Comments by "Randy Schissler" (@randyschissler5791) on "Why People Think the World is Flat" video.

  1. 8
  2. 7
  3. 6
  4. 6
  5. 6
  6. 6
  7. 6
  8. 6
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 5
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 5
  16. 5
  17. 5
  18. 5
  19. 5
  20. 5
  21. 5
  22. 5
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 4
  35. 4
  36. 4
  37. 4
  38. 4
  39. 4
  40. 4
  41. 4
  42. 4
  43. 4
  44. 4
  45. 4
  46. 4
  47. 4
  48. 4
  49. 4
  50. 4
  51. 4
  52. 4
  53. 4
  54. 4
  55. 4
  56. 4
  57. 4
  58. 3
  59. 3
  60. 3
  61. 3
  62. 3
  63. 3
  64. 3
  65. 3
  66. 3
  67. 3
  68. 3
  69. 3
  70. 3
  71. 3
  72. 3
  73. 3
  74. 3
  75. 3
  76. 3
  77. 3
  78. 3
  79. 3
  80. 3
  81. 3
  82. 3
  83. 3
  84. 3
  85. 3
  86. 3
  87. 3
  88. 3
  89. 3
  90. 3
  91. 3
  92. 3
  93. 3
  94. 3
  95. 3
  96. 3
  97. 3
  98. 3
  99. 3
  100. 3
  101. 3
  102. 3
  103. 3
  104. 3
  105. 3
  106. 3
  107. 3
  108. 3
  109. 3
  110. 3
  111. 3
  112. 3
  113. 3
  114. 3
  115. 3
  116. 3
  117. 3
  118. 3
  119. 3
  120. 3
  121. 3
  122. 3
  123. 3
  124. 3
  125. 3
  126. 3
  127. 3
  128. 3
  129. 3
  130. 3
  131. 3
  132. 3
  133. 3
  134. 3
  135. 3
  136. 3
  137. 3
  138. 3
  139. 3
  140. 3
  141. 3
  142. 3
  143. 3
  144. 3
  145. 3
  146. 3
  147. 3
  148. 3
  149. 3
  150. 3
  151. 3
  152. 3
  153. 3
  154. 3
  155. 3
  156. 3
  157. 3
  158. 3
  159. 3
  160. 3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 2
  165. 2
  166. 2
  167. 2
  168. 2
  169. 2
  170. 2
  171. 2
  172. 2
  173. 2
  174. 2
  175. 2
  176. 2
  177. 2
  178. 2
  179. 2
  180. 2
  181. 2
  182. 2
  183. 2
  184. 2
  185. 2
  186. 2
  187. 2
  188. 2
  189. 2
  190. 2
  191. 2
  192. 2
  193. 2
  194. 2
  195. 2
  196. 2
  197. 2
  198. 2
  199. 2
  200. 2
  201. 2
  202. 2
  203. 2
  204. 2
  205. 2
  206. 2
  207. 2
  208. 2
  209. 2
  210. 2
  211. 2
  212. 2
  213. 2
  214. 2
  215. 2
  216. 2
  217. 2
  218. 2
  219. 2
  220. 2
  221. 2
  222. 2
  223. 2
  224. 2
  225. 2
  226. 2
  227. 2
  228. 2
  229. 2
  230. 2
  231. 2
  232. 2
  233. 2
  234. 2
  235. 2
  236. 2
  237. 2
  238. 2
  239. 2
  240. 2
  241. 2
  242.  @nimblejack  Did you not see my post above? Here, I'll repeat it. Because you have no idea what a flight model is. NASA Reference Publication 1207: Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model, is a prime example of how flat earthers like yourself, cherry pick a couple words to try and say that NASA and the military state that the earth is flat and motionless. This document and others like it, don't say that at all. 1207 is a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation model written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more efficiently, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect on the model. Such as the curvature and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, because they are insignificant to the model. Notice how the document also states that the equations that have been derived based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass.” Which doesn't happen in reality either, as aircraft have flaps and ailerons, and burn fuel while they fly thus changing mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that has no flaps to change position, burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
    2
  243. 2
  244. 2
  245. 2
  246. 2
  247. 2
  248. 2
  249. 2
  250. 2
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 2
  310. 2
  311. 2
  312. 2
  313. 2
  314. 2
  315. 2
  316. 2
  317. 2
  318. 2
  319. 2
  320. 2
  321. 2
  322. 2
  323. 2
  324.  @super_ficial  "On a spinning globe the transition from day to night would be instantaneous." Ridiculous. You talk about spinning, when the earth only makes one measly rotation in a 24 hour period. Also, you talk about the sunlight becoming smaller, when you should be talking about the sun becoming smaller. On flat earth, with the sun itself moving away from you, it would have to get smaller, but it doesn't in reality. Observe the sun, throughout the course of a day, preferably over an open ocean. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it gradually slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat. On the usual flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle above the earth, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, thus, the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun.
    2
  325. 2
  326. 2
  327. 2
  328. 2
  329. 2
  330. 2
  331. 2
  332. 2
  333. 2
  334. 2
  335. 2
  336. 2
  337. 2
  338. 2
  339. 2
  340. 2
  341. 2
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. "Why are there NASA documents in which they're doing tests on a flat and motionless plane?" You think Reference Publication 1207 is saying that the earth is flat and non rotating, when it doesn't say that at all. It’s a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more quickly, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect. Such as the curve and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, so that everyone was on the same page. The equations that have been derived in the report are based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass,” which doesn't happen in reality, as aircraft burn fuel while they fly and change mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations in the report are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth. "Why'd Buzz Aldrin say they never went to the moon? " He never said that. Notice the question Zoey asks: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?" Long time means from the last time since going to the moon. Buzz answers appropriately, "We didn't go there" during the long time since the last time going to the moon. Please pay close attention to what he said immediately after, as it's very telling as to why no one has gone back to the moon since the last time going to the moon. It's not that hard to understand. Also, if you watch the first part of the interview he talks about going to the moon. And at the end of the interview, he talks about going to the moon.
    1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454.  @sandmanbeaches565  As usual, Bart Sibrel lied! Why haven't you figured out yet that Sibrel is a lying con? Sibrel’s shortened version of the video is recut out of sequence: the unedited footage simply shows the astronauts preparing for TV transmissions and testing the camera settings. This is evident by listening to their communications in full, as available in the Apollo Flight Journal (Day 1, part 4: Navigation and Housekeeping and Day 2, part 2: TV Transmission), instead of taking selected quotes out of context. These communications report that the pictures show the eastern Pacific Ocean, the west coast of North America and the southern coast of South America (north is down and to the left). Moreover, the camera trick alleged by Sibrel wouldn’t have worked even if the astronauts had tried it. If the Apollo spacecraft had been in low orbit around the Earth, with its TV camera peeking through a circular mask at a small portion of the planet below, the footage would have shown ever-changing clouds and parts of the planet rolling by as the spacecraft rapidly circled the globe. The uncut, less grainy version of the video presented by Sibrel instead shows exactly the same unchanging cloud patterns for as much as fifteen minutes. In order to provide 1969 TV viewers back on earth with the best possible view of earth from space, it was necessary to eliminate the glaring reflected light and direct sunlight that was streaming into the spacecraft and interfering with the shot. The official Apollo 11 mission documentation from 1969 contains astronaut Michael Collins' own discussion of these lighting problems and the difficulties he experienced with the window shades in the Apollo spacecraft. Unfortunately for Bart Sibrel, he is obviously unaware of astronaut Mike Collins documented statements, or just lied as he does. The astronauts shuttered most of the capsule windows with special shades that blocked most of the glaring direct and reflected sunlight coming off of the bright, shiny Lunar Module which was docked in close proximity to the location of the windows. What one actually witnesses in the video are not cutouts or templates passing between the earth and the TV camera, it is the communications headset wiring, arms and body of astronaut Michael Collins as he reaches over to remove the shade blocking one of the spacecraft windows. As soon as the shade is removed, the video shows the cabin immediately illuminating with glaring reflected sunlight. We also see that Collins is the one opening the window shade and that another member of the crew is obviously handling the camera from the vicinity of the foot area of the crew couches. Sibrel expressed the impression that the hand-held Westinghouse TV camera was hard-mounted to the face of the cabin window, which was totally false.
    1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. "Do you know all flight models for all air forces are based on a flat stationary earth." Because you have no idea what a flight model is. NASA Reference Publication 1207: Derivation and Definition of a Linear Aircraft Model, is a prime example of how flat earthers like yourself, cherry pick a couple words to try and say that NASA and the military state that the earth is flat and motionless. This document and others like it, don't say that at all. 1207 is a reference document for a computer aircraft flight simulation model written in 1988. In order for the computer to crunch the numbers more efficiently, they left out all factors which had a negligible effect on the model. Such as the curvature and rotation of the earth. If the earth was in fact flat and non-rotating, they wouldn’t have had to make note of this. But it is in fact spherical and rotating, so they included the fact that the computer program did not take these factors into account, because they are insignificant to the model. Notice how the document also states that the equations that have been derived based on the assumption of a “rigid aircraft of constant mass.” Which doesn't happen in reality either, as aircraft have flaps and ailerons, and burn fuel while they fly thus changing mass. Just like “flying in a stationary atmosphere,” which doesn’t happen in reality, as there is always wind. So, the equations are based on the assumption of an ideal craft that has no flaps to change position, burns no fuel, flying in air that has no wind, over a non-rotating flat earth.
    1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603.  @jaydawg7200  Because all you have to do, to prove the earth a globe, is observe the sun, throughout the course of a day, preferably over an open ocean. Notice how it maintains the same size throughout the day, whether it be sunrise, mid day overhead, or sunset, when it rather abruptly slides down below the horizon. Even at that point of sunset, still keeping the same size as it was earlier in the day. That alone, proves the earth a rotating globe, and not flat. On the usual flat earth model of the sun going around in a circle above the earth, the sun would have to start out as a tiny little dot since it would be very far away, gradually getting larger and larger as it came closer to you, until its largest size of the day at mid day. Then, it would have to get smaller and smaller as it moved away from you, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light at sunset. Yet, that doesn't happen with the sun we see in reality. The sun in reality, doesn't get smaller and smaller. Doesn't get so small, until just a tiny little pinpoint of light, as it moves away from you. Instead, in reality, it maintains the same size throughout the course of a day, thus, the earth is a rotating globe orbiting the sun. Also, the reasons why you don't feel anything is because one, the earth is hardly moving. One measly rotation in a 24 hour period. The hour hand of an analog clock moves twice as fast as the earth rotates. Try standing, and taking 24 hours to complete one revolution in the same spot. You won't feel a thing from the movement, and will likely fall asleep before the 24 hours are up. Also, second reason, the earth is rotating at a constant speed. You only feel acceleration not a constant speed. An airplane travels at 500mph constant cruising speed, but you won't feel it, only the speed change, ascension, descension, and air turbulence.
    1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1