Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "JRE Clips" channel.

  1. Come now, don't confuse them by using common sense :-)
    86
  2. Because you believe the Earth is flat? :-|
    29
  3. Oh, you mean the magical fish eye lens that only happen at very high altitudes but somehow don't seem to work closer to the ground? No, tell me more about them please :-)
    28
  4. Nope, there isn't a single person who has gone up to such altitudes where the daytime sky looks like night and said they couldn't see any curvature of the earth. Hence the curvature seen is a fact :)
    18
  5. What happened over the past couple of years that made you question the Earth is a globe?
    13
  6. Nope :)
    12
  7. Sarcasm noted and appreciated :-D
    11
  8. It's actually relaltively easy to prove the Earth is a globe. It doesn't require science :-)
    10
  9. So you disagree with him saying the Earth is a globe?
    8
  10.  @brittanimel3270  - We are all entitled to our own opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts.
    8
  11. And your ignorance only discredits your own arguments. 1) Men went to the moon 9 TIMES, yes NINE times from 1968 to 1972, landing on the moon during SIX of those missions. So the fact you think it just happened only once says it all. 2) Nonsense, and define many please, i.e. how many compared to the VAST number of proven pilots out there? Don't refer to flat Earth believers claiming to be pilots, please give examples of those who are PROVEN to be pilots (eg. filmed videos from the cockpit of their aircraft during a flight). 3) Who told you the Van Allen belts exist? Who is your trusted source for that information? And how can the Van Allen belts IN SPACE even exist if according to flat Earth believers space itself is a hoax? If you believe the Van Allen belts exist, then you are also saying space exists. So make up your mind please :-) And many more.
    7
  12. That's how all conspiracy theories work. It's not about whether it's true or not, it's about who it can convince :-)
    7
  13.  @broussardtyson  - Our senses are far from perfect, which is why optical illusions exist, where you cannot stop seeing the illusion even when you know what your eyes are telling you is wrong. Anyway, in my next two replies, please tell me what your "senses" tell you and explain why....
    7
  14. Nope :-)
    7
  15. Why doesn't Eric Dubay debate scientists on science shows instead of restricting his appearances to the safety of conspiracy channels and conspiracy shows?
    7
  16. You think space is fake and the Earth is flat? :-|
    6
  17.  @rubberspoon  - So can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? A brief summary in your own words would suffice. I ask because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. firmament dome or no firmament dome? Edge of a flat Earth (finite plane) or no edge (infinite plane)? More land and seas beyond the ice wall? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun and moon or flat sun and moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon during eclipses? etc. Once you say which flat Earth you mean, then your comments here will be in context of your flat Earth.
    6
  18.  @rubberspoon  - The Bible does not explicitly state the shape of the Earth, therefore if you think the Earth is flat then it has nothing to do with the Bible. Btw, there are numerous versions of the Bible, so which is the version you read please, i.e. which is your trusted Biblical source?
    6
  19. So you believe the Earth is flat? Or you question the fact that the Earth is a globe?
    6
  20.  @michaeljamesreed9054  - So you are yet another flat Earth believer who refuses to state the version of a flat Earth you believe for some reason. Why is that when it should be really easy for you? :-| Here's a fact that ANY mathematician could tell you, "8 inches per mile squared" is the equation for a PARABOLA, not a circle! So clearly mathematics was never your strong point. The equation "8 inches per mile squared" was highlighted by flat earth theorists who are clueless about mathematics, such as the 1865 flat Earth book "Zetetic Astronomy" by Samuel Birley Rowbotham ( a book that I own btw ); Quote "If the Earth is a globe, and 25,000 miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity-every part must be an area of a circle, curvating from the summit at the rate of 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. That this may be sufficiently understood, the following quotation is given from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, art. "Levelling." "If a line which crosses the plumb-line at right angles be continued for any considerable length it will rise above the Earth's surface (the Earth being globular) ; and this rising will be as the square of the distance to which the said right line is produced ; that is to say, it is raised eight inches very nearly above the Earth's surface at one mile's distance ; four times as much, or 32 inches, at the distance of two miles ; nine times as much, or 72 inches, at the distance of three miles. This is owing to the globular figure of the Earth, and this rising is the difference between the true and apparent levels ; the curve of the Earth being the true level, and the tangent to it the apparent level. So soon does the difference between the true and apparent levels become perceptible that it is necessary to make an allowance for it if the distance betwixt the two stations exceeds two chains." In other words, for his 1865 book Samuel got "8 inches per miles squared" from the section within the Encyclopaedia Britannica about LEVELING, which is a branch of SURVEYING and hence was a useful 'rule of thumb' tool for surveying way back in the 19th century. It was NEVER used by scientists or mathematicians to represent the shape of the earth back then and neither is it used to represent the shape of the earth today!
    6
  21. ​ @michaeljamesreed9054  - So "8 inches per mile squared" was a rule of thumb calculation which can be done in our heads and hence was good enough for distances visible to the naked eye, but it's NOT the equation for a circle and therefore breaks down with distance, hence never used by science. So lets see mathematics based upon a CIRCLE instead of a PARABOLA. Take the following Earth curvature calculator as an example (which takes altitude into account); dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc Read the following page for the mathematics behind that curvature calculator; github.com/dizzib/earthcalc So facts do matter, regardless of your beliefs.
    6
  22.  @michaeljamesreed9054  - So I've answer your question fully and in detail, with sources for both sides and I even explained the origin of "8 inches per mile squared". Therefore please answer my request, which was and I quote "...state [the] version of a flat Earth you believe. Because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. dome or no dome? Edge or no edge (i.e. finite plane or infinite plane)? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun/moon or flat sun/moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon? etc."
    6
  23.  @arthurwang2875  - Ok, but to believe space is fake also requires believing that all satellites are fake, despite millions of people around the world using satellite dishes pointed at geostationary satellites to watch a huge number of TV channels :-)
    6
  24. Really? So why doesn't the same effect occur at low altitudes? :-) Or do you think they change the windows on their way up? :-)
    5
  25.  @rubberspoon  - I assumed I was speaking to an adult who could clarify what he/she is saying so that I would know I'm not jumping to the wrong conclusions. That's all.
    5
  26.  @rubberspoon  - I'm not twisting your words, you are merely hiding behind vagueness and denial, a cowardice trait. So don't hide behind "I believe in what the Bible states" without actually explaining what the 'Bible states' on a topic video and comments talking about space being fake and the Earth being flat. Show you have the backbone to be specific about space and the shape of the Earth.
    5
  27.  @rubberspoon  - May I remind you of what you said before, and I quote; "I believe in what the Bible states." And yet for some strange reason you still cannot explain exactly what the Bible states with respect to your belief on space and the shape of the Earth. That alone is a red flag :-| Likewise, if you doubt the Earth is a globe then you're not the Christian you think you are :-|
    5
  28.  @rubberspoon  - Christian churches have never said the Earth is flat, they have only ever said the Earth is a globe, albeit a stationary globe for most of Christian history. So it's not anyone's place to suggest Christianity says the Earth is any other shape than a globe, and it's not anyone's place to suggest Christian churches are wrong about the Bibles they produced for the world to read. Anyway, you take care too. All the best :-)
    5
  29. Everything and everyone means everything and everyone, and therefore it is meaningless if certain people only question ONE side of an argument but never the other. Hence show me a conspiracy believer who directly questions the very same conspiracy theorists that he/she listens to :-)
    5
  30. Flat Earth has zero facts, but before going any further, please state which version of a flat Earth you believe, because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. dome or no dome? Edge or no edge (i.e. finite plane or infinite plane)? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun/moon or flat sun/moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon? etc. Thanks in advance :-)
    5
  31. Now look up Antarctic Domes, in particular look up Dome Argus (Dome A) in Antarctica. Has the penny dropped yet? :-)
    5
  32.  @Kreid5  - He's only done what countless conspiracy believers have done, which is to swap one authority for another (eg conspiracy theorists), hence your comment here is amusing :-)
    5
  33.  @yeysk828shgdy37  - It has everything to do with ZERO examples of Eric engaging in such debates. Hence people like you sadden me, because you swallow EVERYTHING that charlatans like Eric Dubay tells you without question, despite the fact that you, yes YOU, could debunk some of Eric's "200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball" yourself, even if you still believe the other proofs listed are valid. Why can't just ONE flat Earth believer do that, or even attempt it?
    5
  34. Because you're a flat Earth believer, right? :-)
    5
  35. Stars don't show up under those conditions. Any good photographer and cameraman would tell you that. It's not magic :-)
    5
  36. Nah, he should contact Eric Tokyo instead.
    5
  37. So you believe Eric Dubay? :-|
    5
  38. Which has ALL been debunked my friend, because the Earth is not flat :-) Please visit the 'ABOUT' tab on my channel and read my proof of the shape of the Earth. See if you can be the first to find a flaw.
    5
  39. It's a globe joe :-)
    5
  40. Hi my friend. The problem is when you look into those claims carefully you'll find they make the same mistakes over and over: 1) They often don't take altitude into consideration. Hence they use an equation for curvature over a given distance not realizing that's for sea level ONLY. Stand up so your eye level is 5 ft above sea level and the results would change. Same for 10 ft, 50 ft, 100 meters etc. That is, the higher up you go then the further away the horizon is and hence the further you can see. 2) They sometimes fail to account for the height of the object, where if it was a mountain for example, then yes the base may not be visible but the top several hundred feet may be above the horizon. They also fail to note that if the Earth was flat then in general we should be seeing the entire object, the bottom part of the object should not be below the horizon. 3) They sometimes refer to observations on rare days when atmospheric refraction bends the light enough to bring a distant object into view, failing to mention that it's rare to see that object from that location (i.e. it only happens under unusual conditions). Hence have a look at some of those flat Earth distance claims again and see they make one or two of the errors I've listed above. I hope that helps :-)
    5
  41. Get a ball 200 mm in diameter. Now press down upon it to flatten it by a mere 0.5 mm. You now have an oblate spheroid similar in shape to the Earth :-)
    5
  42. But surely you know the Earth is a globe, right? :-|
    5
  43.  @zReNAgAdE504  - Ah yes, the classic "you're been paid" troll attack used by those who can't support the beliefs they hold. After all, you are a flat Earth believer, right? :-)
    5
  44.  @zReNAgAdE504  - Then take me to court. Go ahead and sue me :-) Or.... you can grow up and challenge my arguments with logic and evidence?
    5
  45. Except Neil has published numerous scientific papers, and he's an astrophysicist, hence that's his field of expertise, therefore your attack is rather misplaced. That said, I think this is more a case of Neil trying to make a 'clever' point based upon the following; (External links are blocked, so change DOT and SLASH as required) tinyDOTccSLASH6ywouz tinyDOTccSLASH8ywouz But he got his details wrong :-)
    5
  46. Nice projection, but isn't this really about you believing the Earth is flat? :-)
    4
  47. What's so special about flat Earth theorists over other conspiracy theorists that Neil should make them an exception? Besides, show me just ONE debate among flat Earth theorists to decide the details of their claimed flat Earth! My point is, some flat Earth theorists day there's a dome, some say there isn't a dome and some say they don't know. Some flat Earth theorists says the Earth ends at the wall of ice, some say land/seas continue beyond the wall of ice to a certain distance, some say it's infinite. Some flat Earth theorists say gravity doesn't exist, some say it does (eg. flat Earth accelerating upwards). And so on. Therefore if flat Earth theorists NEVER debate each other to decide upon a definitive model of their flat Earth, then why should any scientist debate flat Earth theorists about the flat Earth that they can't decide upon themselves? :-)
    4
  48. Except Neil didn't say the Earth is literally pear shaped. Hence look up the meaning of "simile" please :-)
    4
  49.  @timlaudeman6790  - Proving you don't even know the meaning of the word 'troll', which is amusing since trolling is exactly what you're doing here in this thread, where you've made zero attempt to engage in any of the points raised (i.e. Eric Dubay), you only came here to throws insults, in a thread that is 9 MONTHS old. Classic :-D
    4
  50.  @coryleblanc  - Again, don't tell me want you don't believe, tell me what you DO believe please. If you cannot describe what you actually believe, then you are in no position to tell others that they're wrong, and therefore your comments here are effectively null and void :-|
    4