The Flat Earth/Globe Earth Discussion Thread

[peter]

22 hours ago, zArk said:

also i am waiting for the admittance that the 2012 blue marble of north america is obviously fake making the Suomi NPP satellite a big pile of fakery. I am also wondering if you are all-in on the the DSCVR 2015 image, which is very much similar to the celestia cgi, so we can then use it as your rule-of-thumb?

 Since we are on the subject of pictures you put the following one up with the sun and the moon

 

 

 

 

 

 

which was clearly faked ,I pointed out more than a few inconsistencies which were obvious ,however you still put it up as evidence unawares of the glaring problems. So my question to you would be ,If you were clearly  unable to qualify the providence of your evidence with regards to said photo,what criteria do you use to make an informed judgment call on the photos you quoted above    

Edited November 3, 2022 by peter

[Bombadil]

MOD NOTE: A few recent posts of been hidden. One because it was pretty close to trolling. The other two as they then became irrelevant.

It was mentioned that I should probably close the whole topic down. Admin have made it clear that they want all things to be debatable within the forum rules. That doesn’t mean I can’t remove pointless posts or lock the topic. 
You are ALL guilty of having posted pointless replies to each other.

Flat Earth is considered a joke in the wonder media. It is about time Flat Earthers posted some evidence that can be tested scientifically. Quoting the bible and bad YouTube videos is not ok. These will be removed as soon as seen. The same goes for Helios, don’t bicker back and get stuck in a slagging match.

 

I have warned you all enough in the past. It really is tedious. Remember you only have access to mods now not FA’s. Whilst other mods may convince me to change my mind if I sanction you it is possible they will agree with me.

Think about your continuance on the forum before you post.

 

NO RESPONSE NECESSARY.

[zArk]

41 minutes ago, peter said:

 Since we are on the subject of pictures you put the following one up with the sun and the moon

 

 

 

 

 

 

which was clearly faked ,I pointed out more than a few inconsistencies which were obvious ,however you still put it up as evidence unawares of the glaring problems. So my question to you would be ,If you were clearly  unable to qualify the providence of your evidence with regards to said photo,what criteria do you use to make an informed judgment call on the photos you quoted above    

you stated it was fake, i said i have noted that and will not return to it, of course unless i can verify it.

it doesnt mean it is fake and it doesnt mean i accept your claim

++++++++++++++++++++

Looking at equilux further

 

as i look at places on a map from north to equator the date increased i.e 24th --- > 29th september

however as i look at places increasingly south of the equator equilux occrus 11th september ----- > 20th september

 

this is across all time zones.

 

[zArk]

1 hour ago, peter said:

 

 

 

 

 

so from Tiem and Date the Moon and Sun were in the sky at the same time and were in those positions.

 

 

 

[webtrekker]

30 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

so from Tiem and Date the Moon and Sun were in the sky at the same time and were in those positions.

 

 

 

 

I don't get what you are trying to 'prove' here.

 

It's not by any means a rare event that the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky at the same time. I've witnessed it myself many times. Of course, the Moon is a lot fainter (unlike that obviously fake photo you have posted) , but still visible with the naked eye.

 

 

 

[Bombadil]

8 minutes ago, webtrekker said:

 

I don't get what you are trying to 'prove' here.

 

It's not by any means a rare event that the Sun and Moon are visible in the sky at the same time. I've witnessed it myself many times. Of course, the Moon is a lot fainter (unlike that obviously fake photo you have posted) , but still visible with the naked eye.

 

 

 

I also see both on a regular basis where I am. Just remember it’s not a moon, it’s a Death Star

[webtrekker]

2 minutes ago, Bombadil said:

I also see both on a regular basis where I am. Just remember it’s not a moon, it’s a Death Star

 

Lets face it, you couldn't have a Solar eclipse unless the Sun and the Moon were together in the sky.

 

 

 

[peter]

55 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

so from Tiem and Date the Moon and Sun were in the sky at the same time and were in those positions.

 

 

 

So what is your point except to put up some impressive charts,  on occasions they can be seen  above the horizon at the same time, the graphs look great but don't further your argument

Edited November 3, 2022 by peter

[peter]

8 minutes ago, Bombadil said:

I also see both on a regular basis where I am. Just remember it’s not a moon, it’s a Death Star

You keep that shit up and you will have to ban yourself

[zArk]

3 hours ago, webtrekker said:

 

Lets face it, you couldn't have a Solar eclipse unless the Sun and the Moon were together in the sky.

 

Edited November 3, 2022 by zArk

[webtrekker]

3 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

 

That's nothing to do with what I posted so why quote me?

 

 

 

[peter]

2 hours ago, zArk said:

 

You obviously know the globe theory as you put it so will know the answers as well, and no, a lunar eclipse is not a simulation,so why bring those points  up for the umpteenth time.

Asking the same questions over and over again is not conducive to a healthy discussion

PS I'm still waiting for you to comment on Bflat's photo that obviously shows curvature and your criteria for determining if a photo is genuine or not

Edited November 3, 2022 by peter

[peter]

8 hours ago, zArk said:

you stated it was fake, i said i have noted that and will not return to it, of course unless i can verify it.

it doesnt mean it is fake and it doesnt mean i accept your claim

++++++++++++++++++++

Looking at equilux further

 

as i look at places on a map from north to equator the date increased i.e 24th --- > 29th september

however as i look at places increasingly south of the equator equilux occrus 11th september ----- > 20th september

 

this is across all time zones.

 

Th reason for the discrepancy is the earth is not a perfect globe plain and simple, plus earth's orbit is not a perfect circle ,also there is no equilux on the equator as days are slightly longer due to the size of the disc of the sun, how sun set and sun rise are measured and of course the slight atmospheric refraction of light

 

Since the equinox and equilux obviously exist could you explain how they work with the dates you mentioned  on a flat earth 

 

[zArk]

7 hours ago, peter said:

Th reason for the discrepancy is the earth is not a perfect globe plain and simple, plus earth's orbit is not a perfect circle ,also there is no equilux on the equator as days are slightly longer due to the size of the disc of the sun, how sun set and sun rise are measured and of course the slight atmospheric refraction of light

 

 

 

 

yes, i get that the Globe is modelled as oblate spheriod ... yet surely at the date of the Equinox (90 degree Sun) AT Equator should be the Equilux and looking at the shape of the globe surely the dates of Equilux north and south of the equator should be equal

 

granted this is for the Spring Equilux but its the same discrepancy i am looking at.

 

 

the north and south do not cross over for dates and yet the position of the Equator to the Sun is said to be 90 degrees so why the difference??

 

 

i recognise your mention of how sun rise and set are measured as twilight and dusk are not included (which is odd as it is daylight for Equilux not specifically seeing the sun). If Equinox and Equilux are proper surely they would count 'light' and 'darkness' but instead the helio (clue) way is to only time the Sun.

 

and on your point about refraction, as Sun gazing early morning and evening are performed safely which means the Sun is not directly shining at the Observer. Of course you realise that refraction at rise and set mean the actual disappearance of the sun is higher in the sky than we are led to believe?

 

 

Quote

Since the equinox and equilux obviously exist could you explain how they work with the dates you mentioned  on a flat earth 

 

 

rather than it being a land position issue, i see it as a Sun issue, how the Sunlight is being angled to the earth. As you know, i say the Sun is a refracted energy source manifesting in our sky, what we see is not the originating energy source. (same as moon) . I say the energy sources refraction is observer dependant

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zArk]

15 hours ago, peter said:

So what is your point except to put up some impressive charts,  on occasions they can be seen  above the horizon at the same time, the graphs look great but don't further your argument

they are evidence towards verification of the photo ...

[peter]

1 hour ago, zArk said:

 

yes, i get that the Globe is modelled as oblate spheriod ... yet surely at the date of the Equinox (90 degree Sun) AT Equator should be the Equilux and looking at the shape of the globe surely the dates of Equilux north and south of the equator should be equal

 

granted this is for the Spring Equilux but its the same discrepancy i am looking at.

 

 

the north and south do not cross over for dates and yet the position of the Equator to the Sun is said to be 90 degrees so why the difference??

 

 

i recognise your mention of how sun rise and set are measured as twilight and dusk are not included (which is odd as it is daylight for Equilux not specifically seeing the sun). If Equinox and Equilux are proper surely they would count 'light' and 'darkness' but instead the helio (clue) way is to only time the Sun.

 

and on your point about refraction, as Sun gazing early morning and evening are performed safely which means the Sun is not directly shining at the Observer. Of course you realise that refraction at rise and set mean the actual disappearance of the sun is higher in the sky than we are led to believe?

 

 

 

 

rather than it being a land position issue, i see it as a Sun issue, how the Sunlight is being angled to the earth. As you know, i say the Sun is a refracted energy source manifesting in our sky, what we see is not the originating energy source. (same as moon) . I say the energy sources refraction is observer dependant

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you didn't take any notice of my post then and you can say surely as much as you like, put up pretty pictures with a joker scratching his head but it doesn't change anything,I have said why end of story

[webtrekker]

@zArk Now that the Equilux question has been satisfactorily answered and satisfactorily debunked by Peter, how about getting back to my very simple question of why Orion appears upside-down in the night sky when viewed from Australia in a Flat Earth model?

 

It's a very simple question and should take no more than a minute of your valuable time to answer.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

[zArk]

3 hours ago, peter said:

what the fake one you put up, I don't care what you bring up in that regard the photo has obviously been altered.

1 now how is that comment on bflat's photo that shows curvature coming along

2 how does the equinox and equilux work on a flat earth 

3 what is your criteria for determining that all satellite  photos are CGI .

I've answered your questions on the equilux etc ,so now you can afford me the same courtesy and answer some of mine

youre just upset because i demonstrated 100% the 2012 Suomi NPP satellite  image contradicts the DSCVR 2015 image. The ratio is wrong compared to the DSCVR

 

AND if you think it has a zoom capable from 930,000 miles i am really out of words.

 

 

 

2. Equinox and Equilux on earth is the same day/night as one is for equal night and the latter is equal day. This is called common sense. A night of 12 hrs necessarily causes the day prior or post to be 12hrs .. because there are 24 hrs a day. It ..... just .... makes ... sense....

3. i showed you, they are all fake ... some completely made up CGI, some a patchwork of individual photos taken of the earth and wrapped into a globe. you cant have them as evidence of a globe because they are all clearly nonsense

i always answer all your sensible questions and i ignore your childish mockery sometimes

1. you missed my little conv with webtrekker a few pages back ... i just calculated , basically, the impossibility of taking a photo of the edges of the earth due to the firmament height. I also have stated that both Helio and FE are in agreement that the horizon we see is 'apparent'. Your boss NdGT says your tech needs to get much higher to see a curve.

i say, regardless of seeing or photographing a curve or flat, measuring the earth will show the facts. Measure the curve. a 10 mile stretch will measure a curve. what do you need to put this whole thing to bed?

i am only arguing with you on this point because the Helio scientists have failed to measure a curve.

they have proved a stationary earth .. good on em

they have proved the aether and kicked relativity to the curb

 

 

 

[Itsa]

MOD NOTE:

Thread has been unlocked, please 'try' to discuss the information presented without trying to wind each other up.

 

[webtrekker]

The FE model has been completely debunked without the need for any scientific explanation by the simple fact that it is impossible in that model for the southern constellations to appear inverted in the sky, unlike in the REAL globe model.

 

So, nothing more to be discussed from my standpoint.

 

Anyone care to refute this is and provide solid evidence?

 

 

 

[peter]

Since you didn't answer the following questions directly  zark I'll give you another crack

1 now how is that comment on bflat's photo that shows curvature coming along  (I'm waiting for a rebuttal and the accompanying reasons)

2 how does the equinox and equilux work on a flat earth 

3 what is your criteria for determining that all satellite  photos are CGI . ( you gave an example of two unrelated pictures which means nothing and even if those particular ones were CGI ,which I doubt ,that doesn't equate to the thousands of others being placed in the same category)

 I'm also still waiting for a working hypothesis for the flat earth model  then I will take you seriously, until then all your blustering, memes and graphs means very little to me I'm afraid

Edited November 5, 2022 by peter

[alexa]

What are they hiding in Antarctica ?

 

 

[webtrekker]

Haha! Alexa and zArk ignoring the debunking of their FE model and trying to swerve the conversation again. 

 

Admit it, you can't answer simple questions that don't even involve any science.

 

 

 

[truepositive]

This may sound dismissive but is not intended so; i don't care anymore.

There are so many creation/ destruction narratives around and i could read for decades about the timeline of my/ our demise.

It's all nonsense. Strange rituals, hierarchies and power structures are all out of line with properties that sound truly divine. We have received many messengers, killed even more of them, but never managed to compile a wholesome direction forward. It's on us now.

[alexa]

Operation High Jump 1946..............Discovery of the ice wall

Operation Deep Freeze 1955...........Discovery of the Firmament

Nasa Founded 1958........................The Firmament is the Van Allen belts

Antarctic Treaty 1959......................Guarding the Firmament

Operation Fishbowl 1962...............Bombing the Firmament

Apollo Mission 1969.......................Hoax to Hide the Firmament