frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Earth: Spinning ball or plane?

Debate Information

This is a formal and structured debate between myself and the user name @Joeseph. I advocate that the earth isn't a ball, and is (mostly) flat. This is henceforth stated as the negative, or "against", and spherical earth will be known as the affirmative, or "for". Stipulations and rules of the debate as requested by @Joeseph are defined as:

1. Sources and images (including, but not limited to images of earth as a ball) are allowed until that source is found to be inacurate, or fraudulent beyond doubt. Then, in the event that a source is found fraudulent and the source is still used, it is up to the voter's discretion to decide if the source is invalid.

2. if you have links and sources to genuine sites that scientists and rational beings agree are sound in every way well that’s fine. (Pasted from here: https://debateisland.com/discussion/2345/is-humanity-getting-stupider/p3)

3. Since this is a scientific debate, experiments and basic observations must be allowed.

4. Posting links to sources is allowed, but may not constitute as a substitute for an argument.

Ad hominem attacks are discouraged, voters should recognize this when voting.

If any more rules and stipulations should be set forth, please let me know in the comments section, so that it can be adjusted @joeseph
  1. Live Poll

    Earth is...?

    10 votes
    1. Ball
      70.00%
    2. Plane
      30.00%
    3. Don't know yet
        0.00%
    4. Who cares
        0.00%
Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

Wayne Dyer



Debra AI Prediction

For
Predicted To Win
61%
Likely
39%
Unlikely

Details +


For:

0% (0 Points)


Against:

0% (0 Points)



Votes: 0


Voting Format: Moderate Voting

Rounds: 3

Time Per Round: 48 Hours Per Round


Voting Period: 7 Days


Round 1

Round 2

Round 3

Voting



Post Argument Now Debate Details +



    Arguments


  • Round 1 | Position: For
    JoesephJoeseph 655 Pts   -  

    A spinning ball fan , 



    Proponents of a flat earth can never explain away the many problems such a view entails because they have absolutely nothing to back up such claims .


    To assume the earth is flat is to believe that every space agency including NASA, governments worldwide , the entire scientific community are all involved in a sinister scheme just to decieve the world , the question then is for what reason ? 


    Recently my opponent @Ersflat claimed “ It’s done so as yous can hide god from us “ I don’t think god has any need of our help regarding this as he’s doing a pretty good job of hiding as is .


    So are all airline companies , shipping companies , telecommunications companies , amateur astronomers, government agencies and their employees are  all involved in a massive conspiracy ? To think this is the case one has to embrace absurdity 



    Here is an amusing snippet of NASA agents answering the claims of flat -earther  B.o B this demonstrates how ridiculous these individuals are in that they deny everything that does not sit with their world view 


    http://www.iflscience.com/space/nasa-astronauts-respond-brilliantly-to-bobs-plans-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat/




    My opponent says NASA cannot be trusted well what about images of earths curvature from 1948 ? 


    https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1298.html


    Maybe images from Google earth proving earths curvature ?


    https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1298.html





    The  Flats have a massive problem regarding gravity , James Davies says regarding gravity, 


    Gravity Fails

    First of all, a pancaked planet might not have any gravity. It’s unclear how gravity would work, or be created, in such a world, says James Davis, a geophysicist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. That’s a pretty big deal, since gravity explains a wide range of Earthly and cosmic observations. The same measurable force that causes an apple to fall from a tree also causes the moon to orbit the Earth and all the planets to orbit the sun.


    https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/24/flat-earth-what-would-happen/




    Here are 7 ways with the ordinary Joe in the street can prove to himself that the earth is indeed round .



    http://crosstalk.cell.com/blog/seven-ways-to-prove-earth-is-round



    I shall leave it there for now as I think it outlines my position fairly clearly



  • Round 1 | Position: Against
    ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -  
    After two forfeits and three debates full of ad hominem attacks and other fallaciousness, @joeseph finally decides to present an opening statement. 

    I will use this round for opening arguments, and round two will be for rebuttals.

    1. No photographs of the earth as a ball

    Despite claiming to have gone to the moon in the late 60's when computing power was just a fraction of what we have today, and was admittedly a hoax, (source below) we still do not have a single conclusive image of earth. 

    Sure we have composites, where they fly HALE drones around and take a huge panorama of the flat earth and then wrap them around a ball, but none are conclusive and there should be tons of pictures, considering the number of alleged satellites allegedly orbiting the ball earth (which should be in some of those images, reflecting light from the sun).


    Then we have the admission from Blue Marble 2.0's (which was on the Iphone as a stock wallpaper) creator, Robert Simmon.



    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/about/people/RSimmon.html

    (I'm using this source to point out a contradiction, not because I find them credible)

    ...that "The last time anyone took a photograph from above low Earth orbit that showed an entire hemisphere (one side of a globe) was in 1972 during Apollo 17."

    By now it is common knowledge that we didn't go to the moon, unless of course you put any credence to the paid apologetics. We saw what Buzz Aldrin had to say about that.



    Then we have caught the astronots red handed faking images of a ball earth:



    I could post the videos of the President, "Tricky " Nixon making a landline phone call, with seemingly no delay, to the men on the moon, but I won't waste my time pulling it, we all get the point.


    (Again, see above note for usage of this source NASA)

    So that leaves us with how many actual photos of earth? We're allegedly discovering new planets "light years away" but we can't get a live high rez cam on the moon (that is always "facing us") to see ourselves, available to any taxpayer who contributed to NASA's $1,000,000,000,000.00 (trillion, adjusting for inflation) bankroll since it's dubious inception, literally robbing billions of people for about a half a century.

    This little known fact (there are no photographs of a ball earth) alone is evidence of a flat earth.

    2. We see too far

    One main tenant of the ball earth model that must exist IF the earth is a ball, is a degree of convexity on all bodies of water. This would mean water has a hump in the middle, between large distances. Aside from the obvious everyday observation that planes fly flat and level throughout most of the flight, (which is another point I will ellaborate on, time permitting) there should be a measurable drop to a ball that is 25,000 mile in circumference ball. For instance: 

     Record holder for longest distance photographed:


    https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

    Pic Gaspard is photographed some 276 miles away from Pic de Finestrelles. Using the earth curve calculator with an observer height of 9,272 feet, which is the highest point on Finestrelles, an object 12,730 feet high and 276 miles away should be 3,270 feet below the horizon, impossibly out of view on the ball earth theory. This is over 1/2 mile of missing curvature.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_de_Finestrelleshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_Gaspard

    http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html

    https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=273&h0=9272&unit=imperial


    This is but one of many examples of missing curvature. 



    3. Plane flight

    The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. 

    This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model.





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

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Round 2 | Position: For
    JoesephJoeseph 655 Pts   -   edited August 2018


    I’m glad to see @Ersflat is attempting to defend his position , I never forfeited I asked for my stipulations to be adhered too which my opponent refused to do after several requests to do so and .

     He and a fellow flat earther used took part in an ourtrageous attempt to attack , insult and bully me . 


    I’m glad he’s finally seen sense and decided to actually debate ,


    I will use this round to dismantle his many claims which see him yet again breaking the rules he agreed too as in using only what’s deemed as reputable sources o may be used , yet here we go with the usual conspiracy channel sources from  @Ersflat ;


    First claim by @Ersflat ;


    1. No photographs of the earth as a ball



    My rebuttal .....Here is 27 of the best just to start ......


    http://uk.businessinsider.com/best-photos-earth-moon-from-deep-space-2017-3?r=US&IR=T/#a-few-rare-satellites-enjoy-a-full-view-of-earth-from-thousands-or-even-a-million-miles-away-1



    Second claim by @Ersflat ;


    Despite claiming to have gone to the moon in the late 60's when computing power was just a fraction of what we have today, and was admittedly a hoax, (source below) we still do not have a single conclusive image of earth. 



    My rebuttal .....


    Admittedly a hoax ? Who admitted that ? Here is some evidence which you seem totally unaware off .


    600px-Moon_rock_1_JSCjpg



    It is frankly difficult to imagine a project for which there is more real evidence than there is for the landings:

    • We have a large quantity of lunar surface samples (rocks and regolith) that was brought back by the Apollo missions. These samples resemble those brought back by Soviet unmanned missions and do not resemble anything on Earth. Many international scientists have spent their entire careers studying the stuff. If they could prove it did not come from the Moon, they would make mass media news stories.
    • We have a vast number of photographs and video taken on the Moon.
      • Close-up footage of dust being kicked up by the astronauts on the Moon or raised by the wheels of the lunar rover shows that the dust fell parabolically, as expected in a vacuum. If the landing footage was shot on Earth, the dust would puff up in the air before falling to the ground.
      • There are other little tell-tale signs that the footage was shot over a large area with low gravity and near-perfect vacuum, such as the video of the "feather and hammer fall" demonstration, Armstrong's five foot jump up the ladder of the LM, etc.
    • We have the spacecraft which made the journey and returned, including parts of the Surveyor 3 robotic probe[28] that were brought back by Apollo 12.
    • Many of the people who made the journey are still alive and able to testify to the fact along with the thousands of people who worked on the project.
    • Amateur (or ham) radio operators in the US and other countries, such as Italy, are witnesses to the fact the lunar television signal could be directly picked up with antennas pointed at the Moon (the Apollo missions used US military frequencies in the UHF 225-400MHz range as well as the S band 2.4GHz range). The QST magazine, published by the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), carried articles on such reception and the equipment used.[29] If the signals had come from somewhere other than the Moon, it would have been obvious to those picking them up.
    • Amateur astronomers were also able to spot the spacecrafts of the missions of the Apollo program, either when they were maneuvering in Earth orbit or during reentry[30]
    • Three sets of retroreflectors


    • (prisms that reflect incoming light in the direction it came from) were placed on the Moon by Apollos 11, 14 and 15 to be targets for ranging lasers. These retroreflectors have been used extensively by independent parties. Apollo 14's retroreflector was deployed February 5, 1971 and used by McDonald Observatory in Texas only 7 hours later once the Moon had risen. The laser ranging experiment in particular is a difficult one for conspiracy theorists to get beyond, and it seems that this fact is what causes regulars to conspiracy websites to tell Moon hoaxers to STFU and stop being so .[31][32]
    • Arguments about the flag fluttering in the breeze are similarly idiotic in the light of a little critical thinking. Ignoring that there's clearly a beam coming out from the flagpole holding up the top of the flag, and ignoring that the footage shows them flopping around in ways that flags don't move here on Earth (like they're being shaken around someplace where air resistance doesn't affect them), there's another consideration. Clearly the Moon landings were filmed in a darkened building, and the flags were flapping in a strong breeze indoors? So maybe someone was blowing a big fan that never fluttered the actors'/astronauts' space suits, and didn't kick up any dust?
    • Just watch the Saturn V in all its glory.


    Rationalwiki 




    Third claim by @Erisflat ;



    Then we have the admission from Blue Marble 2.0's (which was on the Iphone as a stock wallpaper) creator, Robert Simmon.


    My rebuttal .....


    Simmon makes no secret as to why he designed this image but as usual the flat earthers never tell the whole story .....



    Simmons in his own words ........



    Simmon and his colleague at NASA at the time, Reto Stöckli, created the iconic image that ended up on the iPhone in part to undercut what he saw as undeserving operators profiting in the marketplace for space imagery, he told Quartz. At the time, he recalled, similar falsely colored images rendered from older black-and-white NASA data were selling for up to $10,000. Simmon and Stöckli’s image, as a work created by US government employees, was in the public domain—free for anyone to use, for any purpose, without restriction. Simmon posted it on the NASA website and didn’t think much more of it.

    Then, five years later, Simmon, a self-described “Apple fanboy,” bought the first iPhone the day after it came out. When he first turned it on, he screamed with excitement and surprise. The image he had created—collected by a satellite, collaged on a Mac, then given away for free—was staring back at him.






    Fourth claim by Erisflat.....


    By now it is common knowledge that we didn't go to the moon, unless of course you put any credence to the paid apologetics. We saw what Buzz Aldrin had to say about that.



    My rebuttal ....Common knowledge? You assert this without evidence also you again make reference to “ paid apologetics “ to anything that disagrees with your skewed narrative , any evidence to back your allegations up ? 


    Here is the full interview of Aldrin of the edited video you never posted where Aldrin plainly disagrees with your assertions ......


    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/



    Fifth claim by @Erisflat ........



    Then we have caught the astronots red handed faking images of a ball earth



    My rebuttal ..... Who is “ we “ ? Where , when and how were they caught ? 








    Sixth claim by @ Erisflat .....So that leaves us with how many actual photos of earth? 


    My rebuttal ......NASA post photos up all the time and each year can be checked individually......https://www.space.com/39234-best-astronaut-earth-from-space-photos-2017.html



    How about some shots of the pancake shaped Earth , maybe showing its edge or the glass dome you say it’s covered with? 


    Seventh claim by @Erisflat...... We see too far


    One main tenant of the ball earth model that must exist IF the earth is a ball, is a degree of convexity on all bodies of water. This would mean water has a hump in the middle, between large distances. Aside from the obvious everyday observation that planes fly flat and level throughout most of the flight, (which is another point I will ellaborate on, time permitting) there should be a measurable drop to a ball that is 25,000 mile in circumference ball. For instance: 

     Record holder for longest distance photographed:



    https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/


    Pic Gaspard is photographed some 276 miles away from Pic de Finestrelles. Using the earth curve calculator with an observer height of 9,272 feet, which is the highest point on Finestrelles, an object 12,730 feet high and 276 miles away should be 3,270 feet below the horizon, impossibly out of view on the ball earth theory. This is over 1/2 mile of missing curvature.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_de_Finestrelleshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_Gaspard


    http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html


    https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=273&h0=9272&unit=imperial


    This is but one of many examples of missing curvature. 



    My rebuttal ......



    If @Erisflat believes in a world wide conspiracy that hides the truth of a flat Earth, then why do you think he would trust personal photos from strangers on the internet?



    You might point out you can see Dover, England from France https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG

    buy ask why can't you see things further away.





    Eight claim by Erisflat ......


    3. Plane flight


    The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. 


    This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model.



    My rebuttal.....



    How tragic that @Ersiflat is is using a plane that uses equipment that allows for earths curvature to try and prove a .... flat earth .




    All Airplane computer navigation systems take earths curvature into account.

    The track between two points along the "spherical" earth is called the great-circle track. Except for a N/S heading (or a E/W heading at the equator), the heading will vary along the track. Ed Williams has compiled a formulary for great circle navigation here, mostly derived from the Haversine formula. The formula you are interested in is "Course between points" for calculating the initial heading to fly from point A to point B.


    His only “ evidence “ so far in his whole thread are You Tube videos and photos from conspiracy channels after agreeing to use only credible sources , and he finishes of with a reference to the SR-71 Blackbird thankfully he didn’t post the flat earth video regarding this plane as it’s beyond funny and sadly typical 


    Erfisflat
  • Round 2 | Position: Against
    ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited August 2018

    "A spinning ball fan ,"

    Starting off the debate with a clear bias. The opponent does not care what evidence is presented in either case. Google and NASA say it's a ball, and that's the way he likes it. Even though there is no conclusive evidence for it, and he's never seen the ball earth as a whole, this is dogmatic, and unscientific.



    "Proponents of a flat earth can never explain away the many problems such a view entails because they have absolutely nothing to back up such claims ."



    That's incorrect, every problem the opponent has pointed out so far has been refuted, then dropped including but not limited to: eclipses, and "the edge" which all can be read here.

    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/25798#Comment_25798

    This makes his first statement a baseless assertion.


    "To assume the earth is flat is to believe that every space agency including NASA, governments worldwide , the entire scientific community are all involved in a sinister scheme just to decieve the world , the question then is for what reason ? "

    NASA and governments worldwide are one in the same. Every government has a bad track record as far as trust, NASA being included. To say that the government would lie to the American people is not very far fetched. 

    "Recently my opponent @Ersflat claimed “ It’s done so as yous can hide god from us “ I don’t think god has any need of our help regarding this as he’s doing a pretty good job of hiding as is ."

    This is an oxymoron. The opponent admits that God is well hid, paraphrasing of course, and then mocks me for saying exactly the same thing. Put clearly, it's obvious that if there is no curve, there can be no ball, without the ball there is no gravity, without gravity, his creator that is also "well hid", there is no sun worshipping big bangism where God is not needed to bring all of what we see from nothing. Gravity is his creator. More on this false theory later.

    " So are all airline companies , shipping companies , telecommunications companies , amateur astronomers, government agencies and their employees are  all involved in a massive conspiracy ? To think this is the case one has to embrace absurdity"



    No, no, no, no, and no. We, as logical thinkers have to take into account compartmentalization, which is very prevalent in the fields you’ve mentioned. Not everyone in NASA knows the earth isn’t a ball, they went to government institutions just like we did.


    That, and the fact that these are all broad assumptions and bear assertions. This makes this an appeal to probability and bandwagon fallacy.


    If you can supply evidence that all airline companies , shipping companies , telecommunications companies , amateur astronomers, government agencies and their employees support the ball earth model, this could be a valid argument.


    Most people are turned off by speaking up about this because of the preprogrammed responses that everyone has. “I don't want them to think I’m crazy” was my first thought when I was talking about flat Earth, this is mind control, it’s why I can tell you watch a lot of TV. MKUltra, an admitted conspiracy fact, is making this happen.


    https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/how-the-cia-used-lsd-to-try-and-find-a-mind-control-drug



    “Here is an amusing snippet of NASA agents answering the claims of flat -earther  B.o B this demonstrates how ridiculous these individuals are in that they deny everything that does not sit with their world view “


    Those individuals' views may very well be ridiculous. They are not me. This is a strawman argument.











    “My opponent says NASA cannot be trusted well what about images of earths curvature from 1948 ? “


    This argument stemmed from my original argument, an early image from space that shows a flat horizon.


    https://www.airspacemag.com/space/the-first-photo-from-space-13721411/


    The opposition has brought together some more of those images together in Photoshop and, obviously using a bit of tilt on each joint, has made part of a tetradecagon, and called it curvature.




    “Maybe images from Google earth proving earths curvature ?”



    And the opponent uses the same exact source for two different arguments, claiming they are different.



    “The  Flats have a massive problem regarding gravity , James Davies says regarding gravity, 


    Gravity Fails

    First of all, a pancaked planet might not have any gravity. It’s unclear how gravity would work, or be created, in such a world, says James Davis, a geophysicist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. That’s a pretty big deal, since gravity explains a wide range of Earthly and cosmic observations. The same measurable force that causes an apple to fall from a tree also causes the moon to orbit the Earth and all the planets to orbit the sun."






    This argument assumes many things, one being that my position is that earth is a finite pancake planet orbiting the sun with other planets, which is ridiculous. Another is that gravity is anything more than an ad hoc theory that was meant to explain away the age old question any competent thinker would ask after being told they lived on a ball, “why don't the people fall off on the bottom?” We have all known that up is up and down is down for all of known history. No theories are needed to explain this on a flat plane.

    So in effect, pro is trying to use a theory that was originally meant to support the assumption that the earth was a ball, to now prove that assumption. Despite actual evidence that water and subsequently the earth is flat, the theory of gravity is still held as fact by many.



    “Here are 7 ways with the ordinary Joe in the street can prove to himself that the earth is indeed round.”


    This being first round arguments, and rule #4 stating very clearly that links may not substitute for an argument, I hope my opponent is not going to leave this as is. I would suggest that he either pick a few of the arguments from the source and, at the very least, copy and paste them. This is lazy debating.





    I shall leave it there for now as I think it outlines my position fairly clearly

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

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
  • Round 3 | Position: For
    JoesephJoeseph 655 Pts   -  

    @Erisflat says .....

    That's incorrect, every problem the opponent has pointed out so far has been refuted, then dropped including but not limited to: eclipses, and "the edge" which all can be read here.


    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/25798#Comment_25798


    This makes his first statement a baseless assertion.


    My reply ..... Incorrect , all your points used you tube conspiracy channel nonsense which you said you would not use every point you made has again being addressed here and roundly defeated 


    I said .....To assume the earth is flat is to believe that every space agency including NASA, governments worldwide , the entire scientific community are all involved in a sinister scheme just to decieve the world , the question then is for what reason ? "


    @erisflat replied 


    NASA and governments worldwide are one in the same. Every government has a bad track record as far as trust, NASA being included. To say that the government would lie to the American people is not very far fetched. 


    My reply ..... That’s something else you have no proof off 


    I said ......Recently my opponent @Ersflat claimed “ It’s done so as yous can hide god from us “ I don’t think god has any need of our help regarding this as he’s doing a pretty good job of hiding as is ."


    @erisflat replied ......


    This is an oxymoron. The opponent admits that God is well hid, paraphrasing of course, and then mocks me for saying exactly the same thing. Put clearly, it's obvious that if there is no curve, there can be no ball, without the ball there is no gravity, without gravity, his creator that is also "well hid", there is no sun worshipping big bangism where God is not needed to bring all of what we see from nothing. Gravity is his creator. More on this false theory later.


    My reply ..... Evidence please for your god claim and your gravity claim


    I said ....." So are all airline companies , shipping companies , telecommunications companies , amateur astronomers, government agencies and their employees are  all involved in a massive conspiracy ? To think this is the case one has to embrace absurdity"




    @Erisflat replied ......No, no, no, no, and no. We, as logical thinkers have to take into account compartmentalization, which is very prevalent in the fields you’ve mentioned. Not everyone in NASA knows the earth isn’t a ball, they went to government institutions just like we did.


    That, and the fact that these are all broad assumptions and bear assertions. This makes this an appeal to probability and bandwagon fallacy.


    My reply ......Again a claim with zero proof by Erisflat 


    I said ......If you can supply evidence that all airline companies , shipping companies , telecommunications companies , amateur astronomers, government agencies and their employees support the ball earth model, this could be a valid argument.


    @Erisflat replied ....Most people are turned off by speaking up about this because of the preprogrammed responses that everyone has. “I don't want them to think I’m crazy” was my first thought when I was talking about flat Earth, this is mind control, it’s why I can tell you watch a lot of TV. MKUltra, an admitted conspiracy fact, is making this happen.


    https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/how-the-cia-used-lsd-to-try-and-find-a-mind-control-drug



    My reply .....Again an accusation you cannot back up , I don’t live in the US and I don’t watch TV 




    I said .....My opponent says NASA cannot be trusted well what about images of earths curvature from 1948 ? “


    @Erisflat replied ......This argument stemmed from my original argument, an early image from space that shows a flat horizon.


    https://www.airspacemag.com/space/the-first-photo-from-space-13721411/


    The opposition has brought together some more of those images together in Photoshop and, obviously using a bit of tilt on each joint, has made part of a tetradecagon, and called it curvature. 



    My reply ..... Prove it ? Also check out the other images I’ve supplied in this post , ant images of your flat earth yet ?



    I said ....


    “Maybe images from Google earth proving earths curvature ?”



    @erisflat replied 



    And the opponent uses the same exact source for two different arguments, claiming they are different.


    My reply ..... well  pick either one then 




    “I said “ The  Flats have a massive problem regarding gravity , James Davies says regarding gravity, 



    Gravity Fails


    First of all, a pancaked planet might not have any gravity. It’s unclear how gravity would work, or be created, in such a world, says James Davis, a geophysicist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. That’s a pretty big deal, since gravity explains a wide range of Earthly and cosmic observations. The same measurable force that causes an apple to fall from a tree also causes the moon to orbit the Earth and all the planets to orbit the sun."





    @erisflat replied .....


    This argument assumes many things, one being that my position is that earth is a finite pancake planet orbiting the sun with other planets, which is ridiculous. Another is that gravity is anything more than an ad hoc theory that was meant to explain away the age old question any competent thinker would ask after being told they lived on a ball, “why don't the people fall off on the bottom?” We have all known that up is up and down is down for all of known history. No theories are needed to explain this on a flat plane.

    So in effect, pro is trying to use a theory that was originally meant to support the assumption that the earth was a ball, to now prove that assumption. Despite actual evidence that water and subsequently the earth is flat, the theory of gravity is still held as fact by many.



    My reply ..... Gravity is now an  “ ad hoc “ theory how absurd another baseless assertion on your part , where is your evidence for a flat earth ?



    @erisflat used the argument that Buzz Aldrin never went to the moon which he bases on a highly embarrassing edited interview with the man here is the real video unedited , it demonstrates the dishonesty used by flat earthers 


    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/



    Also @Erisflat will attempt to say the moon landings were faked this all based on a dreadful  movie by the conspiracy channels “darling “ Bart Sibrel who many think is mentally unhinged his movie was universally slated except by people like Erisflat who think is marvelous 


    It’s truly embarrassing the levels Sibrel goes too to force his views ....


    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/sibrel.html








    @Ersiflat stated .......

    Starting off the debate with a clear bias. The opponent does not care what evidence is presented in either case. Google and NASA say it's a ball, and that's the way he likes it. Even though there is no conclusive evidence for it, and he's never seen the ball earth as a whole, this is dogmatic, and unscientific.



    My reply .... Straight away you resort to Ad Hominen as I’m not in any  way being unfair as the world is actually a ball and that’s a fact , whether I like the fact or not is immaterial it’s still a fact .

    The evidence is undeniable and only disputed by mainly conspiracy theorists and biblical literalists 


    Anyway I guess when it comes to voting on this debate nearly  every Christian and of course the group you moderate will vote for you no doubt after you having informing them to do so, proving another fact as in who is biased 


    You have yet to make an argument all you’ve done so far is made baseless claims and accusations 






    Erisflat stated ......every problem the opponent has pointed out so far has been refuted, then dropped including but not limited to: eclipses, and "the edge" which all can be read here.


    https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/25798#Comment_25798


    This makes his first statement a baseless assertion.





    My reply ......If that’s the case why have you not defended or attempted to defend even one of my eight rebuttals to your baseless assertions? 




    @Erisflat stated .....


    NASA and governments worldwide are one in the same. Every government has a bad track record as far as trust, NASA being included. To say that the government would lie to the American people is not very far fetched. 


    My reply .....Yet another baseless assertion , why not prove your point and post up your mountains of evidence to back your assertions up ?




    @Erisflat .....



    This is an oxymoron. The opponent admits that God is well hid, paraphrasing of course, and then mocks me for saying exactly the same thing. Put clearly, it's obvious that if there is no curve, there can be no ball, without the ball there is no gravity, without gravity, his creator that is also "well hid", there is no sun worshipping big bangism where God is not needed to bring all of what we see from nothing. Gravity is his creator. More on this false theory later.


    My reply .....Yet another assertion without one shred of evidence to back it up 





    @Erisflat stated ....



    No, no, no, no, and no. We, as logical thinkers have to take into account compartmentalization, which is very prevalent in the fields you’ve mentioned. Not everyone in NASA knows the earth isn’t a ball, they went to government institutions just like we did.


    That, and the fact that these are all broad assumptions and bear assertions. This makes this an appeal to probability and bandwagon fallacy.



    My reply .....That statement makes no sense at all and yet again you make several accusations and back them up with nothing 



    @Erisflat stated ....



    Most people are turned off by speaking up about this because of the preprogrammed responses that everyone has. “I don't want them to think I’m crazy” was my first thought when I was talking about flat Earth, this is mind control, it’s why I can tell you watch a lot of TV. MKUltra, an admitted conspiracy fact, is making this happen.


    https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/how-the-cia-used-lsd-to-try-and-find-a-mind-control-drug



    My reply ..... So there we have it anyone that disagrees with your assertions watches a lot of TV and is a victim of MKUltra , I never watch TV , I don’t live in the U S and I think you’re making this up as you go along 














    @Erislat stated .....


    This argument stemmed from my original argument, an early image from space that shows a flat horizon.


    https://www.airspacemag.com/space/the-first-photo-from-space-13721411/


    The opposition has brought together some more of those images together in Photoshop and, obviously using a bit of tilt on each joint, has made part of a tetradecagon, and called it curvature. 



    My reply .....Nonsense , also check out the 100s of images I’ve supplied in my rebuttals , but you’re not interested in them are you .


    How many 1000s of flat earth images have you got ?






    @Erislat stated .....


    And the opponent uses the same exact source for two different arguments, claiming they are different.



    My reply .....Use the NASA images and show us the mountains of evidence proving their faked ?


    I said .....



    “The  Flats have a massive problem regarding gravity , James Davies says regarding gravity, 



    Gravity Fails


    First of all, a pancaked planet might not have any gravity. It’s unclear how gravity would work, or be created, in such a world, says James Davis, a geophysicist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. That’s a pretty big deal, since gravity explains a wide range of Earthly and cosmic observations. The same measurable force that causes an apple to fall from a tree also causes the moon to orbit the Earth and all the planets to orbit the sun."





    @Erisflat stated ....


    This argument assumes many things, one being that my position is that earth is a finite pancake planet orbiting the sun with other planets, which is ridiculous. Another is that gravity is anything more than an ad hoc theory that was meant to explain away the age old question any competent thinker would ask after being told they lived on a ball, “why don't the people fall off on the bottom?” We have all known that up is up and down is down for all of known history. No theories are needed to explain this on a flat plane.

    So in effect, pro is trying to use a theory that was originally meant to support the assumption that the earth was a ball, to now prove that assumption. Despite actual evidence that water and subsequently the earth is flat, the theory of gravity is still held as fact by many.



    My reply ......Gravity is an ad hoc theory ? Prove it ? Gravity is held as fact by rational beings as fact , you’ve still not presented any evidence regarding the earth being flat 


    I said ....


    “Here are 7 ways with the ordinary Joe in the street can prove to himself that the earth is indeed round.”



    @Erisflat stated ....


    This being first round arguments, and rule #4 stating very clearly that links may not substitute for an argument, I hope my opponent is not going to leave this as is. I would suggest that he either pick a few of the arguments from the source and, at the very least, copy and paste them. This is lazy debating.



    My reply .....You’ve ignored all so far the link was supplied so you could peruse it during your leisure time and it may have brought you illumination , obviously that did not happen .


    So I’m still waiting for you to present evidence for a flat earth , you left out your edited video of the Buzz Aldrin video where he clearly/said he went to the moon why’s that ? 


    It’s remarkable you accuse me and other rationalists of being brainwashed and you and your fellow flat earthers use an edited video as your main piece of evidence , watch it and weep 


    Here is the whole video of The Buzz Aldrin interview https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/



    Also you claimed the moon landings were faked and again used the dreadful conspiracy theorists video “ A strange thing happened on the way to the moon “ which again is a highly edited piece of junk which was universally slated by everyone except those with no argument to back up their flat earth nonsense....


    The maker of this dreadful video is border line mentally unbalanced don’t take my word on it have a look for yourselves .........http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/sibrel.html







    When you finish addressing my  decisive rebuttals of your complaints , maybe you can attempt a defense of my further 8 rebuttals to your opening statements as you still refuse to address them ?


    Then maybe you could post some evidence for a flat earth as you’ve posted nothing yet but just made baseless assertions and accusations 



    Can you at least attempt a defence of the 8 claims you made , your failure to do so is lazy and frankly pretty poor debating , surely you can at least try ?



    First claim by @Ersflat ;


    1. No photographs of the earth as a ball



    My rebuttal .....Here is 27 of the best just to start ......http://uk.businessinsider.com/best-photos-earth-moon-from-deep-


    space-2017-3?r=US&IR=T/#a-few-rare-satellites-enjoy-a-full-view-of-earth-from-thousands-or-even-a-million-miles-away-1



    Second claim by @Ersflat ;


    Despite claiming to have gone to the moon in the late 60's when computing power was just a fraction of what we have today, and was admittedly a hoax, (source below) we still do not have a single conclusive image of earth. 



    My rebuttal .....


    Admittedly a hoax ? Who admitted that ? Here is some evidence which you seem totally unaware off .


    600px-Moon_rock_1_JSCjpg



    It is frankly difficult to imagine a project for which there is more real evidence than there is for the landings:

    • We have a large quantity of lunar surface samples (rocks and regolith) that was brought back by the Apollo missions. These samples resemble those brought back by Soviet unmanned missions and do not resemble anything on Earth. Many international scientists have spent their entire careers studying the stuff. If they could prove it did not come from the Moon, they would make mass media news stories.
    • We have a vast number of photographs and video taken on the Moon.
      • Close-up footage of dust being kicked up by the astronauts on the Moon or raised by the wheels of the lunar rover shows that the dust fell parabolically, as expected in a vacuum. If the landing footage was shot on Earth, the dust would puff up in the air before falling to the ground.
      • There are other little tell-tale signs that the footage was shot over a large area with low gravity and near-perfect vacuum, such as the video of the "feather and hammer fall" demonstration, Armstrong's five foot jump up the ladder of the LM, etc.
    • We have the spacecraft which made the journey and returned, including parts of the Surveyor 3 robotic probe[28] that were brought back by Apollo 12.
    • Many of the people who made the journey are still alive and able to testify to the fact along with the thousands of people who worked on the project.
    • Amateur (or ham) radio operators in the US and other countries, such as Italy, are witnesses to the fact the lunar television signal could be directly picked up with antennas pointed at the Moon (the Apollo missions used US military frequencies in the UHF 225-400MHz range as well as the S band 2.4GHz range). The QST magazine, published by the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), carried articles on such reception and the equipment used.[29] If the signals had come from somewhere other than the Moon, it would have been obvious to those picking them up.
    • Amateur astronomers were also able to spot the spacecrafts of the missions of the Apollo program, either when they were maneuvering in Earth orbit or during reentry[30]
    • Three sets of retroreflectors


    • (prisms that reflect incoming light in the direction it came from) were placed on the Moon by Apollos 11, 14 and 15 to be targets for ranging lasers. These retroreflectors have been used extensively by independent parties. Apollo 14's retroreflector was deployed February 5, 1971 and used by McDonald Observatory in Texas only 7 hours later once the Moon had risen. The laser ranging experiment in particular is a difficult one for conspiracy theorists to get beyond, and it seems that this fact is what causes regulars to conspiracy websites to tell Moon hoaxers to STFU and stop being so .[31][32]
    • Arguments about the flag fluttering in the breeze are similarly idiotic in the light of a little critical thinking. Ignoring that there's clearly a beam coming out from the flagpole holding up the top of the flag, and ignoring that the footage shows them flopping around in ways that flags don't move here on Earth (like they're being shaken around someplace where air resistance doesn't affect them), there's another consideration. Clearly the Moon landings were filmed in a darkened building, and the flags were flapping in a strong breeze indoors? So maybe someone was blowing a big fan that never fluttered the actors'/astronauts' space suits, and didn't kick up any dust?
    • Just watch the Saturn V in all its glory.


    Rationalwiki 




    Third claim by @Erisflat ;



    Then we have the admission from Blue Marble 2.0's (which was on the Iphone as a stock wallpaper) creator, Robert Simmon.


    My rebuttal .....


    Simmon makes no secret as to why he designed this image but as usual the flat earthers never tell the whole story .....



    Simmons in his own words ........



    Simmon and his colleague at NASA at the time, Reto Stöckli, created the iconic image that ended up on the iPhone in part to undercut what he saw as undeserving operators profiting in the marketplace for space imagery, he told Quartz. At the time, he recalled, similar falsely colored images rendered from older black-and-white NASA data were selling for up to $10,000. Simmon and Stöckli’s image, as a work created by US government employees, was in the public domain—free for anyone to use, for any purpose, without restriction. Simmon posted it on the NASA website and didn’t think much more of it.

    Then, five years later, Simmon, a self-described “Apple fanboy,” bought the first iPhone the day after it came out. When he first turned it on, he screamed with excitement and surprise. The image he had created—collected by a satellite, collaged on a Mac, then given away for free—was staring back at him.





    Fourth claim by Erisflat.....


    By now it is common knowledge that we didn't go to the moon, unless of course you put any credence to the paid apologetics. We saw what Buzz Aldrin had to say about that.



    My rebuttal ....Common knowledge? You assert this without evidence also you again make reference to “ paid apologetics “ to anything that disagrees with your skewed narrative , any evidence to back your allegations up ? 


    Here is the full interview of Aldrin of the edited video you never posted where Aldrin plainly disagrees with your assertions ......


    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/



    Fifth claim by @Erisflat ........



    Then we have caught the astronots red handed faking images of a ball earth



    My rebuttal ..... Who is “ we “ ? Where , when and how were they caught ? 








    Sixth claim by @ Erisflat .....So that leaves us with how many actual photos of earth? 


    My rebuttal ......NASA post photos up all the time and each year can be checked individually......https://www.space.com/39234-best-astronaut-earth-from-space-photos-2017.html



    How about some shots of the pancake shaped Earth , maybe showing its edge or the glass dome you say it’s covered with? 


    Seventh claim by @Erisflat...... We see too far


    One main tenant of the ball earth model that must exist IF the earth is a ball, is a degree of convexity on all bodies of water. This would mean water has a hump in the middle, between large distances. Aside from the obvious everyday observation that planes fly flat and level throughout most of the flight, (which is another point I will ellaborate on, time permitting) there should be a measurable drop to a ball that is 25,000 mile in circumference ball. For instance: 

     Record holder for longest distance photographed:



    https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/


    Pic Gaspard is photographed some 276 miles away from Pic de Finestrelles. Using the earth curve calculator with an observer height of 9,272 feet, which is the highest point on Finestrelles, an object 12,730 feet high and 276 miles away should be 3,270 feet below the horizon, impossibly out of view on the ball earth theory. This is over 1/2 mile of missing curvature.


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_de_Finestrelleshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_Gaspard


    http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html


    https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=273&h0=9272&unit=imperial


    This is but one of many examples of missing curvature. 



    My rebuttal ......



    If @Erisflat believes in a world wide conspiracy that hides the truth of a flat Earth, then why do you think he would trust personal photos from strangers on the internet?



    You might point out you can see Dover, England from France https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG

    buy ask why can't you see things further away.





    Eight claim by Erisflat ......


    3. Plane flight


    The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second. 


    This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model.



    My rebuttal.....



    How tragic that @Ersiflat is is using a plane that uses equipment that allows for earths curvature to try and prove a .... flat earth .




    All Airplane computer navigation systems take earths curvature into account.

    The track between two points along the "spherical" earth is called the great-circle track. Except for a N/S heading (or a E/W heading at the equator), the heading will vary along the track. Ed Williams has compiled a formulary for great circle navigation here, mostly derived from the Haversine formula. The formula you are interested in is "Course between points" for calculating the initial heading to fly from point A to point B.




    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/sibrel.html





    Erfisflat
  • Round 3 | Position: For
    ErfisflatErfisflat 1675 Pts   -   edited August 2018

    “I’m glad to see @Ersflat is attempting to defend his position , I never forfeited I asked for my stipulations to be adhered too which my opponent refused to do after several requests to do so and .

    He and a fellow flat earther used took part in an ourtrageous attempt to attack , insult and bully me . “


    This goes unsourced and “ourtrageously” irrelevant. If he were being bullied, it would have been easy to pull up a quote or two where this was happening. It's apparent to anyone that looks into it, that he was being belligerent, simply because he at first thought that proving the earth to be a ball would be easy, and his mental conditioning against flat earthers gave him an ignorant ego boost.

    “I’m glad he’s finally seen sense and decided to actually debate ,

    I will use this round to dismantle his many claims which see him yet again breaking the rules he agreed too as in using only what’s deemed as reputable sources o may be used , yet here we go with the usual conspiracy channel sources from  @Ersflat”


    The sources I’ve used so far: Buzz Aldrin, NASA, beyond horizons, a mathematical curvature calculator used by globe earth and flat Earth proponents, and a distance calculator. Whatever channel hosts the videos is irrelevant, the initial source is from NASA and friends. More on sources later.


    “First claim by @Ersflat ;


    1. No photographs of the earth as a ball


    My rebuttal .....Here is 27 of the best just to start ......



    http://uk.businessinsider.com/best-photos-earth-moon-from-deep-space-2017-3?r=US&IR=T/#a-few-rare-satellites-enjoy-a-full-view-of-earth-from-thousands-or-even-a-million-miles-away-1


    Another one liner response to a well constructed argument. As I skim through the 27 images of earth, I see “composite image” in several of them, which means it isn’t a real photograph. The creator of Blue Marble 2.0 even admits these aren’t real photographs, sourced in the last round. Just for kicks, let's compare some of them.


    The earth from the moon.

    Again, the earth from the moon. The earth appears to have gotten multiple times larger since the astronots, in the words of Buzz Aldrin, "didn't go there" here is another:


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


    The earth and moon in a "single shot"


    Another alleged single shot shows discrepancies from the first.


    And another one.


    Composite image.


    Composite image.


    Composite image.

    The caption under this image reads:


    "Most photos of Earth and the moon are (artful) cut-and-paste composites, since they are so far away from one another. "

    That's another way of saying they aren't actual photographs.


    NASA states on their website at 

    https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/express/newsroom/pressreleases/20030717a_image01.html

    ...that this "image was built by combining a super resolution black-and-white snap-shot image of the Earth and the Moon taken by the HRSC with colour information obtained by the blue, green, and red sensors of the instrument."


    “Second claim by @Ersflat ;



    Despite claiming to have gone to the moon in the late 60's when computing power was just a fraction of what we have today, and was admittedly a hoax, (source below) we still do not have a single conclusive image of earth.





    My rebuttal .....



    Admittedly a hoax ? Who admitted that ? Here is some evidence which you seem totally unaware off .”


    The link was provided, one of the original astronauts admitted they were a hoax. He was quoted answering the question:


    Child: “Why haven't we been to the moon in a long time?”

    Buzz Aldrin: “Because we didn't go.”


    It was as plain as day. Sure, if you want to take someone's opinion for what he said, completely ignore those four words and hope that he said they did, this shows what length someone would go through to protect their belief system. We don't need a “fact checking” sight to interpret what he said.


    The opponent now copy/pastes a Gish gallop from a Wiki article, omitting a link to the original source. 




    600px-Moon_rock_1_JSCjpg





    “It is frankly difficult to imagine a project for which there is more real evidence than there is for the landings:

    We have a large quantity of lunar surface samples (rocks and regolith) that was brought back by the Apollo missions. These samples resemble those brought back by Soviet unmanned missions and do not resemble anything on Earth. Many international scientists have spent their entire careers studying the stuff. If they could prove it did not come from the Moon, they would make mass media news stories.”


    NASA ended up losing over 500 moon rocks.


    https://www.space.com/13878-nasa-apollo-moon-rocks-misplaced-lost-report.html


    “ The Rijksmuseum, more noted as a repository for 17th century Dutch paintings, announced last month it had had its plum-sized "moon" rock tested, only to discover it was a piece of petrified wood, possibly from Arizona. The museum said it inherited the rock from the estate of a former prime minister.”


    https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/apollo-moon-rocks-lost-space-lost-earth/story?id=8595858


    Aside from this, a public confession supersedes some rocks of unknown origin, a lot of which have gone missing, and some even found to be petrified wood by reputable museums.


    “We have a vast number of photographs and video taken on the Moon.”


    There are a vast number of photographs and video taken of a 200 foot gorilla kidnapping white chicks and climbing tall buildings too. This doesn't make it any more real. Especially considering the evidence against it, which the opponent all but ignored. 


    “Close-up footage of dust being kicked up by the astronauts on the Moon or raised by the wheels of the lunar rover shows that the dust fell parabolically, as expected in a vacuum. If the landing footage was shot on Earth, the dust would puff up in the air before falling to the ground.”


    I’ve seen no such footage, but this can be explained by simply slowing the footage down. This is why you source arguments.


    “There are other little tell-tale signs that the footage was shot over a large area with low gravity and near-perfect vacuum, such as the video of the "feather and hammer fall" demonstration,”


    Experiments show that a vacuum isn’t necessary for this demonstration, near perfect or not.


    https://youtu.be/ilhdMAPKS6k


    https://youtu.be/IiSFsyQjtJ8





    “ Armstrong's five foot jump up the ladder of the LM, etc.”


    This goes unsourced. Either way, cables were seen in the footage and perfectly explains this. Upon further investigation, I could not find any record of a five foot jump, and since this is unsourced, the most accurate statement is a 32 inch jump.

    "the astronauts had to contend with a jump of slightly more than 32 inches."

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.step.html


    “We have the spacecraft which made the journey and returned, including parts of the Surveyor 3 robotic probe[28] that were brought back by Apollo 12.”


    This in no way proves they went to the moon, it is merely an (unsourced) assertion.



    “Many of the people who made the journey are still alive and able to testify to the fact along with the thousands of people who worked on the project.”


    They won’t swear to it, and one (Buzz) even admits it was a lie.



    “Amateur (or ham) radio operators in the US and other countries, such as Italy, are witnesses to the fact the lunar television signal could be directly picked up with antennas pointed at the Moon (the Apollo missions used US military frequencies in the UHF 225-400MHz range as well as the S band 2.4GHz range). The QST magazine, published by the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), carried articles on such reception and the equipment used.[29] If the signals had come from somewhere other than the Moon, it would have been obvious to those picking them up.”


    This is why you shouldn't just copy and paste Wiki links.


    “Amateur astronomers were also able to spot the spacecrafts of the missions of the Apollo program, either when they were maneuvering in Earth orbit or during reentry[30]”


    Could we get a source?


    “Three sets of retroreflectors (prisms that reflect incoming light in the direction it came from) were placed on the Moon by Apollos 11, 14 and 15 to be targets for ranging lasers. These retroreflectors have been used extensively by independent parties. Apollo 14's retroreflector was deployed February 5, 1971 and used by McDonald Observatory in Texas only 7 hours later once the Moon had risen. The laser ranging experiment in particular is a difficult one for conspiracy theorists to get beyond, and it seems that this fact is what causes regulars to conspiracy websites to tell Moon hoaxers to STFU and stop being so .[31][32]”


    MIT was bouncing lasers off the moon nearly a decade before the alleged lunar landings, no reflectors needed. This, when properly researched, actually turns out to be proof of a firmament.

    http://www.famousdaily.com/history/laser-beam-first-bounced-off-moon.html

    "On this day, May 9, in 1962, a pulse light laser beam sent by a team of scientists from MIT successfully bounced off the moon, the first lunar laser ranging experiment."

    The last bit at the end was a bit uncalled for, but the parroted ad hominem should be noted. As with any "credible source", senseless ad hominem attacks say "no actual argument here".



    “Arguments about the flag fluttering in the breeze are similarly idiotic in the light of a little critical thinking. Ignoring that there's clearly a beam coming out from the flagpole holding up the top of the flag, and ignoring that the footage shows them flopping around in ways that flags don't move here on Earth (like they're being shaken around someplace where air resistance doesn't affect them), there's another consideration. Clearly the Moon landings were filmed in a darkened building, and the flags were flapping in a strong breeze indoors? So maybe someone was blowing a big fan that never fluttered the actors'/astronauts' space suits, and didn't kick up any dust?”


    None of this is my argument, my argument is a direct public confession sourced from Buzz Aldrin, along with the video of the astronots faking images of earth from leo (low earth orbit).


    “Just watch the Saturn V in all its glory.”


    ...do it’s parabolic dive into the Bermuda triangle…




    Rationalwiki


    “Third claim by @Erisflat ;


    Then we have the admission from Blue Marble 2.0's (which was on the Iphone as a stock wallpaper) creator, Robert Simmon.


    My rebuttal .....



    Simmon makes no secret as to why he designed this image but as usual the flat earthers never tell the whole story .....”


    See this is how I know he is just stealing his entire argument.  This is obviously his first genuine shape of the earth debate,(possibly his first ever formal debate) he wants to group me in with "flat earthers". I said it before, I’m literally debating poor Google search results.


    “Simmons in his own words ........



    Simmon and his colleague at NASA at the time, Reto Stöckli, created the iconic image that ended up on the iPhone in part to undercut what he saw as undeserving operators profiting in the marketplace for space imagery, he told Quartz. At the time, he recalled, similar falsely colored images rendered from older black-and-white NASA data were selling for up to $10,000. Simmon and Stöckli’s image, as a work created by US government employees, was in the public domain—free for anyone to use, for any purpose, without restriction. Simmon posted it on the NASA website and didn’t think much more of it.

    Then, five years later, Simmon, a self-described “Apple fanboy,” bought the first iPhone the day after it came out. When he first turned it on, he screamed with excitement and surprise. The image he had created—collected by a satellite, collaged on a Mac, then given away for free—was staring back at him."




    A quote that is unsourced… doesn't even mention his other quote about there being only one “photo” of the ball earth at the time, and seems to support what my argument is. The blue marble 2.0 was created in Photoshop. Here is the original file, hosted on NASA.gov .


    https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723


    And here is some clouds in the image created with the clone tool.



    Here is the video interview with Simmons about the image.





    “Fourth claim by Erisflat.....



    By now it is common knowledge that we didn't go to the moon, unless of course you put any credence to the paid apologetics. We saw what Buzz Aldrin had to say about that.”



    My rebuttal ....Common knowledge? You assert this without evidence also you again make reference to “ paid apologetics “ to anything that disagrees with your skewed narrative , any evidence to back your allegations up ?


    http://www.iflscience.com/space/52-percent-of-the-british-public-think-the-moon-landings-were-faked-claims-survey/


    52% of Europeans questioned believe the moon landings were a hoax. This was before the public confession, so yes, ,at least one out of every two people is fairly common, in Europe, anyway.



    “Here is the full interview of Aldrin of the edited video you never posted where Aldrin plainly disagrees with your assertions ......



    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/buzz-aldrin-moon-admission/


    Thank you for giving us a transcription of the blatant confession, then some awkward backpedaling.


    Child:" Why has nobody been to the moon in such a long time?"

    Aldrin: "That’s not an 8-year-old’s question. That’s my question. I want to know. But I think I know. Because we didn’t go there. That’s the way it happened. And if it didn’t happen it’s nice to know why it didn’t happen so in the future if we want to keep doing something we need to know why something stopped in the past if we want to keep it going."


    In the very first relevant response, we see the phrase ”it didn't happen” twice and “we didn't go there”. Now, if you want to let Snopes tell you to completely ignore this part, and allow them to “fix” this confession for you, that’s fine, I’m sure our voters aren’t as gullible, or empty headed.



    “Fifth claim by @Erisflat ........


    Then we have caught the astronots red handed faking images of a ball earth





    My rebuttal ..... Who is “ we “ ? Where , when and how were they caught ? “


    The video was supplied in the first round. It was an unaired BBC special that exposed accidentally released footage of the astronots faking images of earth through a round filter.


    https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4


    The documentary has some other evidence against the moon landings, but the relevant part, where they were caught faking the images is here, for those fast paced researchers like yourself. 


    https://youtu.be/5oASa_-Uwr0


    “Sixth claim by @ Erisflat .....So that leaves us with how many actual photos of earth?



    My rebuttal ......NASA post photos up all the time and each year can be checked individually......https://www.space.com/39234-best-astronaut-earth-from-space-photos-2017.html

    The statement should have read “...photos of earth as a ball” my mistake. 

    A quick look at the link proves to be lacking, the images of a curved horizon allegedly from the ISS are easily created by fisheye lenses, and therefore not a ball, and inconclusive.


    https://www.popphoto.com/curves/2011/08/how-to-make-curvaceous-curves


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


    “How about some shots of the pancake shaped Earth , maybe showing its edge or the glass dome you say it’s covered with? “


    No one said there was an edge. I said it was flat, and amatuer balloon footage shot without a wide angle lens shows this.





    “Seventh claim by @Erisflat...... We see too far



    One main tenant of the ball earth model that must exist IF the earth is a ball, is a degree of convexity on all bodies of water. This would mean water has a hump in the middle, between large distances. Aside from the obvious everyday observation that planes fly flat and level throughout most of the flight, (which is another point I will ellaborate on, time permitting) there should be a measurable drop to a ball that is 25,000 mile in circumference ball. For instance:

    Record holder for longest distance photographed:





    https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/



    Pic Gaspard is photographed some 276 miles away from Pic de Finestrelles. Using the earth curve calculator with an observer height of 9,272 feet, which is the highest point on Finestrelles, an object 12,730 feet high and 276 miles away should be 3,270 feet below the horizon, impossibly out of view on the ball earth theory. This is over 1/2 mile of missing curvature.



    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_de_Finestrelleshttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pic_Gaspard



    http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html



    https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=273&h0=9272&unit=imperial



    This is but one of many examples of missing curvature.





    My rebuttal ......





    If @Erisflat believes in a world wide conspiracy that hides the truth of a flat Earth, then why do you think he would trust personal photos from strangers on the internet?"

    The photo holds the record for longest distance photographed in the world. Each mountain was identified, and no discrepancies have been brought up before now, it would be a shame if this were a fake, something the former record holder would at least verify. The fact that they are "strangers" (the photographers name is there) does not invalidate the evidence.


    Rule #1:

    "1. Sources and images (including, but not limited to images of earth as a ball) are allowed until that source is found to be inacurate, or fraudulent beyond doubt. Then, in the event that a source is found fraudulent and the source is still used, it is up to the voter's discretion to decide if the source is invalid."

    "You might point out you can see Dover, England from France https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/France_manche_vue_dover.JPG

    buy ask why can't you see things further away.”

    This is a blatant dodge. The opponent chooses to ignore the argument altogether, because we don't personally know the photographer, points out yet another contradiction with his own model, and asks, why can't we see farther? 


    Firstly, see how tiny Dover is? This is because things get smaller with distance. It's called the law of perspective, and it is reality. Things eventually get so small that even the best amatuer telescope will not be able to pull it back up. My position is that we can see further than we should, and the evidence stands.


    Secondly, there is another thing that we here in reality have to deal with called the atmosphere. Most weather apps let users know what visibility limits are at any given time.



    Eight claim by Erisflat ......



    3. Plane flight



    The SR-71 Blackbird is one of the fastest planes on the plane at over 2,000 mph. Common sense should tell anyone remotely knowledgeable of planes that they don't fly over a ball that is 25,000 miles in circumference. This amounts to a 505 MILE drop in one hour, which translates to over 8 miles of drop per minute, and over 740 feet every second. So, in order to maintain a constant altitude at top speed, the SR-71 Blackbird would have to correct for 2 1/2 statues of liberty worth of earth curvature every second.



    This is mathematical and logical evidence against the currently accepted model.





    My rebuttal.....





    How tragic that @Ersiflat is is using a plane that uses equipment that allows for earths curvature to try and prove a .... flat earth .







    “All Airplane computer navigation systems take earths curvature into account.

    The track between two points along the "spherical" earth is called the great-circle track. Except for a N/S heading (or a E/W heading at the equator), the heading will vary along the track. Ed Williams has compiled a formulary for great circle navigation here, mostly derived from the Haversine formula. The formula you are interested in is "Course between points" for calculating the initial heading to fly from point A to point B.”


    Pro doesn't seem to understand the argument. He has instead plagiarized a stack exchange answer to the question:

    https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/15709/do-autopilot-headings-consider-the-earths-shape

    “Do autopilot headings consider the earth's shape?”

    Which is a question pertaining to a map, and latitudinal travel on a flat map, probably the horrible Peter’s map. (2) Instead of straight lines on that map, or any other similar map, flight paths would curve on that map, giving us a somewhat plausible to the fast paced researcher aka Google globe proponent debater. When any scrutiny is applied to the (strawman, plagiarized) counterargument, we find the plane routes look the same on the commonly accepted map of both the USGS, and some flat earthers, the Azimuthal equidistant (ae) map. In some cases, make more sense on that map, versus the globe. This is yet another piece of evidence for a flat earth.





    This source is used as a counterargument to a strawman rebuttal.




    “His only “ evidence “ so far in his whole thread are You Tube videos and photos from conspiracy channels after agreeing to use only credible sources , “


    The opponent has yet to provide any evidence for this claim, and ignores my rebuttal in the last round. Again, whatever channel hosts the video is irrelevant, the initial source is NASA, and they won't proudly display any evidence against themselves. If you're agreeing that NASA is not a reliable source, that's one thing, but to say that the data is irrelevant because it’s on YouTube is in every way insufficient, according to rule #1:


    “Sources and images (including, but not limited to images of earth as a ball) are allowed until that source is found to be inacurate, or fraudulent beyond doubt. Then, in the event that a source is found fraudulent and the source is still used, it is up to the voter's discretion to decide if the source is invalid.”


    “and finishes of with a reference to the SR-71 Blackbird thankfully he didn’t post the flat earth video regarding this plane as it’s beyond funny and sadly typical”


    I have no clue what video he is talking about.


    Looking over my opponents last round responses, it is clear that he is in over his head. There are probably half a dozen appeal to the stone fallacies, some ad hominem fallacies, and various other fallacies. Voters, I think I'll let his last round speak for itself. This is a no brainer, even IF the earth were a ball, pro did a poor job at trying to prove it.

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

    Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

    The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.

    Wayne Dyer
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch