Carlos

@zArk Answer my damn post! Answer the simple questions! You even ignored my reminder: When can I expect you to answer the post posted yesterday at 8.49? Because it wraps up all the nonsense I keep having to revisit. Your understanding of basic lunar motion is the problem. Your video had dozens of errors but even when explained to you, you still hang on to it by the fingernails. This simple diagram explains it for anyone - yet you arm-waved it away for some ridiculous reason that it wasn't to scale and didn't have the Earth rotating: Diagram 1 Partial eclipse, is the Moon before the shadow hits Earth. Reduced light from the Penumbra hits the Earth's surface up to an hour before the FULL eclipse and 1hr before the Moon casts a shadow. Diagram 2 FULL eclipse, is the 3hrs 14 minutes where the Moon travels across the face of the Earth. Diagram 3 Partial eclipse, is the Moon after its shadow has left the Earth's surface. Reduced light from the Penumbra hits the Earth's surface up to an hour after the FULL eclipse and 1hr after the Moon casts a shadow. The reason for this 1hr is that the Moon moves 1/2 a degree per hour and after that time the width of the penumbra 6400km will not be visible, ie. end of partial eclipse.

@amy G Hey, what's the problem? "Hopefully, we are all here in search of truth and that's really all I need to say about that." - amy G. Is that not the case here? "What fascinated me most was the fact that there was legitimate discussion." - amy G. Is this not discussion? LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS routinely ignored by flat earthers in all "legitimate discussion". Why does the Sun appear to be the same size all over the "flat earth" regardless of its distance to the observer? Everything gets smaller towards the vanishing point. But you always have to look up to the sun - yellow line - how can it set or rise? Same with the Moon. The Sun at zenith has an angular diameter of 0.5 degrees of arc. Wherever it is it stays the same size. Bearing in mind the "1 mile corridor" where, you know, things get smaller as they get farther away. The sun rises and sets without changing size - explain this. Wherever you are on the "flat earth", the angular distance the sun covers per hour is 15 degrees. No matter what elevation, what time of year or time of day, no matter where you view it from. On a flat earth that is impossible. Explain this. Pictures from Space: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=apollo+pictures+of+Earth&form=HDRSC2&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover Zoom in to individual pictures: https://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/?extent=50.3348544,-23.6121387,90,-15.4187484&proj=10&layers=NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEoAsjYIHYFcA2vIBvAXwF1SizSg Oh and just in case you claim that was done with a telescope, the far side of the Moon: https://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/projections?extent=-90,-25.8276945,90,25.8276945&proj=7&layers=NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEoAsjYIHYFcA2vIBvAXwF1SizSg The bottom of all the buildings has disappeared. How is this possible on a flat earth? Sure you cannot "see forever" but what trick of light cuts the bottoms off just as you would expect on a curved surface? Some Mathematics for you: https://penguinsfalloff.blogspot.com/2017/06/as-internet-debates-go-one-concerning.html

I made a very big post above answering all your points and providing examples for pictures in space etc. It was fairly obvious your first response was a diversion but that's 3 times now. Why are all you people so afraid? I have content above that you have ignored. The thing is, you can run and hide behind your computer screen and refuse to answer things but that is real sad. How can anyone believe this crap and be afraid to answer simple things? And a math nerd knows that it takes 24hrs. And a school child can divide 360 by 24hrs and conclude it MUST move 15 degrees per hour. You are not a mathematician. I have content above that you have ignored. Must I repost it all for you to ignore again? I gave you a list of questions, some images and some observations that cannot be explained on a flat earth but perfectly fit in with a planet. Above, kindly address it. I do not need to explain that it exists, you have to explain different starfield rotation directions. Examples easily found online and of course easily dismissed by you as fake. You also have to explain why the Moon is inverted in Australia. You're avoiding them all. Above. Content. Address it. How come the Sun doesn't get smaller when it sets? How come it is the same size wherever it is viewed at whatever angle, time of day, time of year?

When can I expect you to answer the post posted yesterday at 8.49? Because it wraps up all the nonsense I keep having to revisit. Your mistake is the same blundering one you keep making. By the way, YOUR source for times is NOT correct, it is longer than 5hrs for the visible partial to start and end. It is actually 5hrs 18 minutes. But that's not where you are wrong, you keep insisting that the visibility of the partial contributes to the total shadow on Earth time. It does not. Now don't go getting your knickers in a twist at wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_August_21,_2017 (P1) Partial begin 15:46:48 (U1) Total begin 16:48:32 Greatest eclipse 18:26:40 (U4) Total end 20:01:35 (P4) Partial end 21:04:19

Yet again another flat earther turns up and runs away from direct questions. Absolutely pathetic. Why are you people so afraid to answer things? The sun comes back to pretty much the same spot every 24 hours. That is 360 degrees. It is 24hrs on every single point on Earth. As a mathematician the inevitable conclusion should be bloody obvious. Since it didn't even occur to you that speaks volumes about your level of maths skills. Now at this point, anyone who is not a committed flat earther would investigate how this flat-madness explains it. Instead, what say you play more diversion games and continue to avoid about half a dozen questions and a very long detailed response above.

Wow, the person calling people names objects to INDIRECT banter. Back on topic, answer my question! Black boxes, if one was needed the perps could just fake one, or do you think they exceeded their massive man power list with all the other crap and they decided not to bother

Why are you so afraid to answer? The building exterior shows an inward explosion and nothing was ejected out the entrance hole. How does your no-plane nonsense explain it.

I'm asking questions that you CANNOT answer. Mainly because there is no explanation. Circular reasoning - the videos show exactly what should occur. I don't need to prove that the explosion went inwards as we can see. You are the one making the moronic claim and you know there is NO explanation for it. <thread>

The Earth, but hey for the purposes of the question I shall rephrase it - since you are playing silly buggers! 1. Why does the Sun appear to be the same size all over the "flat earth" regardless of its distance to the observer? Yes, everything gets smaller towards the vanishing point. But you always have to look up to the sun - yellow line. Really? The Sun at zenith has an angular diameter of 0.5 degrees of arc. Wherever it is it stays the same size. 3. How can it set or rise full size in the first place? Same with the Moon. Bearing in mind the "1 mile corridor" where, you know, things get smaller as they get farther away. Playing silly buggers again. Wherever you are on the "flat earth", the angular distance the sun covers per hour is 15 degrees. No matter what elevation, what time of year or time of day, no matter where you view it from. On a flat earth that is impossible. A novice mathematician would know this straightaway and would know why. Once again, playing silly buggers. The sun rises and sets without changing size. You want me to prove that the Sun travels at 15 degrees per hour everywhere on Earth? Some mathematician you are. This one thing could prove beyond doubt that the globe model is incorrect. Find one place on Earth where the sun doesn't do that and it's cracked. As for things orbiting, I wonder what kind of student of mathematics can be that ignorant of satellites or visible planets and their moons. Astronomers spend hours watching things like moon transits across Jupiter or Mars, or Mercury transiting the Sun through a filter. Ahhh ok, the standard conspiracy bullshit answer. https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=apollo+pictures+of+Earth&form=HDRSC2&first=1&scenario=ImageBasicHover Zoom in to individual pictures: https://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/?extent=50.3348544,-23.6121387,90,-15.4187484&proj=10&layers=NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEoAsjYIHYFcA2vIBvAXwF1SizSg Oh and just in case you claim that was done with a telescope, the far side of the Moon: https://quickmap.lroc.asu.edu/projections?extent=-90,-25.8276945,90,25.8276945&proj=7&layers=NrBsFYBoAZIRnpEoAsjYIHYFcA2vIBvAXwF1SizSg I could show you numerous things that you could look up yourself, but I sense you will arm wave them all away. Playing dumb. The bottom of all the buildings has disappeared. How is this possible on a flat earth? Sure you cannot "see forever" but what trick of light cuts the bottoms off just as you would expect on a curved surface? The mathematics of visibility on Earth also rely on the physics of refraction. It confuses you does it? Give me some examples where you are confused and maybe we "might actually get somewhere"! Try replying honestly this time. I strongly suspect you have zero mathematics and are 100% a flat earther, here to play games and evade all the difficult questions.

I'm not angry at all. You ignored my reply and still haven't admitted it as being correct. The rather silly women who made the video forgot to check the local times.

You ran away like a big Jessie. Afraid to answer anything. Regarding the picture YOU need to explain how an explosion goes inwards with no debris coming out of the entry hole. You cannot because it was a bloody plane!

Wrong yet again. The shadow passed across the Earth surface in 3hrs 14 minutes. Please stop quoting the 5 hours, that is really dumb after it has been exhaustingly explained to you. The Earth rotates around 48.5 degrees in that time. Now I've read your post several times and I still don't understand what you are saying. It almost looks like you are expecting the Earth to have rotated 143.7 degrees. Please tell me you do not think this.

Do you understand mathematics? Namely trigonometry? ONLY at the equator can the Sun be 3000 miles away because it is vertical above the observer. The red line below is matey at the Equator seeing the Sun 3000 miles up above him. Now the bloke at 30 degrees has just watched the Earth go across the sky and he sees the Sun at a distance of 5200 miles. But it hasn't changed speed or size and has been in view the entire time for both of them! Now change the observer to someone by the sea watching a beautiful sunset. He's watched the Sun go across the sky the whole day always in view, same speed, same size, he lives on the equator. The sun is now just 5 degrees above the horizon, still the same bloody size(!?) but see if you can work out how far away it is from him. http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm Side a = 3000 because the observer still on the equator is seeing the sun 3000 miles above him. Meanwhile the observer also on the equator at an angle A of 5 degrees sees the Sun, wait for it, 34,400 miles away!!! It takes a profound ignorance not to understand the terminal problems here.

You know my explanation and it fits everything we see exactly as expected. You are the one proposing the lunatic claim, the post needs answering, why are you so afraid? Example. Sun directly overhead how far away is it? ANSWER PLEASE. And don't give me that ridiculous shite about "portals". I can track the Sun across the entire sky, it gets further away on a flat earth, so why no size change and how the hell can it always go the same speed?

@alexa How about you stop cluster bombing this thread with total crap and start explaining all the things you keep avoiding? @amy G So, you are a mathematician are you? 1. Why does the Sun appear to be the same size all over the planet regardless of its distance to the observer? 2. How can it possibly set or rise? It is above the eyeline of any observer, it is impossible to duck down below it. 3. How can it disappear full size in the first place? Same with the Moon. 4. The Sun moves at 15 degrees per hour in every single orientation on the entire planet - explain this. 5. Even when the Sun is supposed to be doing a different "orbit" on the flat Earth it maintains the same speed and size. How? https://penguinsfalloff.blogspot.com/2017/06/as-internet-debates-go-one-concerning.html Regarding proof - that requires the entire space industry of multiple agencies to be faked involving an astonishing number. Every single photograph in and of space to be faked. Every single orbiting satellite when you can see the damn things, including the ISS - also fake? That's just for openers. Chicago, where did it go?

Apparently all because there was a possibility the "big lumbering jet" might miss its target. https://askthepilot.com/questionanswers/conspiracy-nation/ " I propose a conspiracy theory that the conspiracy theories are themselves part of a conspiracy, intended to discredit the idea of there being a conspiracy — and to divide and conquer those who might sleuth out certain facts." "1. The terrorist pilots lacked the skill and training needed to fly jetliners into their targets This is an especially popular contention with respect to American flight 77. Hijacker pilot Hani Hanjour was a notoriously untalented flier who never piloted anything larger than a four-seater. Yet he is said to have pulled off a remarkable series of aerobatic maneuvers before slamming into the Pentagon. The pilots of American 11 and United 175 also had spotty records and had flown only private planes. They should have had great difficulty navigating to New York City, and even greater difficulty hitting the twin towers squarely. To bolster this idea that the hijackers were Oswaldian pawns, the conspiromongers often invoke impressive-sounding jargon and fluffery about high-tech cockpits, occasionally trundling out testimony from pilots. Reality: The cabal’s feats did not require in-depth technical knowledge or a high degree of skill. The attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league in the cockpits of those 757s and 767s; however they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category-3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system – or to land at all. They were setting out to steer an already airborne jetliner, in perfect weather, into the side of a building. Though, for good measure, Mohammed Atta and at least one other member of his group did buy several hours of simulator training on a Boeing 727 (this was not the same type of jet used in the attacks, but it didn’t need to be). Additionally they obtained manuals and instructional videos for the 757 and 767, available from aviation supply shops. Hani Hanjour’s flying was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and spirals above the nation’s capital revealed him to be exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it. Striking a stationary object — even a large one with five beckoning sides — at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon’s lawn. If he’d flown the same profile ten times, seven of them he’d probably have tumbled short of the target or overflown it entirely. As for those partisan pilots known to chime in on websites, take them with a grain of salt. As somebody who flies 757 and 767s for a living, I think my testimony carries some weight. Ask around and you’ll discover that the majority of professional pilots feel the way I do."

Wowie, these two are really getting miffed at anyone taking them to task. Apparently anyone questioning their crazy claims is a shill and all posts are trolling. Notice people that the extremely large elephant in the room stays trumpeting away without them addressing it. Third time. How many people were in on this? 1. How many to distribute airplane parts? 2. How many to distribute DNA? 3. How many to dispose of the actual plane and kill the passengers. 4. Then since DNA was found, how many to toast the bodies and smash them up? 5. If the DNA was faked, the laboratory was in on it? How many? 6. How many in the military to execute the missile launch? 7. How many to create all those individual films? 8. How many to lace the buildings with explosives? 9. How many to plan it? Oversee it? 10. How did they communicate it all? 11. Where is the paper trail for all of this, or the money trail to pay this huge number off? 12. Adding - "crisis actors" total? The thing is, this has been going on for some considerable time now - SURELY you can answer these questions? It HAS to be part of the who, what, why, where scenario - filling in the dots. At least estimates?? One final question: In the world of high explosives and demolition, all sorts of weird and wonderful techniques are employed to make the direction of the force as required. I am not aware of one that makes metal bend towards the explosion. The impacts showed NO outward ejections at the collision point - what Mickey Mouse world does this happen in? Bent inwards? Can the two noisy no planers please avoid answering anything in this post?

How many people were in on your pantomime? 1. How many to distribute airplane parts? 2. How many to distribute DNA? 3. How many to dispose of the actual plane and kill the passengers. 4. Then since DNA was found at the site, how many to toast the bodies and smash them up? 5. If the DNA was faked, the laboratory was in on it? How many? 6. How many in the military to execute the missile launch? Every single time you try and nail someone down who has a mad theory they run away from obvious problems. Answers please. nb. The only people name calling around here are mishy and you - shill / moron. But then again being insulted by people like you is almost a compliment.

Rant: That is now the 3rd time you have repeated that lie. Physics applies most certainly but people like you are completely ignorant of it. YOU have no right to invoke "physics" particularly when it works perfectly well with such kinetic energy. What the hell are YOU doing on this forum? This happened nearly 20 years ago and you. together with your bonkers clan have been soiling the internet like an incontinent cat, with your incessant no plane no brain gibberish. For you Occam never even had a razor, he had a rusty blunt spoon that he used to scrape bird poo off of his windscreen.

Arsewater. I said the landing gear did that. How many people were in on your pantomime? 1. How many to distribute airplane parts? 2. How many to distribute DNA? 3. How many to dispose of the actual plane and kill the passengers. 4. Then since DNA was found at the site, how many to toast the bodies and smash them up? 5. If the DNA was faked, the laboratory was in on it? How many? 6. How many in the military to execute the missile launch?

That is called an ad hominem where you reject the verifiable content and attempt to attack the person who presented it. Hopefully the moderators of this forum will pop up and politely request that the very large pot stops calling the kettle black. You seem a little bit miffed that somebody can be bothered to tear you a new backside. Calm yourself down, have a cocoa or something. It was planes. Four of them. The alternative is absurd, unfeasible and ludicrously difficult - it also involves untold numbers of people. Benjamin Franklin Quotes : Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.

Yes. Yes. Almost certainly. Your laughter is like backwash from a toilet. https://www.tnonline.com/20170501/coroner-details-flight-93-crash/ No. That's what happens. Did you see the pretty picture of the burnt out husk that actually landed? This one wasn't maxing out and trying to hit the target straight on! You mean the comedy villains didn't simply setoff a comedy fuel bonfire to placate all the crazies who would "notice" no plane parts? No, It hit the deck at colossal speed and it obliterated itself. The energy ricochet sent parts all over for miles. The clean-up team can corroborate this.

That is called an ad hominem where you reject the verifiable content and attempt to attack the person who presented it. Hopefully the moderators of this forum will pop up and politely request that the very large pot stops calling the kettle black.

I am an anti no-planer. It's bred into me to reject abject stupidity.