What if the Van Allen belt is false? Maybe they just don’t want wealthy people building private rockets to fly to the moon and see the reptoid people who run our banking system. I saw them on YouTube. The facts speak for themselves. So do you think that NASA blew up the Challenger with the teachers on board so they wouldn’t go back to earth and start teaching flat earth?
Flat Earthers
- Thread starter Hungry
- Start date
-
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.
Most of your comments appear to be sarcasm. If you are looking to have a substantive debate I'm good with that. If you are looking to just make snarky remarks for likes, knock yourself out. Then hey, "The Eagle has Landed" for you!
"That's one small step for the gullible, one giant leap for the ignorant".
"That's one small step for the gullible, one giant leap for the ignorant".
-
1
- Show all
I can see clouds disappear on the horizon and they are closer than the sun, even on flat earth.
Really the level of faith in the flat earth delusion is commendable but misplaced. I’m sure there is some cooked up reason that the North Pole and South Pole experience opposite seasons of darkness. Im sure it’s every bit as convincing as; “the sun is there you just can’t see it because it’s too far away.” Regardless I haven’t decided whether to ignore the flat earth community, or...embrace them and find something expensive to sell them. Maybe binoculars that have a light in them. So when you look over the horizon after dark you can still see the sun. But after midnight you have to face the east to watch it come back. $1000 sounds like a reasonable amount.
Really the level of faith in the flat earth delusion is commendable but misplaced. I’m sure there is some cooked up reason that the North Pole and South Pole experience opposite seasons of darkness. Im sure it’s every bit as convincing as; “the sun is there you just can’t see it because it’s too far away.” Regardless I haven’t decided whether to ignore the flat earth community, or...embrace them and find something expensive to sell them. Maybe binoculars that have a light in them. So when you look over the horizon after dark you can still see the sun. But after midnight you have to face the east to watch it come back. $1000 sounds like a reasonable amount.
-
1
- Show all
There are no substantive debates. There’s only conjecture. What you believe is fact to you and what I believe is fact to me. Neither of us work at NASA and have been in a rocket so it’s all who we pick as our “truth tellers”. I’m not saying we’ve been to the moon and I’m not saying we haven’t. I’m not saying there’s reptoids. I’m not saying there isn’t. All I can tell you is that those who get their facts from YouTube have equal legitimacy to either claims. Was it a snake in the Garden or a Reptoid? If the earth was mostly inhabited by lizards as it is mammals now, is it possible there was a reptoid civilization? I’ve seen just as many documentaries on this as on flat earth, as on fake moon landings. What’s real? All I can know is what I’ve experienced personally. If there was something to hide surely some school teachers wouldn’t keep the secret like Masons. I was feeding your paranoia. If that’s what snarky means then, yes I was being snarky. All in good fun, though.
Not really. If there was any substantive proof of Earth's alleged curve (i.e. if water were demonstrably concave), there would be no doubt, and everyone would subscribe to globalism. As it is, the lack of evidence for globalism, combined with how forcefully the theory is pushed, makes many suspicious.
A perpetual Summer sun in Antarctica would be difficult to explain by Flat Earth theory, as its absence, as described by explorers past, would likewise be difficult to explain by ball-Earth theory. This is probably the reason travel there is prohibited.
Lots of money can be made selling things. However, I'd suggest creating something more useful.
A perpetual Summer sun in Antarctica would be difficult to explain by Flat Earth theory, as its absence, as described by explorers past, would likewise be difficult to explain by ball-Earth theory. This is probably the reason travel there is prohibited.
Lots of money can be made selling things. However, I'd suggest creating something more useful.
you may find it useful to take 30 minutes and read this thread..
https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/
https://www.metabunk.org/soundly-proving-the-curvature-of-the-earth-at-lake-pontchartrain.t8939/
Go back about 13 verses and start over.
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
It's prohibited without a licence, which makes exploration very difficult. I'm not talking about the tourism profiteering where people are charged a substantial fee for travelling not far enough to disprove (or prove) the midnight sun. If the world governments are hiding something (which is made obvious by their collusion on the licence requirement to explore), one wouldn't want to advertise to them the fact one is exploring, as they may work to make the mission perilous and unsuccessful.
This is true. But how would it profit the cause of evil to claim the Earth is flat, when in fact, it is spherical? Surely you have this reversed?
Not sure what you're getting at here. Are we talking about times and seasons, or day and night?
Yeah, those Antarctica videos only started popping out when people started making this claim, despite a presence in Antarctica for decades. No such issue with the North. Without independent people being able to access and explore Antarctica and film such videos for themselves, I'm putting these in the same bucket as the NASA lies. Science is testable and repeatable, and the governments of the world have taken away repeatability on this one.
This is true. But how would it profit the cause of evil to claim the Earth is flat, when in fact, it is spherical? Surely you have this reversed?
Not sure what you're getting at here. Are we talking about times and seasons, or day and night?
Yeah, those Antarctica videos only started popping out when people started making this claim, despite a presence in Antarctica for decades. No such issue with the North. Without independent people being able to access and explore Antarctica and film such videos for themselves, I'm putting these in the same bucket as the NASA lies. Science is testable and repeatable, and the governments of the world have taken away repeatability on this one.
From the looks, the site's argument appears to be - "the light poles appear curved, therefore the Earth is curved". I prefer more scientific proofs, as sight alone can be very subjective.
The You-tube video linked below is an experiment that was repeated to apparently debunk something Stephen Hawking had done.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNEUOnlcIAQ
Basically, a laser was held parallel, about 0.5m above a lake in Hungary, for a distance of 3.1 miles. Although the beam diverged, centre of the beam was still 0.5m above the lake, some 3.1 miles away. On a ball-Earth, this height would have been closer to 2.5m.
The You-tube video linked below is an experiment that was repeated to apparently debunk something Stephen Hawking had done.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNEUOnlcIAQ
Basically, a laser was held parallel, about 0.5m above a lake in Hungary, for a distance of 3.1 miles. Although the beam diverged, centre of the beam was still 0.5m above the lake, some 3.1 miles away. On a ball-Earth, this height would have been closer to 2.5m.
you didn't seem to read all of the link i put earlier; they talk about subjectiveness of how things 'look' and did some actual measurements from photos & video.
please have a look at this thread discussing the video ((where were the atmospheric density measurements you wanted earlier? lol)) that you put:
https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balat...mine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/
please have a look at this thread discussing the video ((where were the atmospheric density measurements you wanted earlier? lol)) that you put:
https://www.metabunk.org/lake-balat...mine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.t7780/
I did read this also, yet ironically, they seem to rely on the very criteria they describe as subjective. Feel free to copy if I've missed something to under-represent their argument. Sure, they looked at the posts from several angles, but so what? To me, that's not really hard proof.
If I told you the moon only had one side because that's all we ever see, you'd reject that as proof. To me, such an argument is the same as these guys claiming the Earth is a ball-shape because something which is allegedly straight looks bent as it disappears into the distance.
Where an experiment doesn't rely on atmospheric density measurements as key criteria for proving or disproving its hypothesis (e.g. where diffraction is either mostly or completely a non-issue), what reason would one have for taking atmospheric density measurements?
The key argument from the website linked appears to be the diagram below. You would note that this does not appear consistent with the findings described in the video (admittedly long-winded), as the height of the laser was found to be 0.5m above the surface of the water at the start, at 2 miles and at 3 miles. Were it the angle of the laser not being level (as described in the diagram) to explain the findings, the laser level would have dropped to zero (or close to), then increased to 0.5m again. It remained at 0.5m, and therefore the diagram is an inadequate explanation of the experimental results.
You might argue that the experiment, or its results, were faked. This is possible, but the experiment is consistent with my own personal experience, that water bodies are flat, and that objects can often be seen further than a ball-Earth would allow, given where the horizon should be.
If I told you the moon only had one side because that's all we ever see, you'd reject that as proof. To me, such an argument is the same as these guys claiming the Earth is a ball-shape because something which is allegedly straight looks bent as it disappears into the distance.
Where an experiment doesn't rely on atmospheric density measurements as key criteria for proving or disproving its hypothesis (e.g. where diffraction is either mostly or completely a non-issue), what reason would one have for taking atmospheric density measurements?
The key argument from the website linked appears to be the diagram below. You would note that this does not appear consistent with the findings described in the video (admittedly long-winded), as the height of the laser was found to be 0.5m above the surface of the water at the start, at 2 miles and at 3 miles. Were it the angle of the laser not being level (as described in the diagram) to explain the findings, the laser level would have dropped to zero (or close to), then increased to 0.5m again. It remained at 0.5m, and therefore the diagram is an inadequate explanation of the experimental results.
You might argue that the experiment, or its results, were faked. This is possible, but the experiment is consistent with my own personal experience, that water bodies are flat, and that objects can often be seen further than a ball-Earth would allow, given where the horizon should be.
that thread is over 1,000 posts. did you read all of it? the guy who made the video was involved in the discussion until he was eventually banned. there is a whole lot of criticism over inaccuracy in both methodology and in collection of data - which he obstinately performed, despite many objections, in a boat bobbing up and down and with a laser that has a spread of meters, larger than the surface area of his boat, low over the water where refraction is a big contribution.
same guy had a thread going on a science forum, where his proposed experimental methodology was similarly criticized, and if you compare what he said he did on the science forum with what he records on his video and admits he did in the metabunk thread, he lies to the science forum. then, in the comments of his youtube video, despite being shown in two separate discussions that he has an inconclusive experimental design, he claims he has 'proved' flat earth, and calls the science forum trolls. he wasn't banned from the science forum, but he stopped participating in the thread there.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98386-laser-curvature-test-on-lake-balaton/
end of the story is, what he set up as an experiment was full of problems. what he reported as data was unsubstantiated and didn't match his own video. he either intentionally falsified his data or didn't know how to record it properly. he clearly knew better ways to collect accurate data but did not pursue them.
it's not proof. it's bad science, and interesting only in terms of an illustration of poor experimental design & confirmation-bias induced data collection error.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/98386-laser-curvature-test-on-lake-balaton/
end of the story is, what he set up as an experiment was full of problems. what he reported as data was unsubstantiated and didn't match his own video. he either intentionally falsified his data or didn't know how to record it properly. he clearly knew better ways to collect accurate data but did not pursue them.
it's not proof. it's bad science, and interesting only in terms of an illustration of poor experimental design & confirmation-bias induced data collection error.
-
1
- Show all
I ain't paranoid about a dang thing! I KNOW the Governments of the world lie. Yours and mine alike. They MUST, they conform to the god of this world and his world system. That you think they DON'T is kinda mind boggling.
I trust in Jesus, SO, if the Earth were a perfect decagon, and Sally Ride, or Tom Hanks, or anybody else visited Venus, TWICE, in a bathtub, it wouldn't make one iota of a difference for me.
BTW I bet I can find a youtube video that tells me 2+2=4. Does that mean 2+2 DOESN'T equal 4 because it's on youtube?
Maybe sources like CNN, Toronto Star, New York Times or NASA is more trustworthy!
I trust in Jesus, SO, if the Earth were a perfect decagon, and Sally Ride, or Tom Hanks, or anybody else visited Venus, TWICE, in a bathtub, it wouldn't make one iota of a difference for me.
BTW I bet I can find a youtube video that tells me 2+2=4. Does that mean 2+2 DOESN'T equal 4 because it's on youtube?
Maybe sources like CNN, Toronto Star, New York Times or NASA is more trustworthy!
-
1
- Show all
What makes you think I trust the governments? I think the level of deception may be so layered so that they might have bases on the moon. Then to make people think the moon is unreachable, they fake a moon landing, and then blow the whistle on it themselves. Everything is a mystery...wrapped in enigma...encased in a riddle. Is the moon hollow? Is Nibiru returning? Is that really what Revelations describes? I think it is a very real possibility. It fills in so many blanks. Ridiculous right? Maybe while the flat earthers are busy chasing their tails, Planet X sneaks up on us. Maybe it’s visible in the South Pole and that’s why there are laws against freely exploring there.
-
1
- Show all