Is Our Earth FLAT and Motionless, Not a Spinning Globe?

[Winston]

You guys,
These quotes and excerpts about not being able to fly directly around the southern hemisphere of the Earth will run chills down your spine and make your jaw drop, thinking "Holy cow! The flat earthers may be right after all! There really is something to this!"

First, look what Wikipedia has to say about the Polar flight routes around Antarctica.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_route

Antarctica
Few airlines fly between cities having a great circle route over Antarctica. Direct flights between South Africa and New Zealand would overfly Antarctica, but no airline has scheduled such flights.

Next, look at this question posted on Yahoo Answers. Someone found out using PlaneFinder.net that you can't track flights using global GPS or radar that are going around the southern hemisphere, only the northern hemisphere. How convenient!

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/i ... 837AAyrrvr

Why does GPS fail to track airplane flights travelling across the southern hemisphere?
If you go on one of these flight tracking web sites and watch a flight that goes from South America to South Africa doe example: it will show the plane on the map as it departs, but it disappears as it's meant to be flying over the ocean; and only reappears when it gets on land near the destination.

Someone else noticed the same thing:

I can see them tracked just fine over oceans in the northern hemisphere. Apparently radar magically works better above the equator.
Source(s):
planefinder.net

Funnily, one answer he received, which may be the truth, was:

Because the earth is flat and they cant have you knowing it is.

Next, on the Airliners.net forum, someone noticed that during a flight along the southern hemisphere, his plane had to go up north to stop and refuel:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... in/907589/

I once flew Aerolineas AKL-EZE-AKL. On the return flight, the trusty old B742 couldn't hold enough gas to make the trip non-stop, so we stopped in Rio Galagos to refuel (I understand this is normal practice). RG is right down the bottom of Argentina toward the tip of South American, so an arc drawn from here to AKL is lower than what is shown on the map above (which shows the route AKL->EZE). I flew back mid winter of about 1996 or 1997 and we definitely flew over icebergs, but not pack ice. Presumably the map shown above shows the outline of land with the white representing the permanent ice shelf? So in the winter time, the line of pack ice would be much further north (????)

By the way, probably the most interesting part about that trip was that although we cleared immigration on departing EZE, we were allowed outside the terminal building at Rio Galegos during the hour or so that the aircraft was being refueled. Myself and another pax caught a taxi and went for a trip into town to check things out. Mind you, it is that desolate and isolated, I guess there's nowhere you can go!

It seems there are very few direct flights along the southern hemisphere:

I thought we were talking about real flights here.
There is no Auckland - Capetown service nor is there a Perth or Sydney (non-stop) to Buenos Aires flight.
As far as ETOPS is concerned, I think range limitations would rule out the use of a twin-engined aircraft even before ETOPS became a consideration. Smile

So you see, even the unbiased posters at Airliners.net forum have noticed this, that there are very few flights around the southern hemisphere. And when you try to take one, it will usually take you UP NORTH first, like to Dubai, before taking you back down south again! Such a flight route would ONLY make sense on a flat earth map! Holy cow! Holy shit!

By now you guys must be thinking, "OMG! There really is something to this flat earth claim after all!"

[cdnFA]

Based on what I've seen here your ability to judge solid information and garbage is pretty much nil.

Hey I fell hook line a sinker for the Icebreaker hypothesis until read Glantz so don't feel to bad, but you seem to make it a habit and really until Glantz I never saw much against it aside from one professor saying it was questionable
without explaining why.

Let me give you a lesson you desperately need. In the absence of knowledge anything can be made to sound reasonable and well thought out.
I knew an otherwise intelligent woman who believed the hypothesis of the 1421 book. Hell it was on the shelves of her library in the non fiction section and I guess there were lots of facts and well reasoned positions

Except, anyone with a clue about Chinese history would right away scream bullshit and apparently he just went ahead and invested his facts.

Same thing for the Chinese landing in Nova Scotia, all hat, no land.

Read any diet book. Low fat cultists, high fat cultists, vegan cultists, paleo cultists. All seemingly well constructed, all claiming the other ways are shite. All pretty much ignoring counter claims the other sides make and any sort of
questions raised. Everyone one of them extremely convincing.

I know actually accepting this would be a blow to your self identity as some free thinking badass but quite frankly if you know how insane most people think you are... you really might want to sit down some time and have a solid think.

I am not flaming you here, just giving you some tough love. I guess I am an idiot but I think I may get through maybe.

[Ghost]

.

[Winston]

Photos of earth and heavenly bodies are altered of course: don't forget how f***ing big space is. It's space you know. If you want to use real images of earth and the moon to make a poster, you have to alter the images and the scale. Otherwise it wouldn't work. That's not the same thing as a hoax. They also edit colors, such as making photos of Mars look red. It's about making the photos match the public's perception. Alteration does not equal hoax/fake.

So what's your evidence that those photos of Earth are real then? NASA is not a credible institution at all. It was formed by Nazis and Freemasons and is a branch of the US military, not a scientific truth seeking agency. It has a long history of lying and hoaxes, which I've listed many of. This is a fact and easily provable. They even paste fake pictures of the Earth onto Apollo moon photos behind astronauts' heads, which if you do a reverse image, you can see the rough uneven square around the small blue Earth globe, indicating it was PASTED into the image.

During the Apollo Missions, NASA hoaxed a video shot of Earth in the distance pretending to be 130,000 miles away, half way to the moon. They turned off the lights and used a round window to fake a small globe Earth in the distance. When the lights came back on, you could see what was happening. They forgot to edit it out before releasing it to the public. It's an irrefutable smoking gun of fakery. The clip was exposed by Bart Sibrel in his documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon".

NASA even murdered several astronauts, such as Gus Grissom and two others in the Apollo One fire. Grissom's son and widow have investigated the incident for many years and concluded that NASA is lying to them and isn't telling them the truth about what really happened. Grissom's son is convinced that it was sabotage. There is evidence that it was deliberate. Why would you put faith and trust in an organization that murders, lies and covers it all up? Think about it.

Just because you were taught in school that Earth is a spinning globe, doesn't mean it has to be true. You are allowed to change your beliefs you know, or update them in accord with the evidence and data. A true skeptic is skeptical of his own beliefs too, and doesn't hold to fixed unchanging beliefs. Besides, if you think about it, you really have no proof that Earth is a spinning ball. You take it on faith because that's what you were taught in school. Remember that believing something doesn't make it true, if it doesn't fit the data and evidence.

Remember that Mark Twain said that "it is far easier to fool people than it is to convince people that they've been fooled". And that goes for this too. You don't want to believe that you've been fooled all these years, so it's hard for you to analyze the new data objectively. But it's easy to fool you with false data of course. Twain's quote is so true. And Albert Einstein said that dismissing something without investigating it is the height of ignorance. Speaking of Einstein, he admitted himself that there is no instrument on Earth that can detect the Earth's movement.

Btw, you know that single photo of Earth that the Apollo Missions took in 1972? It's the one in school textbooks that you always see. Well look at it again. There's a good reason to believe that it's fake. You see, if you are that far away from an object, it becomes blurry and discolored. For example, if you go to a mountain range, you will see that the furthest mountains in the distance look grayish and discolored. You can barely see them except for a faint outline. But that photo of Earth is much farther away, thousands of miles away, yet you can see the continents, clouds and oceans vividly in detail. NO FRIGGIN WAY! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? LOL

Therefore, that has to be fake. There's no way you can make out such vivid details and colors from that far away. You can't even do that on Earth with mountain ranges in the distant horizon. Think about it. And again, why is it that in 50 years of space exploration, NASA only has ONE alleged photo of the Earth taken with normal camera lens? Even an airhead teenage girl who goes into the bathroom takes more selfie photos of herself than NASA has of the Earth from space! ROTFL! LOL

A few more things Ghost:

1. You mentioned that you are still waiting for the explanation of how the day and night work on a flat earth model. Simple. The sun would be an object above the disc shaped Earth, several thousand miles above and maybe a few hundred miles in diameter. It would spin around the disc shaped world in circles. The part of the disc under the sun would be lit up and would be the daytime, while the other part of the disc not under the sun would be night. This model has been demonstrated in most of the flat earth videos posted in this thread man. If you would take even one hour to view some of them, you'd have the answer to your question. Come on man. Invest an hour or two into researching this, even though it challenges your beliefs. The videos provided in this thread are very easy to understand and watchable for an average layman. There's no excuse for you not to consider their arguments objectively.

2. Check out this image below of the sun rays through the clouds. Notice anything wrong with it? Yep. The rays are coming down at different angles, in an A shape from the sun. A huge object 93 million miles away would not send sun rays at different angles like that to Earth. It would send parallel straight rays from that distance. Therefore, the sun must be much closer than astronomy alleges. Using basic geometry, researchers have calculated that the sun is roughly 3000 miles away, based on the angle of the rays. Even without the clouds, if you look up at the sun, you can see rays coming from different angles.

[droid]

2. Check out this image below of the sun rays through the clouds. Notice anything wrong with it? Yep. The rays are coming down at different angles, in an A shape from the sun. A huge object 93 million miles away would not send sun rays at different angles like that to Earth. It would send parallel straight rays from that distance. Therefore, the sun must be much closer than astronomy alleges. Using basic geometry, researchers have calculated that the sun is roughly 3000 miles away, based on the angle of the rays. Even without the clouds, if you look up at the sun, you can see rays coming from different angles.

You're freakin' blind, that light comes from the dispersion on a higher cloud-mass, it's a unique circumstance. You now also seem to discount perspective when convenient man
More on all your other nonsense later

[Winston]

Everyone,
Here are some details about flights in the southern hemisphere of the earth that will shock you and make your jaw drop. This is from eric dubays ebook "200 proofs earth is not a spinning ball".


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.

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.

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.

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.

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 refueling 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.

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.

[Adama]

Everyone,
Here are some details about flights in the southern hemisphere of the earth that will shock you and make your jaw drop. This is from eric dubays ebook "200 proofs earth is not a spinning ball".


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.

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.

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.

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.

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 refueling 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.

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.

Yup.

[droid]

Everyone,
Here are some details about flights in the southern hemisphere of the earth that will shock you and make your jaw drop. This is from eric dubays ebook "200 proofs earth is not a spinning ball".


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.

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.

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.

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.

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 refueling 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.

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.

Flight time is obviously neglected. Geez you produce more junk than anyone has time to keep up with.
Here, Sydney to Santiago, 11h:30m nonstop:

https://www.expedia.com/Flights-Search? ... Search-All

With videos (of course "fake", or "made by insiders")




This thread here handles this
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/foru ... lo1INKrSHs


Also, no flight between capitals or major cities has to go over antarctica. Own up to your bullshit dudes:

[Ghost]

.

[Adama]

Winston, what do you think of this one?

[Ghost]

.

[Blue Murder]

We're still having this conversation? It's this simple . . .

1) Go to google.
2) Type in "Earth's shape".
3) Press 'Enter'.
4) Click 'Images'.
5) Notice Earth's shape.
6) ???
7) Profit.

[Winston]

Wow check out this groundbreaking new documentary that Mr S told me about. It's called "The Principle" and it reveals that science has now discovered amazing new serious credible evidence for the existence of God and a geocentric universe in which Earth is at the center of it. So the Bible and Christians were right all along. This means that our existence here on Earth is special, purposeful, and divinely caused and directed, not meaningless and accidental like atheists and evolutionists claim. The evidence is so profound that mainstream scientists are beginning to change their stance, and NASA has even deleted the data of this evidence from their information banks because they don't want to deal with it. Many famous experts are featured in this new documentary. This is something that Adama will love. Check out the movie info site and trailer:

http://www.theprinciplemovie.com

Description:

http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/about/

One Of The Most Heated Debates In History, Coming 2015

Simply put, the upcoming documentary, “The Principle,” is likely to become one of the most controversial films of our time.

Conventional wisdom dictates that the idea of Earth being at the center of the universe is a ridiculous holdover from an ancient, superstitious age. Modern science has long maintained that the human species is nothing special in the context of the cosmos.

We inhabit, in Carl Sagan’s words, “…. an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” His words reflect the Copernican Principle; the foundational assumption underlying the modern scientific world view.

Prepare to re-examine that assumption.

“The Principle”, brings to light new scientific observations challenging the Copernican Principle. The film brings before the public eye astonishing results from recent large-scale surveys of our Universe which disclose surprising evidence of a preferred direction in the cosmos, aligned with our supposedly insignificant Earth. The film explores from all sides the question of Earth’s station in the universe and whether it could, in fact, have a unique importance.”

“The Principle” features narration by Kate Mulgrew (“Star Trek Voyager”, “Orange Is The New Black”, and “Ryan’s Hope”), stunning animations by BUF Compagnie Paris (“Life of Pi”, “Thor”), and commentary from the most prominent scientists of our time, including George Ellis, Michio Kaku, Julian Barbour, Lawrence Krauss, and Max Tegmark.

Interviews with leading cosmologists are interspersed with the views of dissidents and mavericks, bringing into sharp focus the implications of an alternative explanation for our place in the universe.

These shocking new discoveries of Earth-oriented alignments in our visible cosmos bring us face-to-face with the challenging question … what does this mean for the soul and the future of humankind?

[Winston]

We're still having this conversation? It's this simple . . .

1) Go to google.
2) Type in "Earth's shape".
3) Press 'Enter'.
4) Click 'Images'.
5) Notice Earth's shape.
6) ???
7) Profit.

You obviously have not read any of the posts in this thread. I already addressed your stupid point. Again:

1. NASA has no authentic normal photos of the Earth from space taken with a normal camera. All the images you see of Earth from space are CGI and photoshopped taken from satellite composite photos. This is so obvious that NASA openly admits this. See the videos above. We already went through this.

2. The only alleged normal photo of Earth from space that NASA took was in 1972 from Apollo 13. As I mentioned earlier:

Btw, you know that single photo of Earth that the Apollo Missions took in 1972? It's the one in school textbooks that you always see. Well look at it again. There's a good reason to believe that it's fake. You see, if you are that far away from an object, it becomes blurry and discolored. For example, if you go to a mountain range, you will see that the furthest mountains in the distance look grayish and discolored. You can barely see them except for a faint outline. But that photo of Earth is much farther away, thousands of miles away, yet you can see the continents, clouds and oceans vividly in detail. NO FRIGGIN WAY! ARE YOU KIDDING ME? LOL

Therefore, that has to be fake. There's no way you can make out such vivid details and colors from that far away. You can't even do that on Earth with mountain ranges in the distant horizon. Think about it. And again, why is it that in 50 years of space exploration, NASA only has ONE alleged photo of the Earth taken with normal camera lens? Even an airhead teenage girl who goes into the bathroom takes more selfie photos of herself than NASA has of the Earth from space! ROTFL! LOL

3. Anyone can fake images and videos of the Earth from space. They did that in the 1960's with Star Trek. They did it recently in the 2013 movie "Gravity" with Sandra Bullock. Very easy for movie companies or NASA to do. Interestingly enough, there are no videos showing Earth rotating from space or from anywhere for that matter.

4. NASA has no credibility at all. They hoaxed the Apollo moon landing missions, which is easily proven from the fake photos as mentioned many times. Take the Apollo photo of the astronaut with the small Earth ball behind him and reverse image it, and you will see a rough square around it, indicating that it was PASTED into the background. And they faked a shot during Apollo 11 of being halfway to the moon, in that smoking gun footage discovered by Bart Sibrel featured in the documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon". For 30+ proofs of the Apollo moon hoax, see: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Conspiracies.htm

5. NASA are also murderers. They murdered three astronauts - Gus Grissom and two others - in 1967 during the Apollo One fire by burning them alive. f***ing evil bastards. Hope they burn in hell for that. Grissom's family investigated this incident for many years and knows that NASA isn't telling the truth and that the fire was deliberate and murder. See Jarrah White's documentary on "Apollo One". They also murdered Thomas Baron and his wife and daughter in the mid 1960's too, because Baron was about to testify before Congress that the Apollo program was a sham and mess and should be scrapped. So they took him out. Before he could testify to Congress, Baron and his family were killed in their car on the train tracks by an oncoming train. It was ruled as suicide. How convenient for the powers that be. Everyone who is a threat to them conveniently commits suicide. Yeah right. The universe must love the elite. And conveniently, Baron's report that he was going to submit to Congress, disappeared and was never found again. Gee how coincidental and accidental. f***ing bastards.

So Blue Murder, are you going to trust the word of an organization like NASA which is a proven liar, hoaxer, and murderer? Ghost, and you? Geez. You guys sure know how to pick evil scum to trust. You'd trust evil scum, money and politics, rather than independent truth seekers? Wtf?! Terrible judgment on your part.

Perhaps you sympathize with murderers Blue Murder, since it's in your screen name. And you sympathize with liars too, since you lied when you claimed that you only emailed me once, when in fact you emailed me many times, which I exposed in the banning announcement thread. Thus you have lied yourself, even if it was to cover your ego. I certainly wouldn't trust you.

[Winston]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

Radio waves, a form of electromagnetic radiation, tend to travel in straight lines. This generally limits the detection range of radar systems to objects on their horizon due to the curvature of the Earth.

So I guess this and all other technologies and feats of engineering that have to take the curvature of the earth into consideration are all faked in order to maintain the conspiracy?

Which is what I'm sure the likes of Adama would say.

Really, this conversation is pointless since the flat-earther side just instantly dismisses all the evidence as fake.

If you took a flat-earther into space and showed them the curvature, they'd say that the window on the spacecraft was distorting the shape.

Sorry Ghost, but:

1. Railroad engineers have stated that they do NOT take curvature of the Earth into account when designing tracks. Wanna see quotes from them? Are you interested in truth or dogma?

2. Ship navigators for centuries have use FLAT maps of the Earth to make their trigonometry calculations on. They didn't bring a globe on the ship. This has worked for centuries.

3. Laser tests prove that the Earth has no curvature. I can post videos about that. But what's the point? You NEVER click on them or watch them because you aren't interested in truth here, only in dogma.

Sorry Ghost, but you are losing the flat earth debate. You have dodged many points and not studied both sides. True freethinkers study both sides of an issue objectively. You don't. You already made up your mind before doing any research. I follow the evidence. You haven't done that. You falsely assume that Copernicus is infallible and can't be questioned. You forget that Copernicus never proved that the Earth was spinning or moving. In spite of that, the scientific establishment took it as gospel truth because their agenda is to make us think that our lives are meaningless and that our world is insignificant and that there is no God, etc. to promote their Luciferian agenda and NWO.

You don't see the big picture Ghost. That's why you don't investigate. Remember that Einstein said that condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance. I've researched both sides. You haven't. So far, the weight of the evidence leans toward flat earth. I'm stating that purely objectively.

The flat earth issue and geocentric issue is important, because it means that our life has meaning and purpose and a divine creator, and that we are not a meaningless cosmic accident as atheists and evolutionists claim. That's HUGE man. How can you not see that? Geez. Why are you so narrow on certain issues? I'm one of the few people who is open minded about nearly everything. Most people, including here, are not.

Ok let me ask you two challenging questions. Please answer them. I will keep repeating them until you answer them.

1. How do you know the Earth is a spinning ball moving through space at supersonic speeds?
2. Can you show some evidence that the Earth is a globe? Or at least provide good reasons for it?

The world looks flat and motionless to our senses, so the burden of proof is on you. Even you would admit that you don't feel any alleged movement of the Earth.