The flat earth conspiracy

I've always wanted to see people walking upside down in Australia, but NASA has never shown such an 'image' taken from 'space'. It would be hilarious!

a reply to: turbonium1

Which historical account, scientific expedition is a faulty account of comets.

I have seen a comet with my own eyes. Proving the night sky is not permanent.

Now that the body of evidence shows there is a natural phenomena that in the English language is label comet.

Still don’t know what to do with comets that proves inner planetary travel is possible. There is no layer of liquid above earth’s atmosphere, the night sky is not permanent, and objects can and do circular the sun. The only explanation a comet would pivot trajectory around the sun is because of gravity.


Comets proves you lie, and your model is a lie.

originally posted by: turbonium1
I've always wanted to see people walking upside down in Australia, but NASA has never shown such an 'image' taken from 'space'. It would be hilarious!

What defines what is to or down in a 3D space?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Which historical account, scientific expedition is a faulty account of comets.

I have seen a comet with my own eyes. Proving the night sky is not permanent.

Now that the body of evidence shows there is a natural phenomena that in the English language is label comet.

Still don’t know what to do with comets that proves inner planetary travel is possible. There is no layer of liquid above earth’s atmosphere, the night sky is not permanent, and objects can and do circular the sun. The only explanation a comet would pivot trajectory around the sun is because of gravity.


Comets proves you lie, and your model is a lie.

Show me ANY of those documents, since it's YOUR 'evidence'...


I'm not going to look around for YOUR evidence, get something you might have considered evidence, and present it to you, so please don't act like a complete idiot.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Which historical account, scientific expedition is a faulty account of comets.

I have seen a comet with my own eyes. Proving the night sky is not permanent.

Now that the body of evidence shows there is a natural phenomena that in the English language is label comet.

Still don’t know what to do with comets that proves inner planetary travel is possible. There is no layer of liquid above earth’s atmosphere, the night sky is not permanent, and objects can and do circular the sun. The only explanation a comet would pivot trajectory around the sun is because of gravity.


Comets proves you lie, and your model is a lie.

Show me ANY of those documents, since it's YOUR 'evidence'...


I'm not going to look around for YOUR evidence, get something you might have considered evidence, and present it to you, so please don't act like a complete idiot.

There is an existence record of the phenomenon comet. Then what is the phenomenon called comet.

I have seen a comet with my own eyes. Proving the night sky is not permanent


Your model is proven a lie because of the natural phenomena labeled comet.

a reply to: turbonium1

Comet. Evidently the flat earth Kryptonite is the well documented and studied phenomenon labeled comet.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1
I've always wanted to see people walking upside down in Australia, but NASA has never shown such an 'image' taken from 'space'. It would be hilarious!

What defines what is to or down in a 3D space?

I'm referring to seeing Earth from 'space', from one position, where people are on top of the ball planet, and other people are on the bottom of the ball planet, at that position from 'space'.

The people at the top of the ball from that position walk upright, atop the ball. People at the BOTTOM of the ball would appear to walk upside down, from the same position in 'space'. From my position, Australia would be at the bottom of the ball, that's what the reference means. I'm sure you didn't know that already, right? As if.

On Earth, it's claimed that we can see objects on the moon that are about 500 meters in size, with a decent telescope. It's claimed the moon is about 250,000 miles away. Now, let's imagine the moon is Earth, and we are on the moon with our telescope.

Some highrises on Earth are more than 500 meters high. Any highrise that is on the bottom of Earth, from our position, would be seen upside down through our telescope, right?

So if we've gone to the moon, sent satellites into orbit, have powerful telescopes in 'space', there's no reason we'd not point telescopes in 'space', towards the Earth. The scopes would be more powerful than the scope we used to see highrises, and they would be much CLOSER to Earth as well.

They've never done that, of course, and never will. They can't. If Earth was a ball, and we had flown anything into 'space'', it would've been one of the FIRST things they'd have done! All of us would be amazed to see it!

But it's a fairy tale.

a reply to: turbonium1

What defines up down in a 3D model. It takes a force to make things “fall” towards earth. What is that force.

a reply to: turbonium1

What is your explanation for the well documented phenomenon of comet other than the well documented and published studies?

Again..

Still don’t know what to do with comets that proves inner planetary travel is possible. There is no layer of liquid above earth’s atmosphere, the night sky is not permanent, and objects can and do circular the sun. The only explanation a comet would pivot trajectory around the sun is because of gravity.


Comets proves you lie, and your model is a lie.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Which historical account, scientific expedition is a faulty account of comets.

I have seen a comet with my own eyes. Proving the night sky is not permanent.

Now that the body of evidence shows there is a natural phenomena that in the English language is label comet.

Still don’t know what to do with comets that proves inner planetary travel is possible. There is no layer of liquid above earth’s atmosphere, the night sky is not permanent, and objects can and do circular the sun. The only explanation a comet would pivot trajectory around the sun is because of gravity.


Comets proves you lie, and your model is a lie.

Show me ANY of those documents, since it's YOUR 'evidence'...


I'm not going to look around for YOUR evidence, get something you might have considered evidence, and present it to you, so please don't act like a complete idiot.

There is an existence record of the phenomenon comet. Then what is the phenomenon called comet.

I have seen a comet with my own eyes. Proving the night sky is not permanent


Your model is proven a lie because of the natural phenomena labeled comet.

They are actually stars, which only move off on their own after awhile, perhaps to regain energy, and then they return to position once again. 'Shooting stars' are another good example of this. Some stars move quickly, as shooting stars, while others move more slowly, like your 'comets', and that's what we see at night, if we're lucky.

I took a video of a star years ago, when I didn't understand what stars looked like, and still believed the ball-Earth bs.
A couple years ago, I saw a video of a star taken with a Nikon P900, and it was nearly identical to the object I filmed years ago. That's when I knew it was a star I filmed that night.

The star was very low in the sky, and moved directly to north, above my house, coming from the south. I wish I'd had a Nikon P900 or P1000 back then, but they didn't exist yet. I had the best camera of the day, a Sony Digital Handicam, which is nowhere close to what exists today, obviously.

But when I zoomed in on the star, I didn't yet know was a star, I saw that it had bands of color, in two directions, and they all moved in an incredibly fast pattern. It was a spherical shape, as well. Years later, I saw a video of a star which looked just like the object I had filmed, so much so, that it could be the very same star.

Maybe God meant for me to see this star, and film it, which may sound crazy, but I get this feeling, that it was meant as a message. I'll post it one day, after I find which tape it's on, among the many I took.

For me, Saturn is probably the best evidence that shows us what is really above the Earth. It spins and wobbles, and the atmosphere excuse is ridiculous.

Cameras will one day be far better than the Nikon P1000, which is an amazing camera, itself.

They will show much more detail of Saturn, and it's ring, or rings, and have closer views of it spinning and wobbling, too.

Eventually, we will see so much incredible details of stars and 'planets', nobody will say it's an 'effect of the atmosphere', ever again!

a reply to: turbonium1

They are actually stars, which only move off on their own after awhile,

You call them stars?

I call them comets.

There is an existence record of the phenomenon comet which you are trying to falsely call star. Then what is the phenomenon called comet.

I have seen a comet with my own eyes. Proving the night sky is not permanent


Your model is proven a lie because of the natural phenomena labeled comet.

Now what does your post actual have to do with...

Still don’t know what to do with comets that proves inner planetary travel is possible. There is no layer of liquid above earth’s atmosphere, the night sky is not permanent, and objects can and do circular the sun. The only explanation a comet would pivot trajectory around the sun is because of gravity.


Comets proves you lie, and your model is a lie.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

They will show much more detail of Saturn, and it's ring, or rings, and have closer views of it spinning and wobbling, too.

The technologies already exists, and proves you wrong. It’s call telescopes and space probes.

a reply to: turbonium1

Translation: "I don't understand science, what stars are, how they seem to move (it's actually the Earth rotating), what comets are, how gravity works or anything really."
Dude, you need new material.

a reply to: turbonium1

So if we've gone to the moon, sent satellites into orbit, have powerful telescopes in 'space', there's no reason we'd not point telescopes in 'space', towards the Earth. The scopes would be more powerful than the scope we used to see highrises, and they would be much CLOSER to Earth as well.

They've never done that, of course, and never will. They can't. If Earth was a ball, and we had flown anything into 'space'', it would've been one of the FIRST things they'd have done! All of us would be amazed to see it!

Heres the Giza Plateau from space... complete with a wonderful view of the pyramids...

but its all fake right....

a reply to: turbonium1

This is the Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth:

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Pick a location, it will show you photographs taken from space of it.

Google the Corona images, spy satellite photos taken from orbit using very very high powered lenses.

Your post is yet another of your ridiculous "If I ran the zoo" fallacies that fails because you have no idea what's out there.