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

[Clete]

So, are we missing 4 days?

Can they recover it?

--Dave

Probably not.

 

[Right Divider]

It seems over water/oceans the amount of water at low atmosphere is grater than over dry land. Even the amount of water in the atmosphere can vary over water.

The time lapse video of the sun moving over earth showing it changes its size is shot over land.

Humidity is not constant over land or water.

--Dave

Which means that, under these VARYING conditions, the apparent size of the sun should FLUCTUATE significatnly.... But it does NOT (unless you count those over-saturated and therefore BOGUS videos and images).

Once again Dave, lets not get off the track with all of the ANOMALIES and stick to IDEAL conditions where these DISTORTIONS are not influencing the underlying REALITY.

 

[Right Divider]

I think you're confusing "liquids" with "fluids." All liquids are fluids, but not all fluids are liquids.

http://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-explainer/air-fluid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid

You're off the rails.

The refraction of light that Dave was trying to use to justify a large and lower sun at sunset is vastly different between air and water.

His video invalidly uses WATER to justify something that does NOT happen in the AIR, due to the greatly differing properties of those two different mediums for traveling light.

 

[chair]

This is Chair's opinion of what Dave is doing.

I know Dave better than Chair does.

Dave believes there's good evidence for both flat earth and globe earth.

Dave is doing research on both views but is advocating for flat earth while others are advocates for globe earth so we can have a debate.

The arguments from both sides need to made and compared.

Let everyone decide for themselves which worldview makes sense.

Dave always makes arguments and rarely ever demeans those he is debating as Chair is doing in his post.

--Dave

Dave,

I know what you claim you are doing. But what you in fact are doing is illogical, and not a fair form of discussion at all. You pretend one thing, and your actions speak loudly of another.

 

[DFT_Dave]

MAGNIFICATION sea level

"Objects are hidden behind the horizon due the atmosphere acting like a lens and magnifying the object to the point where the bottom is cut off."

Here is a video that documents magnification. The author makes a very good case.

If the setting sun can be reflected off water then why can't it be magnified by the atmosphere as well?

View attachment 26469

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

MAGNIFICATION sea level

"Objects are hidden behind the horizon due the atmosphere acting like a lens and magnifying the object to the point where the bottom is cut off."

Here is a video that documents magnification. The author makes a very good case.

If the setting sun can be reflected off water then why can't it be magnified by the atmosphere as well?

View attachment 26469

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're off the rails.

How so?

The refraction of light that Dave was trying to use to justify a large and lower sun at sunset is vastly different between air and water.

Right. I agree with that.

I was just pointing out that air is a fluid, and as such has the properties of a fluid.

His video invalidly uses WATER to justify something that does NOT happen in the AIR, due to the greatly differing properties of those two different mediums for traveling light.

Agreed.

 

[Right Divider]

How so?

Right. I agree with that.

I was just pointing out that air is a fluid, and as such has the properties of a fluid.

I was just saying that that was irrelevant to the discussion.

Agreed.

:thumb:

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave,

I know what you claim you are doing. But what you in fact are doing is illogical, and not a fair form of discussion at all. You pretend one thing, and your actions speak loudly of another.

That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I have genuine doubts about out trip to the moon and about globe earth and I am not alone.

Accept that and argue accordingly and win the arguments. If you really think that those of us who express doubts are truly as disingenuous as you say then you make yourself judge and jury, we are insane or criminals. Do you really what to judge motive and intent of those who don't agree with current norms? Copernicus was not a follower of the consensus of his day so allow for genuine honest doubt and it will change how you make your case for the better.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Ok, this makes your point. But why do I see multiple suns at singular moment of the day?

This picture, in itself, could have been easily changed. I'm not saying it is, but it's not a good example.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Ok, this makes your point. But why do I see multiple suns at singular moment of the day?

This picture, in itself, could have been easily changed. I'm not saying it is, but it's not a good example.

--Dave

It's called "time lapse photography" Dave. Look into it.

We've all noticed that anything that does not fit your view is automatically dismissed as fake.

And, of course, distorted and over-saturated images are fine... because they support your view.

 

[chair]

Dave, There is no way to argue with someone who just waves his hand and says "that is not true" or "that's a conspiracy" or "that video/photo/calculation is fake".

I could argue that the moon is made out of green cheese using your methods of argument, and simply never give up, and label all counter arguments as false, a conspiracy, or whatever. It's not, by the way (I mean the green cheese).

 

[DFT_Dave]

It's called "time lapse photography" Dave. Look into it.

We've all noticed that anything that does not fit your view is automatically dismissed as fake.

And, of course, distorted and over-saturated images are fine... because they support your view.

I have said that time lapse "video" shows the sun getting smaller as it moves across the sky and I think it's better evidence than time lapse photos that show a limited section of the sky and does not give us the whole picture.

If we take the last 6 or 7 suns in your pic we may have the magnification effect taking place especially since it's over water.

Just one photo or video for either side is not enough to prove the point, in my opinion.

I'm not dismissing the photo, I'm giving you a FE perspective. You can add it to your case and FE will add the time lapse "video" to its side.

I'm about building a case not looking for a single knock out punch.

TIMELAPSE OF THE SUN PROVES FLAT EARTH

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

THE most undeniable proof of the Flat Earth SUN!

More video evidence.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

I have said that time lapse "video" shows the sun getting smaller as it moves across the sky and I think it's better evidence than time lapse photos that show a limited section of the sky and does not give us the whole picture.

For the millionth time, your videos are OVER-SATURATED and do NOT show the actual size of the sun.

If we take the last 6 or 7 suns in your pic we may have the magnification effect taking place especially since it's over water.

No, Dave they are all precisely the same size.

TIMELAPSE OF THE SUN PROVES FLAT EARTH

--Dave

That silly video again..... you're like a broken record Dave.

Lookup the term OVER-SATURATED.

P.S. Please jump into this thread and give us a decent explanation: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?129825-Calling-all-flat-earther-s-sidereal-day-vs-solar-day

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, There is no way to argue with someone who just waves his hand and says "that is not true" or "that's a conspiracy" or "that video/photo/calculation is fake".

I could argue that the moon is made out of green cheese using your methods of argument, and simply never give up, and label all counter arguments as false, a conspiracy, or whatever. It's not, by the way (I mean the green cheese).

I have just shown 2 time lapse video that shows from flat earth perspective the sun getting larger and smaller.

I could say that you're dismissing evidence just as you are saying it about me. Your complaint works both ways.

Many photos and many videos must be compared before a good opinion can be made. Just one does not make a case.

--Dave

 

[chair]

I have just shown 2 time lapse video that shows from flat earth perspective the sun getting larger and smaller.

I could say that you're dismissing evidence just as you are saying it about me. Your complaint works both ways.

Many photos and many videos must be compared before a good opinion can be made. Just one does not make a case.

--Dave

I have better things to do with my time.

 

[DFT_Dave]

For the millionth time, your videos are OVER-SATURATED and do NOT show the actual size of the sun.

No, Dave they are all precisely the same size.

That silly video again..... you're like a broken record Dave.

Lookup the term OVER-SATURATED.

P.S. Please jump into this thread and give us a decent explanation: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?129825-Calling-all-flat-earther-s-sidereal-day-vs-solar-day

The point of horizon magnification is that the sun looks the same size as it sets but actually is not.

Silly video is not an intelligent argument.

Your "over saturation" argument is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss what you don't want to see and don't want anyone else to see.

--Dave

 

[CabinetMaker]

THE most undeniable proof of the Flat Earth SUN!

More video evidence.

--Dave

Doesn't it bother you that there are TWO flat surfaces in the table explanation of your video. There is one surface that the camera sits on and then there is a second surface that the "sun" is moving on. How is this analogous in any way to a light source on a circular path above a disk?

 

[DFT_Dave]

I have better things to do with my time.

Well then you'll just have to take my word for it.

--Dave