The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

Status
Not open for further replies.
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
Knight said:
Dave I have two questions that I have very patiently awaited a direct answer to. Could you be so kind as to respond to these?

QUESTION 1: Last weekend I was up in Northern Colorado and I looked due east as the moon came up over the horizon. It was HUGE!! I mean... the moon looked MASSIVE as it crept up over the horizon. In fact it looked bigger when it came over the horizon than it looked when it was directly overhead.

Dave, why wasn't the moon really tiny as it came up over the horizon like you claim it should be? Why was the moon just as big as it came over the horizon as it is when it's directly overhead??

QUESTION 2:


In the video you have linked to the narrator states.... "The sun obviously and clearly sets into the clouds."

Also you yourself titled the post... "Sun Sets IN the Clouds" therefore insinuating the sun is setting into the clouds.

So what is happening here?

Is the sun dropping in altitude through the clouds? (i.e., setting)

Or are you asserting the clouds are rising up over the sun?

It has to be one or the other.
Click to expand...

Also, how does the heat of the sun lamp not evaporate the clouds it's diving down into?
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Derf said:
Cool video, JR. But what is the application in this thread?
Click to expand...
Basic physics, how the rotation of an object can affect its trajectory, overcoming its original trajectory determined by gravity, which flat-earth proponents reject.
 
Derf

Derf

Well-known member
JudgeRightly said:
Basic physics, how the rotation of an object can affect its trajectory, overcoming its original trajectory determined by gravity, which flat-earth proponents reject.
Click to expand...

But if FE'ers reject gravity, giving them an example of other forces altering the effects of gravity would have the appearance, at least to them, of bolstering their contention against gravity. On the other hand, if you were trying to explain why something they brought up to argue against gravity doesn't negate gravity, the video makes sense.

Did someone on this thread suggest that a spinning object taking a different-from-normal trajectory refutes gravity? I missed it, if they did, and wouldn't mind getting to read the post, if you can point me to it.

Thanks.
 
User Name

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
A perfectly-timed photo of the space station and the moon puts human achievements in perspective:

_97151235_issdaylighttransitdanicaxete.jpg
 
Last edited:
Clete

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
User Name said:
A perfectly-timed photo of the space station and the moon puts human achievements in perspective:

_97151235_issdaylighttransitdanicaxete.jpg
Click to expand...

You cannot imagine how difficult a shot this was to get! It's flat out crazy amazing! If the guy who took the photo was just a few miles away from where he was, the photo would have been impossible and the space station would have moved across the face of the moon in only a few seconds. Not only that, but the photo of the Moon itself is just excellent, which doesn't happen by accident either. This guy spent a lot of time preparing and planning this shot. It's gonna make it onto someone's top 10 astonomy photos of the year list.
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
Came across this interesting tidbit. Good thing a flat earther was not in charge of building the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.


Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8 inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases; they are not parallel to each other.



:think:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top