The earth is flat and we never went to the moon
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
[h=1]What will it take for you to finally admit that we never went to the moon?[/h]
8 minutes
https://youtu.be/4kQ3ma-pdpM
8 minutes
https://youtu.be/4kQ3ma-pdpM
[h=1]The Strong Delusion, NASA, Star Trek, JFK, the Firmament, 666 and a most peculiar Timeline[/h]
Amazing and eerie connections - 33 minutes - well worth it
Overview From Video Description: There are many more connections than this overview describes
https://youtu.be/MqvWNsLm4sI
Amazing and eerie connections - 33 minutes - well worth it
Overview From Video Description: There are many more connections than this overview describes
https://youtu.be/MqvWNsLm4sI
I share the wishes of others that we could still edit posts. To see full screen on previous post, click on the link. Here is the overview of the video not wriiten by me.
In this segment from the second presentation I gave at the Beaumont, Declaring the End From the Beginning conference, I discuss the Biblical Strong Delusion and ask if the globe could in fact be a major part of that. I also address issues with the "blue marbles" we've been given, showing how one of them in particular always seems to show up in movies and TV shows (such as Star Trek). From there, I lay out what I believe to be a very peculiar timeline of events, including some bizarre statements by JFK and bombing the Fishbowl (of the Lord).
In this segment from the second presentation I gave at the Beaumont, Declaring the End From the Beginning conference, I discuss the Biblical Strong Delusion and ask if the globe could in fact be a major part of that. I also address issues with the "blue marbles" we've been given, showing how one of them in particular always seems to show up in movies and TV shows (such as Star Trek). From there, I lay out what I believe to be a very peculiar timeline of events, including some bizarre statements by JFK and bombing the Fishbowl (of the Lord).
For [MENTION=16629]patrick jane[/MENTION] and [MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION]
Please watch this one and let me know your thoughts.[/QUOTE]
First the cutting of the orange does just the opposite of what the video is saying. Cutting the orange creates a flat earth perspective, it's not an example for a globe perspective. Anyone who uses a flat surface to explain why the earth is not a flat surface is mentally ill or thinks everyone else is.
There is video that clearly shows the sun getting smaller as is moves toward and away from us. Those video are time lapse and I have posted them before and will post them again. The sun in the flat earth model appears and rises then descends and disappears as it should being close to the earth and being much smaller than the earth. This is consistent with perspective even though it is at the same height above the earth as it moves across the sky. These pictures below show the perspective of the sun as it moves away from us the other shows the true distance of the sun is close and not far away from us as in the globe model.
View attachment 26140 View attachment 26141
The Chicago skyline either shows the earth is flat or it's a mirage. The skyline is said to be a mirage because it's to far away from the Michigan shore line and too far over the curve to be actually visible. A superior, or above, mirage is usually an upside down image that is connected to the actual image. Both the actual ship and its mirage are visible in the following pic.
View attachment 26142
The Chicago skyline has been seen as a superior mirage. In the pic below you can see both the actual city skyline and the superior mirage above it and upside down.
View attachment 26143
The other indicator that the earth is flat in all these distant skyline pics is that not one of them shows the buildings tilted away from the point of view. The buildings would not appear perpendicular at that far a distance away if the earth were curved as this diagram below illustrates. How much of the Chicago skyline is visible depends on the height of the waves on Lake Michigan and the amount of fog.
View attachment 26144
Ships that seem to float in air are actually beyond the visible horizon and are located on an extended horizon line beyond our ability to see the waves and the water now acts like a mirror that reflects the ship. We never see the extended horizon until a ship goes beyond the the one that is visible to us. This reflection is upside down and attached under the ship as shown below. At times the ship that seems to be floating on air does not have a reflection as in the other pic. See my last post on how ships, go beyond the visible horizon to an extended horizon, then disappear beyond our ability to see it. Ships disappear not because of a curved earth but because they become to small to be visible.
View attachment 26146 View attachment 26145
--Dave
Your string analogy, is good if the earth is a spinning, orbiting planet. But gravity does not tell me the earth is a globe if it's merely the reason why the moon orbits a globed earth. We all agree that the moon is moving not the earth in its relationship to it. The geocentric model had a motionless globe earth with moon circling it. The flat earth model has the moon circling a flat motionless earth. The problem with gravity in the atheistic sense is that it's a natural explanation for what is moving planets and particles together with a natural big bang that moves planets and particles away from each other. That makes for two forces that are the cause of things that can only move in one direction. Saying that these two forces both can act on nature at the same time is a contradiction. When as a theist you substitute supernatural God for the natural big bang and then accept natural gravity you are being inconsistent. Why not have God responsible for both kinds of movement?
As Biblical theists we have compromised with non Biblical cosmologies for far too long. These non Biblical cosmologies deny empirical evidence and reason. That God sits above the "circle of the earth" is not a picture of a globe. There is no heavenly place above the earth in the Copernican heliocentric model.
--Dave
If one believes in the literal 6 day creation, it seems reasonable to believe in an enclosed flat earth.
Right Divider
Body part
Non-sequitur
That is one of the arguments.
Science has presented to us tons of data that the earth and all in it could not have been created in 6 days.
The data from Scripture tells us it was.
Science tell us the sun and moon could not have stood still for a day.
The data from Scripture says it did.
[h=1]Potential Freemason Astronaut/Actor Argues Against Flat Earth[/h]
11 minutes - click link to ensure full screen view
https://youtu.be/W8dNpYsauEs
11 minutes - click link to ensure full screen view
https://youtu.be/W8dNpYsauEs
Right Divider
Body part
Instead of fluttering around like a butterfly from one thing to another, why don't you concentrate on one thing until you understand it.
Stick with Polaris until you realize that it, by itself, shows that the earth is not flat.
(Secondarily, you were also shown that the moon is NOT visible from Sydney and Nashville at the same time).
Yes thanks, I realize the moon in Australia video was probably wrong. I'm not really fluttering around and many flat earthers go through rejection and ridicule. I knew that before I started because I thought they were crazy. The jury is still out for me.
I appreciate your input because it helps me think rationally, for the most part. I don't really trust all the math of the earth and space for many reasons including how some equipment works. In addition, you may not have seen the video where Rob shows the numbers on circumference and many other earth and space measurements that all show 666 66,660 and many measurements with 6's etc. Very interesting. you'd have to watch to see, it's at the very beginning of it.
I don't mind being refuted and allegedly "proven" wrong and I'm trying to be a troll. Again, I'm brand new to whole concept so forgive me for my stupidity. :chuckle:
:rotf: an't edit - I'm NOT trying to be a troll :troll:
For the Christian, is not the biblical perspective the one you should have?
Or must the biblical perspective only be considered if it agrees with the science data?
Not being too familiar with all the science theories, I could not confirm or deny them.
But I know what scripture says.
So if you take scripture at it's word, what sort of picture of the earth would you come up with?
Why should we mix anything science says with it?
Or must the biblical perspective only be considered if it agrees with the science data?
Not being too familiar with all the science theories, I could not confirm or deny them.
But I know what scripture says.
So if you take scripture at it's word, what sort of picture of the earth would you come up with?
Why should we mix anything science says with it?
Right Divider
Body part
Not probably. It is 100% incorrect as you were clearly shown.
The moon cannot be visible at 11:47 AM when the moon is only visible from 9:19 PM to 6:37 AM.
Why do you still not accept this simple and plain truth?
There is a reason for that.
Well if you'd accept a couple of clear truths that you're being show, the jury would convict flat earth as the fraud that it is.
Like I keep saying, stick with a couple of simple and clear things and you won't need to check a thousand other things. Polaris is visible directly overhead at the north pole but is on the horizon at the equator (and not visible at all from the southern hemisphere). That is extremely simple and does not require any complex understanding to prove that the earth is a sphere and not flat.
That in addition to the moon not being visible from both side of the globe at the same time is more than enough evidence to prove the issue once and for all that the earth is not flat.
I hope that you meant "not trying to be a troll".....
Just stick to the two things above for the moment: Polaris at different angles from 0 to 90 degrees in the northern hemisphere and the moon not visible in Sydney but is from Nashville.
If you can understand those two very simple things, you'll know that the earth is not flat.
Yes, not trying to be. There are explanations for polaris in the flat earth model as well as the sun and moon.
So far the best I can find on polaris for flat earth is this link that I already posted. Maybe you proved it wrong already and I didn't see it.
[h=3]The Atlantean Conspiracy: Polaris Proves the Flat Earth[/h]
[h=1]Polaris Proves the Flat Earth[/h]
https://youtu.be/S2subVaRUfk
11 minutes - Click on link to ensure full screen view
https://youtu.be/S2subVaRUfk
11 minutes - Click on link to ensure full screen view
https://youtu.be/j2lGPG5LKv8 - click link for full view - 24 minutes -
better than going to the movies. First hand accounts from captains and explorers through the last several hundred years
better than going to the movies. First hand accounts from captains and explorers through the last several hundred years
Right Divider
Body part
PJ, that page contains all kinds of silliness that I am not going waste my time on.
Please quit spending your time Googling and look at the facts.... the simple facts.
How can someone at the equator see a star at 0 degrees relative to the earth while another observers sees the SAME star directly overhead? Look at the crappy picture that I drew.... or draw one yourself. It's simple geometry.
Look at this picture and explain how the observer on the equator can see the star in the PERPENDICULAR angel to the observer at the north pole.
View attachment 26147
As I explained to you, the only way that this would be even close to possible is if the star is on the earth (or maybe ten feet above).
Use your head and stop posting silly FE nonsense.
While you're at it, explain why the moon is NOT visible in Sydney while it IS visible in Nashville. There is NO flat earther that can explain that problem.
- Status