Flat earth debunked.

[Gideon300]

I wrote the post above, when I was just wakening up. It might not of been the most well thought out post, but I still like it.

To be honest, I think 60 miles is plenty of room for sun's heat on earth to cool off, in the atmosphere. Plus with all the moisture in the air, it would eventually cool, gather, and come down as rain. I think the glass ceiling is needed also, to trap the moisture, so we get rainfall.

Also, the glass sky would be beneficial to keep air pressure, and keep gasses inside of earth, rather than drift off into inner space.

View attachment 248166

It's not your turn to start answer questions, I have been in the spotlight plenty.

How you see moon dogs, sun dogs, and sprites possible, without a glass/ice sky?!?!

There is ice in the sky. Have you ever flown at 30,000 feet? I have many times. Once or twice, moisture has been trapped in the window next to me. Planes have double glazing. The water trapped between the panes freezes as the height increases. This is responsible for the halo effect around the moon.

Gravity keeps the atmosphere in place.

 

[kinda]

Exactly. And that is precisely why there is no glass sky. God perfectly balanced the atmosphere. Without water vapour and CO2, the earth would freeze as heat would escape to space. The ozone layer shields us from the worst of UV rays (the cause of sunburn). Problems arise because sinful man recklessly messes with God's creation.

May I suggest that you read my posts a little more carefully. You completely missed the point of what I said.

This seems like a double standard. You say, there is no glass sky, because the earth would over heat after 6,000 years, but at the same time it's because of the water vapour and CO2 that keeps the earth from freezing. Think about it, it appears like a double standard to me, but that's just my viewpoint.

How does Helium stay in earth's atmosphere, if there is no glass sky? You can't say gravity, because......

I may have missed your point ONE TIME, but you have missed so many of my points, I wonder if your flying below the radar. lol I want to go back to the NASA video when you get a chance, because you lean so heavily on NASA.

Your comment is that Neil Armstrong punched some guy, so that's a good enough excuse for not questioning the moon landing? You might want to pay attention to what I post, to keep up, and not just distract on a different point, that fits your narrative.

I did say, that I just woke up, and might of not had the best response to your post, but shall I go back, and show you how many points you missed??? lol I do enjoy this topic, because it forces me to think.

By the way, you do have an advantage, because you can just google your answer, while I have to use my own reasoning, and a few concave hollow earthers as resources. So, it would be fair, if you cut me some slack once in awhile?!?! lol If not, it's NASA verses my brain, and I think I'm holding up pretty well overall. lol

There is ice in the sky. Have you ever flown at 30,000 feet? I have many times. Once or twice, moisture has been trapped in the window next to me. Planes have double glazing. The water trapped between the panes freezes as the height increases. This is responsible for the halo effect around the moon.

Gravity keeps the atmosphere in place.

O.k., let me get this straight, there is ice in the sky, but no glass sky?!?! Got it. How big are these ice bits? Are they tiny? Large? Sheets? Is it frozen rain, than when it falls, it turns into rain? I would like an answer on this. Are they just floating around, or do they accumulate. What would you say, the largest ice bit would be? In approximation?

To conclude from your posts, you believe no glass/ice sky, but there is ice in the sky, that makes it appear there is a glass sky. Right?

 

[MrE]

 

[kinda]

Low orbiting Satellite?!?!

 

[Moses_Young]

 

[Gideon300]

This seems like a double standard. You say, there is no glass sky, because the earth would over heat after 6,000 years, but at the same time it's because of the water vapour and CO2 that keeps the earth from freezing. Think about it, it appears like a double standard to me, but that's just my viewpoint.

How does Helium stay in earth's atmosphere, if there is no glass sky? You can't say gravity, because......

I may have missed your point ONE TIME, but you have missed so many of my points, I wonder if your flying below the radar. lol I want to go back to the NASA video when you get a chance, because you lean so heavily on NASA.

Your comment is that Neil Armstrong punched some guy, so that's a good enough excuse for not questioning the moon landing? You might want to pay attention to what I post, to keep up, and not just distract on a different point, that fits your narrative.

I did say, that I just woke up, and might of not had the best response to your post, but shall I go back, and show you how many points you missed??? lol I do enjoy this topic, because it forces me to think.

By the way, you do have an advantage, because you can just google your answer, while I have to use my own reasoning, and a few concave hollow earthers as resources. So, it would be fair, if you cut me some slack once in awhile?!?! lol If not, it's NASA verses my brain, and I think I'm holding up pretty well overall. lol




O.k., let me get this straight, there is ice in the sky, but no glass sky?!?! Got it. How big are these ice bits? Are they tiny? Large? Sheets? Is it frozen rain, than when it falls, it turns into rain? I would like an answer on this. Are they just floating around, or do they accumulate. What would you say, the largest ice bit would be? In approximation?

To conclude from your posts, you believe no glass/ice sky, but there is ice in the sky, that makes it appear there is a glass sky. Right?

 

[Gideon300]

Buzz Aldrin, not Neil Armstrong. 6 born again Christians testify to going the the moon. They are eyewitnesses. They had no reason to lie. I trust my Bible for exactly the same reason. It was written by eyewitnesses. If I doubt the moon landing, I doubt the Bible.

I don't have time to answer all of your questions. I also am not an expert on everything. If your glass sky theory fails at one point, then that's the end of the theory. A 300,000 km trip to the moon is one point.

 

[Mem]

Does the earth look something like this?

or more like this?

 

[MrE]

Maybe more something like this>>>

“The heavens are my throne
and the earth is my footstool."

It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth.

The four corners of the earth.

for the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and he hath set the world upon them

 

[Mem]

Idk, it is possible that is like this, except for the possibility of cutting it open of course,

and all that is said of it remain true, since we cannot "see" God's foot, or His backside sitting on it.

 

[Moses_Young]

Buzz Aldrin, not Neil Armstrong. 6 born again Christians testify to going the the moon. They are eyewitnesses. They had no reason to lie. I trust my Bible for exactly the same reason. It was written by eyewitnesses. If I doubt the moon landing, I doubt the Bible.

I don't have time to answer all of your questions. I also am not an expert on everything. If your glass sky theory fails at one point, then that's the end of the theory. A 300,000 km trip to the moon is one point.

Meh. Is your logic that Heathens can't lie about being Christians? Because this is certainly wrong. Is your logic that born again Christians can't lie? Because they can. Your logic is weak, and your argument flawed. If you don't doubt the bible, you would doubt the moon landing.

The correct standard by which we are to judge men's words, whether men who claim to be Christian or no, is against the bible. Neil Armstrong's and Buzz Aldrin's words on ball-Earth do not stack up against the bible. Moreso, as has been shown you on numerous occasions, Buzz Aldrin admitted we did not go to the moon, and the moon landing footage was faked. At best, he is an unreliable witness. At worst, he is a confessor of the lie, which you claim would exist if the moon landing were a lie. The very evidence that you claim you require to agree the moon landing is a lie, and you reject him.

Your belief in the moon landing is a faith based belief - a kind of religion.

 

[kinda]

Buzz Aldrin, not Neil Armstrong. 6 born again Christians testify to going the the moon. They are eyewitnesses. They had no reason to lie. I trust my Bible for exactly the same reason. It was written by eyewitnesses. If I doubt the moon landing, I doubt the Bible.

I don't have time to answer all of your questions. I also am not an expert on everything. If your glass sky theory fails at one point, then that's the end of the theory. A 300,000 km trip to the moon is one point.

Moon Landing was discussed in this thread here, feel free to find opposing views in there, or just believe, what you believe.


https://christianchat.com/conspiracy-corruption-discussion-forum/did-man-land-on-the-moon.197547/

 

[kinda]

Idk, it is possible that is like this, except for the possibility of cutting it open of course,

and all that is said of it remain true, since we cannot "see" God's foot, or His backside sitting on it.

Chocolate loves concave hollow earth.. Finally! lol

 

[Mem]

Chocolate loves concave hollow earth.. Finally! lol

It's hard to argue against an erupting cherry cordial

 

[kinda]

It's hard to argue against an erupting cherry cordial

Really?

Hmm. I will keep that in mind, next time someone argues against concave hollow earth. lol

I'm thinking you like sweets. What you think of donut earth?

 

[Mem]

What you think of donut earth?

Then people would be called the caster sugar of the earth!

 

[RaceRunner]

The astronomers’ theory of a globular Earth necessitates the conclusion that, if we travel south of the equator, to see the North Star is an impossibility. Yet it is well known this star has been seen by navigators when they have been more than 20 degrees south of the equator. This fact, like hundreds of other facts, puts the theory to shame, and gives us a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

Astronomers tell us that, in consequence of the Earth’s “rotundity,” the perpendicular walls of buildings are, nowhere, parallel, and that even the walls of houses on opposite sides of a street are not strictly so! But, since all observation fails to find any evidence of this want of parallelism which theory demands, the idea must be renounced as being absurd and in opposition to all well-known facts. This is a proof that the Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its “axis,” by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath—asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the “rotation” theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory, and, therefore, a proof that Earth is not a globe.

 

[RaceRunner]

As to the supposed “motion of the whole Solar system in space,” the Astronomer Royal of England once said: “The matter is left in a most delightful state of uncertainty, and I shall be very glad if anyone can help us out of it.” But, since the whole Newtonian scheme is, to-day, in a most deplorable state of uncertainty—for, whether the Moon goes round the Earth or the Earth round the Moon has, for years, been a matter of “raging” controversy—it follows that, root and branch, the whole thing, is wrong; and, all hot from the raging furnace of philosophical phrensy, we find a glowing proof that Earth is not a globe.