Put a flat earthier into space

[Hend79]

So you're told.

Or simply the radius of a circle.

No, it's not an indisputable fact, at all.

Yes it is.

Easy to say, hard to prove. I've never seen you offer any proof just as I've never seen anyone else, which is to be expected and for good reason.
We don't live on a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

Hard to prove yet its been done thousands of times by thousands of different people with a far better grasp of the subject matter than you or I. So if you think its hard to prove then thats on you being dim

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It's an indisputable fact.

It's flerfer kryptonite.

To you, it can be indisputable and to every other person who believes they spin on a globe in space but to me it's utter nonsense spewed by those who offer the gunk for people to swallow with gusto..

Yes it is.

Hard to prove yet its been done thousands of times by thousands of different people with a far better grasp of the subject matter than you or I. So if you think its hard to prove then thats on you being dim

I would imagine you can offer proof, right?

 

[Hend79]

To you, it can be indisputable and to every other person who believes they spin on a globe in space but to me it's utter nonsense spewed by those who offer the gunk for people to swallow with gusto..

So please provide us with explanations, and evidence of your experiments that have proven otherwise. You have constantly been asked for this information but never offer anything. Wonder why that is?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

So please provide us with explanations, and evidence of your experiments that have proven otherwise. You have constantly been asked for this information but never offer anything. Wonder why that is?

Don't worry about my Earth concentrate on the one you bought into. Surely you could offer loads of proof for it, right?

 

[Hend79]

To you, it can be indisputable and to every other person who believes they spin on a globe in space but to me it's utter nonsense spewed by those who offer the gunk for people to swallow with gusto..

I would imagine you can offer proof, right?

My own eyes and common sense give me all the proof that I need. As you have no common sense I understand why things must be difficult for you

 

[Nukehasslefan]

My own eyes and common sense give me all the proof that I need. As you have no common sense I understand why things must be difficult for you

That'll do for me.

 

[Pancho]

To you, it can be indisputable and to every other person who believes they spin on a globe in space but to me it's utter nonsense spewed by those who offer the gunk for people to swallow with gusto..

As I said, kryptonite.

You have no wriggle room on this topic.

Not a single flat earther has been able to produce a viable flight plan.

If you check Flightradar24 now, there are literally hundreds of planes debunking your gormless theories as we speak.

 

[Hend79]

That'll do for me.

Finally admitting you have no common sense

 

[Nukehasslefan]

As I said, kryptonite.

You have no wriggle room on this topic.

To be totally honest I'd say I have a lot more than wriggle room. It's almost like I'm walking freely among many chanters offering nothing but words.

Not a single flat earther has been able to produce a viable flight plan.

Yes they have.

If you check Flightradar24 now, there are literally hundreds of planes debunking your gormless theories as we speak.

No there aren't.
Take a look at the supposed southern hemisphere flights. Utter dead because it's nonesne.

Finally admitting you have no common sense

Is common sense to do with a common trait of following what people follow, said to be common sense?
Is a belief in god common sense?
Is a belief in a spinning globe common sense?
I'd say it is perceived as being so...but really it's more akin to common acceptance of the mainstream offering.

 

[Hend79]

To be totally honest I'd say I have a lot more than wriggle room. It's almost like I'm walking freely among many chanters offering nothing but words.

Yes they have.

No there aren't.
Take a look at the supposed southern hemisphere flights. Utter dead because it's nonesne.

Whereas your evidence is...erm......

No they havent as its impossible.

Yes there are, im looking at Flightradar24 now, quite a few flights flying from southern hemisphere destinations to other southern hemisphere destinations.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

But this is the entire argument. I'm asked to provide stuff so I'm asking for proof that what happens is from a spinning global perspective.
You can spend as much time as you want to offer the above but you know it's been offered based on a story and nothing else.

No it isn't. The entire argument is on the one side, thousands of years of science, discovery and knowledge about the shape and size of the Earth against on the other side, one persons unscientific and badly informed daydreams about that shape. That is the argument.

You cannot provide any evidence to support your side (because there is none) and so you put ridiculous and totally unnecessary conditions upon those pointing out the evidence against you. The fact that I never visited the North pole does not in any way affect the credibility of the North pole. The fact that none of us have been into outer space does not in any way suggest that it does not exist. The fact that there are films with CGI does not mean that all film is computer generated misinformation.

Masses of actual knowledge can and has been offered while all you can offer in return is one flawed experiment which, done properly proves you wrong anyway so you introduce your "appeal to authority" rule and pretend the argument is actually about whether or not any given individual can provide their own proof. That serves only as a distraction or diversion and when it fails you're reduced to bleating about "the many against the one" telling people to just ignore you and the old message board favourite, telling people they're getting too worked up.

" I'm asked to provide stuff so I'm asking for proof that what happens is from a spinning global perspective." No, you make the outlandish claim so it's down to you to provide the evidence, not the other way around. The globe evidence is already there, "on a platter" as you like to put it but there for a reason, it's tested and verified and correct whereas your flat Earth/cell world hybrid is nothing but easily disproved fantasy.

And theoretically, if I'd never seen one then I could offer up they don't exist and ask for proof, which would be offered. The issue here is there's nothing offered as proof for a spinning globe, just plenty of stories adhered to that it exists, yet nobody can prove it.

They can and have done so, but you first think you can redefine what adds up to proof and then if any is offered within your own guidelines ie self observed without appeal to authority, you either fail to understand it, ignore it or both.

Just something, not all.

So you could go and observe things like eclipses, learn what happens at the equinoxes and why or even just muse on the reflections of a mirror ball. Plenty for you to look into if you wanted to learn or seek truth.

But you don't.

 

[Hend79]

Is common sense to do with a common trait of following what people follow, said to be common sense?
Is a belief in god common sense?
Is a belief in a spinning globe common sense?
I'd say it is perceived as being so...but really it's more akin to common acceptance of the mainstream offering.

As already explained to you a million times, the Earth being a globe has been proven thousands of times for thousands of years. Your flat Earth model has never been proven, the half wits who believe we do live on a flat Earth have been humiliated several times, a bit like you on this page

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Whereas your evidence is...erm......

My evidence is clear and concise. Water finds its own level and conforms to any container it is in.
It does not conform to the exterior of any object which includes around a spinning globe

No they havent as its impossible.

Yes there are, im looking at Flightradar24 now, quite a few flights flying from southern hemisphere destinations to other southern hemisphere destinations.

Aye from inland to the so-called landmasses but no flights from the southern so-called hemisphere.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

Don't worry about my Earth concentrate on the one you bought into. Surely you could offer loads of proof for it, right?

See? Two thousand + years of knowledge against "no it isn't, prove it!"

You're doing it wrong.

 

[Hend79]

My evidence is clear and concise. Water finds its own level and conforms to any container it is in.
It does not conform to the exterior of any object which includes around a spinning globe

Aye from inland to the so-called landmasses but no flights from the southern so-called hemisphere.

No its not as you provided no evidence.

There are literally flights from New York to Santiago on there right now. One from Paris to Zanzibar too. Even a couple from Mauritius to Paris.

 

[Pancho]

To be totally honest I'd say I have a lot more than wriggle room. It's almost like I'm walking freely among many chanters offering nothing but words.

Yes they have.

No there aren't.
Take a look at the supposed southern hemisphere flights. Utter dead because it's nonesne.

Please provide a link to a viable flat earth flight plan.

Not really surprising when you factor in 90% of earth's population live in, and the majority of landmass is found in the northern hemisphere.

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

My evidence is clear and concise. Water finds its own level and conforms to any container it is in.

and what you call level water is a curve.

It does not conform to the exterior of any object which includes around a spinning globe

Dip your head in the water, take it out and it's wet.
That's water conforming to the exterior of an object.

 

[Hend79]

My evidence is clear and concise. Water finds its own level and conforms to any container it is in.
It does not conform to the exterior of any object which includes around a spinning globe

Aye from inland to the so-called landmasses but no flights from the southern so-called hemisphere.

Also, and this has been explained to you before.

Most of the earth's surface south of the Equator is water, more than 80%. Less than 15% of the world's population lives in the Southern Hemisphere

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No it isn't. The entire argument is on the one side, thousands of years of science, discovery and knowledge about the shape and size of the Earth against on the other side, one persons unscientific and badly informed daydreams about that shape. That is the argument.

Why do you use thousands of years of science?
What argument do you gain by using this?
Eratosthenes and so on?
Why the need to use that when today's technology should be able to clearly trump any of that and offer absolute proof...but it never does.
There's a very good reason for that.

You cannot provide any evidence to support your side (because there is none) and so you put ridiculous and totally unnecessary conditions upon those pointing out the evidence against you.

No, I don't put any ridiculous conditions on anyone.
You argue your point and shut me down.
Failure to do so but offering words and harking back to ancient history make your argument weak and you know this.

If I was armed with what you and others are armed with I would expect to put this global carry-on to bed but here we are still arguing about it.
The reason for that is simple. Nobody has any proof of a spinning globe but they are armed to the teeth with stories of how it's supposed to work.
It's great for the fiction books and tells and sells a great story but it doesn't tell or sell a factual one unless you can offer something or someone else can because as it stands nothing has been offered as factual.

The fact that I never visited the North pole does not in any way affect the credibility of the North pole.

It may not but it also does not offer you any credibility for arguing for it as we are told, except to argue for a story based on what others offer and what you studied.

The fact that none of us have been into outer space does not in any way suggest that it does not exist.

And it does not offer anything to p[rove it does exist in how we're told, either.

The fact that there are films with CGI does not mean that all film is computer generated misinformation.

And it doesn't mean there's proof of realism in any of it.

Masses of actual knowledge can and has been offered while all you can offer in return is one flawed experiment which, done properly proves you wrong anyway so you introduce your "appeal to authority" rule and pretend the argument is actually about whether or not any given individual can provide their own proof.

There's absolutely no flawed experiment. Anyone can do it and it does not require me to argue for it. It comes down to whether a person wants to accept they live upon a spinning ball with oceans just staying put, or actually sitting back on their own and thinking "hmmm, I think we've been sold a massive curve ball"(pun intended).

That serves only as a distraction or diversion and when it fails you're reduced to bleating about "the many against the one" telling people to just ignore you and the old message board favourite, telling people they're getting too worked up.

There's no distraction or diversion. The beauty of all of this is very simple in its setup. Any person who takes the time to set aside the global story can very quickly come to a conclusion, at the very least, that we do not live upon one.

" I'm asked to provide stuff so I'm asking for proof that what happens is from a spinning global perspective." No, you make the outlandish claim so it's down to you to provide the evidence, not the other way around.

The evidence is there. What you choose to take from it is not my issue.

The globe evidence is already there, "on a platter" as you like to put it but there for a reason, it's tested and verified and correct

It isn't verified and correct, at all. You know this.

whereas your flat Earth/cell world hybrid is nothing but easily disproved fantasy.

In your mind, it may easily be disproved. But then again believing in a spinning globe in a space vacuum is obviously going to offer you that train of thought and I accept that.
The difference between me and you is, I don't offer mine as proof. I offer it as a musing because to provide proof I'd literally have to gain access to some of what I put forward, so on that note people should always take it as nothing more than my musing or the musing of a nut job or whatever. It matters not.

However, on the other hand, you offer your globe as factual and you absolutely cannot offer any proof to back that up.

They can and have done so, but you first think you can redefine what adds up to proof and then if any is offered within your own guidelines ie self observed without appeal to authority, you either fail to understand it, ignore it or both.

No. I don't ignore anything worthwhile. I just choose to answer some of the many offerings. It's one against the many. Surely you can accept that.

So you could go and observe things like eclipses, learn what happens at the equinoxes and why or even just muse on the reflections of a mirror ball. Plenty for you to look into if you wanted to learn or seek truth.

But you don't.

I have observed all kinds of stuff and none of it offers me a global perspective, at all.
But when I was younger and schooled into it, I saw what people told me was happening on a spinning globe and whatnot.
So it's easy to see how many would argue for it and I have absolutely no issue with that.

As already explained to you a million times, the Earth being a globe has been proven thousands of times for thousands of years. Your flat Earth model has never been proven, the half wits who believe we do live on a flat Earth have been humiliated several times, a bit like you on this page

Still nothing.

See? Two thousand + years of knowledge against "no it isn't, prove it!"

You're doing it wrong.

Still trying to argue for something thousands of years ago.

 

[Pink Panther]

My evidence is clear and concise. Water finds its own level and conforms to any container it is in.
It does not conform to the exterior of any object which includes around a spinning globe

Or a lemon squeezer, don't forget that.