fyl2u
Striker
The truest words you've said in the whole thread.
You're a fictional story.
Put a flat earthier into space
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
The truest words you've said in the whole thread.
You're a fictional story.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
fyl2u
Striker
Exactly.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Exactly, what?
fyl2u
Striker
Exactly.
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
Except that it does make perfect sense to all who can think, and check for themselves.
The fact that you don't understand does not make it false.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
It actually doesn't.
People go along with it because it's a story told as official fact and requires no verification when questioned, so most people just say "oh well, it is what it is" and get on with their lives. I agree with them.
It doesn't make it true, either.
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
Yet again... No, I am capable of using my own eyes and logic to see the facts. I'm not just accepting what I've been told or read in books. I can go and look, check and see.
You could too, but you're too attached to your utterly nonsensical, totally made up out of nothing, inexplicable, non-working bullshit drivel that doesn't even qualify as an alternative model.
You think you get to say what does and doesn't make sense to other people?
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan
Winger
You may think you are. I have no issue with you thinking that.
Give me an example of you being able to go and look, in terms of what we're arguing.
I do look. I look at what's in our faces. I see what I expect to see of water levelling out into a container.
I do not see unhindered water curving and nor would I ever think it would curve around a ball, no matter how large or small.
As for any alternative model, they're all welcome as long as they done come along with so called facts that cannot be proven.
The spinning global model story has all these pretences of facts that cannot be physically proven.
Nope. That's entirely up to each individual. I can only go along with my own decisions. What you or others do is entirely your business.
Last edited:
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
already done so several times. You only have to look at the sky for long enough to understand what happens. You clearly never did.
I do realise the pointlessness of saying for what must have been pointed out a thousand times already, but to see a curve that matches the size and curve of the Earth, you are going to need a bigger container than any you have ever filled with water. To keep repeating this ridiculous statement as if it is some kind of evidence only proves that you do not look or think.
Never saw a drop of water?
You dont have an alternative model. You have a daydream with no facts and is easily disproved.
The spinning globe model works and can be seen to be doing so.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
The Snockerty Friddle said: already done so several times. You only have to look at the sky for long enough to understand what happens. You clearly never did.
Nukehasslefan said: I see things moving in the sky. That's what you see but you are told you see them moving because you're on a spinning ball.
Have a think about that.
The Snockerty Friddle said:I do realise the pointlessness of saying for what must have been pointed out a thousand times already, but to see a curve that matches the size and curve of the Earth, you are going to need a bigger container than any you have ever filled with water. To keep repeating this ridiculous statement as if it is some kind of evidence only proves that you do not look or think.
Nukehasslefan said:
Aye it can be argued for that but the reality is, no oceans are going to stay on a spinning ball and act like we see them.
It's simply mass indoctrination and a peer pressure to keep that going with the full on knowledge that anyone who steps outside of that box will be ridiculed if they dare to question it.
The Snockerty Friddle said:Never saw a drop of water?
Nukehasslefan said:Of course.
For a drop of water to be so it has to have a hindrance. Basically is has to fall through atmosphere against resistance.
The Snockerty Friddle said:You dont have an alternative model. You have a daydream with no facts and is easily disproved.
Nukehasslefan said: It could well be. As long as I don't offer it as factual until I can verify it all, it can be construed as anything anyone wishes it to be, as in your case in point.
The Snockerty Friddle said:
The spinning globe model works and can be seen to be doing so.
Nukehasslefan said: It works because you believe it to work. You believe it to work because you are schooled into that mindset by explanations as to why this and that happens.
You could arguably be easily schooled into believing star wars was real if that narrative was offered as a schooling fact with explanations as to why it's real.
How would you know any different?
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
Too much bullshit repeated too many times. You have no idea as to the apparent motion of the stars, you never bothered to look.
If every one of those points of light was a hole, it would still hold water better than your cell idea.
Have a think about that.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
The motion of the stars?
I thought your stars were still and it was your Earth ball that was spinning?
Have you changed your mind?
A hole, maybe. Not a ball.
I have and I stand firm.
There is absolutely no proof of the earth not being a spinning globe. None whatsoever. There is no evidence at all to suggest it doesn't rotate. Show me proof it doesn't rotate but you won't be able to.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
The biggest and best proof is water level. Nothing else actually needs to be argued. Anyone can test this out as long as they can push aside the indoctrination of being told of a fictional spinning globe.
There is absolutely no proof of it being a spinning globe. None whatsoever.
There is plenty but it actually takes a person to cast aside the fiction of a spinning globe.
Water level and calmness of water in many instances.
Jumping up and down. Simple yet logically sound.
Hovering helicopter. Logical and simple.
Planes taking off with the so called spin would render the spin, not a spin as it reached the same speed of rotation, meaning to a pilot you would be hovering.
Obviously the list is endless but these are simple things for food for thought with any person willing to question.
There's so much contradiction with it.
The story is saturated with idiocy, in my opinion.
payne
Striker
DaveH
Striker
That is it completely. Though I think at times it is more "does not want to understand". Take that phrase posted earlier "what your senses tell you". In terms of science with all the vast and impressive instruments astronomers have at their disposal, they can only take an educated estimate as to the size, shape and details of our galaxy and the universe. It is like trying to work out the layout of a whole town from the bit you can see out your window. The same applies on a smaller scale. You can't stand in your back garden and determine the size and shape of the earth.
But when presented with evidence saying "look, this is what you can see and this is how it works", diagrams, maths etc, all is immediately rejected. If I didn't post this next sentence, the next response would be "nothing has been presented". It is denial at every step. But this is a common trait. Go to any conspiracy theorist forum and look at the general patter. Step one, assume something, step two, tell everyone and assume you are right, step three see something that counteracts your argument, step four, realise your invented world is falling apart so double down, deny everything, claim conspiracy and crack on with your fantasy.
payne
Striker
perhaps they have..........................am so onYou’ve got to wonder why not one single photograph has been published showing this inhabitable outer zone
With all this modern technology nobody has bothered to get as close as physically possible, taken photos or whatever to show it actually exists
I wonder why
DPTT
Winger
That’s the response I was expecting like
