"The earth is not a globe"... seriously... Just that phrase and the terms that you've used in this phrase are wholly unscientific.
Yes, earth is indeed not a globe. Rather, Earth the spherical planet that we live on. A globe is a term used to describe a model/representation. Your
grasp and understanding of the simple english language implies below average IQ at best. Give us something that leads us to believe that you have some
scientific research that backs up whatever you theory is (what is your theory exactly????) and you might get a skosh of respect.
Let's just be honest about this and call a spade a spade... trust me, I'm just saying what everyone else with average or above average IQ wants to be
saying... YOU ARE AN IDIOT!
Instead of making some stupid video that chases it's tail in some sort of nonsense fashion like "accepted scientific belief point"-"alternative
unscientific belief counterpoint", point-counterpoint, et cetera ... why don't you make a video that describes your theory and the science behind what
leads you to believe what you believe? This point-counterpoint nonsense isn't going to get you anywhere whatsoever. It leads people to believe that
you are basing your beliefs on someone's body language rather than actual scientific evidence... which frankly, is just totally f-u-c-k-i-n-g
There are plenty of scientific explanations that explain the normal accepted fact that we live on a spherical planet. If you want to convince anyone
otherwise, you are going to have to provide real solid scientific explanations... you can't just raise some nonsense question about a candle or
whatever when there is clearly a very huge distinct scientific differences between say like a candle and a star like the sun. Are you seriously THAT
stupid that you don't understand these very basic pieces of science? Well, if you just make videos like the one I watched about a candle and distance
of eyesight or whatever then you aren't going to get anywhere... you are going to have to present your theories as scientific/evidence based reasoning
and give us the scientific evidence as ACTUAL FACTS that explain why these scientific facts lead you to believe what you believe... you can't just ask
a question that can easily be explained and refuted by anyone with half and understanding of basic physics and science.
Here is an example I'd like to year you refute scientifically. This video makes sense and gives a real life/live visualization of the world as most of
us with any shred of basic scientific or physics knowledge understand it:
Felix Baumgartner Red Bull Stratos FULL SPACE JUMP VIDEO
Skip ahead to 57 minutes in if you want to see some footage right before he jumps.
This is a very basic science and physics demonstration. So then, explain to us the curvature that is demonstrated in this very basic video. There are
no composite images used here. This is video footage with clearly documented altitude and scientific measurements throughout the whole thing.
So, I'm guessing that since you seem to have zero knowledge of physics or scientific, evidence based reasoning then you will just claim that this is
all just fake somehow and that you that you have no actual scientific facts to refute it? Yeah, that's just about what I figured. If you can somehow
refute it by some means than just claiming that "it's fake" or "look at his body language"... then by all means do so... we are all ears. We want to
actually hear your scientific theory believe it or not. But sadly, I have a feeling the "flat-earther's" mind does not work that way and we will hear
zero scientific reasoning.
I had a borderline retarded roommate in college that used to always claim the moon landings were faked and had zero scientific evidence that actually
explained his nonsense thinking. A couple of times he managed to s-h-i-t something of his mouth about shadows and the flag... which can easily be
explained by anyone with half a brain... for example they intentionally put a horizontal rod in the top of the flag and any inertia from recent
movement will cause to flap like it would in wind... the shadows for example well, multiple light sources... the sun isn't the only source there are
lots of objects that are also reflecting the sun's light and you shouldn't expect perfectly parallel shadows in these sorts of situations. Anyway,
needless to say the guy is f-u-c-k-i-n-g braindead effectively and all he could parrot was the "fake" because he heard it somewhere and he just has a
feeble unscientific mind... end of story. I think we all know this type of moron and so, we've seen this before... tell us something new that is based
on actual scientific evidence.
edit on 8-6-2016 by anotherdaytoday because: (no reason given)