In this video we can hear Astronaut Resnick speak in an interview.

In my next post we can hear Professor Resnick speak on a video.

In the picture comparisons we look for facial similarities; hair, teeth/smile, nose, and hand gestures.

In the video comparisons we look for voice similarities, hand gestures, facial expressions.

The question is can we see enough similarities between the two women that give us the possibility of them being the same person, or not.

--Dave

Seriously, you are really grasping at straws, Dave. You are actually claiming that a dead woman is alive? LOL. I think I have to accept that you are simply trolling us for your morbid amusement. And it's disgusting that anyone would claim these hero's are not dead. It's an affront to their memories and and a wicked insult to their families.

 

[DFT_Dave]

It actually doesn't but the difference is tiny because the balloon isn't very far off the surface of the Earth in comparison to its size. The Earth is a very big sphere and even if the balloon is very high in relation to the size of a human being, its still quite close in relation to the size of the Earth and thus the drop in horizon would be difficult to perceive without special equipment and it would altogether imperceptible from looking through a gopro camera lens.

This is essentially just repeat of the point one. It is the curvature of the Earth that would cause a drop in the horizon and the Earth looks flat from up close for the same reason that the drop in horizon is mostly imperceptible. In short, that reason is that the Earth is really big and by comparison, anyone in the atmosphere is quite close to the surface.

Neither does the dash board of your car while your driving down the road. The atmosphere is, generally speaking, moving along with the surface of the Earth as it spins on it's axis. It is, of course, also moving relative to the surface (i.e. weather patterns and wind, etc) but these motions are on a micro level in comparison to the macro level of movement along with the surface as the Earth spins. This is how a hurricane and spin over basically one spot over southern Texas over a period of four days.

In short the lack of motion is only relative to those in the atmosphere just as the lack of motion of the dash board in your moving car is only relative to those in the car.

Again, this is essentially a repeat of the previous point except for the bit about the apparent size of the Sun. But not even flat earthers deny that a large Sun that was very far away would look like the Sun looks in our sky and so I'm not sure how any of this supports the idea of a flat Earth.

Interesting that you present perceptions as empirical evidence.

Do you know what empirical evidence is?

The reason why empirical evidence is so important is precisely because it is valid REGARDLESS of our perceptions. What you've presented here is the opposite of empirical evidence.

The actual empirical evidence shows that the horizon does in fact drop with altitude as does the angle of the Sun above the horizon and that the Earth does NOT actually look flat from above. You need to do actual measurements with instruments that don't use a brain that interprets visual cues. Sextants don't care whether it "looks" like whether the horizon has drop, it just measures that it has. Cameras don't care whether the Earth is flat or round, they just don't focus the same on areas nearer the horizon as it does on areas near a point straight down. This is the difference between empirical evidence and a person's personal perceptions of the way the Earth seems to look through what you admit is a wide angle lens.

Clete

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience. --Wiki

We can watch the videos from high altitude balloons literally from the ground up. They are all consistent for all to see.

1. The horizon moves at eye level upward with the balloon as the "Law of Perspective" predicts. Even if one does not believe in the law it is still consistent with it.

2. The earth is not at all as large as I thought it was before I started to look into Flat earth. A drop of 8 inches per mile squared is much more then I would have guessed. If we can supposedly see the curvature the earth 3 miles away hiding the bottom of ships then why can't we see it from 20 miles high with a visible drop in the horizon in all direction when we can see far more than 3 miles?

View attachment 26765

3. Arguing that the atmosphere of gases is moved by gravity along with the movement of the earth is nonsense. Everything that moves on earth and in the sky moves right through the atmosphere.

4. The earth is flat and motionless, the balloon moves as it rises right through the atmosphere, and the sun moves through the sky over it.

5. The flat earth is circled by ice walls and higher terrain that we have never gone beyond.

6. What we see and experience is the same thing from the ground up to as far as 20 miles high. You are arguing that it's not possible to see the curvature and movement of the earth without "special equipment" to help us see it. Fair enough, lets look at what equipment helps us one way or the other. But in the case for flat earth, what we "see and experience" is what is. The case for spinning globe is what you "see and experience" is not what is.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Seriously, you are really grasping at straws, Dave. You are actually claiming that a dead woman is alive? LOL. I think I have to accept that you are simply trolling us for your morbid amusement. And it's disgusting that anyone would claim these hero's are not dead. It's an affront to their memories and and a wicked insult to their families.

I'm not making the claim, I'm looking into a claim that has already been made by others.

That NASA has lied to us about the moon landings and about the earth being a globe is what this op is about. It's not wicked to investigate this or anything else.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience. --Wiki

--Dave

Ever see a really good "magic trick"? What did your senses tell you?

Dave, you've never personally verified the FACT that the sun is the exact same OBSERVABLE size all day long. You rely on bogus OVER-SATURATED videos. Why don't you go outside sometime and do some real research into empirical evidence?

 

[The Berean]

I'm not making the claim, I'm looking into a claim that has already been made by others.

That NASA has lied to us about the moon landings and about the earth being a globe is what this op is about. It's not wicked to investigate this or anything else.

--Dave

You are propagating lies. You are defending the claim. THAT is wicked. The families of the seven astronauts have suffered greatly. For anyone to claim that their loved ones are still alive is horrible. If you doubt this then go talk to one of the family members and tell them,

"Hey, don't you know NASA lied and the seven astronauts are still alive!"

Then, see how they respond. Besides being wicked the idea is STUPID. Did NASA fake the explosion? What is the point of keeping the seven astronauts alive? Wouldn't NASA want them dead or at least hidden from everyone to keep the lie? Why wouldn't the seven astronauts contact their families?

Why would you even believe this ridiculous story, Dave? You can't be this stupid. I've been on your website and it's solid website.I prefer to think you are simply trolling us. If this is true, then well done, sir. You got us good.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You are propagating lies. You are defending the claim. THAT is wicked. The families of the seven astronauts have suffered greatly. For anyone to claim that their loved ones are still alive is horrible. If you doubt this then go talk to one of the family members and tell them,

"Hey, don't you know NASA lied and the seven astronauts are still alive!"

Then, see how they respond. Besides being wicked the idea is STUPID. Did NASA fake the explosion? What is the point of keeping the seven astronauts alive? Wouldn't NASA want them dead or at least hidden from everyone to keep the lie? Why wouldn't the seven astronauts contact their families?

Why would you even believe this ridiculous story, Dave? You can't be this stupid. I've been on your website and it's solid website.I prefer to think you are simply trolling us. If this is true, then well done, sir. You got us good.

I imagine it'll go something like this...

https://youtu.be/vUE4VGWAap4

 

[Clete]

Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience. --Wiki

We can watch the videos from high altitude balloons literally from the ground up. They are all consistent for all to see.

1. The horizon moves at eye level upward with the balloon as the "Law of Perspective" predicts. Even if one does not believe in the law it is still consistent with it.

2. The earth is not at all as large as I thought it was before I started to look into Flat earth. A drop of 8 inches per mile squared is much more then I would have guessed. If we can supposedly see the curvature the earth 3 miles away hiding the bottom of ships then why can't we see it from 20 miles high with a visible drop in the horizon in all direction when we can see far more than 3 miles?

View attachment 26765

3. Arguing that the atmosphere of gases is moved by gravity along with the movement of the earth is nonsense. Everything that moves on earth and in the sky moves right through the atmosphere.

4. The earth is flat and motionless, the balloon moves as it rises right through the atmosphere, and the sun moves through the sky over it.

5. The flat earth is circled by ice walls and higher terrain that we have never gone beyond.

6. What we see and experience is the same thing from the ground up to as far as 20 miles high. You are arguing that it's not possible to see the curvature and movement of the earth without "special equipment" to help us see it. Fair enough, lets look at what equipment helps us one way or the other. But in the case for flat earth, what we "see and experience" is what is. The case for spinning globe is what you "see and experience" is not what is.

--Dave

You can repeat yourself all you like and you can lie all you like (to yourself mostly) about the veracity of your so called evidence but it doesn't change reality and it doesn't change the fact that I have personally proven that the Earth cannot possibly be flat.

I thought that I might be able to engage you again on this without getting the angry frustrated hollow feeling in my gut but I was wrong. You are the single most dishonest Christian I have ever encountered. That includes the likes of Nang and Beloved57 (Wow!). I am literally ashamed of you. Ashamed and embarrassed because I know that you've repeated this utter stupidity in the name of Christianity.

The only thing I'm at all interested in discussing with you at this point is why you refuse to allow sound reason to persuade your mind.

Even that grants you ground that I'm literally not sure you deserve because it presumes that you aren't simply stupid. I still am unable to bring myself to believe that your brain is physically impaired or that you were born with some condition or some sort of mental deficiency that would explain why you stubbornly refuse to accept the verdict of perfectly sound and childishly simple reasoning that undeniably proves beyond all doubt whatsoever that the Earth is not flat.

What is your motive? Why are you resigned to simply repeating "arguments" that have already been refuted as if no one has said a word about them? What could possibly be your motive? Why not simply accept that the world is round like EVERYONE with a brain knows that it is?

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

You can repeat yourself all you like and you can lie all you like (to yourself mostly) about the veracity of your so called evidence but it doesn't change reality and it doesn't change the fact that I have personally proven that the Earth cannot possibly be flat.

I thought that I might be able to engage you again on this without getting the angry frustrated hollow feeling in my gut but I was wrong. You are the single most dishonest Christian I have ever encountered. That includes the likes of Nang and Beloved57 (Wow!). I am literally ashamed of you. Ashamed and embarrassed because I know that you've repeated this utter stupidity in the name of Christianity.

The only thing I'm at all interested in discussing with you at this point is why you refuse to allow sound reason to persuade your mind.

Even that grants you ground that I'm literally not sure you deserve because it presumes that you aren't simply stupid. I still am unable to bring myself to believe that your brain is physically impaired or that you were born with some condition or some sort of mental deficiency that would explain why you stubbornly refuse to accept the verdict of perfectly sound and childishly simple reasoning that undeniably proves beyond all doubt whatsoever that the Earth is not flat.

What is your motive? Why are you resigned to simply repeating "arguments" that have already been refuted as if no one has said a word about them? What could possibly be your motive? Why not simply accept that the world is round like EVERYONE with a brain knows that it is?

Clete

It almost seems like Dave is playing for the other team, doesn't it?

 

[Clete]

It almost seems like Dave is playing for the other team, doesn't it?

I don't think I'd go that far but it is totally confounding. Have you seen his website? It's full of stuff that is just brilliant! What it feels like is that he's had a stroke or been in some sort of accident that caused brain damage because it just doesn't seem possible that the same clear minded, rational person who wrote a lot of the stuff on that website could have written three syllables of what he's written on this thread. I mean, if someone came up to you with a book entitled "Why I Believe in Banch Davidianism: A Biblical Defense" and claimed it was a long lost work by C.S. Lewis, would you believe them? Well, that's just about what this feels like to me.

It reminds me of that old Star Trek episode where Kirk gets swapped with an evil version of himself from parallel universe.

View attachment 26768

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

I don't think I'd go that far but it is totally confounding. Have you seen his website? It's full of stuff that is just brilliant! What it feels like is that he's had a stroke or been in some sort of accident that caused brain damage because it just doesn't seem possible that the same clear minded, rational person who wrote a lot of the stuff on that website could have written three syllables of what he's written on this thread. I mean, if someone came up to you with a book entitled "Why I Believe in Banch Davidianism: A Biblical Defense" and claimed it was a long lost work by C.S. Lewis, would you believe them? Well, that's just about what this feels like to me.

It reminds me of that old Star Trek episode where Kirk gets swapped with an evil version of himself from parallel universe.

View attachment 26768

Clete

I think that I saw his website once, but didn't go too deep because my first impression of him is from this thread.

 

[Clete]

I think that I saw his website once, but didn't go too deep because my first impression of him is from this thread.

Yeah, that's exactly why this bothers me so much!

Don't let this thread deter you. Everything on his website is worthwhile so long as he hasn't added a bunch of FET stuff.