Winston wrote:droid wrote:My question is, what exactly would constitute sufficient "proof" for you? without you saying that it was "staged" "faked" or something like that?
What would get you to say "oh ok i think there is 95%+ probability of the earth really being round" ?
I already answered that many times. Anything that can be constituted as evidence would be great.
............
............
............
Holly smokes, where to even begin?
I understand you need to troll your own forum once in a while to keep it alive$$. But there's a limit man.
You bury the opposition in so much junk that it would make it a full time job to address it all, cornering the discussion.
Again, all because to you, more-material = truth lol
But lets entertain it
. I actually love this thread haha.
Winston wrote: Why do I need to define what is evidence to you? If you want me to give you some ideas, well for one thing, some photos of the Earth from space would be nice. Or videos of the Earth rotating from space too. As mentioned before, there is only one photo of Earth from space, that one taken in 1972 with Africa shown in front. No others in NASA's 50 years of space exploration history. That is very odd and suspicious? Don't you think? Come on. Admit it.
Another proof I'd accept is if you'd take me on a plane across Antarctica to the other side. If you can do that, and we reach the continents on the other side according to the globe model then yes that would be proof of the globe model. Can you do that? Oh wait, let me guess, Antarctica is so cold that the plane's engines would freeze in midair right? lol. Always excuses, excuses. Try to use some critical thinking for once. Apply your skepticism toward NASA too, not just the flat earthers. Don't just take their word for it.
Of course you need to make clear what would be appropriate proof, since you are the one blatantly ignoring or denying every piece of presented evidence, so it literally "begs the question" lol
So not only do you lie, but basically you are attempting to end the dialogue and shut down discussion here, since
1- Only NASA or similar agency can take the requested photographs, but anything presented by NASA et al is fake. thus moot.
2- None of us can afford to take you for a ride across Antarctica, therefore we can't "prove" to you that the earth is round.
Does this mean that before flight we were all condemned to not make any deductions without leaving the ground? Do you really need to "see" everything with your own eyes to gain a reasonable acceptance of its existence Winston? Let that alone speak for itself.
You have repeatedly:
1- ignored the fact that that stars rotate ccw on the northern hemisphere and cw on the southern hemisphere. Something you can observe WITH YOUR OWN EYES
2- ignored the fact that airline travel times DO NOT MATCH the Flat earth model at all. And you will, it seems, reject the task of checking one or two flights for yourself, settling for the dishonest
they're-in collusion line or things to that effect.
3- ignored the fact that airline flights actually do not have to fly over antarctica, as i demonstrated with the lines on google earth, which you just called "bogus".
4- ignored the fact you can take an 8" telescope and see for yourself the curvature of the moon, mountains and all
5- ignored the fact you can take an 8" telescope and see for yourself the ships and the full-sized sun going below the horizon
6- ignored the fact i demonstrated the drop of the horizon as a function of height, just calling it bogus (more on this below)
Winston wrote: The rest of the Earth images from space are obviously CGI. Anyone can see that. Even a child can. So stop the denial please. Are you saying you can't tell the difference between something real and CGI? Come on. Don't play dumb. When you saw Jurassic Park, could you tell that the dinosaurs were CGI and not real? Did you see the recent movie "Jungle Book"? If so, could you tell that the talking animals in it were CGI too? If not, then we can't have an intelligent conversation here. Even I could tell they were CGI. Why can't you? The bottom line is:
CGI IS NOT EVIDENCE OR PROOF! How many times does that have to be explained to you? NASA even admits that all it's photos of the Earth after 1972 are either CGI or composites from satellites.
The Japanese recently released a time lapse video of Earth spinning, and it was clearly CGI and animated. Everyone can see that. Even you can see that. So don't deny it. I don't know who they thought they were fooling. If you think it was real, then you are out of touch with reality and have lost your marbles.
Ok now, let me show you some images Droid. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION. I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO REPEAT THIS OR COPY/PASTE IT AGAIN!
First, here is the ONLY photo of the Earth that NASA has, taken in 1972 by Apollo 17. It's known as "Blue Marble I". We've all seen it in textbooks.
https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpre ... -small.jpg
Gee that's sure a lot of detail from thousands of miles out in space don't you think? I don't know about you, but when I'm at the top of a mountain, when I look at terrain 20 [or 30 miles away in the distance, it starts to lose its detail and color and becomes blurry, even on a clear day. Yet you can be thousands of miles in space and see that much detail of the clouds and continents on Earth? Hmmmmmm. Furthermore, why did all the Apollo Missions take only one photo? A girl taking selfies takes more photos of herself in one minute than NASA does in 50 years?! WTF?
Furthermore, Africa seems awfully big on that globe doesn't it? Not the same proportions that we see on portable globe models of the Earth. If you moved it down a little there'd be no room for Europe on that photo. lol.
Next, here is Blue Marble II, taken in 2002, which NASA admits is a composite image taken by many satellites, and not a true photo.
https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpre ... e-2002.jpg
Now, look what happens when you zoom in on this image....... Get ready to be stunned......
https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpre ... malies.png
See what's in those squares and circles? Yes, that's right. The sections in them are IDENTICAL, which means whoever put this together used the CLONING TOOL IN PHOTOSHOP!!!!!!!!!!!! BUSTED!!!!!!!! Is your spine tingling yet? lol
If you've ever used Photoshop, you'd know that the cloning tool can replicate image sections, just as you see above. For more info on those two alleged Earth images, see here:
https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/1 ... is-a-fake/
What are you smoking? Why more lies like "
First, here is the ONLY photo of the Earth that NASA has, taken in 1972 by Apollo 17. It's known as "Blue Marble I" " There are a lot more photos
Well duh the cgi sucks like you yourself have said. But at the same time you are not ready to accept all the other pics:
So what is it? you can really distinguish cgi from non-cgi , but then the non-cgi are actually cgi?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapo ... ive/albums
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#MagNN
I ask you particularly, what would you require so as to no consider a NASA picture fake? is that even a possibility?
What would make you say "
hey they really did not doctor that"
If the pics have exquisite detail, you say something's off. If they are cheap cgi, then oh lord it's cgi.
Winston wrote: Moreover, NASA and astronomy now says that Earth is not a perfect sphere, but more like an oblate spheroid, PEAR SHAPED in other words. Does that photo above look pear shaped? No it looks like a perfect sphere. BUSTED!
You are either disingenuous or actually really ignorant. they're talking about a minimal percentage, not something visible from a pic.
At least get that kind of stuff straight, or are you really into lying here?
Winston wrote:Finally, check out this NASA photo of a small Earth in the background behind an astronaut. Notice what happens when you take this photo and turn down the hues and saturation in an image editing program. Look in the upper right corner. Yes, you got it! There is an UNNATURAL UNEVEN SQUARE around the little Earth in the background, which means that NASA ARTIFICIALLY PASTED IT IN!!!!!!!!!!!! Again, BUSTED!!!!!!!!!!!! So much for your faith in the integrity and honesty of NASA!!!!!!!!!! Look who's laughing now! LOL
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GxiXbp0drSM/T ... vealed.jpg
So you gonna be honest and admit that all this is very damaging or what?
Baloney, here's the original pic:
I modified it with the editing program and there's no hidden information in there at all. If you could use photoshop you could do it yourself, but you won't, you'll just say NASA swapped the original picture, but never question the baloney 'hoax' pic, which is most likely doctored itself. But you are not ready to apply the same standard here I'm i wrong?
Now, on the horizon drop, i did take pictures from my last few flights and have seen the drop in the horizon at 30,000 feet.
Even compensating for the wing deflection, you can CLEARLY see that the horizon is lower during level flight at cruising altitude.
But of course, even though you could observe this yourself next time you fly, you will just say this is bogus and ignore it.
The above two pics, superimposed:
BONUS PICTURE:
Here you can see how the sun iluminates the clouds from underneath in the morning, proving what the flat earthers say about the sun being "low", even below the plane LMAO
(sarcasm)
So as it stands, pretty much the only one here that can "prove" it to you is starchild5 by taking you in his space ship
, but you'd say it was 'staged'.
As always, i don't expect a response. You will just ignore this for a couple of months, and then come back with a new barrage of third-grade junk lol.
1)Too much of one thing defeats the purpose.
2)Everybody is full of it. What's your hypocrisy?
