The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

PROOF Stars Are NOT Suns | FLAT EARTH PROOF

These last three videos are short and to the point. One can argue anyway they want for or against flat or globe earth on stars because we will never have empirical evidence on what they are or how far away they are in my opinion.

But seeing the videos taken from the new cameras today are worth seeing, and all the time lapse video of stars are also breathtaking and beautiful.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Stars are not my fortay so I have been going over more videos on how the stars are explained for flat earth.

Flat Earth: Southern Stars

--Dave

You'd expect to see the circles made by stars in we are under a reflective glass dome.

This explanation is only convincing to people who have no ability to think. He refutes the arguments moments after making it. The circles you'd see inside a spherical mirror are ALWAYS THERE!!! You wouldn't see little dots of light that move in a circles, you would see circles - whole, entirely complete, continuous circles, all day, every day, all the time. The proof of which is the photograph the guy shows moment after having made this ridiculous claim. The photo that is being compared to the star trails (4:00 into the video) is not a time laps! He even uses the phrase "it warps the image". This guy has to be lying. I don't believe that this was his first ever video and I don't believe that he's convinced by this argument. He's a hoaxter.
What's more is that, if the dome was mirrored, you'd see distorted reflections of the Earth not stars! DUH!


The curved mirror argument insults my intelligence to a degree that is almost angering!
He cut (quite skillfully for a "first time" YouTuber, by the way) from a crystal clear image of southern stars to this idiotic distortion of a curved mirror supposedly showing the three reflections of the same camera. Even if you want to say that the reflective firmament was perfectly reflective, where in the sky is the region that corrisponds to the spots inbetween those three camera images? How, under such an undulated reflective surface, would we not detect anything the resembles reflective distortion?
Besides all that, I thought that the firmament was supposed to be a reflective dome? How many different mirror configurations are we allowed to have at one time in one reflective firmament? Why didn't he show us video evidence of what you'd see under a reflective dome? OH WAIT! He did that and it looks like a bunch of distorted circles! If you put a camera under a reflective dome, you don't see three cameras, you see what he showed you 20 seconds ago in the previous segment - a bunch of complete circles. Circles, by the way, that are distorted reflections of the camera that took the picture (including the flash), not of stars or anything that looks like the stars we see with crisp undistorted detail.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Give me the gist of these videos, Dave.

That one I just watch and responded to was a stupidity parade.

Convince me that they are worth my time by giving me some idea of what the argument is.

 

[Clete]

PROOF Stars Are NOT Suns | FLAT EARTH PROOF

These last three videos are short and to the point. One can argue anyway they want for or against flat or globe earth on stars because we will never have empirical evidence on what they are or how far away they are in my opinion.

But seeing the videos taken from the new cameras today are worth seeing, and all the time lapse video of stars are also breathtaking and beautiful.

--Dave

It isn't purely subjective, Dave. They can indeed empirically measure a star's parallax by taking an image one day and then another 6 months later, using the size of the Earth's orbit to gain sufficient distances between the two observations to produce a measurable parallax. They can then triangulate the distance to the star. This has been done for thousands of stars.

If the stars were anywhere near as close as flat-earthers claim, you could, with modern equipment, measure a star's parallax that occurs between Houston and Galveston Texas!

 

[patrick jane]

PROOF Stars Are NOT Suns | FLAT EARTH PROOF

These last three videos are short and to the point. One can argue anyway they want for or against flat or globe earth on stars because we will never have empirical evidence on what they are or how far away they are in my opinion.

But seeing the videos taken from the new cameras today are worth seeing, and all the time lapse video of stars are also breathtaking and beautiful.


--Dave

Your head is flat -

 

[DFT_Dave]

It isn't purely subjective, Dave. They can indeed empirically measure a star's parallax by taking an image one day and then another 6 months later, using the size of the Earth's orbit to gain sufficient distances between the two observations to produce a measurable parallax. They can then triangulate the distance to the star. This has been done for thousands of stars.

If the stars were anywhere near as close as flat-earthers claim, you could, with modern equipment, measure a star's parallax that occurs between Houston and Galveston Texas!

"Using the size of the Earth's orbit."

But this assumes an orbit that may not exist, so this measurement is circular reasoning. Get it? Orbit = circular. :darwinsm:

Now that's a really funny line, so I hope it put a smile on that very serious face of your's.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

You'd expect to see the circles made by stars in we are under a reflective glass dome.

This explanation is only convincing to people who have no ability to think. He refutes the arguments moments after making it. The circles you'd see inside a spherical mirror are ALWAYS THERE!!! You wouldn't see little dots of light that move in a circles, you would see circles - whole, entirely complete, continuous circles, all day, every day, all the time. The proof of which is the photograph the guy shows moment after having made this ridiculous claim. The photo that is being compared to the star trails (4:00 into the video) is not a time laps! He even uses the phrase "it warps the image". This guy has to be lying. I don't believe that this was his first ever video and I don't believe that he's convinced by this argument. He's a hoaxter.
What's more is that, if the dome was mirrored, you'd see distorted reflections of the Earth not stars! DUH!


The curved mirror argument insults my intelligence to a degree that is almost angering!
He cut (quite skillfully for a "first time" YouTuber, by the way) from a crystal clear image of southern stars to this idiotic distortion of a curved mirror supposedly showing the three reflections of the same camera. Even if you want to say that the reflective firmament was perfectly reflective, where in the sky is the region that corrisponds to the spots inbetween those three camera images? How, under such an undulated reflective surface, would we not detect anything the resembles reflective distortion?
Besides all that, I thought that the firmament was supposed to be a reflective dome? How many different mirror configurations are we allowed to have at one time in one reflective firmament? Why didn't he show us video evidence of what you'd see under a reflective dome? OH WAIT! He did that and it looks like a bunch of distorted circles! If you put a camera under a reflective dome, you don't see three cameras, you see what he showed you 20 seconds ago in the previous segment - a bunch of complete circles. Circles, by the way, that are distorted reflections of the camera that took the picture (including the flash), not of stars or anything that looks like the stars we see with crisp undistorted detail.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The purpose of these videos is so people can see and evaluate the evidence that is presented for flat earth and decide for themselves if it is valid or not.

Your purpose is to make the case that this evidence is fraudulent.

My goal is to evaluate and compare both sides of this argument. Flat earth is a growing movement and I believe we need to be informed about it and have a civil debate on the matter.

I've been educating myself on cosmology for the past couple of years, both from the past to the current models of the universe.

Planets don't look at all like what NASA shows us from a Nikon P900 camera.

View attachment 25410

See video.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Flat Earth - The real Venus above the flat plane

If this is what Venus really looks like then "Houston, we have a problem".

--Dave

 

[Clete]

"Using the size of the Earth's orbit."

But this assumes an orbit that may not exist, so this measurement is circular reasoning. Get it? Orbit = circular. :darwinsm:

Now that's a really funny line, so I hope it put a smile on that very serious face of your's.

--Dave

NO! It most certainly is not circular! (I did like the pun though!)

Before the measurement is made, the word you give it is "hypothesis". You then run the experiment (i.e. take two images, six months apart.) and see if there is a measurable parallax. If there is, then your hypothesis is confirmed. If there isn't then you formulate a new hypothesis and concoct a new experiment to test it.

The scientific method is not circular reasoning. Taking very precise angle measurements either yields a result which shows a difference or it shows a result that shows no measurable difference. There is no third alternative. That's a big part of what makes it good science and not a matter of interpretation or opinion. There is either a measurable parallax or there isn't. That's as empirical as it gets.

 

[Clete]

Flat Earth - The real Venus above the flat plane

If this is what Venus really looks like then "Houston, we have a problem".

--Dave

I have seen the phases of Venus with my own $50 telescope.

If you were to do the observation tonight, you'd see a small crescent sliver. It would be oriented with the ends of the crescent pointed upward (away from the horizon (and the Sun) like a smile.

 

[Clete]

The purpose of these videos is so people can see and evaluate the evidence that is presented for flat earth and decide for themselves if it is valid or not.

Your purpose is to make the case that this evidence is fraudulent.

My goal is to evaluate and compare both sides of this argument. Flat earth is a growing movement and I believe we need to be informed about it and have a civil debate on the matter.

I've been educating myself on cosmology for the past couple of years, both from the past to the current models of the universe.

Planets don't look at all like what NASA shows us from a Nikon P900 camera.

View attachment 25410

See video.

--Dave

If you refuse to give me the gist of the arguments in the videos you post, I refuse to watch them.

 

[chair]

...
My goal is to evaluate and compare both sides of this argument...

Thank you!
You have saved me a fortune on fertilizer for my garden.

 

[DFT_Dave]

If you refuse to give me the gist of the arguments in the videos you post, I refuse to watch them.

The argument made by flat earth is in the video. NASA is not told us the truth about what stars look like. The planet Venus is one example. If they don't look like what they tell us then how do we know how far away they are or what they are made of?

Just view the video and see for yourself.

NASA's Venus. Another link

View attachment 25414 View attachment 25411

Here is Venus from a Nikon P900 day time and nigh time.

View attachment 25412 View attachment 25413

One of these is the real Venus, NASA or P900, the other is a fake. Take your pick.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

NO! It most certainly is not circular! (I did like the pun though!)

Before the measurement is made, the word you give it is "hypothesis". You then run the experiment (i.e. take two images, six months apart.) and see if there is a measurable parallax. If there is, then your hypothesis is confirmed. If there isn't then you formulate a new hypothesis and concoct a new experiment to test it.

The scientific method is not circular reasoning. Taking very precise angle measurements either yields a result which shows a difference or it shows a result that shows no measurable difference. There is no third alternative. That's a big part of what makes it good science and not a matter of interpretation or opinion. There is either a measurable parallax or there isn't. That's as empirical as it gets.

The scientific "method" is not the issue, the scientific "assumption", that the earth is moving around the sun, is the issue. You have to prove the earth moves before you can make a triangulation you suggested:

"They can indeed empirically measure a star's parallax by taking an image one day and then another 6 months later, using the size of the Earth's orbit to gain sufficient distances between the two observations to produce a measurable parallax."

If there is no orbit the calculation is wrong. A calculation based upon an assumption does not prove anything.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

The argument made by flat earth is in the video. NASA is not told us the truth about what stars look like. The planet Venus is one example. If they don't look like what they tell us then how do we know how far away they are or what they are made of?

Just view the video and see for yourself.

NASA's Venus. Another link

View attachment 25414 View attachment 25411

Here is Venus from a Nikon P900 day time and nigh time.

View attachment 25412 View attachment 25413

One of these is the real Venus, NASA or P900, the other is a fake. Take your pick.

--Dave

Well let's consider something. For something that is supposedly so far away, which do you think will have equipment that can actually take clear pictures of the planets? NASA, with a really large budget, or some random person with a (comparatively) small budget?

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Clete]

The scientific "method" is not the issue, the scientific "assumption", that the earth is moving around the sun, is the issue. You have to prove the earth moves before you can make a triangulation you suggested:

No you don't, David. You don't have to prove a hypothesis in order to perform an experiment based upon it.

That fact is that if the earth was stationary, they'd have attempted such an observation and would have seen nothing. There would have been no shift in the appearant position of any star.

"They can indeed empirically measure a star's parallax by taking an image one day and then another 6 months later, using the size of the Earth's orbit to gain sufficient distances between the two observations to produce a measurable parallax."

If there is no orbit the calculation is wrong. A calculation based upon an assumption does not prove anything.

--Dave[/QUOTE]
It is. And I think you must know it. Any second grade child could understand the concept of parallax, even if they don't know the word. A child understands that the moon seems to follow you down the street but the nearby buildings and street signs do not.

You don't have to bother with the triangulation calculation. Ignore it if you like. With or without that calculation the parallax is there and is observable and measurable. There's no way for that to happen if the Earth is stationary. It's just another of a thousand different things we observe that is completely consistent with the idea the the Earth orbits the Sun.

Clete

 

[Clete]

The argument made by flat earth is in the video. NASA is not told us the truth about what stars look like. The planet Venus is one example. If they don't look like what they tell us then how do we know how far away they are or what they are made of?

Just view the video and see for yourself.

NASA's Venus. Another link

View attachment 25414 View attachment 25411

Here is Venus from a Nikon P900 day time and nigh time.

View attachment 25412 View attachment 25413

One of these is the real Venus, NASA or P900, the other is a fake. Take your pick.

--Dave

The videos are lies, not NASA. I have seen both a gibbous and crescent Venus with my own eyes as have countless millions of people all over the world and throughout the history of astronomy beginning with Galileo.

How much weight do you ascribe to first person witness testimony? I have seen it with my own eyes, David! And so could you with any telescope you can afford.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The videos are lies, not NASA. I have seen both a gibbous and crescent Venus with my own eyes as have countless millions of people all over the world and throughout the history of astronomy beginning with Galileo.

How much weight do you ascribe to first person witness testimony? I have seen it with my own eyes, David! And so could you with any telescope you can afford.

Then post your pictures, I'd love to see them.

--Dave

 

[Clete]

Then post your pictures, I'd love to see them.

--Dave

No pics. You'll just have to take my word for it or else go to Craig's List and buy a cheap telescope and look for yourself.

This is what it looks like though (only a lot smaller and less clear - the image in the link is taken with a much higher quality telescope)...

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/venus-telescope.htm

I cannot comprehend how anyone can believe that the website linked to above is there to contribute to the globe earth conspiracy and that all the information given on that page is just there as grains of salt and spice to add the flavor of truth and beleivability to the lie. I've actually seen flat-earthers make such utterly insane claims.

Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

No pics. You'll just have to take my word for it or else go to Craig's List and buy a cheap telescope and look for yourself.

This is what it looks like though (only a lot smaller and less clear - the image in the link is taken with a much higher quality telescope)...

http://www.nakedeyeplanets.com/venus-telescope.htm

I cannot comprehend how anyone can believe that the website linked to above is there to contribute to the globe earth conspiracy and that all the information given on that page is just there as grains of salt and spice to add the flavor of truth and beleivability to the lie. I've actually seen flat-earthers make such utterly insane claims.

Clete

I saw the link and it was informative. I certainly will compare it with all the other sites I can find, thanks.

Something I don't think you appreciate is that I studied Calvinism in order to reject it in favor of the free will of man. I studied the whole history of the nature of God which included Greek philosophy before I rejected the classic model for a free will open future theism/of God. I studied atheism and pantheism religions before I rejected both and also the pan-en-theism that is a synthesis of pantheism and monotheism which is the foundation of classical theism and Hinduism. For the past three years, much of which I was absent from theology on line, I have been studying cosmologies, all of them.

I studied evolution for the same reason. For me, all comments and arguments, other than those that show a violation of the laws of rational thought, are meaningless and show a weakness of understanding or reliability of the their position.

I consider all those who oppose my views to be wrong not insane. To say they are insane is more dangerous than the views they hold. You said insane views, that's pretty close, please don't cross the line. Make your case, if it's reality then it will prevail.

--Dave