Put a flat earthier into space

[payne]

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





















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.

It's because his 1st rule and the 1st rule of his cult is to put up the barrier of 'nothing allowed from authority'. He therefore being honest to his own dogma can't pass on any information as he would be the authoirty.

It's a mental way to go on like. Imagine not being able to learn anything from anywhere else. Fuck parents teaching their kids, fuck school, fuck books, fuck everything. Just let someone be born and let them fend for themselves from day 1.

 

[Pancho]

That's one complex and expensive charade just to hype the heliocentric model mind.

You must be logged on to see external links

 

[payne]

That's one complex and expensive charade just to hype the heliocentric model mind.

You must be logged on to see external links

It's garn straight in the drink like all before.
The cgis going to be out of this world

 

[3.142]

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

And this is just in 2D. Add a 3rd dimension and you see it is even more ridiculous a suggestion.

 

[Pancho]

And this is just in 2D. Add a 3rd dimension and you see it is even more ridiculous a suggestion.

Ha'way, flerfers to a man simply cannot grasp scale so there's zero chance they could get their heads around an extra dimension.

 

[chelt_mackem]

It's garn straight in the drink like all before.
The cgis going to be out of this world

I can't bloody wait to watch the CGI live footage from these missions and in 2025 finally live in a time when humans set foot on a green screen studio celestial body again.

 

[payne]

I can't bloody wait to watch the CGI live footage from these missions and in 2025 finally live in a time when humans set foot on a green screen studio celestial body again.

Same. That was one of the things I liked about the last mars rover landing.....watching the deep fake

 

[Hend79]

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.

Erm nope as you have just said if 2 people are arguing different viewpoints its up to one person to prove his own point of view and be able to verify themselves.

"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"

Your words, no one elses. But you keep digging that massive hole you have created for yourself

 

[DaveH]

They actually do.



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.

I didn’t want to complicate it!

 

[peachy]

BBC4 tonight 11.40
"Wonders of the solar system"

For anyone interested.

 

[Kevj]

BBC4 tonight 11.40
"Wonders of the solar system"

For anyone interested.

It’s all CGI and witchcraft. I’ll not waste any of my time watching that

 

[peachy]

Prove it, and I dont want a picture of a hat!

 

[Pancho]

Imagine the mental gymnastics that the flerfers will need to perform if the weather holds fair.

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[Nobby]

Imagine the mental gymnastics that the flerfers will need to perform if the weather holds fair.

You must be logged on to see media items

It's just been shot into the unhindered water

 

[What A Waster]

Imagine the mental gymnastics that the flerfers will need to perform if the weather holds fair.

You must be logged on to see media items

Gonna require new updates to the points of light generated by the super mega hyper crystal funzone projector when 'they' say this is happening then all the people with an interest in astronomy are tracking it themselves.
Next slide!

 

[Drifter]

Erm nope as you have just said if 2 people are arguing different viewpoints its up to one person to prove his own point of view and be able to verify themselves.

"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"

Your words, no one elses. But you keep digging that massive hole you have created for yourself

If he keeps digging that massive hole he’ll end up just south of New Zealand

You must be logged on to see external links

It’s all CGI and witchcraft. I’ll not waste any of my time watching that

No, it’s a real rocket. Be interesting to see if it can smash through the dome.

 

[Kevj]

Logon or register to see this image

@Nukehasslefan

Explain with workings why the moon has differing illuminated parts across a lunar month which is entirely consistent of the three object model (sun, earth and moon) and why the projector model you profess to be correct replicates this phenomenon.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Our observations are that you repeatedly lie about having done experiments when in fact you haven't done any apart from in your head.

And You're very welcome to keep that mindset and I'm absolutely fine with it because it doesn't change anything from my side.

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.

If you think I'm a liar then don't worry about what's being shared or not. Just take anything I say as lies and you can carry on with whatever else you were doing.

I don't expect anyone to take anything from what I say, I simply say what I say and leave it up to each individual to decide whether something is worth questioning or not. I'm not in charge of that, each individual is.

Still waiting for details of your water level experiment

Anyone can do as many as they wish to see we do not live on a spinning globe. You certainly don't need anything from me to prove that but it's down to each individual as to what they want to take from anything.

 

[0verlord44]

Artemis 1 is a go. Launch window starts at 13:30gmt. Cant wait

 

[Nukehasslefan]

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

And what I'm saying is, if you see a cratered moon face like we are shown then the Earth should be littered with craters where it's blocked so many from hitting and any hitting the face we are shown should come in at an angle and not show just craters but should show skimmed area from the angle of incoming, yet we see nothing like that.

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?

Aye, and how many times has it changed for you or was this just a one-off?

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?

Nothing to be in denial about.
I'm simply questioning the moon nonsense from my opinion.

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.

What book from 200 years ago describes a parabola?

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.

Show me.

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.

There's no breakthrough. I stand by what I'm saying and your parabola offers nothing realistic.