/fe/ FLAT EARTH GENERAL - ANTARCTICA EDITION

Replies to flatanon from the last thread (I'd already written them up when I noticed the thread had archived).

>>18629932

Yes Flatty A., it's me! Bummer about your post. How many times has that happened now? Thank you. I didn't really get a response to those posts but I'm not in it for the (You)s. I'm saving my work, taking screenshots here and there and generally just building up resources for the upcoming war. The tides may be turning, but we are yet to set sail. Sorry if that was a bit lame. We're definitely on the same page with how this needs to go, and I like that we've both been attacking it from somewhat different angles. I've been arguing the logical inconsistencies of their model, while you've been providing evidence for the flat earth (as well as pointing out their bullshit). I'm definitely going to remain more logic-based in my tactics as this is my strength and my formal training (BA in philosophy). As I've said before, I plan on focusing more on some of the larger implications to these beliefs in terms of one's own worldview and so on, such as how believing the earth is flat is just a sounder and more comforting, enriching, empowering, etc., philosophy than the completely reality-denying globe model. I'll be getting into mythology and philosophy, astrology and magic, particularly as these last two are so popular on this board and yet people here don't understand how much more powerful they are within the flat earth system.

1/2

>>18629943

You're very welcome! Yes, I can see that. It's funny how stagnant and repetitive these globalists are and how mentally stimulating the flat earth can be for us. The amount of original thought that has been coming from our ranks is just staggering, especially since we're mostly stumbling through darkness here. I find Dubay quite an interesting individual although I think he probably falls more into the Messiah Complex category rather than shill. He was quite probably the primary instigator of the flat earth revival and I get the feeling that it tears him apart to see the movement slipping away from his clutches. The YouTuber I like the most is Jeranism who just seems so genuinely down to earth and unconcerned with any pettiness or egotism. I’m not so concerned with shills within the system cause as Jeranism says, even if Mark Sargent (for example) is a shill, he’s doing an awful job because he exposed him to the movement in the first place. I’m not even that concerned with shills in the opposition because they seem to do themselves more harm than good.

2/2

Archived threads:

>>18618719

http://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/18610291/#18610291

http://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/18602135/#18602616

>>18631466

Note that signatories to this treaty included both the US and USSR back in 1959, right at the height of the Cold War. Further proof that their alliance continued post-WWII for all the globalists out there who like to claim the Soviets would have blown the whistle on the US had they faked the moon landing. Also note that these are the only two nations who are supposed to have ever sent people into space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_space_travel_by_nationality

People of other nations have supposedly been to space but only on US or Russian flights.

>>18631639

Correction: I missed the Chinese flight of 2003.

>>18631639
lol

>>18631912
Thanks for the bump!

File: dry valley.jpg (390KB, 1500x927px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1500x927px

Some pictures of Antarctica in a different light.

File: dry valley2.jpg (4MB, 3648x2736px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3648x2736px

>>18632008

File: dry valley labyrinth.jpg (330KB, 1280x781px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1280x781px

>>18632015

File: dry valley labyrinth2.jpg (967KB, 3008x2000px) Image search: [Google]

967KB, 3008x2000px

>>18632025

File: lake vida.jpg (118KB, 1024x673px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1024x673px

>>18632032

File: Photo-6-The-Wilson-Peidmont-and-Lake-Vida-746x1024.jpg (114KB, 746x1024px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 746x1024px

>>18632039

File: olympus range.jpg (150KB, 1024x664px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 1024x664px

>>18632047

>>18632052
Wow, those sure are pictures of Antarctica, alright.

>>18632121
Yes, they are. Amazing huh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Range
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Land

>>18632179
>amazing

Let's not get carried away. It's rocks and ice.

Also it's not paranormal.

>>18632408
>Changing tactics.

>>18632435
>tactics

Are we supposed to be playing a game here?

>>18632408
wtf, they are fucking astounding, i wish i could visit and see Antarctica

>>18632471

You tell me m8. Thanks for the bump.

>>18632052

It also doesn't look like it's as cold in these places as the rest of Antartica. Simply a result of the lack of ice or is there something else going on?

File: not so cold.jpg (242KB, 640x424px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 640x424px

>>18632495

File: not so cold 2.jpg (35KB, 450x338px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 450x338px

>>18632502

>>18632495
It's very cold. It's because there's no moisture.

File: not so cold 3.jpg (49KB, 270x203px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 270x203px

>>18632508

File: not so cold 4.jpg (87KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x375px

>>18632512

File: not so cold 5.jpg (304KB, 800x580px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 800x580px

>>18632514

File: not so cold 6.jpg (64KB, 266x382px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 266x382px

>>18632517

The earth is not flat.
You can measure curvature of the earth in perpendicular lines, proving the earth is spherical in shape.

>>18632520
>not so cold
>heavy winter clothing

File: please explain.jpg (23KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 650x366px

>>18632525

Please explain?

>>18632528

Come now, I've worn heavier clothing just to go to the shops, and I'm only on the 38th parallel.

>>18632532
Not him, but level the ground and create a perpendicular line going straight up. Do that in another location, and they're pointing in a different direction.

>>18632546
And how do you measure this?

File: wall of ice 2.jpg (149KB, 1600x1065px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1600x1065px

>>18632555

File: wall of ice 3.jpg (233KB, 760x492px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 760x492px

>>18632564

File: wall of ice 4.jpg (149KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 900x600px

>>18632566

File: wall of ice 5.jpg (78KB, 595x396px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 595x396px

>>18632568

File: wall of ice 6.jpg (206KB, 2048x1409px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 2048x1409px

>>18632575

>>18632550
Well you make sure your ground is level. You use a level. And then you construct a perpendicular structure, you can also use a level. Then you get on a phone, with your buddy, who's at the other location, and he tells you where in the sky his stick is pointing, and you can compare it to yours.

If you're both honest, you'll see they're pointing in different directions.

>>18632583
>he tells you where in the sky his stick is pointing,
that sounds unscientific and prone to error and bias

>>18632583

If they're in different locations of course they're pointing to different parts of the sky, dipshit.

File: wall of ice 7.jpg (56KB, 1600x1049px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1600x1049px

>>18632582

>>18632604
At different angles, retard.

>>18632594
It's prone to lying, errors are kind of hard.

File: wall of ice 8.jpg (251KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1600x1200px

>>18632608

File: you no mae sense.jpg (105KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1280x720px

>>18632611
Huh?

>>18632611
errors are hard? what are they going to say..."its point to this little cloud"..."its pointing to this blue patch of sky"...?

>>18632624
Forget it, anon, it's over your head.

File: wall of ice 9.jpg (233KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1920x1080px

>>18632616

File: wall of ice 10.jpg (2MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4000x3000px

>>18632633
Whoops, that one's from Game of Thrones. I wonder what they're trying to tell us?

>>18632629

No, please explain this to me in a way that doesn't require the globe earth model of the universe to support it.

>>18632628
>if only there were things far away in the sky at certain times of day...

>>18632642
>please explain it to me in a way that's wrong and stupid

Thanks for proving my point.

>>18632644
see
>>18632604
>>18632642

>>18632637
Game of Thrones is a fantasy novel/show, anon.

It's not trying to give you secret messages. That's what crossword puzzles are for.

>>18632652

>Tries to prove his model by relying on his model as evidence
>Gets called out so resorts to insults

>>18632660

Jesus Christ. I bet you're real fun at a dinner table.

>>18632662
>He thinks things being far away are dependent on the shape of the earth

lol

>>18632679

Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? If you're the same poster then you've got a real problem communicating your thoughts.

>>18632684
see
>>18632629

>>18632696
>Can't explain something clearly
>"It's over your head"

>>18632555

>wall of ice
>you can see where it ends

>>18632555
>>18632564
>>18632566
>>18632575

especially these ones
>>18632568
>>18632582
>>18632608
>>18632616
>>18632637

wow really impressive, it helps understand much better what FEarthers mean when they say that Antarctica is the edge of our plane.

>>18632741
See
>>18632637
>>18632616
>>18632608

>>18632767

Thanks for the feedback. This really is just an attempt to show people the world from a different angle.

>>18632767
>the edge of our plane

Right. Because it's not just the edge of a glacier or anything.

>>18632970

Come on, man. The guy doesn't even identify as a flat earther. Stop discouraging people from having an open mind.

File: artic summer flakstad.jpg (145KB, 900x516px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 900x516px

Are the polar ice caps formed by the same conditions (the supposed 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth)? Have you ever seen the Arctic in summer?

File: artic summer greenland.jpg (72KB, 400x257px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 400x257px

>>18633090

File: artic summer iqualit.jpg (161KB, 960x566px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 960x566px

>>18633094

File: artic summer Teriberka.jpg (394KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

394KB, 900x600px

>>18633097

File: artic summer Teriberka2.jpg (337KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 900x600px

>>18633101

File: artic summer tundra.jpg (60KB, 700x297px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 700x297px

>>18633106

>>18633002
No, he kinda fucking does when he says that picture of a glacier helps him understand the edge of the world.

Why should I give him a break?

>>18633090
Yes, things get cold when you have six months of darkness.

If the earth is flat, does it still orbit the sun? If the earth is still spinning (and it is), why is the shadow on the moon still the same shape?
Why do ships disappear over the horizon if they're not going around the curvature of a sphere?
Why do rocket trails curve if they're not going around the curvature of a sphere?
If the earth is flat, why can you see farther at higher positions if not for a curved surface?
Why are other planets spherical, but not earth?
Why do timezones work if the earth is flat?
How does gravity work if the earth is flat? Why doesn't science as we know it break down upon even slight investigation?
Most importantly, who the fuck would bother trying to cover this up for literal millennia, and why?

>>18633115

No, he kinda fucking doesn't you angry you man. He refers to "FEarthers" as though he is not one and he simply states that these images have helped him understand a different perspective. This shows open mindedness and a willingness to try to understand others. That you would try to dissuade him from exhibiting these qualities tells me that you are a scourge upon this Earth and an enemy of truth.

>>18633377

*young man

Also, check 'em.

File: rockets lol.jpg (17KB, 381x675px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 381x675px

>>18633145
>If the earth is flat, does it still orbit the sun?

Lord no.

>Why do ships disappear over the horizon if they're not going around the curvature of a sphere?

They disappear into a mirage that projects the ocean above the horizon line. If you can use a telescope or simply zoom in with a camera lens you'll find the boat still there. Here, watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEqDbsPUgH8

>Why do rocket trails curve if they're not going around the curvature of a sphere?

You mean like in this picture? Looks to me like that rocket's gonna crash into the ocean a few miles off-shore where no one's looking. Perfect way to start a fake space mission.

>If the earth is flat, why can you see farther at higher positions if not for a curved surface?

The higher you go, the better your vantage point and the less dense the atmosphere you have to look through.

>Why are other planets spherical, but not earth?

How do you know they're spherical? Judging from these amateur videos of stars I'd say there's a lot we don't understand about the celestial entities:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQAvkWE0ZAw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h96oj7JHtLA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9nnRvJcz98

>Why do timezones work if the earth is flat?

Because the sun moves across the plane. We don't think of the sun as being quite as big as you do and we don't believe that light can travel forever, especially not through atmosphere.

>How does gravity work if the earth is flat? Why doesn't science as we know it break down upon even slight investigation?

Isn't quantum physics completely at odds with Newtonian physics precisely because of the theory of gravity? And I do mean theory. It's a completely invalid and unnecessary theory if you think that the Earth is flat. Think of up and down like positive and negative on a vertical spectrum.

>Most importantly, who the fuck would bother trying to cover this up for literal millennia, and why?

>>18633433

Ran out of room there for your "most important" question (pro-tip: it's the least important and most obvious). The whole delusion creates a sense of disenfranchisement from our own world and a distrust in our own perceptions. This is powerful stuff for keeping people in check. It also gives people a lot to fear, what with Earth being so small and insignificant and helpless in the vast and cold void of space where a giant meteorite could come and destroy us in an instant and we wouldn't be able to do a thing to stop it.

People who know the Earth is firm beneath their feet, understand the myths of old and know that they are as much a part of the world as a tree or a faun have far more pride in themselves and understanding of their birthrights. Northern Europeans were a proud and bold people as the Romans found out, and it's taken many centuries of brutality and brainwashing to break us.

Flat earth theorists should be killed off; in hopes they do not breed, and continue to fill the gaps of intelligent people(s) with their retarded off-spring.

>>18633471

You're the worst kind of person imaginable. You are what stands in the way of progress.

>literal retard general

>>18633526
said someone who genuinely believes the earth is flat without even a trace of irony

>>18633582
Thanks for your input sir, very enlightening!

>>18633589

Please, provide us a list of all the beliefs that should never be entertained by anyone ever.

Also, why would I want to believe things ironically?

>>18633433
How come there are so many amazing cgi artists who can depict a spherical earth from space but no cgi images (or photos for that matter) of a remotely believable flat earth?

>>18633471
>>18633589

Please read this:

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/

>>18633595

What do you mean? Why aren't billions of dollars being funneled from taxpayers pockets into creating an illusionary flat earth like NASA does with the globe? That's a bit silly, isn't it?

File: bc-cgi.jpg (518KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

518KB, 1600x1067px

>>18633611
you mistake cgi as something that requires a team and billions of dollars.

Pic related. Its a completley 3d generated render by one man , Riccardo Minervino. He used three programs all of which are readily available to the public

>>18632121
They are. I've been there, former BAS meteorologist here. There's a mummified Elephant Seal in the dry valleys that's been there since Shackelton's day. Not much ice but still bloody cold.

>>18632555
Called you out on this before, What you're showing us is either the Larssen Ice Shelf, or ol photos of the B21 Berg back in 1999 /2000 that calved from the shelf. That berg was big enough to land a C130 on. It was impressive, but it was NOT a 'wall of ice circling a flat earth'.

>>18633627

And what's your point?

>>18633594
You believe in things 'Ironically'? You know watching a film or listening to music that you don't like 'Ironically' is still wasting your time, right?

>>18633663

Read it again.

>>18633662
your a retard is his point

>>18633670

I don't think it was, and if it was he has a really roundabout way of saying it. Also, learn to punctuate.

>>18633662
My point is my original question

>How come there are so many amazing cgi artists who can depict a spherical earth from space but no cgi images (or photos for that matter) of a remotely believable flat earth?

A question you can not hide from

File: kys.jpg (114KB, 1253x501px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1253x501px

put a bullet in your brain

>>18633685
oh so because there arent any cgi artists who arent retards suddenly the earth is a globe?

>>18633685

This is so ridiculous. Why does it matter?

>>18633698
Also,
>africa bigger than europe and asia combined
>australia bigger than north america
top fucking kek

>>18633701
so you admit a flat earth is so unbelieveable it cant even be modelled?

>>18633714

Why aren't there any video games that are set on a spinning ball that's constantly whizzing through space at stupid speeds? Oh, that's right. Cause it can't be modeled.

>>18633727
are you saying the flat earth isnt spinning?

>>18633727
spore and kerbal space program

>>18633699
>>18633701

my point is if you can point the finger at NASA for supplying fake images, why are you not able to combat that claim with any images at all, whether it be real or fake? Your theory is so bad that you no one who believes it is even capable of convincingly falsifying evidence

Its all good to claim that one thing is false but it is a meaningless accusation when you have nothing of equal material to defend that claim with, i.e. an image

if shit like >>18633698 is the best you can do where antartica is so vicously distorted, then you should not be suprised that people believe the earth is a globe, especially when that carries a massive amount of explanation for many other worldly behaviours

>>18633727
No man's sky, literally a virtual galaxy

>>18633745
we dont rely on silly pictures to prove the truth of a flat earth but scientitific evidence. if this is too abstract for you just leave and let the grown ups talk

>>18633759
I conclude that you sir, are bait

>>18633772
why are you so focused on pictures though

>>18633759
>youtube videos
>scientific evidence
pick one. if flat earth were correct things in the southern hemisphere would be significantly farther apart than we think they are, and things in the northern hemisphere would be significantly closer. my pic here >>18633698
proves this is not the case.

>>18633781
because pictures are such a basic medium for explaining in an instant with detail, especially in todays world. If something physically exists, than there is a picture to show it, simple as that. If a picture isn't available than one can make the claim that it is a rare thing to witness, the planet however, is easily the most common thing in our lives.

The fact that the flat earth movement lacks such a heavily relied on source of description is one of the many major downfalls of it's argument

>focused

Its not my focus, its a standard

>>18633433
>judging from these amateur videos

Amateur indeed. I love how they spend hundreds of dollars on fancy cameras, but they never bother to learn to focus. I guess that's flat earthers for you.

>>18633456
Please answer my question of WHO is doing this, and HOW they have been keeping it up for so many years.
If the earth is flat, against all evidence and home experiments that can be done to support it, against the empirical knowledge of every other body in space being spherical or approximately spherical with protrusion, why is the earth the only flat object in the entire observable universe? What you believe in is a misguided attempt at bolstering your confidence at the detriment of truth.

Also, no, the horizon is not a mirage. That is simply wrong. I'm not sure how to debate that. There are demonstrable atmospheric effects that can generate mirage at the horizon, but the horizon itself is not a mirage. The horizon appears above land and sea both.

>>18634480
The cube is broken faggots

Fag gods

Shut up for a second may hellp

http://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/18567252/

Or learn the hard way

The Earth is not flat, the imagination of people is....

>>18632025
my god, it's almost as if the ice helped shape the land before its thaw. nature can't possibly allow this, CONSPIRACY TIME LADS!

>>18632495
something IS going on. it's a seasonal shift. the thaw lasts roughly two months out of the year and then, who'da thunk it? back to ice. sure the ice field is shifting and slightly shrinking, but our planet as much as the creatures which live upon it, is very much alive. these processes are naturally occurring, this can even be observed extraterrestrially(see: martian polar caps).

>>18634598
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evxEOXkxRIA

The earth is birth

>>18633662
This guy is going places..

>>18633806

>Its not my focus, its a standard

I've never heard of this before. Could you cite some other references to this standard?

>>18634480

>Please answer my question of WHO is doing this, and HOW they have been keeping it up for so many years.

Who's responsible for 9/11? Who arranged for Kennedy to be shot? Who is the true Don at the apex of the world's hierarchy? How is this a reasonable line of argument? I find someone with a knife in their back. Do I need to know who did it to say that they were murdered?

>If the earth is flat, against all evidence and home experiments that can be done to support it,

And these are?

>against the empirical knowledge of every other body in space being spherical or approximately spherical with protrusion, why is the earth the only flat object in the entire observable universe?

You have to think outside of your own perspective here. We aren't just some entity floating around in space amongst a billion others here. We are Terra Firma, and they are the sky an stars above us.

>What you believe in is a misguided attempt at bolstering your confidence at the detriment of truth

Ad-hominen.

>Also, no, the horizon is not a mirage. That is simply wrong. I'm not sure how to debate that. There are demonstrable atmospheric effects that can generate mirage at the horizon, but the horizon itself is not a mirage. The horizon appears above land and sea both.

Didn't say it was m8.

>>18634901
>And these are?

taking a flight

>>18634901
>who's responsible for 9-11

The hijackers and those who aided them

>who arrnaged for Kennedy to be shot

Lee Harvey Oswald

>who is the don at the apex

false premise

>how is this a reasonable line of argument

It follows directly from your claim of a world wide millenia old conspiracy

>and those are

Photographs from space, lunar eclipses, day and night cycle, southern stars being different from northern stars, etc. etc.

>we aren't just some planet floating around among billions

Of course we are. You don't seem happy with that. But your discontent doesn't changes the facts. You're not a special snowflake.

>ad hominem

Also wrong

File: 001.jpg (41KB, 562x437px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 562x437px

>>18634901
Flat earther pls explain these simple facts you can verify for yourself:
- Why is the sun always the same size
- If no gravity, why tides?
- why the sky in summer is different from the sky in winter
- Why the sky rotates in a direction in the norther hemisphere and in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere
- Why there even is a south pole
- How can sailors navigate using round earth maps.

>>18633090
Arctic and Antarctic are two very different beasts. Different climate, Fauna and Flora. They aren't even remotely a mirror of one another as should be the case on a sphere. For instance in Antarctica you never get daylight over an uninterrupted 24 hours period, that's just not possible. Globalist will try to convince you this is the case and will show you footage made in Arctic while pretending they were filmed in Antarctica.

>>18635064
more here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckxLruRc0xA

>>18635042
>- If no gravity, why tides?
because tides have nothing to do with gravity to begin with. Moreover gravity doesn't exist, it was a lie designed among other things to explain the ball shape of celestial bodies.

If tides were the result of a gravitational pul coming from the Moon then how do you explain we get 4 tides in a 24 hours period in the British Channel while in said period, the Moon only execute one rotation? You can't.

File: Horsecock.jpg (31KB, 400x309px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x309px

>>18635070
PLS explain:
- Why do circumnpolar constellations change north to south?
- Phases of the moon. Pls explain
- Why does the sun even set? An object over a flat surfaces never goes under it, no matter the distance
- Solar analemma. Look it up, then explain

>>18635042
>- why the sky in summer is different from the sky in winter
the firmament spins, it takes a little more than 1 year to complete a rotation
>- Why the sky rotates in a direction in the norther hemisphere and in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere
it doesn't
>- Why there even is a south pole
there is no south pole
>- How can sailors navigate using round earth maps.
because latitude and longitude work the same on a sphere as they do on a disc. A disc is round and the flat Earth is also round.

File: redneck.jpg (96KB, 750x444px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 750x444px

>>18635078
LOLNO.
You get 4 tides because we have both the sun and the moon and earth's own gravity intetacting.
Wikipedia is your friend.

Also, if no gravity: explain pendulums, things of different weight falling at the same speed in a vacuuum, and how can things "know" where up is

>>18635094
>You get 4 tides because we have both the sun and the moon and earth's own gravity intetacting.
>Wikipedia is your friend.
You didn't explain anything

File: Timelapse - Sunset2.webm (546KB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 720x576px

>>18635042
>- Why is the sun always the same size
it isn't

File: cock wipe.jpg (48KB, 355x400px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 355x400px

>>18635090
>the firmament spins
LOL. So why we see stars just circling the north or the south pole and not moving sideways?
>it doesn't
So you're implying that the WHOLE planet never bothered to check? LOLNO. Also, why is the sky of the southern hemisphere different form the northern?
>there is no south pole
LOLNO. And the sea aroud it is a common fishing ground. You might expect someone noticed it's WAY bigger than the artic ocean, don't you think
>because latitude and longitude work the same on a sphere
LOLNO, just take a round ball, cover it with paper, draw lines and then distend the paper on a flat surface.

>>18634598
We don't live on a planet, a planet is a wandering star, an orb of light following a singular path in the sky, and we, we live on a realm. Earth is a realm.
Also there is no shift of the poles since there is no poles and no space. The whole modern cosmology is a hoax.

>>18635106
LOLNO, just put your thumbs in front of the sun ad midday, mid afternoon and dawn.... >>18635100
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

Also, I notice you missed: explain pendulums, things of different weight falling at the same speed in a vacuuum, and how can things "know" where up is

>>18635117
>LOL. So why we see stars just circling the north or the south pole and not moving sideways?
stars do not circle the South pole since there is no south pole.
Our firmament rotates around a vertical axis located above Polaris the Northern Star.

> Also, why is the sky of the southern hemisphere different form the northern?
because of perspective

> just take a round ball, cover it with paper, draw lines and then distend the paper on a flat surface.
longitudes and latitudes work pretty much the same on a flat disc, that's basic geometry.

>>18634509
it is flat though and we were lied to all your life. That's a tough pill to swallow and more people everyday are taking it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg

>>18635121
no.

File: FE - sunset sunrise meast.webm (3MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x576px

>>18635127
Two other proofs this time taken in middle east and played in slow motion.

>>18635140
yes

>>18633739
No it doesn't, do you feel any motion? I sure doesn't feel as someone spinning at near MACH 1.0.
Because I'm not.

>>18635138
LOLNO. If the sky is rotating JUST above the north pole, it will look the same from winter to summer. Which it doesen't
>because of perspective
LOLNO. Every star in a flat planet would be visible from every single point
>longitudes and latitudes work pretty much the same
LOLNO. Back to elementary school for you.
>Shows a video shoot from 36km above a sphere that's 6371km, with a blurred and cloudy horizont. Also, WHY CAN'T I SEE EVERY POINT OF THE FLAT PLANET

>>18635152
So you must be the one without hands that can't see for himself....

File: denis-sullivan-tall-ship-on-the-horizonjpg-affa348ea7f1727c[1].jpg (411KB, 2048x1146px) Image search: [Google]

411KB, 2048x1146px

>>18635152
LOOK THAT SUBMARINE HAS SAILS!

File: balance.jpg (14KB, 400x343px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 400x343px

For anybody who is interested, here's a relatively easy experiment you can do to prove the rotation of the earth. All you need is a friend in another country.

Step 1: Buy a 100mg weight. Use a well-calibrated electronic balance to measure the weight down to a couple decimal points.

Step 2: Mail the weight to a friend who lives abroad. This works best the more significant the difference in latitudes is between your 2 countries, so try to get somebody closer to the equator or to either pole.

Step 3: Have them measure the weight on a well-calibrated electronic balance and compare your 2 observations. You'll find that the 2 measurements are actually difference. Not only that, but you'll be able to calculate and predict the difference depending on how close you are to the equator

Since the Earth is a sphere, it spins fastest at the equator (roughly 1000 mph). This spin decreases as you approach the poles until it gradually reaches zero. The centrifugal force of the Earth's spin counteracts the acceleration of gravity and affects the weight of any given mass.

So not only is the spin of the Earth observable, but it can also be used to predict the changes it weight as you move across the globe. Isn't that neat?

File: FE - sea 5km no curve.webm (3MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x576px

>>18635236
>>18635236
>>18635236
This is an optical illusion, a mirror effect created by the water surface reflecting light. It is thoroughly explained in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBYg3u5c7og

also in this short clip I posted, the 2m drop expected over a 5km distance is nowhere to be found. Because there is no curvature

File: curvature and refraction.jpg (35KB, 615x552px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 615x552px

>>18635310
Its hilarious how you can claim that any contrary evidence is an optical illusion, and then turn around and use a well known optical illusion as evidence for your conclusion.

You are so up your own ass its unbelievable

>>18635310
>it's thoroughly explained

No it isn't, it's just a lot of hand waving and word salad.

File: antarcz - Copy.gif (21KB, 200x199px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 200x199px

>>18632435
Only a shill would accuse someone of "changing tactics"

>>18635331
flat earth-anon, what do you think of my experiment? >>18635288

File: southernskyrotating.jpg (269KB, 964x633px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 964x633px

>>18635138
>stars do not circle the southern pole

Of course they do. You can go there and watch them yourself. Here's a time lapse photo taken from Australia.

>southern skys are different than northern because of perspective

Exactly. People on the northern hemisphere are pointing in a different direction in space than people on the southern hemishere, because it's a ball.

>latitudes and longitudes work the same on a flat disc

No, they do not. On a flat disk, lines of longitude (or radial lines, which is what you're calling lines of longitude) always get further apart the farther "south" you go. On a round earth, they start to get farther, maximize at the equator, and then get closer together again.

File: ChKCtMRW4AAJ_Kt.jpg (74KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x450px

>>18635338
>>18635288
The 2 measurements will be identical, because of the following reasons:

-the earth is not a spinning ball

>>18635078
>tides have nothing to do with gravity

lol

>>18635352
So you're just a shitposter then.

Well either that, or you're terrified of being wrong.

>>18635325
>claim
I didn't just make a claim, I also proved it.
>>18635326
Either you didn't watch the video or you didn't understand it. I don't really care though.
>You can go there and watch them yourself
No
> People on the northern hemisphere are pointing in a different direction in space than people on the southern hemishere, because it's a ball.
You don't understand perspective
>On a flat disk, lines of longitude (or radial lines, which is what you're calling lines of longitude) always get further apart the farther "south" you go
Yes but they work exactly the same nonetheless.

>>18635354
If tides were the result of a gravitational pul coming from the Moon then how do you explain we get 4 tides in a 24 hours period in the British Channel while in said period, the Moon only execute one rotation? You can't.

File: 1486453383608.png (1MB, 1645x1387px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1645x1387px

>>18635026
>who's responsible for 9-11?
>The hijackers and those who aided them

If you believe this, you'll believe ((anything)) the government is throwing at you.
Good goy

>>18635373
>I didn't just make a claim, I also proved it.
no you didn't

You're a shitposter

>>18635379
Because the sun also contributes to tides. Two tides for each celestial body = four tides.

>>18635382
Why would there be a lego Star Wars figure from the Prequels on the faked studio set for the moon?

File: 2015-how-bigisthe-earth_nasa.png (235KB, 457x352px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 457x352px

>>18635356
>>18635390
>shitposter
Learning new words CIA?

File: felix-baumgartner-red-bull-stratos_64243_600x450.jpg (301KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 600x450px

How big is New Mexico?

>>18635408
If you weren't a shitposter and actually seeking the truth, you would be open to this experiment >>18635288

Do you disagree?

>>18635414
nigger are you serious

>>18635390
So you didn't understand the video I provided. That doesn't matter.
>>18635399
wrong again because during new moon periods when Moon and Sun are about the same location, you get long period without either celestial body in the sky but this doesn't impact the tides schedule in the least. New Moon or full Moon, schedule won't change.

>>18635417
Since you came up with this experiment, why don't (You) do it to prove yourself right?

File: iss546533.jpg (220KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1920x1080px

>>18635414
>>18635422
Both these pics can't be real, so which one is fake?

>>18635431
I did do it. It was my 10th grade science fair project.

Do you believe me?

File: fb3465354.jpg (47KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1280x720px

>>18635435
better comparison
so, which one is it?

>>18635435
>>18635414 is clearly using a fisheye lens you raving lunatic

File: 1486486318746.webm (1MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 720x576px

>>18635437
This is how I know you're a shill

>>18635445
You didnt answer the question.

Do you believe me?

>>18635424
>it doesn't change the tide schedule

It does. It's the basis of what people call "spring tides." When the two line up, so do the tides, so they can are higher and lower than normal. When the sun earth and moon are at right angles, the tides destructively interfere, so they are never very high nor never very low.

It all works in great harmony with the sun and moon.

>>18635435
No, they're both real.

File: 1483906619455.png (3MB, 3452x1718px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3452x1718px

I believe you shills are getting quite desperate, you know you're fighting a losing battle

>>18635457
They cannot both be real. Why is New Mexico covering 40% of the globe.

Are you implying the used a fisheye lens on the redbull jump, but the camera on the iss doesn't use one?

>>18635445
Why is this happening on the ISS?

>>18635435
this pic is fake, it's monkey tier CGI desu. You can easily distinguish the two different layers used by the discrepancy of their contrast levels

>>18635452
You don't understand, tides can be stronger or weaker but their schedule is unaffected even if there is no celestial body in the sky for an extended period of time. So that it can't be the result of a magical gravitational pull of the Sun and/or Moon.
If such pull existed we would see tides on lakes, streams, rivers etc... as well but we do not.

>>18635468
>how come they look different

different cameras

>wide-angle lenses

They're both using wide angle lenses of different degrees. Furthermore they're at different altitudes.

>>18635484
>If such pull existed we would see tides on lakes, streams, rivers etc... as well but we do not.
Could you cite some references to this outrageous claim?

>>18635484
>magical
Your just dumb

>>18635484
>even if there is no celestial body in the sky for an extended period of time

I'm sorry? When did the sun and the moon go anywhere? When was this? Where did they go.

>we would see tides on lakes and streams and...

We see tides on lakes. The great lakes have them. The size of the tide is proportional to the body of water. So no, tiny little streams or ponds or bathtubs wouldn't have them observably, simply due to tiny size.

>>18635494
if a gravitational pull is strong enough to pull the sea, it surely is to pull smaller water bodies such as lakes and rivers but it doesn't.
because it doesn't work that way.

Also
>their schedule is unaffected even if there is no celestial body in the sky for an extended period of time (during new Moons). So that it can't be the result of a magical gravitational pull of the Sun and/or Moon.

>>18635501
> Where did they go.
in your model, they are on the other side of the planet of the apes.

>We see tides on lakes. The great lakes have them.
No

>>18635508
But theres is tide in bodies of water big enough and you didnt provide sources. Why is it so hard for you to find anything that supports your claims. No youtube videos dont count

>>18635508
Which weighs more, a ton of gold or a single feather?

>>18635512
>No
Citation needed

File: 4591791-5723500663-Curva.jpg (233KB, 1263x632px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1263x632px

>>18635488
The "different cameras" argument is also being used every single time someone points out that earth looks different in every photo from nasa.

They sure like to use dem fish-eye lens, that's for sure.

Btw, this is the earth's curvature, i took this photo from a mountain, and i didn't use fisheye lens.

>>18635508
Rivers flow ofcourse tide doesnt affect them

File: o-FELIX-BAUMGARTNER-JUMP-570.jpg (29KB, 570x320px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 570x320px

>>18635414
fish eye lens
pic related is what the mainstream media wants you to believe is Earth curvature at 90,000 ft+
related video is real curvature at 120,000 ft
there is none.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg
because Earth is flat, it was created.

>>18635520
Looks pretty curved. Optical illusion or photoshop?

>>18635512
>they are on the otherside

But then they're back on my side six hours later. Is that your idea of an extended period of time?

Does gravity stop because I can't see them? If I leap from a high building and cover my eyes, can I fly? How about on a cloud day?

>great lakes don't have tides

They do. It's only about an inch, and the great lakes vary more than that due to rainfall, waterflow, etc. But it's there.

>>18635520
>I took this photo

Oh hi, Eraz Marom.

>>18635513
>But theres is tide in bodies of water big enough and you didnt provide sources
In your model, tides should be more visible in smaller bodies of water because in this case, the same force would be applied on a smaller object. But there is no tides visible whatsoever because your model doesn't work.
Tides are produces from the center of the plane, at Mt Meru.

>>18635534
>the same force would be applied on a smaller object
No

>>18635532
>But then they're back on my side six hours later.
No, it takes 24h50 for the Moon to complete a rotation and 24h for the Sun. It takes more than 6 hours to get either orb back in your area.

>>18635534
>in your model tides should be more visible in smaller bodies

No they shouldn't.

The oceans have far more mass, and far more volume, therefore they should be distorted more.

>>18635534
But there is less object to be affected by that force. Also stop calling it my model its called reality

>>18635541
Yes
in your model, if gravity did exist, that's what we should observe but we don't because gravity doesn't exist.

>>18635543
Do you not understand the day/night cycle?

>>18635543
It's (about) twelve hours of night and day, we're ignoring seasons here.

So if it's a full twelve hours of waiting for the celestial object to come back into the sky, that means those celestial objects only just set.

So yeah, there's no "extended period of time."

Also: it's not like they actually go anywhere, you know. When the sun goes down from one person's perspective, it's coming up from another person's perspective.

>>18635544
same amount of force applied on a weaker object shouldn't produce more visible effect?
hmm really make you think.

>>18635554
>should
But you clearly dont understand gravity why "should" we listen to you?

>>18635563
oceans are a bit more complex than that dont you think?

>>18635558
You don't want to understand and I understand why.
>>18635562
>So if it's a full twelve hours of waiting for the celestial object to come back into the sky, that means those celestial objects only just set.
yet during that 12 hours there will be two tides occurring with the same regularity as during full moon.
But what causes these tides, it cant be the Moon or the Sun, they aren't here.

>>18635563
Are you confusing gravity with aerodynamic lift, anon?

>>18635575
>they aren't here
Nigga...

File: moon_and_earth_lroearthrise_frame_0.jpg (373KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1920x1080px

>B-but we landed on the Moon and took a picture

>>18635575
Are you really saying the sun stops existing when it sets?

>>18632642
Idiot, why would he explain it in a way that is total make believe? The earth is not flat. Grow up.

File: 173222545.jpg (37KB, 515x333px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 515x333px

>>18635581
Actually no we did not.

>>18635581
That moon doesnt even look real and what continents are those supposed to be?

>>18635575
>with the same regularity as during the full moon

Wut? The full moon happens once a month.

Maybe you mean the same intensity. I don't know.

But yes there are tides when the moon and the sun are not in the sky. But again, both the moon and the sun have gravity, even when you can't see them.

You realize that each cause two high tides, right? One on the side facing the celestial object, the other on the side opposite the celestial object.

>>18635576
No, just using basic common sense.
When you apply the same amount of force on something weaker, that something usually tends to bend easier.
But you live on a spinning testicle where the law of physics are a bit more convoluted than where I am.

File: straightjacket.jpg (69KB, 958x880px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 958x880px

>>18635523

>fisheye lens
>only distorts the background

You people legitimately deserve to be removed from society.

File: earthmoon.png (365KB, 650x460px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 650x460px

>>18635581
>>18635584
This is the supposed size difference between the Earth and the moon.

If this is true then how can they both have equal sizes when photographed from their respective surfaces?

They can not. Ergo, we never went to the moon. It did not happen.

>>18635585
>it doesn't look real

Oh? You've been there?

>what continents are those. South America, Africa, and Antarctica.

>>18635589
>basic common sense.
Says the flat earther

>>18635585
That is the famous Earthrise photo supposedly taken in the 1960's.

>>18635586
tides happen with the same regularity regardless or whether the Sun and Moon are in the sky or not. Tides don't give a fuck and will happen with the same regularity
Your model doesn't work.

>>18635593
>Oh? You've been there?
No but you havent either

File: 1.jpg (8KB, 284x160px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 284x160px

>>18635593
Forget the 'continents' and look at the size of the Earth in that supposed photo.

We are told that the earth is many times larger than the moon.

>>18635589
Which weights more, anon, a pond or the ocean?

>>18635603
>the Sun and Moon are in the sky or not.
You still believe that only objects you see exist. Think about that.

>>18635594
Just a reminder that you are the dude evolved from an ape and spinning on a testicle.

>>18635591
>how can they both have equal sizes

They do not. The earth has larger angular sized viewed from the moon than vice versa.

When it comes to photographs, everything gets resized so you can't draw a true comparison.

>>18635612
If your testicle is a sphere you should see a doctor

>>18635611
You claim that our Moon and Sun attract the bodies of water, they literally pull them, right?
Okay, then how do they do that if they are located on the other side of the planet of the apes?

>>18635614
Look at the famous Earthrise photo.

Then go and look for any full moon photo taken from the earth.

They will be pretty much the same size as the earth from the surface of the moon.

If the Earth is many, many times larger than the moon this can not be possible.

The Earth should full the sky when seen from the moon.

>>18635603
>the tides happen whether or not the moon and the sun are in the sky

Yes, anon. That's because tides happen because of gravity, not whether or not you can see them. Why, even on a cloudy day the tides still happen.

>>18635608
>the sun is small in this photo

Oh? What's the angular diameter? How can you tell?

>>18635605
No, but the guy who snapped the photo did.

>>18635618
they dont need to see the water to have a gravitational effect on it. You could turn on a kettle, leave the kitchen and the water would still boil

>>18635078
Tides have everything to do with gravity.

Christ, flat earthed make me wish education was free and mandatory.

>>18635625
Anon, do you know what angular size even is?

If I have a poster of the moon on my wall, and a wallet size photo of the moon in my pocket, do you understand that the moon itself is still the same size? Even though the photos are different?

>>18635627
The earth is many times larger than the moon yes?

Then it has no way I'm being the same size as the moon is in our sky.

The earth should fill the sky when seen from the moon.

It does not, according to mass

>>18635627
>No, but the guy who snapped the photo did
I'm not arguing with that guy though

>>18635625

>i can't understand camera lenses: the post

Do you get off on people thinking you're stupid?

I really can't think of another explanation.

>>18635616
according to disgrace tison, it is a pear shaped spheroid not a sphere.
I know that NASA only produces spheres in its CGI and composites, that sucks that balltards can't even agree on a final shape of their ball.

>>18631466
Flat Earth anons.

Why:
>Does the Equinox appear at all points on the earth to rise perfectly due east?
>Does everyone in the southern hemisphere see the same sky with the star Sigma Octantis at the pole? If the earth were flat, looking out and off of a disk, those looking in the southern hemisphere should see different skies entirely. Instead, it's simply rotation with the differential of the degree distance between two observation points.
>Is there zero (0) record of the maintenance, employment, production, or deployment of the great Antarctican Patrol Fleet shielding the southern seas which would number somewhere around 10,000 patrol boats.
>Do flights from Australia to Africa pass over bare ocean rather than asia, as would be the case in a flat earth (which would also, in the flat earth model, take right around twice the fuel, distance, and speed to perform the trip in the hours it takes to actually IRL fly from Australia to Africa.)

>You could turn on a kettle, leave the kitchen and the water would still boil
>If I have a poster of the moon on my wall, and a wallet size photo of the moon in my pocket, do you understand that the moon itself is still the same size? Even though the photos are different?
Dont forget to respond to these, mr flatearth

>>18635100
There's no point explaining how gravitational pull works to a person who beleves in magic.

>>18635630
>they dont need to see the water to have a gravitational effect on it.
oh wow, they don't need to be above the bodies of water to have a gravitational pull on them!
magic at its finest.

>>18635634
Good lord you aren't getting it.

I tried.

>>18635643
disinfo

There's actually a general for this?

Wow, /x/ is dumber than I thought.

>>18635635
>Then it has no way I'm being the same size as the moon is in our sky.

True, and it isn't.

>The earth should fill the sky

lol, no. The earth is about 8000 miles in diameter, at a distance of 250,000 miles.

So the earth should only take up about two degrees of sky from the moon.

>>18635648
So everything you cant see is magic to you? Is that really what your going for?

>>18635638
The Earth should fill the sky when seen from the surface of the moon.

According to mass it does not. In fact it has equivalent size to the moon when seen from the surface of the earth.

>>18635639
According to Neil Degrasse-Tyson, it's almost a perfect sphere, and the deviations from that spherical shape would not be noticeable on a scale model.

>>18635657
Look at the photos.

Earthrise is faked. It's not real.

If they had reason to fake one photo then we never once went to the moon.

Big ideas are hard to grasp

>>18635651
I understand what you're saying, anon. You're wrong. The earth appears bigger on the moon than vice versa. And none of these photos contradict that.

>>18635659
gravity is magic because it doesn't exist outside your mind, kiddo.
I take note that you didn't explain anything again and I know why.

>>18635591
>this is the supposed size difference between earth and the moon.

Yes. Those are the relative diamters. But that's not the actual distance.

>>18635666
>look at the photos

OK

>earth is faked

Looks real to me, anon.

Do you have any evidence that it's fake?

Or do you just want to believe?

>>18635667
It's right in front of your eyes how can you still not see?

Go look at photos of the full moon. They are all relatively the same size as the Earth is in the faked NASA photo.

The power of deception is so strong

>>18635654
No. These are all observations you can make with a pen, paper, and a pair of eyes.

Explain how the flat earth model accounts for these phenomena.

>>18635669
Why do I have to explain tides to you? Its public knowledge. Go to a library or use google. The existence of gravity isnt up for debate. I dont know who told you that.

>>18635660

No it shouldn't you fucking monkey.

>>18635676
Read the link, the size of the earth don't match the camera and the angle of the onflight camera they had.

>>18635672
You're right

However IF the moon is much smaller than the earth then there is no way it could appear to be equivalent size.

Are you getting this?

The earth is larger. Ergo, the earth should be LARGER in the sky when viewed from the moon.

But according to nasa it is not.

According to nasa they appear to be equal size.

>>18635681
Yes human yes.

The earth should appear larger from the moon than the moon does from earth.

Wow

>>18635690
>could should
Can we get some proof? Why do you know more about space than NASA?

>>18635512
I live on the shore of Lake Superior. I can confirm that it has tides.

File: oneorbothoftheseimagesmustbefake.jpg (218KB, 1260x1052px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1260x1052px

>>18635672
>Yes. Those are the relative diamters. But that's not the actual distance.
That really needed some explaining, thank you balltard.

>>18635677

Do you really not understand that you can't actually tell how big the earth appears in the earthrise photo relative to the naked eye view of being there?

>>18635692

It does appear larger monkey. It doesn't fill the sky.

>>18635695
First pic was taken from the surface of the moon

>>18635693
I posted pictures.

The earth is larger than the moon.

Then the earth should appear larger in the sky when viewed from the moon.

This is so simple

>>18635685
What link?

>>18635704
That not proof. I'm talking about written proof. Peer reviewed and all

>>18635701
Human look at Earthrise and then compare full mon photos.

If you say the earth appears larger than you are a liar.

File: HitchcockZoom_Micael_Reynaud.gif (3MB, 402x301px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 402x301px

>>18635695

>yes i am actually this retarded

>>18635694
... But you have exactly 0 proof to provide for this

>>18635708
Haha how do you tie your shoelaces without hanging yourself?

>can't make a decision on what is right in front of your face

>>18635690
>there is no way it could appear to be equivalent in size

It isn't and it doesn't. If you take a photo of the earth and shrink it down, OK, or a photo of the moon and blow it up, sure. But if you're only looking at one photo, without anything else for reference, there's no way to tell.

The earth is about 2 degrees angular diameter, the moon about half.

>>18635704
>should
No youre just stupid or *should* I say *simple*

>>18635711
This is a montage made with different lenses and cuts, you can see the top of that concrete block in the last frames.

>>18635710

You're a goddamned embarrassment to humanity.

http://www.angelfire.com/moon2/xpascal/MoonHoax/ApolloEarth/ApolloEarth.HTM

>>18635713
>how do you tie your shoelaces without hanging yourself?
Theres lost of material on how to do that. Strangely theres none to support your claims. Weird innit?

>>18635702
LOL no, nobody can go on the surface of the Moon because there is no surface of the Moon at all.
Moon is an ethereal body, it's not a physical sphere.

File: facepalm-pope.jpg (16KB, 250x319px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 250x319px

>>18635717

You don't say...

>>18635719
>angelfire

Neck yourself

>>18635722
Proof?

>>18635726

Always an excuse.

You monkeys are beyond pathetic.

File: image.jpg (76KB, 328x500px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 328x500px

>>18635563
Holy shit, use your brain.

Picture the ocean and how high the tide comes up the beach.

Now scale that down in your mind so that the ocean is now a small pond. You also have to scale down the tide that you imagined.

Just because you can't comprehend something doesn't mean it is false.

>>18635732
>he believes that the moon and the earth are the same size.
>oh wait no
>he just believes that they appear to be the same size somehow

through magic maybe

>>18635739

It's been explained to you half a dozen times and half a dozen ways at this point.

You are legitimately retarded.

You flat earthers still havent addressed this
>You could turn on a kettle, leave the kitchen and the water would still boil
Do you agree or not?

>>18635591
You idiot, do you think that image shows how far away the moon is from the earth?

You can fit every other planet in the solar system in the distance between the earth and the moon.

>>18635608
Good lord, use your brain.

The further you are from something, the smaller it looks.

>>18635743
Or maybe NASA never actually went and had to lie to the world instead.

>van allen radiation belt

Right now NASA is working on solutions to this deadly barrier. Why? It wasn't a concern in the 60s when we sent humans through it twice. Or did we??

>>18635727
Moon is described as a luminary and a star in the Bible and the Vedas, Nobody was able to go up there and nobody can go past the first 70 miles because of a force field anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNmj-JmrR8

>>18635753
>>18635747
>the moon and the earth appear the same size in the sky when viewed from their respective surfaces
>YOU FUCKING IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!

O I am laffin!

>>18635754

It's not deadly.

Nice move changing the subject away from the camera thing.

>>18635756
That rocket is way too fast to just bounce off. Why didnt it shatter upon impact? Whats your explanation for that?

>>18635733
>Now scale that down in your mind so that the ocean is now a small pond.

convoluted mind but regardless, you are still wrong.

>>18635759
This is high level shitposting

>>18635648
Jesus, you actually don't have the slightest idea what gravity is, do you? It's not a fucking tractor beam pulling on things.

File: 1486689550222.jpg (21KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 480x480px

gravity

File: scobee.jpg (31KB, 500x428px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x428px

>>18635526
>>18635520

It's a real photo which I took, take my word for it.
I used to work for nasa so I couldn't possibly lie to you.

>>18635772
> Why didnt it shatter upon impact?
It didn't hit a wall but a force field.

>>18635719
>all that false reasoning and bad math

lol

>>18635768
>the van allen radiation belt is no big deal guise

Then why is NASA desperately trying to find a solution?

You can't have it both ways.

In reality NASA fake everything. They had to justify their massive budget and produce something for the American people and the world to see.

They couldn't go to the moon so they made a movie about what it would look like if they did.

But they got so many details wrong.

>>18635733
Trust me dipshit, your thoughts on whether or not science is real will not keep me up at night.

>>18635754
>why?

Because the solutions they used to get in the moon aren't good enough for the different missions that NASA is planning.

>>18635778
>the moon and the earth are equivalent size you shitposter
>uh huh wait no they just look like they are uhhhhhh
>wait no.... fuck you!

Lol

>>18635790
When did they ever say they were desperate.

>>18635779
stop that, you have been called on your bullshit. Stop pretending I do not understand when actually it is you that is unable to produce a reasonnable explanation for what we observe in Nature.
Both Sun and Moon are simultaneously on the other side of the planet of the apes but yet tides schedule will remain totally unaffected?!
You better be a shill because being that retarded would really be sad

>>18635779
>not pulling on things.
But thats what they say. Gravitational pull.

>>18635796
I see, so you think something about the van allen belt has critically changed since the 1960s.

It wasn't dangerous then but now it is prohibitively so?

>>18635759
Wait what point are you trying to make with this post?

>>18635790

They not looking for a solution for the van allen belt.

They're looking for a solution to long term exposure to cosmic radiation for long duration missions.

>>18635798
Keep it coming

>>18635801
They won't send any more manned missions until a solution is worked out kiddo

But in the 60s it was no big deal to send humans through it twice.

>>18635803
>because I cant see them they dont exist
This is hilarious. How old are?

>>18635520
I have been on several mountains and gazed out with my own eyes. NEVER have I witnessed a curvature. Your image does not show the world as it truly is.

>>18635790
>e van allen radiation belt
Is code name for the force field they can't break through.
That's most likely what they tried to do during operation fish bowl.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXNmj-JmrR8

>>18635811
Because no one gave a shit about radiation sickness and cancer

>>18635808
Now you're just flat out lying. Just telling lies on the internet.

Check it out liar, what in the 60s was no big deal has become an IMPENETRABLE barrier

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space

>>18635815

You've never been out of your goddamned basement, let alone on top of a mountain.