-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Whatever anyone holds to, it relies in a discussion that there is trust in the other
party. The nuclear button is "your a liar".
If you press this anything could be true. And the reason why we do not do this,
because nothing would get done and we would die.
But the more nutcase the group, the quicker the "your a liar" button is pressed.
The illuminate is another one.
All organisations are run by satan.
Every group except your own is the enemy.
You would be amazed how endemic this thinking is in the human character.
It is why dictators can stay in power by simply undermining trust in information
and groups which should 100% be trusted. So they can then get away with murder.
party. The nuclear button is "your a liar".
If you press this anything could be true. And the reason why we do not do this,
because nothing would get done and we would die.
But the more nutcase the group, the quicker the "your a liar" button is pressed.
The illuminate is another one.
All organisations are run by satan.
Every group except your own is the enemy.
You would be amazed how endemic this thinking is in the human character.
It is why dictators can stay in power by simply undermining trust in information
and groups which should 100% be trusted. So they can then get away with murder.
M
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you a bit but...it almost sounds as though you're sort of throwing your arms up in resignation as if to say "oh well, everybody claims they're right and everybody claims the other guy is a 'liar'...I guess we'll never be able to sort it all out!"
Am I misunderstanding you maybe?
Am I misunderstanding you maybe?
M
"FLAT EARTH" IS DONE. IT'S COOKED. STICK A FORK IN IT!
Hey, I never heard back from you, Peter. It sounds like you're saying we can't figure out this "flat earth" thing. Nothing could be further from the truth:
First of all, the appearance of the Moon from Barrow, Alaska which would (allegedly) be 6,400 miles distance at its closest point to Barrow...when factoring in the alleged 30 mile diameter of the Moon...would mean the appearance of the Moon should be less than HALF of what people in Barrow are seeing. Not happening. Flat earth numbers are non-existent, therefore.
Not to mention, people in Ecuador should be seeing a Moon that is more than TWICE the size they are seeing in Barrow...since Ecuadorians are supposedly coming to within 3000 miles distance of the Moon...compared to 6400 miles distance in Barrow.
Not happening. Not happening because "flat earth" is complete and total nonsense.
Peter, you shouldn't be resigned to some sort of 'stalemate'. There is no stalemate, LOL.
But OK so...I finally got out to a golf course and took a photo of the flag stick (7 feet in height) from 239 yards...and...
...it is a dead-on match to a photo I took of the Moon. I took both photos on "maximum zoom" with my iPhone. If I can find a way to post the photos here, I will. Having trouble so far. Not very tech-savvy.
But visually, it appears to be a perfect match. In other words, 239,000 miles distance to the Moon with its 2, 159 mile diameter is the same as 239 yards to 2.159 yards (6 feet and 5.7 inches).
So...visually, the Moon should appear to have the same size diameter as the height of a flag-stick (or just slightly less) on a golf green from 239 yards distance.
What I didn't quite realize previously...is just how small the Moon really is to the naked eye. MUCH smaller than all these 'professional' photos one sees of the Moon on Google Image (for example). Don't know how those guys do it. I am not knowledgeable about photography. Maybe their "zoom" option creates the optical illusion.
In any event, flat-earth-ism is dead on arrival.
There also remains the unanswerable evidence regarding folks in Australia seeing the Moon's features "upside down" compared to North Americans seeing the features "right side up".
I couldn't make heads or tails out of Gary's comments and suspected it was intentional 'gobbledy-gook'. But possibly not. Don't know.
In any case, I clicked around the Internet and found some flat-earthers who argue the Moon is a flat disk (or a 'shallow bowl') facing downwards...and so people who view the 'face' of the Moon from outside the alleged 'travel path' (supposedly along the equator line) see the Moon's features from one direction...and those who are inside the alleged travel path, see the Moon from the opposite direction...thus, supposedly explaining upside-down/right-side-up scenario.
But, for one thing, it is utter nonsense on the face of it...to claim all the world's population only ever sees a perfect dead-on straight-on view of the Moon's face...no matter from which angle they are viewing it...if the Moon were a disk. And that's just one of the problems.
The problem with debating flat-earth theorism is...you never know which cockamamie ideas you are going to come up against, from which cockamamie section of the flat earth community.
I simply made the common sense assumption one could NEVER argue for a disk-shaped Moon because...particularly from far-flung corners of Earth, such as Barrow, Alaska which is 5600 miles away from the equator (the alleged travel path of the Moon)...you would, of course, INSTANTLY notice the "disk" aspect to the Moon's structure...because you're getting a kind of 'side view' of this (supposed) 30-mile wide Moon disk at a mere 3000 miles altitude.
AS "posthuman" so nicely illustrated, from a distance of 5000 miles, you would get a pretty clear side view of the Moon and you would ABSOLUTELY see this alleged "disk" structure.
From 5600 miles distance, that's all Barrow would ever see--a kind of 'side view' of the moon.
For that matter, ANYTIME the Moon would (supposedly) travel 5000, 6000, or 7000 miles downrange from any point on Earth...billions upon billions of people would catch a glimpse of the "disk' aspect of the Moon "disk". This isn't happening. It isn't happening because "flat -earth is utter nonsense.
Anywhere in the world...from the North Pole to the South Pole and anywhere in between...the ONLY thing anyone on Earth ever see ...is an absolutely perfect dead-on straight view of the Moon's face.
I didn't think flat-earthers would have the audacity or fundamental lack of common sense to propose this "disk" thing regarding the Moon...so I assumed most flat-earthers would concede a Moon "sphere". THEN AGAIN, numerous other insurmountable problems would then emerge:
If the Moon is a sphere traveling along the Equator...why aren't billions of people seeing the back side of the Moon? So apparently, these "flat earth " innovators over at the CIA (or wherever) thought "Moon disk" was the lesser of two cockamamie theories.
Hey, I never heard back from you, Peter. It sounds like you're saying we can't figure out this "flat earth" thing. Nothing could be further from the truth:
First of all, the appearance of the Moon from Barrow, Alaska which would (allegedly) be 6,400 miles distance at its closest point to Barrow...when factoring in the alleged 30 mile diameter of the Moon...would mean the appearance of the Moon should be less than HALF of what people in Barrow are seeing. Not happening. Flat earth numbers are non-existent, therefore.
Not to mention, people in Ecuador should be seeing a Moon that is more than TWICE the size they are seeing in Barrow...since Ecuadorians are supposedly coming to within 3000 miles distance of the Moon...compared to 6400 miles distance in Barrow.
Not happening. Not happening because "flat earth" is complete and total nonsense.
Peter, you shouldn't be resigned to some sort of 'stalemate'. There is no stalemate, LOL.
But OK so...I finally got out to a golf course and took a photo of the flag stick (7 feet in height) from 239 yards...and...
...it is a dead-on match to a photo I took of the Moon. I took both photos on "maximum zoom" with my iPhone. If I can find a way to post the photos here, I will. Having trouble so far. Not very tech-savvy.
But visually, it appears to be a perfect match. In other words, 239,000 miles distance to the Moon with its 2, 159 mile diameter is the same as 239 yards to 2.159 yards (6 feet and 5.7 inches).
So...visually, the Moon should appear to have the same size diameter as the height of a flag-stick (or just slightly less) on a golf green from 239 yards distance.
What I didn't quite realize previously...is just how small the Moon really is to the naked eye. MUCH smaller than all these 'professional' photos one sees of the Moon on Google Image (for example). Don't know how those guys do it. I am not knowledgeable about photography. Maybe their "zoom" option creates the optical illusion.
In any event, flat-earth-ism is dead on arrival.
There also remains the unanswerable evidence regarding folks in Australia seeing the Moon's features "upside down" compared to North Americans seeing the features "right side up".
I couldn't make heads or tails out of Gary's comments and suspected it was intentional 'gobbledy-gook'. But possibly not. Don't know.
In any case, I clicked around the Internet and found some flat-earthers who argue the Moon is a flat disk (or a 'shallow bowl') facing downwards...and so people who view the 'face' of the Moon from outside the alleged 'travel path' (supposedly along the equator line) see the Moon's features from one direction...and those who are inside the alleged travel path, see the Moon from the opposite direction...thus, supposedly explaining upside-down/right-side-up scenario.
But, for one thing, it is utter nonsense on the face of it...to claim all the world's population only ever sees a perfect dead-on straight-on view of the Moon's face...no matter from which angle they are viewing it...if the Moon were a disk. And that's just one of the problems.
The problem with debating flat-earth theorism is...you never know which cockamamie ideas you are going to come up against, from which cockamamie section of the flat earth community.
I simply made the common sense assumption one could NEVER argue for a disk-shaped Moon because...particularly from far-flung corners of Earth, such as Barrow, Alaska which is 5600 miles away from the equator (the alleged travel path of the Moon)...you would, of course, INSTANTLY notice the "disk" aspect to the Moon's structure...because you're getting a kind of 'side view' of this (supposed) 30-mile wide Moon disk at a mere 3000 miles altitude.
AS "posthuman" so nicely illustrated, from a distance of 5000 miles, you would get a pretty clear side view of the Moon and you would ABSOLUTELY see this alleged "disk" structure.
From 5600 miles distance, that's all Barrow would ever see--a kind of 'side view' of the moon.
For that matter, ANYTIME the Moon would (supposedly) travel 5000, 6000, or 7000 miles downrange from any point on Earth...billions upon billions of people would catch a glimpse of the "disk' aspect of the Moon "disk". This isn't happening. It isn't happening because "flat -earth is utter nonsense.
Anywhere in the world...from the North Pole to the South Pole and anywhere in between...the ONLY thing anyone on Earth ever see ...is an absolutely perfect dead-on straight view of the Moon's face.
I didn't think flat-earthers would have the audacity or fundamental lack of common sense to propose this "disk" thing regarding the Moon...so I assumed most flat-earthers would concede a Moon "sphere". THEN AGAIN, numerous other insurmountable problems would then emerge:
If the Moon is a sphere traveling along the Equator...why aren't billions of people seeing the back side of the Moon? So apparently, these "flat earth " innovators over at the CIA (or wherever) thought "Moon disk" was the lesser of two cockamamie theories.
M
By the way...if the Moon is absolutely and obviously visible from Barrow, Alaska which, in a "flat earth" scenario, is 6400 miles distance from the Moon, and only at it's closest point...
...how is it then, that New York City EVER loses sight of the Moon if it is only about 6500 miles at it furthest point? Again, see posthuman's illustration which shows NYC to have a maximum distance from the Sun of about 5,100 miles:
If the Moon appears at full size in Barrow, again, from about 6400 miles distance...why wouldn't the Sun appear at full size in, let's say, New York City...24 hours a day...when it is supposedly only 5100 miles away at its furthest point??
Where and when would the Sun OR Moon ever "get smaller and smaller and turn into a dot which converges with the horizon in an 'optical illusion' sunset or moonset" the way flat-earthers describe it??
Look again at the photo of the Moon in Barrow, Alaska from, supposedly 6400 miles distance: How come the Moon has not reduced to a small dot and is about to "converge" with the horizon?
But alas, I fear the "flat earthers" here at CC are long, long gone.
...how is it then, that New York City EVER loses sight of the Moon if it is only about 6500 miles at it furthest point? Again, see posthuman's illustration which shows NYC to have a maximum distance from the Sun of about 5,100 miles:
If the Moon appears at full size in Barrow, again, from about 6400 miles distance...why wouldn't the Sun appear at full size in, let's say, New York City...24 hours a day...when it is supposedly only 5100 miles away at its furthest point??
Where and when would the Sun OR Moon ever "get smaller and smaller and turn into a dot which converges with the horizon in an 'optical illusion' sunset or moonset" the way flat-earthers describe it??
Look again at the photo of the Moon in Barrow, Alaska from, supposedly 6400 miles distance: How come the Moon has not reduced to a small dot and is about to "converge" with the horizon?
But alas, I fear the "flat earthers" here at CC are long, long gone.
G
1) Fly "around" the world on the North 45-degree line of lattitude. Record the distance traveled.
2) Fly "around" the world on the South 45-degree line of lattitude. Record the distance traveled.
3) Compare travel distance recorded from the two trips.
Are they the same? Or, are they different by-far?
2) Fly "around" the world on the South 45-degree line of lattitude. Record the distance traveled.
3) Compare travel distance recorded from the two trips.
Are they the same? Or, are they different by-far?
P
Here are two maps created with flight data in the 40's before the "CIA PSYOP" and us nutjobs had access to youtube and other third party lightly regulated media sources. Didn't get any criticism or attention the last time I posted it, so I'll repost.
Why is it distances and times between airports create a map that looks neither like your globe or the big square one displayed in every classroom, but instead the flat earth model? Rotation and other globe considerations in flights are a smokescreen to hide the true positions and shapes of the landmasses.
Here is a map created in 1945 based off of flight data
And another
When flights are taken into consideration the maps come out looking like the flat earth model, as opposed to the "globe"
And another
When flights are taken into consideration the maps come out looking like the flat earth model, as opposed to the "globe"
Then you needs, I say you needs to learn patience, son. Ever since those asto-space people chatted in real time with the "I'm not a crook" Nixon (from the moon, mind you) - we've been being fed...I say being fed promises of going back to the moon, as well as colonizing other planets,see. Usually these big events somehow just coincidentally coincide with a major Hollywood blockbuster - like all the hype about probes to mars and such - and how we'll be colonizing it in...
wait for it...
by 2030 or so. Ok, not so far away, only 13 years.
But as sure as my betsy's spots aren't purple, once we get within a few years of that, they'll be pushing it back again see. That's how these things work, don't you know. Meanwhile, most of humanity will have forgotten all about the previous promises and dates and will be hypnotized by the new set of films.
Because, we're smart.
wait for it...
by 2030 or so. Ok, not so far away, only 13 years.
But as sure as my betsy's spots aren't purple, once we get within a few years of that, they'll be pushing it back again see. That's how these things work, don't you know. Meanwhile, most of humanity will have forgotten all about the previous promises and dates and will be hypnotized by the new set of films.
Because, we're smart.
R
Weeeeellll I honestly thought this flat earth thing was a joke.
Here: "The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote)."
Idk why I'm entertaining this but here goes; how did CC not sail off the side of the earth?
Here: "The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world (see Proverbs 3:6 footnote)."
Idk why I'm entertaining this but here goes; how did CC not sail off the side of the earth?
Y
YouTube is not now, never has been, nor ever will be, a valid source of information. Any argument you put forth and cite YouTube as a source of information is null and void. Moreover, your inability to discern valid source of information from pop culture fluff should earn you a 30-minute session of being beaten severely about the head and body with a 2-foot long chunk of rubber garden hose.
If you want your flat-Earth argument to be given consideration, then you MUST find good sources of information. If you do not know what sources to use, then educate yourself, then find your sources and present your case. Until then, any info you post here is a waste of space in this site's database, and serves only as fuel to make the rest of us giggle at your ignorance.
If you want your flat-Earth argument to be given consideration, then you MUST find good sources of information. If you do not know what sources to use, then educate yourself, then find your sources and present your case. Until then, any info you post here is a waste of space in this site's database, and serves only as fuel to make the rest of us giggle at your ignorance.
P
The maps posted are from the 40s you deceived fool.
The peanut gallery you belong to doesn't even know the flat earth theory, which you all admit.
https://aplanetruth.info/2017/04/07/azimuthal-equidistant-air-map-of-1945-proves-flat-earth/
The peanut gallery you belong to doesn't even know the flat earth theory, which you all admit.
https://aplanetruth.info/2017/04/07/azimuthal-equidistant-air-map-of-1945-proves-flat-earth/
Last edited:
B
How to prove beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt that the Earth is flat, and not a sphere...
Position, somewhere on the Equator, a stationary reference "beacon" that sends out a signal in all directions -- or, at least - either East or West - with an angular range from North to South ( i.e. - 180 degrees with East / West in center - albeit, only the North 90 degrees will be significant ).
Position, on a ship / airplane, a directional receiver - such that, it can be determined with sufficient accuracy the angle ( relative to the Equator - or, directly behind ship / airplane ) the reference beacon is being detected.
Using a directional transmitter-receiver at both points would be even better.
Make sure that the signal - of whatever type - is of sufficient strength to reach a very long distance - and cannot be "blocked" by anything that might happen to come between the reference beacon and the ship / airplane.
As the ship / airplane moves away from the beacon, while staying on the equator:
~ If the Earth is a sphere, the signal will be lost soon enough because of the curvature of the earth; however, the angle from reference will never waiver from 0 degrees -- the beacon will always be directly behind the ship / airplane.
~ If the Earth is flat, the signal will be sustained for whatever distance it is capable of being detected; and, the detection angle will increase with the distance between the reference beacon and the ship / airplane.
Why? Because the ship / airplane will actually be following a circular path over the face of the Earth.
This will only work on the Equator - because, from a perspective regarding the angular part of the above suggested experiment - it is the only lattitude that is supposed to be a continual straight line all the way around the globe. And, that is why - if the results of the latter case are obtained - the Earth cannot possibly be a sphere.
Position, somewhere on the Equator, a stationary reference "beacon" that sends out a signal in all directions -- or, at least - either East or West - with an angular range from North to South ( i.e. - 180 degrees with East / West in center - albeit, only the North 90 degrees will be significant ).
Position, on a ship / airplane, a directional receiver - such that, it can be determined with sufficient accuracy the angle ( relative to the Equator - or, directly behind ship / airplane ) the reference beacon is being detected.
Using a directional transmitter-receiver at both points would be even better.
Make sure that the signal - of whatever type - is of sufficient strength to reach a very long distance - and cannot be "blocked" by anything that might happen to come between the reference beacon and the ship / airplane.
As the ship / airplane moves away from the beacon, while staying on the equator:
~ If the Earth is a sphere, the signal will be lost soon enough because of the curvature of the earth; however, the angle from reference will never waiver from 0 degrees -- the beacon will always be directly behind the ship / airplane.
~ If the Earth is flat, the signal will be sustained for whatever distance it is capable of being detected; and, the detection angle will increase with the distance between the reference beacon and the ship / airplane.
Why? Because the ship / airplane will actually be following a circular path over the face of the Earth.
This will only work on the Equator - because, from a perspective regarding the angular part of the above suggested experiment - it is the only lattitude that is supposed to be a continual straight line all the way around the globe. And, that is why - if the results of the latter case are obtained - the Earth cannot possibly be a sphere.
P
OK, I'm just going to explain flat earth theory's explanation as simply as I can.
The rockets we send up don't go very far at all, that is why they curve and begin moving downward almost immediately.
You are told rotation does this, but if rotation was as severe as this our airplanes would be subject to the same. I know we are told airplanes do do this over long distance travel, I'm talking about the takeoffs. The long distance rotation is fake too, but this is off topic.
the satellite photos are fake, and so are satellites. The radio waves go up bounce off (propagate) and come down to other relay stations and keep doing this. We are told they go up hit the satellite and come back down, but they just go up bounce and come back down. Sea floor cables handle cross landmass movement. More detailed and accurate explanations are out there in internet land, I'm just quickly doing this so I don't invest the time, get dismissed, and get angry.
We have day and night on the flat surface because the sun and moon do not light up the entire surface of the flat earth at once. It's like if you had a wireless lightbulb in your dark house and walked around, it would only illuminate what it had the power to illuminate.
If you want to ask more questions I will answer, I don't recall you being on my "close-minded" list about this subject.
The rockets we send up don't go very far at all, that is why they curve and begin moving downward almost immediately.
You are told rotation does this, but if rotation was as severe as this our airplanes would be subject to the same. I know we are told airplanes do do this over long distance travel, I'm talking about the takeoffs. The long distance rotation is fake too, but this is off topic.
the satellite photos are fake, and so are satellites. The radio waves go up bounce off (propagate) and come down to other relay stations and keep doing this. We are told they go up hit the satellite and come back down, but they just go up bounce and come back down. Sea floor cables handle cross landmass movement. More detailed and accurate explanations are out there in internet land, I'm just quickly doing this so I don't invest the time, get dismissed, and get angry.
We have day and night on the flat surface because the sun and moon do not light up the entire surface of the flat earth at once. It's like if you had a wireless lightbulb in your dark house and walked around, it would only illuminate what it had the power to illuminate.
If you want to ask more questions I will answer, I don't recall you being on my "close-minded" list about this subject.