Comments by "Yazzam X" (@yazzamx6380) on "Joe Rogan - Eddie Bravo Goes DEEP on Flat Earth" video.
-
29
-
13
-
8
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@koolkrapsandracetracks4068 - The first flat Earth books were published over 150 YEARS ago, it didn't start with Eric Dubay in 2014, hence all of those examples are from real flat Earth believers I've debated over the years from a belief that started long before Eric made it popular, so it is not up to you to decide which are genuine and which are not my friend.
Anyway, thanks for stating what you believe, but here are some of the issues I have with your claims;
1. Firmament dome, but how high? Why don't any FE theorists know the height of the dome when they claim to know the height of the sun and moon? Shouldn't they be able to determine the height by measuring the distance to the North Star?
2. Srch the net for "Antarctica Tours" and "South Pole Trips" and notice all the tours and trips YOU can book onto to visit Antarctica and the South Pole in Antarctica yourself, if you can afford it, which is well passed 60° South!
3. For thousands of years ALL eclipses of the sun have been seen to happen at EXACTLY the same time as the time of the New Moon, where the moon is at it's closest point to the sun in the sky.
Flat Earth believers seem to be unaware of that fact, since how can it be a coincidence that total and partial and annular eclipses of the sun ALL just so happen to occur at EXACTLY the SAME time predicted for the New Moon for thousands of years, predicted based upon the movement of the moon relative to the sun :-)
Think about that please.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
You said "it is not a real picture. It's a computer generated rendering of what the data shows. Colored and textured by CGI artists working at NASA. THIS IS A FACT."
That is not a fact my friend, that's a distortion of the facts used by others to claim those photos are fake :-|
ALL digital photography can be labelled fake and composite and hence "not a real picture" because of the way digital photography works.
For example, the photosensor within the camera in your photo doesn't detect color! Most people don't realize that.
So to create color with just one photosensor there are two main approaches, each with advantages and disadvantages;
1. We can take 3 separate photos of the same scene but through 3 filters, typically red, green and blue, and then combine all 3 images into one photo (the same method used to achieve the first color film photographs a century ago).
2. Place a filter with a mosaic pattern of red, green and blue across the photosensor so that some pixels are filtered red, some green and some blue, and then use a complex mathematical algorithm to reconstruct the color across the entire photograph (look up Bayer Filter as an example).
For photos and videos taken via phones and digital cameras method 2 is used, because only one image per frame is captured and the color worked out mathematically. To our eyes everything looks fine, but the color is not 100% correct across all pixels.
For science however, color is important data and therefore method 2 is unacceptable because the data is being altered. So method 1 is used instead, where 3 separate photos are taken in quick succession (of a planet for example) through different filters and then those separate filtered images are combined to produce the final image, where for a color image the color information is correct across all the pixels.
So by the same logic, every photograph that we've ever taken with any phone or digital camera is not a real picture, it is computer generated :-)
And yet we know all our photographs taken with our devices are real despite how the color is reconstructed, just as photographs taken in space are real despite how the color is reconstructed.
I hope that information helped.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Hi, getting people to the moon requires building the largest and the most powerful rockets in history.
Back then, the USA built the spacecraft and the massively expensive Saturn V rocket, thanks to Congress increasing NASA's budget by up to 9 TIMES normal for that purpose.
The world's most powerful rocket worked like a dream and so they were able to use the Saturn V to get their astronauts to the moon, but the cost meant it wasn't sustainable.
Now look up NASA's recent Artemis 1 mission, with its SLS rocket which is as large as the Saturn V and slightly more powerful, where it recently took the Orion space capsule to the moon and back to Earth on a 25 day mission to test all the systems, and it was a complete success.
Late next year the same SLS rocket and Orion space capsule will take a crew of astronauts to the moon and back (Artemis 2), and some missions after that will include a lander to take people to the surface.
Simply put, the SLS rocket is the new Saturn V and the Orion space capsule is the new Apollo Command Module, and so the USA have the technology today to send people to the moon.
I hope that helps :-)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Putting aside the fact that the oceans are not flat, your next two claims are not only wrong, but YOU could prove them wrong if you actually tried.
Firstly the north star (Polaris) is not exactly on true north, it's about 0.75 degrees off true north, hence in time lapse photography (preferably zoomed in) it creates a star trail for a circle about 1.5 degrees wide, which is about the width of 3 full moons.
In other words, the north star 'moves'.
Secondly, the horizon drops with altitude.
For example; youtube.com/watch?v=NqOQ_BCtqUI
Clearly showing the horizon DROPS with altitude.
You can do that yourself with a half filled bottle of water, hence search online for;
"Bottled Water: A Simple Device for Observing the Dip of the Horizon"
Again clearly showing the horizon DROPS with altitude.
The water bottle test is something that you and every flat Earth believer can do the next time you're in an airplane, and yet you will not find a single example of any flat Earth believers carrying out that test and showing the horizon has risen to eye level, because ALL who have carried out that test have found the horizon DROPS with altitude.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@deemann894 - No problem and thank you specifying the Bible you read, however my point still remains for Isaiah 40:22, because there's a good reason why some Bibles say circle, some say sphere, some say globe etc.
The Hebrew word being translated by all those Bibles is the word 'chug' which means "a circle, sphere, used of the arch or vault of the sky" (Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon).
So circle, globe, sphere and vault have ALL been used for Isaiah 40:22 by various bibles.
Simply put, 'chug' does not mean a flat circle.
Also, Job 22:14 uses the same Hebrew word 'chug', for example from the KJV Bible "...and he walketh in the circuit of heaven", where other Bibles say "vaulted heavens", "circuit of heaven", "vault of the sky" etc.
So multiple meanings for the same word, where it comes down to the translation and interpretation.
Btw, which church produced the King James 1611 Bible?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dennisking4589 - You said " I do not think one would exist unless someone endeavored to do so"
An exceptionally weak argument even by your standards, where you have just admitted that no such flat map of a flat Earth exists!
A flat map is a 2D representation of a specific area, and so for the flat map to be accurate the size of the area doesn't matter if it's generally flat throughout.
Therefore the area mapped could be just 10 meters by 10 meters, or 10 miles by 10 miles, or 100 miles by 100 miles, or a 1000 miles by 1000 miles, or 10000 miles by 10000 miles, and so on.
If it's flat, then we can represent that entire flat area accurately with a flat map because the shape is essentially the same, i.e. flat.
Our entire Earth has been mapped, therefore if the Earth was flat then the map of the entire Earth would be flat and ACCURATE without distortion.
A map of a flat Earth should ONLY be distorted if wrapped around a different shape, such as a globe, and yet a globe is the ONLY shape where the map of the Earth is not distorted (as my proof shows)!
You said "..in fact...YOU could with a simple software program"
WRONG, since it is mathematically impossible to wrap a flat surface around a globe without distortion or to flatten the surface of a globe without distortion, hence computers can't get around that fact.
1
-
@dennisking4589 - You said "YOU must provide evidence it is a globe....and a map made to represent mathematical equations is not proof, it is a representation of math by image."
Again a very weak argument from you based upon wilful ignorance and denial (sorry but it's true :-)).
Everything you've said there applies to accurate flat maps of our cities, and yet even someone with a low IQ can understand that no mathematical equations are required to accurately work out distances on that flat map, since it's just the city layout on a smaller scale.
If ALL distances measured on that flat city map are correct and hence no-one can find any errors, then that proves the flat map is accurate and undistorted, therefore the entire map is correct.
Can anyone wrap that city map around a globe without distorting it? NO! Just doing that will bring north and south and east and west closer together and therefore the map will be distorted and therefore distances measured will be wrong.
The accuracy of globes of the Earth would be IMPOSSIBLE is the Earth was flat, because it is mathematically impossible to wrap a flat surface all around a globe without distortion.
The map of the Earth around a globe is not distorted, it is correct, therefore that proves the Earth is a globe whether you like it or not. Get over it, or around it if you prefer ;-)
When you can present a flat map of the entire Earth that is accurate and undistorted, only THEN can you argue that the Earth is flat.
Come back if you ever find such a map :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
^^^ 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nope, flat Earth theorists told you that by distorting the facts, knowing that certain people would fall for their claims without question.
They use the logic that if for example you bit into an apple and discovered it was fake apple, then that means all apples are fake, regardless of the reasons for the fake apple, such as being made for a centerpiece, for a movie prop, for decoration, a work of art, etc.
Besides, are you saying you believe the Earth is flat? :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Rockmih - You said "I didn't focused on anything, you mention flat earth because its an easy way for you to dismiss Eddy."
I mentioned flat Earth because it accounts for over 95% of the discussion of this 1 hour video with the title "Eddie Bravo Goes DEEP on Flat Earth".
So why are you purposely ignoring that fact?
You said "The carbon dating is limited to nothing"
Wrong, carbon dating is limited to the carbon-14 found in organic remains, since all lifeforms on Earth are carbon based, and hence the radioactive decay of carbon atoms within the remains of lifeforms limits the accuracy to 50,000 to 60,000 years, where after that period the radioactivity left the carbon atoms is so low that the results cannot be trusted.
One guy was making the point that we can estimate the age of certain dinosaur bones by the rock layers that they were found in the Earth (as Joe said "The stratas") and yet Eddie responded saying "Well if you're talking about Carbon dating", which they were NOT.
Therefore carbon dating that EDDIE brought up has nothing to do with the dinosaurs that EDDIE was talking about.
So again, the accuracy of carbon dating has nothing to do with dinosaurs, as I explained to you before, so Eddie is wrong.
Learn to understand what you hear and read before replying :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexthurman6808 - Your video is a classic example of how flat Earth 'theorists' lie to you and even to themselves :-|
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 (like the one you provided) 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 '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 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 curved or the horizon appears flat, and so they say "Behold, proof that the shape of the Earth is X", but again, without taking the distortion into account they are not proving anything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexthurman6808 - You said "Well yeah that would be the case. Thats how models work. You could form a made up model to fit the given measurements. Say the earth is flat for arguments sake. Take the measurements and form it into a sphere. Its as simple as that."
Wrong my friend, hence you didn't get the importance of the proof I provided.
We can take the world's most hardcore flat Earth believer and lock him in a room with a globe, a measuring tape and a calculator and give him 100 locations pairs around the Earth at random and ask him to work out the distances.
Assuming he made no mistakes then his 100 measurements would be correct!
Likewise, take an area on the globe small enough for the curvature to have negligible affect on a map, such as a flat map of your city, and you can lock him in a room with that flat city map (which will have a bar scale to tell us how long a mile/km is on that map), a measuring tape and a calculator and give him 100 locations pairs around your city at random and ask him to work out the distances.
Assuming he made no mistakes then his 100 measurements would be correct!
There are NO flat maps of the entire Earth for which he can do the same, since ALL flat maps of the Earth used for navigation are projections from a globe Earth, and therefore all such maps are distorted by definition, including the AE/Gleason map.
The size of a flat area doesn't affect the accuracy of a flat map of that area, and therefore if the Earth really was flat then we would have accurate flat maps of a flat Earth that are undistorted and therefore we can work out distances on that map in exactly the same way as a city map.
Simply put: No accurate undistorted flat map of a flat Earth = No flat Earth :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bssorg4689 - Nope. The Hebrew word meaning deceive is actually NASHA, pronounced as "Na-shaw".
NASA in Hebrew, pronounced as "Na-Sar" or "Naw-Saw", means to lift, bear up, carry, or take, for example;
External links are blocked, so replace DOT and FWSLASH as required in the links below;
isDOTgdFWSLASHDyy9sN
Quote: "The Hebrew word of the week is nasa ("to lift up, take up, carry")"
Here's a few more links;
isDOTgdFWSLASHgDYJJB
isDOTgdFWSLASH0q3abY
isDOTgdFWSLASHCtWTNt
So just because something fits in with your views it doesn't mean you must believe it without question and without thinking for yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jordanclark1700 - Thanks for your reply and your honesty here, much appreciated.
Please note that my replies below are not meant to sound as harsh as they may appear, they are just my direct responses to your arguments which I've said to others before.
You said "What I believe is there’s more than enough reasons to question what we’re told..."
I understand what you're saying, but those who tell me that rarely ever question the 'theorists' they listen to, instead they view those theorists like angels who can never be wrong and can never lie, which is to ignore human nature :-|
You said "God created the heavens and the earth with a firmament (dome) a closed system over a round flat ish surface surrounded by an Ice wall that serves as all the waters container."
The problem is, the Bible doesn't state the shape of the Earth, it neither explicitly says the Earth is flat or a globe, therefore claims of a Biblical origin for a flat Earth are unfounded.
After all, every Bible you refer to was produced by Christian churches who translated the original Hebrew and Arabic texts, and yet all Christian churches throughout history say the Earth is a globe (albeit a stationary globe for most of that history), none have ever said the Earth is flat.
You said "That everything works as it was designed by a creator...."
And that's where I have a problem with that argument my friend, because the Creator is said to be all knowing and all powerful and yet for some reason creating a universe with gravity that resulted in a globe Earth is beyond the Creator's power? Think about it :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JiboiaJin - You said "well the Bible says the earth is fixed and unmovable. It also speaks of the 4 corners of the earth. This is the Bible, so can you explain that?"
I already did when I said and I quote "their message was that the Earth is a globe (again, a stationary globe for most of Christian history)."
That's because, putting aside the fact that the Bible is not a science book, you can find verses agreed across all Bibles that explicitly says the Earth doesn't move, but there are ZERO verses across all Bibles that explicitly states the SHAPE of the Earth.
All the Bibles you've read are translations of the original Hebrew and Arabic texts, where ALL those who translated the texts say the Earth is a globe, i.e. the Christian churches who produced those Bibles.
4 corners of the Earth simply means everywhere, i.e. as far north, south, east and west as we can go, it does not literally mean 4 corners.
After all, ALL depictions of a flat Earth show it to be circular in shape, none of them show the surface of the Earth to be square, and the last time I checked there are no corners on a circle either :-)
1
-
1
-
^^^ 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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasonflatearther - I explained how Google Earth works, so besides satellites which part of "from airplanes, balloons, helicopters, drones, etc" did you miss? :-|
Anyway, before going any further, can you say which version of a flat Earth you believe please? A brief summary in your own words would suffice.
I ask because there are many versions to choose from, i.e. dome or no dome? Edge (finite plane) or no edge (infinite plane)? More land and seas beyond the ice wall? Pillars or no pillars? Gravity or no gravity? Globe sun and moon or flat sun and moon? Rahu and Ketu, or just the moon? etc.
Once you say which flat Earth you mean, then your comments here will be in context of your flat Earth.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jasonflatearther - You said "You coming to me and saying some douchebag told you something is no different than me coming to you and saying that I read it in the Bible"
When that 'douchebag' is one of the founders of Google Earth, then his words on how Google Earth works matters more than your uninformed claims about Google Earth.
Mark Aubin, co-founder of the product that was renamed Google Earth;
"Most people are surprised to learn that we have more than one source for our imagery. We collect it via airplane and satellite, but also just about any way you can imagine getting a camera above the Earth's surface: hot air balloons, model airplanes – even kites. The traditional aerial survey involves mounting a special gyroscopic, stabilized camera in the belly of an airplane and flying it at an elevation of between 15,000 feet and 30,000 feet, depending on the resolution of imagery you're interested in. As the plane takes a predefined route over the desired area, it forms a series of parallel lines with about 40 percent overlap between lines and 60 percent overlap in the direction of flight. This overlap of images is what provides us with enough detail to remove distortions caused by the varying shape of the Earth's surface.
The next step is processing the imagery. We scan the film using scanners capable of over 1800 DPI (dots per inch) or 14 microns. Then we take the digital imagery through a series of stages such as color balancing and warping to produce the final mosaic for the entire area.
We update the imagery as quickly as we can collect and process it, then add layers of information – things like country and state borders and the names of roads, schools, and parks - to make it more useful. This information comes from multiple sources: commercial providers, local government agencies, public domain collections, private individuals, national and even international governments. Right now, Google Earth has hundreds of terabytes of geographic data, and it's growing larger every day."
But hey, what would he know, right? :-D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MissMillyHerself-kt6yx - Firstly, your solid block of text is not visible in this thread, probably too long and/or includes comments that triggered the YT AI to act, a problem that we all face (btw, ever heard of paragraphs? :-)).
Anyway, I can see your full reply in my email notification only, where you started with "And the basis of this statement is?..."
The basis of my statement is your reply to worldisfilledb9334, where you played the "I have a degree" card to dismiss him laughing at Eddie with regards to math, where no-one with a degree in mathematics would fail to see the flaws and lies in the mathematics presented by flat Earth theorists.
And what really caught my attention was the "them and us" comment from you where you said and I quote "Don't be misdirected. ..Just because your "internets" and other external forces are telling/convincing you that this theory is all of rubbish and all evidence and research has been blocked, pushed down, made restricted or in all ways extremely difficult to access on this matter, does NOT mean there's isn't an entire raft of us who believe we can either prove otherwise, or add some serious credence to the conversation. Our platform has just been pulled beneath our feet. Don't sell yourself short because you "think" you know something."
So any 'group' can make any claim they want no matter how ridiculous and make any accusations against others that they want, and yet deserve to be taken seriously on that basis? No need for them to present evidence that actually holds up to scrutiny?
Would you apply the same to a growing group who claim mathematics is all lies and evil as they proceed to present some of the most laughable arguments you've ever heard? :-|
So in what way does a belief in a flat Earth warrant being taken seriously when it presents no evidence to support it that holds up to scrutiny, not even one.
You said "Do I agree that he is (along with many others. More than people want to believe) are on to something? Or that the earth may be flat....well yes, yes I do."
And that's the problem, hence THAT is the basis of my reply, because someone with a degree is mathematics (which I assume you were saying) should be able to quickly see through any flat Earth claims based upon mathematics, so I have to question your comments and motives here when you fail to see how flat Earth mathematic claims are wrong, especially given your 13 day old account.
I doubt this is your first YT account, so what was your main account before please? Or is that a secret? :-|
1
-
1
-
@MissMillyHerself-kt6yx - I'm going to try to focus on your comments that are directly relevant to this discussion and ignore your side tracking remarks.
Anyway, you said "Its a little alarming that you say anyone with a "ridiculous" theory or notion or idea does not DESERVE to be taken seriously....Seriously? I in no way think you are ridiculous I do however think (as far as the fundamental basis of this theory and being able to prove or put a full stop to which argument is right or wrong) that you are certainly "punching above your weight) and more over not willing to admit that possibility."
Whenever I choose to look into a conspiray theory, I take the time to do my research.
As a practicing amateur astronomer (on and off :-)) since the 70s who started to see more and more flat Earth believers trolling the science videos I was participating in, where they set out to spoil discussions with cries of "fake", "lies", "hoax" etc, I decided to look into flat Earth theory so that I know what I'm talking about and hence would avoid misunderstanding and misrepresenting their claims.
Rather than watch videos on YT like most flat Earth believers, I decided to go to the original sources and hence find and read as many of the flat Earth books I could find published over the last 150 years or so.
Here's the flat Earth books that I've acquired and 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 I'm certainly not punching above my weight, and I've done my research, but nice try with your assumption :-)
My initial goal for acquiring all those books was to see if just one of them featured an accurate undistorted flat map of a flat Earth.
None of them do, as I expected.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Irrelevant my friend :-)
Gravity is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as magnetism is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is. Just as light is a proven fact, but scientists don't know exactly what it is.
Hence to explain how gravity works, we have theories of gravity. To explain how magnetism works, we have theories of magnetism. To explain how light works, we have theories of light.
The problem is, when scientists say they don't know what 'X' is, some people take that to mean the scientists are saying 'X' doesn't exist.
But that's not the case, the scientists know "X" exist and they have theories that explains and predicts how "X" works, it's just that they don't know what it really is (replace 'X' with 'Gravity' or 'Magnetism' or 'Light' etc).
I hope that explanation helps :-)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neilparry7116 - I'm pleased you asked, but first we need to establish a baseline that we can both agree on.
So before discussing the globe itself, consider an area of land small enough for the curvature of the Earth to have negligible effect, such as your town or city.
ALL of us can find an accurate flat map of our own town/city, where that map features a small bar or line showing the distance on that map that represents 1 mile/km or 5 mile/km or similar, i.e. the bar scale of the map.
That way, we can take any route across our town/city and accurately measure the distance just by using our map.
Likewise we can take any two locations on our flat map and measure it to easily work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct, proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of our town/city.
In fact, the accuracy of the flat map means people who are visiting your town/city for the very first time can accurately navigate your entire town/city and can work out the exact distance of any route, just from the flat map alone!
Do you agree with the above? If not, then can you explain why not please?
1
-
@neilparry7116 - Hi, sorry I meant to get back to you sooner.
I'm pleased you agree because that's the heart of my proof that the Earth is a globe.
You see, if there was something wrong with a flat map of your city then people would spot it very quickly, noticing routes and distances that are wrong. If people using the map cannot find anything wrong then we know the flat map is accurate.
So here's the problem... a flat map is a 2D representation of a specific area, and so for the flat map to be accurate the size of the area mapped doesn't matter on a flat Earth.
Hence the area mapped could be just 10 meters by 10 meters, or 10 miles by 10 miles, or 100 miles by 100 miles, or a 1000 miles by 1000 miles, or 10000 miles by 10000 miles, and so on. If it's flat, then we can represent that entire flat area accurately with a flat map because the shape is essentially the same, i.e. flat.
So the question is, where is the accurate flat map of a flat Earth where we can take any two locations on the map and measure it to work out the distance in the real world and it will be correct (just like our town/city map), proving that the flat map is an accurate representation of a flat Earth?
The answer? No such flat map of the whole Earth exists! :-|
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1