Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Joe Rogan - Neil deGrasse Tyson on Eric Dubay u0026 Flat Earth" video.

  1. 8
  2. 7
  3. 7
  4. 7
  5.  @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
  6. 6
  7. 6
  8. 5
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11. 5
  12. 5
  13. 5
  14. 5
  15. 5
  16. 5
  17. 5
  18. 5
  19. 5
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  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. 4
  59. 4
  60. 4
  61. 4
  62. 4
  63. 4
  64. 4
  65. 4
  66. 4
  67. 4
  68. 4
  69. 4
  70. 4
  71. 4
  72. 4
  73. 4
  74. 4
  75. 4
  76. 4
  77. 4
  78. 4
  79. 4
  80. 4
  81. 4
  82. 4
  83. 4
  84. 4
  85. 4
  86. 4
  87. 4
  88. 4
  89. 4
  90. 4
  91. 4
  92. Complete nonsense from start to finish :-) For example you said "The united nations symbol is the flat earth map" Nope, it's a silhouette version of the Azimuthal Equidistant 2D projection map (or AE map), also known to FE believers as the Gleason map, which is just one of MANY 2D projection maps of the globe Earth. Flat Earth believers adopted than map because it happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside of the map and hence you claim that to be the wall of ice. That's the ONLY reason! However, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted as a 2D projection of a GLOBE Earth via the lines of latitude and longitude, but it completely falls apart when interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth (just look at Australia for example, which is twice as wide as it should be and shaped like a sausage :-)). To this day, despite over 150 years of flat Earth books, there is no ACCURATE map of a flat Earth in existence. Seriously, present a link to an accurate flat map of your flat Earth where all the countries are the correct shape, the correct size and where all the distances are correct. You said "We live under a firmament" Great, then state the height of your claimed firmament dome, because no flat Earth theorist in history has ever stated that figure despite claiming to know the size and the altitude of the sun and the moon :-) Eric Dubay is a charlatan where EVERY one of his 200 proofs have been debunked. Anyway, you believe in God but you're clearly not a Christian, so what are you exactly?
    4
  93. 4
  94. 4
  95. 4
  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. You are essentially lying, even if it's just to yourself, and hence you need to do your own research instead of just parroting what others have told you :-| Take eclipses for example... ...adding to MrSirhcsellor's excellent reply; The Saros cycle was created by people over generations who observed eclipses and found PATTERNS in how and when those eclipses repeated. By understanding those repeating patterns they were able to predict when certain types of eclipses would occur in future, to a good accuracy (a solar eclipse happens during a new moon, a lunar eclipse during a full moon of course)! However, the Saros cycle does NOT give us the accuracy almost to the second of when an eclipse will start and end, nor does it provide us with the EXACT path of a total solar eclipse across the earth's surface, making it possible for people to prepare years in advance to be exactly where they'd need to be to observe the eclipse. So the Saros cycle is not good enough for today's astronomy except for listing and categorizing eclipses. For the precise details of an eclipse, including the start time and the end time and the exact path across the earth's surface, we need to use mathematics based upon the globe model. Therefore please go ahead and present your evidence of a flat Earth model that predicts when an eclipse will start and end AND provides us with the EXACT path of a total solar eclipse across the earth's surface. Without that evidence, your argument is proven to be null and void, but nice try :-)
    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.  @SubMasters  - You also said "By the way where's all the telemetry data from NASA?" Where's it's always been, since nothing has been lost. Telemetry data was always printed out into documents so that the tapes could be reused (the whole point of magnetic tapes!). After each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the telemetry data was analyzed and presented as charts and graphs and tables . So here's the mission report for Apollo 11 (for example) published in November 1969. It even includes the astronaut's heart rate telemetry data as they descended to the moon's surface, their heart rate during their time on the moon and their heart rate when they left the moon's surface (hence proving none of the telemetry data was lost); www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionReport.pdf So if you want to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion, but why should that mean you MUST blindly believe ALL the hoax claims without question? And read this too; www.firstmenonthemoon.com/about.html Quote: "We have compiled hours of content available from public domain sources and various NASA websites. Thamtech staff and volunteers generously devoted their time to transcribe hours of speech to text. By using simultaneous space and land based audio and video, transcripts, images, spacecraft telemetry, and biomedical data — this synchronized presentation reveals the Moon Shot as experienced by the astronauts and flight controllers." Hence that's the same telemetry data that conspiracy theorists claim was lost. The point is, as I said before, once the telemetry data was printed out for a hard copy the magnetic tapes were reused. So we don't have all the tapes (just as we don't have all the tapes for most space missions of the 60s/70s), but we have all the telemetry data that were ON those tapes .
    3
  159. 3
  160. 3
  161. 3
  162. 3
  163. 3
  164. 3
  165. 3
  166. 3
  167. 3
  168. 3
  169. 3
  170. 3
  171. 3
  172. 3
  173. 3
  174. 3
  175. 3
  176. 3
  177. 3
  178. 3
  179. 3
  180. 3
  181. 3
  182.  @mikeysweetfolksfiv3ohthr332  - You said "Okay then why isn't his description of an Oblate Spheroid shown in NASA official(but CGI) photos of the Earth ....." Except it is my friend, but many flat Earth believers didn't listen to what Neil said but only to what they wanted to believe he said (btw, can you explain how you PERSONALLY determined if a photo of the Earth is real or CGI. Can you take me through YOUR methods please. You don't have to answer that, but please think about where that CGI claim comes from... ;-)). For example; Here's an example of where the pear shape reference came from; www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoCKapivHGM Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it". Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator" Interviewer: "A little chubbier" Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..." [Some audience laughter] Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..." [Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size] Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere." Therefore Neil did NOT say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere. Therefore the Earth will also look like a perfect sphere in photographs taken in space. The point is, if you want to believe the Earth is flat, then fine that's your right, but you effectively lose the argument when you distort what is actually being said by scientists and others about the Earth being a globe :-|
    3
  183. 3
  184. 3
  185. 3
  186. 3
  187. 3
  188. 3
  189. 3
  190. 3
  191. 3
  192. 3
  193. 3
  194. 3
  195. 3
  196. 3
  197. 3
  198. 3
  199. 3
  200. 3
  201. 3
  202. 3
  203. 3
  204.  @testaccount3891  - You said "you should be able to duplicate the gravitational properties of Earth on a small scale in a lab...how do you isolate gravity?" Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity: youtu.be/Ym6nlwvQZnE The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)). Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries. So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is - It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
    3
  205. 3
  206. 3
  207. 3
  208. 3
  209. 3
  210. 3
  211. 3
  212. 3
  213. 3
  214. 3
  215. 3
  216. 3
  217. 3
  218. 3
  219. 3
  220. 3
  221. 3
  222. 3
  223. 3
  224. 3
  225. 3
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. 3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. 3
  235. 3
  236. 3
  237. 3
  238. 3
  239. 3
  240. 3
  241. 3
  242. 3
  243. 3
  244. 3
  245. 3
  246. 3
  247. 3
  248. 3
  249. 3
  250. 3
  251. 3
  252. 3
  253. 3
  254. 3
  255. 3
  256. 3
  257. 3
  258. 3
  259. 3
  260. 3
  261. 3
  262. 3
  263. 3
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. 3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 3
  276. 3
  277. 3
  278. 3
  279. 3
  280. 3
  281. 3
  282. 3
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285. 3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289. 3
  290. 3
  291. 3
  292. 3
  293.  @hamptonsudduth621  - You said "HA! See a chained mind gets rattled and gets so angry! " Nice try, but you'll need to do better than that :-) You said "Atoms are scientific theory not fact." Which proves a) You don't know what a scientific theory is, and b) You didn't know that not only have individual atoms been photographed, but for decades atoms have been arranged on surfaces via scanning tunnelling microscopes to create shapes and even words with individual atoms. Hence that's an example of your ignorance of science, which led you to make that statement. You said "And I've been sick before so I can safely assume viruses do exist but not all of them." We are not talking about assumptions here, we are talking about facts. You only know about viruses because you accepted what you were told, not through research that you did yourself. You said "Or why Evey picture ever taken of earth is a rendition or computer generated image." A lie that you got from flat Earth theorists. Go ahead and tell me how YOU PERSONALLY proved that an image of the Earth was CGI. That's right, you never have. Go ahead and give me an example of a stated photograph (not an image) of the Earth that is actually CGI (and hence a lie), together with the evidence of that lie. Therefore you claiming others merely believe what they're told while you blindly parrot false claims told to you by flat Earth theorists (i.e. you believed what you were told) is the very definition of hypocrisy :-) You said "But if getting mad and thinking you are better and smarter then me..." Again nice try :-) But as I said, I can prove the Earth is a globe, therefore I find it interesting that not once have you shown any interest in the evidence of a globe Earth as mentioned :-)
    3
  294. 3
  295. 3
  296. 3
  297. 3
  298. 3
  299. 3
  300. 3
  301. 3
  302. 3
  303. 3
  304. 3
  305. 3
  306. 3
  307. 3
  308. 3
  309. 3
  310. 3
  311. 3
  312. 3
  313. 3
  314. 3
  315. 3
  316. 3
  317. 3
  318. 3
  319. 3
  320. 3
  321. 3
  322. 3
  323. 3
  324. 3
  325. 3
  326. 3
  327. 3
  328. 3
  329. 3
  330. 3
  331. 3
  332. 3
  333. 3
  334. 3
  335. 3
  336. 3
  337. 3
  338. 3
  339. 3
  340. 3
  341. 3
  342. 3
  343. 3
  344. 3
  345. 3
  346. 3
  347. 3
  348. 3
  349. 3
  350. 3
  351. 3
  352. 3
  353. 3
  354. 3
  355. 3
  356. 3
  357. 3
  358. 3
  359. 3
  360. 3
  361. 3
  362. 3
  363. 3
  364. 3
  365. 3
  366. 3
  367. 3
  368. 3
  369. 3
  370. 3
  371. 3
  372. 3
  373. 3
  374. 3
  375. 3
  376. 3
  377. 3
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400.  @brettwerner1413  - I am calm my friend, however I suggest you take your own advice :-) Anyway I'll address the rather pompous assumptions from you, where you said and I quote; "Obviously ur mind is not open to the idea of questioning your beliefs. That’s ashame. We should always strive to learn more and understand better. Do u know how the geocentric model even works? Maybe research what you believe in exactly all the way thru." Here's all the flat Earth books that I OWN and have READ; Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham 100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook) The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie So besides Eric Dubay's free eBook, if you own and have read any of the books above and therefore would like to discuss the contents of one of those books in detail, then go ahead and name the book and present your argument from that book please. I READ all those books (where most are very poorly written, hence it was a chore) because I wanted to get the information from the original sources, rather than secondhand from YT videos. My original goal was to see if I could find an accurate flat map of a flat Earth where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all distances measured on that map are accurate and to scale. No such map exists, hence further proving the Earth is not flat. Simply put: No accurate flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth. Therefore I've done my research and done so FULLY, going to the original sources behind today's flat Earth 'theories'. What have you done in comparison? :-) Anyway, are you finally ready for my evidence for a globe Earth?
    2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424. 2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. 2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. You said "the entirety of his "big Bang Theory and the expanding universe dominated by gravitational forces has been completely debunked! " No it hasn't :-) You said "I believe it was Tesla that called Einstein's equations whimsical as well as nonsense!" Because Tesla had his own ideas, including a belief that the universe was filled with a "gas" called the ether (or aether) rather than being a vacuum. So tell me, do YOU believe Tesla was right in this age of space travel in the vacuum of space? Tesla also believed he'd found cosmic rays from the sun that travelled FASTER than the speed of light (another false idea). So of course Tesla would object to ALL theories that conflicted with his own. Therefore just because you find someone who disagrees with certain key ideas in science, that doesn't make them right and the science wrong. You said "What would happen if gravity disappeared all at once? Would you die instantly? No you wouldn't. We survive (and so do bacteria and other microbial's)" Really? So what do you think is holding you to the surface of the Earth? What do you think is holding our ATMOSPHERE to the Earth? What do you think is holding our oceans to the Earth. What do you think is holding the moon in orbit around the Earth and holding the Earth in orbit around the sun? What do you think prevents the sun from exploding apart? So if gravity disappeared all at once, then sure we wouldn't die instantly, but death will follow quickly as our planet falls apart and our sun explodes (as will all the stars in the universe). How is that any less a disaster than electricity vanishing? But tell me, are you an Electric Universe believer? Because that's what I'm seeing in your claims here :-)
    2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. 2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. 2
  536. 2
  537. 2
  538. 2
  539. 2
  540. 2
  541. 2
  542. 2
  543. 2
  544. 2
  545. 2
  546. 2
  547. 2
  548. 2
  549. 2
  550. 2
  551. 2
  552. 2
  553. 2
  554. 2
  555. 2
  556. 2
  557. 2
  558. 2
  559. 2
  560. 2
  561. 2
  562. 2
  563. 2
  564. 2
  565. 2
  566. 2
  567. 2
  568. 2
  569. 2
  570. 2
  571. 2
  572. 2
  573. 2
  574. 2
  575. 2
  576. 2
  577. 2
  578. 2
  579. 2
  580. 2
  581. 2
  582. 2
  583. 2
  584. 2
  585. 2
  586. 2
  587. 2
  588. 2
  589. 2
  590. 2
  591. 2
  592. 2
  593. 2
  594. 2
  595. 2
  596. 2
  597. 2
  598. 2
  599. 2
  600. 2
  601. 2
  602. 2
  603. 2
  604. 2
  605. 2
  606. 2
  607. 2
  608.  @mikeysweetfolksfiv3ohthr332  - You said "Project Fishbowl US & Russia tried to Nuke through the dome..." To be honest, I don't really understand why so many flat Earth believer's bring up Operation Fishbowl, as I will explain. According to all the dome supporting flat Earth models promoted by flat Earth theorists, the firmament dome (with the stars) is depicted as being just above the sun and the moon. Flat Earth theorists over the last 150+ years claim the sun and moon are 3000 miles up, which means the dome must be over 3000 miles above most of the Earth, and certainly above 3000 miles where the rockets with the nuclear warheads were launched for Operation Fishbowl. So here's the problem: The highest Operation Fishbowl detonation was Starfish Prime at an altitude of 250 miles (the same altitude as the ISS that FE believers claim is impossible to REACH) and therefore how can 250 miles up have anything to do with a dome claimed to be above the sun and the moon and hence a dome higher than 3000 miles? How can a rocket reach an altitude of 250 miles to detonate its nuclear warhead when flat Earth believers claim that space (which officially starts 62 miles up) is not only impossible to reach but is a hoax and hence doesn't exist? After all, if you're saying rockets can reach the claimed firmament dome which is above the sun and the moon, then surely that means rockets CAN reach the sun and the moon. Right? ;-) Btw, Nicola Tesla said the Earth is a globe in a huge number of papers and articles published throughout his lifetime.
    2
  609. 2
  610. 2
  611. 2
  612. 2
  613. 2
  614. 2
  615. 2
  616. 2
  617. 2
  618. 2
  619. 2
  620. 2
  621. 2
  622. 2
  623. 2
  624. 2
  625. 2
  626. 2
  627. 2
  628. 2
  629. 2
  630. 2
  631. 2
  632. 2
  633. 2
  634. 2
  635. 2
  636. 2
  637. 2
  638. 2
  639. 2
  640. 2
  641. 2
  642. 2
  643. 2
  644. 2
  645. 2
  646. 2
  647. 2
  648. 2
  649. 2
  650. 2
  651. 2
  652. 2
  653. 2
  654. 2
  655. 2
  656. 2
  657. 2
  658. 2
  659. 2
  660. 2
  661. 2
  662. 2
  663. 2
  664. 2
  665. 2
  666. 2
  667. 2
  668. 2
  669. 2
  670. 2
  671. 2
  672. 2
  673. 2
  674. 2
  675. 2
  676. 2
  677. 2
  678. 2
  679. 2
  680. When using mathematics to model something in the real world, it is impossible to account for absolutely EVERYTHING, as it's often not needed, therefore assumptions are made depending on the accuracy needed, usually to simplify the calculations. Hence the simplification of the calculations is easy to spot in mathematics because they're almost always identified as "ASSUMPTIONS". For example at 8:20 in Rob's video it says and I quote "The two dimensional model for aircraft motion..." A two dimensional model . A 2D model! 2D! We live in a 3D world, hence right from the start that's a simplified model. that represents the world in TWO dimensions ONLY. So lets go through the list of assumptions; a) The earth is flat and non-rotating, since the Earth's surface being curved or straight or moving doesn't effect the accuracy aimed for in this 2D model. b) The acceleration of gravity is constant, which is not the case in the real world since it changes with altitude and density of the surface we're over, but the difference too small to matter in this 2D model. c) Air density is constant. Again, not the case in the real world where air density (hence pressure) decreases with altitude. d) The airframe is a rigid body. All aircraft bend and flex due to the forces upon them, but again this simplified 2D model assumes it doesn't. e) The aircraft is constrained to motion in the vertical plane, due to only 2 dimensions in the model, as oppose to the 3 dimensions of the real world. f) The aircraft has a symmetry plane (the x-z plane). Again due to 2 dimensions g) The mass of the aircraft is constant, but in the real world the mass of an aircraft reduces as the fuel is used up. So if YOU think that model is proof they're saying the Earth is flat, then that same model says the world is 2D, that gravity is constant everywhere, that air pressure is constant everywhere, that aircraft are rigid structures that don't bend, that aircraft never reduce in weight as fuel is burned, and so on. Therefore to single out assumptions in a 2D model that just so happens to fit your beliefs as if those assumptions are statements of fact is laughable :-|
    2
  681. 2
  682. 2
  683. 2
  684. 2
  685. 2
  686. 2
  687. 2
  688. 2
  689. 2
  690. 2
  691. 2
  692. 2
  693. 2
  694. 2
  695. 2
  696.  @Tj21415  - Thanks for being honest about your views, much appreciated. But it's important to realize that confusion comes from trusting the word of those who are not qualified in the areas they're talking about. Because such people make all kinds of claims (eg. the horizon is always at eye level, boats over the horizon can be brought back with zoom, space footage is fake with wires or filmed in water tanks, people thought the Earth was flat 500 years ago etc) with the primary purpose of convincing their audience. They don't care if their claims are true or not, they only care about people believing their claims, whatever those claims may be. After all, what are Eric Dubay's qualifications for example? What has he personally sent up to high altitudes to view the Earth? What journey's around the world has he gone on to see it for himself? Why doesn't he try to raise the cash to visit places like the South Pole that he claims to not exist, or to Antarctica that he claims we are kept away from? See my point? And here's how you know when conspiracy theorists are not being honest with you - They almost always set out create a single enemy for people to rage against, in this case NASA. Think about it, there are 72 (yes SEVENTY TWO) government space agencies around the world, there are many private space agencies/companies around the world, a great many satellite companies around the world, but who do flat Earth theorists focus on almost exclusively? That's right, they focus on NASA as if it's the only one! Can you not see the problem with their focus on NASA only, completely ignoring all the other space agencies? :-)
    2
  697. 2
  698. 2
  699. 2
  700. 2
  701. 2
  702. 2
  703. 2
  704. 2
  705. 2
  706. 2
  707.  @davidsandall  - You said "The total lack of proof that there is gravity..." Incorrect. Keep in mind the following definition of gravity please: The universal force of attraction acting between all matter So here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)). Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries. So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
    2
  708. 2
  709. 2
  710. 2
  711. 2
  712. 2
  713. 2
  714. 2
  715. 2
  716. 2
  717. 2
  718. 2
  719. 2
  720. 2
  721. 2
  722. 2
  723. 2
  724. 2
  725. 2
  726. 2
  727. 2
  728. 2
  729. 2
  730. 2
  731. 2
  732. 2
  733. 2
  734. 2
  735. 2
  736. 2
  737. 2
  738. 2
  739. 2
  740. 2
  741. 2
  742. 2
  743. 2
  744. 2
  745. 2
  746. 2
  747. 2
  748. 2
  749. 2
  750. 2
  751. 2
  752. 2
  753. 2
  754. 2
  755. 2
  756. 2
  757. 2
  758. 2
  759. 2
  760. 2
  761.  @BCStudios16  - You said "he was not put on the spot he brought it up." He brought it up in this discussion with zero notes to fall back upon, that's the point I'm making, and therefore your argument is unfounded. You said "He was advertising a book he just wrote and says he talks about this in his book..." And have you read his book? Do you have it to hand for reference and hence you KNOW that he explicitly referred to them as K1 and K2? If you haven't, then your argument here is unfounded. You claim "The point is he’s not speaking facts that he claims to know and then blanketing anyone in disagreement as not knowing facts. That’s being close minded, deterministic, and dismissive, three attributes that are in direct conflict with the idea of science." And I completely disagree, since Neil being wrong in fields for which he is not an expert is something that can happen to anyone, and hence this would only be an issue if Neil was completely wrong in details within HIS field of expertise, which is astrophysics. Finally you said "lastly I did not say he ‘should’ debate a flat earthen, quite opposite, in fact, I said I wouldn’t want him to. Someone with actual facts and data..." And there again I disagree, because that person (eg a scientist) would be giving the flat Earth theorist the exposure and hence the credibility that he/she seeks. After all, why should Neil or any scientist who don't debate other conspiracy theorists make it a special case to debate a flat Earth theorist?
    2
  762. 2
  763. 2
  764. 2
  765. 2
  766. 2
  767. 2
  768. 2
  769. 2
  770. 2
  771. 2
  772. 2
  773. 2
  774. 2
  775. 2
  776. 2
  777. 2
  778. 2
  779. 2
  780. 2
  781. 2
  782. 2
  783. 2
  784. 2
  785. 2
  786. 2
  787. 2
  788. 2
  789. 2
  790. 2
  791. 2
  792. 2
  793. 2
  794. 2
  795. 2
  796. 2
  797. 2
  798. 2
  799. 2
  800. 2
  801. 2
  802. 2
  803. 2
  804. 2
  805. 2
  806. 2
  807. 2
  808. 2
  809. 2
  810. 2
  811. 2
  812. 2
  813. 2
  814. 2
  815. 2
  816. 2
  817. 2
  818. 2
  819. 2
  820. 2
  821. 2
  822. 2
  823. 2
  824. 2
  825. 2
  826. 2
  827. 2
  828. 2
  829. 2
  830. 2
  831. 2
  832.  @mikaelandersson9060  - That's not how currents work, nor does it match the reality of the air rotating with the Earth. So before discussing this any further, please consider the following hypothetical example; If you were a god (bare with me :-)) and you created a planet with an atmosphere and THEN you set your planet rotating, then the atmosphere will remain still as your planet rotates.... except at the surface! That's because the surface with it's mountains and valleys and oceans will be pushing against the air that touches it (at up to 1030 mph at the equator), causing the air to move to produce currents that will push against the air above and hence those currents will gradually spread. So return to your planet some decades or centuries later and you'll now find that the entire atmosphere is now rotating with your planet at the same rate on average. It's the same principle as a large container full of water. Set that container spinning and at first most of the water will remain still as the container rotates, but where the water touches the container it will be pushed causing the water to move (i.e. currents) which gradually spreads to the rest of the water. So return some time later and you will find that all the water is now rotating with the container at the same rate on average. Therefore you don't have to believe the Earth is a globe to understand that basic idea, because just as it would be impossible for water to remain still inside a rotating container indefinitely, it is impossible for an atmosphere to remain still around a rotating planet indefinitely. Do you understand the point I'm making here? :-)
    2
  833. 2
  834. 2
  835. 2
  836. 2
  837. 2
  838. 2
  839. 2
  840. 2
  841. 2
  842. 2
  843.  @mysticnomad3577  - You said "you're irrelevant." Put your nails away please, it's rude to scratch. Anyway, I've spent enough time here for the moment and have discussions in other threads that I need to attend to, so I'll return here later. In the mean time, here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)). Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries. So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations btw) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity. Bye for now, back later :-)
    2
  844. 2
  845. 2
  846. 2
  847. 2
  848. 2
  849. 2
  850. 2
  851. 2
  852. 2
  853. 2
  854. 2
  855. 2
  856. 2
  857. 2
  858. 2
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. 2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. 2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. 2
  874. 2
  875.  @FDupp-og1mi  - So just for you and your fellow flat Earth friends who may be reading this thread, I'll address this classic claim from you; Quote "You believe this force is also a physical container that prevents our pressurized atmosphere, which lay adjacent to a near perfect vacuum, from being sucked into space." Putting aside the fact that a vacuum is NOT suction (didn't you learn anything at school?), did you know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude and hence the higher we are the lower the air pressure? Yes? Then good, lets continue... At 10 miles up there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil! You can easily recreate those same conditions with a cheap vacuum chamber! At 20 miles up there is 100 times less air compared to sea level, and at 30 miles up there is 1000 times less air, that's a medium vacuum. At 50 miles up there is 1 million times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on. Hence the increasing vacuum conditions with altitude has been directly measured by instruments on balloons and on aircraft sent up to high altitudes, hence up to altitudes of whatever flat Earth theorists are willing to accept. In other words, there's a proven pressure gradient which results in ever increasing vacuum conditions with altitude, with no barrier in between and no closed container required. Any questions? :-)
    2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. 2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. 2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. 2
  894. You said " Yet….the problem persists and from what I understand, nobody will debate Dubay?" I get what you're trying to say, but here's the problem. Eric Dubay accuses other flat Earth theorists like Mark Sargent of being government shills on a mission to discredit flat Earth, and yet can we find just ONE debate between Eric Dubay and the flat Earth theorists he attacks? Nope. Point that out to your flat Earth believing friend (in the nicest possible way of course :-)). You can also try asking your friend the following; Where's the debate between flat Earth theorists who believe there's a firmament dome and those who don't believe there's a dome or are not sure? Eric Dubay says he's not sure for example. Where's the debate between flat Earth theorists who believe the Earth ends at the wall of ice and those who believe the land and seas extends beyond the wall, either to a finite distance or to infinity? Again, Eric Dubay says he's not sure. Where's the debate between flat Earth theorists regarding the lack of an accurate undistorted flat map of a flat Earth, or to establish an accurate map? My point is - Conspiracy theorists typically never debate each other over the contradictions within the conspiracy theories they promote. They never get together to try to find common ground on the claims they can agree are correct and the claims they can agree are wrong (and hence encourage their followers to stop repeating those claims). They never challenge each other as peers with the purpose of getting to the 'facts'. Instead they only ever get together to pat each other on the back. So if even conspiracy theorists choose not to waste their time debating/challenging each other, then there's really no reason for others to waste their time either... unless others decide they really want to for their own reasons. I hope that helps in some way :-)
    2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. 2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904. 2
  905. 2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908. 2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. 2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937.  @Gmayor8888  - And just to add; Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity; youtu.be/Ym6nlwvQZnE The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)). Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries. So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
    2
  938. 2
  939. 2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 2
  969. 2
  970. 2
  971. 2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. 2
  985. 2
  986. 2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 2
  994. 2
  995. 2
  996. 2
  997. 2
  998. 2
  999. 2
  1000. 2
  1001. 2
  1002. 2
  1003. 2
  1004. 2
  1005. 2
  1006. 2
  1007. 2
  1008. 2
  1009. 2
  1010. 2
  1011. 2
  1012. 2
  1013. 2
  1014. 2
  1015. 2
  1016. 2
  1017. 2
  1018. 2
  1019. 2
  1020. 2
  1021. 2
  1022. 2
  1023. 2
  1024. 2
  1025. 2
  1026. 2
  1027. 2
  1028. 2
  1029. 2
  1030. 2
  1031. 2
  1032. 2
  1033. 2
  1034. 2
  1035. 2
  1036. 2
  1037. 2
  1038. 2
  1039. 2
  1040. 2
  1041. 2
  1042. 2
  1043. 2
  1044. 2
  1045. 2
  1046. 2
  1047. 2
  1048. 2
  1049. 2
  1050. 2
  1051. 2
  1052. 2
  1053. 2
  1054. 2
  1055. 2
  1056. 2
  1057. 2
  1058. 2
  1059. 2
  1060. 2
  1061. 2
  1062.  @pantheraleoromanus6241  - Sure, now can you find a source to Eric Dubay actually saying he was preparing to debate Neil, because I can't find that, I can only find third hand claims to that. Flat Earth conferences have nothing to do with the Flat Earth society, where they are attended by numerous flat Earth believers without controversy, including Eric Dubay followers, and yet never Eric Dubay himself. The point is, Eric Dubay appears to see other flat Earth theorists as his rivals, people who are taking business away from him, and so he accuses them of being government shills and liars just for stating flat Earth claims that are different to his own (even when HE says he doesn't know). So when Eric says he doesn't know if the flat Earth has an edge but other flat Earth theorists says there is an edge, then why don't they EVER get together to decide once and for all with debates and investigations? When Eric says he doesn't know if the flat Earth has a dome and yet other flat Earth theorists says there is a dome, then why don't they EVER get together to decided once and for all with debates and investigations? Why are ZERO flat Earth theorists willing to have such debates and investigations into clearing up flat Earth discrepancies among them? See my point? Flat Earth theorists NEVER EVER have those debates among themselves to establish the 'truth' behind the flat Earth they say they believe, so why should any scientist debate any of them when they don't even engage in debates among themselves?
    2
  1063. 2
  1064. 2
  1065. 2
  1066. 2
  1067. 2
  1068. 2
  1069. 2
  1070. 2
  1071. 2
  1072. 2
  1073. 2
  1074. 2
  1075. 2
  1076. 2
  1077. 2
  1078. 2
  1079. 2
  1080. 2
  1081. 2
  1082. 2
  1083. 2
  1084. 2
  1085. 2
  1086. 2
  1087. 2
  1088. 2
  1089. 2
  1090. 2
  1091. 2
  1092. 2
  1093. 2
  1094. 2
  1095. 2
  1096. 2
  1097. 2
  1098. 2
  1099. 2
  1100. 2
  1101. 2
  1102. 2
  1103. 2
  1104. 2
  1105. 2
  1106. 2
  1107. 2
  1108. 2
  1109. 2
  1110. 2
  1111. 2
  1112. 2
  1113. 2
  1114. 2
  1115. 2
  1116. 2
  1117. 2
  1118. 2
  1119. 2
  1120. 2
  1121. 2
  1122. 2
  1123. 2
  1124. 2
  1125. 2
  1126. 2
  1127. 2
  1128. 2
  1129. 2
  1130. 2
  1131. 2
  1132. 2
  1133. 2
  1134. 2
  1135. 2
  1136. 2
  1137. 2
  1138. 2
  1139. 2
  1140. 2
  1141. 2
  1142. 2
  1143. 2
  1144. 2
  1145. 2
  1146. 2
  1147. 2
  1148. 2
  1149. 2
  1150. 2
  1151. 2
  1152. 2
  1153. 2
  1154. 2
  1155. 2
  1156. 2
  1157. 2
  1158. 2
  1159. 2
  1160. 2
  1161. 2
  1162. 2
  1163. 2
  1164. 2
  1165. 2
  1166. 2
  1167. 2
  1168. 2
  1169. 2
  1170. 2
  1171. 2
  1172. 2
  1173. 2
  1174. 2
  1175. 2
  1176. 2
  1177. 2
  1178. 2
  1179. 2
  1180. 2
  1181. 2
  1182. 2
  1183. 2
  1184. 2
  1185. 2
  1186. 2
  1187. 2
  1188. 2
  1189. 2
  1190. 2
  1191. 2
  1192. 2
  1193. 2
  1194. 2
  1195. 2
  1196. 2
  1197. 2
  1198. 2
  1199. 2
  1200. 2
  1201. 2
  1202. 2
  1203. 2
  1204. 2
  1205. 2
  1206. 2
  1207. 2
  1208. 2
  1209. 2
  1210. 2
  1211. 2
  1212. 2
  1213. 2
  1214. 2
  1215. 2
  1216. 2
  1217. 2
  1218. 2
  1219. 2
  1220. 2
  1221. 2
  1222. 2
  1223. 2
  1224. 2
  1225. 2
  1226. 2
  1227. 2
  1228. 2
  1229. 2
  1230. 2
  1231. 2
  1232. 2
  1233. 2
  1234.  @aarongerisch9618  - Lets ask the experts on the bible shall we? :-) As I said, believing the Earth is flat is non-Christian (I used to say it's anti-Christian, but I feel that's too harsh a term to use upon reflection). As I will now explain... ...Christian churches for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE (that is a fact!). None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. Even Creationists, i.e. those who take the Bible LITERALLY, say the Earth is a GLOBE! Go to a Creationist website and search for 'Flat Earth' for example, but you may not like what you find there. In fact, some Creationists go as far as claiming the flat Earth is an atheist conspiracy to discredit Christians and Christianity. Galileo was charged with heresy in 1633 for daring to say the GLOBE Earth orbited the sun, when at the time all the Christian churches 'knew' that the sun and the rest of the universe revolved around the GLOBE stationary Earth! So who should I believe when it comes to the Bible? Nearly 2000 YEARS of Christian churches who say the Earth is a GLOBE? All the biblical scholars from those churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts to produce ALL the Bibles you've ever read who say the Earth is a GLOBE? The Creationists who take the Bible literally who say the Earth is a GLOBE? Over 2 BILLION Christians worldwide who say the Earth is a GLOBE? Or some random people on the internet who claim the Bible says the Earth is flat? :-) Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, it has never been and never will be. Therefore if you believe ALL the Christians above are wrong or lying about the shape of the Earth and hence you insist the Bible says it's flat against all Christian beliefs, then you are not a true Christian my friend. Sorry, but it's true :-|
    2
  1235. 2
  1236. 2
  1237. 2
  1238. 2
  1239. 2
  1240. 2
  1241. 2
  1242. 2
  1243. 2
  1244. 2
  1245. 2
  1246. 2
  1247. 2
  1248. 2
  1249. 2
  1250. 2
  1251. 2
  1252. 2
  1253. 2
  1254. 2
  1255. 2
  1256. 2
  1257. 2
  1258. 2
  1259. 2
  1260. 2
  1261. 2
  1262. 2
  1263. 2
  1264. 2
  1265. 2
  1266. 2
  1267. 2
  1268. 2
  1269. 2
  1270. 2
  1271. 2
  1272. 2
  1273. 2
  1274. 2
  1275. 2
  1276. 2
  1277. 2
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369.  @danielswish41  - You said "so please, I am curious to know: what is the difference between the definition of the word theory, and the word theory, when it comes to science. Are you serious hahah" Come on, really? After a 10 second search on the internet; Quote "Part of the problem is that the word "theory" means something very different in lay language than it does in science: A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing. But to the average Jane or Joe, a theory is just an idea that lives in someone's head, rather than an explanation rooted in experiment and testing." Quote "Does theory mean something different in science? In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts." Quote "The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and is widely accepted as valid." Seriously, why couldn't you find that yourself instead of just laughing?
    1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374.  @fawqman2764  - Regarding a vacuum, you don't clearly don't understand what a vacuum is my friend :-) A vacuum is an absence of matter, and hence from our point of view here, is the absence of air! Our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude, i.e. less air. I'm sure you know that, hence I'm sure you are also aware of the difficulty in breathing for mountain climbers and balloonists or anyone at high altitudes. At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil! You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber! At 20 miles up, there is 100 TIMES less air compared to sea level, that's a medium vacuum. At 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's also a medium vacuum. At 50 miles up, there is a MILLION times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on. Therefore there isn't a sharp line where we suddenly go from our pressurized atmosphere to the vacuum of space, instead it is a gradual process, where with increasing altitude there's decreasing air, resulting in gradually increasing vacuum conditions as I've shown above (normal pressure -> low vacuum -> medium vacuum -> high vacuum -> ultra high vacuum and so on). So with it clearly explained and demonstrated that we encounter increasing vacuum conditions with altitude as there's less and less air, you should finally understand how we go from the pressure of our atmosphere here on the surface of the Earth to the vacuum of space without a barrier in between.
    1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459.  @ReverendRichardSeeland568209  - ​ Oh sure, he won the debate so convincingly (according to you) that I can't find any references to his success here on YouTube or on the internet, and you can't provide any links. So again, where is it? If what you said was true then Eric and his disciples would have been shouting it out for the world to hear, and yet it's no where to be found! It seems you have a different definition of the word "won" to everyone else ;-) And while you here, perhaps you can say which version of a flat Earth you believe in? Because there are a number of versions out there and yet none of you seem to be able to make up your minds (including Eric). For example; - Does your flat Earth have a firmament dome? If yes, then how high is it? If no, then why do some claim there's a dome enclosing the Earth? - Does your flat Earth end at the wall of ice? If no, then how far does the land go beyond the wall? Why do some say it ends at the wall? - Does your flat Earth rest upon pillars? If yes, then how many pillars are there and where are they positioned? - Is the sun and moon in your flat Earth shaped like discs or balls? - How far away is the sun and the moon in your flat Earth? Also, can you provide an accurate flat map of your flat Earth? A map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct as they are on the actual globe of the Earth? To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice.
    1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481.  @REMIGIOPEREIRA  - You said "So if we can believe Nasa then there’s your number, and triangulation of sun’s rays also point to about 3000 miles or so give or take a few." EXACTLY the same claim is made about the distance of the moon, where flat Earth believers claim the moon and sun are the same size and circle the Earth at the same 3000 mile distance. But here's the problem... We can measure the moon's distance DIRECTLY using radio waves without any reference to the structure of the solar system, hence it doesn't require complex mathematics based upon an assumed model of the solar system. In other words, it doesn't matter if you think the Earth is a globe, or the Earth is flat, or the Earth is hollow/concave or whatever, the measurement of the moon's distance using radio waves will always produce the SAME result, a result which is INDEPENDENT of your beliefs. Radio enthusiasts since the 1950s have sent signals to the moon and timed how long it takes to echo back. The time measured for the return signal is always consistent with the moon being around 240,000 miles away, not 3000 miles up :-) For example: rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/ searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/moonbounce www.discoverthebluedot.com/news/moonbounce:-record-your-message-to-be-bounced-off-the-moon We know the measurements are accurate because the timing of the echo of radio signals is how radar works, where they use that time to determine the distance of the object(s) being tracked. If the moon was only 3000 miles up, then the echo would take a fraction of the time to return compared to bouncing radio signals off an object 240,000 miles away. This is an important observation which has yet to be explained by any flat Earth theorist, but it is explained by the moon being 240,000 miles away. And therefore if the size and distance of the moon in the flat Earth model is wrong, then the sun is also the wrong size and the wrong distance in that model.
    1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484.  @REMIGIOPEREIRA  - And just to pick up on this claim "I’d give you one but your freemasons keep us from exploring those parts of the earth." A classic flat Earth theorist lie that you fell for :-) EVERYONE is free to explore where ever they want in Antarctica, there's no military there to stop you! The problem is, no-one owns Antarctica (that's the point of the Antarctica treaty), so who is going to spend the cash and risk their lives to rescue YOU if something goes wrong after you wandered off without making any arrangements FIRST for a rescue plan? So no-one is restricted from exploring Antarctica, that's why EVERY YEAR there are expeditions for which NO-ONE in history has EVER reported being prevented from going. For example, look at this list of expeditions (go to the top of that page too); en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions#21st_century Again, the issue for explorers is that if they get into trouble then there will be no-one out there to rescue them UNLESS they'd made sufficient arrangements and preparations in advance, and hence they HAVE to follow a pre-planned route (show me a route that has been banned). Therefore you can't just wander off where ever you like in Antarctica and then expect a massive search operation if you go missing, a search which has to be paid for. So what exactly is stopping a flat Earth believer from getting onto an expedition to Antarctica when no-one can know if you're a flat Earth believer? Antarctica is the last unspoiled continent on Earth! Hence the Antarctica treaty protects Antarctica from any nation claiming part of it as their own. It protects Antarctica from nations and private companies exploiting it for oil and gems and minerals and other resources, ruining the environment in the process. It protects Antarctica from being used for military purposes. But as always, conspiracy theorists like to distort the facts, where in this case it is flat Earth theorists who twisted that treaty into a lie that people are prevented from exploring Antarctica :-)
    1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489.  @REMIGIOPEREIRA  - It's a shame that I have to ask people like you the following: If truth is on your side, then why do you need to lie and/or spread lies? Neil did not say the Earth is literally shaped like a pear, and yet you're happy to parrot that claim without doing ANY research yourself. Why is that? Here's where the pear shape reference originally came from (a simple analogy by Neil to make a point); www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OeWTrEA5fE Neil: "So, Earth throughout it's life even when it formed it was spinning, and it got a little wider at the equator than it does at the poles, so it's not actually a sphere, it's oblate, and officially it's an oblate spheroid, that's what we call it". Neil: "But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator" Interviewer: "A little chubbier" Neil: "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..." [Some audience laughter] Neil: "... it turns out, the pear-shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..." [Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size] Neil: "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere." So which part of "practically a perfect sphere" do you not understand? Therefore again, Neil did NOT say the Earth literally looks like a pear, he says it's an oblate spheroid that is slightly bigger below the equator compared to above (hence the pear analogy) and says the difference overall is so small that the Earth is practically a perfect sphere. In other words the oblateness of the Earth and the south bulging a fraction more than the north is too small to see in photographs, where to our eyes it looks like a perfect sphere, but measurements shows the Earth is not a perfect sphere. So again, why do you need to lie to make your case?
    1
  1490.  @REMIGIOPEREIRA  - You said "I’ve seen all your earth pics and they admit to being photoshopped... so there’s that." Two lies in one, well done :-) Back in 2002, NASA's Robert Simmon created a series of images of the Earth (not photographs) called "Blue Marble 2", where they were put together using something like 4 months worth of satellite photos taken in earth orbit. Therefore those photos were stitched together using Photoshop to create full composite images of the Earth. As Robert himself said, one of the most difficult parts of the project were the clouds, because over a period of 4 months the cloud cover all over the world changes, therefore it was a lot of work to make the cloud cover appear natural in the Photoshop images. In other words, the "Blue Marble 2" images are NOT claimed to be actual photographs of the Earth, instead Robert and NASA explained at the beginning that they were images of the Earth that THEY had put together using 4 months worth of satellite photos, i.e. they are composites of hundreds, if not thousands, of photos! Robert Simmon ALSO said that the Apollo missions were different because they were sufficiently far from the Earth to be able to fit the entire planet within single photographs, and therefore that was what he was trying to recreate using satellite images (i.e. to recreate the original 'Blue Marble' photograph taken during Apollo 17). But as expected, conspiracy theorists took that ONE project to recreate images of thefull Earth in 2002 using satellite photos and twisted it into a claim that NASA admits to faking photographs of the Earth using Photoshop, which is as dishonest and it is ignorant, and yet you fell for it hook line and sinker :-)
    1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. You said "Neil the shill tell us where's the telemetry data for Apollo 11. NASA lost it?" Where's it's always been, since nothing has been lost. Telemetry data was always printed out into documents so that the tapes could be reused (the whole point of magnetic tapes!). After each Apollo mission a comprehensive mission report was published where all the telemetry data was analyzed and presented as charts and graphs and tables . So here's the mission report for Apollo 11 (for example) published in November 1969. It even includes the astronaut's heart rate telemetry data as they descended to the moon's surface, their heart rate during their time on the moon and their heart rate when they left the moon's surface (hence proving none of the telemetry data was lost); www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionReport.pdf So if you want to believe the moon landings were a hoax, then fine that's your opinion, but why should that mean you MUST blindly believe ALL the hoax claims without question? And read this too; www.firstmenonthemoon.com/about.html Quote: "We have compiled hours of content available from public domain sources and various NASA websites. Thamtech staff and volunteers generously devoted their time to transcribe hours of speech to text. By using simultaneous space and land based audio and video, transcripts, images, spacecraft telemetry, and biomedical data — this synchronized presentation reveals the Moon Shot as experienced by the astronauts and flight controllers." Hence that's the same telemetry data that conspiracy theorists claim was lost. The point is, as I said before, once the telemetry data was printed out for a hard copy the magnetic tapes were reused. So we don't have all the tapes (just as we don't have all the tapes for most space missions of the 60s/70s), but we have all the telemetry data that were ON those tapes .
    1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553.  @shadowsun33  - You said " Indisputable evidence that the Earth is a globe??? Have you ever been to space yourself? Have you seen our Earth from space?" Why would I need to see the Earth from space myself? Just use intelligence and common sense (we have that for a reason, you should try it ;-)). The MAP of the Earth is just ONE example. Take a globe of the Earth (the bigger it is and the higher the quality the better), then select ANY two locations on that globe, measure the distance and work out the distance in miles and it will match that distance measured for real for that same journey on Earth, either by land or sea or air. That works for ABSOLUTELY ANY TWO LOCATIONS on Earth. No errors, no discrepancies, just accurate distances no matter which two locations you choose to measure. NO OTHER SHAPE offers that, much less a flat circle, like the AE/Gleason map. Flat Earth theorists latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice. However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)). For example, look at these distances between cities on the AE/Gleason map interpreted as a flat Earth, where the distance could not be any more wrong (the Globe Earth distances are ALL confirmed by actual journey's over sea and land); https://ibb.co/bud1Xf If the Earth really was flat, then producing an accurate flat (2D) map of a flat Earth would be orders of magnitude easier than creating a 2D map of a Globe Earth? So after over 150 YEARS of published flat Earth books, where is the map? So to claim the Earth is not shaped like a globe, you need to provide another shape for which the map of the Earth offers accurate distances for ANY two locations chosen. Until then, that evidence alone is enough to prove the map of the Earth arranged across a globe is accurate, it works, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth.
    1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. ^^^ Those two experiments demonstrates gravity ^^^ The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)). Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries. So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
    1
  1564. 1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. 1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. 1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. 1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. 1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. @Mithrandir You said "sounds like you have been reading too much flat earth society controlled opposition. it's a cliff not a wall, a wall has two sides." From Mark Sargent's "Flat Earth Clues" Quote "If you look at the AE or Flat Earth overhead map, you see the problem. To even determine the scope of the outer wall, you have to circle it. It would have taken months, if not years." From Eric Dubay's "The Flat-Earth Conspiracy" Quote "if you set a bearing due South from anywhere on Earth, inevitably at or before 78 degrees Southern latitude, you will find yourself face-to-face with an enormous ice-wall towering 100-200 feet in the air extending to the East and West the entire circumference of the world!" From Edward Hendrie's "The Greatest Lie on Earth" Quote "Antarctica is the rim of the flat earth. Upon reaching Antarctica, explorers are first met with a massive ice wall that is between 1,000 and 2,000 feet thick, with 100 to 200 feet of that thickness rising above the water" Rob Skiba asks "WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THEY DRILLED INTO AN ICE WALL NEAR THE FIRMAMENT IN THE 60s?" youtu.be/_bebl31yOO0 I can post several more, where you are effectively claiming ALL the above and more are controlled opposition, which is very amusing :-) So the term "ice wall" or "wall of ice" or "wall" or similar has been used as the description by MANY flat Earth theorists, it's THEIR description, and therefore if you have a problem with that description then YOU need to take it up with them. YOU go and tell ALL those flat Earth theorists that it's a cliff and not a wall. Is that clear? :-) Until then, the common description used by flat Earth theorists to describe that structure is a wall, not a cliff, and therefore a wall is what it is according to flat Earth theory.
    1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. 1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. Really? Then perhaps you can say which flat Earth you believe in, because there are a number of versions claimed :-) - Does your flat Earth have a firmament dome? If yes, then how high is it? If no, then why do some claim there's a dome enclosing the Earth? - Does your flat Earth end at the wall of ice? If no, then how far does the land go beyond the wall? Why do some say it ends at the wall? - Does your flat Earth rest upon pillars? If yes, then how many pillars are there and where are they positioned? - Is the sun and moon in your flat Earth shaped like discs or balls? Also, can you provide an accurate flat map of your flat Earth? A map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct as they are on the actual globe of the Earth? To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice. However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)). I look forward to your version of a flat Earth and (if possible) an accurate map of that same flat Earth :-)
    1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. 1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. 1
  1648. 1
  1649. 1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654.  @rickstark1917  - You said "No such map exists for globe earth either." And that takes us to the CORE of the evidence and hence the proof of the Earth being a globe, because what you've said is incorrect. Get yourself a decent globe of the Earth, then select two locations on that globe, for example Tokyo in Japan and New York in the USA, and measure the distance between them in millimetres (i.e. as a direct line across the globe of the Earth). Now measure the circumference of your globe around the equator in millimetres. The equator will give you the scale of your globe, where you can work out how many miles to the millimetre by using a calculator to divide 24900 by the circumference of your globe in millimetres. Lets call the answer to that calculation 'X', and therefore 'X' is the scale of your globe. So now you can check the distance between New York and Tokyo by taking the distance you measured on your globe in millimetres and then multiply that number by 'X' to get the distance in miles. It will match the real world distance (well, give or take natural errors in your measurement). You can now check ANY two locations on Earth using that same method, i.e. measure it in millimetres on your globe and multiply that number by 'X', and it will match the real world distance. The larger and the better your globe, the more accurate your results will be (but even a cheap globe would be pretty good). So try it please. Get yourself a globe that you can hold and touch, work out 'X' as I described, and now you will be able to accurately measure the distance between any two locations on Earth in miles directly from your globe! That would be impossible if the map of the Earth around the globe was wrong. That would be impossible is the Earth was not a globe. That alone proves the Earth is a globe, since there is no flat map of the Earth in existence for which you can do the same :-|
    1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. ​ @suppaduppa  - What is there to explore? The South Pole is one spot on Earth, just as the North Pole is one spot on Earth. Therefore once you're standing at the North Pole or South Pole, you are there, there's nothing to explore. So here's the problem with Eric's lie that you fell for... you can carry out experiments that PROVES you're at the South Pole, such as; ------------------ a) At night, set up a camera pointed up at 90 degrees to capture the paths of the stars using time lapse. You will notice that the stars circle clockwise around a point in the sky called true south. Exactly OPPOSITE to the North pole where the stars will be seen to circle COUNTER CLOCKWISE around a point in the sky called true north. b) At the right time of year, you will be able to observe 24 hour daylight (i.e. the midnight sun that Eric claims to not exist in the south) where the sun moves across the sky from right to left without dipping below the horizon. Exactly OPPOSITE to the North pole 6 months later where the midnight sun results in the sun moving across the sky from left to right while staying above the horizon for over 24 hours. ------------------ So just those two observations alone proves you're at the South pole, therefore you don't need to go anywhere else. Therefore Eric Dubay is lying, the South pole exists and a HUGE number of people have been there and continue to go there and YOU can go there too. So explain why Eric Dubay claims the South pole doesn't exist when it clearly does. Explain why Eric Dubay claims the midnight sun doesn't occur in the south when clearly it does :-)
    1
  1663.  @suppaduppa  - I know exactly what Eric says, and what you claim about the South Pole is completely FALSE. EVERYONE is free to explore where ever they want in Antarctica, there's no military there to stop you! The problem is, no-one owns Antarctica (that's the point of the treaty), so who is going to spend the cash and risk their lives to rescue YOU if something goes wrong after you wandered off without making any arrangements FIRST for a rescue plan? So no-one is restricted from exploring Antarctica, that's why EVERY YEAR there are expeditions for which NO-ONE in history has EVERY reported being prevented. For example, look at this list of expeditions (go to the top of that page too); en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions#21st_century Again, the issue for explorers is that if they get into trouble then there will be no-one out there to rescue them UNLESS they'd made sufficient arrangements and preparations in advance, and hence they HAVE to follow a pre-planned route (show me a route that has been banned). Therefore you can't just wander off where ever you like in Antarctica and then expect a massive search operation if you go missing, a search which has to be paid for. So what exactly is stopping a flat Earth believer from getting onto an expedition to Antarctica when no-one can know if you're a flat Earth believer? Antarctica is the last unspoiled continent on Earth! Hence the treaty protects Antarctica from any nation claiming part of it as their own. It protects Antarctica from nations and private companies exploiting it for oil and gems and minerals and other resources, ruining the environment in the process. It protects Antarctica from being used for military purposes. THAT is the point of the treaty. It doesn't stop anyone from visiting or exploring.
    1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. ​ @lov4570  - You said "There's no globe model that can be used to travel." 😂 What are you talking about? ALL navigation maps are 2D projection maps, where ALL are 2D projections of a GLOBE Earth onto a 2D surface. Hence all location references (co-ordinates) are via the latitude and longitude taken from the GLOBE Earth. Eg: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_map_projections In the link above, scroll down until you find the Azimuthal equidistant map. Even that map, the 'Gleason map' that flat Earth believers like to falsely claim as their own, is stated by Gleason HIMSELF to be a projection from a GLOBE in his patent! Yes, Gleason himself says the map is created from a GLOBE of the Earth. 2D projection maps are used because they are easy to carry around, where they can either represent the entire Earth or 'zoom' into regions of the Earth to provide greater accuracy and more detail. Orders of magnitude more convenient and easier and more accurate than carrying a GLOBE of the Earth around! ALL 2D projection maps are distorted, including the AE/Gleason map, whereas GLOBES of the Earth are not distorted. If the Earth was flat, then a flat map would exist where there is no distortion and it would be impossible to wrap that map around a globe without distorting it. Likewise, if the Earth is a globe, then the map around the globe will have no distortion and it would be impossible to flatten that map without distorting it. In other words, the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe with zero distortion proves the Earth is a Globe. Any questions? :-)
    1
  1668. 1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671.  @lov4570  - Nope, conspiracy theorists (who have never sent anything into space themselves!) make that claim by distorting what scientists who have sent craft into space actually say. Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006) and about radiation in space for the Apollo missions; Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week." In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit manned spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will typically be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year). If the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk within weeks. Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights." In other words, Dr Van Allen confirmed that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the two belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem, and he confirmed that the total radiation there and back wasn't a problem either. So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks. But hey, what would Dr Van Allen know about the radiation belts named after him, right? ;-)
    1
  1672. 1
  1673. 1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. 1
  1678. 1
  1679. 1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. 1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. 1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. 1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. 1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. 1
  1724. 1
  1725. 1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. 1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. 1
  1740. 1
  1741. 1
  1742. 1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746.  @averagejoe8564  - Anyway, I'll get to the point... my proof centers around the map of the Earth, which is just ONE piece of evidence that proves the Earth is a globe. So take a globe of the Earth (the bigger it is and the higher the quality the better), and then select ANY two locations on that globe, measure the distance and work out what that distance would be in miles, and it will match that distance measured for real for that same journey on Earth, either by land or sea or air. That works for ABSOLUTELY ANY TWO LOCATIONS on Earth. No errors, no discrepancies, just accurate distances no matter which two locations you happen to choose to measure. NO OTHER SHAPE offers that result, much less a flat circle like the AE/Gleason map. Flat Earth theorists latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice. However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)). For example, look at these distances between cities on the AE/Gleason map interpreted as a flat Earth, where the distance could not be any more wrong (the Globe Earth distances are ALL confirmed to be correct by actual journey's over sea and land); https://ibb.co/bud1Xf If the Earth really was flat, then producing an accurate flat (2D) map of a flat Earth would be orders of magnitude easier than creating a 2D map of a Globe Earth. So after over 150 YEARS of published flat Earth books, where is the map? So to claim the Earth is not shaped like a globe, you need to provide another shape for which the map of the Earth offers accurate distances for ANY two locations chosen. Until then, that evidence alone is enough to prove the map of the Earth arranged around a globe is accurate, it works, it has worked for centuries, and therefore the globe is the correct shape of the Earth.
    1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. ​ @rossreynolds4835  - You said "NASA is controlled by the government" and "USA schools were forced to teach the round earth theory". So what? Are we to believe that ALL flat Earth believers lack the intelligence to get careers working for NASA, or working for the 70+ other space agencies worldwide, or the many private space agencies worldwide, or the many satellite companies worldwide, etc? What exactly is stopping them from getting those jobs? Last time I checked, there wasn't a test that can identify flat Earth believers (like the test for Replicants in Blade Runner). No-one can know you're a flat Earth believer unless YOU tell them, so why hasn't a SINGLE flat Earth believer ever got into a position to expose the claimed flat Earth from the inside? Consider ALL the people that flat Earth believers claim are hiding the secret of a flat Earth, such as space agencies and companies, the military forces claimed to be keeping us away from the wall of ice, members of governments, and so on. And what about all the people claimed to be making sets and putting astronauts in harnesses to fake weightlessness, or faking such space footage in water tanks? What about all the people behind the cameras and sound and props? What about all the computer graphics experts creating the countless thousands of claimed CGI photographs and CGI video effects? The list goes on and on and on, and yet somehow not a SINGLE flat Earth believer has manage to get a job in ANY of those careers to expose the flat Earth conspiracy based upon their firsthand experience. So can't you see just how stupid it is to believe that out of the MASSIVE number of people who would have to be involved in hiding a flat Earth for all these centuries, that not even ONE person would have exposed it and revealed their role in the claimed conspiracy? :-)
    1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. 1
  1772. 1
  1773. 1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778.  @markemery6104  - You said "Gravity has never been and can not be proven it’s the necessary mystery ingredient needed to facilitate he globe illusion." Nope, that's what flat Earth theorists have told you, but they are lying to you for their own motives. So here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity; [Disguised link to get through YT filter] tiny😮cc🖍️z4eiuz The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)). Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries. So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
    1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. 1
  1796. 1
  1797. 1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. 1
  1801. 1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. 1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. 1
  1815. 1
  1816. 1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. ^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^ The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)). Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries. So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
    1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. 1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. 1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849. 1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855. 1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. 1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. 1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. 1
  1883. 1
  1884. 1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. 1
  1899. 1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. 1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. ​ @richardturpin3665  - So to address your claim in more detail, the girl asked Buzz and I quote "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?". Notice the words "in such a long time". THAT was the context of the question and hence that was the context of Buzz Aldrin's reply to the girl. Buzz said we haven't gone back because we haven't (a flippant answer). He said it's his question because for YEARS he has been asking exactly the SAME question as that girl, where HE ALSO wants to know why we stopped going to the moon and HE WANTS TO KNOW why we're not going back to the moon! Here are the exact words spoken... Little girl: "Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time ?" Buzz: "That's not an eight year old's question, that's MY question, I want to know. But I think I know, 'cause we didn't, go there and, and that's the way it happened, and if it didn't happen it's nice to know why it didn't happen so, in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past that we wanted to keep it going ... um... Money... ...is a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over, then it's going to cost more money and other things need more money too, so having achieved what the president wanted us to do, and then what thousands, millions of people in America and millions of people around the world...." Is that a rather convoluted answer? Yes! Is that Buzz saying they didn't land on the moon? No! Is that Buzz saying we haven't been to the moon in such a long time? Yes! So again, why all the untruths from conspiracy believers?
    1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. 1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. 1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. 1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972. 1
  1973. 1
  1974. ​ @Tj21415  - You posted: https://youtu.be/X-huF7fRlnA Thanks for the video, because it's exactly what I meant my friend. When stunt people do similar somersaults, they have a cable attached to each side of their waists to allow them to rotate. However, because of the cable, they need to make sure they pull their legs and arms inwards to avoid hitting the cables as they rotate. You can see this in action on the following link; www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlebgX5Uj8g&t=54 As you can see, if their legs or arms aren't kept out of the way of the cables, then they would catch the cable and stop rotating. Now watch your video again (but mute the sound to avoid distraction) and imagine there's a cable on either side of that astronaut's waist. Notice how during his somersault he doesn't move his arms in to avoid any cables, instead his arms would have to pass through the claimed cables, possibly twice! And not only that, notice that the microphone he's holding has a long wire attached, so if he is suspended by a cable, how did the microphone wire pass straight through that cable as he rotated? Finally, look again at the astronaut in the USMC t-shirt. Notice that he reaches out to grab the astronaut to steady him, but because he's not looking at him directly he almost misses, where he catches the pocket of the astronaut with his little finger and pulls (look carefully). Hence the video maker completely misinterprets what we're seeing in that footage, where he sees what he wants to see and therefore makes things up without checking if what he's saying is true :-)
    1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. 1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. 1
  2008. 1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. 1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. 1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. 1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. ​ @samw2530  - Who said anything about full rotation. Show me 5 minutes footage of an analog watch and tell me how fast the hour hand moves. The change in the Earth's rotation would be HALF of that. Hence you're not going to notice anything. To visibly see any rotation in the hour hand you will need to speed up the footage, which defeats the point of it being real time. In other words, you would have got exactly the same effect if you took photographs of the watch every 5 minutes and then played those photos back (i.e. time lapse footage). You said "We have advanced to the point where the space binoculars can actually adjust their scopes." Wrong little boy, they are optimized for the distances they were designed for and hence the adjustments available for focusing is limited to those range of distances only, therefore the naive idea that they can suddenly change to a completely different use is nonsense. If you believe otherwise, then NAME one of the 'space binoculars' you're talking about. Just ONE. And we can look up it's specification. In other words, either put up or shut up :-) You said "Everyone will have absolute clear undisputed proof of a spherical earth live & real time, rotating in space." Again you show how naive and ignorant you are, because ALL those claiming space photographs are fake and live video from space is fake will claim ANY live videos of the Earth from space is fake too. I look forward to you naming the spacecraft currently in space that you believe should be used for streaming back live video of the Earth (and remember, that craft MUST be confirmed to have the capability of live video ).
    1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056. 1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. 1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078.  @realeyesnolies6424  - Also, what better person to listen to about the Van Allen belts than Dr Van Allen himself... Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week." In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That is why low Earth orbit spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will be on board for weeks or months (and some for over a year!). Therefore if the ISS was at an altitude of 1000 miles instead of 250 miles, then the astronauts would receive levels of radiation that would put their lives at risk. Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights." In other words, Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the belts in around 2 hours, hence the radiation wasn't a problem. So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours (as they did during the Apollo missions), but are a problem to remain inside constantly for weeks. I hope that information helps :-)
    1
  2079. 1
  2080. 1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. 1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090.  @tonyornelas9374  - You said "out of curiosity how do get from me saying the Bible is the truth as I'm not a Christian?" Because flat Earth is NOT a Christian belief, so those claiming the Bible says the Earth is flat are deceivers. For example, the Bible doesn't explicitly say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth. Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all implicit ! Also, Christian churches/denominations for nearly 2000 years have ALL said the Earth is a GLOBE. None of them have ever said the Earth is flat, where for centuries the churches adopted Ptolemy's 140 AD model of the universe as doctrine, a model that placed a GLOBE stationary Earth at the center of the universe. Why? Because you can find verses in the Bible that explicitly says the Earth is stationary. In other words, the ONLY thing they had in common with flat Earth 'theory' was the idea that the Earth is stationary and at the center of everything. Therefore belief in a flat Earth is not a Christian belief, where it never has been and never will be supported by Christian churches. Those who tell you the Bible says the Earth is flat are attempting to corrupt your faith, where apparently they are succeeding :-|
    1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. 1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131.  @thegoodshepherd7777  - So while I wait for you to explain Eric's sun distance claim from that photograph (no more cowardly excuses please :-)), I'll address this comment from you. Quote "You can’t prove gravity dude, they even admit this." Wrong, gravity is a proven fact. Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)). Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries. So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity. Any questions? :-)
    1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. 1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. 1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. 1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147.  @tonyrafferty5977  - None of your videos addresses my proof of gravity, instead they're just examples of videos you blindly believe and hence you've allowed him to do your thinking for you (with all due respect :-)). So tell me what YOU think Tony! That is, tell me which version of a flat Earth you believe in, because there are a number of versions claimed :-) For example; - Does your flat Earth have a firmament dome? If yes, then how high is it? If no, then why do some claim there's a dome enclosing the Earth? - Does your flat Earth end at the wall of ice? If no, then how far does the land go beyond the wall? Why do some say it ends at the wall? - Does your flat Earth rest upon pillars? If yes, then how many pillars are there and where are they positioned? - Is the sun and moon in your flat Earth shaped like discs or balls? - How far away is the sun and the moon in your flat Earth? Also, can you provide an accurate flat map of your flat Earth? A map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct as they are on the actual globe of the Earth? To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice. However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)). I look forward to finding out your version of a flat Earth and (if possible) an accurate map of that flat Earth :-)
    1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150.  @tonyrafferty5977  - Wrong, because you don't understand what a vacuum is. A vacuum, from our point of view, is an absence of air! Most people know that our atmosphere gets thinner with altitude, i.e. there's less air as we climb. I'm sure you know that too, hence I'm sure you are also aware of the difficulty in breathing for mountain climbers and balloonists or anyone at high altitudes. So lets go higher... At 10 miles up, there is 10 TIMES less air compared to sea level. That's a low vacuum, where your saliva will boil at that altitude, and at 12 miles up your blood will start to boil! You can easily recreate those same conditions with any vacuum chamber! At 20 miles up, there is 100 TIMES less air compared to sea level, that's a medium vacuum. At 30 miles up, there is 1000 times less air, that's also a medium vacuum. At 50 miles up, there is a MILLION times less air, that's a high vacuum. Low Earth orbit is an ultra high vacuum and so on. Therefore there isn't a sharp line where we suddenly go from our pressurized atmosphere to the vacuum of space, instead it is a gradual process, where with increasing altitude there's decreasing air, resulting in gradually increasing vacuum conditions as I've shown above (normal pressure -> low vacuum -> medium vacuum -> high vacuum -> ultra high vacuum and so on). So given that explanation of how we encounter increasing vacuum conditions with altitude as there's less and less air, you should now understand how we go from the pressure of our atmosphere here on the surface of the Earth to the vacuum of space without a barrier in between. Next? :-)
    1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. 1
  2158.  @tonyrafferty5977  - Ok, you still haven't answered my questions, but you've put forward some other FE claims which we can look at. You said "Water, it always finds its level anyone can try and test simple experiments on ur own to prove that water is flat,level and not curved." Nope, water 'finds its level' thanks to gravity. Place water into weightless conditions (i.e. negate the effects of gravity) and water pulls itself into a ball, it never flattens out. Just look at numerous water experiments on board the ISS for example. You said "Sea level is level and there is still no proof of curvature". Curvature is clearly seen here; www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9mRkNNwHjo And here; www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKF7D7XsyTA And here; www.youtube.com/watch?v=hROaZ9cyTO4 You said "I could go on for hours trying to educate u on all sorts of topics but u get paid for this and I don’t" If I was being paid, then I would make numerous fake FE believer accounts to post ignorant comments that make FE believers appear stupid, but fortunately there are people like you doing that already (see, it's easy to throw around insults ;-)). You said "Critical thinking is taken away at an early age" as you've demonstrated here by showing how much flat Earth theorists have brainwashed you into believing the Earth is flat (see, it's easy to throw around insults ;-)). So lets both try a little less insults and focus instead on the details and the facts. Yes? While you try to address the points I made above, would you like me to state one example (of many) that proves the Earth is a globe?
    1
  2159. 1
  2160. 1
  2161. 1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. 1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. 1
  2177. 1
  2178. 1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185.  @HuWhiteNat  - You said " naw, the Nikon was used over and over to prove no curve. There are people frantically trying to run interference. Ships disappear and can be zoomed in on." The Nikon camera isn't magic, but the makers must be delighted at the flat Earth believers who bought it thinking it was :-) So lets focus on those ships. If you're in an open area and your friend walks way from you, appearing smaller and smaller as he walks away, then at the exact moment he's too small for you to see him does that mean he's gone over the curvature of the Earth? Or does it mean he's too small for your eyes to see him because of the distance? Wouldn't you be able to see your friend again if you use binoculars or a telescope? So my point is, when a ship is too far for you to see it with your own eyes, on what basis do you claim to know that it is so far away that is has vanished over the curvature of the Earth, rather than just being too small for you to see it with your eyes because of the distance? How did you measure the distance? :-) Flat Earth theorists are using the false logic (i.e. the lie) that EVERY ship or boat we cannot see with our eyes but we can see through a telescope is at a distance where it should be over the curvature of the Earth. Ask yourself how they know the distance merely by looking. Ask yourself if it's possible for the ship or boat to be too small for your eyes to see it but not far enough to be over the curvature of the Earth. Think about it please :-)
    1
  2186. 1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. 1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. ​ @bojanivanovic6850  - You said "and also every nasa video is curved cause of fish eye lense and then you have amateur baloon and no fucking curve." That's completely false, and is actually a demonstration of ignorance and lies on BOTH sides. The problem is, videos at altitude claiming to show curvature or flatness are invalid tests unless people take into account the distortion caused by the field of view of the lens, and I've never seen anyone do that on either side of the argument. For example, look carefully at videos making such claims and you'll notice that the higher the horizon is above the center of the video, then the greater the curvature of the Earth. But the lower the horizon is below the center of the video, then the more the Earth appears concave! (see link below). And notice that there's a 'sweat spot' near the center of the video where the earth appears to be flat. This change in the shape of the Earth depending on where the horizon is in relation to the center of the video is due to the distortion caused by the lens used. Not fish eye, often just a normal wide angle to capture a decent view of the Earth. For example, look how the horizon goes from being a convex curve (round) to a flat horizon and then to a concave horizon (bowl) in seconds here; youtube.com/watch?v=sWUZDOQm_HE&t=1226 Many videos like to choose a time when the camera is stable and hence the horizon appears to show a globe or the horizon appears to be flat, and hence they say "Behold, proof that the Earth is flat/globe", but again, without taking the distortion into account they are not proving anything. So the need for honesty and correct experiments applies to BOTH sides.
    1
  2209. 1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. 1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. 1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. 1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259.  @gregoryrogalsky6937  - Actually I have done my own research, but nice try ;-) When I first started looking into flat Earth claims a few years ago, it occurred to me that creating a flat map of a flat world would be orders of magnitude easier than trying to create a flat map of a globe world. So I searched for that map by going back to the main sources, which were the flat Earth books published over the last 150+ years. Therefore I own and have read ALL the following flat Earth books; Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham 100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook) The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie I also wanted to carry out that research because I didn't want to make statements about the flat Earth that weren't true, such as saying no accurate flat map of a flat Earth exists only for someone to say "Wrong, read the book XYZ, you will find the accurate map you're looking for there!". As it is, the only map that is EVER presented by flat Earth theorists is the Azimuthal Equidistant map, or AE map, otherwise known to flat Earth believers as the Gleason map, which is NOT accurate as a flat map of a flat Earth, it's just one of many 2D projection maps of a globe that only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the globe Earth. So the question is, why? If the Earth really was flat, then why isn't there an accurate flat map of a flat Earth? The answer is, no such map can be created because the Earth is not flat. THAT my friend is doing the research you claimed I hadn't done :-) I know that the claim that the Earth is flat is wrong, but I still gave the theory its due respect by READING the source material from the oldest to the present day, and I watched numerous videos, to ensure that my conclusions were based upon research, not opinion :-)
    1
  2260. 1
  2261.  @gregoryrogalsky6937  - Nope. It's hilarious that you deny the need for a map as proof. I don't know which country you live in, but if I told you that all the accurate maps of your country are a lie and claimed it was shaped like a perfect equilateral triangle, then I should be able to provide you with an accurate map of your country that was shaped like an equilateral triangle as proof! You and your fellow countrymen can then check my map for accuracy, comparing my map with real journeys to see if they match. If you start to find large errors in my map, then clearly my map is wrong and therefore your country is not shaped like an equilateral triangle as claimed. People in EVERY country on Earth can find accurate maps of their countries and use those maps to navigate their own countries by land and air and in some cases by sea. This proves their maps are accurate. NOW, we can take ALL those accurate maps of each country and arrange them onto a sphere to produce an accurate GLOBE map of the world, which is what we've had for centuries. In contrast, no amount of effort will allow you to arrange all those accurate maps of every country into an accurate flat map of the Earth. The point is, since it works perfectly for a globe but doesn't work for a flat surface, then that proves the Earth is not flat, it proves the Earth is a GLOBE. Therefore there are no excuses for the lack of an accurate flat map of a flat Earth. Simply put: No accurate flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth :-)
    1
  2262. 1
  2263.  @gregoryrogalsky6937  - No Gregory, the brainwashed accusation is used by believers of almost EVERY conspiracy theory out there, where they label anyone who doesn't buy into their conspiracy claims as being brainwashed, sheep, shills, etc, where you ALL seem to think you're superior and special for your beliefs, when in fact you are no different to the 'brainwashed' people you speak about, you simply exchanged one authority for another! I'm an amateur astronomer for over 20 years, where I carry out my OWN observations and experiments over those years, so it's not a matter of just believing what I'm told. But a perfect example of you believing what you're told is your comment "Look up and see the north star..That never moves in relation to flat unmoving earth". Wrong. The north star, or Polaris, is not perfectly centered upon true north, it's about 0.75 degrees off. Hence over a period of 24 hours it makes a small circle about 1.5 degrees wide, that's about 3 times the width of the full moon in the sky! Polaris is a naked eye star that just so happens to be very close to true north, THAT'S WHY we call it the north star! You thought that star didn't move because you listen only to flat Earth theorists, you never listen to science and hence you restrict your knowledge. You also said "Do you feel it spinning". We don't feel speed, we only feel acceleration and deceleration, hence you no move feel the Earth moving than airplane passengers would feel they're flying at 550+ mph or passengers on Concorde would have felt they were flying at 1300+ mph. And you said "Does water lay flat or not". Yes, thanks to gravity. Remove the effects of gravity by placing water in weightless conditions and it tries to pull itself into a ball! Water never flattens out in weightless conditions. And you said "Wake up", the same chant used by believers of EVERY conspiracy theory in existence :-D
    1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. 1
  2270. 1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293.  @mysticnomad3577  - You said "It would be nice to be allowed to independently explore that possibility wouldn't it? Oh but the Antarctic treaty prevents me from doing that." Wrong. You are simply repeating a classic flat Earth theorist lie. EVERYONE is free to explore where ever they want in Antarctica, there's no military there to stop you! The problem is, no-one owns Antarctica (that's the point of the treaty), so who is going to spend the cash and risk their lives to rescue YOU if something goes wrong after you wandered off without making any arrangements FIRST for a rescue plan? So no-one is restricted from exploring Antarctica, that's why EVERY YEAR there are expeditions for which NO-ONE in history has EVER reported being prevented from going. For example, look at this list of expeditions (go to the top of that page too); en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Antarctic_expeditions#21st_century Again, the issue for explorers is that if they get into trouble then there will be no-one out there to rescue them UNLESS they'd made sufficient arrangements and preparations in advance, and hence they HAVE to follow a pre-planned route (show me a route that has been banned). Therefore you can't just wander off where ever you like in Antarctica and then expect a massive search operation if you go missing, a search which has to be paid for. So what exactly is stopping a flat Earth believer from getting onto an expedition to Antarctica when no-one can know if you're a flat Earth believer? Antarctica is the last unspoiled continent on Earth! Hence the treaty protects Antarctica from any nation claiming part of it as their own. It protects Antarctica from nations and private companies exploiting it for oil and gems and minerals and other resources, ruining the environment in the process. It protects Antarctica from being used for military purposes. THAT is the point of the treaty. It doesn't stop anyone from visiting or exploring.
    1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299.  @mysticnomad3577  - You said "NASA Avation Document 1207 page 6 in summary clearly states the earth is relatively flat and stationary. So is NASA lying?" Once again you prove my point perfectly :-) Let me direct you to someone that flat Earth disciples have often referred me to on that little subject, which is Rob Skiba. Here's one of his videos of that subject: www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI1fn4ETGXY So let me take you through what neither you nor Rob understands, but I do given my degree in mathematics. When using mathematics to model something in the real world, it is impossible to account for absolutely EVERYTHING, as it's often not needed, therefore assumptions are made depending on the accuracy required, usually to simplify the calculations. The simplification of the calculations is easy to spot in mathematics because they're almost always identified as "ASSUMPTIONS" For example, at 8:20 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI1fn4ETGXY&t=490 Right from the start it says and I quote "The two dimensional model for aircraft motion..." A two dimensional model . A 2D model! 2D! We live in a 3D world hence right from the start that's a simplified model that represents the world in TWO dimensions ONLY. So lets go through the list of assumptions; a) The earth is flat and non-rotating, since the Earth's surface being curved or straight or moving doesn't effect the accuracy aimed for in this 2D model. b) The acceleration of gravity is constant, which is not the case in the real world (changes with altitude and density of the surface we're over) but the difference too small to matter in this 2D model. c) Air density is constant. Again, not the case in the real world where air density (hence pressure) decreases with altitude. d) The airframe is a rigid body. All aircraft bend and flex due to the forces upon them, but again this simplified 2D model assumes it doesn't. e) The aircraft is constrained to motion in the vertical plane, due to only 2 dimensions in the model, as oppose to the 3 dimensions of the real world. f) The aircraft has a symmetry plane (the x-z plane). Again due to 2 dimensions g) The mass of the aircraft is constant, but in the real world the mass of an aircraft reduces as the fuel is used up. So if YOU think that model is proof they're saying the Earth is flat, then that same model says the world is 2D, that gravity is constant everywhere, that air pressure is constant everywhere, that aircraft are rigid structures that don't bend, that aircraft never reduce in weight as fuel is burned, and so on. Therefore to single out assumptions in a 2D model that just so happens to fit your beliefs as if those assumptions are statements of fact is dishonest, or at best, extremely ignorant. Now go ahead and list all the assumptions stated for "NASA Aviation Document 1207" please.
    1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. 1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. 1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309.    - You said "scientists have to be able to defend their theories outside of a lab, this is the most important part science." Which is EXACTLY what they do through the scientific methodologies they follow. Therefore if people want to claim it's wrong, then they should be able to do so via those SAME methodologies. "I think this" and "I think that" and "I believe this" and "I believe that", is not science. You said "Anyone can create an experiment in a lab to prove whatever they want" Wrong and rather naive my friend, because that is not proof in science. Yes a scientist can falsify evidence and hence make claims that are essentially lies. But as stated, science is about being measurable, observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable, and therefore his/her results will NOT be accepted by other scientists until THEY carry out the SAME experiments and arrive at the SAME results. Hence if YOU published a scientific paper of your 'experiments' to prove your 'theory' and hence your work got through the initial peer review process, then other scientists worldwide reading your paper will try to tear it apart, especially those with theories that compete with your own and so it's in their interest to prove you wrong! Therefore they will not read your paper and take everything you say as gospel truth, instead they will look for errors, look for flaws, look for anything that can prove you're wrong, including carrying out your experiments to see if the results are correct. If they find out you're wrong, then they will shout it out from the rooftops. THAT is how science works, and hence that is how science has been so successful for centuries, because it is self correcting and self managing, causing the truth and the facts to rise to the surface.
    1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317.  @valherustinger7848  - You said "So I gave up on that and started looking at curvature and thats what solidified it for me that the earth is not a globe. We cant even prove curvature using math. There is actually no proof the earth is a globe unless you accept images from space and believe what Nasa tells us is 100 percent accurate..." Unfortunately, like many people, you are very easily manipulated by conspiracy theorists, and hence you fall for every trick in the book that they use and you repeat every trick they present to you, as you've shown in your replies here :-| So since you claim to have spent years searching for proof of the Earth being a globe, try the following please; Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are! It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre. So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first globe denier in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-) The fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
    1
  2318. 1
  2319. 1
  2320. 1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. 1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. 1
  2339. 1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374.  @Ty-Leo  - Let me just pick up on one point of yours, which was "It doesn't matter what Eric Dubay is, it is what he is saying and proving as science is based on observable and provable experimental evidence." Your same Eric Dubay claims the South Pole doesn't exist, and yet Google Search: South Pole Tours, and tell me what you find please. Also Google Search: Antarctica Tours and tell me what you find please. That's right, lots of South Pole and Antarctica tours, where if you can afford it then YOU can book yourself onto a tour to the South Pole, like so many other people have done every year for DECADES! Not only that, but you can carry out experiments that PROVES you're at the South Pole, such as; a) At night, set up a camera pointed up at 90 degrees to capture the paths of the stars using time lapse. You will notice that the stars circle clockwise around a point in the sky called true south. Exactly OPPOSITE to the North pole where the stars will be seen to circle COUNTER CLOCKWISE around a point in the sky called true north. b) At the right time of year, you will be able to observe 24 hour daylight (i.e. the midnight sun that Eric claims to not exist in the south) where the sun moves across the sky from right to left without dipping below the horizon. Exactly OPPOSITE to the North pole 6 months later where the midnight sun results in the sun moving across the sky from left to right while staying above the horizon for over 24 hours. In other words, the same "observable and provable experimental evidence" at the South Pole that you speak of proves the South Pole exists!
    1
  2375. 1
  2376. 1
  2377.  @Ty-Leo  - You said "Show me any proof of gravity as one of the first things I stated is still to be a theory." Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity;; [Disguised link to get through YT filter] tiny😮cc🖍️z4eiuz The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)). Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries. So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
    1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. 1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. 1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407. 1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. 1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. 1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430.  @devilla800  - Here's a link to Eric Dubay's "200 proofs" free eBook; http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html Here's just one example of the stupidity of Eric Dubay; In proof number 123 in that eBook, Eric claims the sun is 30 miles wide and 3000 miles away (flat earth books, including his own, say 3000 miles up), and yet in proof number 125, Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds, showing a photo of clouds which any meteorologist would tell you are just a few miles up. So according to Eric, the sun is a few miles up and 3000 miles up at the same time! Seriously, can you not see the major flaw in his argument? :-) Just look at these examples of sun rays (crepuscular rays, or God rays) through trees; https://goo.gl/XNnweq See how many photos of trees you can find there showing the sun's rays passing through the trees in EXACTLY the same way we see the sun's ray's passing through clouds in Eric's photo. If you apply the SAME logic as Eric, then those rays through the trees proves the sun is not 93 million miles away, nor is it 3000 miles away, but is in fact just above the trees! :-) And what about these photos taken underwater at sea; http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/images/Gentle%20Giant%204%20new.jpg http://www.uwphotographyguide.com/images/Articles/chelonia_mydas_milisen.jpg Clearly the sun is not 3000 miles up, it's just above the surface of the sea, right? So come on, can you really not see the MAJOR flaw in proof number 125?
    1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435.  @Chriscrumley1972  - The Bible does not EXPLICITLY say the Earth is flat or a ball/globe! The Hebrew word for 'flat' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth, just as the Hebrew word for 'ball' is used in the Bible but never to describe the shape of the Earth. Therefore all you would ever find are verses cherry picked from specific Bibles that certain people CLAIM says the Earth is flat, when in fact that's simply their personal interpretation. In other words, it's all IMPLICIT! Can you find verses in the Bible that EXPLICITLY says the Earth is stationary? Yes you can! For example, Psalm 93:1; "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." And Psalm 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns; Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved; He will judge the peoples with equity." So those are EXPLICIT statements saying the Earth is stationary and hence it doesn't move. They are not implied, they are not open to interpretation, they are direct statements. Because of that, until a few centuries ago all Christian denominations believed a GLOBE stationary Earth was at the center of the universe. No official Christian church or denomination in history has ever said the Earth is flat. Can you find similar verses in the Bible that EXPLICITLY states the shape of the Earth, much less EXPLICITLY says the Earth is flat? No my friend, there are no such verses, and therefore flat Earth is not a Christian belief, flat Earth has nothing to do with the Bible.
    1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. 1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. 1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. 1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. 1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. 1
  2468. 1
  2469. 1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. 1
  2485. 1
  2486. 1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497. 1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. 1
  2509. 1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512.  @paulmbanjwa6743  - Thanks, but that's the problem with your flat Earth claim. Flat Earth theorists latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice. However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)). For example, look at these distances between cities on the AE/Gleason map interpreted as a flat Earth, where the distance could not be any more wrong (the Globe Earth distances are ALL confirmed by actual journey's over sea and land); https://ibb.co/bud1Xf And don't take my word for it, even your fellow flat Earth believers are beginning to realize this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51aPK-MtWQ According to the video maker Richard Kallberg, he is working on an accurate version of the flat Earth map. Problem is, he said that about 8 months ago and there's still no sign of it :-) If the Earth really was flat, then producing an accurate flat (2D) map of a flat Earth would be orders of magnitude easier than creating a 2D map of a Globe Earth! So after over 150 YEARS of published flat Earth books, where is the map? Simply put: No ACCURATE flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth
    1
  2513.  @paulmbanjwa6743  - Not correct at all my friend. The International Space Station (ISS) is by far the largest artificial satellite up there, and hence that's a perfect example for us to focus on. The ISS can be spotted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year for 20 years WORLDWIDE. There are apps you can download on your phone right now that will tell you the EXACT location of the ISS and will tell you EXACTLY when YOU would be able to see it pass overhead in your location (date and time and position in the sky). You can also find apps and websites that will tell you when the ISS will be seen to pass in front of the moon and the sun in YOUR location (a transit), again providing you with the exact date and time. Hence I have seen the ISS pass overhead a number of times, as have countess people around the world, where it looks like a VERY bright star moving across the sky with the naked eye. Many people have even videoed and photographed the ISS satellite as it passed in front of the moon and sun as predicted, and posted their results on YouTube (there's nothing stopping YOU from doing the same). For example (using the flat Earth believers favorite camera): www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDIPZFqfGGo www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD3yuFVQSyo So the fact that the ISS has been up there for 20 years and can be seen ALL OVER THE WORLD at the location it's predicted to be and at the exact date and time stated means something IS up there whether you like it or not. So denial that something man made is up there is NOT an answer, neither is any claim that NASA is somehow beaming CGI into the cameras of everyone worldwide or projecting holograms :-) Therefore the question is, if that's not a space station up there as seen and recorded by countless people all over the world 24/7 for 20 YEARS, then what is that ISS shaped object that we can ALL see for ourselves?
    1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. 1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. Instead of throwing insults, why don't you tell us which version of a flat Earth you believe in? Because there are a number of versions out there and yet none of you seem to be able to make up your minds. For example; - Does your flat Earth have a firmament dome? If yes, then how high is it? If no, then why do some claim there's a dome enclosing the Earth? - Does your flat Earth end at the wall of ice? If no, then how far does the land go beyond the wall? Why do some say it ends at the wall? - Does your flat Earth rest upon pillars? If yes, then how many pillars are there and where are they positioned? - Is the sun and moon in your flat Earth shaped like discs or balls? - How far away is the sun and the moon in your flat Earth? *Also, can you provide an accurate flat map of your flat Earth? A map where all the countries are the correct shapes and the correct sizes and where all the distances are correct as they are on the actual globe of the Earth? * To this day, all that flat Earth theorists have ever provided is the AE/Gleason projection map, where they only latched onto the AE/Gleason map (one of many 2D projection maps of the GLOBE Earth) because it just so happens to stretch Antarctica around the outside, hence they claim that to be the wall of ice. However, like all 2D projection maps of the Globe Earth, the AE/Gleason map only works when interpreted via longitude and latitude which corresponds to the same co-ordinates on the Globe Earth. When interpreted as a literal representation of a flat Earth it completely falls apart (just look at Australia for example, which is twice it's actual width and shaped like a Twinkie :-)). I look forward to finding out your version of a flat Earth and (if possible) an accurate map of that flat Earth :-)
    1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. 1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. 1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. 1
  2564. 1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568.  @saltysergeant4284  - In contrast, here's something you can do yourself. Get yourself a decent globe of the Earth, then select two locations on that globe, for example Tokyo in Japan and New York in the USA, and measure the distance between them in millimetres (i.e. as a direct line across the globe of the Earth). Now measure the circumference of your globe around the equator in millimetres. The equator will give you the scale of your globe, where you can work out how many miles there are to the millimetre by dividing 24900 by the circumference of your globe in millimetres. Lets call the answer to that calculation X, and therefore X is the scale of your globe. So now you can check the distance between New York and Tokyo by taking the distance you measured on your globe in millimetres and then multiply that number by X to get the distance in miles. It will match the real world distance (well, give or take natural errors in your measurement). You can now check ANY two locations on Earth using that same method, i.e. measure the distance in millimetres on your globe and multiply that number by X, and it will match the real world distance. The larger and the better the quality of your globe, the more accurate your results will be (but even a cheap globe would be pretty good). In other words, you can accurately measure ALL distances and routes on a physical GLOBE of the Earth in the same way that you can accurately measure ALL distances and routes on a physical flat map of your town/city. That alone proves the Earth is a globe, where there is no flat map of the Earth in existence for which you can do the same :-)
    1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. 1
  2578. 1
  2579. 1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. 1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594. 1
  2595. 1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. ​ @ericbeins7254  - You cried "apparently it is to hard for you to follow a link and watch a video but I know you like to be spoon fed information" You haven't provided any links, so I don't need to be spoon fed son, I was waiting for YOU to present an example to represent your argument. But clearly that request went over your head. You said "Microwave dishes can only work in line of sight. If the Earth was a sphere or 🍐 shape their usable distance would not be more than 50 miles." Which proves just how IGNORANT you are, it really does, because for some reason you don't appear to realize that ALTITUDE is important too. Yes, ALTITUDE son. Read the following link; https://blog.aviatnetworks.com/from-the-field/the-worlds-longest-all-ip-microwave-link/ That's a microwave link over a distance of 193 km, or 120 miles. As pointed out in that link, the altitudes of the two sites connected by that microwave link are 1600 meters (5250 feet) and 250 meters (820 feet). So here's a curvature calculator that takes into account the HEIGHT of the observer above the surface; https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=120&h0=5250&unit=imperial The height of 5250 feet and the distance of 120 miles has been entered, where you'll notice that 652 feet is hidden below the curvature of the Earth, meaning that the remote location at 820 feet is 168 ABOVE the horizon and hence DIRECT LINE OF SIGHT. And don't just take my word for it, since on the link I provided it present a graph showing exactly that, with the words "Figure 1. Microwave Path Profile showing antenna elevations and path clearance over effective earth curvature ." So go ahead and present your 235 km example and you'll find that the altitudes of the two locations results in direct line of sight communication!!! So much for all your insults, where you clearly should have been looking in the mirror when you made them. Have a nice day and thanks for the laugh :-)
    1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. ​ @ericbeins7254  - Finally, I only mentioned my credentials because of your patronizing and condescending remarks and assumptions, such as and I quote; "You should learn how to use your own brain first before you start mimicking so-called professors." And "Do some research in technology yourself and you will see you been lied to. You don't need a degree for that." And you've continued that way throughout this thread. So I'm more than happy to discuss astronomy in detail with you for example, and from a practical perspective. And when it comes to research, I didn't 'research' flat Earth claims by watching YT videos, instead I decided to get hold of as many flat Earth books released over the last 150+ years as I could and I READ them all (and most are very badly written), to get the information from the original SOURCES. Here's a list of my flat Earth books; Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham 100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook) The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie So besides Eric Dubay's free eBook, if you own any of the books above then I would be more than happy to discuss the contents with you. My initial goal was to see if any of those books claimed to have an accurate non-distorted flat map of a flat Earth, but no such map exists! Therefore I've seen the arguments from both sides, and hence I know for a fact that the Earth is a globe, where NONE of the flat Earth claims holds up to close scrutiny. Any questions? :-)
    1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. 1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. 1
  2624. 1
  2625. 1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. 1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. 1
  2656. 1
  2657. 1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. 1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. 1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. 1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. 1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. 1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. 1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711.  @buddyfeno5224  - Thanks for replying, I'll focus on the main points. You said "I believe we're under some kind of solid Dome / electromagnetic torus field, its rotation creates the electromagnetic field Tesla discovered" I didn't ask you to make up a version of a dome :-) If you believe there's a solid dome then fine, but don't claim to know any more than that. Btw, why do so many flat Earth believers refer to Tesla? You said "i dont believe its a plane that goes on forever, many things are unknown due to the taking over of pseudo science..." Don't blame others for flat Earth believer's lack of research and unwillingness to explore please. That's a flat Earth believer problem, it has nothing to do with others. For example, ALL flat Earth theorists claim the South Pole doesn't exist, and yet not ONE flat Earth theorist has ever booked onto a tour of the South Pole to prove those tours are fake. Tours that ANYONE can go on if they can afford it :-) You said "the earth is motionless and proven by science" Either you trust science or you don't. You can't cherry pick and distort the science when it suits you. If science can't be trusted then don't refer to science as evidence. You said "the Biblical creation is the closest ive seen and supported by real science" Again this has nothing to do with science that you don't trust, and neither has it got anything to do with the Bible. There are ZERO verses in the Bible that explicitly states the shape of the Earth, flat or a ball, and throughout most of Christian history the producers of every Bible you've read, i.e. Christian churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts, have said the Earth is a globe (albeit a stationary globe until recently). No Christian church or denomination in history has ever preached a flat Earth, only a globe Earth. After we've discussed the points above, I would be happy to present my proof of the Earth being a globe that you (yes YOU) can directly check yourself, proof that has nothing to do with science :-)
    1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715.  @kipthecourtjester  - This is about my proof of a globe Earth, so lets stay focussed on that please, since you did agree to listen. Remember? :-) You said "It’s a ‘flat’ map." Correct. That's the point! Remember, I said and I quote "lets take an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as a town or a city." Hence on the scale of a town or city, the natural rise and fall of the landscape will typically be more than the effect of the curvature of the Earth, therefore we can ignore curvature just as we usually ignore hills and valleys for general maps of our towns/cities. Hence I'm trying to establish something that we can both agree on here as a starting point, and I think we can both agree (?) that if we could fly a craft up high enough with a camera to photograph a town directly below, then we can create an accurate photograph (flat) of the entire town, even if we took multiple photos and 'stitched' them together, instead of capturing the town all in one shot. Then if we 'traced' over that flat photograph of the town to graphically capture all the streets and buildings and landmarks etc, then we would have created an accurate flat map of our town. After all, if the map of the town/city was wrong, then people using that map would find out VERY quickly that the map is wrong and therefore will stop using it because they found out through experience that they can't trust it. Right? Do you agree with the above? If not, then please explain why not.
    1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. 1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. 1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. 1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. 1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. 1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. 1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. 1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. 1
  2777. 1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. 1
  2781. 1
  2782.  @arizonarafa  - To continue from my last reply... Here's what the scientist Dr Van Allen said about the radiation belts named after him (you know, the discoverer who was the leading expert on the radiation belts until his death in 2006); Dr Van Allen quote 1: "A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week." In other words, it would take ONE WEEK inside the most intense region of the belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. That's why low Earth orbit spacecraft like the ISS stay as far below the belts as possible, because astronauts will be on board for weeks and some for many months. Dr Van Allen quote 2: "The outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal dosage, a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such flights." In other words, Dr Van Allen confirms that the Apollo astronauts passed through the weaker areas of the belts in around 2 hours, hence it wasn't a problem. So as Dr Van Allen confirmed about the Van Allen radiation belts named after him, they are not a problem to pass through in just a few hours. Hence there's no inconsistency, just a lack of understanding. You only thought the belts were a problem because conspiracy theorists who have never sent anything into space themselves told you so... and that's the problem with many conspiracy theories :-)
    1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. 1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. I see you posted that same claim as a new comment, so I'll post my reply here too (it would be interested to see if you post your video from that Electric Universe believer who says the Earth is a globe, as proof that gravity doesn't exist on your flat Earth :-D). Here are just two experiments that demonstrates gravity; www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone. Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same. So how does the flat Earth claims about density and buoyancy explain the attraction demonstrated? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. So how does the flat Earth claims about density and buoyancy explain the increase in weight demonstrated? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over and the same results observed for centuries. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of gravity :-) The ONLY reason flat Earth theorists deny gravity is because it supports a globe earth, hence you deny it on principle rather than on the facts :-)
    1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. 1
  2796.  @gregoryrogalsky6937  - You said "Gwabbity :) . The force with no opposite or equal. What a joke. Uh huh.. you say, It's real, cause you say it is?" No, I said Gravity is a FACT proven by experiments (which even YOU can carry out with a little effort). Here are two experiments that demonstrates gravity; www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym6nlwvQZnE The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone. Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same. So how does density and buoyancy explain the attraction demonstrated? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. So how does density and buoyancy explain the increase in weight demonstrated? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over and the same results observed for centuries. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of gravity :-) I hope that information helps. The ONLY reason flat Earth theorists deny gravity is because it supports a globe Earth, hence you deny it on principle rather than facts :-)
    1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. 1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813.  @flatearth5821  - You said "Eric has produced lots of new videos which debunk the 'debunkers'." Except he hasn't, since his so-called debunks are as ignorant as his original claims :-) For example, from his free eBook "200 proofs earth is not a spinning ball"; In proof number 123 in that eBook, Eric claims the sun is 30 miles wide and 3000 miles away (flat earth books, including his own, say 3000 miles up), and yet in proof number 125, Eric claims the sun is just above the clouds, showing a photo of clouds which any meteorologist would tell you are just a few miles up. So according to Eric, the sun is a few miles up and 3000 miles up at the same time! Here's Eric's photo from his eBook; (As you know, change DOT to . and SLASH to /) tinyDOTccSLASHvntwtz Be honest now, does that photo tell you the sun is 3000 miles up? Any meteorologist looking at that photo will tell you the base of the cloud types seen are about 1-2 miles up (the type of clouds we see airplanes flying in to and out of when leaving or arriving at an airport), so how can the sun be just above the clouds as Eric says? Seriously, can you not see the major flaw in his argument? :-) Just look at these examples of sun rays (crepuscular rays, or God rays) through trees; tinyDOTccSLASH8yzpuz See how many photos of trees you can find there showing the sun's rays passing through the trees in EXACTLY the same way we see the sun's ray's passing through clouds in Eric's photo. If you apply the SAME logic as Eric, then those rays through the trees proves the sun is not 93 million miles away, nor is it 3000 miles away, but is in fact just above the trees! :-) So come on, can you really not see the MAJOR flaw in Eric's proof number 125?
    1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816. 1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. 1
  2827.  @YouMustQuestionEverything  - Grow up and stop acting like a child just because you've been proven wrong. The Gleason map IS an Azimuthal Equidistant map as shown and stated by OTHER flat Earth theorists. FACT! Common sense alone proves they're the same just by looking at them! On the very first page of "Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet" David shows a map that is a line drawn version of the Gleason map, which is exactly the same as the Azimuthal equidistant map, hence he refers to it as the "Map of the World as a Plane". On page 237 in "The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014)" Eric shows the typical modern Azimuthal Equidistant map which many flat Earth theorists and believers use and Gleason's 'New Standard Map of the World' on the SAME PAGE, where we can all clearly see that the two maps are the same! On page 235 in "The Greatest Lie on Earth (2016)" Edward shows us the modern Azimuthal equidistant map and discusses where it's been used and then says on page 239 to 240 "Below is a polar azimuthal equidistant standard map of the world from 1892" and shows us Gleason's 'New Standard Map of the World'. So flat Earth theorist Edward Hendrie EXPLICITLY says the Gleason map is an Azimuthal Equidistant map, which is one of many PROJECTION MAPS used for navigation. So why the constant denial from you over something that is a fact stated by other flat Earth theorists? Why are you hiding behind the weak position of claiming it's not an Azimuthal Equidistant map unless Gleason explicitly uses those words? :-)
    1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1
  2846. 1
  2847. 1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. With all due respect you're making incorrect assumptions my friend, hence all you're offering here are arguments from incredulity. When looking into the past,science gathers all the evidence available and works backwards from there, reaching conclusions/theories for which further evidence can either strengthen the leading theories or it can weaken them. It's like a crime scene, where the detective didn't witness the murder of some guy, but they gather as much evidence as they can, allowing them to identify the victim, to say how and when he was killed, to work out his last moments and the events in his life that led up to that moment (where he was, who he met, significant events, possible suspects etc). Eventually they may have enough evidence to bring a suspect to court to face a jury, who will weigh up the evidence and decide if the suspect is innocence or guilty. Again, none of them witnessed the crime (except the murderer) and so they go by the evidence, for which in most cases the right person is convicted. Science of the past is like that, where just as the wrong person can be convicted of a crime, so can the latest scientific theory be wrong, but we only find that out after NEW evidence proves the theory wrong or better understanding of the current evidence comes to light (say through new technology or flaws found in the previous analysis etc). As it stands, the big bang best explains the universe we see today, and evolution best explains the diversity of life on Earth we see today, all thanks to the evidence.
    1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1
  2860. 1
  2861. ​ @logankent2633  - 8 inches per mile squared is the equation for a parabola, which was created in the 19th century as a quick calculation for the curvature of the Earth at sea level because it's easy to do in our heads compared to the equation for a circle. Anyway... the problem is, such a calculation is accurate enough if you go up to the sea on a beach and lie down so that your eyes are level with the sea! If does NOT take into account the HEIGHT of the observer, i.e. the height of your eyes above sea level. Here's a curvature calculator that DOES take height into account; dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc So lets take your Catalina Island example. At sea level (i.e. a height of 0), that calculator says 1067 feet would be below the horizon at 40 miles away. But the highest point on Catalina Island is Mount Orizaba at 2097 feet. That means if your eyes are at sea level 40 miles away, then you can see the top (2097-1067) 1030 feet of Mount Orizaba! If you're just say 100 feet above sea level, then 514 feet would be below the horizon 40 miles away, hence you can see the top (2097-514) 1583 feet of Mount Orizaba, and hence see any land/features on Catalina that is 514 feet above sea level! THAT'S the important fact missed by so many flat Earth theorists and believers, where a) You don't take into account the altitude of the observer, and b) You don't take into account the height of the features of the remote location. Hence as I've shown above, we CAN see features on Catalina Island even from 40 miles away at sea level, and even more of the island the higher we are. I hope that information helps. If it does, then apply it to other flat Earth distance claims and notice the errors they made too.
    1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. 1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883.  @Sweetness71775  - Thanks for the update on your beliefs. However, here's one example that debunks the idea of the Earth being hollow... the measured distance to the moon. We can measure the moon's distance DIRECTLY using radio waves without any reference to the structure of the solar system, hence it doesn't require complex mathematics based upon an assumed model of the Earth and solar system. In other words, it doesn't matter if you think the Earth is a globe, or the Earth is flat, or the Earth is hollow/concave or whatever, the measurement of the moon's distance using radio waves will always produce the same result, a result which is independent of any person's beliefs. Radio enthusiasts since the 1950s have sent signals to the moon and timed how long it takes to echo back. The time measured for the return signal is always consistent with the moon being around 240,000 miles away. For example: rsgb.org/main/technical/space-satellites/moonbounce/ searchnetworking.techtarget.com/definition/moonbounce www.discoverthebluedot.com/news/moonbounce:-record-your-message-to-be-bounced-off-the-moon We know the measurements are accurate because the timing of the echo of radio signals is how RADAR works, where they use that time to accurately determine the distance of the object(s) being tracked. If the moon was inside a hollow Earth, then the echo would take a fraction of the time to return compared to bouncing radio signals off an object a confirmed 240,000 miles away. This is an important observation which has yet to be explained by any flat Earth theorist of hollow Earth theorist, but it is explained by the moon being 240,000 miles away from the globe Earth.
    1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888. 1
  2889.  @Sweetness71775  - You said "Distance between land masses is a whole different story, however." No my friend, because as I stated, you can take ANY two locations on Earth and confirm the distance by land, sea and air, where to this day no-one has ever found an incorrect distance. You can't pretend that a direct flight from one city to another city, including city to city on different continents, isn't proof that the distances are correct, especially when (albeit outside of a pandemic) there are around 100,000 flights that take off and land around the world every day! That's 100,000 flights confirming the distances every day with no errors found. The South Pole is in Antarctica, therefore go can't go South of the South Pole in Antarctica. The idea of more land south of Antarctica comes DIRECTLY from flat Earth theory, which claims Antarctica is not a continent but is instead a wall of ice that surrounds the Earth, and therefore some claim there's more land beyond the wall of ice. There's no place for such extra land if you accept the Earth is a globe and the South Pole is in Antarctica, regardless of its size. The important point here is: When the facts fit, then you should accept the facts. So saying "By a general rule-of-thumb, I do not trust any major corporation or government" is all good and well if you're taking about politics and politically motivated incidents, but the shape and structure of the Earth we all live on is not about governments, it's not about religion, it's not about belief, it's not about the media or corporations, it's about the facts as established by many centuries of traveling and exploring and navigating the Earth by countless ordinary people from all walks of life from all over the world :-)
    1
  2890. 1
  2891. ​ @Sweetness71775  - You said " I can't because I haven't measured the entire globe. Ultimately, the argument on the size and shape of the Earth comes down to faith" Nope, I provided you will a simple method to work out distances on a globe of the Earth and compare those distances with the same distances measured for real. Neither you nor anyone can show any errors between the globe of the Earth and reality, hence making your claims null and void. When you board a plane that is going to travel a certain distance in a certain direction to land at your desired destination, that journey is NOT based upon faith, it's based upon FACT... as are 100,000 other flights that day! So silly excuses and denial doesn't make your case my friend, it only supports mine. As for your comment "provided you personally haven't hopped on a rocket, left the atmosphere, and did a full orbit of the planet where you saw literally everything..." I haven't been to China, have you? Nor can I prove 100% that someone who says they've been to China has actually been there. But that shouldn't be a requirement for me to know that China exists as shown. Have you been to the North Pole yourself? If not, then why would you personally need to go to the North Pole to know it exists as shown? Aren't you trusting the word of those who have gone there, including those who've gone to government maintained research stations around the North pole? Have you been to the top of Mount Everest? Have you been to every town and city in your country? The point is, the idea that you need to personally see or experience something yourself before you can accept it is a poor argument and a false one, since the vast majority of everything you know comes from OTHERS, hence comes from your trust in certain figures and agencies. After all, go ahead and prove that the person you're talking to right now online (myself) is real, all while using the achievements of science that made this discussion possible in the first place :-)
    1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. 1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. ​ @mysticnomad3577  - Thank you for highlighting my point so perfectly, where like all flat Earth believers, you're not sure of the structure of the flat world that you believe in :-) You see, if you were as educated as you claim, then you should know those answers already, especially given the fact that you've made up your mind already. I'm an amateur astronomer for over 20 years, where (given my IT career) I have written programs to calculate the positions of the sun and moon and planets for any date, sunrise and sunset times for any location on Earth on any date, and calculate lunar and solar eclipses etc, ALL using the mathematics of the heliocentric model you mentioned (oh and, did I say I have a degree in mathematics?). No such mathematics exists for a flat Earth, because there's no mathematical flat Earth model. For the flat Earth, I did my research fully, and hence I own and have READ all the following flat Earth books; Zetetic Astronomy 2nd edition (1865) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham Zetetic Astronomy 3rd edition (1881) by Samuel Birley Rowbotham 100 Proofs That the Earth Is Not a Globe (1885) by William M Carpenter Is The Bible From Heaven, Is The Earth A Globe (1893) by Alex Gleason Zetetic Cosmogony (1899) by Thomas Winship Terra firma - The Earth is not a Planet (1901) by David Wardlaw Scott The Flat Earth Conspiracy (2014) by Eric Dubay 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball by Eric Dubay (free eBook) The Greatest Lie on Earth - Proof That Our World Is Not A Moving Globe (2016) by Edward Hendrie So if you own any of the book above, then I'd be happy to discuss the contents with you.
    1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. 1
  2906. 1
  2907. 1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917.  @raymond3803  - You said " I see no contradiction. I see no false statement." And I see the contradiction from someone who feels the need to lie to make his case, which is typical of conspiracy believers (sadly) , hence the hypocrisy of conspiracy believers calling so many others liars while somehow believing your own lies are justified :-| As you said and I quote "Judge didn't rule that earth was flat" which means flat Earth was not proven in court. So here's the proof I spoke of, I expect you to address it given your claimed expertise and experience on the subject (so no excuses please); Simply put, if you get hold of a reasonably good 12 inch wide globe of the Earth, then ALL the distances measured on that globe would be on the scale of 26 miles per millimetre, and ALL those distances will be correct, no matter where they are on the globe or how far apart they are! For a 9 inch globe of the Earth the scale works out as 34.7 miles per millimetre, so 35 miles is a good enough approximation. And for a 15 inch globe of the Earth it's around 20.8 miles per millimetre, so 21 miles is a good enough approximation on that globe. It's easy to work it out for any size globe. Just divide 24900 miles by the circumference of the globe in millimetres to work out the scale of the globe, i.e. miles per millimetre. So please test it yourself with a decent quality globe of the Earth - See if you can be the first flat Earth believer in history to find a distance flaw in the map of the Earth in the shape of a GLOBE :-) The fact that there are no flaws proves the map of the Earth wrapped around a globe is the correct shape for the map, and therefore proves the Earth is a globe.
    1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923.  @raymond3803  - You said "Globes don't. My globe is 15" dia. You want me to check if all distances are accurate? Using your scale?" It is NOT my scale, it is THE scale for the globe, since the globe is effectively a scaled model of the Earth (I guess mathematics wasn't your strong point? ;-)). So for your 15" globe, I told you that the scale is 20.8 miles per millimeter, and so 21 miles per millimeter is a good enough approximation. You said "Against mileage charts? Who's charts? Road Atlas? What Airlines provide? Internet mileage charts? Always using the "great ball" string method on my 15" dia. globe?" I don't think I need to tell you HOW to measure distances across the surface of a globe :-/ Anyway, I ALWAYS ask flat Earth believers to select the locations themselves, where THEY are satisfied with the distance stated, whether it's over land or sea or both. That way you are measuring distances that you trust. If I gave you locations to measure, then that opens it up to manipulation on my part, which defeats the purpose. Therefore you need to select the locations to measure. I recommend to some as a starting point the locations specified in flat Earth distance claims, where it is claimed that some distant object shouldn't be seen over the curvature if the Earth was a globe. ALL the years that I've debated such claims, the distance has ALWAYS been stated as FACT by flat Earth believers. Not once has any flat Earth believer suggested that the object can be seen because the distance may be wrong. So in the same way all distances measured on a flat map of our town being correct proves the flat map is an accurate representation of our town, then all distances measured on a globe of the Earth being correct proves the globe is an accurate representation of our Earth :-)
    1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928. 1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. 1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. 1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. 1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. 1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. 1
  3017. 1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. 1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. 1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039.  @labrawnjaimsrealityoverthe2494  - 3) "My mistake I did mean feet. So they only way to determine the curve is based on CGI riddled evidence from NASA." I thought so :-) Anyway, here's the problem. Videos at altitude claiming to show curvature or flatness are invalid tests unless people take into account the distortion caused by the field of view of the lens, and I've never seen anyone do that on either side of the argument. For example, look carefully at videos making such claims and often you'll notice that the higher the horizon is above the center of the video, then the greater the curvature of the Earth. But the lower the horizon is below the center of the video, then the more the Earth appears concave! And notice that there's a 'sweet spot' near the center of the video where the earth appears to be flat. This change in the shape of the Earth depending on where the horizon is in relation to the center of the video is due to the distortion caused by the lens used. Not fish eye, often just a normal wide angle to capture a decent view of the Earth. For example, look how the horizon goes from being a convex curve (round) to flat to concave in seconds here; www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWUZDOQm_HE&t=1226 Many videos like to choose a time when the camera is stable and hence the horizon appears to show a globe or the horizon appears to be flat, and hence they say "Behold, proof that the Earth is flat/globe", but again, without taking the distortion into account they are not proving anything.
    1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. 1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. 1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066. 1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. 1
  3081.  @commonsense7407  - The fact that you actually took Neil's point about the shape of the Earth so LITERALLY says it all. So if your friend said he's so hungry he could eat a horse, would you then check your phone to see if they sell horse meat in your area? Your answer must be yes given your comment that shows you don't understand what an analogy is :-) If you did understand that your friend didn't literally mean a horse, then why are you unable to understand that Neil didn't literally mean a pear? From the video "Neil deGrasse Tyson explains how the earth became pear-shaped"; Neil; "...But not only that, it's slightly wider below the equator than above the equator" Interviewer; "A little chubbier" Neil; "A little chubbier, chubbier's a good word, it's like pear shaped. So ..." Some audience laughter Neil; "... it turns out, the pear shapedness is bigger than the height of Mount Everest above sea level ..." Edited out discussion about the smoothness of Earth's surface compared to its size Neil; "...but cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere." So despite the 'pear shape' analogy Neil clearly says the Earth is "practically a perfect sphere". Therefore it's dishonest to claim he said the Earth literally looks pear shape, and yet so many flat Earth believers do. Why is that? To summarise; Neil was making the point that the Earth is not a perfect sphere, that it's flattened slightly at the poles and hence it's an oblate spheroid... but... even that oblate spheroid is distorted a little because the Earth bulges out a fraction more in the south compared to the north, like a pear, where he made the point that the distortion overall is so small that and I quote "cosmically speaking, we're practically a perfect sphere". It really is that simple!
    1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. ^^^ Those two experiments above demonstrates gravity ^^^ The famous Cavendish experiment is at the start of that video, where it shows the attraction between objects through gravity alone (not through easily detectable and measurable electrostatic or magnetic forces or anything else you may wish to suggest :-)). Countless people have carried out that same experiment for over TWO HUNDRED YEARS using different objects/materials and the result is always the same, and it's only explained by gravity. Also in that same video, notice the second gravity experiment at 1:06, where a small object is weighed and then a much larger object is placed directly beneath it, causing the weight of the small object to increase a fraction due to the gravitational attraction between the two masses. Again that result is only explained by gravity, and not only that, the result can be accurately PREDICTED using theories of gravity depending (in general) on the mass of the objects and their distance apart. If gravity didn't exist, then the results of those two experiments would have been impossible, and yet they have been performed over and over with the same results observed for centuries. So how does the flat Earth claims about buoyancy (which uses gravity in the equations) and density explain the attraction demonstrated in both of those experiments? The answer is: It doesn't, only gravity explains it and only theories of gravity predicts the results. Therefore those two experiments alone proves the existence of a force of attraction between all matter, a force of attraction we call gravity.
    1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. 1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. 1
  3101. 1
  3102. 1
  3103. 1
  3104. 1
  3105. 1
  3106. 1
  3107. 1
  3108. 1
  3109. 1
  3110. 1
  3111. 1
  3112. 1
  3113. 1
  3114. 1
  3115. 1
  3116. 1
  3117. 1
  3118. 1
  3119. 1
  3120. 1
  3121. 1
  3122. 1
  3123. 1
  3124. 1
  3125. 1
  3126. 1
  3127. 1
  3128. 1
  3129. 1
  3130. 1
  3131. 1
  3132. 1
  3133. 1