Put a flat earthier into space

[Nobby]

I've told you many times what proves it doesn't.

Anyone doing experiments can certainly count if it has a potential or a real end product or offers more to a theoretical concept and so on.

The globe indoctrination is so strong that any random offering of anything against it will be pointless to those people.

It's all about those who can and want to think outside of the box they're in. Most do not for various reasons.
So, basically, it comes down to each individual to take what they want from what I say. If that's nothing then that's fine.

Water level.
You didn't see that one coming, did you?

So give us the details of
how you you did your water level experiment

 

[Nukehasslefan]

If we define science based evidence as religion, then yes, that's right.

Essentially, anything that cannot be proven with a basic experiment anyone can do on their own or see is not true, which means that for your belief system you have to reverse all learnings of the past couple of hundred years because they required some level of scientific progress to understand. Anything else cannot be 'proven' in your definition otherwise it would already have been known hundreds or thousands of years ago.

When a person wants to argue with another, say me and you for instance, then you have to provide genuine realistic evidence that you can verify yourself to be able to stand up and offer as factual in confidence.
If you cannot do this and your reliance is based on appeals to authority then your argument offers you no more merit than what you're arguing against.

 

[Kevj]

When a person wants to argue with another, say me and you for instance, then you have to provide genuine realistic evidence that you can verify yourself to be able to stand up and offer as factual in confidence.
If you cannot do this and your reliance is based on appeals to authority then your argument offers you no more merit than what you're arguing against.

Wow! Just wow.

 

[Pancho]

When a person wants to argue with another, say me and you for instance, then you have to provide genuine realistic evidence that you can verify yourself to be able to stand up and offer as factual in confidence.
If you cannot do this and your reliance is based on appeals to authority then your argument offers you no more merit than what you're arguing against.

That's 24 carat bollocks.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I've told you many times what proves it doesn't.

Yeah, water level, except that it doesn't.

When a person wants to argue with another, say me and you for instance, then you have to provide genuine realistic evidence that you can verify yourself to be able to stand up and offer as factual in confidence.
If you cannot do this and your reliance is based on appeals to authority then your argument offers you no more merit than what you're arguing against.

Yes, I mean it would be a bit shit to just reply with "you're absolutely entitled to those thoughts and I'm fine with whatever you decide." rather than provide any realistic genuine evidence wouldn't it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

This is true to form. He denies everything and there are plenty of times in this thread I have both copied direct quote from himself and linked to them, and he denies that.

Such as?

When someone's level of denial is that they completely deny clear evidence of what they have just said (once was on the previous page) when right in front of their face for all to see, it shows why literally anything can be dismissed as no evidence. Probably thinks it is a conspiracy and one of the mods is part of this "higher controlling group", and has been instructed to edit his posts.

Offer something.

Lies

Lies. There is masses of evidence, covering many branches of science, all pointing to a massive meteor strike. You just deny it all.

There actually isn't.
There are people who claim it but have no verifiable truth to stand by, except to simply tell us this and that happened. Just like the 65 million years ago dinosaurs that were supposedly wiped out by one.
It's a great story for the masses but that's all it is. IMO.

Yes, an angle can be anything, you are just being obtuse about it and assuming it is a very tight 'skimming' angle. Why not one of the others, close to perpenducular to the surface?

Perpendicular would not offer the craters we see in the moon image if it's shielded by an Earth, as I've explained.
Unless those so-called meteors can bend around the so-called Earth ball and then straighten up to head to the moon, perpendicular to it then you have an argument.
If this is the case then what's the power behind that?

I posted this earlier when I said "recorded by many amateurs". My meaning of that is that many amateurs have witnessed it and have records. I literally said this in the post you are quoting, what is wrong with you?

You are an amateur, aren't you? I'm sure I saw you post something about it. What have you personally seen so you don't have to appeal to authority?

The moon is a popular study and imaging target for amateur astronomers.

Ok, I get people study the image in the sky. Fair enough, I have no issue with that.

Go to any astronomy forum and there are regular posts where someone has been imaging away and captured a strike.

Many people claim many things and we are reliant on one of three takes on it.
1. To believe it unconditionally.
2. To accept it as potentially true but leaving a little scope for potential misinformation.
3. Believe nothing until real proof is offered as to the realism of the entire setup.

These are sometimes followed up with images of new craters. I have not personally seen one, but did image one area, a week before someone recorded a strike and a small new crater, which I then went back and looked at. "only big wigs that tell us", shows your level of paranoia.

Maybe I am paranoid in many instances but that comes from trying to find the truth from fiction.
I prefer sceptical and questioning but each to their own thoughts.

So you fully admit you have never spent time at a telescope studying the moon, yet you claim no new craters appear.
How do you know this? This is a classic example, you assume no new craters appear then cling to it as a desperate truth, yet you base this on nothing but an assumption you made without any evidence. This is what you do with everything and hence live in a paranoid fantasy land. Any in answer to the second part, yes I spend many hours outside doing astronomy (as I have posted many times before), studying craters and other features on the moon, imaging many of them.

I haven't claimed anything about craters appearing or not, only arguing how they got there like we are shown and explained as to what they supposedly are.

No 8 inches squared is from a flat earth fantasy trying to disprove the globe.

Of course, it's wrong. If it wasn't changed then the globe has serious issues.
I understand how everything gets altered.

I have posted many times that this rule is wrong, and even produced a short paper doing a mathematical analysis of why it is wrong, so please don't credit your moronic chantings to me.

You've shown nothing that offers proof.
You offered a parabola.
Show me why that works by using a simple circle.

You still fail to provide any evidence of the experiments you have done that you say prove all your drivel. This is because you have lied about them, if not then why do you not share this ground breaking research?

I'm nuts remember? In need of asylum to some. Backward to others. Stupid to you and many. And all the rest.
Why are you asking me for anything?
You call me a liar so anything I offer will be a lie.
I'm absolutely fine with it all so don't get me wrong but it seems silly to offer all of that and then basically start asking me for my experiments so you can sift through them.
The reality is, you shouldn't really be dealing with me with your mindset unless you're just using that as your comfort blanket in order to try and glean something that may have piqued your interest alternative to the global model you were brought up with.

I was wondering if there were web services where you can host odd pages of text. I can stick any image in imgBB and put any video on YouTube, but not sure where I can knock up a document, other than wikipedia who would instantly throw it away as a waste of space. I was thinking a couple of days ago of drawing up a conspiracy theorist play book. If you look through the thread there are around 7 standard responses along the lines of:
1 - Flat denial, witnessed by the "show me a quote" nonsense today. "There is no evidence" being the most common phrase
2 - Do some homework - "Prove it to me", "Explain in your own words"
3 - Dismiss because it is handed on a plate - Somehow an accumulation of human knowledge is invalid, even if can be proven.
4 - Ignore - Just don't reply to those bits when backed into a corner
5 - Attack. Stop trying to explain or convince about your shaky argument and just attack the accepted norm, thus turning the conversation
6 - Deflect. Similar to attack, but miss the point and change the subject. E.g. when talking about the size of the moon, reply "But that doesn't show the distance to the so called stars",
7 - Play dumb - Ask the same question again while quoting the person who gives the answer in your quote

There are more than 7, but because these things repeat on a loop, I was thinking it is useful to have a common frame of reference "Ah, you have gone for CT response 5, well....."

There's already enough out there to denounce anyone who questions the official narratives.
I think just about all manners of words and sentences have been used to try to clatter and better clatter those who go against the accepted party line, so my advice would be for you to save your energy......but.....it's your choice.

That's 24 carat bollocks.

You have tried to argue with me by using other people to convey your message, so this is exactly what I'm getting at.
Hardly balls, is it?

 

[BigPete]

Don't know why you lads bother anymore.

He's been proven wrong so many times hes just flat out taking bollocks now.

I think he's just trolling you all tbf

 

[legend7]

So about these superfluid experiments you have done, then haven't done, but you definitely said you had done.
Can you explain a couple of them to us, that may well change our mindset if you explain them, the methods and the results.
@Nukehasslefan

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So about these superfluid experiments you have done, then haven't done, but you definitely said you had done.
Can you explain a couple of them to us, that may well change our mindset if you explain them, the methods and the results.
@Nukehasslefan

No.

 

[payne]

I done an experiment to verify the earth being flat this morning. I got a dinner plate and a mini mag light and pointed the beam towards the flat round object. I messed around with the focus to simulate differing magnification and demagnification that could be caused due to atmospheric density changes during a midsummers eve. I drew a cross hair on the plate to simulate the observers view as if looking through a telescope or magnifying glass. I also moved the light back and forwards to imitate the movement of the local sun over head.

I found that no matter how hard I tried I couldn't get the light to hit the earth (plate) in a way that agrees with which places on earth are in daytime with each other and which are in darkness. I could only get a miss match of places in and out of the suns reach. I asked a friend from America what time of day it was where he lives for a comparison to where I live to see if there was a difference. I didn't want to just look on google for the time as that would be appealing to authority and that is forbidden in any new piece of research if one is wanting to offer up facts to someone who in which they are arguing with. I believe this new piece of research is a valid offing without appeal to authority and the logic used is suitable. I would point out that nobody else is allowed to repeat this experiment or use it as second hand evidence. Please use your own simple experiments.

Thank you

 

[legend7]

No.

What a surprise.
Just proved again to everyone what a fantasist you are, if you had done any you'd be eager to share them to prove you're right surely.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

What a surprise.
Just proved again to everyone what a fantasist you are, if you had done any you'd be eager to share them to prove you're right surely.

Put your mind to work and do it for yourself, not for anything you need to prove to me or anyone.
Have as many digs as you want in between because each answer may offer you a snippet, however tiny.

My observations over time suggest you are more interested in questioning the narrative but that's just my opinion and you do not need to answer this to offer any argument for or against it.

 

[legend7]

Put your mind to work and do it for yourself, not for anything you need to prove to me or anyone.
Have as many digs as you want in between because each answer may offer you a snippet, however tiny.

My observations over time suggest you are more interested in questioning the narrative but that's just my opinion and you do not need to answer this to offer any argument for or against it.

Our observations are that you repeatedly lie about having done experiments when in fact you haven't done any apart from in your head.
It's funny that you share certain processes to try and prove your points yet on others like your superfluid experiments you offer nothing, because you're a liar.

 

[Nobby]

Still waiting for details of your water level experiment

 

[DaveH]

What a surprise.
Just proved again to everyone what a fantasist you are, if you had done any you'd be eager to share them to prove you're right surely.

The more I look at the cagey responses, the more I think he thinks Special Brew is a superfluid.

 

[Kevj]

Don't know why you lads bother anymore.

He's been proven wrong so many times hes just flat out taking bollocks now.

I think he's just trolling you all tbf

I’ve thought this is the case for a long while now. Regardless of his ineptitude for science, he is adept at winding people up.

 

[DaveH]

Perpendicular would not offer the craters we see in the moon image if it's shielded by an Earth, as I've explained.
Unless those so-called meteors can bend around the so-called Earth ball and then straighten up to head to the moon, perpendicular to it then you have an argument.
If this is the case then what's the power behind that?

Here is a scaled image of the earth, moon and the distance between them. Your challenge is to draw on arrows showing the directions meteors might hit the moon from.

Logon or register to see this image

You are an amateur, aren't you? I'm sure I saw you post something about it. What have you personally seen so you don't have to appeal to authority?

I already said this in the last post, what is wrong with you. Read it again. I imaged a section of the moon, saw a report of a meteor strike from other amateurs, took a look a week later and there was a crater not recorded in my image. I have done this 3 times. The surface is changing. Does this sound clear this time?

I haven't claimed anything about craters appearing or not, only arguing how they got there like we are shown and explained as to what they supposedly are.

Yes you did. This is where this discussion started when you asked why all these craters being produced in the past and none now. Is this you in denial about a post a few pages ago again?

You offered a parabola.

Excellent!! Everyone look at the above. He finally gets that the 8" mile square thing he keeps repeating (first evidence of it being documented has been in a flat earth book from 200 years ago) describes a parabola, not a sphere. The "rule" is wrong, I've been saying for months it is wrong, it doesn't describe a sphere it describes a parabola. Now perhaps you might stop repeating it. The only people this is a rule for is for flat earthers to deny a globe. A broken "rule" doesn't describe what it is not supposed to. Now you finally get it so we have had a break through there.

 

[nahwee]

So give us the details of how you you did your water level experiment

I asked him this some time ago, so to save you time Nukey I'll post your reply again - you can thank me later.

Every time people have asked for proof I've simply said water level. Nothing to do with a bath experiment.
Water level.
The simplest and easily provable truth that we do not walk upon a spinning globe.

It is an answer and I know many people that's proven water to be level and flat.

Sorry if you've already responded to this request, but could you give a link or directions to other experiments that have been carried out that prove the earths flatness?

Go and do it yourself. Water level.
Go and try it anywhere you like.
Use whatever you like as a container and even unbalance it and watch teh water level up.
You know this but you choose to believe it conforms to a globe because that's the narrative set out in mainstream. Simple as that really.

I may just do that, but in the meantime can you direct me to anything where anyone has done this - using water I mean.

Do it for you not for anyone else. You can look for whatever you want. You do not need me to hold your hand.

I’m simply asking for your help.
Can you direct me to any of these experiments?

Nukehasslefan, as water being flat is central to your argument, I’ll ask again, for the 5th!, time: Do you have any information on third parties attempting to confirm this?

Anyone can confirm it.

That’s not an answer.
Do you have any information?

It is an answer and I know many people that's proven water to be level and flat.
You know it is and so does everyone else on here....etc.
The major issue is in going with the water curves mindset because you're basically told to do so.

You've basically been told to abandon your own logical senses in favour of utter gunk.
I was in exactly that same set up a few decades ago.

It wasn’t an answer it was a response.
Can you direct me to any information where third parties have attempted to confirm that water is flat?

You'll need to do that yourself if you really want to know.
Personally you can prove it to yourself but I have a feeling that seems to be a no option for you, so basically just stick to your globe and curved water. It's easier.

Is there a sentence missing here,
‘and leave me alone’?

It’s a simple question, for the 7th!!, time since Friday, do you have any information on third parties carrying out experiments on how level water is?

A simple yes or no would suffice.

Yes.

Hooray!!!
Are you prepared to share it with us?

No need. You can prove this to yourself.
You can prove a lot of stuff to yourself that goes against the global Earth/space shenanigans but it is all down to you. I can't help. It has to be you.

A subject central to his argument, that is constantly in contention, it is a 'simplest and easily provable truth' and he knows 'many people that's proven water to be level and flat' but thinks there is 'no need' to direct anyone to this proof.

 

[Nobby]

A subject central to his argument, that is constantly in contention, it is a 'simplest and easily provable truth' and he knows 'many people that's proven water to be level and flat' but thinks there is 'no need' to direct anyone to this proof.

But knowing other people have done it isn't a valid proof in his world

 

[fyl2u]

Perpendicular would not offer the craters we see in the moon image if it's shielded by an Earth, as I've explained.
Unless those so-called meteors can bend around the so-called Earth ball and then straighten up to head to the moon, perpendicular to it then you have an argument.

They actually do.

If this is the case then what's the power behind that?

Gravity.

The trajectory of a meteor passing close to Earth would curve due to the gravitational pull of the Earth, and then as it approached the moon its course would straighten due to the gravitational pull of the moon.