The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[Nathon Detroit]

The hits just keep on coming.

According to flat earth people the sun in the middle of the night is only a few hundred miles (at most) further from us than it is from us at sunset (let that fact sink in). Yet for some reason we cannot see the sun (even though they claim it's 3000 miles above the surface of the earth). Not only cannot we not see the sun in the middle of the night we cannot even see it's glow or any light from it at all! Yet at sunset when it's almost the same distance from us we can see the sun's light and actually see the surface of the sun itself! (See attachment)

Dave... I really want to thank you for the videos you have shared. They are a treasure.

Dave do you honestly believe that we wouldn't be able to see the sun's light in the middle of the night even though according to you it's only slightly farther away than it is at sunset?

Note the pink line in the attachment. It is the exact same length in both figures.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So, why not go to the South Pole?
Would that help?

Great question. That would totally clear things up wouldn't it? Just go see it for yourself. And heck... it's easy to do. There are a tons of ways to fly over or tour the south pole.

And while we are on that topic... based on Flat Earth maps the South Pole is by far the largest continent in the world. Heck it DRAWRFS every other continents land mass. Forget about Asia being the world's largest continent, Antarctica is absolutely MASSIVE!! (according to flat earthers that is)

Check it out....

 

[The Berean]

It's not easy to say the king has no cloths on, I want the naked truth.

If the Russians can rig a US election faking a moon landing would be a walk in the park.

--Dave

Except the Russians did not rig the US election and faking the Moon landing IN 1969, given the state of video technology at that time, would have been impossible. The technology simply did not exist. So your statement of it being "a walk in the park" is incorrect.

 

[The Berean]

I'm not committed/married to any theory at this time. My life on earth and my home in heaven does not depend on my cosmological preference, and neither does your's. All three views, heliocentric, geocentric, flat earth, will be represented when we get there and then we all will know for sure which view was correct.

I suspect there will be some Calvinists there to despite my objections.

I want both views to be presented and let everyone decide for themselves what they want to believe even if they don't want to make a decision at this time, or at any time.

I also carry three views on the rapture in my head just so I'm ready for what ever one is correct when we get to that point, if I live long enough to see it, or haven't already missed it.

--Dave

Your analogy to theology doesn't work. It doesn't work because a topic like Christian theology is an abstract philosophical concept based on people interpreting the Bible. But even then there is objective reality. I'll use a controversial subject within Christianity: speaking in tongues. Some Christians believe that the gift of speaking in tongues no longer operates today, that it ended with the closing of the Biblical canon. Other Christians believe that the gift of speaking in tongues does still operate today. One group has it wrong. Either Christians can still speak in tongues today or they cannot.

Whether the Earth is a spheroid mass or not is part of the physical world, something that can be studied directly. It comes down to this: do you believe your own pyhysical senses, the very senses the God gave to us all? If you do then you can study the Earth directly through observation. I'll ask this question again with a different twist. If you were able to go into low earth orbit and see the curvature of the Earth with you own eyes would you then believe the Earth is NOT flat? It's a simple yes" or "no" question, Dave.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Except the Russians did not rig the US election and faking the Moon landing IN 1969, given the state of video technology at that time, would have been impossible. The technology simply did not exist. So your statement of it being "a walk in the park" is incorrect.

Excellent video.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[chair]

... All three views, heliocentric, geocentric, flat earth, will be represented when we get there and then we all will know for sure which view was correct.

This may surprise you Dave, but I don't think anybody here is going to base their understanding of the world on your decision.

 

[DFT_Dave]

So, why not go to the South Pole?
Would that help?

The government won't let any one go there.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

What you have stated is correct.

According to Dave's video evidence the sun illuminates the surface of the earth like this...

Obviously this is not true.

The illustration is not to scale, it gives us the concept, that's all. It's a fallacy argument to make your case based on a illustration and not the actual way we see this, which is what the time laps videos do.

You have to judge the time laps video to make your argument. Your point may still be correct but the evidence from an illustration, not to scale, does not help your case.

--Dave

 

[chair]

The government won't let any one go there.

--Dave

Ah. That would explain these:

http://www.icetrek.com/join-a-trip/south-pole-and-antarctica

http://wikitravel.org/en/South_Pole

https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-2017

 

[CabinetMaker]

The illustration is not to scale, it gives us the concept, that's all. It's a fallacy argument to make your case based on a illustration and not the actual way we see this, which is what the time laps videos do.

You have to judge the time laps video to make your argument. Your point may still be correct but the evidence from an illustration, not to scale, does not help your case.

--Dave

The illustration greatly helps the case for a globe because it shows the terminator as circular. The terminator is a straight line as seen from this picture taken from extreme altitude.

 

[User Name]

The illustration is not to scale, it gives us the concept, that's all.

All you have is a concept, Dave. You have no scale at all...no calculations upon which to base predictions for eclipses or other solar phenomena...In other words, you have nothing but a bare assertion.

By contrast, with the globe-earth heliocentric model astronomers can explain the motions for all such events and predict, to the exact minute, when they will happen. Therefore all reasonable people have accepted this model.

 

[User Name]

No, Even on a globe an orbit is a circle just as on a flat earth, it's a very very big circle.

--Dave

P.S. But yes it is a big problem for flat earth.

Yes and no? So the issue Knight raised is both "a big problem for flat earth" and no problem at all?

I see what you did there.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Except the Russians did not rig the US election and faking the Moon landing IN 1969, given the state of video technology at that time, would have been impossible. The technology simply did not exist. So your statement of it being "a walk in the park" is incorrect.

I was joking about the Russians.

First Moon Landing 1969

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

2001 Space Odyssey 1968

When you see the film 2001 Space Odyssey made in 1968 it's very clear that the technology in film making was more than adequate to fake the moon landing.

--Dave

 

[User Name]

But yes it is a big problem for flat earth.

Why is it "a big problem for flat earth" Dave?

 

[DFT_Dave]

The illustration greatly helps the case for a globe because it shows the terminator as circular. The terminator is a straight line as seen from this picture taken from extreme altitude.

View attachment 25463View attachment 25464View attachment 25465

2001 Space Odyssey-1968

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

All you have is a concept, Dave. You have no scale at all...no calculations upon which to base predictions for eclipses or other solar phenomena...In other words, you have nothing but a bare assertion.

By contrast, with the globe-earth heliocentric model astronomers can explain the motions for all such events and predict, to the exact minute, when they will happen. Therefore all reasonable people have accepted this model.

The flat earth ancient world accounted for all events as well.

--Dave

 

[User Name]

The flat earth ancient world accounted for all events as well.

Did ancient peoples really predict solar eclipses?

Quote: "Only after the lunar orbit was observationally determined, and the changing speed of the Moon and the Earth in their orbits, were established, could total solar eclipses be reliably forecast to within the nearest month or less. This level of astronomical sophistication was apparently reached by ancient Greek astronomers around the first century BC, and several centuries later by Chinese astronomers based on surviving records."

The "lunar orbit" is not 3,000 miles above the equator of a flat earth.

Also, ancient peoples had no explanations for the retrograde motion of planets, analemma, etc.

 

[CabinetMaker]

2001 Space Odyssey 1968

When you see the film 2001 Space Odyssey made in 1968 it's very clear that the technology in film making was more than adequate to fake the moon landing.

--Dave

Yet the first moon landing did not look anywhere nearly as sophisticated and polished as the movie. Why?

 

[CabinetMaker]

View attachment 25463View attachment 25464View attachment 25465

2001 Space Odyssey-1968

--Dave

Why are artists renderings of space to be considered eqaul with photos taken from satellites orbiting the Earth?