Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Why?

I'll let you decipher as to why.

 

[DaveH]

Feel free to choose. You're your own boss.

Good write up but it does not offer any proof of a globe and any of the stuff associated with it.

Immense cold, in a nutshell.
Nobody is going to investigate something they cannot even get close to, physically.
What can be seen with telescopes via mountain tops aided by the doome reflection mirror is another thing.

No, that is true. It was a demonstration of how easy it is to say “nah bollocks” without justification or put a fantasy in it’s place.

Watch: Australia, nah bollocks, those kangaroos all CGI. People who think they have been to Australia have been to a small Indonesian island somewhere. After all, people just sit on a plane, get off and they are told they are in so called Australia, but how would they really know. They just have to bow to authority and accept that is where they are.


See how easy it was to type that? But examine it in detail, look at a wider branch of evidence and it is clear Australia does exist, but if someone tries to prove or convince me it exists, I have the “nah bollocks” defence. Quick and easy to do. I could dress up an alternate into loads of words that need not fit together. But, if I continue to ignore all evidence with my magic two words, then the argument keeps going. Nobody can provide any proof that Australia exists and so the conversation would continue.

I can keep utter drivel going for 100 pages if so inclined, nah bollocks is a thick armour to crack. It doesn’t make my argument more real and I look foolish.

The difference with the trojan defence is a judge sits, gets tired of made up bollocks and puts an end to it.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No, that is true. It was a demonstration of how easy it is to say “nah bollocks” without justification or put a fantasy in it’s place.

Watch: Australia, nah bollocks, those kangaroos all CGI. People who think they have been to Australia have been to a small Indonesian island somewhere. After all, people just sit on a plane, get off and they are told they are in so called Australia, but how would they really know. They just have to bow to authority and accept that is where they are.


See how easy it was to type that? But examine it in detail, look at a wider branch of evidence and it is clear Australia does exist, but if someone tries to prove or convince me it exists, I have the “nah bollocks” defence.

Course you have the , nahhh defence but you also have the opportunity to prove it to yourself or by trusted people who've been to a place called Australia.

It's about acceptance for those who haven't been. Anyone is free to deny it exists but they have the ability to get proof in how they are shown.

The space stuff offers nothing of the sort, nor does Earth shape as a supposed spinning globe.

A massive difference in terms of ability to prove.

Quick and easy to do. I could dress up an alternate into loads of words that need not fit together. But, if I continue to ignore all evidence with my magic two words, then the argument keeps going. Nobody can provide any proof that Australia exists and so the conversation would continue.

No. The argument could stop dead in its tracks with simple proof by people like yourself. The reality is you are stuck in a narrative that you follow as a truth because you believe it all fits the model you've been handed for what you believe you see because of that.

Your own senses tell you different.

I can keep utter drivel going for 100 pages if so inclined, nah bollocks is a thick armour to crack. It doesn’t make my argument more real and I look foolish.

The difference with the trojan defence is a judge sits, gets tired of made up bollocks and puts an end to it.

Then put an end to it if you're the judge.
Ignore me.

 

[DaveH]

Course you have the , nahhh defence but you also have the opportunity to prove it to yourself or by trusted people who've been to a place called Australia.

It's about acceptance for those who haven't been. Anyone is free to deny it exists but they have the ability to get proof in how they are shown.

The space stuff offers nothing of the sort, nor does Earth shape as a supposed spinning globe.

A massive difference in terms of ability to prove.

No. The argument could stop dead in its tracks with simple proof by people like yourself. The reality is you are stuck in a narrative that you follow as a truth because you believe it all fits the model you've been handed for what you believe you see because of that.

Your own senses tell you different.

Then put an end to it if you're the judge.
Ignore me.

And just demonstrated there.

The bottom line is lots of proof has been put forward, but your single defence is “nah bollocks, it makes no sense to me”. There has not been one single reasoned comment showing specifically what is wrong with anything put forward. Someone has their angles wrong or something someone else can point to would also work in another scenario.

For example a common argument on the covid forum, lockdowns have no effect. So someone puts up a graph of where cases plummeted immediately following lockdown. So they say it is seasonal and it follows with someone putting up a weather chart and the evidence is discussed.

Now take the model of angles to polaris along with many other things I’ve put forward. You have never come back and doubted the angles observed, never come back and said “that is not how you calculate that angle”, never said you would get the same angles on another shape. No reason is ever provided, just the “nah bollocks” defence and that is why this discussion is still going.

Well that and that about 20 people are laughing at your fantasy dome world which clearly doesn’t work in the slightest.

 

[DPTT]

I'll let you decipher as to why.

They don’t exist
Typical response from you when you can’t back up anything you say

 

[0verlord44]

Course you have the , nahhh defence but you also have the opportunity to prove it to yourself or by trusted people who've been to a place called Australia.

It's about acceptance for those who haven't been. Anyone is free to deny it exists but they have the ability to get proof in how they are shown.

The space stuff offers nothing of the sort, nor does Earth shape as a supposed spinning globe.

A massive difference in terms of ability to prove.

No. The argument could stop dead in its tracks with simple proof by people like yourself. The reality is you are stuck in a narrative that you follow as a truth because you believe it all fits the model you've been handed for what you believe you see because of that.

Your own senses tell you different.

Then put an end to it if you're the judge.
Ignore me.

Can you tell me what the benefit would be and who too if this was indeed the case? If there’s a conspiracy on this scale, their must be some big pay off somewhere, so who has benefitted most?
Apart from those greedy globe makers. Does their greed know no end!!?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

And just demonstrated there.

The bottom line is lots of proof has been put forward, but your single defence is “nah bollocks, it makes no sense to me”.

If you want to be honest with yourself you'll know there's no proof whatsoever been put forward.
Lots of appealing to authority has been put forward and lots of backslapping has been ut forward but none of it offers proof. It offers a belief of a proof based on following a narrative set out and then going through life regurgitating it all by revision.

There has not been one single reasoned comment showing specifically what is wrong with anything put forward.

Water level alone is one massive proof against a globe.
You see, the simplest of things wipe the floor with the global system.

Someone has their angles wrong or something someone else can point to would also work in another scenario.

Angles are fine with known reference points.

For example a common argument on the covid forum, lockdowns have no effect. So someone puts up a graph of where cases plummeted immediately following lockdown. So they say it is seasonal and it follows with someone putting up a weather chart and the evidence is discussed.

A weather chart tells us what?
It certainly doesn't tell us about a globe.

Now take the model of angles to polaris along with many other things I’ve put forward. You have never come back and doubted the angles observed, never come back and said “that is not how you calculate that angle”, never said you would get the same angles on another shape. No reason is ever provided, just the “nah bollocks” defence and that is why this discussion is still going.

Look, you can look at anything at all and create an angle from it from different perspectives.
You aren't doing anything to gauge star distances or size.

Well that and that about 20 people are laughing at your fantasy dome world which clearly doesn’t work in the slightest.

I seriously would not expect anything else. If you can muster up another 10,000 and have them all laugh it will change nothing.
The playground bully feels much stronger with a crowd behind and the crowd feel much stronger behind the bully.
The person on the end of it has two option.
1. Turn and run.
2. Stand their ground.

The person standing their ground becomes an issue because the only other course of action is for the bully and bullies to think up better and better put downs, hoping one will hit enough of a nerve to unnerve the person in the firing line.

Then it may only be resolved by physical attack.

In the cyber world it's only words and the old saying comes to the fore. "sticks and stones may break the bones but words should never hurt me."


Many people struggle with that and do not want to ever be seen to be at the back of the minority, so they stand behind the bully no matter what the bully says or does.

The sensible one's walk away because they see the bully for what that bully is..

Me? I see them for what they are but I will not walk away.

They don’t exist
Typical response from you when you can’t back up anything you say

You've backed nothing up and put nothing forward as a proof.
I've backed up water level that anyone can do. It's not hidden from people.
It just takes people to sit back and actually try and rid their mind of the global narrative for a short while while they actually look at what's around them and how their senses do not see what they're told they see, or feel.

 

[DPTT]

If you want to be honest with yourself you'll know there's no proof whatsoever been put forward.
Lots of appealing to authority has been put forward and lots of backslapping has been ut forward but none of it offers proof. It offers a belief of a proof based on following a narrative set out and then going through life regurgitating it all by revision.


Water level alone is one massive proof against a globe.
You see, the simplest of things wipe the floor with the global system.


Angles are fine with known reference points.

A weather chart tells us what?
It certainly doesn't tell us about a globe.



Look, you can look at anything at all and create an angle from it from different perspectives.
You aren't doing anything to gauge star distances or size.

I seriously would not expect anything else. If you can muster up another 10,000 and have them all laugh it will change nothing.
The playground bully feels much stronger with a crowd behind and the crowd feel much stronger behind the bully.
The person on the end of it has two option.
1. Turn and run.
2. Stand their ground.

The person standing their ground becomes an issue because the only other course of action is for the bully and bullies to think up better and better put downs, hoping one will hit enough of a nerve to unnerve the person in the firing line.

Then it may only be resolved by physical attack.

In the cyber world it's only words and the old saying comes to the fore. "sticks and stones may break the bones but words should never hurt me."


Many people struggle with that and do not want to ever be seen to be at the back of the minority, so they stand behind the bully no matter what the bully says or does.

The sensible one's walk away because they see the bully for what that bully is..

Me? I see them for what they are but I will not walk away.

You've backed nothing up and put nothing forward as a proof.
I've backed up water level that anyone can do. It's not hidden from people.
It just takes people to sit back and actually try and rid their mind of the global narrative for a short while while they actually look at what's around them and how their senses do not see what they're told they see, or feel.

We are discussing about light/heat emitting from the hole in the centre of earth, why planes cannot fly over, why we cannot see any of this. At present am NOT debating the curvature of the earth.
Am asking you to show any form of evidence that we can
1. See this hole
2. Why planes cannot fly over (is this an official no fly zone)
3. Tell me where these telescopes are

 

[DaveH]

If you want to be honest with yourself you'll know there's no proof whatsoever been put forward.
Lots of appealing to authority has been put forward and lots of backslapping has been ut forward but none of it offers proof. It offers a belief of a proof based on following a narrative set out and then going through life regurgitating it all by revision.


Water level alone is one massive proof against a globe.
You see, the simplest of things wipe the floor with the global system.


Angles are fine with known reference points.

A weather chart tells us what?
It certainly doesn't tell us about a globe.



Look, you can look at anything at all and create an angle from it from different perspectives.
You aren't doing anything to gauge star distances or size.

I seriously would not expect anything else. If you can muster up another 10,000 and have them all laugh it will change nothing.
The playground bully feels much stronger with a crowd behind and the crowd feel much stronger behind the bully.
The person on the end of it has two option.
1. Turn and run.
2. Stand their ground.

The person standing their ground becomes an issue because the only other course of action is for the bully and bullies to think up better and better put downs, hoping one will hit enough of a nerve to unnerve the person in the firing line.

Then it may only be resolved by physical attack.

In the cyber world it's only words and the old saying comes to the fore. "sticks and stones may break the bones but words should never hurt me."


Many people struggle with that and do not want to ever be seen to be at the back of the minority, so they stand behind the bully no matter what the bully says or does.

The sensible one's walk away because they see the bully for what that bully is..

Me? I see them for what they are but I will not walk away.

You've backed nothing up and put nothing forward as a proof.
I've backed up water level that anyone can do. It's not hidden from people.
It just takes people to sit back and actually try and rid their mind of the global narrative for a short while while they actually look at what's around them and how their senses do not see what they're told they see, or feel.

Perhaps that is the problem. I put up a proof to show the measured angles to the stars can only work on a globe and you keep responding that I’d doing nothing to calculate the size of them and distance to them. No wonder you think it proves nothing if you look for a completely different answer.

Look again, forget about spinning, forget about size, distance, gravity, the moon, the colour of butter and anything else. Just look at the angles, recognise they match what is observed and that a globe is the only shape they work on, or at least it 100% works in the model I’ve put forward.

But of course you will not. You will see it goes against the rubbish you spout, refuse to give a reason, revert to “nah bollocks” without any further reasoning, look at a circle and go way off on a tangent to deflect away from the obvious. It is what all conspiracy nutters do, because deep down I think they know the truth.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Can you tell me what the benefit would be and who too if this was indeed the case? If there’s a conspiracy on this scale, their must be some big pay off somewhere, so who has benefitted most?
Apart from those greedy globe makers. Does their greed know no end!!?

That depends on how you want to look at it.
If you don't think people can be manipulated to go for greed on top of greed at the expense of us mere plebs then it's only natural you'll struggle to figure out why anyone would benefit.

I won't waste my time trying to tell you who gains from bottom to top. I don't mean that in a nasty way, I mean it would be pointless. It's up to yourself to try and see where the reasoning might come in for why certain people would want gain.

We are discussing about light/heat emitting from the hole in the centre of earth, why planes cannot fly over, why we cannot see any of this. At present am NOT debating the curvature of the earth.
Am asking you to show any form of evidence that we can
1. See this hole

I've just explained why we can't but I did say there may be telescopes upon mountains that can see a lot more, maybe.

2. Why planes cannot fly over (is this an official no fly zone)

I also told you it would be inhospitable.

3. Tell me where these telescopes are

You can accept or not about telescopes being on higher elevations.
You can also accept or not that telescopes can be attached to planes, etc.

Asking me to directly prove any of this means you have not read up on me saying I cannot physically prove it.

 

[Nobby]

That depends on how you want to look at it.
If you don't think people can be manipulated to go for greed on top of greed at the expense of us mere plebs then it's only natural you'll struggle to figure out why anyone would benefit.

I won't waste my time trying to tell you who gains from bottom to top. I don't mean that in a nasty way, I mean it would be pointless. It's up to yourself to try and see where the reasoning might come in for why certain people would want gain.


I've just explained why we can't but I did say there may be telescopes upon mountains that can see a lot more, maybe.


I also told you it would be inhospitable.

You can accept or not about telescopes being on higher elevations.
You can also accept or not that telescopes can be attached to planes, etc.

Asking me to directly prove any of this means you have not read up on me saying I cannot physically prove it.

So in summary you can't disprove the world is an oblate spheroid, nor can you offer any proof it is a flat plane enclosed by a dome.

Not the most convincing argument really, is it?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Perhaps that is the problem. I put up a proof to show the measured angles to the stars can only work on a globe and you keep responding that I’d doing nothing to calculate the size of them and distance to them. No wonder you think it proves nothing if you look for a completely different answer.

Angles to so called stars do not show anything to do with a spinning global Earth and you can shout it as much as you want to but you know it doesn't.
Your stars are supposedly light years away. In the past as we're told, so why you think you can measure angles from them to find size and distance is because you've been told you can. But how?

Explain how you get an angle from a so called star from over 300 years into the past?

Look again, forget about spinning, forget about size, distance, gravity, the moon, the colour of butter and anything else. Just look at the angles, recognise they match what is observed and that a globe is the only shape they work on, or at least it 100% works in the model I’ve put forward.

An angle is fine. You can get height and distance if you have a reference point.
Let's save argument.

You're in an area with a pen and paper. You look into the distance and see a point of light in the sky.
You then wait until that point of light moves.
Now tell me how you calculate the height and distance and size of that point of light by using your trig.

But of course you will not. You will see it goes against the rubbish you spout, refuse to give a reason, revert to “nah bollocks” without any further reasoning, look at a circle and go way off on a tangent to deflect away from the obvious. It is what all conspiracy nutters do, because deep down I think they know the truth.

Your digs are worthless. They add nothing to your argument.
You know you cannot measure your stars and distance of them.
You do know they can be used to navigate points on Earth by simply following a particular point of light you know to be above your destination. A reference point already given.

I have no issue with this but this is not what I'm talking about.

So in summary you can't disprove the world is an oblate spheroid

Absolutely. Water level kills it stone dead.
The rest is just added extras.

, nor can you offer any proof it is a flat plane enclosed by a dome.

I've never said it was a flat plain.
I cannot prove the dome other than for people to take the time to observe many things that point to it and to do a few simple experiments.
You've made up your mind and that's fair enough. Many people are the same.
I'm talking about people that actually want to at least question the nonsense they were brought up to believe without question.

Not the most convincing argument really, is it?

Is anything a convincing argument against a narrative?
The narrative in many cases is only convincing by force of numbers/peer pressure, not proof.

 

[Nobby]

The water in your bath was put to bed ages ago, you just refuse to accept it.

If it's not a flat plain then your reliance on your so called water in the bathtub argument (despite already flawed) is irrelevant

 

[DPTT]

That depends on how you want to look at it.
If you don't think people can be manipulated to go for greed on top of greed at the expense of us mere plebs then it's only natural you'll struggle to figure out why anyone would benefit.

I won't waste my time trying to tell you who gains from bottom to top. I don't mean that in a nasty way, I mean it would be pointless. It's up to yourself to try and see where the reasoning might come in for why certain people would want gain.


I've just explained why we can't but I did say there may be telescopes upon mountains that can see a lot more, maybe.


I also told you it would be inhospitable.

You can accept or not about telescopes being on higher elevations.
You can also accept or not that telescopes can be attached to planes, etc.

Asking me to directly prove any of this means you have not read up on me saying I cannot physically prove it.

So you debate that these telescopes can monitor this hole etc is pointless then.

So what exactly prevents planes from trying to fly over this hole?
Has their been any recorded crashes in this zone, surely you can provide some evidence of this

 

[ajthemackem]

Good lord, I just poked my head into here.
Do people really believe we're spinning through space on a giant frisbee?

Out of interest, what do people think is on the underneath?

 

[taipeisafc]

Good lord, I just poked my head into here.
Do people really believe we're spinning through space on a giant frisbee?

Out of interest, what do people think is on the underneath?

Seriously dont ask, the answers will make you marginally stupider

An angle is fine. You can get height and distance if you have a reference point.
Let's save argument.

You're in an area with a pen and paper. You look into the distance and see a point of light in the sky.
You then wait until that point of light moves.
Now tell me how you calculate the height and distance and size of that point of light by using your trig.

And there is the fundamental issue you simply don't want or even try to understand, I shared a link with you about parallax and how it is used to measure the distance to stars which you totally ignored so I will try again

You must be logged on to see external links

. knowing you will utterly ignore it. And you keep banging on about 300 years (relating to the light from polaris) I have no idea of the relevance of that as it is simply one star amongst countless more in the skies - and everything you see on this planet and beyond you are actually looking into the past as the item you are seeing has aged by the time the light emitted hits your eyes, simply the distances on earth are so short the time in miniscule. We are utterly wasting time on here with you - as they say ignorance is bliss

 

[DaveH]

Angles to so called stars do not show anything to do with a spinning global Earth and you can shout it as much as you want to but you know it doesn't.
Your stars are supposedly light years away. In the past as we're told, so why you think you can measure angles from them to find size and distance is because you've been told you can. But how?

Explain how you get an angle from a so called star from over 300 years into the past?


An angle is fine. You can get height and distance if you have a reference point.
Let's save argument.

You're in an area with a pen and paper. You look into the distance and see a point of light in the sky.
You then wait until that point of light moves.
Now tell me how you calculate the height and distance and size of that point of light by using your trig.



Your digs are worthless. They add nothing to your argument.
You know you cannot measure your stars and distance of them.
You do know they can be used to navigate points on Earth by simply following a particular point of light you know to be above your destination. A reference point already given.

I have no issue with this but this is not what I'm talking about.


Absolutely. Water level kills it stone dead.
The rest is just added extras.


I've never said it was a flat plain.
I cannot prove the dome other than for people to take the time to observe many things that point to it and to do a few simple experiments.
You've made up your mind and that's fair enough. Many people are the same.
I'm talking about people that actually want to at least question the nonsense they were brought up to believe without question.

Is anything a convincing argument against a narrative?
The narrative in many cases is only convincing by force of numbers/peer pressure, not proof.

you really are dense at times - well most of the time actually.

I post saying the proof was not about spinning, not about the distance to the stars and that you keep going down that tangent, so you reply saying the same thing again.

That is why you completely fail to understand. I blatantly say ignore this that and the other, just concentrate on this one thing and you are straight off worrying about the smell of wombat piss or whatever else you can think of that avoids the point. On my mathematical model of a globe, the angles measured to the stars exactly match observations.

For reference (and you agreed earlier we could measure angles to the stars, but are backtracking a bit): Telescope, set level with the internal spirit level. Point up until it sees the stars, read the angle of the gauge or really accurate angle if it has digital control. Ancient navigators used a sextant which was small, simple and less complicated but achieved the same thing.

Any bets on what deflection and randomness he will use now to again avoid admitting the model works and he can not say why the model doesn't work, just sits saying "nah bollocks, but what about something different?....."

 

[Nobby]

But but but my bath water is flat

 

[Kevj]

But but but my bath water is flat

The only thing which is flat about @Nukehasslefan is his learning curve.

 

[0verlord44]

That depends on how you want to look at it.
If you don't think people can be manipulated to go for greed on top of greed at the expense of us mere plebs then it's only natural you'll struggle to figure out why anyone would benefit.

I won't waste my time trying to tell you who gains from bottom to top. I don't mean that in a nasty way, I mean it would be pointless. It's up to yourself to try and see where the reasoning might come in for why certain people would want gain.


I've just explained why we can't but I did say there may be telescopes upon mountains that can see a lot more, maybe.


I also told you it would be inhospitable.

You can accept or not about telescopes being on higher elevations.
You can also accept or not that telescopes can be attached to planes, etc.

Asking me to directly prove any of this means you have not read up on me saying I cannot physically prove it.

Yeah that’s a cop out answer and you know it

so I ask again, who benefits from this conspiracy? Who Benefits from 99.5% of the worlds population believing that the planet we live on is a different shape/etc

don’t answer with a question, don’t tell me to research it myself, don’t tell me I won’t comprehend the answer, just tell us all who are the major benefactors in this, the greatest of great deceptions