IS humanity getting stupider?

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say ......

They are seeing different parts of the sky. You call it space, I call it the firmament. The dome that the stars reside in......

My reply ..... The .....dome that the ( wait for it ) stars reside in ......How hilarious what utter lunacy ..... dome ????

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say ......

They are seeing different parts of the sky. You call it space, I call it the firmament. The dome that the stars reside in......

My reply ..... The .....dome that the ( wait for it ) stars reside in ......How hilarious what utter lunacy ..... dome ????

You say ......

They are seeing different parts of the sky. You call it space, I call it the firmament. The dome that the stars reside in......

My reply ..... The .....dome that the ( wait for it ) stars reside in ......How hilarious what utter lunacy ..... dome ????

You say .....Pointing at the curved sky does not give credence to throw out a basic observation about the earth, that directly contradicts the current model, and unequivically points to a flat earth, .....

My reply ..... peer reviewed paper ?

You say .....flat water. 

My reply ..... flat head 

I asked: [Where's the edge]

You say .....Who said there was an edge? What makes you think you would be allowed access to such, if it exists?

My reply ..... The leader of the flat earth cult seems to think so are you a splinter group now ....oh dear 

Your reply will be

(Crickets chirping)

I asked .....if you believe the earth is hollow ....You refuse to answer"

Your reply ....This is true. I care not about believing in something that is impossible to prove. .....

My reply ..... Basic science classes over here. Certainly disagree with your “ assessment but then again you believe we are surrounded by a dome 

You say .....Theorizing (or not) about the earth, miles under the surface does not point to a spherical earth.....

My reply ....I’m afraid it does you need to invest in a science book or maybe try google it ?

You say ......You also asked what would a lunar eclipse would look like on a flat earth.

I then showed you a lunar eclipse that would be impossible in the heliocentric model, and therefore disproves it......

My reply .... Nonsense , I see the latest “bulletin “ from the flat earth cult is that the blood moon was a ........NASA hologram ..... that’s hilarious 

Your reply was.

An appeal to the stone fallacy.

My reply .....

A NASA hologram is possibly the best explanation 

I asked ...... do you believe Mars is flat .....You refuse to answer "

Your reply .....I've never been there, and cannot perform any tests for sphericity. I don't have to believe anything about the earth. I can test it. Believing is not necessary. I know it is flat. We can talk about that if you would like....

My reply ..... so you believe it’s flat or not , why not have a little guess ?

The leader of the Flathead society claims Mars is not flat but earth is and ......science proves it ....Oh dear 

You say .....Hows about, you be my peer and look at the data......

My reply ..... Your “ data “ I’ve seen none yet 

You say ....Or you can keep pursuing red herrings and I can keep pointing out how YOU are avoiding the topic and questions regarding the topic specifically in question......

My reply ..... No read herrings on my part just constant corrections of your nonsense 

You say ....Hahaha. The old "it's too big to see the curve!" You don't have a clue how much a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference should curve do you? What amount (in feet) should we see in 57 miles? 100? .....

My reply .....HaHaHa ..... chuckle , chuckle the curve is VERY subtle - on the order of 8 inches per mile( you’re welcome )  but you don’t have a clue about this do you, google is your friend 

"Water and other liquids flow towards the lowest point in a gravitational field. Since the Earth has a low curvature"

You say .....Talk about an assertion. How very scientific of you. See above response to "it's too big!"

My reply .....

Water  in a glass is not flat on the surface, its just so minutely bent that you cant easily detect it. But a fine enough laser will prove it.

Here is a definition of a laser as I know you probably don’t know in fairness what such a thing is , a junior science school teacher could demonstrate this for you 

laser

ˈleɪzə/

noun

1 1.
a device that generates an intense beam of coherent monochromatic light (or other electromagnetic radiation) by stimulated emission of photons from excited atoms or molecules. Lasers are used in drilling and cutting, alignment and guidance, and in surgery; the optical properties are exploited in holography, reading barcodes, and in recording and playing compact discs.

verb

1 1.
treat or remove (something) using a laser, especially as part of a surgical procedure."she had her eyes lasered so she could ditch her glasses"

Erfisflat

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say ......

They are seeing different parts of the sky. You call it space, I call it the firmament. The dome that the stars reside in......

My reply ..... The .....dome that the ( wait for it ) stars reside in ......How hilarious what utter lunacy ..... dome ????

Yes, like the truman show dome. The firmament, from ancient texts.
There is substantial evidence, including everyday observations that supports it, if you ever cared to research any model apart from the heliocentric model.


 This is putting the cart before the horse, though. What can be definitively proved, is that water doesn't naturally curve. It finds and maintains a flat and level surface in any measured circumstances.


I'd be glad to answer any questions regarding the firmament, that is to say, what I know about it and what evidence there is but nothing about the sky takes away from the fact that there is absolutely no curvature where there should be an easily measurable amount. 

Erfisflat

Of course, I won't subject you to any "peer review" on it.

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say .....There is substantial evidence, including everyday observations that supports it, if you ever cared to research any model apart from the heliocentric model......

My reply .... Substantial evidence ? Peer reviewed paper please that is unless you’re re-defining the term “ substantial “ to suit your narrative 

You say ..... This is putting the cart before the horse, though......

My reply .....Nonsense 

You say .....What can be definitively proved, is that water doesn't naturally curve. It finds and maintains a flat and level surface in any measured circumstances.

My reply ..... Let me help you , how does water curve naturally on earth?

Gravity.

There is no universal down: instead, everything is attracted to the local center of gravity. In the case of the Earth, the center of gravity is roughly in the middle. Everything is attracted to that point, including all of the Earth and everything on it. The direction to that point is “down”, no matter where you are.

Water is also attracted to that point. It tries to creep down until it fills every nook and cranny. And when it fills up a large body, like an ocean, “down” at one end is at a different direction than at the other end. So it doesn’t make a flat surface, but a surface where every point has the same distance to the center. And that is a curved surface.

Erfisflat

"the curve is VERY subtle - on the order of 8 inches per mile( you’re welcome )  but you don’t have a clue about this do you, google is your friend"

Wrong. I pulled out the only logical paragraph from your confusing post, that was also partly incorrect. 8" per mile is for a slope, if you have any knowledge in spherical geometry. You would know that a sphere would fall away more and more with distance, more than a pitched slope. So, now that you had to ask google how much curve there should be in the FIRST mile,  then ask google how much curve there should be at 57 miles, and 100.

@Joeseph

Joeseph

@Erfisflat


You say ....Wrong.

My reply ..... Yes you are 

You say ...... I pulled out the only logical paragraph from your confusing post, that was also partly incorrect. 8" per mile is for a slope, if you have any knowledge in spherical geometry. You would know that a sphere would fall away more and more with distance, more than a pitched slope. So, now that you had to ask google how much curve there should be in the FIRST mile,  then ask google how much curve there should be at 57 miles, and 100.


My reply ..... I attempted to pull  out any  logical sentence  from your confusing post, I’m afraid it’s more nonsense and what the hell you’re babbling about is beyond me 

Erfisflat

So you admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

I know , sure how could you ?  Yet you were very quick to claim you had what you most desire as in a peer reviewed paper destroying Evolution until I corrected you ( yet again ) , you see people like you and your fellow pseudoscience believers only have one outlet to get your nonsense from and that’s You Tube , which has  an international assortment of fellow nutters to bolster each other’s nonsensical claims  

Erfisflat

Joeseph said:

I know , sure how could you ?  Yet you were very quick to claim you had what you most desire as in a peer reviewed paper destroying Evolution until I corrected you ( yet again ) , you see people like you and your fellow pseudoscience believers only have one outlet to get your nonsense from and that’s You Tube , which has  an international assortment of fellow nutters to bolster each other’s nonsensical claims  

I've done nothing here but state facts with you. I have not posted even one Youtube video in this conversation. The fact that you appear to be having denial symptoms and are left with nothing but an ad hominem attack, and an argument you dropped from an irrelevant debate, makes it very clear to me and any competent adult with any sense of logic, that your "evidence", research and intellect is limited only to the first results on a Google search. 

Since you admit that you don't know how much curve there should be, and Google won't tell you without having to do some math, I'll link you the formula.

"IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity—every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:

Earth's rate of curvature as shown in Zetetic Astronomy. Vertical exaggeration 1000x.

...[A]fter the first few miles the curvature would be so great that no difficulty could exist in detecting either its actual existence or its proportion...In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial river or canal, called the "Old Bedford." It is upwards of twenty miles in length, and ... passes in a straight line through that part of the Fens called the "Bedford Level." The water is nearly stationary—often completely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind; so that it is, in every respect, well adapted for ascertaining whether any or what amount of convexity really exists.[2]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

So, in 57 miles, there would be an over 2,000 foot hump of water blocking that much vertical sight. In just 100 miles, there will be a 6,666 feet of drop. So, if we were to see something, over that distance, that was shorter than the hump, this would be a direct contradiction to a main tenant of the ball earth model.

Joeseph

You say .....so you admit you don’t know what im talking about 

 My reply .... Yes , strange that I have the same “ problem “ with your type of person 

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say ....You say I've done nothing here but state facts with you


My reply ..... Yes , if one was to use that much loved Americanism as in alternative facts , The dome , A hollow earth and a flat Mars 

You say .....I have not posted even one Youtube video in this conversation. ...

My reply ......You actually have on a different topic just to correct you , but you have the site littered with You Tube  videos 

You say ... The fact that you appear to be having denial symptoms.....

My reply .....An ad Hominem attack no doubt 

 You say ....and are left with nothing but an ad hominem attack,.....

My reply ..... I haven’t made one yet 

You say .....and an argument you dropped from an irrelevant debate.....

My reply .....Irrelevant ? You would say that since I destroyed your claims .... again 

You say ......makes it very clear to me and any competent adult with any sense of logic

My reply ..... That’s you ruled out on two accounts 

You say ......that your "evidence", research and intellect is limited only to the first results on a Google search. 

My reply ..... incorrect , also you have zero evidence , no research unless one calls Flat earth weekly “ research “ and a vey ( being generous) limited intellect 



You;say .....Since you admit that you don't know how much curve there should be,


My reply .... Since you failed to read what I posted that comment is nonsense 

 You say ......and Google won't tell you without having to do some math, I'll link you the formula.

"IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity—every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:

Earth's rate of curvature as shown in Zetetic Astronomy. Vertical exaggeration 1000x.

...[A]fter the first few miles the curvature would be so great that no difficulty could exist in detecting either its actual existence or its proportion...In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial river or canal, called the "Old Bedford." It is upwards of twenty miles in length, and ... passes in a straight line through that part of the Fens called the "Bedford Level." The water is nearly stationary—often completely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind; so that it is, in every respect, well adapted for ascertaining whether any or what amount of convexity really exists.[2]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

So, in 57 miles, there would be an over 2,000 foot hump of water blocking that much vertical sight. In just 100 miles, there will be a 6,666 feet of drop. So, if we were to see something, over that distance, that was shorter than the hump, this would be a direct contradiction to a main tenant of the ball earth model.......


My reply ........Yawn 

Erfisflat

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say ....You say I've done nothing here but state facts with you


My reply ..... Yes , if one was to use that much loved Americanism as in alternative facts , The dome , A hollow earth and a flat Mars 

You say .....I have not posted even one Youtube video in this conversation. ...

My reply ......You actually have on a different topic just to correct you , but you have the site littered with You Tube  videos 

You say ... The fact that you appear to be having denial symptoms.....

My reply .....An ad Hominem attack no doubt 

 You say ....and are left with nothing but an ad hominem attack,.....

My reply ..... I haven’t made one yet 

You say .....and an argument you dropped from an irrelevant debate.....

My reply .....Irrelevant ? You would say that since I destroyed your claims .... again 

You say ......makes it very clear to me and any competent adult with any sense of logic

My reply ..... That’s you ruled out on two accounts 

You say ......that your "evidence", research and intellect is limited only to the first results on a Google search. 

My reply ..... incorrect , also you have zero evidence , no research unless one calls Flat earth weekly “ research “ and a vey ( being generous) limited intellect 



You;say .....Since you admit that you don't know how much curve there should be,


My reply .... Since you failed to read what I posted that comment is nonsense 

 You say ......and Google won't tell you without having to do some math, I'll link you the formula.

"IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity—every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:

Earth's rate of curvature as shown in Zetetic Astronomy. Vertical exaggeration 1000x.

...[A]fter the first few miles the curvature would be so great that no difficulty could exist in detecting either its actual existence or its proportion...In the county of Cambridge there is an artificial river or canal, called the "Old Bedford." It is upwards of twenty miles in length, and ... passes in a straight line through that part of the Fens called the "Bedford Level." The water is nearly stationary—often completely so, and throughout its entire length has no interruption from locks or water-gates of any kind; so that it is, in every respect, well adapted for ascertaining whether any or what amount of convexity really exists.[2]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment

So, in 57 miles, there would be an over 2,000 foot hump of water blocking that much vertical sight. In just 100 miles, there will be a 6,666 feet of drop. So, if we were to see something, over that distance, that was shorter than the hump, this would be a direct contradiction to a main tenant of the ball earth model.......


My reply ........Yawn 

So once again, you have no argument, only persistent "nuh- uhs". You've been proved wrong or incompetent on multiple instances including the mathematics dependent on the conclusion, and you say " yawn". 

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say .....So once again, you have no argument, only persistent "nuh- uhs". ....

My reply .....I’ve supplied you with a counter to every point you made but as usual you ignore what you cannot answer of comprehend as in the laser example I gave you , it’s all basic science 

You say ....You've been proved wrong or incompetent on multiple instances including the mathematics dependent on the conclusion, and you say ......

My reply .....You’ve proved nothing just made unfounded claims thus my 

" yawn". 

Your latest pathetic attempt at avoiding another hammering is to invoke an ancient “ chestnut “ still much loved by flat earthers but was debunked in .....1870 , maybe you should read the articles you post after all you offer this as evidence and your own article destroys your assertions , read below from your article buddy , 

However, in 1870, after adjusting Rowbotham's method to avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction, Alfred Russel Wallace found a curvature consistent with a spherical Earth

Ouch 

Erfisflat

"....I’ve supplied you with a counter to every point you made"

Three word one liners don't exactly constitute as a counter. 

"but as usual you ignore what you cannot answer of comprehend as in the laser example I gave you , it’s all basic science "

You mean when you asserted that a fine laser can detect curve on a cup of water, then commenced to give two definitions of "laser"? Yeah that was not a valid point. Please give evidence for this assertion. Some experiment, hell, I'd settle for a " peer reviewed study" proving that as evidence. You can't simply assert your evidence. Without support, this:

"Water  in a glass is not flat on the surface, its just so minutely bent that you cant easily detect it. But a fine enough laser will prove it.

Here is a definition of a laser as I know you probably don’t know in fairness what such a thing is , a junior science school teacher could demonstrate this for you... Pastes definition of laser..."

is nothing but an unfounded assertion, just like all the rest of your claims.

"..You’ve proved nothing just made unfounded claims thus my"

You were asked repeatedly what the curvature was for two different distances, you ignored/dropped these questions until they were answered for you, with source. The formula is accurate and has been proved so in CAD programs. If you disagree with mathematics, you can't just say "yawn" and ignore and dismiss it, you should at least point out an error if you're going to be taken seriously.

"Your latest pathetic attempt at avoiding another hammering is to invoke an ancient “ chestnut “ still much loved by flat earthers but was debunked in .....1870 , maybe you should read the articles you post after all you offer this as evidence and your own article destroys your assertions , read below from your article buddy , 

However, in 1870, after adjusting Rowbotham's method to avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction, Alfred Russel Wallace found a curvature consistent with a spherical Earth"

Oh the test has been repeated since then, probably thousands of times, over distances much larger too,  and with much better equipment. I wasn't promoting the experiment, my point was that there should be much curvature, where you ignorantly claimed there shouldn't. This is yet another point dropped, and you cling to whatever excuse pacifies your conscious, no matter the asininity involved.

@Joeseph

Joeseph

@Ersflat ;



You say .....Three word one liners don't exactly constitute as a counter. 

My reply .... Yet another claim you cannot prove 

You say ..........You mean when you asserted that a fine laser can detect curve on a cup of water, then commenced to give two definitions of "laser"? Yeah that was not a valid point.......

My reply .....I’m not responsible for your comprehension problems 

You say .....Please give evidence for this assertion. Some experiment, hell, I'd settle for a " peer reviewed study" proving that as evidence. You can't simply assert your evidence.......

My reply ..... Ah come on this is the stuff of basic science classes maybe they will make it  to your neck of the woods real soon , probably can run an experiment on that dome you keep speaking off also ? 

I said ......"Water  in a glass is not flat on the surface, its just so minutely bent that you cant easily detect it. But a fine enough laser will prove it.

Here is a definition of a laser as I know you probably don’t know in fairness what such a thing is , a junior science school teacher could demonstrate this for you... Pastes definition of laser..."

You say ......is nothing but an unfounded assertion, just like all the rest of your claims.

My reply ..... This from a guy who believes we live under a dome is hilarious 

I said ....."..You’ve proved nothing just made unfounded claims thus my yawn 

You say .....You were asked repeatedly what the curvature was for two different distances, you ignored/dropped these questions until they were answered for you, with source...... 

My reply ....print the link to your claim and how it supports your ridiculous assertions,  I shall correct your misunderstandings for you ..... you’re welcome 

You say .....The formula is accurate and has been proved so in CAD programs. If you disagree with mathematics, you can't just say "yawn" and ignore and dismiss it, you should at least point out an error if you're going to be taken seriously.

My reply .....Proved in CAD programs , please supply links for your claims , all you do is copy , paste and plagiarise stuff from Flat earth sources , hardly original is it ? 

I said ....."Your latest pathetic attempt at avoiding another hammering is to invoke an ancient “ chestnut “ still much loved by flat earthers but was debunked in .....1870 , maybe you should read the articles you post after all you offer this as evidence and your own article destroys your assertions , read below from your article buddy , 

However, in 1870, after adjusting Rowbotham's method to avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction, Alfred Russel Wallace found a curvature consistent with a spherical Earth"

My reply........Oh the test has been repeated since then, probably thousands of times, over distances much larger too,  and with much better equipment. I wasn't promoting the experiment, my point was that there should be much curvature, where you ignorantly claimed there shouldn't.....

My reply .....Please post up your peer reviewed papers supporting your claims ..... but wait ..... yous haven’t any yet have yous ? 

 You say .....This is yet another point dropped, and you cling to whatever excuse pacifies your conscious, no matter the asininity involved.

My reply ..... But you think you live under a glass dome , earth is hollow and Mars is flat so with all “ due respect “ your opinion is taken with a grain of salt , I see from previous posts you’re seen correctly as the site buffoon 

refugee

Looking into the issue does not seem to be really complicated. Turn your head left and i think that speaks for itself.

Erfisflat

"You say .....Three word one liners don't exactly constitute as a counter. 

My reply .... Yet another claim you cannot prove "







Three examples of this on this very page, another claim proved.

"You say ..........You mean when you asserted that a fine laser can detect curve on a cup of water, then commenced to give two definitions of "laser"? Yeah that was not a valid point.......

My reply .....I’m not responsible for your comprehension problems "

Oh I comprehend it perfectly well. We're just supposed to take your word for this, is that right? What about a laser that goes a few miles and finds no curve? This is a scaled up version of your test, in case you were wondering.

"You say .....Please give evidence for this assertion. Some experiment, hell, I'd settle for a " peer reviewed study" proving that as evidence. You can't simply assert your evidence.......

My reply ..... Ah come on this is the stuff of basic science classes maybe they will make it  to your neck of the woods real soon , probably can run an experiment on that dome you keep speaking off also ? "

If this is the "stuff" of basic science classes, you wouldn't mind linking it.

"I said ......"Water  in a glass is not flat on the surface, its just so minutely bent that you cant easily detect it. But a fine enough laser will prove it."

Will it? 

"Here is a definition of a laser as I know you probably don’t know in fairness what such a thing is , a junior science school teacher could demonstrate this for you... Pastes definition of laser..."

I'm having difficulty understanding how putting an unnecessary definition at the end of your argument suffices as evidence. You said a laser proves a cup of glass has a curved surface, when asked to back up that claim, you provide us with a definition instead. 

"You say ......is nothing but an unfounded assertion, just like all the rest of your claims.

My reply ..... This from a guy who believes we live under a dome is hilarious"

And this from a guy who thinks he's on a floating testicle is hilarious. See how that works? I haven't really refuted anything by saying this. Neither do you.

"I said ....."..You’ve proved nothing just made unfounded claims thus my yawn 

You say .....You were asked repeatedly what the curvature was for two different distances, you ignored/dropped these questions until they were answered for you, with source...... 

My reply ....print the link to your claim and how it supports your ridiculous assertions,  I shall correct your misunderstandings for you ..... you’re welcome" 

The first paragraph in my quote above, the one regarding curvature, and, get ready for it, simple mathematics. Here it is again.

"IF the earth is a globe, and is 25,000 English statute miles in circumference, the surface of all standing water must have a certain degree of convexity—every part must be an arc of a circle. From the summit of any such arc there will exist a curvature or declination of 8 inches in the first statute mile. In the second mile the fall will be 32 inches; in the third mile, 72 inches, or 6 feet, as shown in the following diagram:"

(Updated diagram, confirmed with CAD software)

"You say .....The formula is accurate and has been proved so in CAD programs. If you disagree with mathematics, you can't just say "yawn" and ignore and dismiss it, you should at least point out an error if you're going to be taken seriously.

My reply .....Proved in CAD programs , please supply links for your claims , all you do is copy , paste and plagiarise stuff from Flat earth sources , hardly original is it ? "

Where have i plagiarized anything? Do you even know what that means? The CAD drawing is above. Stop making false claims.

"I said ....."Your latest pathetic attempt at avoiding another hammering is to invoke an ancient “ chestnut “ still much loved by flat earthers but was debunked in .....1870 , maybe you should read the articles you post after all you offer this as evidence and your own article destroys your assertions , read below from your article buddy , 

However, in 1870, after adjusting Rowbotham's method to avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction, Alfred Russel Wallace found a curvature consistent with a spherical Earth"

My reply........Oh the test has been repeated since then, probably thousands of times, over distances much larger too,  and with much better equipment. I wasn't promoting the experiment, my point was that there should be much curvature, where you ignorantly claimed there shouldn't....."

Actually, this was MY reply, not yours. Has anyone ever told you your formatting for debate is rubbish? Do you know how to use these? "" bold, italics, normal people use these to indicate a quote.

"My reply .....Please post up your peer reviewed papers supporting your claims ..... but wait ..... yous haven’t any yet have yous ? "

As soon as you post some of the alternative model. Specifically one that proves the shape of the earth. I can point you to an everyday observation that proves that water is flat.

" You say .....This is yet another point dropped, and you cling to whatever excuse pacifies your conscious, no matter the asininity involved.

My reply ..... But you think you live under a glass dome , earth is hollow and Mars is flat so with all “ due respect “ your opinion is taken with a grain of salt , I see from previous posts you’re seen correctly as the site buffoon "

@Joeseph

Joeseph

@Erfisflat


Oh dear , what a long winded piece of nonsense and all copied , plagarised and pasted from Flat earth weekly or monthly , so still no links to credible scientific sources to back up your inane assertions . 

I have asked repeatedly for links and sources to your daily more desperate claims and all I get is denial you posted a piece last night that cited a deeply flawed experiment that Wallace corrected and proved beyond a doubt the curvature of the earth , the piece you copy and pasted actually demonstrated this but you never realised this until I told you and then typically said “ Wallace was wrong and a CAD program proved this “ Really ? Why not print up the results and if proven surely the scientific community would acknowledge such ? 

That is unless yet again youre making it up as you go along ? 

Seeing as you have not got a junior science teacher between yous or a laser where yous live let me help you yet again, 
this may be beyond you yet again as most things seem to be .......

from Quora C.Stuart Hardwick .....

Q: What is the minimum distance over water that, using a laser, the curvature of the earth can be clearly demonstrated using ordinary household measuring devices?

Interesting question. The difficulty is going to be that the surface of the Earth is soft and lumpy, so you can’t really measure the curvature of the Earth until the amount of curvature exceeds the local lumpiness or in the case of water, “sloshiness.”

The Earth’s curvature works out to 7.98 inches over one mile*. So lets assume the laser in question is of respectable wattage sufficient to be seen (on a dark night) a mile away , and that instead of water, you conduct your experiment some place with very low lumpiness like the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah.

In principle, you could do this: First, you place the laser on say, a carefully levelled plank. Assuming this places the beam exactly two inches about the ground, you can place a vertical board next to it and make a mark where the beam strikes the board—2 inched above the ground. Now walk 1 mile in the direction of the beam and again place the board in its path. Since the beam is level at its point of origin, it should be leaving the Earth’s surface at a tangent, so at 1 mile distance, it should strike the board 2+7.98 or roughly 10 inches above the ground.

The trouble with this is, how sure you are that the beam is level? How sure are you that the ground is level? You could do the same thing over water, but you’d have different (and even greater) uncertainties.

To do this simply, you need to increase the signal to noise ratio. The way to do that is to alter the experiment and increase the distance sufficiently so that minor variations don’t matter.

Enlist a helper who can join you at the Bonneville salt flats. Fix your laser to a tall photographic tripod, extended to its maximum height, and placed atop a table so that the beam is a bit more than 6 feet off the ground.

Now, have your assistant drive 6 miles in some specific direction in a white Winnebago (that’s a household item, right?). Now, communicating via radio, aim the laser in the direction she drove, and swing it around, send up flares, or do whatever you have to do till she reports seeing the laser on the on the camper at roughly the same height as the origin point.

Now lock the laser in place and start cranking down the height of the tripod.

When the beam reaches roughly 6 feet off the ground, she’ll see it wink out. That’s because the horizon is three miles away, half way between you. This is far enough that minor lumps and bumps in the ground don’t matter. Repeat the experiment in some other direction—lots of other directions, and you’ll always find the same thing—when the beam starting and ending point start out the same height above the ground, then the source end is lowered, the target end will always wink out when the beam hits the horizon at roughly 6 feet. This experiment is highly insensitive to exact measurements and “lumps and bumps.”

Or (at the suggestion of Bengt Persson):

1. Find any undisturbed stretch, if possible more than 1/10 of a mile ((160m).Get a laser (pointer or similar) visible at this distance.Get 2 gardening water tube (each half the stretch).Get 3 glass (plastic) jars, having two flat parallel sides, and with connectors to the tubes in the bottom.Place one jar in each end and one in the middle of the stretch.Fill tubes with water, and jars halfway. make sure there are noDirect the laser from one end jar to the middle one. In both cases such that the light barely touches the surface.Check the distance between the light and the water surface on the third. With a correct setup it is about 3/4 inch.The setup is simple and robust with limited requirements, except for the stability and control of the laser. So depending on age one can let their creativity loose or provide a ready made solution for the younger ones. Remember that the range of an ordinary laser pointer can be extended with external optics.

Did you follow that , I bet the answer is no ? Maybe now instead of posting up plagarised nonsense from the Flatheads society you could actually post some real scientific proofs for your ridiculous claims and explain why no one of any credibility shares your absurd views .... Oh wait a couple of FB and You Tube rappers reckon you lot are onto something .

Regards formatting my I pad does not let me use bold or italic on this site I’ve asked Aaron to help with this he cannot as it seems to be a limitation regarding my device but as usual you “ jump the gun “ and resort to yet more Ad Hominien attacks ,also posting up plagarised cartoon like images demonstrates your childishness and nothing else .

Maybe you should run on back to the Flat Earths homepage and try and come up with a “better”  explanation for the blood moon than the “ official “ line as in “ It was a ( wait for it ) a NASA hologram ?????? 

Mic drop 

Evidence

Joeseph said:

Erfisflat


Oh dear , what a long winded piece of nonsense and all copied , plagarised and pasted from Flat earth weekly or monthly , so still no links to credible scientific sources to back up your inane assertions . 

I have asked repeatedly for links and sources to your daily more desperate claims and all I get is denial you posted a piece last night that cited a deeply flawed experiment that Wallace corrected and proved beyond a doubt the curvature of the earth , the piece you copy and pasted actually demonstrated this but you never realised this until I told you and then typically said “ Wallace was wrong and a CAD program proved this “ Really ? Why not print up the results and if proven surely the scientific community would acknowledge such ? 

That is unless yet again youre making it up as you go along ? 

Seeing as you have not got a junior science teacher between yous or a laser where yous live let me help you yet again, 
this may be beyond you yet again as most things seem to be .......

from Quora C.Stuart Hardwick .....

Q: What is the minimum distance over water that, using a laser, the curvature of the earth can be clearly demonstrated using ordinary household measuring devices?

Interesting question. The difficulty is going to be that the surface of the Earth is soft and lumpy, so you can’t really measure the curvature of the Earth until the amount of curvature exceeds the local lumpiness or in the case of water, “sloshiness.”

The Earth’s curvature works out to 7.98 inches over one mile*. So lets assume the laser in question is of respectable wattage sufficient to be seen (on a dark night) a mile away , and that instead of water, you conduct your experiment some place with very low lumpiness like the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah.

In principle, you could do this: First, you place the laser on say, a carefully levelled plank. Assuming this places the beam exactly two inches about the ground, you can place a vertical board next to it and make a mark where the beam strikes the board—2 inched above the ground. Now walk 1 mile in the direction of the beam and again place the board in its path. Since the beam is level at its point of origin, it should be leaving the Earth’s surface at a tangent, so at 1 mile distance, it should strike the board 2+7.98 or roughly 10 inches above the ground.

The trouble with this is, how sure you are that the beam is level? How sure are you that the ground is level? You could do the same thing over water, but you’d have different (and even greater) uncertainties.

To do this simply, you need to increase the signal to noise ratio. The way to do that is to alter the experiment and increase the distance sufficiently so that minor variations don’t matter.

Enlist a helper who can join you at the Bonneville salt flats. Fix your laser to a tall photographic tripod, extended to its maximum height, and placed atop a table so that the beam is a bit more than 6 feet off the ground.

Now, have your assistant drive 6 miles in some specific direction in a white Winnebago (that’s a household item, right?). Now, communicating via radio, aim the laser in the direction she drove, and swing it around, send up flares, or do whatever you have to do till she reports seeing the laser on the on the camper at roughly the same height as the origin point.

Now lock the laser in place and start cranking down the height of the tripod.

When the beam reaches roughly 6 feet off the ground, she’ll see it wink out. That’s because the horizon is three miles away, half way between you. This is far enough that minor lumps and bumps in the ground don’t matter. Repeat the experiment in some other direction—lots of other directions, and you’ll always find the same thing—when the beam starting and ending point start out the same height above the ground, then the source end is lowered, the target end will always wink out when the beam hits the horizon at roughly 6 feet. This experiment is highly insensitive to exact measurements and “lumps and bumps.”

Or (at the suggestion of Bengt Persson):

1. Find any undisturbed stretch, if possible more than 1/10 of a mile ((160m).Get a laser (pointer or similar) visible at this distance.Get 2 gardening water tube (each half the stretch).Get 3 glass (plastic) jars, having two flat parallel sides, and with connectors to the tubes in the bottom.Place one jar in each end and one in the middle of the stretch.Fill tubes with water, and jars halfway. make sure there are noDirect the laser from one end jar to the middle one. In both cases such that the light barely touches the surface.Check the distance between the light and the water surface on the third. With a correct setup it is about 3/4 inch.The setup is simple and robust with limited requirements, except for the stability and control of the laser. So depending on age one can let their creativity loose or provide a ready made solution for the younger ones. Remember that the range of an ordinary laser pointer can be extended with external optics.

Did you follow that , I bet the answer is no ? Maybe now instead of posting up plagarised nonsense from the Flatheads society you could actually post some real scientific proofs for your ridiculous claims and explain why no one of any credibility shares your absurd views .... Oh wait a couple of FB and You Tube rappers reckon you lot are onto something .

Regards formatting my I pad does not let me use bold or italic on this site I’ve asked Aaron to help with this he cannot as it seems to be a limitation regarding my device but as usual you “ jump the gun “ and resort to yet more Ad Hominien attacks ,also posting up plagarised cartoon like images demonstrates your childishness and nothing else .

Maybe you should run on back to the Flat Earths homepage and try and come up with a “better”  explanation for the blood moon than the “ official “ line as in “ It was a ( wait for it ) a NASA hologram ?????? 

Mic drop 

@Joeseph quoted - 

In principle, you could do this: First, you place the laser on say, a carefully levelled plank. Assuming this places the beam exactly two inches about the ground, you can place a vertical board next to it and make a mark where the beam strikes the board—2 inched above the ground. Now walk 1 mile in the direction of the beam and again place the board in its path. Since the beam is level at its point of origin, it should be leaving the Earth’s surface at a tangent, so at 1 mile distance, it should strike the board 2+7.98 or roughly 10 inches above the ground.

The trouble with this is, how sure you are that the beam is level? How sure are you that the ground is level? You could do the same thing over water, but you’d have different (and even greater) uncertainties.

WHAAAT? Was the ground level? Did you read a few lines above where you quoted: "First, you place the laser on say, a carefully levelled plank."
OK, when you do a science experiment and follow these steps like  "first, carefully leveling a plank" then your first assumption should NOT be: "how sure you are that the beam is level?" LOL

You are either ignorant of how "real scientific experiments" should be done, or are here just to Troll? I believe both.

I worked in the Aerospace industry as both a machinist, and an Inspector. We used the most sophisticated and accurate CMM machines in the world, here, let me show you an example:

a 6 μm diameter carbon filament, compared to 50 μm diameter human hair

Working with ultra-high accuracy CNC coordinate measuring machine (CMM)

Mitutoyo America Corporation announces the release of the latest LEGEX ultra-high accuracy CNC coordinate measuring machine (CMM). The ultra-accurate LEGEX 4 surpasses conventional CMM performance to deliver world-leading accuracy in length measurement of E0,MPE = (0.28+L/1000) μm.

You see the human hair at 50um and the 6um carbon filament? These machines can measure down to 0.28um. But to get such measurements the CMM must be in in a temperature controlled room sitting on at least 6' of solid concreate and the aircraft part that exceeds 1inch in height, the error increases drastically. So a plethora of precautions are to be made before doing such measurements, .. but measuring the flatness of earth at a 5 to 10 mile distance for a drop of 8" squared after every mile is relatively easy, I'd say to within a tenths of an inch accuracy, done with the right instruments and yes, making sure the telescope, laser or transit is level

See @Erfisflat there is just no way to measure if the earth, or water is flat even standing on solid earth, .. so I guess we'll just have to accept the Globe as depicted in the 60 year old Blue Marble.

BUT, ..

NASA astrophysicists in a giant Telescope mounted on top of a California mountain that experiences hundreds of tremors a day, while looking through about 200 miles of dusty air, with all the different moistures in the air moved up and down by heat and cold, and to and fro by different airstreams, while on a planet wobbling, spinning, orbiting and riding the Spacetime Fabric through other galaxies, be able to locate one of almost 900 planets outside our solar system that have been confirmed to date, yep, .. 900 and they have the NASA Starving Artists pictures to prove it too!
But the suspected planet considered the farthest yet from earth that's orbiting the diminutive red dwarf TW Hydrae, a popular astronomy target located 176 light-years away from Earth in the constellation Hydra the Sea Serpent is easy to figure out. And if that 176 light year distance is not impressive enough, they can even trig out the distance between these 900 planets!?

Yep, .. but to check if the earth/water is Flat or not over ten miles, well, .. NASA and fellow supporters say: "Impossible, .. there is just no way to measure"! They can't even be sure they have their laser-transit 'level' or not, .. can you believe this!?    But looking at a speck of glittering star 176 light years from earth, .. bah, that's easy. They will even tell you it's weight, type of planet, even its soil sample and what life was there millions and billions of years ago . .. lol.

Now let's see how far they say this twinkling star is,  like this planet at 176 light years away in miles?
176 L.Y. X 365 days = 64,240 days
64,240 X 24 hours = 1,541,760 hours
1,541,760 X 60 minutes = 92,505,600 minutes
92,505,600 X 60 seconds = 5,550,336,000 seconds
5,550,336,000 X 186,282 miles per second = 1.03392769^15 miles away, .. and they can tell both the distance from earth, and the distance between other planets, but claim that it is impossible to check if the earth is flat or not over a short expanse of 10 miles.

Joeseph

@Evidence

You say ....You are either ignorant of how "real scientific experiments" should be done, or are here just to Troll? I believe both.

My reply .....I’m well aware of how real scientific experiments work , you and your buddy @Ersfkat are not , as yous both deny fact as in Evolution for a start .

Your buddy is still sticking to the Bedford level experiment despite being corrected several times , I note you blame me for your ignorance in scientific matters and accuse me of “ trolling “ for merely defending my position but hey that’s the way with you guys gang up on me and accuse me of what yous are doing .....Irony 

You say .....I worked in the Aerospace industry as both a machinist, and an Inspector. We used the most sophisticated and accurate CMM machines in the world, here, let me show you an example:

Working with ultra-high accuracy CNC coordinate measuring machine (CMM)

Mitutoyo America Corporation announces the release of the latest LEGEX ultra-high accuracy CNC coordinate measuring machine (CMM). The ultra-accurate LEGEX 4 surpasses conventional CMM performance to deliver world-leading accuracy in length measurement of E0,MPE = (0.28+L/1000) μm.

You see the human hair at 50um and the 6um carbon filament? These machines can measure down to 0.28um. But to get such measurements the CMM must be in in a temperature controlled room sitting on at least 6' of solid concreate and the aircraft part that exceeds 1inch in height, the error increases drastically. So a plethora of precautions are to be made before doing such measurements, .. but measuring the flatness of earth at a 5 to 10 mile distance for a drop of 8" squared after every mile is relatively easy, I'd say to within a tenths of an inch accuracy, done with the right instruments and yes, making sure the telescope, laser or transit is level

See @Erfisflat there is just no way to measure if the earth, or water is flat even standing on solid earth, .. so I guess we'll just have to accept the Globe as depicted in the 60 year old Blue Marble.

BUT, ..

NASA astrophysicists in a giant Telescope mounted on top of a California mountain that experiences hundreds of tremors a day, while looking through about 200 miles of dusty air, with all the different moistures in the air moved up and down by heat and cold, and to and fro by different airstreams, while on a planet wobbling, spinning, orbiting and riding the Spacetime Fabric through other galaxies, be able to locate one of almost 900 planets outside our solar system that have been confirmed to date, yep, .. 900 and they have the NASA Starving Artists pictures to prove it too!

But the suspected planet considered the farthest yet from earth that's orbiting the diminutive red dwarf TW Hydrae, a popular astronomy target located 176 light-years away from Earth in the constellation Hydra the Sea Serpent is easy to figure out. And if that 176 light year distance is not impressive enough, they can even trig out the distance between these 900 planets!?

Yep, .. but to check if the earth/water is Flat or not over ten miles, well, .. NASA and fellow supporters say: "Impossible, .. there is just no way to measure"! They can't even be sure they have their laser-transit 'level' or not, .. can you believe this!?    But looking at a speck of glittering star 176 light years from earth, .. bah, that's easy. They will even tell you it's weight, type of planet, even its soil sample and what life was there millions and billions of years ago . .. lol.

Now let's see how far they say this twinkling star is,  like this planet at 176 light years away in miles?

176 L.Y. X 365 days = 64,240 days

64,240 X 24 hours = 1,541,760 hours

1,541,760 X 60 minutes = 92,505,600 minutes

92,505,600 X 60 seconds = 5,550,336,000 seconds

5,550,336,000 X 186,282 miles per second = 1.03392769^15 miles away, .. and they can tell both the distance from earth, .......

........and the distance between other planets, but claim that it is impossible to check if the earth is flat or not over a short expanse of 10 miles.

My reply ..... What a pile of nonsense show me the quote where NASA said that ?   I bet you cannot .

The ancient Greeks proved the roundness of earth with sticks and shadows maybe you and your fellow flathead should get onto NASA and tell the guys ? 

Erfisflat

"Oh dear , what a long winded piece of nonsense and all copied , (plagiarised) and pasted from Flat earth weekly or monthly , so still no links to credible scientific sources to back up your inane assertions . "

You've still not pointed out any sources that I've been plagiarizing from, so this is a totally unsubstantiated red herring, meant to draw attention from your deception and the very many points you've dropped so far, like eclipses (which was sourced and proved), your 2-4 word nonsensical "nuh-uh" replies that serve simple minded people as a "rebuttal" (which was sourced and proved), "the edge" (which was logically refuted) and many other "arguments", using the term loosely.

"I have asked repeatedly for links and sources to your daily more desperate claims and all I get is denial you posted a piece last night that cited a deeply flawed experiment that Wallace corrected and proved beyond a doubt the curvature of the earth , the piece you copy and pasted actually demonstrated this but you never realised this until I told you and then typically said “ Wallace was wrong and a CAD program proved this “ Really ? Why not print up the results and if proven surely the scientific community would acknowledge such ? "

The piece I posted, or the part I was referencing, was about the amount of curvature that must be present, if the earth was a ball that size. This was accompanied by an example of an experiment to test for this easily measurable curvature. I clarified this and despite that, you've managed to warp that conversation into some incoherent babbling to ignore the accuracy of the mathematics behind my claim. You again assert, or parrot rather, that the experiment was "corrected" without any clarification except "after adjusting Rowbotham's method to avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction..." What method is that? Why is it that there are countless other experiments confirm the results? How would one avoid the effects of atmospheric refraction? Infrared cameras which weren't available then? Your and Wikipedia's argument is incomplete, lacks any substantial evidence, and is thereby an assertion.



"That is unless yet again youre making it up as you go along ? 

Seeing as you have not got a junior science teacher between yous or a laser where yous live let me help you yet again, 
this may be beyond you yet again as most things seem to be ......."

I've read these through and your assertion that a laser can be used to measure a curve on a glass of water that was made earlier that science teachers allegedly perform which I pointed out to be a ridiculous and unfounded assertion, remains such.

"from Quora C.Stuart Hardwick .....

Q: What is the minimum distance over water that, using a laser, the curvature of the earth can be clearly demonstrated using ordinary household measuring devices?"

Not a glass of water....

"Interesting question. The difficulty is going to be that the surface of the Earth is soft and lumpy, so you can’t really measure the curvature of the Earth until the amount of curvature exceeds the local lumpiness or in the case of water, “sloshiness.”

The Earth’s curvature works out to 7.98 inches over one mile*. So lets assume the laser in question is of respectable wattage sufficient to be seen (on a dark night) a mile away , and that instead of water, you conduct your experiment some place with very low lumpiness like the Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah.

In principle, you could do this: First, you place the laser on say, a carefully levelled plank. Assuming this places the beam exactly two inches about the ground, you can place a vertical board next to it and make a mark where the beam strikes the board—2 inched above the ground. Now walk 1 mile in the direction of the beam and again place the board in its path. Since the beam is level at its point of origin, it should be leaving the Earth’s surface at a tangent, so at 1 mile distance, it should strike the board 2+7.98 or roughly 10 inches above the ground.

The trouble with this is, how sure you are that the beam is level? How sure are you that the ground is level? You could do the same thing over water, but you’d have different (and even greater) uncertainties.

To do this simply, you need to increase the signal to noise ratio. The way to do that is to alter the experiment and increase the distance sufficiently so that minor variations don’t matter.

Enlist a helper who can join you at the Bonneville salt flats. Fix your laser to a tall photographic tripod, extended to its maximum height, and placed atop a table so that the beam is a bit more than 6 feet off the ground.

Now, have your assistant drive 6 miles in some specific direction in a white Winnebago (that’s a household item, right?). Now, communicating via radio, aim the laser in the direction she drove, and swing it around, send up flares, or do whatever you have to do till she reports seeing the laser on the on the camper at roughly the same height as the origin point.

Now lock the laser in place and start cranking down the height of the tripod.

When the beam reaches roughly 6 feet off the ground, she’ll see it wink out. That’s because the horizon is three miles away, half way between you. This is far enough that minor lumps and bumps in the ground don’t matter. Repeat the experiment in some other direction—lots of other directions, and you’ll always find the same thing—when the beam starting and ending point start out the same height above the ground, then the source end is lowered, the target end will always wink out when the beam hits the horizon at roughly 6 feet. This experiment  is highly insensitive to exact measurements and “lumps and bumps.”

"Or (at the suggestion of Bengt Persson):

1. Find any undisturbed stretch, if possible more than 1/10 of a mile ((160m).Get a laser (pointer or similar) visible at this distance.Get 2 gardening water tube (each half the stretch).Get 3 glass (plastic) jars, having two flat parallel sides, and with connectors to the tubes in the bottom.Place one jar in each end and one in the middle of the stretch.Fill tubes with water, and jars halfway. make sure there are noDirect the laser from one end jar to the middle one. In both cases such that the light barely touches the surface.Check the distance between the light and the water surface on the third. With a correct setup it is about 3/4 inch.The setup is simple and robust with limited requirements, except for the stability and control of the laser. So depending on age one can let their creativity loose or provide a ready made solution for the younger ones. Remember that the range of an ordinary laser pointer can be extended with external optics.

Did you follow that , I bet the answer is no ? Maybe now instead of posting up plagarised nonsense from the Flatheads society you could actually post some real scientific proofs for your ridiculous claims and explain why no one of any credibility shares your absurd views .... Oh wait a couple of FB and You Tube rappers reckon you lot are onto something ."

Ok, you're starting to get it, but these are just hypotheticals, suggestions of experiments, not conclusive results, or their being performed. So, after talking with me for just a few days now, you've gone from the position :"you're a flat head , show me in my peer review bible where it says the earth is flat" to Googling some experiments we can try, but no results or performances, just the assumption that they prove curvature.

Odds are you won't do them and share your results, and you seem to scoff at the idea of watching a video of someone else perform those and other experiments that test for curvature. Now you claim that I cannot provide one, and am just copy and pasting all my results from the shill flat earth society. I don't go to the flat earth society, they are a controlled opposition group, and are just here to discredit and misinform.

You are aware that there are other methods of testing for curvature, correct? There is line of sight, where you first calculate the distance from two points, then the allowed or minimum amount of curvature, then, if you can see an object that is lower than that "hump" of water, after adjusting for observer height, this would prove that the hump is not there. 

Here is a test, where instead of a laser, (there are also laser tests) the sun(much brighter than a laser) is used at over six miles.

Here is a couple of laser tests over water.

Everyday observation of 57 miles of flat water, which is impossible in the globe model.

"Regards formatting my I pad does not let me use bold or italic on this site I’ve asked Aaron to help with this he cannot as it seems to be a limitation regarding my device but as usual you “ jump the gun “ and resort to yet more Ad Hominien attacks ,also posting up plagarised cartoon like images demonstrates your childishness and nothing else."

Quotation marks work just as well. Just make sure you aren't paraphrasing when you use them. Are you using Safari or Chrome? I am a moderator as well as a technician and have worked a bit with Aarong with development of the site, so I may can help.

Maybe you should run on back to the Flat Earths homepage and try and come up with a “better”  explanation for the blood moon than the “ official “ line as in “ It was a ( wait for it ) a NASA hologram ?????? 

Mic drop 

Just when I thought you were getting less stupider, you go and do something like that.

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

Right so that’s your game then being the “good Christian “ you are as in brand people who disagree with your assertions as , this coming from a science denying Bible thumper with the brains of a goat is amusing to say the least , I see you’re best buddies with Evidence who brands ma a “satanist “ only in the USA  do  nuts like yous seem to abound .

I told your buddy this morning children with a couple of sticks and sunlight can prove curvature of the earth , your continuous denial of basic science show how indoctrinated you truly are , you post a link to a site called a You Tube conspiracy channel as a proof ???? Then add insult to injury and link me too an appalling ....Theist channel  who’s claim is ......To promote God's Truth and expose the world's lies. What if everything that NASA & Science has taught you about the earth, sun, ... next video is starting stop........Are you for real this is your “ science “ some bible thumping half -wit trying to prove the earth is flat with a Bible ????

Go away you’re beyond help and still no peer reviewed papers or explanation of why your own site ( The flat earth one ) called the blood moon a .......NASA ........holograph ???? Oh wait you agree with that “ assessment don’t you ? 

BTW your lake Michagen nonsense was put to bed and debunked a good while back check it out on You Tube but I guess the Bible disagrees , also when you’re on You Tube there’s plenty of videos showing how the ancient Greeks discovered curvature ..... with those big sticks and a bit of sunlight.........Maybe you and Evidence could give it a whirl sometime ? 

Erfisflat

Right so that’s your game then being the “good Christian “ you are as in brand people who disagree with your assertions as , this coming from a science denying Bible thumper with the brains of a goat is amusing to say the least , I see you’re best buddies with Evidence who brands ma a “satanist “ only in the USA  do  nuts like yous seem to abound ."

Actually I haven't mentioned any verses from the Bible. My intentions are to show via the scientific method, that the earth, or water thereon, has no curve or convexity. @Evidence is a man who saw the truth from actual verifiable evidence, that the flat earth is truth, and we have become friends. I was atheist but after this discovery (intelligent design) I kind of eliminated the other theories of creation. The magical explosion from nothing thing wouldn't make a flat, stationary plane, which is what we see and can empirically observe.

"I told your buddy this morning children with a couple of sticks and sunlight can prove curvature of the earth ,"

This is only if you assume that the light is hitting the earth at parallel angles. The same conclusion can be mathematically drawn from a closer, and smaller sun over a flat surface. 


The experiment was named after it's creater, Eratosthenes from ancient Greek. Eratosthenes also claimed that because elephants existed in the east, in Asia, and again in Africa, that he had circumnavigated the globe! Look up another verse in the peer reviewed scientific journals! This one is a bust!

What's funny, is that you imply that ancient texts are nonsensical, if they are from a Bible, but you have now brought up ancient text to try and prove your point! Unless you can prove that the sun is 93 million miles away, your evidence rests on a false assumption. How did Eratosthenes come to the conclusion that the sun is far, far away?


" your continuous denial of basic science show how indoctrinated you truly are , you post a link to a site called a You Tube conspiracy channel as a proof ????"

This is not a valid reason to dismiss the evidence contained. If the earth were found flat, as active scientists are now discovering when we test it, it would be a conspiracy, wouldn't it? Giving it a misunderstood label does not discredit the information. Your reply is a guilt by association fallacy.
"A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything."

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-guilt-by-association/



" Then add insult to injury and link me too an appalling ....Theist channel  who’s claim is ......To promote God's Truth and expose the world's lies. What if everything that NASA & Science has taught you about the earth, sun, ... next video is starting stop........"

More of the above, can be completely ignored, ergo, there is not argument here.

"Are you for real this is your “ science “ some bible thumping half -wit trying to prove the earth is flat with a Bible ????"

It was not done with a Bible, and yes, it is science, by definition.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

"Go away you’re beyond help and still no peer reviewed papers "

Sorry, I didn't see "peer review" in the definition of science, let's look again.

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Nope, still not there. Therefore it is by definition, pseudoscience.

"or explanation of why your own site ( The flat earth one ) called the blood moon a .......NASA ........holograph ???? Oh wait you agree with that “ assessment don’t you ? "

Nope, you have no reason to assume that I agree with any of whatever website you're pulling that from. 

"BTW your lake Michagen nonsense was put to bed and debunked a good while back check it out on You Tube but I guess the Bible disagrees , "

So in response to my mountain of empirical and validatable evidence, your reply is "check out a random YouTube video that I forgot about"? Can I change my vote to yes on this poll?

"also when you’re on You Tube there’s plenty of videos showing how the ancient Greeks discovered curvature ..... with those big sticks and a bit of sunlight.........Maybe you and Evidence could give it a whirl sometime ? "

And just like that, you were annihilated.

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say .....Actually I haven't mentioned any verses from the Bible. 

My reply ..   No you post links to bible thumping sites to do it for you

You say ....My intentions are to show via the scientific method, .....

My reply .... If you are going to use “ science “ post links to your sources . But you don’t have any do you ? 

You say ....that the earth, or water thereon, has no curve or convexity. ....

My reply ..... The blood moon was the final nail in that coffin 

Evidence is a man who saw the truth from actual verifiable evidence, that the flat earth is truth, and we have become friends. ....

My reply ..... verifiable evidence you refuse to share with the scientific community, why’s that 

You say ., ...I was atheist but after this discovery (intelligent design) I kind of eliminated the other theories of creation. ...

My reply ..... I don’t believe you nor do I care 

You say ......The magical explosion from nothing thing wouldn't make a flat, stationary plane, .....

My reply ..... Whos calling it that ? The magical god from nowhere I suppose as usual is the exception ? 

You say.......which is what we see and can empirically observe.

My reply .....Look at a few NASA shots buddy 

You say .....This is only if you assume that the light is hitting the earth at parallel angles. The same conclusion can be mathematically drawn from a closer, and smaller sun over a flat surface. 

My reply ......

I never mentioned Eratosthenes and he ever set out to prove curvature you foolish creature it was old news at the time 

Eratosthenes’ most famous accomplishment is his measurement of the circumference of Earth. He recorded the details of this measurement in a manuscript that is now lost, but his technique has been described by other Greek historians and writers.

You say .....The experiment was named after it's creater, Eratosthenes from ancient Greek. Eratosthenes also claimed that because elephants existed in the east, in Asia, and again in Africa, that he had circumnavigated the globe! Look up another verse in the peer reviewed scientific journals! This one is a bust!

My reply .... Again you’re the one babbling on about him not me , that’s a bust buddy 

You say .....What's funny, is that you imply that ancient texts are nonsensical, if they are from a Bible, 

My reply ....Yes that’s a given 

You say ....

but you have now brought up ancient text to try and prove your point! 

My reply .... No , I still have not though lying is your favourite tactic I note 

You say ....Unless you can prove that the sun is 93 million miles away, your evidence rests on a false assumption. How did Eratosthenes come to the conclusion that the sun is far, far away?

My reply ..... You’re still on about someone  I never mentioned you clot 

You say ......This is not a valid reason to dismiss the evidence contained

My reply ..... It sure is unless you think scientists around the world want to hear a lunatic state the world is flat because a book of nonsense says so

. You say .....If the earth were found flat, as active scientists are now discovering when we test it, .....

My reply ..... More lies ..... Name the credible scientists that agree with your claims , bet you cannot name even one 

You say .....would be a conspiracy, wouldn't it? 

My reply .... So her we have it a big conspiracy by nasty Atheist scientists , for what reason exactly 

You say ....Giving it a misunderstood label does not discredit the information. Your reply is a guilt by association fallacy.

"A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything."

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-guilt-by-association/

My reply ..... So now you don’t want to be associated with the sources you quote are you on drugs ?

You say.....More of the above, can be completely ignored....

My reply .... You’ve no defense 

, You say .....ergo, there is not argument here.

My reply ....You cannot defend your position, nothing new is it ?

You say ....It was not done with a Bible, 

My reply ....  You need to get on site more 

You say .....and yes, it is science, by definition.

My reply .... Nonsense 

You say .... Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

My reply ..... The intellectual part rules you out of participating 

You say .....Sorry, I didn't see "peer review" in the definition of science, let's look again.

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

My reply .... That’s because you didn’t google Peer reviewed , let me help.....

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book

It’s what real scientists do , so still no peer reviewed papers buddy ? 

You say .....Nope, you have no reason to assume that I agree with any of whatever website you're pulling that from. 

My reply ..... Ah so you agree the Blood moon finally convinced you then aren’t eyes a marvelous thing 

You say.....So in response to my mountain of empirical and validatable evidence, your reply is "check out a random YouTube video that I forgot about"? Can I change my vote to yes on this poll?

My reply ..... You posted zero Validatable  “ evidence “ also the larger scientific community awaits your “ revelations “ 

You say ......And just like that, you were annihilated.

My reply ......Interesting” assessment” from a guy who uses a you tube conspiracy channel as his go too source , thinks we live under a giant glass dome and the world is hollow , flat as a pancake and so is Mars all because it says so ( except Mars ) in a book written by flea ridden Bronze Age goat herds .

Maybe the Nobel prize committee will finally pay homage to you and your Bible thumping buddies that is if you can find even one peer reviewed paper or scientist who can back up your ridiculous narrative up ........

As you poke through the ashes of your total destruction take heart and se it as your  “ crucifixion “ ..... You’re a modern day martyr for the Flatheads hip , hip hurrah , hip,  hip hurrah 

Erfisflat

You say .....Actually I haven't mentioned any verses from the Bible. 

My reply ..   No you post links to bible thumping sites to do it for you"

So your claim that:

"this coming from a science denying Bible thumper with the brains of a goat"

Is a lie, along with ad hominem.

"You say ....My intentions are to show via the scientific method, .....

My reply .... If you are going to use “ science “ post links to your sources . But you don’t have any do you ? "

I have posted several sources, the Debra links at the bottom of each argument tells exactly how many, and they range from everyday observations to meticulous experiments to detailed diagrams and mathematics to back up the claims I make. Your sources? 0. You've displayed nothing but fallaciousness in this argument. Congrats.

You say ....that the earth, or water thereon, has no curve or convexity. ....

My reply ..... The blood moon was the final nail in that coffin 

What, since you've yet to explain, does the blood moon have to do with the earth? I think the final nail in the coffin was the countless tests being performed that find no curvature. No curvature, no ball. You say "blood moon, ball" is a non-sequitor.

"Evidence is a man who saw the truth from actual verifiable evidence, that the flat earth is truth, and we have become friends. ....

My reply ..... verifiable evidence you refuse to share with the scientific community, why’s that "

It's been shared, like you, they are ignorantly dismissive, and i know why. This is an investigation into their /your paradigm. 

"You say ., ...I was atheist but after this discovery (intelligent design) I kind of eliminated the other theories of creation. ...

My reply ..... I don’t believe you nor do I care "

That is very clear now. As they say, you can lead a bafoon to water, or wait, that's a horse. Nevermind.

"You say ......The magical explosion from nothing thing wouldn't make a flat, stationary plane, .....

My reply ..... Whos calling it that ? The magical god from nowhere I suppose as usual is the exception ? "

That's more plausible than saying that nothing created everything.

"You say.......which is what we see and can empirically observe.

My reply .....Look at a few NASA shots buddy "

Those cartoon balls only fool the gullible.

"You say .....This is only if you assume that the light is hitting the earth at parallel angles. The same conclusion can be mathematically drawn from a closer, and smaller sun over a flat surface. 

My reply ......

I never mentioned Eratosthenes and he ever set out to prove curvature you foolish creature it was old news at the time 

Eratosthenes’ most famous accomplishment is his measurement of the circumference of Earth. He recorded the details of this measurement in a manuscript that is now lost, but his technique has been described by other Greek historians and writers."

Wow, you are very ignorant aren't you. The experiment that YOU offered as evidence for curvature (two sticks in the ground) is called the eratosthanes experiment, despite what reason he did it, you attempted to use it as evidence for curvature. If you're going to recant what you said, and backpedal, that is noted.

 Ok, without using Google, how did he measure the earth? How did this prove the earth was a ball? If you can't relate the two and acknowledge my rebuttal, you clearly aren't interested in honest discourse, perhaps we formally debate the matter, take a vote, and set the matter to rest. You present evidence for the spinning cartoon pearoid, I prove to you that there is far more substantial (look that one up, you'll want to know what that means) evidence for a stationary flat earth. You'll run away because you now know that, and Google has run out of answers.

"You say .....The experiment was named after it's creater, Eratosthenes from ancient Greek. Eratosthenes also claimed that because elephants existed in the east, in Asia, and again in Africa, that he had circumnavigated the globe! Look up another verse in the peer reviewed scientific journals! This one is a bust!

My reply .... Again you’re the one babbling on about him not me , that’s a bust buddy"

I rebutted an argument, and am patiently waiting on any sort of logical response. This will likely be totally dropped, ignored, and or receive a 3-4 word response (aka silent concession) We'll see.

"You say .....What's funny, is that you imply that ancient texts are nonsensical, if they are from a Bible, 

My reply ....Yes that’s a given"

Is it? How is it a given? This is just an opinion! Your mind is in complete control. Do you know what MKUltra is? You seem like you watch a lot of television, am I right?

"You say ....but you have now brought up ancient text to try and prove your point! 

My reply .... No , I still have not though lying is your favourite tactic I note "

Your responses are just becoming laughable now. Did you or did you not bring up two sticks in the dirt as... Let me find the quote...

"I told your buddy this morning children with a couple of sticks and sunlight can prove curvature of the earth ,"

? Maybe I can find it in your incoherent "my replies" 

"You say ....Unless you can prove that the sun is 93 million miles away, your evidence rests on a false assumption. How did Eratosthenes come to the conclusion that the sun is far, far away?"

"My reply ..... You’re still on about someone  I never mentioned you clot"

No, as I mentioned, and you cherry picked around, you put the eratosthenes experiment up as evidence, as was quoted above, whether or not you were competent enough to understand that fact is irrelevant.

"You say ......This is not a valid reason to dismiss the evidence contained

My reply ..... It sure is unless you think scientists around the world want to hear a lunatic state the world is flat because a book of nonsense says so"

About 1/3 of the human population now knows at the very least that the earth isn't a ball. You're telling me that there are no scientists that know the earth is flat? What is your definition of scientists, because I match the dictionary definition of scientist. 

. You say .....If the earth were found flat, as active scientists are now discovering when we test it, .....

My reply ..... More lies ..... Name the credible scientists that agree with your claims , bet you cannot name even one"

I don't think credible is a suitable term, I prefer qualified. 

How about the engineer/physicist Brian Mullen? He had a series called balls out physiscs.

Meteorologist Mr. Thrive and survive

I could go on, but I'd like to see your definition of scientist first.

"You say .....would be a conspiracy, wouldn't it? 

My reply .... So her we have it a big conspiracy by nasty Atheist scientists , for what reason exactly"

To hide God from the gullible. Simply put. I can ellaborate and give a few more reasons, but your responses are lacking, and there is little to no effort or logic anymore, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

"You say ....Giving it a misunderstood label does not discredit the information. Your reply is a guilt by association fallacy.

"A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything."

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-guilt-by-association/

My reply ..... So now you don’t want to be associated with the sources you quote are you on drugs ?"

That is not what I said. Read it again if you must to understand what I said, and what the fallacy states.

"You say.....More of the above, can be completely ignored....

My reply .... You’ve no defense"

Another three word response. (Silent concession)

"You say .....ergo, there is not argument here.

My reply ....You cannot defend your position, nothing new is it ?"

Im not the one dropping multiple points. What happened to eclipse? You have officially conceded, you have no argument. If you had one, i would show some defense. You have dropped all arguments. Now you're just wasting time.

"You say ....It was not done with a Bible, 

My reply ....  You need to get on site more"

This isn't a coherent sentence. On which site?

"You say .....and yes, it is science, by definition.

My reply .... Nonsense"

Down to one word responses again.

"You say .... Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

My reply ..... The intellectual part rules you out of participating"

No argument here another obviously false ad hominem fallacy. 

"You say .....Sorry, I didn't see "peer review" in the definition of science, let's look again.

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

My reply .... That’s because you didn’t google Peer reviewed , let me help.....

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal, conference proceedings or as a book

It’s what real scientists do , so still no peer reviewed papers buddy ?"

So, in essence, you're rejecting one book written by men, then blindly and whole-heartedly accepting another book, written by men. Why should I believe your Bible over anyone elses? You've confused this peer reviewed bible with science, even substituting the very word and definition. You are the epitomy of pseudoscientists.

"You say .....Nope, you have no reason to assume that I agree with any of whatever website you're pulling that from. 

My reply ..... Ah so you agree the Blood moon finally convinced you then aren’t eyes a marvelous thing"

Another completely incoherent statement. Reread my reply if you can't understand it.

"You say.....So in response to my mountain of empirical and validatable evidence, your reply is "check out a random YouTube video that I forgot about"? Can I change my vote to yes on this poll?

My reply ..... You posted zero Validatable  “ evidence “

Lie. Anyone can go to Lake michigan, or measure any body of water and get the same results. This is what validatable means.

" also the larger scientific community awaits your “ revelations “ 

I give it two years, and you're the minority. Your grandchildren may find this and laugh at you.

"You say ......And just like that, you were annihilated.

My reply ......Interesting” assessment” from a guy who uses a you tube conspiracy channel as his go too source ,

Unless I missed it, you've not given a single source, and mine weren't limited to Youtube, but this is still no reason to dismiss the evidence. If you were to show where the error in the experiment was, it would be a valid rebuttal, my guess is that you haven't even watched them... Smh.

" thinks we live under a giant glass dome"

Correct. And there is more evidence for the firmament than for an infinite vacuum. Don't believe me? Where is your evidence. Space movies?!?! 

" and the world is hollow"

Not my position.

" , flat as a pancake"

Also not my position. Obviously, there are hills and such.

" and so is Mars all because it says so ( except Mars ) in a book written by flea ridden Bronze Age goat herds ."

Globetards believe they live on a cartoon spinning ball in an infinite space vacuum. The only proof these mental defectives have are cartoon composites and computer generated images provided by the government, that they saw on the television. Globetards were indoctrinated to reject any notion of a God, or a higher power, and instead wave their hands while proclaiming that the earth they live on was created by a magical explosion because of... reasons. Globetards believe that the earth was formed right in the perfect area, a certain distance from the sun, known as the "Goldilocks zone". This area of their imaginary infinite space vacuum is where everything is just perfect for life to not only survive, but to thrive as well. And of course globetards choose to believe this is all completely due to random, cosmic luck. They also believe that this same random cosmic luck is what caused their ape brained ancestors to evolve from primates into the bright shiny globetards that they are today. Basically, their argument boils down to... "but, but, but muh science book!" They can't even agree on whether or not their cartoon spinning ball is a sphere, or an oblate spheroid.
Just after the nearest globetard claiming the earth is actually pear shaped, they will then cite Neil Degrasse Tyson saying so as their proof. Another thing globetards can't seem to get straight is the height in which the supposed curvature becomes visible on their spinning cartoon pearoid. Some globetards will tell you they can see the curvature from on top of a mountain, while other globetards proclaim they can see the curvature from outside an airplane window. But the smartest of the globetards will contradict his fellow ball worshippers and proclaim that one must be much higher than that in order to see the supposed curvature of the magical tilting pearoid. This alone gives us some insight into the fast paced research of globetards. Because all they had to do at some point, was to open their minds and use the senses they were created with to find out. Despite this, these gullible globe guzzlers think they can make pronouncements about reality, even though they have never actually lived in it. -FEA

"Maybe the Nobel prize committee will finally pay homage to you and your Bible thumping buddies that is if you can find even one peer reviewed paper or scientist who can back up your ridiculous narrative up ........"

I don't read your bible, sorry.

"As you poke through the ashes of your total destruction take heart and se it as your  “ crucifixion “ ..... You’re a modern day martyr for the Flatheads hip , hip hurrah , hip,  hip hurrah "

I applaud your stupidity. Please, accept the formal debate so that we can all have a good guffaw at your expense.

@Joeseph

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say .... I applaud your stupidity. Please, accept the formal debate so that we can all have a good guffaw at your expense

My reply ...... I have an answer to all your points but you know what I’m better than that , I don’t know you personally and wish you no ill so go on have your laugh and guffaw away , don’t forget to tell your fellow Christians on Sunday what a tough guy you are 

Erfisflat

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat

You say .... I applaud your stupidity. Please, accept the formal debate so that we can all have a good guffaw at your expense

My reply ...... I have an answer to all your points but you know what I’m better than that , I don’t know you personally and wish you no ill so go on have your laugh and guffaw away , don’t forget to tell your fellow Christians on Sunday what a tough guy you are 

I accept your concession and I take this as your running away a coward from a formal debate on the shape of the earth.

Evidence

NKJVPrewrather said:

"More ", not "stupider".

@NKJVPrewrather ;
Some of these Globetard's are , others stupider, and then you have those who are the stupiderest, .. est, ..

Joeseph

@Erisflatt

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat 

You say .... I applaud your stupidity. Please, accept the formal debate so that we can all have a good guffaw at your expense

My reply ...... I have an answer to all your points but you know what I’m better than that , I don’t know you personally and wish you no ill so go on have your laugh and guffaw away , don’t forget to tell your fellow Christians on Sunday what a tough guy you are 

I accept your concession and I take this as your running away a coward from a formal debate on the shape of the earth.

I never  offered a "concession" you half - Wit but being the science denying troll you are no doubt you will pm all your fellow flatheads too vote you the winner

I will  debate you and destroy  you but I will set some ground rules that  any rational person would agree on , but I bet you will flee like the cowardly American low life you are.

Firstly I shall address your last pile of nonsense you plagiarised and  copied and pasted  from The Fat Head Society , that fair enough  you  scum bag  ?

Evidence

@Erfisflat hey buddy,


As Neil deGrasse Tyson teaches third graders:


and here is what NASA shows as an actual photo:



The pearshapedness of the Earth is not noticeable from the moon, even though the earth is 8,000 miles, which is about four times the diameter of the of the moon, (or 2,159 miles in diameter)



And here is the earth shot from the moon: (Apollo 11)


@Joeseph
Would of been nice for Buzz and the boys to take a telescopic photo of the earth which is supposedly four times larger than the moon for us here, and point out some of our continents in this view, right?
I mean I can see every crater of the moon with my 10" Celestron, so the earth being 4 times larger, they could have easily seen the Grand Canyons with even the naked eye, let alone a good zoom on a camera!

Or this:

Does anyone see something wrong here? Please compare the two photos, one above: of the earth from the moon, .. and this bottom one is the moon from earth, the same set up as above Earth-shot, yet look at the shadows!!!
How about the sizes, ..I don't know about you buddy, but the above Earth-shot looks about the size of the moon from earth, not an object 4 times the diameter!?
Now imagine the moon here, but 4-times larger! That's how the earth should have looked for the Astronauts in the above photo!

The moon from earth at daytime

Ooops, also the sun is shining the top of earth and the bottom of the moon at the same time. Now remember the sun is 93 million miles behind/top of us, and the moon is 239,000 miles in front and above of us. The moon should be completely illuminated by the sun, not the bottom.

Here is how they explain it, not ot us taxpaying adults, but to "kids":

Planets For Kids

http://www.planetsforkids.org/why-can-we-see-the-moon-during-the-day.html

- Due to the rotation of the moon around the earth, it is actually above our horizon for about twelve hours out of our twenty four hour day.  We can only usually see the moon for about six hours during that time period, and then the bright light energy of the sun overpowers the reflection.

What pitifully poor deception on us poor brainwashed victims! Who says MK-Ultra TV-Programming doesn't work?

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say ......So your claim that:

"this coming from a science denying Bible thumper with the brains of a goat"

Is a lie, along with ad hominem.....

My reply ....

But you’re a Bible thumper why are you doing a “ doubting Thomas “ act now   Oh wait it’s because you’re too cowardly to stand by your beliefs .

Regards saying you have the brains of a goat .... For this I apologize to .....goats everywhere 

If you are going to use “ science “ post links to your sources . But you don’t have any do you ? "

You say ....I have posted several sources....

My reply .... You tube bible thumping sites come on ??? Really ?

You say .......the Debra links at the bottom of each argument tells exactly how many, and they range from everyday observations to meticulous experiments to detailed diagrams and mathematics to back up the claims I make........

My reply ..... Debra credits links to conspiracy channels and psuedoscientific gibberish sites it’s like you not concerned with genuine content ...... Meticulous experiments ROTFLMAO

You say.......your sources? 0. You've displayed nothing but fallaciousness in this argument. Congrats.

My reply ..... “ There are none so blind as those who cannot see “ 

You say ....that the earth, or water thereon, has no curve or convexity. ....

My reply ..... The blood moon was the final nail in that coffin 

You say......What, since you've yet to explain, does the blood moon have to do with the earth? I think the final nail in the coffin was the countless tests being performed that find no curvature. No curvature, no ball. You say "blood moon, ball" is a non-sequitor.

My reply .....Here’s a link for you seeing as you like them so much and not a Bible needed to back the claim up

https://www.unilad.co.uk/science/yesterdays-blood-moon-completely-destroys-flat-earth-theory-once-and-for-all/

And another real science one  get your minder  to talk you through it ....

https://www.popsci.com/consent.php?redirect=https%3a%2f%2fwww.popsci.com%2f10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round

And another explains it for kids , bet it’s still too complex got a retard  for like you .....

https://www.space.com/38931-kids-can-prove-earth-round.html

You say  .....Countless tests.... no curvature? 

My reply ..... Yet another statement you cannot back up 

I said .....

Bet you’ve not one peer reviewed paper to back your claim up you dummy ?

Your reply ..... Deafening silence ..yet again 

You say .......” Evidence is a man who saw the truth from actual verifiable evidence, that the flat earth is truth, and we have become friends. ....

My reply ..... Real meaning ......You met Evidence in a gay bar and now you love him ......good for you 

I asked  ..... verifiable evidence you refuse to share with the scientific community, why’s that ? 

You say .....It's been shared, like you, they are ignorantly dismissive, and i know why. This is an investigation into their /your paradigm. 

My reply ......No it hasn’t you buffoon bet yet again you cannot prove it , ah yes here we go a big ole conspiracy plan against idiots , don’t flatter yourself you fool 

"You say ., ...I was atheist but after this discovery (intelligent design) I kind of eliminated the other theories of creation. ...

My reply ..... I don’t believe you nor do I care "

You say .....That is very clear now. As they say, you can lead a bafoon to water, or wait, that's a horse. Nevermind......

My reply ...... I bet you and your lover evidence sleep on straw and you read bible stories to him as you tremble every time you hear thunder as god must be angry again 

"You say ......The magical explosion from nothing thing wouldn't make a flat, stationary plane, .....

My reply ..... Whos calling it that ? The magical god from nowhere I suppose as usual is the exception ? "

You say ..That's more plausible than saying that nothing created everything.

My reply ..... Really so something from nothing is illogical but it’s spot on if it’s god ? You fallacious fool you need to work on your logic , let me help you god is something as you  claim or else he is nothing if something cannot come from nothing you’ve defeated yourself you dummy 

"You say.......which is what we see and can empirically observe.

My reply .....Look at a few NASA shots buddy "

You say .....Those cartoon balls only fool the gullible.

My reply ...... Incorrect , they are 100 percent spot on but religious loonies like you are hindered by your insanity  

"You say .....This is only if you assume that the light is hitting the earth at parallel angles. The same conclusion can be mathematically drawn from a closer, and smaller sun over a flat surface. 

My reply ......

I never mentioned Eratosthenes and he ever set out to prove curvature you foolish creature it was old news at the time 

You ask ......

 Ok, without using Google, how did he measure the earth? 

My reply ..... 

I never mentioned Eratosthenes and he never set out to prove curvature you foolish creature it was old news at the time , so why are you obsessing over him ?

But I will humour you as you gay Trolls  amuse me ......

You see different sets of stars in the night sky depending on where you are. The sky over the northern hemisphere is not the same as the sky over the southern hemisphere. If the Earth was flat, then at any given time we would all see the same stars, and we don't.

Another Greek thinker and mathematician, Eratosthenes, went further and managed to measure the Earth's circumference.

He discovered that at noon in one Egyptian city, the Sun was directly overhead, whereas in a different city the Sun did not rise quite so high. Eratosthenes knew the distance between the two cities, measured how high in the sky the Sun rose to in each at the same time, then did some trigonometry. His method was crude, but his answer was in the right ballpark.

The fact that Earth is round has been common knowledge, at least among the educated and powerful, ever since.

More recently, people have gone all the way round the Earth. The Portuguese explorer Ferdinand Magellan famously circumnavigated the Earth from 1519 to 1522, which would have been even more difficult if it had had an edge.

But long before Magellan, it was obvious to observant sailors that the Earth is round. If you sail towards something tall, like a mountain, you will see the top of it appearing over the horizon before the rest of it.

You say .......How did this prove the earth was a ball? If you can't relate the two and acknowledge my rebuttal, you clearly aren't interested in honest discourse, perhaps we formally debate the matter, take a vote, and set the matter to rest.......

My reply ....I’ve destroyed you 

You say .....You present evidence for the spinning cartoon pearoid, I prove to you that there is far more substantial (look that one up, you'll want to know what that means) evidence for a stationary flat earth....... 

My reply .....You’ve presented none , regards definitions you need to look up Christian because like your rabid  buddy you’re another hate filled hypocrite who calls itself a Christian 

You say .....You'll run away because you now know that, and Google has run out of answers.

My reply .... No running here “ Christian “ 

"You say ...........The experiment was named after it's creater, Eratosthenes from ancient Greek. Eratosthenes also claimed that because elephants existed in the east, in Asia, and again in Africa, that he had circumnavigated the globe! Look up another verse in the peer reviewed scientific journals! This one is a bust!

You say ....

I rebutted an argument, and am patiently waiting on any sort of logical response. This will likely be totally dropped, ignored, and or receive a 3-4 word response (aka silent concession) 

My reply ....

I rebutted an argument, and am patiently waiting on any sort of logical response. This will likely be totally dropped, ignored, and or receive a 3-4 word response (aka silent concession) 

 We'll see.

"You say .....What's funny, is that you imply that ancient texts are nonsensical, if they are from a Bible, 

My reply ....Yes that’s a given"

You say .......Is it? How is it a given? This is just an opinion! Your mind is in complete control. .....

My reply ... Yes I’m in control but of course you believe in talking serpents and a talking ( probably a distant relative of yours )

You say .....Do you know what MKUltra is? You seem like you watch a lot of television, am I right?

My reply .... I don’t know what that is and if it’s a kiddy porn site it wouldn’t surprise me as you tick all the boxes , I don’t watch TV “ Christian “ , You seem like a typical obese American redneck ,am I right? 

"You say ....but you have now brought up ancient text to try and prove your point! 

My reply .... No , I still have not though lying is your favourite tactic I note "

You say ....Your responses are just becoming laughable now

My reply .....Your responses are just becoming laughable now

You say ..... Did you or did you not bring up two sticks in the dirt as... Let me find the quote...

My reply ..... I did but didn’t realise you and your buddy didn’t know what sticks were 

You say ..... Maybe I can find it in my incoherent questions 

You say.......I don't think credible is a suitable term, ......

My reply .....Thank you that rules your “poster boy “ for the Flatheads out as Mullen the prize fool has been throughly ( like you ) debunked 

You say ......I prefer qualified. 

How about the engineer/physicist Brian Mullen? He had a series called balls out physiscs......

My reply ......Oh him , let me debunk you and him again .....

https://flatearthlunacy.com/index.php/2-uncategorised/43-brian-mullin

"You say .....would be a conspiracy, wouldn't it? 

My reply .... So here we have it a big conspiracy by nasty Atheist scientists , for what reason exactly"

You say .....To hide God from the gullible. Simply put. ......

My reply ..... Another claim with zero proof offered by you 

You say .....I can ellaborate and give a few more reasons, but your responses are lacking, and there is little to no effort or logic anymore, so I'll just leave it at that for now.......

My reply .....I know you will because you’ve no defence yet again 

"You say ....Giving it a misunderstood label does not discredit the information. Your reply is a guilt by association fallacy.

"A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an o0pponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything."

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-guilt-by-association/

My reply ..... So now you don’t want to be associated with the sources you quote are you on drugs ?"

You say ......That is not what I said. Read it again if you must to understand what I said, and what the fallacy states.

My reply ....It’s exactly what you said 

“You say ......And just like that, you were annihilated.

My reply ......Interesting” assessment” from a guy who uses a you tube conspiracy channel as his go too source ,

You say ....Unless I missed it, you've not given a single source, and mine weren't limited to Youtube, but this is still no reason to dismiss the evidence. If you were to show where the error in the experiment was, it would be a valid rebuttal, my guess is that you haven't even watched them... Smh.

My reply .....But all scientists reject your You Tube sources as nonsense , name one credible scientist who backs your nonsense up ......Wait  .....there it is deafening silence  again ......You attempted to use the Mullen and see where that got you 

I said ......" thinks we live under a giant glass dome"

Correct. And there is more evidence for the firmament than for an infinite vacuum. Don't believe me? Where is your evidence. Space movies?!?! 

My reply ..... The burden of proof is with you as you’re the one making the claim

I said ......" and the world is hollow"

Your reply ......Not my position.

My reply ..... So it’s not hollow or you’re not sure “ Christian “?

I said ....." , flat as a pancake", so now you don’t know what the term flat means 

You say ....Also not my position. Obviously, there are hills and such.

My reply ...... Funny that so has a pancake ,so now you don’t know what the term flat means ?

I said ......" and so is Mars all because it says so ( except Mars ) in a book written by flea ridden Bronze Age goat herds ."

You say .....Globetards believe they live on a cartoon spinning ball in an infinite space vacuum. The only proof these mental defectives have are cartoon composites and computer generated images provided by the government, that they saw on the television. Globetards were indoctrinated to reject any notion of a God, or a higher power, and instead wave their hands while proclaiming that the earth they live on was created by a magical explosion because of... reasons. Globetards believe that the earth was formed right in the perfect area, a certain distance from the sun, known as the "Goldilocks zone". This area of their imaginary infinite space vacuum is where everything is just perfect for life to not only survive, but to thrive as well. And of course globetards choose to believe this is all completely due to random, cosmic luck. They also believe that this same random cosmic luck is what caused their ape brained ancestors to evolve from primates into the bright shiny globetards that they are today. Basically, their argument boils down to... "but, but, but muh science book!" They can't even agree on whether or not their cartoon spinning ball is a sphere, or an oblate spheroid.

Just after the nearest globetard claiming the earth is actually pear shaped, they will then cite Neil Degrasse Tyson saying so as their proof. Another thing globetards can't seem to get straight is the height in which the supposed curvature becomes visible on their spinning cartoon pearoid. Some globetards will tell you they can see the curvature from on top of a mountain, while other globetards proclaim they can see the curvature from outside an airplane window. But the smartest of the globetards will contradict his fellow ball worshippers and proclaim that one must be much higher than that in order to see the supposed curvature of the magical tilting pearoid. This alone gives us some insight into the fast paced research of globetards. Because all they had to do at some point, was to open their minds and use the senses they were created with to find out. Despite this, these gullible globe guzzlers think they can make pronouncements about reality, even though they have never actually lived in it. -FEA

My reply ..... What a pile of drivel so it’s all a big conspiracy against the 1 per cent or less Fathead community .......Hilarious

I said “ .......Maybe the Nobel prize committee will finally pay homage to you and your Bible thumping buddies that is if you can find even one peer reviewed paper or scientist who can back up your ridiculous narrative up ........"

I don't read you bible, sorry.

"As you poke through the ashes of your total destruction take heart and se it as your  “ crucifixion “ ..... You’re a modern day martyr for the Flatheads hip , hip hurrah , hip,  hip hurrah "

Your reply .......I applaud your stupidity. Please, accept the formal debate so that we can all have a good guffaw at your expense.

My reply ..... The only one laughing will be the majority of rational beings who read your insane rants which claim a worldwide conspiracy is being played out by NASA and governments worldwide to prevent the” real “ truth from getting out , that is that we live on a flat ,hollow  earth surrounded by flat planets under a giant glass dome watched over by a god , agencies worldwide have conspired to fake images using the bogus NASA agency to keep the truth from the 99.9 percent of humans because they’re Satanists , Nazis , Facists  who are all apes who want their Evolution “ agenda “ pushed ........

You need serious mental and medical intervention you raving loon , checkmate 

You’ve been roundly defeated your surrender was anticipated as your cowardice is noted .... hey get another like eevidence to help I like toying with loonies  

Joeseph

@Evidence

I’m not remotely interested in your faked photos and inane bleatings , so why don’t you PM Tyson seeing as you’re so fixated on him ? 

Evidence

Joeseph said:

@Erisflatt

Joeseph said:

@Erfisflat 

You say .... I applaud your stupidity. Please, accept the formal debate so that we can all have a good guffaw at your expense

My reply ...... I have an answer to all your points but you know what I’m better than that , I don’t know you personally and wish you no ill so go on have your laugh and guffaw away , don’t forget to tell your fellow Christians on Sunday what a tough guy you are 

I accept your concession and I take this as your running away a coward from a formal debate on the shape of the earth.

I never  offered a "concession" you half - Wit but being the science denying troll you are no doubt you will pm all your fellow flatheads too vote you the winner

I will  debate you and destroy  you but I will set some ground rules that  any rational person would agree on , but I bet you will flee like the cowardly American low life you are.

Firstly I shall address your last pile of nonsense you plagiarised and  copied and pasted  from The Fat Head Society , that fair enough  you  scum bag  ?

@Erfisflat Wow, .. he sounds like a teen boy found playing with a Barbie!

Or, .. he was just another BB-Evolution Sci-fi addict like we were, and just can't handle coming down from the addiction!? He "Can't handle the TRUTH!"

Or, he put his name down on the NASA-list for people going to Mars on the next trip out, and we ruined it all!??

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say ......So your claim that:

"this coming from a science denying Bible thumper with the brains of a goat"

Is a lie, along with ad hominem.....

My reply ....

But you’re a Bible thumper why are you doing a “ doubting Thomas “ act now   Oh wait it’s because you’re too cowardly to stand by your beliefs .

Regards saying you have the brains of a goat .... For this I apologize to .....goats everywhere 

If you are going to use “ science “ post links to your sources . But you don’t have any do you ? "

You say ....I have posted several sources....

My reply .... You tube bible thumping sites come on ??? Really ?

You say .......the Debra links at the bottom of each argument tells exactly how many, and they range from everyday observations to meticulous experiments to detailed diagrams and mathematics to back up the claims I make........

My reply ..... Debra credits links to conspiracy channels and psuedoscientific gibberish sites it’s like you not concerned with genuine content ...... Meticulous experiments ROTFLMAO

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say ......So your claim that:

"this coming from a science denying Bible thumper with the brains of a goat"

Is a lie, along with ad hominem.....

My reply ....

But you’re a Bible thumper why are you doing a “ doubting Thomas “ act now   Oh wait it’s because you’re too cowardly to stand by your beliefs .

Regards saying you have the brains of a goat .... For this I apologize to .....goats everywhere 

If you are going to use “ science “ post links to your sources . But you don’t have any do you ? "

You say ....I have posted several sources....

My reply .... You tube bible thumping sites come on ??? Really ?

You say .......the Debra links at the bottom of each argument tells exactly how many, and they range from everyday observations to meticulous experiments to detailed diagrams and mathematics to back up the claims I make........

My reply ..... Debra credits links to conspiracy channels and psuedoscientific gibberish sites it’s like you not concerned with genuine content ...... Meticulous experiments ROTFLMAO

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

Part one of your thrashing 

You say ......So your claim that:

"this coming from a science denying Bible thumper with the brains of a goat"

Is a lie, along with ad hominem.....

My reply ....

But you’re a Bible thumper why are you doing a “ doubting Thomas “ act now   Oh wait it’s because you’re too cowardly to stand by your beliefs .

Regards saying you have the brains of a goat .... For this I apologize to .....goats everywhere 

If you are going to use “ science “ post links to your sources . But you don’t have any do you ? "

You say ....I have posted several sources....

My reply .... You tube bible thumping sites come on ??? Really ?

You say .......the Debra links at the bottom of each argument tells exactly how many, and they range from everyday observations to meticulous experiments to detailed diagrams and mathematics to back up the claims I make........

My reply ..... Debra credits links to conspiracy channels and psuedoscientific gibberish sites it’s like you not concerned with genuine content ...... Meticulous experiments ROTFLMAO

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

Part one of Fatheads education ,

You say ......So your claim that:

"this coming from a science denying Bible thumper with the brains of a goat"

Is a lie, along with ad hominem.....

My reply ....

But you’re a Bible thumper why are you doing a “ doubting Thomas “ act now   Oh wait it’s because you’re too cowardly to stand by your beliefs .

Regards saying you have the brains of a goat .... For this I apologize to .....goats everywhere 

If you are going to use “ science “ post links to your sources . But you don’t have any do you ? "

You say ....I have posted several sources....

My reply .... You tube bible thumping sites come on ??? Really ?

You say .......the Debra links at the bottom of each argument tells exactly how many, and they range from everyday observations to meticulous experiments to detailed diagrams and mathematics to back up the claims I make........

My reply ..... Debra credits links to conspiracy channels and psuedoscientific gibberish sites it’s like you not concerned with genuine content ...... Meticulous experiments ROTFLMAO

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say ......So your claim that:

"this coming from a science denying Bible thumper with the brains of a goat"

Is a lie, along with ad hominem.....

My reply ....

But you’re a Bible thumper why are you doing a “ doubting Thomas “ act now   Oh wait it’s because you’re too cowardly to stand by your beliefs .

Regards saying you have the brains of a goat .... For this I apologize to .....goats everywhere 

If you are going to use “ science “ post links to your sources . But you don’t have any do you ? "

You say ....I have posted several sources....

My reply .... You tube bible thumping sites come on ??? Really ?

You say .......the Debra links at the bottom of each argument tells exactly how many, and they range from everyday observations to meticulous experiments to detailed diagrams and mathematics to back up the claims I make........

My reply ..... Debra credits links to conspiracy channels and psuedoscientific gibberish sites it’s like you not concerned with genuine content ...... Meticulous experiments ROTFLMAO

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

You say ......So your claim that:

"this coming from a science denying Bible thumper with the brains of a goat"

Is a lie, along with ad hominem.....

My reply ....

But you’re a Bible thumper why are you doing a “ doubting Thomas “ act now   Oh wait it’s because you’re too cowardly to stand by your beliefs .

Regards saying you have the brains of a goat .... For this I apologize to .....goats everywhere 

If you are going to use “ science “ post links to your sources . But you don’t have any do you ? "

You say ....I have posted several sources....

My reply .... You tube bible thumping sites come on ??? Really ?

You say .......the Debra links at the bottom of each argument tells exactly how many, and they range from everyday observations to meticulous experiments to detailed diagrams and mathematics to back up the claims I make........

My reply ..... Debra credits links to conspiracy channels and psuedoscientific gibberish sites it’s like you not concerned with genuine content ...... Meticulous experiments ROTFLMAO

Erfisflat

@joeseph said: "I will debate you and destroy you but I will set some ground rules that any rational person would agree on..."

 State your rules and we will see what is rational to agree on. This has become a sh*t show.

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

My rules are simple and too the point NASA images are valid to count as evidence , you  made a claim regarding them you have not backed up with any evidence to support your claim 

Scientific sources and links are allowed once the scientist is a credible scientist with a bone fide reputation in the community , your recent sad link to the appalling Brian Mullen demonstrate exactly why I ask for this 

Finally you made a claim that a big worldwide conspiracy is taking place to hide god from people , this is yet another claim you need to back up


In this debate what I ask for is fair to both parties as in if you have photos from verified authentic sources to demonstrate the Earth is flat you may present them  , likewise with scientific claims but again the source has to be without blemish .

I know you will not be able to fulfill any of my requests because you cannot , you’re defeated before you even start 

Erfisflat

"My rules are simple and too the point NASA images are valid to count as evidence , you  made a claim regarding them you have not backed up with any evidence to support your claim"

Fair enough, when your source is found to be fraudulent, the source would no longer be valid, as any rational person would agree.

"Scientific sources and links are allowed once the scientist is a credible scientist with a bone fide reputation in the community , your recent sad link to the appalling Brian Mullen demonstrate exactly why I ask for this"

Brian Mullin was an acting engineer, and practical physics expert. You can address his arguments, or show that he is incompetent.

"Finally you made a claim that a big worldwide conspiracy is taking place to hide god from people , this is yet another claim you need to back up"

If the earth was found to be flat, this IS the backup supporting the claim that there is a conspiracy.


"In this debate what I ask for is fair to both parties as in if you have photos from verified authentic sources to demonstrate the Earth is flat you may present them  , likewise with scientific claims but again the source has to be without blemish ."

Without blemish? You mean "agreeable with the heliocentric model?" Again, if sources are found fraudulent, they would no longer be considered a valid source, as with any debate.

"I know you will not be able to fulfill any of my requests because you cannot , you’re defeated before you even start "

So your stipulations are "using only my bible and my priests, prove the earth is flat"?

Erfisflat

Im just saying, but it looks like you're scared to debate me.

Erfisflat

@joeseph what would make a source not "credible in the community" believing the earth is flat?

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

I said ......"My rules are simple and too the point NASA images are valid to count as evidence , you  made a claim regarding them you have not backed up with any evidence to support your claim"

You say .....Fair enough, when your source is found to be fraudulent, the source would no longer be valid, as any rational person would agree......

My reply ..... Any sources I cite to be shown fraudulent must be demonstrated to be so by reputable individuals ..... agree ?

I said .....”Scientific sources and links are allowed once the scientist is a credible scientist with a bone fide reputation in the community , your recent sad link to the appalling Brian Mullen demonstrate exactly why I ask for this"

You say .....Brian Mullin was an acting engineer, and practical physics expert. You can address his arguments, or show that he is incompetent.

My reply .... I already have in the link I provided you with 

I said ....” Finally you made a claim that a big worldwide conspiracy is taking place to hide god from people , this is yet another claim you need to back up"

If the earth was found to be flat, this IS the backup supporting the claim that there is a conspiracy.

My reply ..... I’m awaiting your “ evidence “ 

I said  .....In this debate what I ask for is fair to both parties as in if you have photos from verified authentic sources to demonstrate the Earth is flat you may present them  , likewise with scientific claims but again the source has to be without blemish ."

You reply .....

Without blemish? You mean "agreeable with the heliocentric model?" Again, if sources are found fraudulent, they would no longer be considered a valid source, as with any debate.

My reply .... I mean from credible sites which where the contributors are recognized in their field as having the required expertise to make such judgements 

I said ....” I know you will not be able to fulfill any of my requests because you cannot , you’re defeated before you even start "

You reply .....

So your stipulations are "using only my bible and my priests, prove the earth is flat"?

My reply ...... No , if you have links and sources to genuine sites that scientists and rational beings agree are sound in every way well that’s fine because that’s exactly what I will do , I take it by your retort you cannot fulfill this simple criteria ?

You say .....Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

My reply .... Which is exactly why you have zero reputable sources is it ?

Checkmate again 

Joeseph

@Erfisflat

Great definition as it’s asserted without proof ..... Let me help you ....

Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses.


Thats something you flatards cannot do

Erfisflat

 "Any sources I cite to be shown fraudulent must be demonstrated to be so by reputable individuals ..... agree ?"

If you demonstrate or I demonstrate a source to be invalid, that source is eliminated.

"I already have in the link I provided you with"

I must have missed this. Must have been somewhere between you calling me a "fag" and spamming posts. Still, you agreed to the terms, "If a source is found to be fraudulent beyond doubt, that source is invalid" (I really want to show you that there are NO photos of earth as a ball).

" I mean from credible sites which where the contributors are recognized in their field as having the required expertise to make such judgements"

And my stipulation in response to this is you can't just post a link without an argument. Agreed?

" No , if you have links and sources to genuine sites that scientists and rational beings agree are sound in every way well that’s fine because that’s exactly what I will do , I take it by your retort you cannot fulfill this simple criteria ?"

Again, if the scientists and sites are found to be fraudulent beyond all doubt, this makes them invalid sources. Since this is a scientific debate, experiments and basic observations must be allowed. If you are just going to post links from google searches and deny actual science, this won't be much of a debate.

Erfisflat

It really looks like you are scared

Erfisflat

The formal debate is up