It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Guy explains flat Earth theory convincingly and how round earth proof aren't absolute

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: PoetryInMotion

Ok, lets put this another way.

The claim is that the earth is flat. It isn't. The sun is precisely as far away as orbital models predict it to be, as is the moon, and as are Mercury, Venus, Mars, and all the rest. So no matter which way you cut it, no matter what linguistic hoop you jump through to make it SOUND reasonable, it bloody well is not reasonable, or in fact, accurate to say that the planet upon which we stand, is anything other than an oblate spheroid, ergo, round, not flat.




posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




The earth is an oblate spheroid.


The oblateness is negligible. You just like the sound of it.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Again, what claims are being made that are lies?




The claim is that the earth is flat.


Who claimed this?
edit on 13-10-2016 by PoetryInMotion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: PoetryInMotion

If you refuse to comprehend, there is no point in continuing to ask the question.

The points made in the video and by the OP are moot, because the earth is round. And for your information, any sphere which is not perfect, and bulges outward as ours does, cannot be called a simple sphere, hence the distinction.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: icyboy771z

Google "GoPro in space." You'll find elementary school students tie GoPro to weather ballons and send them into the atmosphere. You can plainly see the earth is round.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: PoetryInMotion



2 – POLARIS

Using a sighting of polaris to determine latitudes between the north pole and the equator is simple

And can be paraphrased thus :

“ take a sighting of polaris from any point north of the equator , and the angle at which polaris appears above the TRUE horizon is the latitude “

Now the flat earth claim immediately crumbles here

Because in reality – the lines of latitude are equidistant [ and even flat earther fantasy maps draw latitude lines equidistant ]

See pic :




This can be tested with a map – the measured distances between equal increments of latitude IS identical – do try this at home kids

Now lets demonstrate the flat earth siliness

This pic shows an alledged “ flat earth from the equator to the north pole – with the scale bar delineating 10 degree incriments of latitude

As shown – the flat earth delusion fails the polaris test – one obersvational dataset in – and the flat earth delusion has crashed

Spheriod earth model handles polaris observations perfectly

But hey – lets crash on




there - you now have the polaris explaination in thread - accept it or offer your rebuttal



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: neveroddoreven99

Fish eye lenses tend to make things look curved. What about all those similar vids not showing any curvature whatsoever?



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

So that's your FE debunk, thnat Polaris appears lower the further to the South you are? I can easily counter this and say it is caused by perspective on a flat plane. The further away you are from an object the lower it appears in relation to the horizon.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: PoetryInMotion

I knew you would reply this to him. I just smelled it. Can you bring examples for your similar videos? You can post them right here if they are on youtube.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




The points made in the video and by the OP are moot, because the earth is round.


I see, so pointing out that the socalled proof for Globe Earth is not actually proof per se, is a lie, because Earth is round......

Again, this is not a lie.




And for your information, any sphere which is not perfect, and bulges outward as ours does, cannot be called a simple sphere, hence the distinction.


If you drew a circle with the same supposed amount of oblateness as Earth you wouldn't even notice it. But hey, it sure sounds interesting.

Oblate spheroid.
edit on 13-10-2016 by PoetryInMotion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

Why don't you post the vids showing curvature.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: PoetryInMotion

oh - come on at least TRY - if you are going to invoke " perspective " then explain why the angular size of polaris is identical at all lattitudes

you cannot pick half an explaination and simply ignore the bit that contradicts you
edit on 13-10-2016 by ignorant_ape because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape




if you are going to invoke " perspective " then explain why the angular size of polaris is identical at all lattitudes


First you explain why the angular size is identical at all lattitudes of Globe Earth.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: PoetryInMotion

You would if you had any bloody perception what so ever. Good grief.

All you have demonstrated is that you have no respect for either reality, or precision, both of which are fundamental underpinnings of forming useful thought on scientific matters.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

and here - using the cn tower as my example is why wou are utterly wrong


as per your claim - the height of the CN tower is PERCIEVED as shorter - the further the observer is from its base

but the observation that falsifies your claim - is the simultaneous observation that the width of the pain pod is PERCIEVED to be smaller - the more distant it is

thats perspective

now - back in the real world - the size of polaris is PERCIEVED to be identical from any point on earth where it is visible

this is NOT perspective

you are wrong - QED



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes, a lot of bla bla coming from your corner, as usual, but you are not refuting anything I said.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Great video here from V Sauce it shows what would actually happen If the world was flat.




Isn't happening so it isn't flat.



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

(removed misinterpretation)




now - back in the real world - the size of polaris is PERCIEVED to be identical from any point on earth where it is visible


So how does the Globe model explain this, if you go further South you put more distance between you and Polaris even on a globe, so how do you explain why the angular size doesn't change?


edit on 13-10-2016 by PoetryInMotion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: PoetryInMotion

THE HYPOCRISY IS STRONG IN THIS ONE - TRY FOLLOWING YOUR OWN MANTRA



posted on Oct, 13 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: PoetryInMotion

You think this hasn't been done to death on ATS before? each time someone comes in saying it is and each time they get schooled.
Just look at any other flat earth threads.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join