Put a flat earthier into space


No, I've not been able to take an image of it. It is on a list of things I want to be able to do. It moves fast so it is really difficult.
Ok so we're at a bit of a stalemate with this.
There are various trackers that can calculate where it is and where it should be.This is based on equations of orbits so it is calculated rather than real time. Using a tracker is easier than calculating yourself but it is possible. I don't see what the issue is with needing a tracker. The various trackers have been independently verified by thousands who are using them.
Of course but then again at Christmas, they offered a tracker to see where Santa Claus was, so forgive me if I don't buy into this.


Saying effigy, which has not particular meaning means "I have no idea what it is and I want a better word than magic shit".
I have no idea what it is. All I know is what it is not.
That is exactly what we are proving in one of many ways. The distances between cities are well understood and tested. You can not lay those accepted distances out on a 2D map. From this statement only three possible conclusions can be drawn:
But the distances are laid out on a 2d map.
You don't navigate roads by using a globe.
1) The distances are wrong. Provide any single case where distances have been fixed to support the idea of a globe
I can't provide it any more than you can for your globe, except to accept what you're told it is.
2) You can lay out these distances on a flat 2D map and I'm wrong. Please demonstrate
A 2d map is regularly used. A globe map is not.
3) We live on a globe and the only way those well measured distances work are with a globe.
Only because that's the narrative set out. there's no reality to it.
3 is the correct answer, please feel free to provide evidence otherwise.
The same can apply to you.
You can provide nothing more than what you're told happens on a globe but you can offer no reality to it.
And you can stop with the persecuted minority bollocks.

No one is trying to shut you down.

In fact the majority of posters on this thread would actually like you to contribute more, by simply answering their polite and straightforward questions without deflection.

I know it's difficult when your whole premise is utter bollocks, but all we ask is that you try your best.
I'll answer exactly how I've always done.
Well they are but you think whatever way you like with zero evidence to back up your statement👌
You have zero evidence to back up what you're saying.
 
Last edited:
Ok so we're at a bit of a stalemate with this.

Of course but then again at Christmas, they offered a tracker to see where Santa Claus was, so forgive me if I don't buy into this.



I have no idea what it is. All I know is what it is not.

But the distances are laid out on a 2d map.
You don't navigate roads by using a globe.

I can't provide it any more than you can for your globe, except to accept what you're told it is.

A 2d map is regularly used. A globe map is not.

Only because that's the narrative set out. there's no reality to it.

The same can apply to you.
You can provide nothing more than what you're told happens on a globe but you can offer no reality to it.

I'll answer exactly how I've always done.

You have zero evidence to back up what you're saying.
Provided it earlier @Nukehasslefan, actually physically doing something and it matched what science said it would.
Now your turn to debunk it👌
 
A lot of these sciencey "proofs" involve mathematics, whatever that is. Are we really expected to believe and trust that if we add two numbers together then they magically become another number that looks nothing like the original numbers? Seven plus one is supposed to be eight? Mental.
 
Ok so we're at a bit of a stalemate with this.

Of course but then again at Christmas, they offered a tracker to see where Santa Claus was, so forgive me if I don't buy into this.



I have no idea what it is. All I know is what it is not.

But the distances are laid out on a 2d map.
You don't navigate roads by using a globe.

I can't provide it any more than you can for your globe, except to accept what you're told it is.

A 2d map is regularly used. A globe map is not.

Only because that's the narrative set out. there's no reality to it.

The same can apply to you.
You can provide nothing more than what you're told happens on a globe but you can offer no reality to it.

I'll answer exactly how I've always done.

You have zero evidence to back up what you're saying.
You can't go out and see Santa Claus you muppet.

You can't go out and see a Star Wars style speeder bike but you can see a Ford Fiesta. That doesn't mean a Ford Fiesta doesn't exist.

I see the problem, you don't understand how a globe is projected on a 2d map. Read up on Mercator projections and then you might get it.
 
Provided it earlier @Nukehasslefan, actually physically doing something and it matched what science said it would.
Now your turn to debunk it👌
You've offered nothing that backs up any globe.
You offered a drive in your car and the mileometer reading. That offers nothing for a globe and you know this.
If I refuse to look at Newcastle does it cease to exist?
No, but you would need to prove it does, which means you would have to know what you're arguing for.
A lot of these sciencey "proofs" involve mathematics, whatever that is. Are we really expected to believe and trust that if we add two numbers together then they magically become another number that looks nothing like the original numbers? Seven plus one is supposed to be eight? Mental.
Nobody's arguing about adding numbers together.
The argument is offering numbers to fit a globe reality and there are none.
You can't go out and see Santa Claus you muppet.
So why track him and his sleigh?
For kids, right?
How many people are tracking the so-called ISS just like kids do with Santa?

You can't go out and see a Star Wars style speeder bike but you can see a Ford Fiesta. That doesn't mean a Ford Fiesta doesn't exist.
Do they have a model of a star wars speeder bike?
I see the problem, you don't understand how a globe is projected on a 2d map. Read up on Mercator projections and then you might get it.
Is a globe projected onto a 2d map or is the 2d map actually the closer-to-home reality?
 
Last edited:
I'll answer exactly how I've always done.
So with sleight of hand, disingenious deflection?

Yes we know that already because that is the MO of literally every ten-a-penny internet conspiracy theorist.

You all think Occam's Razor is something found in a Turkish barbers.
 
Last edited:
You've offered nothing that backs up any globe.
You offered a drive in your car and the mileometer reading. That offers nothing for a globe and you know this.

No, but you would need to prove it does, which means you would have to know what you're arguing for.

Nobody's arguing about adding numbers together.
The argument is offering numbers to fit a globe reality and there are none.

So why track him and his sleigh?
For kids, right?
How many people are tracking the so-called ISS just like kids do with Santa?


Do they have a model of a star wars speeder bike?

Is a globe projected onto a 2d map or is the 2d map actually the closer-to-home reality?
No @Nukehasslefan, using science it showed that it should be x amount of miles which when I physically done it they matched
 
So with sleight of hand, disingenious deflection?

Yes we know that already because that is the MO of literally every ten-a-penny internet conspiracy theorist.

You all think Occam's Razor is something found in a Turkish barbers.
Just get it over with for crying out loud.
 
You've offered nothing that backs up any globe.
You offered a drive in your car and the mileometer reading. That offers nothing for a globe and you know this.

No, but you would need to prove it does, which means you would have to know what you're arguing for.
In exactly the same way that you have to understand what you're arguing against. You don't understand the apparent motion of the stars, equinoxes or obits yet you happily dismiss them as nonsense.
 
In exactly the same way that you have to understand what you're arguing against. You don't understand the apparent motion of the stars, equinoxes or obits yet you happily dismiss them as nonsense.
You don't, except what's put on a platter for you.
You have no clue whether stars are suns or millions, billions, trillions or 300 or 400 or a million light years away. You just follow the narrative set out.
I could argue all of it from your side because everything's at your fingertips.
Are we back to the tactic of deliberately missing the point again?
No tactics, just answering what's put before me.
 
You offered a mileometer on your car as proof of distance only. Not proof of distance on a globe.
When you have worked out what the distance should be between 2 places, both on a globe and on the Flerth "model", you can use a mileometer to verify which one is correct. The video I linked to earlier shows how to work it out, and we're fortunate enough to have someone on this thread who has done the journey used in the example.
 
When you have worked out what the distance should be between 2 places, both on a globe and on the Flerth "model", you can use a mileometer to verify which one is correct.
And how can I do that without using what's been offered?
The video I linked to earlier shows how to work it out, and we're fortunate enough to have someone on this thread who has done the journey used in the example.
What video?
Show me how you worked it out to prove a globe.
 
You don't, except what's put on a platter for you.
You don’t know that
You have no clue whether stars are suns or millions, billions, trillions or 300 or 400 or a million light years away. You just follow the narrative set ot.
I don’t need to
I could argue all of it from your side because everything's at your fingertips.
Nah, you would still need to understand some stuff you still dont.
No tactics, just answering what's put before me.
It seemed more polite to assume it's tactical rather than stupidity
 

Back
Top