Official flat earth thread

[Anonymous No.8130880]

It is very possible that you are living on a flat earth. You are so brain washed since birth about living on a round earth that your brain goes haywire and you rage when someone speaks of the "flat earth".

ITT i will be posting explanations why the earth is flat. If you disagree to an argument please post the number of the argument and the reason you disagree.

Here I go!

1) The horizon always appears perfectly flat 360 degrees around the observer regardless of altitude (OP pic). All amateur balloon, rocket, plane and drone footage show a completely flat horizon over 20+ miles high. Only NASA and other government “space agencies” show curvature in their fake CGI photos/videos.

[Anonymous No.8130881]

2) The horizon always rises to the eye level of the observer as altitude is gained, so you never have to look down to see it. If Earth were in fact a globe, no matter how large, as you ascended the horizon would stay fixed and the observer / camera would have to tilt looking down further and further to see it.

[Anonymous No.8130883]

3) The natural physics of water is to find and maintain its level. If Earth were a giant sphere tilted, wobbling and hurdling through infinite space then truly flat, consistently level surfaces would not exist here. But since Earth is in fact an extended flat plane, this fundamental physical property of fluids finding and remaining level is consistent with experience and common sense.

[Anonymous No.8130885]

>>8130880
Please kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.8130886]

>>8130880
1) Citation needed
2) Those pictures demonstrably show curvature
3) On the contrary, if the earth was flat, the center of gravity would pull the water to the center sinc that's where the average mass is going to be

[Anonymous No.8130887]

4) Rivers run down to sea-level finding the easiest course, North, South, East, West and all other intermediary directions over the Earth at the same time. If Earth were truly a spinning ball then many of these rivers would be impossibly flowing uphill, for example the Mississippi in its 3000 miles would have to ascend 11 miles before reaching the Gulf of Mexico.

[Anonymous No.8130889]

5) One portion of the Nile River flows for a thousand miles with a fall of only one foot. Parts of the West African Congo, according to the supposed inclination and movement of the ball-Earth, would be sometimes running uphill and sometimes down. This would also be the case for the Parana, Paraguay and other long rivers.

[Anonymous No.8130892]

>>8130887
>>8130889
I know flat-earth threads are dumb, but that claim is new and spectacular.
Why the fuck do you think a round Earth would require rivers to flow uphill?

[Anonymous No.8130894]

>>8130886
1) It says amateur photos. How can i cite all of the amateur photos taken.
2)I can't see any curvature at all
3)What? Average mass? What is this? Obviously the mass attracts you straight down wherever you are.

[Anonymous No.8130895]

6) If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference as NASA and modern astronomy claim, spherical trigonometry dictates the surface of all standing water must curve downward an easily measurable 8 inches per mile multiplied by the square of the distance. This means along a 6 mile channel of standing water, the Earth would dip 6 feet on either end from the central peak. Every time such experiments have been conducted, however, standing water has proven to be perfectly level.

[Anonymous No.8130896]

>>8130894
1) Show a few of them and I'll point it out
2) Your incapability is irrelevant
3) wow. Atleast the other flatcucks knew physics101. Let me know when you graduate highschool

[Anonymous No.8130897]

7) Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects. Canals, railways, bridges and tunnels for example are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles without any allowance for curvature.

[Anonymous No.8130898]

8) The Suez Canal connecting the Mediterranean with the Red Sea is 100 miles long without any locks making the water an uninterrupted continuation of the two seas. When constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.

[Anonymous No.8130901]

9) Engineer, W. Winckler was published in the Earth Review regarding the Earth’s supposed curvature, stating, “As an engineer of many years standing, I saw that this absurd allowance is only permitted in school books. No engineer would dream of allowing anything of the kind. I have projected many miles of railways and many more of canals and the allowance has not even been thought of, much less allowed for. This allowance for curvature means this - that it is 8” for the first mile of a canal, and increasing at the ratio by the square of the distance in miles; thus a small navigable canal for boats, say 30 miles long, will have, by the above rule an allowance for curvature of 600 feet. Think of that and then please credit engineers as not being quite such fools. Nothing of the sort is allowed. We no more think of allowing 600 feet for a line of 30 miles of railway or canal, than of wasting our time trying to square the circle”

[Anonymous No.8130904]

>>8130896
neither of us is good as physics.

I'm giving some food for thought. These arguments are not mine, if you prove me wrong no problem.

I just want a final discussion on flat earth to solve this forever. Make me believe in round earth.

[Anonymous No.8130908]

11) A surveyor and engineer of thirty years published in the Birmingham Weekly Mercury stated, “I am thoroughly acquainted with the theory and practice of civil engineering. However bigoted some of our professors may be in the theory of surveying according to the prescribed rules, yet it is well known amongst us that such theoretical measurements are INCAPABLE OF ANY PRACTICAL ILLUSTRATION. All our locomotives are designed to run on what may be regarded as TRUE LEVELS or FLATS. There are, of course, partial inclines or gradients here and there, but they are always accurately defined and must be carefully traversed. But anything approaching to eight inches in the mile, increasing as the square of the distance, COULD NOT BE WORKED BY ANY ENGINE THAT WAS EVER YET CONSTRUCTED. Taking one station with another all over England and Scotland, it may be stated that all the platforms are ON THE SAME RELATIVE LEVEL. The distance between Eastern and Western coasts of England may be set down as 300 miles. If the prescribed curvature was indeed as represented, the central stations at Rugby or Warwick ought to be close upon three miles higher than a chord drawn from the two extremities. If such was the case there is not a driver or stoker within the Kingdom that would be found to take charge of the train. We can only laugh at those of your readers who seriously give us credit for such venturesome exploits, as running trains round spherical curves. Horizontal curves on levels are dangerous enough, vertical curves would be a thousand times worse, and with our rolling stock constructed as at present physically impossible.”

[Anonymous No.8130910]

12) The Manchester Ship Canal Company published in the Earth Review stated, “It is customary in Railway and Canal constructions for all levels to be referred to a datum which is nominally horizontal and is so shown on all sections. It is not the practice in laying out Public Works to make allowances for the curvature of the earth

[Anonymous No.8130912]

13) In a 19th century French experiment by M. M. Biot and Arago a powerful lamp with good reflectors was placed on the summit of Desierto las Palmas in Spain and able to be seen all the way from Camprey on the Island of Iviza. Since the elevation of the two points were identical and the distance between covered nearly 100 miles, if Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, the light should have been more than 6600 feet, a mile and a quarter, below the line of sight!

[Anonymous No.8130913]

>>8130897
>>8130898
>>8130901
>>8130908
> not being able to comprehend the vast size of earth
this thread...oh god...

[Anonymous No.8130914]

14) The Lieutenant-Colonel Portlock experiment used oxy-hydrogen Drummond’s lights and heliostats to reflect the sun’s rays across stations set up across 108 miles of St. George’s Channel. If the Earth were actually a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Portlock’s light should have remained hidden under a mile and a half of curvature.

[Anonymous No.8130915]

>>8130880
The fact that there's a horizon at all proves curvature.

[Anonymous No.8130916]

>>8130913
see this
>>8130895
6 feet dip every 6 mile is accountable

[Anonymous No.8130919]

>>8130915
how? The horizon is at eye level. It stretches until where you can see.

[Anonymous No.8130922]

>>8130916
I stopped listening to you when you said gravity is a force that pulls us "down", whatever that means.

[Anonymous No.8130923]

15) If the Earth were truly a sphere 25,000 miles in circumference, airplane pilots would have to constantly correct their altitudes downwards so as to not fly straight off into “outer space;” a pilot wishing to simply maintain their altitude at a typical cruising speed of 500 mph, would have to constantly dip their nose downwards and descend 2,777 feet (over half a mile) every minute! Otherwise, without compensation, in one hour’s time the pilot would find themselves 31.5 miles higher than expected.

[Anonymous No.8130927]

>>8130922
In the case of a flat earth, the earths gravity would pull you straight down provided that the mass of the earth underneath your feet has an average amount, wherever you may stand.

[Anonymous No.8130929]

16) The experiment known as “Airy’s Failure” proved that the stars move relative to a stationary Earth and not the other way around. By first filling a telescope with water to slow down the speed of light inside, then calculating the tilt necessary to get the starlight directly down the tube, Airy failed to prove the heliocentric theory since the starlight was already coming in the correct angle with no change necessary, and instead proved the geocentric model correct.

[Anonymous No.8130930]

>>8130923
Gravity affects planes too you dumbass

[Anonymous No.8130931]

>>8130927
Too bad thats now how gravity works. I can't converse with someone who doesn't know elementary physics. I guess they are NASA lies too right ?

[Anonymous No.8130934]

17) “Olber’s Paradox” states that if there were billions of stars which are suns the night sky would be filled completely with light. As Edgar Allen Poe said, “Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, since there could exist absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star.” In fact Olber’s “Paradox” is no more a paradox than George Airy’s experiment was a “failure.” Both are actually excellent refutations of the heliocentric spinning ball model.

[Anonymous No.8130935]

>>8130886
>3) On the contrary, if the earth was flat, the center of gravity would pull the water to the center sinc that's where the average mass is going to be
in what model of gravity ?

[Anonymous No.8130936]

>>8130927

Why do we have literally thousands of photos of the Earth from space which show it as a ball yet not a single photo of the supposed "edge"? also you can use a telescope and see that the neighboring planets are spherical, as well as our moon. Why would we be any different?

Why does the spherical Earth model fit perfectly within our model of the Universe, and yet not one flat Earth propasal does?

[Anonymous No.8130937]

The rotation

[Anonymous No.8130939]

>>8130919
Then I suppose you with a powerful enough pair of binoculars and a sufficiently flat plane could look at the horizon and eliminate it all together just by adding magnification, you could see the infinite expanse of the earth, or maybe... just maybe, you could be the hero who discovers the edge of the world.

The fact that even at altitude the horizon appears to be the same lends to curvature, as a flat surface looked down upon would stretch outward actually making the horizon appear to rise because with a flat object the horizon is not where the curve begins but merely a limit of what you can discern at a distance.

>tl;dr you need to study perspective.

[Anonymous No.8130940]

>>8130931
all of the physics and science laws seem to be true. If you accept the flat earth theory it doesn't mean you don't accept physics. but you ll have to reconsider astronomy, astrophysics etc..

Most of these arguments use scientific explanations.

>>8130930
How does this refute the argument? Also, please do not flame! Thanks.

[Anonymous No.8130942]

>>8130880
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDa7egFqaiI
My excuse for falling for the bait is that this channel has some fucking awsome music

[Anonymous No.8130945]

>>8130936
There are many beliefs that these photos are CGI, You can see obvious changes in the colors of the water and continents as well changes in the shape of the continents between the photos NASA published. Don't forget that only NASA has ever published photos of earth (taken outside of earth)

Also there is a chance the model of universe is built to conform to a spherical earth concept?

[Anonymous No.8130946]

The sky is different whether you live in the South or North Hemisphere.

Boats disappear bottom first when sailing away.

The fact that you can watch two sunsets if you change altitudes.

And these are just a few intuitive pieces of evidence.

Every other celestial body with enough amount of mass is round.

The main problem with the Flat Earth model is that it leaves so many things unexplained that it can't even be called a theory.

Flat Earth doesn't explain seasons, why the poles are cold, why the Equator is warm, how winds form, earthquakes...

Just talk to a seismologist, they will beat some sense into your flat skull. Seismology monitors hundreds of earthquakes a day and they do so by using techniques that would only work on a oblate Earth.

[Anonymous No.8130948]

>>8130946
Stop.
You're wasting your time, and chasing shitty bait.

[Anonymous No.8130949]

>>8130942
But it says NASA.

It seems you are not following the thread.

To accept the flat earth model you must accept that NASA is part of the round earth conspiracy along with the other space agencies.

[Anonymous No.8130951]

18) The Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments attempted to measure the change in speed of light due to Earth’s assumed motion through space. After measuring in every possible different direction in various locations they failed to detect any significant change whatsoever, again proving the stationary geocentric model.

[Anonymous No.8130953]

19) Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after 190,000,000 miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars, proving we have not moved at all.

[Anonymous No.8130955]

>>8130948
Who cares? I'm a NEET with nothing to do and I'm out of alcohol at 10 am already. It was this or /b/

[Anonymous No.8130957]

22) If Earth were truly constantly spinning Eastwards at over 1000mph, during the Red Bull stratosphere dive, Felix Baumgartner, spending 3 hours ascending over New Mexico, should have landed 2500 miles West into the Pacific Ocean but instead landed a few dozen miles East of the take-off point.

[Anonymous No.8130959]

>>8130946
Please do not respond to these threads. You are giving Flat Earth trolls the ammo they need.

[Anonymous No.8130962]

23) Ball-believers often claim “gravity” magically and inexplicably drags the entire lower-atmosphere of the Earth in perfect synchronization up to some undetermined height where this progressively faster spinning atmosphere gives way to the non-spinning, non-gravitized, non-atmosphere of infinite vacuum space. Such non-sensical theories are debunked, however, by rain, fireworks, birds, bugs, clouds, smoke, planes and projectiles all of which would behave very differently if both the ball-Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards at 1000mph.

[Anonymous No.8130964]

>>8130945
That's the thing, none of these "beliefs" are proven, just widely inaccurate assumptions based on little to no evidence. Pointing your finger and yelling FAKE! does not make it so, and there are software programs that could show whether it's fake or not.

Our model of how things work makes absolute sense, and is consistent with our observations. This is not true with the Flat Earth conspiracy, it creates way more problems and questions than it answers

[Anonymous No.8130967]

>>8130959
Im not trolling. These arguments Im posting have citations as well as logical explanations.

Stop flaming my thread.

>>8130946
these are good counter arguments. I have never seen a boat disappearing with my own eyes.

The two sunsets i cant explain though. Are you sure when you watched the two sunsets the sun was not dipping behind a mountain or other object?

I for one, have never experienced double sunset on a flat horizon like sea, or desert..

[Anonymous No.8130970]

>>8130949
But why would they do that? For what purpose would the government lie about the shape of the planet? Why does it benefit them? Why would a group of highly trained scientists and engineers who have had the scientific method engrained into them in their education and at NASA be ok with this?

[Anonymous No.8130972]

>>8130964

[Anonymous No.8130975]

>>8130962
Imagine what you could do if you put this kind of compassion and effort into something real

It's almost sad, if you were just a bit more intelligent you could almost be a genuine scientist's assistant's assistant

[Anonymous No.8130976]

>>8130970
If long term powers that be wanted to control world knowledge, to make the every man, women and child think and feel insignificant, and not hold the thought of a “Kingdom of God Within”, you would tell him he is only a very, very, very small part of a much bigger whole that he cannot possible comprehend or understand.

[Anonymous No.8130977]

~ 200 BC.

How does it feel to be this dense?

[Anonymous No.8130978]

>>8130972
Cameras aren't perfect and are subject to error from time to time. Just take a picture of something with a very bright light near the object, you won't get an accurate shot of it.

Next question please this is easy

[Anonymous No.8130980]

28) If the Earth and its atmosphere were constantly spinning Eastwards over 1000mph, then clouds, wind and weather patterns could not casually and unpredictably go every which way, with clouds often travelling in opposing directions at varying altitudes simultaneously.

[Anonymous No.8130985]

30) In his book “South Sea Voyages,” Arctic and Antarctic explorer Sir James Clarke Ross, described his experience on the night of November 27th, 1839 and his conclusion that the Earth must be motionless: “The sky being very clear … it enabled us to observe the higher stratum of clouds to be moving in an exactly opposite direction to that of the wind--a circumstance which is frequently recorded in our meteorological journal both in the north-east and south-east trades, and has also often been observed by former voyagers. Captain Basil Hall witnessed it from the summit of the Peak of Teneriffe; and Count Strzelechi, on ascending the volcanic mountain of Kiranea, in Owhyhee, reached at 4000 feet an elevation above that of the trade wind, and experienced the influence of an opposite current of air of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition … Count Strzelechi further informed me of the following seemingly anomalous circumstance--that at the height of 6000 feet he found the current of air blowing at right angles to both the lower strata, also of a different hygrometric and thermometric condition, but warmer than the inter-stratum. Such a state of the atmosphere is compatible only with the fact which other evidence has demonstrated, that the earth is at rest."

[Anonymous No.8130987]

31) Quoting “Zetetic Cosmogeny” Thomas Winships states: “Let ‘imagination’ picture to the mind what force air would have which was set in motion by a spherical body of 8,000 miles in diameter, which in one hour was spinning round 1,000 mph, rushing through space at 65,000 mph and gyrating across the heavens? Then let ‘conjecture’ endeavor to discover whether the inhabitants on such a globe could keep their hair on? If the earth-globe rotates on its axis at the terrific rate of 1,000 miles an hour, such an immense mass would of necessity cause a tremendous rush of wind in the space it occupied. The wind would go all one way, and anything like clouds which got ‘within the sphere of influence’ of the rotating sphere, would have to go the same way. The fact that the earth is at rest is proved by kite flying.”

[Anonymous No.8130988]

>>8130977
That shit is really impressive. If he'd been somewhere within and order of magnitude of right it would have been cool, but to use a sick, some shadows, and pacing to measure the Earth to within a few percent is fucking outrageous.

>>8130978
Two cameras can take different-looking photographs of the same scene without either of them being wrong.

[Anonymous No.8130990]

34) Ship captains in navigating great distances at sea never need to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their calculations. Both Plane Sailing and Great Circle Sailing, the most popular navigation methods, use plane, not spherical trigonometry, making all mathematical calculations on the assumption that the Earth is perfectly flat. If the Earth were in fact a sphere, such an errant assumption would lead to constant glaring inaccuracies. Plane Sailing has worked perfectly fine in both theory and practice for thousands of years, however, and plane trigonometry has time and again proven more accurate than spherical trigonometry in determining distances across the oceans.

[Anonymous No.8130994]

>>8130976
Excuse me but religion is in charge od belittling the human being and it's nature. I was born in a catholic family and I went to a catholic school. Not once they stopped saying that I was unworthy and insignificant, I should devote my life to God and give up on my own understanding because God and His creation are beyond the limits of the human mind. Now you come along and have the NERVE of saying that science is a plot to make me feel small and unimportant by presenting me to the vastness of the universe. Unbelievable.

If anything, just by thinking that the atoms in my brain, that are responsible of writing this very post, where forged in the core of a star is actually empowering and it makes me feel alive like no god ever could.

Our existance is the Universe's way of experiencing itself.

[Anonymous No.8130995]

35) If the Earth were truly a globe, then every line of latitude south of the equator would have to measure a gradually smaller and smaller circumference the farther South travelled. If, however, the Earth is an extended plane, then every line of latitude south of the equator should measure a gradually larger and larger circumference the farther South travelled. The fact that many captains navigating south of the equator assuming the globular theory have found themselves drastically out of reckoning, moreso the farther South travelled, testifies to the fact that the Earth is not a ball.

[Anonymous No.8130996]

>>8130880
Explain this then.

[Anonymous No.8131000]

36) During Captain James Clark Ross’s voyages around the Antarctic circumference, he often wrote in his journal perplexed at how they routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts, stating that they found themselves an average of 12-16 miles outside their reckoning every day, later on further south as much as 29 miles.

[Anonymous No.8131005]

>>8130996
all i see is that the seismic shock time delay is proportional to the distance of the epicenter, but in no way this infographic proves the round earth.

These results could also apply to a flat earth.

[Anonymous No.8131006]

>>8130988
Yeah that was the point I was making

[Anonymous No.8131008]

39) Practical distance measurements taken from “The Australian Handbook, Almanack, Shippers’ and Importers’ Directory” state that the straight line distance between Sydney and Nelson is 1550 statute miles. Their given difference in longitude is 22 degrees 2’14”. Therefore if 22 degrees 2’14” out of 360 is 1550 miles, the entirety would measure 25,182 miles. This is not only larger than the ball-Earth is said to be at the equator, but a whole 4262 miles greater than it would be at Sydney’s southern latitude on a globe of said proportions.

[Anonymous No.8131010]

>>8130957
>what is relative velocity

[Anonymous No.8131011]

40) From near Cape Horn, Chile to Port Philip in Melbourne, Australia the distance is 10,500 miles, or 143 degrees of longitude away. Factoring in the remaining degrees to 360 makes for a total distance of 26,430 miles around this particular latitude, which is over 1500 miles wider than Earth is supposed to be at the equator, and many more thousands of miles wider than it is supposed to be at such Southern latitudes.

[Anonymous No.8131012]

>>8130923
Spheres don't have circumference, they have surface area. Come back when you've passed middle school math.

[Anonymous No.8131014]

>>8131010
see this
>>8130962

41) Similar calculations made from the Cape of Good Hope, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia at an average latitude of 35.5 degrees South, have given an approximate figure of over 25,000 miles, which is again equal to or greater than the Earth’s supposed greatest circumference at the equator. Calculations from Sydney, Australia to Wellington, New Zealand at an average of 37.5 degrees South have given an approximate circumference of 25,500 miles, greater still! According to the ball-Earth theory, the circumference of the Earth at 37.5 degrees Southern latitude should be only 19,757 statute miles, almost six thousand miles less than such practical measurements.

[Anonymous No.8131015]

>>8130945
Do you mean photoshopped? CGI is nowhere near that realistic.

[Anonymous No.8131016]

42) In the ball-Earth model Antarctica is an ice continent which covers the bottom of the ball from 78 degrees South latitude to 90 and is therefore not more than 12,000 miles in circumference. Many early explorers including Captian Cook and James Clark Ross, however, in attempting Antarctic circumnavigation took 3 to 4 years and clocked 50-60,000 miles around. The British ship Challenger also made an indirect but complete circumnavigation of Antarctica traversing 69,000 miles. This is entirely inconsistent with the ball model.

[Anonymous No.8131017]

>>8130883
Gravitational force bitch

[Anonymous No.8131018]

>>8131012
spheres have surface area and circumference too!

>>8131015
Yes.. Or whatever other photo editing software they use.. maybe in the past they didnt even use computer software because it didnt exist!!

[Anonymous No.8131019]

43) If Earth was a ball there are several flights in the Southern hemisphere which would have their quickest, straightest path over the Antarctic continent such as Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia. Instead of taking the shortest, quickest route in a straight line over Antarctica, all such flights detour all manner of directions away from Antarctica instead claiming the temperatures too cold for airplane travel! Considering the fact that there are plenty of flights to/from/over Antarctica, and NASA claims to have technology keeping them in conditions far colder (and far hotter) than any experienced on Earth, such an excuse is clearly just an excuse, and these flights aren’t made because they are impossible.

[Anonymous No.8131022]

44) If Earth was a ball, and Antarctica was too cold to fly over, the only logical way to fly from Sydney to Santiago would be a straight shot over the Pacific staying in the Southern hemisphere the entire way. Re-fueling could be done in New Zealand or other Southern hemisphere destinations along the way if absolutely necessary. In actual fact, however, Santiago-Sydney flights go into the Northern hemisphere making stop-overs at LAX and other North American airports before continuing back down to the Southern hemisphere. Such ridiculously wayward detours make no sense on the globe but make perfect sense and form nearly straight lines when shown on a flat Earth map.

[Anonymous No.8131025]

>>8131017
by saying "Gravitational force bitch" you are not explaining anything to me and the /sci/ fellows.

[Anonymous No.8131026]

45) On a ball-Earth, Johannesburg, South Africa to Perth, Australia should be a straight shot over the Indian Ocean with convenient re-fueling possibilities on Mauritus or Madagascar. In actual practice, however, most Johannesburg to Perth flights curiously stop over either in Dubai, Hong Kong or Malaysia all of which make no sense on the ball, but are completely understandable when mapped on a flat Earth.

[Anonymous No.8131027]

>>8131025
Gravity is the attraction of matter towards each other, it's not matter going "down" whatever "down" means. If you disagree with it, there is really no point arguing with you.

[Anonymous No.8131030]

46) On a ball-Earth Cape Town, South Africa to Buenos Aries, Argentina should be a straight shot over the Atlantic following the same line of latitude across, but instead every flight goes to connecting locations in the Northern hemisphere first, stopping over anywhere from London to Turkey to Dubai. Once again these make absolutely no sense on the globe but are completely understandable options when mapped on a flat Earth.

[Anonymous No.8131031]

xx) I can copy and paste bullshit allegations all day, but if I don't list sources, they have zero credibility.

[Anonymous No.8131032]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5lHUcZQyLE

Debunked without even using science.

[Anonymous No.8131033]

>>8131031
what sources. These are logical arguments, they dont need sources. The sources for the citations, numbers and facts these arguments are based on, you can find them with a quick google search.

Don't be lazy!!

[Anonymous No.8131034]

47) On a ball-Earth Johannesburg, South Africa to Sao Paolo, Brazil should be a quick straight shot along the 25th Southern latitude, but instead nearly every flight makes a re-fueling stop at the 50th degree North latitude in London first! The only reason such a ridiculous stop-over works in reality is because the Earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.8131036]

>>8131032
More

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc-WlTaG7WY

[Anonymous No.8131038]

48) On a ball-Earth Santiago, Chile to Johannesburg, South Africa should be an easy flight all taking place below the Tropic of Capricorn in the Southern hemisphere, yet every listed flight makes a curious re-fueling stop in Senegal near the Tropic of Cancer in the North hemisphere first! When mapped on a flat Earth the reason why is clear to see, however, Senegal is actually directly in a straight-line path half-way between the two.

[Anonymous No.8131039]

>>8131022
pic related is a normal flight from Sydney to Santiago. It never goes past the equator.

[Anonymous No.8131040]

>>8131033
No they're not, and you're not using them as a person who is genuinely interesting in discussion would. You're just vomiting point after point of some other lunatics pointless work hoping for the one thing that nobody can dissprove. So far you have been unsuccessful.

You are not interested in debate, you just want people to hear you yell, like a child would.

[Anonymous No.8131041]

>>8130994
>our existence is the universe's way of experiencing itself

[Anonymous No.8131044]

>>8131032
a ticket booking site that writes reviews about the specific flights sounds very fishy to me.

Have you ever bought a ticket like this yourself?

[Anonymous No.8131045]

>>8131022
>>8131026
>>8131030
I couldn't find a flight that took me to the UK, Sweden, turkey or Dubai on my way to Cape Town.

[Anonymous No.8131047]

>>8131040
I answer to counter arguments as fast as i can.
Anyway im gonna stop posting new arguments . im gonna get to 50..

So we can discuss these i have posted.

[Anonymous No.8131049]

>>8131014
Using incorrect information to explain incorrect information makes you a faggot.

[Anonymous No.8131055]

49) If Earth were a spinning ball heated by a Sun 93 million miles away, it would be impossible to have simultaneously sweltering summers in Africa while just a few thousand miles away bone-chilling frozen Arctic/Antarctic winters experiencing little to no heat from the Sun whatsoever. If the heat from the Sun traveled 93,000,000 miles to the Sahara desert, it is absurd to assert that another 4,000 miles (0.00004%) further to Antarctica would completely negate such sweltering heat resulting in such drastic differences.


This is the last i post. If anyone is interested there are 150 more arguments as to why earth is flat.

[Anonymous No.8131057]

>>8130880
>/sci/
>official flat earth thread

oy vey

[Anonymous No.8131062]

>>8131034
Ok, if you could please for the sake of justifying any further effort, pick a fucking projection and stick with it.

[Anonymous No.8131063]

>>8131045
did u even read the argument?

It says there is no direct flight. These stops explain the flat earth model.

[Anonymous No.8131067]

>>8131047
You've spent more time vomiting more points which will just produce more counter arguments than you can keep up with. Why not keep it to a few and keep it simple? Not to mention it's pretty evident you don't want to acknowledge any of the irrefutable points myself and other anons have brought up, so why even post?

Also, do you believe this picture is a fake and if so how? It was taken from a live video btw, which you can view whenever the ISS is on the light side of the planet

[Anonymous No.8131068]

OP here. Sadly i have to go!

If you can disprove any argument go ahead. Ill read it later.

Also an anon seems to have found a flight that disproves one chart. This is good, because I want to believe in a round earth too.

Help me believe /sci/!

bye

[Anonymous No.8131070]

>flat earth thread
>it's just impossible the speed is too high
>the horizon is flat even though it isn't
>fish eye lenses
>nasa lies
>look the flight route isn't a direct flight
>look some faggot did an experiment with funny assumptions like ether and it failed FLAT EARTH
>look some faggot apparently measured something x years ago and earth is FLAT (forget that our current measurements say different thing and some fucking Greeks knew Earth isn't flat with just math)

[Anonymous No.8131071]

>>8131063
I doubt many Argentinians are dying to go to Cape Town.

The some of the codes are:
JNB - Tambo International (Johannesburg, South Africa)
GRU - São Paulo International (São Paulo, Brazil)
ASU - Silvio Pettirossi International (Luque, Paraguay)
CPT - Cape Town International (Cape Town, South Africa)
EZE - Ministro Pistarini International (Buenos Aires, Argentina)

none of them in Europe.

Please stop pulling shit out of your ass. These arguments aren't logical and just copied and pasted.

[Anonymous No.8131073]

>>8131067
google maps textures anyone?

i go for real now, im late. ill check the thread later.

[Anonymous No.8131075]

>>8131068
Oh how convenient

[Anonymous No.8131160]

[Anonymous No.8131202]

>>8131034
>>8131022
>>8131026
>>8131030
>>8131038
>There is no direct flight from Calgary to Kathmandu, so earth must be flat!!!!!

[Anonymous No.8131228]

>>8130934
have you ever seen the hubble deep field photo? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field

the night's sky is essentially completely filled with stars, it's just that they are so far away (billions of lightyears) that they are too dim to be seen with the naked eye; this is exacerbated by light pollution across most of the human populated areas of the planet

[Anonymous No.8131234]

>>8130881
By that premise, you would still not see the edge of the earth even if you continued floating upward to infinity.
>>8130883
waves being generated moments before they hit the shore. caused by swells created by the uneven sea floor and gravity of the moon.

is the moon flat?
what about the sun?
what creates crescent moons?
what is on the underside of the Earth, if it is flat.
how thick is the Earth?
Explain how seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres differ, if the Earth is in fact, flat.
How do you tell if something is actually round if you only have 3 dimensional view of it!!!

[Anonymous No.8131235]

The earth is round, it is a fact. We have actual images that can verify this. I don't understand how this is even a discussion that we're having in 2016. Well time to leave this plane of existence *hangs noose*

[Anonymous No.8131242]

>>8131228
So you mean because they are more far away the light somehow loses its power on the way becoming too dim?
Space is void. If a telescope can see 13bil ly away this means the cosmic dust in the way is negligible.

So how then the light coming from far away becomes dimmer than the light of the stars that are supposedly closer?

[Anonymous No.8131247]

>>8131235
Only NASA's images.

[Anonymous No.8131248]

>>8131247
Are you stuck in 1980? Not only NASA's images.

[Anonymous No.8131249]

>>8130881
I) Picture,Because athmosphere blurs slowly in to the space. therefore we cannot confrim nor prove wrong that the red line in the picture in accurate and truly straight. The reason why we cannot look at it and determine that the line is straight is humans eye flaws.(Reference: Akropolis dosent have traight lines)
II)Picture, There's mountains and clouds which cause that we have still cannot state that line is truly straight. No focal point, Theres no "scale" to be referenced to.
III) Picture is the best. There's nothing wrong. If earth would be flat and the pictures line is straight. We would expect that surface of ocean and line would be parallel. Then why is there a gap between those two at the end of red line.

[Anonymous No.8131251]

>>8131242
>So how then the light coming from far away becomes dimmer than the light of the stars that are supposedly closer?
Because the same amount of light is spread across a larger sphere.

>>8131247
>Only NASA's images.
And European images. And Chinese images. And Russian images.

[Anonymous No.8131252]

>>8130880
You conspiracy theorist are even worse than feminazis.
At least they kind of stand for something.
You, sir, don't contribute nothing to mankind.
When it's proved to you, without a doubt, that Earth is indeed a sphere, you'll question atoms because you never saw one.
You feel superior because you think you hold the 'truth'. But you're really just a sad individual, looking for excuses why your world suck so much.
I hope you die very soon, without any opportunity to spread your 'knowledge' to some kind of offspring you might have.

[sagee No.8131259]

>>8130880
Stop making these threads.

[Anonymous No.8131267]

>>8131259
Don't even bother. inb4 Trigonometry was invented precisely to make you believe Earth is a sphere.

[Anonymous No.8131285]

>This whole thread

[Anonymous No.8131305]

>>8130880
1. Why would anyone fake the Earth being round? (Don't believe me? Telescope it.)
2. Why are all the other objects in space round? What makes Earth special?
3. Why is it that it's the middle of the day in Sydney simultaneously as it is the middle of the night in some other part of the world, e.g. Britain?
4. Disprove the ancient Greek calculations for a spherical Earth
5. What happens if you reach the end of the Earth if it's a flat plane?
6. How could a flat earth form?
7. Explain the function of the compass and the generic fucking insane hassle with magnets that you get with a flat earth. Draw a diagram with the magnetic field lines on a flat earth.
8. With all the construction project shits, do the simple length calculations with
A) the length as calculated with a flat earth (the original calculation)
B) the length as calculated with a round earth
Compare the results. What's the difference in percentages?
And now to kick it all off
C) Compare this difference (not in percentages this time) with that of the original calculation A and see the difference caused by thermal expansion alone in regions where the temperature variance is significant
9. Speaking of temperature variance, explain why some regions of the world are colder and some warmer is the Earth is a flat plane.

[Anonymous No.8131306]

Every flat earth argument boils down to

>How does gravity work
>How does inertia work
>How do cameras work

[Anonymous No.8131309]

>>8131305
>(Don't believe me? Telescope it.)
This was mean't to be at 2.

[Anonymous No.8131310]

>>8131248
Nasa and other "space agencies". Sounds totally legit.

There isn't a single amateur photo high enough to even notice any curvature on the earth.

>>8131249
1)sounds like an excuse. i can see it perfectly straight. As the altitude got higher we should ve been able to spot a difference in curvature.
2)same as 1
3)you realize that the gap exists throughout the line, right?


>>8131251
You are right on the first one, I thought of it later. There is a finite amount of photos emitted at a given amount of time spread in all directions.

But the fact is that hubble is a big hoax. (continue at next post)

[Anonymous No.8131313]

>>8131310
>(continue at next post)
I wouldn't mind if you didn't.

[Anonymous No.8131315]

(continue)
Since I saw the Deep Field Pic, I knew it. You don't have to believe in flat earth to prove it.

First... I made a thread about this the other day. How the apparent distance between the galaxies is too small in relation to the size of the galaxies. At the end an anon said, this is early universe senpai even though I said Inb4 early universe->clustered galaxies.

Second and most obvious: it is impossible to achieve the results that NASA claims to achieve because of the simple problem of trying to photograph and record, with extremely sensitive recording equipment, stars, planets and galaxies trillions of miles away giving off the faintest of radiation to accurately determine the size, shape, heat/cold, orbit and make up of these stars, planets and galaxies while the Hubble Telescope trucks around Earth’s orbit at 5 miles/second or 17,000 miles per hour!

"Hubble orbits in the upper atmosphere at an altitude of approximately 569 kilometres (354 mi) and an inclination of 28.5°. The position along its orbit changes over time in a way that is not accurately predictable. The density of the upper atmosphere varies according to many factors, and this means that Hubble’s predicted position for six weeks’ time could be in error by up to 4,000 km (2,500 mi)."

To believe that hubble opened its shutter for 11 days while in orbit around Earth + earth's orbit around sun+ Solar system orbit in galaxy+ angular galaxy movement+galaxys movement+maximum light redshift+space debris, cosmic dust, meterorite and micrometeorite debris, solar flares, asteroid and comet trails of ionic dust and STILL produced such a quality of picture is ridiculous.

Try opening your smartphone night picture mode, point to an object while walking slowly to whatever direction and come and tell me if the picture was clear!!

[Anonymous No.8131322]

>>8131315
Confirmed idiot for me. Learn a few things about distances and parallax.

[Anonymous No.8131324]

Reminder that the President of the United States is not real, he is CG created by the CIA in order to fool the American people into believing LIES

HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THE PRESIDENT WITH YOUR OWN EYES?????????

[Anonymous No.8131325]

>>8131160
You are not helping.
1. not an amateur photo
6. Is this from a movie? I doubt someone still uses this kind of ships after the color video recording was invented..

[Anonymous No.8131326]

>>8131324
>he is CG created by the CIA
You seriously think that the least competent interrogator on the planet can create convincing CGI?

[Anonymous No.8131329]

>>8131326
More likely than an aerospace organization creating convincing CGI

[Anonymous No.8131330]

>>8131322
I know about these but the surface area of the frame of the picture is astronomically tiny. Even the tiniest movement would get the frame out of focus.

Take into account the distortion of the redshift and the slightest debris that could distort the path of the incoming photos. The picture would have been FUBAR after 11 days.

[Anonymous No.8131331]

>>8131324
my mom met him she has pic w/ him .. oh no ..: is my MOM just CG?????????

[Anonymous No.8131333]

>>8131324
Please don't derail the tread. thanks.

[Anonymous No.8131334]

>>8131331
yeah man, mothers don't exist

we are all born out of the earth but the evil governments take us away from our mud wombs and force us to believe in round earths and medicine

[Anonymous No.8131338]

>>8131330
You're an idiot. That doesn't change.
Because it's so far away, another hubble telescope placed at Aplha Centaury would catch the exact same picture.

[Anonymous No.8131339]

>>8131333
this thread was already off the rails the moment "flat earth" was mentioned

[Anonymous No.8131340]

>>8131334
>>>/b/

where are talking science here.

[Anonymous No.8131343]

>>8131340
no, you're really not

[Anonymous No.8131344]

>>8130880

sigh.

another tard.

[Anonymous No.8131350]

>>8131330
What matter much for that kind of shot is spaceship orientation. That is kept very much checked by reaction wheels on the spacecraft. It has to do with gyroscopes, if you were wondering.

[Anonymous No.8131357]

>>8131338
That would be the case if the picture needed an instant to be taken.

11 days. if there was someway for hubble while orbiting earth to perfectly rotate and focus its camera to that one 24-millionth of the whole sky every nanosecond for 11 days then it would have a chance of producing a clear photo (and i dont take in account the debris and the redshift factors). But, that is impossible with today's technology

[Anonymous No.8131364]

>>8131344
guess your level

[Anonymous No.8131367]

>>8131364
>tone is above ad hominem

shit hierarchy would not use

[Anonymous No.8131368]

>>8131357
My god, are you even aware that ground telescopes actually do active tracking, to compensate the rotation of the Earth (be it flat or not) and take long exposure shots?
How easy do you think it is for a thing in the vacuum to hold its aiming? There's no wind up there, mate.

[Anonymous No.8131371]

>>8131357
>But, that is impossible with today's technology

if you say so

[Anonymous No.8131377]

>>8131357
Wtf redshift, are you fucking retarded?
Do you even have a clue what speeds Hubble would have to go to induce redshift on its fucking pictures?

[Anonymous No.8131378]

>>8131368
Ground telescopes take shots of objects much larger than the one 24-millionth of the whole sky.

And taking only as factor the rotation is one thing. Hubble's position at all times is not accurately predicted as I said before. It is not something strapped to a -flat ^_^- ground

[Anonymous No.8131381]

>>8131333
Please, don't derail the board. Thanks.

>>>/b/

[Anonymous No.8131382]

>>8131378
But that's the thing, really. As long as it maintains its rotation, its position doesn't matter at all. I mean 0%.

[Anonymous No.8131385]

>>8131377
redshift from the light coming so far away..

Do you have any idea what redshift is? Simple. Light comes... while space in between expands. The longer the space in between, the greater the distortion on the light length waves.

And it is another thing telling how much the light waves from a supernova (thats the way the calculate the redshift of the light, the focus to the light emitted by a special type of supernovas)redshifted and another thing reconstructing an actual image from 13billion year old redshifted light.

[Anonymous No.8131386]

>>8131315
Let me guess.
You've been enlightened to the fact that the Universe's expansion is just a conspiracy.

[Anonymous No.8131387]

honestly how cool would it be if the earth actually was flat. what would the edge be like? what would be on the other side? thats asusming its just a plane in space. you could build ultra railways too. im like too high for this rn

[Anonymous No.8131392]

>>8131386
Im just telling that putting things together like hubble deepfield pic, astronomy and astrophysics.. doesn't add up. And if you assume that astronomy and astrophysics is right, guess who's wrong!

[Anonymous No.8131393]

>>8131385
Well the thing is, redshift from the edge of the observable universe isn't that bad.
It's not that objects redshift to infrared, it's that photons suddenly stop being able to reach us.

[Anonymous No.8131397]

From Washington’s Rock in New Jersey, at just a 400 foot elevation, it is possible on a clear day to see the skylines of both New York and Philadelphia in opposite directions at the same time covering a total distance of 120 miles! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, both of these skylines should be hidden behind over 800 feet of Earth’s curvature.

[Anonymous No.8131400]

>>8131397
Please use metrics, and I'd do the math.

[Anonymous No.8131402]

>>8131393
R u high or something?
> photons suddenly stop being able to reach us
how, why

and how then the picture was taken without photons coming into the telescope.

[Anonymous No.8131408]

Also from Genoa, on bright clear days, the island of Elba can be seen an incredible 125 miles away! If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, Elba should be forever invisible behind 8770 feet of curvature.

[Anonymous No.8131412]

The distance from which various lighthouse lights around the world are visible at sea far exceeds what could be found on a ball-Earth 25,000 miles in circumference. For example, the Dunkerque Light in southern France at an altitude of 194 feet is visible from a boat (10 feet above sea-level) 28 miles away. Spherical trigonometry dictates that if the Earth was a globe with the given curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, this light should be hidden 190 feet below the horizon.

[Anonymous No.8131413]

>>8131402
It has to do with the early inflation of the Universe.
We can actually see some 45 billions light years away. But whatever we see beyond 14 By away is but an afterimage of this time.
Within the 14 By, your theory holds up though.

[Anonymous No.8131414]

>>8130977
do you know the definition of the word Conspiracy?

[Anonymous No.8131423]

>>8131160
what expansion has to do with 17?

[Anonymous No.8131429]

>>8131397
I assume that's the Chrysler Building which is over 1000 feet tall, so according to your numbers, even without the extra 400ft of elevation you'd still be able to see roughly 1/5 of the building.

[Anonymous No.8131435]

>>8131160
13 says elevation is identical.

How does your post even explain or even counterargues?

Most of the pictures are inaccurate to the counterarguments. Can you at least type and elaborate some of your counter arguments?

No offense but the picture looks like a collage of a first grader.

Thanks for taking the time for the input though.

[Anonymous No.8131441]

>>8131429
but the building is almost entirely visible

[Anonymous No.8131444]

The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon.

[Anonymous No.8131447]

>>8131441
Are mirages, over a vast flat area, a conspiracy fallacy too?

[Anonymous No.8131450]

On a clear day from the highland near Douglas Harbor on the Isle of Man, the whole length of the coast of North Wales is often plainly visible to the naked eye. From the Point of Ayr at the mouth of the River Dee to Holyhead comprises a 50 mile stretch which has also been repeatedly found to be perfectly horizontal. If the Earth actually had curvature of 8 inches per mile squared, as NASA and modern astronomy claim, the 50 mile length of Welsh coast seen along the horizon in Liverpool Bay would have to decline from the center-point an easily detectable 416 feet on each side!

[Anonymous No.8131453]

NASA and modern astronomy say the Earth is a giant ball tilted back, wobbling and spinning 1,000 mph around its central axis, traveling 67,000 mph circles around the Sun, spiraling 500,000 mph around the Milky Way, while the entire galaxy rockets a ridiculous 670,000,000 mph through the Universe, with all of these motions originating from an alleged “Big Bang” cosmogenic explosion 14 billion years ago. That’s a grand total of 670,568,000 mph in several different directions we’re all supposedly speeding along at simultaneously, yet no one has ever seen, felt, heard, measured or proven a single one of these motions to exist whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.8131454]

>>8130880
Why would not a single NASA member reveal the truth? Are you one of the ones that believe that Satan is controlling their minds and they're all demons or whatever the fuck.

[Anonymous No.8131457]

>>8130880
hey faggot check these
you can clearly see the curvature in the top and bottom pics, the other two was taken from the ground so doesn't count

[Anonymous No.8131460]

98) NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris, the North Pole star, is somewhere between 323-434 light years, or about 2 quadrillion miles, away from us! Firstly, note that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 - 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles making a difference of 666,000,000,000,000 (over six hundred trillion) miles! If modern astronomy cannot even agree on the distance to stars within hundreds of trillions of miles, perhaps their “science” is flawed and their theory needs re-examining. However, even granting them their obscurely distant stars, it is impossible for heliocentrists to explain how Polaris manages to always remain perfectly aligned straight above the North Pole throughout Earth’s various alleged tilting, wobbling, rotating and revolving motions

[Anonymous No.8131469]

>>8131457
either im blind or you are right because i cant see any curvature at the bottom and top pics. The only thing i can see is a slightest tilt of the camera that has nothing to do with curvature...

for example... in left side something is above the red line and at the right side the relative thing is below the red line. This means tilt, not curvature.

I really want to believe!

[Anonymous No.8131473]

>>8131397
I believe in a round Earth but I am curious as to why this is a thing

[Anonymous No.8131475]

>>8131454
“Children are taught in their geography books, when too young to apprehend aright the meaning of such things, that the world is a great globe revolving around the Sun, and the story is repeated continuously, year by year, till they reach maturity, at which time they generally become so absorbed in other matters as to be indifferent as to whether the teaching be true or not, and, as they hear of nobody contradicting it, they presume that it must be the correct thing, if not to believe at least to receive it as a fact. They thus tacitly give their assent to a theory which, if it had first been presented to them at what are called ‘years of discretion,’ they would at once have rejected. The consequences of evil-teaching, whether in religion or in science, are far more disastrous than is generally supposed, especially in a luxurious laisser faire age like our own. The intellect becomes weakened and the conscience seared.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma: The Earth Not a Planet Proved From Scripture, Reason, and Fact” (26)

[Anonymous No.8131476]

>"I don't understand big numbers"

[Anonymous No.8131484]

>>8131475
What about the people who are faking it though? Why have none of the people in the know of this big conspiracy revealed it? I mean every Astronaut and Cosmonaut knows Earth is flat, so everyone of them lies, then all the others, not even one person from NASA tells the truth? No leaks?

[Anonymous No.8131487]

>>8131454
I seriously have no idea how the manage to do it. Not everyone knows the truth. Everyone in big organizations works in specific tasks. For example the person that checks the x part of the rocket is not aware that the rocket part he is checking will never get to space but will crash in sea following the launch..

Also i believe that the requirements to get to the high places -meaning people who know- like astronauts are so high for a reason. You guess the reason.

[Anonymous No.8131495]

>>8131469
the middle part is clearly over the red line

[Anonymous No.8131496]

>>8131484
not everyone. Some of them dont even get to fly in a rocket. If you wanna talk about NASA conspiracy there's a vast amount of why to doubt everything NASA on the net.

I dont want to pass as a conspiracy believer. I just find many of the flat earth arguments plausible. This of course results in not to trust anything NASA.

[Anonymous No.8131498]

>>8131460
You'd definitely fucking notice if you could attain an absolute velocity of zero

[Anonymous No.8131502]

>>8131498
>>8131453

[Anonymous No.8131505]

>>8131496
>If you wanna talk about NASA conspiracy there's a vast amount of why to doubt everything NASA on the net.
Such as?
(I know I'm just feeding the crazy troll here, people)
>inb4 NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER!!!!!

[Anonymous No.8131507]

>>8131495
i think what u see is the sunlight falling on the upper parts of the atmosphere in the center, thus illuminating more that the left and right part. Come on. It should have had a noticeable curvature at this altitude the photo was taken

[Anonymous No.8131513]

>>8131505
take for example this site. It is the same site I paste the arguments from.

https://aplanetruth.info/reasons-to-doubt-everything-nasa/

Beware. It is a long read.

[Anonymous No.8131514]

>>8131453
fucking idiot. speed vectors don't just add up, as if they're all collinear.

[sagee No.8131517]

If the earth is flat, why do shooters and artillerymen have to account for the Coriolis effect when firing?

You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.8131518]

>>8131453
fucking idiot.
Speed vectors don't just add up. This is not a 1 dimensional universe.

[Anonymous No.8131521]

>>8131517
Conspiracy takes precedence over killing the enemy.

[Anonymous No.8131524]

I have to go again. Note that I dont agree with EVERY argument on this site. Some maybe scientific incorrect. I posted some of the arguments that totally make sense. And a last one before I go.

99) Viewed from a ball-Earth, Polaris, situated directly over the North Pole, should not be visible anywhere in the Southern hemisphere. For Polaris to be seen from the Southern hemisphere of a globular Earth, the observer would have to be somehow looking “through the globe,” and miles of land and sea would have to be transparent. Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.

[Anonymous No.8131525]

If anything, I hope that when there are tickets to buy to go to Mars, or that fancy space hotel, you're banned for being an idiot.

[Anonymous No.8131526]

>>8131505
Red filter on mars photos for one. But I suppose its just a disk placed upon the celestial veil.

Tell me, how does flat earth explain: polar day/night, seasons, gps, orbits, eclipses both solar and lunar, tides, satellite tv and radio, lunar phases, a Iowa-class battleship's ability to fire over the horizon on a target it has no line of sight on, among other things.

[sagee No.8131527]

You can see satellites passong overhead with the naked eye if you go outside of town where there's no light pollution. How do you explain that?

[Anonymous No.8131529]

The Conspiracy Theorist's fallacy: Make your argument with dozens of small, easily refutable points. As no one person will be able to solidly refute them all in the short time span available, your argument can never be dismissed.

[Anonymous No.8131532]

>>8131524
A week ago, I had heard about Mars being at it's closest to Earth. Didn't pay much attention about it.
few days later, at midnight, very clear sky, I realize. Mars should be plain south at this time.
But wait, what height should it be? I computed it at about 22° over the orizon, being in the northern hemisphere, 45° north.
And there it was. Confirmed later with google sky map.

[Anonymous No.8131536]

>>8131526
Next time you go out notice the angle of the satellite dishes on the balconies.

When you speak on your smartphone do you really think you are not using ground wireless communications?

[Anonymous No.8131541]

>>8131529
Thanks for the chart brah, been looking for a concise list and description of fallacies.

[Anonymous No.8131542]

>>8131527
Son, i dont even with this post.

Yes... And when it is a sunny day, I can see an ant walking 500m away.

[Anonymous No.8131543]

>>8131507
>Come on. It should have had a noticeable curvature at this altitude the photo was taken
no it shouldn't

[Anonymous No.8131546]

>>8131543
>>8131543
can we have a zoom to that? A zoom that is proportional to the frame of the OP picture.

I have to go... I'll return later.

[Anonymous No.8131551]

1) You don't understand how huge Earth is. None of those pics are high enough to see significant curvature, even the top one. In fact someone should find the altitude of the first pic then do the math to figure out how curved Earth should appear from that distance. Also, post a source for the pic so we know it's not edited (unless you believe the lizard people at NASA edited the picture to make it looked curved).

[Anonymous No.8131556]

So how thick is the earth? If I dig directly down, how long until I'm on the underside of the earth? And is this underside just rock and shit? Or do people live down there too? Is gravity flipped? Does that mean that the centre of the square of earth has a stronger pull than the edges?

[Anonymous No.8131559]

>>8131542
Are you even trying anymore?

[Anonymous No.8131563]

>>8130929
You left an I,port fact out:
That experiment assumes an aether. The null result of the MM experiment shows the null result from Airys experiment is not evidence of geocentrism.
Relativity on the other hand explains both and has been validated in many other tests. It is also completely inconsistent with geocentrism.

Please stop lying to people.

[Anonymous No.8131565]

>>8131556
this not even flat earthers can know

[Anonymous No.8131568]

>>8130897
Then explain to me, dipshit, why snipers DO?

Ever go longrange shooting? Like past 500yds? Depending on whether you're shooting east-to-west or west-to-east, you need to account for the earth's rotation, as the earth will literally rotate under the projectile while it is in flight, leading to a point of impact that can be entire feet high or low depending on range.

I've seen this effect, in person, many times.

[Anonymous No.8131572]

>>8131536
Those dishes all face their respective satellite dependant upon their region, the satellites sit at geosynchronous orbit explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit, which is typical for telecoms. As for smartphones which was never mentioned, they mostly use land based cell towers, or are those part of the conspiracy too?

>inb4 Marconi was the 12th degree wizard of the cult of the orb

[Anonymous No.8131573]

>>8131563
>important* part

[Anonymous No.8131574]

>>8131325
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95NDkABAsSk
>>8131435

Point by point rebuttal of the images if you will, the elevation in 13 is NOT identical, as I used the tallest peak on Ibiza. The pictures are self-contained, if you understand them, you understand how it completely refutes the claim made.

>>8131423
Everything


I'm sorry, are we giving sources now? I didn't see any sources for your claims OP so I figured we were just presenting the evidence.

A first grader collage for a first grader puzzle.

[Anonymous No.8131577]

>>8130880
I have to say the flat earth troll is very well organised.

Is there a central command structure from where plan it all or did you all just understand and self arrange? I'd like to join.

[Anonymous No.8131579]

>>8131536
You also just so happened to miss 8 other discrepancies while in the process of adding smartphones to the list.

[Anonymous No.8131584]

>>8131524
>Polaris can be seen, however, up to over 20 degrees South latitude.
Says who? You're just spouting his bullshit without any evidence at all.

[sagee No.8131587]

>>8131542
Yes you can you fucker, I dare you to try it. Go out away from the city at night and look at the equatorial plane.

[Anonymous No.8131589]

>>8130955
NEET #2, checking in.

I think this is a good exercise in constructing arugments and winning debates with logic instead of calling people faggots. Maybe OP is trying to harden us for debating the Hillary shills.

[Anonymous No.8131595]

This much is certain, op's a parrot without a single thought his own.

[Anonymous No.8131602]

>>8130980
>>8130985
Where's 29? Flat earthers BTFO

[Anonymous No.8131613]

>>8130940
In flat earth, according to our current understanding of gravity, people wouldn't be pulled to downwards, they would be pulled to the direction of the center of the disc, so you are infact trying to refute physics.

Gravity is actually why the earth and every other planet are round.

[Anonymous No.8131633]

>>8130940
it refutes the argument because the pilots dont have to angle the plane down, gravity does it for them if you will

[Anonymous No.8131635]

>enter /sci/
>"Official flat earth thread" on top
SAGE and hidden. Please go kill yourself you retarted faggot.

[Anonymous No.8131640]

>>8130990
>what is map projection

[Anonymous No.8131641]

>>8130880
I'll just leave this here? I'll be glad if you address it, OP.

[Anonymous No.8131642]

>>8131310
I would build a rocket capable of reaching orbit and take an anon-approved curvy earth pic but my homemade nuclear reactor project is sucking up all my free time and me and my buddies already made summer plans to build a particle accelerator in the back yard. Maybe i can make some time in the fall to get you that pic, we'll see.

[Anonymous No.8131648]

Not sure if anyone posted this yet, but here we go...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jEz03Z8azc

[Anonymous No.8131649]

>>8131642
you sound like delusional.

It would be cool if all this true though!

[Anonymous No.8131653]

>>8131649
This is obviously ironic, you retard.

[Anonymous No.8131654]

>>8131641
the sun has a lampshade

[Anonymous No.8131657]

>>8131532
>Mars

119) It is claimed that the other planets are spheres and so therefore Earth must also be a sphere. Firstly, Earth is a “plane” not a “planet,” so the shape of these “planets” in the sky have no bearing on the shape of the Earth beneath our feet. Secondly, these “planets” have been known for thousands of years around the world as the “wandering stars” since they differ from the other fixed stars in their relative motions only. When looked at with an unprejudiced naked-eye or through a telescope, the fixed and wandering stars appear as luminous discs of light, NOT spherical terra firma. The pictures and videos shown by NASA of spherical terra firma planets are all clearly fake computer-generated images, and NOT photographs.

[Anonymous No.8131659]

125) Another proof the Sun is not millions of miles away is found by tracing the angle of sun-rays back to their source above the clouds. There are thousands of pictures showing how sunlight comes down through cloud-cover at a variance of converging angles. The area of convergence is of course the Sun, and is clearly NOT millions of miles away, but rather relatively close to Earth just above the clouds.

[Anonymous No.8131661]

>>8131659
Um, OP, what about this?
>>8131641

[Anonymous No.8131664]

>>8131568
141) The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth.


but if u say you have experienced this effect yourself then that's one point for the rotating earth i guess?

tell me details.. How did u experience this effect?

[Anonymous No.8131667]

>>8131661
143) People claim that if the Earth were flat, with the Sun circling over and around us, we should be able to see the Sun from everywhere all over the Earth, and there should be daylight even at night-time. Since the Sun is NOT 93 million miles away but rather just a few thousand and shining down like a spotlight, once it has moved significantly far enough away from your location it becomes invisible beyond the horizon and daylight slowly fades until it completely disappears. If the Sun were 93 million miles away and the Earth a spinning ball, the transition from daylight to night would instead be almost instantaneous as you passed the terminator line.

[Anonymous No.8131668]

>>8131667
you can use a lamp in the night to test this. If you take into account the dispersion of the light through the many miles of atmosphere this makes sense

[Anonymous No.8131673]

>>8131602
I told you. I post everything I consider a "good" clear argument. And there are too many of them. I can't post all of them.

[Anonymous No.8131675]

150) If Earth were a spinning ball it would be impossible to photograph star-trail time-lapses turning perfect circles around Polaris anywhere but the North Pole. At all other vantage points the stars would be seen to travel more or less horizontally across the observer’s horizon due to the alleged 1000mph motion beneath their feet. In reality, however, Polaris’s surrounding stars can always be photographed turning perfect circles around the central star all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn.

[Anonymous No.8131680]

>>8131657
But, had I been at any different latitude, it would have been other places.

[Anonymous No.8131681]

>>8130880
The question that comes to mind is why? Why spend all this time effort and money into this bullshit theory, the only obvious result of which is a sense of superiority.

You do have to realize that you'd have a shitload of people in on it. Every space agency in the world, airlines, cartographers, navigators, etc etc. And you telling me the world is so organized that they can keep this all under wraps? Bullshit

[Anonymous No.8131682]

>>8131667
>shining down like a spotlight
The sun is literally a burning ball. It cannot shine like a spotlight, you retard, it shines in all directions Even if it is a few thousand miles away, it will always be at least at 20 degrees, observed from any given point.

Also, by that model, the North pole would be a forever day and since the sun shines on only 1/3 of the earth at any given time, the days everywhere would be ~8 hours long and would not change. Meanwhile, summer days are over 15 hours long, which would be impossible on the spotlight model.

[Anonymous No.8131684]

163) NASA and other space agencies have been caught time and again with air bubbles forming and floating off in their official “outer-space” footage. Astronauts have also been caught using scuba-space-gear, kicking their legs to move, and astronaut Luca Parmitano even almost drowned when water started filling up his helmet while allegedly on a “space-walk.” It is admitted that astronauts train for their “space-walks” in under-water training facilities like NASA’s “Neutral Buoyancy Lab,” but what is obvious from their “space bubbles,” and other blunders is that all official “space-walk” footage is also fake and filmed under-water.

[Anonymous No.8131688]

>>8131681
It seems to me only the "higher" members of space agencies from everything you mentioned knows the truth.

164) Analysis of many interior videos from the “International Space Station,” have shown the use of camera-tricks such as green-screens, harnesses and even wildly permed hair to achieve a zero-gravity type effect. Footage of astronauts seemingly floating in the zero-gravity of their “space station” is indistinguishable from “vomit comet” Zero-G airplane footage. By flying parabolic maneuvers this Zero-G floating effect can be achieved over and over again then edited together. For longer uncut shots, NASA has been caught using simple wires and green screen technology.

[Anonymous No.8131689]

I really wonder why flat earthers want to believe so bad that our failure at a space program is just lies. Believe me, it 's only a matter of laziness in goals.

[Anonymous No.8131690]

176) When NASA’s images of the ball-Earth are compared with one another the coloration of the land/oceans and relative size of the continents are consistently so drastically different from one another as to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the pictures are all fake.

[Anonymous No.8131691]

>>8131684
> IQ too low to comprehend the simplicity of sending men to the moon
> therefore it's a hoax

[Anonymous No.8131692]

You guys better be prepared for Flat Mars. Because it's coming quite soon.

[Anonymous No.8131693]

>>8131690
> no sources
wow it's fucking nothing!

[Anonymous No.8131695]

>>8131681
When it is brought here its probably just trolling, but for the people who organize and take it seriously in real life the motivation is largely religious. They want a reality where Earth is special and Heaven and Hell can potentially have real physical locations.

[Anonymous No.8131697]

>>8131690
decades of imaging technique don't do shit.
Just fucking look at 1960s general photography.

[Anonymous No.8131708]

>>8131682
maybe its not a ball, maybe it has features of a spotlight. Who knows... Can you tell that it is a ball when you look through your telescope?

126) The Sun’s annual journey from tropic to tropic, solstice to solstice, is what determines the length and character of days, nights and seasons. This is why equatorial regions experience almost year-round summer and heat while higher latitudes North and especially South experience more distinct seasons with harsh winters. The heliocentric model claims seasons change based on the ball-Earth’s alleged “axial tilt” and “elliptical orbit” around the Sun, yet their flawed current model places us closest to the Sun (91,400,000 miles) in January when its actually winter, and farthest from the Sun (94,500,000 miles) in July when its actually summer throughout most of the Earth.

[Anonymous No.8131710]

>>8130951
I`ll take the bait.
Ask mr. Einstein why the speed of light is constant, even if the watcher is moving.

[Anonymous No.8131712]

>>8130953
The fact that stellar parallax was so small that it was unobservable at the time was used as the main scientific argument against heliocentrism during the early modern age. It is clear from Euclid's geometry that the effect would be undetectable if the stars were far enough away, but for various reasons such gigantic distances involved seemed entirely implausible: it was one of Tycho's principal objections to Copernican heliocentrism that in order for it to be compatible with the lack of observable stellar parallax, there would have to be an enormous and unlikely void between the orbit of Saturn (then the most distant known planet) and the eighth sphere (the fixed stars

[Anonymous No.8131713]

>>8131693
these pictures of NASA are all over the net bro. They're not photoshopped.

106) The so-called “South Pole” is simply an arbitrary point along the Antarctic ice marked with a red and white barbershop pole topped with a metal ball-Earth. This ceremonial South Pole is admittedly and provably NOT the actual South Pole, however, because the actual South Pole could be demonstrably confirmed with the aid of a compass showing North to be 360 degrees around the observer. Since this feat has never been achieved, the model remains pure theory, along with the establishment’s excuse that the geomagnetic poles supposedly constantly move around making verification of their claims impossible.

[Anonymous No.8131714]

>>8131695
Agreed. Conspiracytards want the world to be something else. Where their inability to change it is caused by higher powers.
They just don't want to accept that, as an individual( apart from some exceptions) , they is nothing much they can do about it.

[Anonymous No.8131723]

>>8131708
>maybe its not a ball, maybe it has features of a spotlight
>maybe it has features of a spotlight
>spotlight
It's time to stop posting...
The sun being round is the most painfully obvious thing you can see, you subhuman.

>Who knows... Can you tell that it is a ball when you look through your telescope?
Yes. Pic related

[Anonymous No.8131728]

>>8131723
I can tell that its round, but not a sphere.

[Anonymous No.8131733]

123) Heliocentrists’ astronomical figures always sound perfectly precise, but they have historically been notorious for regularly and drastically changing them to suit their various models. For instance, in his time Copernicus calculated the Sun’s distance from Earth to be 3,391,200 miles. The next century Johannes Kepler decided it was actually 12,376,800 miles away. Issac Newton once said, “It matters not whether we reckon it 28 or 54 million miles distant for either would do just as well!” How scientific!? Benjamin Martin calculated between 81 and 82 million miles, Thomas Dilworth claimed 93,726,900 miles, John Hind stated positively 95,298,260 miles, Benjamin Gould said more than 96 million miles, and Christian Mayer thought it was more than 104 million! Flat-Earthers throughout the ages, conversely, have used sextants and plane trigonometry to make such calculations and found the Sun and Moon both to be only about 32 miles in diameter and less than a few thousand miles from Earth.

[Anonymous No.8131734]

>>8131690
Only one of those is actually an image. The right one is a reconstruction from a satellite that images only swaths at a time. They are not take at the same altitude and thus have different perspectives.

You could figure that out if you were not completely retarded.

The colouration is different because the filters are different.

[Anonymous No.8131737]

>>8131733
> what is perspective
lmao that image

[Anonymous No.8131738]

>>8131708
>seasons are caused by changes in the raw distance between sun and earth

The climate effect of the tilt is the sun is that it reaches the near hemisphere at a more direct angle for a longer amount of time during a given day and the opposite effect on the far hemisphere. Angle and exposure time. Not raw distance.

[Anonymous No.8131739]

>>8131713
>because the actual South Pole could be demonstrably confirmed with the aid of a compass showing North to be 360 degrees around the observer.
The magnetic pole is not the rotational pole. The magnetic south pole isn't even on Antarctica.

>Since this feat has never been achieved
Because magnetism doesn't work that way. At the pole the field lines are vertical.

[Anonymous No.8131740]

>>8131728
>flat sun
Now this is what I call multi-track drifting

[Anonymous No.8131741]

>>8131734
could you explain what "reconstruction from a satellite" means? And provide link, i have to post some arguments more.

62) Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch. First he stood in the canal with his telescope held 8 inches above the surface of the water, then his friend in a boat with a 5 foot tall flag sailed the 6 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the 6 mile stretch of water should have comprised an arc exactly 6 feet high in the middle, so the entire boat and flag should have ultimately disappeared, when in fact the entire boat and flag remained visible at the same height for the entire journey.128) There are huge centuries-old stone sundials and moondials all over the world which still tell the time now down to the minute as perfectly as the day they were made. If the Earth, Sun and Moon were truly subject to the number of contradictory revolving, rotating, wobbling and spiraling motions claimed by modern astronomy, it would be impossible for these monuments to so accurately tell time without constant adjustment.

[Anonymous No.8131743]

>>8131733
>Historical measurements vary
Fucking wow.

[Anonymous No.8131749]

>>8131733

>That bottom left image

BREAKING NEWS: Sun has actually been 30 feet of the ground this whole time, everyone in the history of humanity completely fooled. NASA unavailable for comment.

[Anonymous No.8131754]

>>8131740
Im not sure how it works. Even if it is a sphere there is still the lamp effect. When you move it away it gets gradually darker. And u didnt see this through a telescope. Did you?

Im not expert in flat earth model. Actually i found it two days ago, but some arguments have a point.

62) Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch. First he stood in the canal with his telescope held 8 inches above the surface of the water, then his friend in a boat with a 5 foot tall flag sailed the 6 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the 6 mile stretch of water should have comprised an arc exactly 6 feet high in the middle, so the entire boat and flag should have ultimately disappeared, when in fact the entire boat and flag remained visible at the same height for the entire journey.128) There are huge centuries-old stone sundials and moondials all over the world which still tell the time now down to the minute as perfectly as the day they were made. If the Earth, Sun and Moon were truly subject to the number of contradictory revolving, rotating, wobbling and spiraling motions claimed by modern astronomy, it would be impossible for these monuments to so accurately tell time without constant adjustment.

[Anonymous No.8131755]

>>8131754
sorry repost.

here is the correct post.

62) Samuel Rowbotham’s experiments at the Old Bedford Level proved conclusively the canal’s water to be completely flat over a 6 mile stretch. First he stood in the canal with his telescope held 8 inches above the surface of the water, then his friend in a boat with a 5 foot tall flag sailed the 6 miles away. If Earth were a ball 25,000 miles in circumference the 6 mile stretch of water should have comprised an arc exactly 6 feet high in the middle, so the entire boat and flag should have ultimately disappeared, when in fact the entire boat and flag remained visible at the same height for the entire journey.128) There are huge centuries-old stone sundials and moondials all over the world which still tell the time now down to the minute as perfectly as the day they were made. If the Earth, Sun and Moon were truly subject to the number of contradictory revolving, rotating, wobbling and spiraling motions claimed by modern astronomy, it would be impossible for these monuments to so accurately tell time without constant adjustment.

[Anonymous No.8131756]

>>8131741
>could you explain what "reconstruction from a satellite" means?
The satellite images swaths at a time. It doesn't see the whole disk at any time. The image is stitched together from those images.

>And provide link
How about you fucking source all this bullshit you're posting? If you actually knew what you were posting you would know what it is. You don't research this shit.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2159.html

If you take a real modern blue marble photo you see it doesn't have this distortion because it isn't from a very low orbit. The two will not be quite the same as the Apollo missions were closer than DISCOVR.

[Anonymous No.8131758]

>>8131749
The left image is the tiny sun that God sends out for wintertime. It's a very rare early spring sighting.

[Anonymous No.8131760]

>>8131741
>>8131754
>>8131755

>Using a flowing body of water as his 'level surface'

Old Rowbotham knew how to get the result he wanted.

[Anonymous No.8131761]

Im not sure for the following 2, can anyone confirm this?

138) Another favorite “proof” of ball-Earthers is the appearance from an observer on shore of ships’ hulls being obfuscated by the water and disappearing from view when sailing away towards the horizon. Their claim is that ships’ hulls disappear before their mast-heads because the ship is beginning its declination around the convex curvature of the ball-Earth. Once again, however, their hasty conclusion is drawn from a faulty premise, namely that only on a ball-Earth could this phenomenon occur. The fact of the matter is that the Law of Perspective on plane surfaces dictates and necessitates the exact same occurrence. For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks. Her feet will disappear from view first and the distance between the ground and the bottom of her dress will gradually diminish until after about half a mile it seems like her dress is touching the ground as she walks on invisible legs. Such is the case on plane surfaces, the lowest parts of objects receding from a given point of observation necessarily disappear before the highest.

[Anonymous No.8131766]

>>8131760
and why is this wrong?

139) Not only is the disappearance of ship’s hulls explained by the Law of Perspective on flat surfaces, it is proven undeniably true with the aid of a good telescope. If you watch a ship sailing away into the horizon with the naked eye until its hull has completely disappeared from view under the supposed “curvature of the Earth,” then look through a telescope, you will notice the entire ship quickly zooms back into view, hull and all, proving that the disappearance was caused by the Law of Perspective, not by a wall of curved water! This also proves that the horizon is simply the vanishing line of perspective from your point of view, NOT the alleged “curvature” of Earth.

[Anonymous No.8131770]

>>8131761
>For example a girl wearing a dress walking away towards the horizon will appear to sink into the Earth the farther away she walks.
>Massive claim, no argument as to why.
Prove it. Draw us a diagram of how you think this would work. Your picture explains none of this bullshit.

[Anonymous No.8131772]

>>8131754
>Im not sure how it works
This pretty much sums up the arguments of the whole flat earth movement

[Anonymous No.8131773]

>>8131766
Because you just made it up. Telescopes don't change the perspective, they just magnify. You're a moron.

[Anonymous No.8131776]

155) Some people claim to have seen the curvature of the Earth out their airplane windows. The glass used in all commercial airplanes, however, is curved to remain flush with the fuselage. This creates a slight effect mixed with confirmation bias people mistake for being the alleged curvature of the Earth. In actuality, the fact that you can see the horizon at eye-level at 35,000 feet out both port/starboard windows proves the Earth is flat. If the Earth were a ball, no matter how big, the horizon would stay exactly where it was and you would have to look DOWN further and further to see the horizon at all. Looking straight out the window at 35,000 feet you should see nothing but "outer-space" from the port and starboard windows, as the Earth/horizon are supposed to be BELOW you. If they are visible at eye level outside both side windows, it’s because the Earth is flat!

[Anonymous No.8131778]

>>8131648
Still waiting for the flat fag to say this video is fake, elon musk is illuminati, SpaceX is a hoax and Tesla cars doesn't actually exist irl.

[Anonymous No.8131779]

>>8131766
>and why is this wrong?

If water is flowing, it suggests one end is higher than the other. The Bedford level is also tidal towards it's lower end. A cunning person might time their observations with a gentle tidal bore.

Interestingly enough, Rowbotham always insisted that the flat earth phenomena could only be observed under certain conditions.

[Anonymous No.8131782]

1)There is no horison, Earth is flat.
2) >sun becomes invisible beyond the horison

[Anonymous No.8131784]

Basically this thread is OP not understanding how some effect works and then, rather than trying to learn more about it, goes "fuck it, must be a hoax".
Why are people still replying to this idiot?

[Anonymous No.8131785]

>>8131755
http://unknownterritories.tumblr.com/post/137284862018/62-samuel-rowbothams-experiments-at-the-old

So this is where you're getting this spam from. You haven't even researched this. You're just a parrot who is either deluded and lazy or stupid enough to think that wasting hours of his life reposing nonsense to "troll" /sci/ makes him any less of a moron than those replying.

[Anonymous No.8131790]

>>8131782
>>8131667
Forgot link to post.

[Anonymous No.8131792]

>>8131772
>>8131773
when ill get a telescope ill try it and post results on /sci/

Also >>8131776
this is a good one. You can test it.


also i think that if you get caught just one time faking photos you lose your credit for ever:

175) Professional photo-analysts have dissected several NASA images of the ball-Earth and found undeniable proof of computer editing. For example, images of the Earth allegedly taken from the Moon have proven to be copied and pasted in, as evidenced by rectangular cuts found in the black background around the “Earth” by adjusting brightness and contrast levels. If they were truly on the Moon and Earth was truly a ball, there would be no need to fake such pictures.

[Anonymous No.8131805]

>>8131782
Ok. this is good, i admit.

So.. i think i remember the last time i saw the sunset at sea.. i think, im not sure.

I think you could see the water actually cutting slowly the round shape of the sun.

OP here, skeptical..

[Anonymous No.8131808]

>>8131473
IIRC it was about how light bends in certain ways in the atmosphere, temperature was a factor or something

I remember a youtuber called Armoured Skeptic explaining it once.

[Anonymous No.8131810]

>>8131784
I want to stop, but I fucking can't. Flat earthers just tick me off to no end for some reason.

[Anonymous No.8131812]

>>8131779
Holy shit. That guy must've been a master troll. Just how many years into future is his faked experiment repeated by retards.