Flat Earth And The Alien Deception

[Mr.Grieves]

Yea Im "ill" because I make the foundation of my beliefs, my observations/experiences and not those of men in lab coats

You ignore a great many of your own observations and experiences, as you've demonstrated time and again here, and also refuse to observe/experience anything new. We've provided you multiple ways to observe the earth's roundness, we've provided you multiple methods through which you yourself can personally experiment and experience or- if you're right (hahahah)- prove us wrong through your experience, either by purchasing a telescope, visiting an observatory, contacting someone on the opposite side of the world and asking them a few questions, etc. You've refused to consider any of it.

While you're "intelligent" because you can parrot off what they teach you about "gravity"

I don't just 'parrot off', I observe it in action, I.E the 'bowling ball and feather in a vacuum' experiment, which quite clearly demonstrates that how 'heavy' and how 'light' a thing is has no influence over the effect of gravity, only factors like air resistance impacting the rate at which different objects fall... in the same way that if you threw a canvas ship-sail off a building that canvas sail might fly for miles on the wind, but if you rolled that canvas ship-sail up tight before throwing it, it would fall much like a stone. You can't begin to wrap your head around that concept however, as you clearly demonstrated in your nonsensical 'counter-arguments', every one of which employed 3rd-grader logic and were completely and utterly devoid of reason/critical thought. I've made absolutely no claim to intelligence, in my personal estimation I'm somewhat clever at best, but I'm not a dolt who refuses to observe simple truths.

All while they poison your food, water, and air, not to mention the truth/history in general

and it would be great if folks who recognize that this is going on could rally together and push back, but that's exceedingly difficult to do if we can't even agree on the basic bloody shape of the battlefield.

 

[Loki]

I dont think its a stalemate at all though. I mean it is when it comes to the difference in views, but I think you just want to ignore certain things concerning the place. Again, in the span of 2-3 years (not 3-5 like I said) Admiral Byrd died, NASA was created, and Antarctica made off limits. Dont see how one can ignore that, then call themselves a truth seeker. And in the only TV interview we have of him concerning the place he explored, he said the gov't would be VERY interested in the place over and over again, yet all I've ever known about the place is that there is alot of ice there. So I know Im not wrong for putting two and two together that they're probably hiding something there...And with the icing on top being that there is a mountain range named after the Rockefellers there, its an open and shut case for me.

You keep repeating things you have no proof of, or are inserting conspiracy or conjecture into. I'm not as conspiracy minded as you, this is true, and you know this, so I am of course going to look at this from a different perspective. Admiral Byrd died, yes, at the age of 68, 3 years after the interview we've been watching. Do you have anything to insinuate he had planned on releasing some sort of information that would warrant him being killed? Otherwise, it is far more likely to me that he died as they say he did. I understand that as a truth seeker that is not something you may be willing to accept, but I'm trying to work with reality, not unknown possibility here.

As for NASA being founded a year later, I personally don't find that fishy or even related to Antarctica or Admiral Byrd, so it is circumstantial at best. Again, I understand that doesn't halt your opinion on the matter, but at least understand you aren't going to convince any of us unless you have something more involving that. Perhaps your goal isn't to convince anyone of any of this, but then I don't really see the point otherwise.

Antarctica is not off-limits. That is a fantasy as far as I can tell, and something you've not really been able to prove is the case. Jarl Andhoy's issues with authority can be explained in a rational manner, as I believe I have done, and I've offered other sources of similar, or perhaps better reliability that say you can visit Antarctica and sail around it and all sorts of thing. If I remember correctly, you can even fly over it at certain times if you want.

As for why the government is interested in the place, I go over this at the bottom of this post, which I wrote first. In summary: natural resources, which was the main goal of his expeditions, which is why they were funded by John D. Rockefeller and also why the mountain range is named after him. He says in that interview that they have found coal deposits and believe that there is likely oil there as well, and potentially uranium. All things the governments of the world would be VERY interested in. He even states that he thinks there may be enough resources there to fuel the world for the foreseeable future. The problem, of course, is getting to those resources through miles and miles of built up ice in likely THE most inhabitable place on the face of the Earth.

And the model they use may very well be incorrect. But how exactly cant that route exist on that flat earth map?

It can, but as I said, it would have been the longest and most dangerous trade route in human history. I can't say I'm surprised that you can't see this as being the case, and I'm not sure if I'll be able to properly explain it to you just via words.

Try to imagine the globe. Now notice how the bottom is much smaller than say the middle, where the Earth is at it's widest. So, in order for the Cape Horn trade route to be feasible for these men on ships to use, it would have to be shorter than say just sailing from Australia, back around Africa, and then up to the UK. Because they understood the shape of the Earth (a globe), they understood (and proved by using it) that if they sailed from New Zealand and headed East above Antarctica they could go the shortest distance around the bottom of the globe and then swoop up around Cape Horn and use those channels to reach the UK far faster than the alternatives.

Now, according to the FE model, to use this route they would be sailing for months across open sea before reaching Cape Horn and heading up to the UK, rather than say weeks. I can't possibly know the actual differences between globe and flat Earth because flat Earth isn't real, but if you just really look at it yourself you should be able to understand that the difference of distance traveled on open sea between the two models is massive.

I didnt think about this when you first posted this to me, but what exactly is different between the route you posted and the one that would have happened on a flat earth map? Either scenario you go South (South on flat earth being AWAY from the north pole) than east (east on the flat earth map being the opposite direction than the moon/sun are moving in your graphic). Its the same easiest route either way. And the thing about your map, is that its not fit to scale (of course). So it makes Australia seem much closer to Africa than it actually is.

Right, just look at a globe, try to imagine the distance between New Zealand and Cape Horn there, and then look at the FE model and try to imagine the distance between New Zealand and Cape Horn there. If you actually can't understand how different that would be, then unfortunately I don't believe there is any hope for you.

To be continued, post was too long.

 

[Loki]

I personally dont think these guys did what they said they did. Because they and nobody else has exactly pointed out anything of the sort that Admiral Byrd said was there. We have never heard anything concerning what interest Admiral Byrd saw in the place and none of the people who supposedly went to the place he did, say anything about it... All those "circumnavigations" happen after the agenda was (allegedly since I know you dont think theres an agenda with NASA and Antarctica) in place. Therefore, I dont consider it as trustworthy as the first guy who went there. My question to you is, why do you place more trust in what they say, then what Admiral Byrd say he saw? To me its like you dont think he was telling the truth...

Because you have a different idea of what Admiral Byrd said he saw apparently. You've built the conspiracy up in your head so much that you are sure what you are thinking is there is actually there, when in reality it is just a normal continent that is extremely cold and covered in snow and ice, which creates large ice shelves on occasion and very dangerous crevasses and dangerous drifting icebergs and the like. By all accounts other than yours and a few select accounts you've picked out, anyone who wants to visit and has the means can visit and explore at their own peril, or sail near or around it with the proper permits. These are things I've pointed out and provided proof of. You could also do these things yourself if you had a mind to, as could I. I don't particularly want to because I hate the cold and I don't want to risk my life, and because I don't take issue with Antarctica being a continent or the Earth being a globe, I've no reason to risk my life to go and see it for myself. But I could.


Other than their accounts not matching what you think is there or possible, you don't seem to have any evidence that what they say they have done is false. If you told these men to their faces that you didn't believe they'd done what they'd done, they would laugh at you because they've seen and experienced more of the world than you likely ever will, but because you've read some things on the internet, listened to an interview that was funnily worded, and rely solely on your incredibly limited senses, you claim that their lifelong historical accomplishments never happened. It truly is laughable.


Something you seem to ignore is that Admiral Byrd was the one to suggest military presence and fortifications at both poles, as follows, "Admiral Richard E. Byrd warned today that the United States should adopt measures of protection against the possibility of an invasion of the country by hostile planes coming from the polar regions. The admiral explained that he was not trying to scare anyone, but the cruel reality is that in case of a new war, the United States could be attacked by planes flying over one or both poles. This statement was made as part of a recapitulation of his own polar experience, in an exclusive interview with International News Service. Talking about the recently completed expedition, Byrd said that the most important result of his observations and discoveries is the potential effect that they have in relation to the security of the United States. The fantastic speed with which the world is shrinking – recalled the admiral – is one of the most important lessons learned during his recent Antarctic exploration. I have to warn my compatriots that the time has ended when we were able to take refuge in our isolation and rely on the certainty that the distances, the oceans, and the poles were a guarantee of safety."


This seems to indicate that he, himself, believed it was certainly possible to fly across Antarctica in order to attack the US.


I've revisited his interview on the Longines Chronoscope talk show, and all he really talks about concerning Antarctica is that governments are interested in it for 1.) defenses and establishing bases there like they do everywhere else, and 2.) resources, which they believe to be hidden under the thick ice covering the continent and obviously untapped (specifically coal). It's not surprising that their main focus during his expeditions would have been natural resources like coal and oil, because his expeditions were at least in part funded by John D. Rockefeller, which is also why that mountain range you brought up is named after Rockefeller.


He goes on to explain, concerning how tall the ice covering and surrounding the continent is (because the ice just continues to build up and, especially while he was alive, very rarely melt much), and that does nothing to dispel the achievements of Ranulph and Stroud, nor Fedor (the man who has sailed completely around the continent). Their achievements are still possible, unless you can explain to me how they aren't.

 

[KoncreteMind]

You ignore a great many of your own observations and experiences, as you've demonstrated time and again here, and also refuse to observe/experience anything new. We've provided you multiple ways to observe the earth's roundness, we've provided you multiple methods through which you yourself can personally experiment and experience or- if you're right (hahahah)- prove us wrong through your experience, either by purchasing a telescope, visiting an observatory, contacting someone on the opposite side of the world and asking them a few questions, etc. You've refused to consider any of it.

A video was posted about the differences in shadow length and I said that differences in elevation could cause the same difference in shadow length. I also answered as to why the moon appears to be upside down when comparing one "hemisphere" to the other. You didnt respond to these answers, yet you're now saying I refused? Am I supposed to go down lists of your questions, when you cant respond to what I say when I answer? Day to day, matches a flat earth. Your day to day, does not. So you have to go to them for them to tell you its spinning. You have to go to them for them to tell you its moving whiling spinning. And you have to go them for them to tell you its a ball. Oh and now its not a perfect ball anymore, but its "oblate shaped" despite decades of images that say otherwise. Your faith is in man when it comes to your belief of the earth's shape.

I don't just 'parrot off', I observe it in action, I.E the 'bowling ball and feather in a vacuum' experiment, which quite clearly demonstrates that how 'heavy' and how 'light' a thing is has no influence over the effect of gravity, only factors like air resistance impacting the rate at which different objects fall... in the same way that if you threw a canvas ship-sail off a building that canvas sail might fly for miles on the wind, but if you rolled that canvas ship-sail up tight before throwing it, it would fall much like a stone. You can't begin to wrap your head around that concept however, as you clearly demonstrated in your nonsensical 'counter-arguments', every one of which employed 3rd-grader logic and were completely and utterly devoid of reason/critical thought. I've made absolutely no claim to intelligence, in my personal estimation I'm somewhat clever at best, but I'm not a dolt who refuses to observe simple truths.

How about we cut the rambling and you just show what proves that theres a force pulling down on the earth?

and it would be great if folks who recognize that this is going on could rally together and push back, but that's exceedingly difficult to do if we can't even agree on the basic bloody shape of the battlefield.

Its too late to rally but even if it wasnt, the shape of the earth has nothing to do with rallying together for a cause.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Their achievements are still possible, unless you can explain to me how they aren't.

For the sake of length, Im going to try to respond to all that you said in one post. Let me know if I missed something. I think I found where the disconnect really starts. Its not at the earth being flat, NASA being a shill organization, or even at what Admiral Byrd said. The disconnect starts with me believing that those in power are purposely keeping the masses blind by lying to them through religion, politics/gov't, history, science etc.... I dont think you feel this way, or at least not to the extent I do. I believe there are those who want to control the world under a police state so they use these avenues to push the general public in the direction of accepting that. I dont think you feel this way either. So right THERE, is where the disconnect starts before we even get to discussing the flat earth. So when I bring up Admiral Byrd's findings, the Antarctic treaty, and NASA, I connect them together based on a premise that there ARE groups working to keep the common man blind. So when I see NASA, an organization that anyone can research and see them contradict themselves if not, straight up LIE, being created shortly after the Antarctic findings, that rings an alarm to me that hey, there might be fire along with this smoke. When I see that all astronauts have been freemasons, that rings an alarm too. Or My perception is that you want to only draw conclusions from what they TELL US, while I think we HAVE to speculate off the unknown because they NEVER reveal the truth fully (unless it benefits them to some degree I guess)..

This wasnt about me proving anything, but showing that there are chinks in the armor when it comes to the globe earth belief. NASA is a big chink. This Antarctic stuff? Well its a possible one. But when you go with the premise that theres "nothing to see there" because there are no official reports of "something to see" there then we cant proceed much further than that. Because I will always speculate on what they could NOT be telling us, while you'll insist on leaving it to what they presented.As I said, Byrd says theres all these resources, yet nowadays, we're told its pretty much just ice. People travel there, circumnavigate it, and yet no mention of the things that Byrd said would "interest" gov'ts around the world? Somethings up with that imo and thats capped off with the treaty, which imo, is proof that "something" is there. I dont think they did it for "science" or because its too "dangerous" because if life was really about protecting "science" then why would they be in labs trying to create cures, instead of in nature? Why would they ban marijuana, yet allow perscription drugs? All these things do tie hand in hand though they seem worlds apart. Anyways, I think whats clear though is that YOU dont know whats there as I dont. YOU dont KNOW the shape of the earth just as I dont. You may TRUST in people that tell you otherwise, but that doesnt mean you're right. So you can say "in reality Antarctica is a normal continent" but you cant prove that at all without relying on someone you place faith in to explain it for you. Your position, is one of faith. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the spinning, globe earth. I think when it comes to this, Im going to try to poke holes in the official story, while you will accept it (maybe not always, you'd be a better source for this obviously). Me trusting in my own day to day experience, outweighs your belief in something that does not match your day to day experience (well without the use of the gymnastics: "We cant tell its spinning because its soooo big")..

As for the ship route, as I said, you go South on the flat earth map, then east, and it takes you to the same place. The distance in miles/kilometers? Thats anyone's guess on EITHER map. For all you know the flat earth map, could be detailing the same distance you say a "regular" map details. So its only your perception thats getting in the way of things. Because at the end of the day, the same directions are traveled on each map, so its only a question of DISTANCE, which cant be accurately measured just by looking at flat earth maps...If I looked at the map you originally posted showing the route, I'd think the distance would be much shorter. Look at a different map, and Im saying that its much longer. So in short, just by looking at a map, you cant detail distance/travel time. So all we have to go by are directions, and the directions match to a T.

 

[Loki]

Just for those that might be interested, there is currently a Live Stream from the ISS going on. Pretty cool stuff:

 

[Mr.Grieves]

As for the ship route, as I said, you go South on the flat earth map, then east, and it takes you to the same place. The distance in miles/kilometers? Thats anyone's guess on EITHER map. For all you know the flat earth map, could be detailing the same distance you say a "regular" map details.

It's not a guess on the real map. The distance is entirely calculable, and not in some 'they can make math fit any model' way, but in a way demonstrated every time the route is traveled, basically on a daily basis. The distance the map indicates is the actual distance traveled in each and every case the route is followed. You can't even begin to guess what the distance would be on your flat-earth model because your flat-earth model has no relationship with reality, nor sense of scale. You yourself have no sense of scale or reality, which is why you think the distance on the real map is 'anyone's guess', when in reality it's the cold hard fact men traveling those routes observe and encounter every day. That's what you consistently fail to understand: the difference between debatable theory / belief, and consistently proven fact.

 

[manama]

This is still ongoing? lmao

 

[mecca]

This is still ongoing? lmao

Haha, that's what I thought.

 

[KoncreteMind]

It's not a guess on the real map. The distance is entirely calculable, and not in some 'they can make math fit any model' way, but in a way demonstrated every time the route is traveled, basically on a daily basis. The distance the map indicates is the actual distance traveled in each and every case the route is followed. You can't even begin to guess what the distance would be on your flat-earth model because your flat-earth model has no relationship with reality, nor sense of scale. You yourself have no sense of scale or reality, which is why you think the distance on the real map is 'anyone's guess', when in reality it's the cold hard fact men traveling those routes observe and encounter every day. That's what you consistently fail to understand: the difference between debatable theory / belief, and consistently proven fact.

Why dont you just let the thread die? I mean I already had you skating around the fact that I answered two objections to the flat earth that you didnt respond to. Now you're back responding to something that when I give you an answer, you wont respond to. But here goes...

The flat earth map has no "scale" because the belief along with it, is that the establishment, who gives YOU the "scale" is hiding that fact from the masses. So just by looking at a map, with no scale, you cant tell how far one place is from another. So again, the directions of the trade route match on a flat earth just as it does your globe earth. So saying "the distance doesnt match" when the flat earth map has no scale, makes no sense. So at the end of the day, you believe the earth is a ball based on faith in those who tell you it is. I believe the earth is flat based on my own sight/observation. Two different levels...

 

[Mr.Grieves]

Why dont you just let the thread die?

Because you keep saying incredibly stupid stuff like this:

The flat earth map has no "scale" because the belief along with it, is that the establishment, who gives YOU the "scale" is hiding that fact from the masses. So just by looking at a map, with no scale, you cant tell how far one place is from another. So again, the directions of the trade route match on a flat earth just as it does your globe earth. So saying "the distance doesnt match" when the flat earth map has no scale, makes no sense.

And as I told you several pages back, so long as you keep spouting this nonsense, I'll keep coming back to tell you that's what it is. I know you're desperate for the last word, but if you want it, just be honest with your position, and stop trying to argue it with such embarrassingly weak efforts at logic as read above. I mean, you're suggesting the SHIPPING INDUSTRY is fake now..! That they're all in on the grand global earth conspiracy, hiding the truth about the distances they travel on a daily basis. You can't even wrap your head around the meaning of 'scale'.

Again, if you want me to stop coming in here and explaining to you why you're an idiot, all you have to do is stop posting idiotic justifications for your belief. An "I'll believe what I believe and nothing's gonna change that" I'll accept and let rest, but stop trying to pretend you've put an ounce of logical or intelligent thought into that belief, or have an actual position to argue from. Beyond irritating, it's sad to witness.

 

[The Zone]

I am glad some have the patience and energy to continue in this exercise of futility. Arguing with a single person over something so outrageous to begin with is in a sense sharing in their madness. OTOH, I suppose that at times have nothing better to do than bat about the mice. Still, it is like playing with bots which keep coming back for more.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Because you keep saying incredibly stupid stuff like this:

And as I told you several pages back, so long as you keep spouting this nonsense, I'll keep coming back to tell you that's what it is. I know you're desperate for the last word, but if you want it, just be honest with your position, and stop trying to argue it with such embarrassingly weak efforts at logic as read above. I mean, you're suggesting the SHIPPING INDUSTRY is fake now..! That they're all in on the grand global earth conspiracy, hiding the truth about the distances they travel on a daily basis. You can't even wrap your head around the meaning of 'scale'.

More talking, less comprehension skills, and even less debunking. Here lets try again, two people have posted questions about the flat earth that got debunked quick. The Sagan video and the "opposite" moon inquiry. I said that differences in elevation (since even on the globe elevations of different locations are different) could be the reason for the "curve" he said was measured. You didnt say anything. The opposite moon question, I said that even on a flat earth, a person in Australia would just be seeing the sun from the opposite side of a person in America. The person didnt even return to the thread lol. And of course, you didnt answer. But now you're here as some champion of "truth"?


And again, I have to reiterate that the flat earth map has NO SCALE. And without a SCALE, you cant determine distance on a map. What do you disagree with here? So again, if the directions of the trade route are the same on a flat earth map (they are) then that the same route could be applied on a flat earth. Your emotions wont cover that. Thats without mentioning that if you took a flat earth map (thats a disc/circle) and rolled it up into a ball, it would then become the ball earth map. With north and south poles in the correct place. So AGAIN, the same distance you apply on a round earth map, can be applied to a flat earth map. If the directions match, then the point has been debunked. Theres no argument against it really....

Again, if you want me to stop coming in here and explaining to you why you're an idiot, all you have to do is stop posting idiotic justifications for your belief. An "I'll believe what I believe and nothing's gonna change that" I'll accept and let rest, but stop trying to pretend you've put an ounce of logical or intelligent thought into that belief, or have an actual position to argue from. Beyond irritating, it's sad to witness.

I dont think you understand that I do like discussing topics Im interested in. So its not about me getting the "last word". Im keeping it on the convo, while you continue to act off emotions. My point is, if Im wrong, then respond to what I say. Dont hop off conversations, leave the thread, then come back and pick up new conversations and act as if you're some "champion of truth". Then when I respond to that new one, as I just did in my last one, you ignore it to come back and act off emotions again. To me, that shows me you're ducking. That or shilling. And I'll point it out for a little while, before eventually getting bored.

Spoiler

Thats what it comes down to alot of things. The sun looks to be closer than 94 million miles away while the rays of the sun go back to a place that is right above clouds, and they tell you its not true because of some math equation they have. The moon appears to be similar in size to the sun yet they tell us its actually 100-400 times smaller than the sun which is (THIS MANY) miles away to make it seem that way. And you believe them. I dont. You have faith that they and all others no matter HOW many, are telling you the truth. I dont. Thats what it comes down to. I have faith that my day to day experiences/observations are right. You believe THEIR observations/experiences in secret labs you werent in, and in "space" that they most likely never went to, are correct. But you'll only come back with your emotions instead of some of that "intelligence" you have (because you can parrot what they tell )in the form of rebuttals against what Im saying. Hopefully you prove me wrong though (though its not possible in regards to the earth being flat )

 

[Loki]

And again, I have to reiterate that the flat earth map has NO SCALE. And without a SCALE, you cant determine distance on a map. What do you disagree with here? So again, if the directions of the trade route are the same on a flat earth map (they are) then that the same route could be applied on a flat earth. Your emotions wont cover that. Thats without mentioning that if you took a flat earth map (thats a disc/circle) and rolled it up into a ball, it would then become the ball earth map. With north and south poles in the correct place. So AGAIN, the same distance you apply on a round earth map, can be applied to a flat earth map. If the directions match, then the point has been debunked. Theres no argument against it really....

When you say things like this it just seems like you have no concept of how the reality of a globe Earth and the reality of a flat Earth would be different. Yes, the cardinal directions would stay the same, but the distances between things wouldn't be, specifically things closer to the South Pole because by spreading the map out with Antarctica surrounding the world rather than being a normal continent at the bottom of the world, you've changed that entire region's make up.

If you simply look at a globe you should be able to understand how traveling in a circle around the bottom of the globe would be a far shorter distance than traveling around the center, or equator, of the globe. Now if you were to grab that globe by the center of Antarctica and stretch it out into a circular flat map to represent the flat Earth, that distance around the bottom of the globe suddenly becomes multiplied by some amount I'm not bright enough to come up with. It seems clear as day to me, but the fact that you deny this to be the case or can't see any error in the logic behind the flat Earth model when it comes to this truly astounds me.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

I said that differences in elevation (since even on the globe elevations of different locations are different) could be the reason for the "curve" he said was measured. You didnt say anything.

Actually, I said this:

You actually believe you've 'completely debunked' this by using the word 'Elevation' without even beginning to attempt to explain what you even mean by that, because in honesty YOU DON'T KNOW. Please, explain to me, with your superior knowledge of the science of optics (which you don't believe in) how 'elevation' accounts for what's described in the Carl Sagan video. That's how you debunk a thing man, by actually explaining why it doesn't work/make sense. Again, you're all claim and no proof, but pretend your claims are proofs.

And not only were you completely incapable of explaining what you meant (because you don't actually know what you meant) you were unwilling to even attempt to confirm that there ARE different elevations at those sites. And here you are, claiming I said nothing about it, and you're criticizing my reading comprehension!

And again, I have to reiterate that the flat earth map has NO SCALE. And without a SCALE, you cant determine distance on a map.

It has no scale because it's fictional.

So again, if the directions of the trade route are the same on a flat earth map (they are) then that the same route could be applied on a flat earth.

Requiring a far, FAR vaster distance of travel if the flat earth model is correct, which it isn't because it doesn't.

Thats without mentioning that if you took a flat earth map (thats a disc/circle) and rolled it up into a ball, it would then become the ball earth map. With north and south poles in the correct place.

lol, try it.

So AGAIN, the same distance you apply on a round earth map, can be applied to a flat earth map.

as you just admitted, that's only true if you work the flat earth model into a ball (making it no longer the flat earth), as otherwise the distance is the expanse of several continents, as blatantly visible in your own model. Alas, you have no sense/perception of distance and scale, so even when you look at the map and see that sailors would have to travel the length of several continents on the flat earth to complete standard trade-circuits, you say to yourself "so what? why not?"

If the directions match, then the point has been debunked. Theres no argument against it really....

The DISTANCES don't match, man. And you think there's no argument against it only because you're incapable of comprehending the arguments being made, and incessantly pretend your own ignorance is authoritative proof of something.

Dont hop off conversations, leave the thread, then come back and pick up new conversations and act as if you're some "champion of truth".

We've discussed this before dude, but I don't spend every waking moment on this forum. I enjoy my weekends, and certainly don't spend a moment of them here. When I return however, and get that 'KoncreteMind has replied to the thread!' message, I click it out of curiosity as to what dribble you're spewing this week, and happily take a slice of time out of a slow work-day to explain to you why its dribble.

Thats what it comes down to alot of things. The sun looks to be closer than 94 million miles away while the rays of the sun go back to a place that is right above clouds, and they tell you its not true because of some math equation they have. The moon appears to be similar in size to the sun yet they tell us its actually 100-400 times smaller than the sun which is (THIS MANY) miles away to make it seem that way. And you believe them. I dont. You have faith that they and all others no matter HOW many, are telling you the truth. I dont. Thats what it comes down to. I have faith that my day to day experiences/observations are right. You believe THEIR observations/experiences in secret labs you werent in, and in "space" that they most likely never went to, are correct. But you'll only come back with your emotions instead of some of that "intelligence" you have (because you can parrot what they tell )in the form of rebuttals against what Im saying. Hopefully you prove me wrong though (though its not possible in regards to the earth being flat )

We've given you instructions on how to experiment and prove the earth's roundness for yourself. You -CLAIM- to be some independent thinker and learner, who doesn't listen to what 'The Man' tells him and figures things out for yourself, but you absolutely refuse to engage in your own research/experimentation. Even your hero Admiral Byrd was proven by Loki to be no flat-earther, a man who firmly believed Antarctica had potential as a place from which you could easily launch planes to any part of the southern globe, not particularly possible if, y'know, it wasn't a globe. You just plug your ears and 'Lalala!' through the lot of it, then claim your position is beyond challenging because you run from every challenge.

Ignorance might be bliss, and relish it man, but don't try to sell it as a virtue.

 

[manama]

There is always this one person who says something different and fraud and then gets exposed and badly roasted but then a few years later a generation of people comes running forward suddenly geniuses who know the truth of the world despite having no knowledge about the particular subject.

 

[manama]

Conspiracies are cool but sometimes they make already stupid people even more stupid.

 

[KoncreteMind]

When you say things like this it just seems like you have no concept of how the reality of a globe Earth and the reality of a flat Earth would be different. Yes, the cardinal directions would stay the same, but the distances between things wouldn't be, specifically things closer to the South Pole because by spreading the map out with Antarctica surrounding the world rather than being a normal continent at the bottom of the world, you've changed that entire region's make up.

If you simply look at a globe you should be able to understand how traveling in a circle around the bottom of the globe would be a far shorter distance than traveling around the center, or equator, of the globe. Now if you were to grab that globe by the center of Antarctica and stretch it out into a circular flat map to represent the flat Earth, that distance around the bottom of the globe suddenly becomes multiplied by some amount I'm not bright enough to come up with. It seems clear as day to me, but the fact that you deny this to be the case or can't see any error in the logic behind the flat Earth model when it comes to this truly astounds me.

As I said, if you a flat disc in paper format and try to roll it out into a ball, you'll (roughly) have your ball earth. If you tried to make it more "spherical" the tops and bottoms would still be the shortest travel distance while the center would be the longest. Nothing changes at all concerning the trade route. Still south then west like it is on the ball earth. Still the shortest distance you can take, just like on the ball earth.

Its clearly been debunked because at the end of the day, you cant tell distance just by LOOKING at a map (that has no scale). So whatever mileage it is on the globe earth, it could EASILY be on the flat earth. South than east. It matches even if yall want to play like it doesnt.

 

[KoncreteMind]

Actually, I said this:

And not only were you completely incapable of explaining what you meant (because you don't actually know what you meant) you were unwilling to even attempt to confirm that there ARE different elevations at those sites. And here you are, claiming I said nothing about it, and you're criticizing my reading comprehension!

Its clear what I meant. Different locations have different elevations above sea level. So he could use one city that has a high one, then use another city that uses a lower one. Yes that proves a difference in elevation, doesnt exactly prove a curve. Since the elevations of locations are all over the spectrum. City A can be higher than City B, but lower than City C. So measuring the curve from City A to B, would give you one thing, but City A to C another... So unless there is a steady decrease in elevation, the experiment on its own is debunked simply by elevation above sea level differences. The fact that you needed this explained out like this, and "differences in elevation between the two places" (my answer) accounting for the differences in shadow length, kinda explains why you need people to think for you.

It has no scale because it's fictional.

Requiring a far, FAR vaster distance of travel if the flat earth model is correct, which it isn't because it doesn't.

You have no proof other than "I believe these guys who say they observed/experienced/saw this!!"

as you just admitted, that's only true if you work the flat earth model into a ball (making it no longer the flat earth), as otherwise the distance is the expanse of several continents, as blatantly visible in your own model. Alas, you have no sense/perception of distance and scale, so even when you look at the map and see that sailors would have to travel the length of several continents on the flat earth to complete standard trade-circuits, you say to yourself "so what? why not?"


The DISTANCES don't match, man. And you think there's no argument against it only because you're incapable of comprehending the arguments being made, and incessantly pretend your own ignorance is authoritative proof of something.

Spoiler

Umm the distances do match. In either scenario you have to go across the same continents and the same direction. Some maps are drawn smaller, some are drawn bigger. Without a scale, the bigger map compared to the smaller one could be detailing the same distance. So whats relevant is direction (South then east). In both maps the route is the EXACT same and is the SHORTEST route to take. So saying the route "debunks" the flat earth is a stretch of the imagination to say the least.

We've discussed this before dude, but I don't spend every waking moment on this forum. I enjoy my weekends, and certainly don't spend a moment of them here. When I return however, and get that 'KoncreteMind has replied to the thread!' message, I click it out of curiosity as to what dribble you're spewing this week, and happily take a slice of time out of a slow work-day to explain to you why its dribble.

Who said anything about the timing of your response? I didnt say you had to respond an hour after I do or you're ducking. Everybody (I hope at least) has things to do away from the forum. But when you COME BACK, the problem is you ignore that which was said to you before, to start up on something else. So I go thru debunking what you say, you ignore the response, to start on something new. Rinse and repeat. I play along for awhile before I start pointing out that the other person isnt responding to whats being said. After I keep pointing that out for awhile, I just drop it. So in all you're play duck duck goose with my responses. Instead of clicking "KM has quoted your post" you're clicking the "newest post" and responding to that, so that you can avoid responding to the answers I gave you already... That or you try to drag me into semantics by defining words that shouldnt need to be defined.. Its a game you're playing that only those who cant keep up play...

We've given you instructions on how to experiment and prove the earth's roundness for yourself. You -CLAIM- to be some independent thinker and learner, who doesn't listen to what 'The Man' tells him and figures things out for yourself, but you absolutely refuse to engage in your own research/experimentation. Even your hero Admiral Byrd was proven by Loki to be no flat-earther, a man who firmly believed Antarctica had potential as a place from which you could easily launch planes to any part of the southern globe, not particularly possible if, y'know, it wasn't a globe. You just plug your ears and 'Lalala!' through the lot of it, then claim your position is beyond challenging because you run from every challenge.

Ignorance might be bliss, and relish it man, but don't try to sell it as a virtue.

And any person who has presented me with an "experiment" that "proves the earth is round" (that wasnt in form of a 10-20 item list)I've explained why I dont feel that proves anything concerning the earth's shape. Two being the Sagan video and the "opposite view" of the moon beliefs. Its also not about whether or not Byrd was a flat earther. Its about what he said he saw vs what we're told about Antarctica. You know we're just told about the "ice" and "cold" while he came back talking about coal and URANIUM? And he was even hesitant to say that because he didnt want to start a fight over the resources, so who knows what else he saw? Then theres the problem with them creating a fake organization that has been caught in documented lies that are all over youtube (NASA), and the Antarctic treaty shortly after this man's death. All of this pokes holes in the view of the world we're given and holes in the people/establishments we are given it by.

Oh and I did preface one of my posts with the fact that Byrd's experience only proves that the view they're giving us of the world is false not that the earth is flat. Which should be common sense when with all the satellites they have they cant produce ONE real non CGI pic. But yea if Im ignorant to the BS you believe, I do consider it bliss. I will relish in it. And I wont "sell it" as anything let alone a "virtue". Thanks for the pep talk!

 

[KoncreteMind]

Conspiracies are cool but sometimes they make already stupid people even more stupid.

Thanks for sharing the hard times you went/are going thru. Hopefully you come out of it stronger than ever!