DaveH
Striker
He said it might be a planeYeah we never did get an answer as to how new observable and predictable things like the iss are added to the projection?
@Nukehasslefan ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He said it might be a planeYeah we never did get an answer as to how new observable and predictable things like the iss are added to the projection?
@Nukehasslefan ?
You go with whatever suits your mindset.It's not a debate, it's an attempt to get you to provide any evidence to disprove the direct observation of the fact the earth is a globe
It's not an argument it's just an interesting genuine question.This is another argument.
It's not an argument it's just an interesting genuine question.
We launch a new satellite or something like starlink, we, including you can then see it regularly in the night sky after the scheduled "launch"
I honestly do not know for sure.2 things really, if you insist we don't launch things into space, what are we seeing.
Two entirely separate arguments.If its a projection like all of the other things in the night sky how does the projector know we have pretended to launch something and the predicted schedule of when the will be observable?
The upper vortex must be extremely predictable for us to be able to know exactly where and when they will appear to pass each time, there are even apps to help you spot them?I'm not arguing against man-made things in the sky. I argue against man-made things in the space they tell us about. Massively different arguments.
I honestly do not know for sure.
It could be a number of things launched into the upper vortex like dirigibles/blimps or all kinds of craft put into the sky way beyond ordinary aircraft.
My argument is none of any man-made objects are in a space vacuum as they tell us.
Two entirely separate arguments.
And you're reliant on being told where and when.The upper vortex must be extremely predictable for us to be able to know exactly where and when they will appear to pass each time, there are even apps to help you spot them?
As I explained with the sink and plug hole reasoning. Anything closer to the centre will naturally follow a faster path to that centre as opposed to farther outward.Earlier in the thread you said all things will be pulled to the centre of a vortex, why do these things we see not follow your rule, they keep following the same path year after year after year without being sucked into your vortex?
Only if you know the true size of something.You do know it's only about 50-60 miles until you start to leave earth's atmosphere (someone cleverer than me will clarify) this has been observed and proven many times, so if they were craft they would be a lot clearer than how we observe ISS for instance.
Explain?
Yes but if its a reflection from a natural projector how does it know where to put it and when?And you're reliant on being told where and when.
Speaking of tides I was reading this earlier.An explanation of tidal locking for those who, like me, needed one.
![]()
Tidal locking - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I never ever said it was.Yes but if its a reflection from a natural projector how does it know where to put it and when?
Regular movement of the reflective energy over the dome creating regular icicle drops.How does it know when certain comets will appear regularly, you know comets that are pieces of ice wall falling off, if they are that how do we know when to look for them?
Not sure what this is proving.Speaking of tides I was reading this earlier.
![]()
What caused the world's largest die-off of mangroves? A wobble in the moon's orbit is partly to blame
Over the summer of 2015, 40 million mangroves died of thirst. This vast die-off—the world's largest ever recorded—killed off rich mangrove forests along fully 1,000 kilometers of coastline on Australia's Gulf of Carpentaria.phys.org
No, they're denied because they do not and cannot workHe mentions alternate thinkers or flat Earthers have no model for the seasons. There are models but they're denied because they're deemed not to fit the global mindset.
and again, they do not and cannot work.He then mentions nobody has made a map or model. Again there are a few out there that seem to have done just that.
Given the way you dismissively reject the many hours of work, study and learning people have done I'd say a little ridicule is fair enoughIt seems he spends a little bit of time trying to ridicule, which is all fine but really offers nothing.
All just his musings huh?He's offering no real argument for facts.
Without any hint of a workable mechanism for this.He asks if there's any way they can make the moon work on a flat Earth. He says no, I say, Yes, a projection. A holographic image/reflection.
as if you ever made one yourself...He spends far too much time attempting ridicule more than he makes any rational point, in my opinion.
yes, you could be force fed with globe-supporting evidence all week and you'd still ignore it or dismiss it with a little made up nonsense and say no evidence had been offered.There's a good reason why this debate rumbles on.
There are many which prove you're wrong about the shape of the Earth, there is not one single piece to suggest you are right.There are many experiments for and against and no side wants to give, so it comes back to the debate table.
So how do we know when a lot of them will arrive, we can predict them and observe them?I never ever said it was.
Regular movement of the reflective energy over the dome creating regular icicle drops.
YesCan you spot a passenger aircraft at 35,000 feet?
A passenger aircraft at 35,000 feetWhat does it look like to your vision?
Likely fairly easy when you have the equipment to observe build-up and break off as the energy regularly passes.So how do we know when a lot of them will arrive, we can predict them and observe them?
So with this equipment are you saying we can observe the dome?Likely fairly easy when you have the equipment to observe build-up and break off as the energy regularly passes.
But who observes this?Likely fairly easy when you have the equipment to observe build-up and break off as the energy regularly passes.
Equipment which doesn't exist, being used by people who don't exist to observe phenomena which don't exist acting upon a dome which doesn't exist, but essentially, yes, probably or something.So with this equipment are you saying we can observe the dome?
Icicles falling from it and reflections off of it, yes.So with this equipment are you saying we can observe the dome?
This comes down to what people want to accept or believe in terms of who at the top delivers it and to who and to what intents there is to cover up reality for what they may be told is the greater good...and so on.But who observes this?
Then passes the info to others to tell lies about it being comets etc?
It may depend on strategically placed telescopes.If some people can see the break offs of chunks why can't others.
I don't know.In your world with all of these detailed observations what was the appx height/distance to the dome?
How do you know this?Bearing in mind our atmosphere starts to end at appx 60 miles?
No, that's fine.From what I gather from most flat earth theories, is that Antarctica is an "ice wall" or something to that affect, which runs around the circumference/perimeter of the flat earth/dome.
So if this is the case, how come when the sailors that compete in that race around Antarctica, they don't notice they have to steer "away" from Antarctica if it were indeed an ice wall? Instead they navigate towards the continent to sail around it?
Surely if it was a wall that would be all the evidence needed to prove a flat earth?
(Apologies if this has been posted previously, and if my explanation is not especially accurate, I don't claim to be an expert)
I know it will take some time but it's really worth starting from the beginning if you fancy an enlightening and often surreal read, "Fear and loathing in Hartlepool" maybe, some bizarre stuff but some really interesting stuff from others, I've learned loads.From what I gather from most flat earth theories, is that Antarctica is an "ice wall" or something to that affect, which runs around the circumference/perimeter of the flat earth/dome.
So if this is the case, how come when the sailors that compete in that race around Antarctica, they don't notice they have to steer "away" from Antarctica if it were indeed an ice wall? Instead they navigate towards the continent to sail around it?
Surely if it was a wall that would be all the evidence needed to prove a flat earth?
(Apologies if this has been posted previously, and if my explanation is not especially accurate, I don't claim to be an expert)