Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Yeah, same old avoidance and distraction. You have no credible answers.

That's the debate. I feel you have zero credible answers so this is where we're currently at.

 

[legend7]

That's the debate. I feel you have zero credible answers so this is where we're currently at.

We have distances that planes fly and vehicles drive.
They don't work on your map.
You have nothing but tunnels and bent sticks apparently.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

We have distances that planes fly and vehicles drive.

Yes, we do have distances that planes fly and vehicles drive.
The conundrum is in which ones are legitimate and which ones aren't. And also do they go over a level or a curvature? I know one and you know the other. All we need is proof of which you can't offer any and I can.

This is why the debate still runs because neither side will give in but the reality is there for anyone to actually open their minds up to actually see past the spinning global narrative and all its trimmings.

They don't work on your map.

What map?

You have nothing but tunnels and bent sticks apparently.

The analogies are just another extra to show the globe up for what it is, which is utter nonsense.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

That's the debate. I feel you have zero credible answers so this is where we're currently at.

No. It's not a debate. You're reduced to simply lying now. You clearly thought there was something fishy about curved flightpaths on maps and hinted at it at least twice before claiming that none of us can explain them. I did, twice but even though the posts are there for all to see you still say I didn't.
There is no debate about the shape of the Earth, it's a globe. There is no debate about your evidence to prove otherwise as you have none.

 

[legend7]

Yes, we do have distances that planes fly and vehicles drive.
The conundrum is in which ones are legitimate and which ones aren't. And also do they go over a level or a curvature? I know one and you know the other. All we need is proof of which you can't offer any and I can.

This is why the debate still runs because neither side will give in but the reality is there for anyone to actually open their minds up to actually see past the spinning global narrative and all its trimmings.

What map?

The analogies are just another extra to show the globe up for what it is, which is utter nonsense.

But the same plane may go numerous routes, they don't alter the planes or cars, so if some distances are correct so are others.
There is no debate, do you not wonder why nobody else shares your views?
The map you produced, you can't place abu dhabi, you said you didn't believe it was top right near Africa.
Basically you deny anything that doesn't fit your fairytale yet don't seem to have a proper answer

 

[DaveH]

Yes. Do I need to say it again?

No, we get it. This is only your musings, but from your musing (which is another way of saying complete fantasy that only exists in your head), you repeatedly tell everyone else they are wrong and you are right without any substance to either disprove reality or support your fantasy. Why is that?

Essentially I've shown the water to find its own level, not find it's own convex curvature.

No you have not, see above. You put a spirit level in the bath and found you could not detect a curve of 0.00007mm with the naked eye. No shit Sherlock!

Two important facts remain:
1) You can not provide details of a single valid experiment that disproves the globe or proves flatopia
2) You can not even provide a working map

And you really think there are large unreported landmasses or do you mean little islands? If anything the big oceans help your conspiracy theory anyway. We can say that the width of Australia, Africa and Southern America are well known. There are railway lines and particularly the route East to West in Southern Australia, the distances are traveled by road or train every day. With boats and planes, you can put a bit more doubt on it, but it is grasping at straws. If you could drive a circle say 45 degrees north of the equator and the same again 45 degrees south, you would find they are the same distance to do the full circuit. Needing a boat or plane makes this a bit more difficult. But the problem laying out your 2d map has is that if you can travel two circles and find they are equal distance in circumference then on a disc they must be in the same place.

The northern route would take you through Milan and say you went East to West, at night, Polaris would always be 45 degrees to the horizon to your right. In the Southern route, you would mostly travel by sea but doing East to West again, the middle of the southern cross would be 45 degrees to the southern horizon. This way you tell you are not going any further north and any further south. The sun at midday would similarly be in a predictable position. It is how people have navitaged the oceans for centuries.

And that is the problem you are stuck with. Two routes, both East to West, both exactly the same distance but one goes through the middle of Milan and another goes through the Gulf Of San Jorge in Southern America. All you are left with is saying "but but people like to try and make it look like we are on a globe and in the south people just say they travel those distances but don't really because they are all trixters".

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No. It's not a debate.

It is exactly a debate.

You're reduced to simply lying now.

In your opinion.

You clearly thought there was something fishy about curved flightpaths on maps and hinted at it at least twice before claiming that none of us can explain them.

Of course, there's something fishy about curved flight paths. They don't exist unless you mean they horizontally curve.

There is no debate about the shape of the Earth, it's a globe.

To be fair the debate goes on about the entire shape of Earth, alternative to a spinning globe. That debate is done and dusted because water finding its own level kills it stone dead with just that one simple thing.

There is no debate about your evidence to prove otherwise as you have none.

There is a debate about proving what Earth is in its entirety.
All I know for a fact is, it's not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

But the same plane may go numerous routes, they don't alter the planes or cars, so if some distances are correct so are others.
There is no debate, do you not wonder why nobody else shares your views?
The map you produced, you can't place abu dhabi, you said you didn't believe it was top right near Africa.
Basically you deny anything that doesn't fit your fairytale yet don't seem to have a proper answer

Distances to and from and from and to, places alter massively in some instances and what do you have to argue for that?
Different route? Jet stream?
Any ideas?

 

[Hend79]

You know how it's said to work, you don't actually know the real facts.

I already have.

Nope, I know how it works. Also, by your logic I havent seen the Eiffel Tower with my own eyes therefore it doesnt exist

 

[payne]

Nope, I know how it works. Also, by your logic I havent seen the Eiffel Tower with my own eyes therefore it doesnt exist

I've seen the moon with my own eyes this morning, therefore it exists.

 

[legend7]

It is exactly a debate.

In your opinion.

Of course, there's something fishy about curved flight paths. They don't exist unless you mean they horizontally curve.

To be fair the debate goes on about the entire shape of Earth, alternative to a spinning globe. That debate is done and dusted because water finding its own level kills it stone dead with just that one simple thing.

There is a debate about proving what Earth is in its entirety.
All I know for a fact is, it's not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

Distances to and from and from and to, places alter massively in some instances and what do you have to argue for that?
Different route? Jet stream?
Any ideas?

You're so thick it's unbelievable.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

It is exactly a debate.

In your opinion.

Of course, there's something fishy about curved flight paths. They don't exist unless you mean they horizontally curve.

Why don't you just hold up a sign saying "I DON’T UNDERSTAND" it would be simpler. A straight line point to point flight across a globe, when shown on a 2d map will appear curved. That's at least three times it's been explained now, do you still say it hasn't?

To be fair the debate goes on about the entire shape of Earth, alternative to a spinning globe. That debate is done and dusted because water finding its own level kills it stone dead with just that one simple thing.

That one simple thing that you can not understand or prove. It curves.

All I know for a fact is, it's not a spinning globe in a space vacuum.

Then you know no facts at all.

 

[payne]

You're so thick it's unbelievable.

He's so smart an average moron like yourself can't understand his musings I'm afraid. He and only a few like him have proper critical thinking faculties to see the utter gonk globe nonsense for what it is. It's blatantly obvious using spirit level logic that the earth does not spin and thst rivers of gold flow near to and through carbon arc to show crosshair pinpoint light on ice dome superfluid membrane of cell.

 

[Hend79]

I have one major fact. Earth is absolutely not a spinning globe.
You have no facts to back it up.

Except pictures, footage, the different seasons, the fact we can view stars in different positions throughout the year. The Sun rising at differing points on the horizon throughout the year, none of those facts though aye?

Also, your fact isnt a fact, its something you have imagined in your head.

 

[Pink Panther]

No. I've always offered my musings as just that and never factual.

Because you don't think they are, or even could be, true.

 

[fyl2u]

It's really strange and quite funny but the spinning globe is not only an outlandish theory, nothing can be tested with that to show any facts whatsoever..

We can forget mine and we can just deal with not only doubting the spinning globe but knowing it to be utter gunk.

Yes. Do I need to say it again?

Essentially I've shown the water to find its own level, not find it's own convex curvature.

You have but you choose to go with global curvature so really you're not hearing anything.

What would you like to know?
How do they work in reality?

Oh, I believe there are plenty of unreported landmasses.


That's all I require.
What others take from it is not my concern.

I certainly haven't had any explanation as to what they are from your side.

I don't think you have.

Wrong.

 

[SYB_DC]

Some curvature on those paths.
Let me guess. Great circle for you...right?
Or is it the great arc?
Or is it something else?

I'm deliberately not stating any opinion. I asked you to explain to me why the paths look the way they do. You have the floor.

 

[Tex]

You must be logged on to see external links

I really liked this bit …

“

You must be logged on to see external links

to historian Jeffrey Burton Russell, “no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat”

 

[DaveH]

You must be logged on to see external links

I really liked this bit …

“

You must be logged on to see external links

to historian Jeffrey Burton Russell, “no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat”

Studies have shown that almost all conspiracy theorists (no matter what the subject) are those of low education and usually in menial jobs.

 

[The Snockerty Friddle]

I'm deliberately not stating any opinion. I asked you to explain to me why the paths look the way they do. You have the floor.

He doesn't want to say, I've been asking all day.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

No, we get it. This is only your musings, but from your musing (which is another way of saying complete fantasy that only exists in your head), you repeatedly tell everyone else they are wrong and you are right without any substance to either disprove reality or support your fantasy. Why is that?

You have little clue about my musings.

No you have not, see above. You put a spirit level in the bath and found you could not detect a curve of 0.00007mm with the naked eye. No shit Sherlock!

You're struggling like hell.

Two important facts remain:
1) You can not provide details of a single valid experiment that disproves the globe or proves flatopia

Already did and anyone can do it.

2) You can not even provide a working map

Neither can you.

And you really think there are large unreported landmasses or do you mean little islands?

I mean all landmass unknown to us mere commoners.

If anything the big oceans help your conspiracy theory anyway. We can say that the width of Australia, Africa and Southern America are well known.

You can say that but you cannot prove it.

There are railway lines and particularly the route East to West in Southern Australia, the distances are traveled by road or train every day. With boats and planes, you can put a bit more doubt on it, but it is grasping at straws.

So you think a railway line offers a full-on landmass of Australia?

If you could drive a circle say 45 degrees north of the equator and the same again 45 degrees south, you would find they are the same distance to do the full circuit.

If?
If you tie a string around a ball you can knot it to hold it.

You may as well say if you can fly a plane over your south pole and go over your north pole, you'll be headed back to your south pole.
It's so easy to say but you have absolutely no clue about the reality of any of it. You're absolutely 100% subservient to the stories.

Needing a boat or plane makes this a bit more difficult. But the problem laying out your 2d map has is that if you can travel two circles and find they are equal distance in circumference then on a disc they must be in the same place.

Give me an example of circumnavigation of your globe.
From which point to point?

The northern route would take you through Milan and say you went East to West, at night, Polaris would always be 45 degrees to the horizon to your right. In the Southern route, you would mostly travel by sea but doing East to West again, the middle of the southern cross would be 45 degrees to the southern horizon. This way you tell you are not going any further north and any further south. The sun at midday would similarly be in a predictable position. It is how people have navitaged the oceans for centuries.

Has anyone ever foollowed a so-called star for 24,000 plus miles of so-called global circumnavigation?

And that is the problem you are stuck with. Two routes, both East to West, both exactly the same distance but one goes through the middle of Milan and another goes through the Gulf Of San Jorge in Southern America. All you are left with is saying "but but people like to try and make it look like we are on a globe and in the south people just say they travel those distances but don't really because they are all trixters".

You're not offering anything like a globe. You know this and so do I.