Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Answer the question turbo, why is the most accurate way to map the distances and relative positions of points / places on the earth is by a spherical globe.

One irrefutable fact, demonstrable and a practical way to show the earth is spherical.

Two paragraphs that destroyed your manifesto of lies and BS.

Your entire story is built on lies and BS, that's for sure.

All our instruments measure Earth as flat, so what's 'accurate' about your ball Earth? Planes fly level over Earth, at altitude. It measures level within air, around the plane itself, over and over again, while in flight, which means, it measures level over it's length, so for a 757, it's length is about 160 feet. Now, if Earth was a ball, and had 'curvature' of 8 inches per mile squared, how could a plane fly at altitude, and fly in a curve, to match that of a ball Earth?

Planes fly at different speeds, and each plane flies at different speeds, during their OWN flights, as we all know, right?

What would THAT mean if planes flew over a ball Earth, compared to flying over a flat Earth?

Think about it.

If planes flew over a ball Earth, where the surface constantly curves, the SPEED it flies at, must match the curvature of Earth, adjust it's path to each speed flown at, or it would not match to the surface below.

Planes do not have to adjust their paths, to any curve below it, being it is a flat Earth, and not a ball Earth.


Your side says there is a magical, non-existent force called 'gravity', within Earth's 'core', which beams through Earth, into the air around Earth, and signals to instruments on planes, which measure level, as 'level' to Earth's 'curvature', instead of true level, which is flat and straight across! Imagine that!

A non-existent, magical force, without any proof it even exists, can 'explain' all things, because it's a fairy tale to begin with!

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Why are the same properties not inherent to Jupiter? So Jupiter is a normal planet the proves the heliocentric model?

Another paragraph that destroyed you little rants. What about Mars. Mercury?

And all have no bearing on the shape of the earth.

They all prove them liars, and that INCLUDES lying about Earth being a ball, because all those lies are based on the ball Earth lie. Not just about Saturn, about everything else, too. Lying about Saturn is just one of many more lies, yet to be revealed.

They've lied about stars being trillions of miles away, appearing as tiny points of light through magnification, because they all look, and move differently from the other stars. They've lied about stars, and Saturn, and everything else, too.


We measure for the flat Earth, NOT a ball Earth, ever. No magical 'forces' are used to support the flat Earth, only the absurd ball Earth needs magical 'forces', and tricks, and deception.

At least, think about how all stars look and move differently, and how it is impossible to do this, by an effect of atmosphere, or by an 'out of focus' camera, because those are their excuses for it, and they're completely absurd, and ridiculous.

The stars all look and move differently, because that's how they really DO look and move, all differently, all so amazing, and beautiful.

When you accept that is what makes them all different, you're on the right path, to see all of God's creation, no longer hidden in lies and deception.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Why are the same properties not inherent to Jupiter? So Jupiter is a normal planet the proves the heliocentric model?

Another paragraph that destroyed you little rants. What about Mars. Mercury?

And all have no bearing on the shape of the earth.

They all prove them liars, and that INCLUDES lying about Earth being a ball, because all those lies are based on the ball Earth lie. Not just about Saturn, about everything else, too. Lying about Saturn is just one of many more lies, yet to be revealed.

What will prove them to be liars is presenting incontrovertible facts that demonstrate not only that the statements they make are wrong, but htey know that.

Any time you want to present that proof would be fine. Your probelm is that you stamping your feet saying that they are lying doesn't count. Try harder.

They've lied about stars being trillions of miles away,

Nope. They measured it the distances.

appearing as tiny points of light through magnification,

BEcauee when the telescope is in focus, they do.

because they all look, and move differently from the other stars.

Not in a way that you can detect with an ordinary telescope. There are differences, and they do move, but not in the way you think from looking at morons on youtube who spent good money on things they can't oeprate properly.

They've lied about stars, and Saturn, and everything else, too.

Citation required. You have no proof. You have provided no reason for anyone to accept your word for it.

We measure for the flat Earth, NOT a ball Earth, ever. No magical 'forces' are used to support the flat Earth, only the absurd ball Earth needs magical 'forces', and tricks, and deception.

Flat Earth is a lie. It is neither logically or evidentially supported.

originally posted by: turbonium1
At least, think about how all stars look and move differently, and how it is impossible to do this, by an effect of atmosphere, or by an 'out of focus' camera, because those are their excuses for it, and they're completely absurd, and ridiculous.

They aren't excuses. They're facts. The 'evidence' you have supplied is from people who can't focus their camera. You;ve been given links proving this.

The stars all look and move differently, because that's how they really DO look and move, all differently, all so amazing, and beautiful.

They are indeed beautiful, and they do indeed look and move differently, but not in the stupid way you think.

When you accept that is what makes them all different, you're on the right path, to see all of God's creation, no longer hidden in lies and deception.

They day I start agreeing with your version of reality is the day they up my meds and strap me into a straightjacket. I can see God's creation just fine. I can accept how marvellous it is perfectly well with fabricating a nonsensical understanding of it. You do not have the monoply on God's word. You do not speak for Him. You are wrong about everything.

More more more, how do you like it, how do you like it?

astronomy.stackexchange.com...

The stars just move like a liquid in the center

The moving around is normal. It is due to atmospheric turbulence, which happens all the time. Unless you're in a vacuum, the images will always shimmer a little. Sometimes they will shimmer a lot. Other times not so much.

astronomy.com...

One night I noticed a star changing colors and moving perceptibly. But through binoculars, a few dimmer stars in the same field appeared steady. The behavior continued throughout the night, but not a couple of nights later. Why?

You’re absolutely right that stars twinkle — and sometimes appear to move around — due to our atmosphere “scrambling” their light as it travels from the top of Earth’s atmosphere to the ground. This phenomenon, also called scintillation, tends to occur more obviously in bright stars.

www.quora.com...

When observed with telescopes, why do some planets and stars appear to look more like "living cells" under a microscope?

...The movement is caused by light from a point source passing through moving variations in air temperature and density; the resultant slight variation in refractive index distorts and displaces the image. The amount of movement indicates very poor seeing; possibly because the star is close to the horizon. The polygonal (pentagonal?) shape is from the camera’s diaphragm. The bright streaks are diffraction artifacts, distorted by both the unsteady air and optical aberrations in the camera lens. The image also appears to be out of focus. Many people, not understanding the point nature of a star image, think the defocused image is correct because it’s bigger. The flashing colors are often seen in bright stars low in the sky; because you are looking through a lot more air close to the horizon, the refraction, including prismatic effects, is much stronger than when observing high in the sky.

In short, the apparent form of a star depends entirely on the air and optics that it is being viewed through. Planets will show a clean disk if properly focused, but here again, some optically naive YouTubers marvel over their defocused images and think they have discovered the secret knowledge.

You're welcome.

a reply to: turbonium1

Now turbo. Don’t go changing the subject. Address what’s was actually posted.

If the earth was flat like your delusion, why is the most accurate representation of the earth and distances and relative positions between points on the earth a globe?

A ball Earth has 'curvature', which is completely ignored,

Except it’s practical applications. Such as a globe being more accurate.

The many resultant map projections because of the inherent errors of placing a 3-d globe and a 2D flat map. If the earth was flat, there wouldn’t be the need for map projection of the earth.


Navigation the earth as spherical works.
Flat earth doesn’t.
If you follow the relative direction out of South America, you didn’t end up in Antarctica.


Vs reality

a reply to: turbonium1

Is it false the most accurate maps of the earth for navigation are in globe form.

a reply to: turbonium1

Now turbo. Don’t go changing the subject. Address what’s was actually posted.

If the earth was flat like your delusion, why is the most accurate representation of the earth and distances and relative positions between points on the earth a globe?

A ball Earth has 'curvature', which is completely ignored,

Except it’s practical applications. Such as a globe being more accurate.

The many resultant map projections because of the inherent errors of placing a 3-d globe and a 2D flat map. If the earth was flat, there wouldn’t be the need for map projection of the earth.


Navigation the earth as spherical works.
Flat earth doesn’t.
If you follow the relative direction out of South America, you didn’t end up in Antarctica.


Vs reality

a reply to: turbonium1

Now. This has been provided for you repeatedly.

Flat Earth Insanity

Flat Earth Follies: Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!

Conclusion

I think that about wraps it up for this Flat Earth Folly.

Planes are not 'dropping' 8 inches every mile (per se), they are flying along the constant curvature of the gravity equipotential, while constantly adjusting pitch ever-so-slightly by means of the elevator trim setting which controls the pitch RATE of the airplane. ANY deviation from that rotation results in the plane climbing or descending which immediately shows up in the Vertical Speed indication and power settings would be adjusted accordingly. This constantly rotates their 'tangent' so there is no 8" to drop at the end of each mile, it's a constant, smooth, and VERY SLIGHT curve that presents no problems for pilots, and would be virtually undetectable in the face of other forces acting on the airplane, even at 500 mph. The plane is simply tweaked for near zero vertical speed and that's all that is required.

The Attitude Indicator is very clearly compensating for all kinds of precessional forces acting up on it and to remain accurate over the longer term must be tied to the gravity potential as well (so it remains vertically aligned over time, reacting only to sharper movements of the airplane over the short term).

a reply to: turbonium1

Now. If a pilot is flaying to a specific altitude as read by altimeter by reading pressure, and leaves power and flight controls alone except for battling turbulence, why would the aircraft change altitude.

So. Now you have to answer the above. And this still stands,

If the earth was flat like your delusion, why is the most accurate representation of the earth and distances and relative positions between points on the earth a globe?
————

Why does everything you post blowup in your face. I guess that is what you get for basing flat earth on lies and falsehoods. While it’s practical to treat the earth as spherical as shown by the globe in navigation vs a flat map, celestial navigation, great circle paths, battleship gunnery.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
They are indeed beautiful, and they do indeed look and move differently, but not in the stupid way you think.

Nothing is "stupid" about it, except claiming that it's all caused by 'out of focus' cameras and/or an 'effect of atmosphere', of course!

Again, I've asked you to prove this can happen by those ridiculous excuses, which you cannot prove, because it's nonsense. By YOUR argument, all stars look like tiny points of light, so any 'effect of atmosphere', or 'out of focus camera', should make all stars look the same, but they're all completely different, in movement, and shape, which proves it is NOT caused by 'effect' or 'out of focus camera'!

Stars are very close to Earth, and are small, energized sources of light and movement and color, EACH one unique from all the other stars, and THAT is exactly what we see, through magnification. It's not caused by millions of different magical 'effects of atmosphere', nor from millions of 'out of focus cameras', either!

You cannot POSSIBLY see differences in all stars, if they were actually 'trillions of miles away', so you make up nonsense excuses for it, instead of facing the truth, which is that stars are CLOSE to Earth, NOT 'trillions of miles away', which is why we can SEE each one is so unique, in movement, shape, and color. It's impossible for us to see all this, if they're all just tiny points of light. That's the lie, and to know it's a lie, by seeing all stars are unique, in every way, cannot be denied as an 'effect', or 'out of focus camera', simply because it's impossible to make millions of stars look and move differently, from 'effect' or 'out of focus camera'!

a reply to: turbonium1

Answer the questions turbo…

Now. If a pilot is flaying to a specific altitude as read by altimeter by reading pressure, and leaves power and flight controls alone except for battling turbulence, why would the aircraft change altitude?

If the earth was flat like your delusion, why is the most accurate representation of the earth and distances and relative positions between points on the earth a globe?

it must be friday...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Now. This has been provided for you repeatedly.

Flat Earth Insanity

Flat Earth Follies: Planes would have to constantly pitch down to fly!

Conclusion

I think that about wraps it up for this Flat Earth Folly.

Planes are not 'dropping' 8 inches every mile (per se), they are flying along the constant curvature of the gravity equipotential, while constantly adjusting pitch ever-so-slightly by means of the elevator trim setting which controls the pitch RATE of the airplane. ANY deviation from that rotation results in the plane climbing or descending which immediately shows up in the Vertical Speed indication and power settings would be adjusted accordingly. This constantly rotates their 'tangent' so there is no 8" to drop at the end of each mile, it's a constant, smooth, and VERY SLIGHT curve that presents no problems for pilots, and would be virtually undetectable in the face of other forces acting on the airplane, even at 500 mph. The plane is simply tweaked for near zero vertical speed and that's all that is required.

The Attitude Indicator is very clearly compensating for all kinds of precessional forces acting up on it and to remain accurate over the longer term must be tied to the gravity potential as well (so it remains vertically aligned over time, reacting only to sharper movements of the airplane over the short term).

"....they are flying along the constant curvature of the gravity equipotential"


It's all BS. Make up a non-existent, magical 'force', called 'gravity', to solve all problems, because it doesn't exist in the FIRST place! It's easy to make up something that doesn't exist, claim it DOES exist, without a shred of PROOF it exists, and then, claim it has super-powers, to make instruments on planes measure 'level', as not really 'level' at all, but to a 'curve' as 'level' instead, because you claim that it does!

There is NO PROOF that 'gravity' even EXISTS, but why not claim it DOES exist, has magical powers, to make our instruments measure a 'curve', 50,000 feet below it, and read as 'level', to this 'curve' 50,000 feet below it, on the surface of Earth, within it, as a ball, with a core at it's center, where the magical non-existent 'force' called 'gravity', shoots through the ball, into air, where planes fly, and causes their instruments to read 'level' flight, to 'curvature' of Earth, at 60,000 feet below!!!

'Gravity' doesn't exist, nothing PROVES it exists, nothing HAS proven it exists, in fact.

They made up a magical, non-existent 'force', within all objects, all things, Earth and moon included, to attract other objects towards it, if smaller mass to it, or to be attracted to other objects, larger in mass.

All of the objects on Earth, are attracted to Earth, being smaller in mass than Earth is.

They cannot claim Earth is a ball, without making up a 'holding down to the ball' force, to 'explain' how come everything doesn't fly off into 'space', from that ball!

A 'holding down force', surely must 'exist' within Earth, or everything ON Earth, would 'fly off into space', right?

'Space' is the area 'all around the ball Earth', and it's endless, without this 'holding down force', or very, very 'little' of it, compared to Earth, for example!


Your side doesn't have actual evidence that objects are attracted to other objects, by some sort of 'force', other than real, proven forces, like magnetic force, which DOES exist.

Now, how would magnetic force be true, proven to exist, CAN be proven to exist, at any time, BUT NOT YOUR 'FORCE', that makes ALL objects 'attract' to other objects, with greater mass, for your magical force is based on the MASS of objects, and applies to ALL objects!

Every object has mass, and 'gravitational force', within it, and 'attracts' other objects, and IS 'attracted' to other objects, based on their MASS, and Earth is so massive, compared to most things, it holds us down, pulls us down from above it, which is why all of us are ON the Earth, instead of 'floating' around in 'space', which has little 'gravity'.


So when they decided to first 'show their heroic astronauts', who they said went into 'space', which is the blue area that turns into black at night, without the sun's light, and they lie about it, as being 'endless space', with 'distant stars', their favorite illusion, of all time! It worked so well, and sadly, it still works today.

Where we 'float', is in 'space', where we never go, and never will go, it's made up, this place where we 'float' around, is NONSENSE, and does NOT exist, in the real world, in reality, it's all made up, and told as real, genuine, there's never been proof, or any way to confirm their claims, it's all BS.


So do you, or anyone at all, really, honestly believe it's for our 'safety', and 'to protect us', like they claim? They've proven it's all BS, letting all of us go to the most dangerous area of all, the launch sites, so their excuse is a complete joke!

There's never been restricted areas around commercial airports, or other areas of lethal hazards, like the launch sites, or many others, like we all know about.

It's far more hazardous to cross a Manhattan street than to see rockets drop debris at 15,000 feet above the Atlantic Ocean, from a boat, even if it was directly below it, from such altitudes flown at the time, whatever it is, any debris is far above the ocean, and would easily be avoided, anyway.

They specifically made their rockets with external engines, or 'boosters', to quickly 'drop' off over the ocean, only a few minutes after launching, to leave them with much smaller engines, containing far less fuel, supposedly for flights into 'space', and 'orbits' of Earth, and later on, to 'return' to Earth again, several days later on!

As if.


They simply made all their rockets WITH 'booster engines', to have them 'drop' over the ocean, a few minutes after launch, which gave them an 'excuse', to 'restrict' those massive areas of the ocean, for our 'safety' from the falling debris!

It's still a ridiculous excuse, but that's the best they could come up with, to prevent us from seeing them crash into the Atlantic, minutes after launch, and that's what REALLY happens to rockets, all the time, and they'll never let us see it, every lie depends on keeping it a secret.


Unless you believe it's for our 'safety. If so, then you'll believe anything they say.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
They are indeed beautiful, and they do indeed look and move differently, but not in the stupid way you think.

Nothing is "stupid" about it, except claiming that it's all caused by 'out of focus' cameras and/or an 'effect of atmosphere', of course!

Not a claim, a fact.

Again, I've asked you to prove this can happen by those ridiculous excuses, which you cannot prove, because it's nonsense. By YOUR argument, all stars look like tiny points of light, so any 'effect of atmosphere', or 'out of focus camera', should make all stars look the same, but they're all completely different, in movement, and shape, which proves it is NOT caused by 'effect' or 'out of focus camera'!

You've been shown this, and you either ignored it orvdidn't see it. Stars don't all look the same because they aren't. Stars don't all look the same when out of focus because no combinations of star, viewing instrument and stmospheric conditions are the same.

Stars are very close to Earth, and are small, energized sources of light and movement and color, EACH one unique from all the other stars, and THAT is exactly what we see, through magnification. It's not caused by millions of different magical 'effects of atmosphere', nor from millions of 'out of focus cameras', either!

How close? How big? Show your workings.

You cannot POSSIBLY see differences in all stars, if they were actually 'trillions of miles away',

That's right, you can't, other than colour and brightness optical telescopes, used properly, won't show you anything. Unless you completely fail at using them.

so you make up nonsense excuses for it,

This is the part where you prove it's made up and nonsense, despite all the proof you've been given that demonstrates otherwise. You have provided no such proof, and never will.

instead of facing the truth, which is that stars are CLOSE to Earth, NOT 'trillions of miles away', which is why we can SEE each one is so unique, in movement, shape, and color. It's impossible for us to see all this, if they're all just tiny points of light.

That's right, it is impossible, that's how we know your youtube sources are incompetent.

That's the lie, and to know it's a lie, by seeing all stars are unique, in every way, cannot be denied as an 'effect', or 'out of focus camera', simply because it's impossible to make millions of stars look and move differently, from 'effect' or 'out of focus camera'!

The lie here is your claim that not focussing a camera properly doesn't produce the effects you've shown and it's not all down to atmospherics. You've been shown that it is down to atmosphete and user error, so calling me a liar is, in fact, a lie.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Answer the questions turbo…

Now. If a pilot is flaying to a specific altitude as read by altimeter by reading pressure, and leaves power and flight controls alone except for battling turbulence, why would the aircraft change altitude?

If the earth was flat like your delusion, why is the most accurate representation of the earth and distances and relative positions between points on the earth a globe?

Everyone who requires accurate measurements of Earth's surface, which include all surveyors of real projects on Earth. They could not make up excuses about why our surveyors always assume surfaces are flat, because everything else is based on it being flat, and to have flat surfaces, for their projects.

Every pilot uses his instruments for level flight, altitude settings, and so on, as accurate, correct measurements on flights. Level flight means it is flat, and straight across, same as surveyors who always assume surfaces are flat, means level, and straight across. It doesn't mean 'flat/level to the Earth's curvature', or some 'equipotential of gravity' BS, either!

Measuring level flight, is equal air pressure around the plane in flight, which is confirmed by steady altitude readings while it indicates level flight, or the other way around, with steady altitude readings, confirmed as level by their other instrument(s), at the same time.

Nothing measures any sort of 'curve', or any 'curvature', and trying to claim a ball Earth map is 'the most accurate representation of Earth and their relative distances or positions on Earth.... is absolute nonsense.

Every measurement uses the FLAT Earth, and FLAT surfaces on Earth, and NONE use a 'curve', or a ball Earth, to measure anything at all.

Have you ever known any instruments we use, that measure 'curvature' at all? Anything that indicates a rate of 'curve', over some sort of distance? What instrument exists, which would measure a 'curvature', over a half-mile length, or a two mile length, etc?

What you have here, is a made up claim, of Earth being a ball. That requires a curved surface, which means it's MEASURABLE by instruments, as a real 'curve', with an actual RATE of curvature, what instrument(s) were used to measure this 'rate of curvature', what did it measure, can it measure any distance, or only short distances, of a mile, or two miles, or 500 feet or yards at one time, etc.


If you really believe Earth is a ball, you require ACTUAL measurements for it's 'curvature'. But there aren't any such instruments, to measure your 'curvature' claims, are there?

If you believe that the Earth is a ball, would we actually have nothing that MEASURES it, as a ball?

When we have NO Instruments that can measure 'curvature', while ALL of our instruments measure it as a FLAT surface, what would that suggest to you, is the ACTUAL surface of Earth? It's more than a suggestion, it is PROOF of the Earth's surface as flat, and nothing else BUT a flat surface.

originally posted by: turbonium1

"....they are flying along the constant curvature of the gravity equipotential"


It's all BS. Make up a non-existent, magical 'force', called 'gravity', to solve all problems, because it doesn't exist in the FIRST place! It's easy to make up something that doesn't exist, claim it DOES exist, without a shred of PROOF it exists, and then, claim it has super-powers, to make instruments on planes measure 'level', as not really 'level' at all, but to a 'curve' as 'level' instead, because you claim that it does!

There is NO PROOF that 'gravity' even EXISTS, but why not claim it DOES exist, has magical powers, to make our instruments measure a 'curve', 50,000 feet below it, and read as 'level', to this 'curve' 50,000 feet below it, on the surface of Earth, within it, as a ball, with a core at it's center, where the magical non-existent 'force' called 'gravity', shoots through the ball, into air, where planes fly, and causes their instruments to read 'level' flight, to 'curvature' of Earth, at 60,000 feet below!!!

There's lots of proof it exists. You not liking or understanding that proof doesn't invalidate it. How much curvature do you think is under a plane?

'Gravity' doesn't exist, nothing PROVES it exists, nothing HAS proven it exists, in fact.

It does, and it has.

They made up a magical, non-existent 'force', within all objects, all things, Earth and moon included, to attract other objects towards it, if smaller mass to it, or to be attracted to other objects, larger in mass.

What 'they' did was correctly work out why things work the way that they do, the rate at which that happens, and provide ways of measuring it.

All of the objects on Earth, are attracted to Earth, being smaller in mass than Earth is.

Mass is attracted to other mass.

They cannot claim Earth is a ball, without making up a 'holding down to the ball' force, to 'explain' how come everything doesn't fly off into 'space', from that ball!

A 'holding down force', surely must 'exist' within Earth, or everything ON Earth, would 'fly off into space', right?

'Space' is the area 'all around the ball Earth', and it's endless, without this 'holding down force', or very, very 'little' of it, compared to Earth, for example!

That pretty much sums it up - see, it's not so hard is it?

Your side doesn't have actual evidence that objects are attracted to other objects, by some sort of 'force', other than real, proven forces, like magnetic force, which DOES exist.

Yeah it does though.

Now, how would magnetic force be true, proven to exist, CAN be proven to exist, at any time, BUT NOT YOUR 'FORCE', that makes ALL objects 'attract' to other objects, with greater mass, for your magical force is based on the MASS of objects, and applies to ALL objects!

Every object has mass, and 'gravitational force', within it, and 'attracts' other objects, and IS 'attracted' to other objects, based on their MASS, and Earth is so massive, compared to most things, it holds us down, pulls us down from above it, which is why all of us are ON the Earth, instead of 'floating' around in 'space', which has little 'gravity'.

Again, you clearly understand the concept, but seem to have some sort of problem disproving it.

So when they decided to first 'show their heroic astronauts', who they said went into 'space', which is the blue area that turns into black at night, without the sun's light, and they lie about it, as being 'endless space', with 'distant stars', their favorite illusion, of all time! It worked so well, and sadly, it still works today.

That's because it actually works and is true.

Where we 'float', is in 'space', where we never go, and never will go, it's made up, this place where we 'float' around, is NONSENSE, and does NOT exist, in the real world, in reality, it's all made up, and told as real, genuine, there's never been proof, or any way to confirm their claims, it's all BS.

You'll never go, becaue you aren't smart enough. Other people who are smart enough can, and do. I've met several people who have. You've never bothered to do that. I'll take their testimony over yours any day.

So do you, or anyone at all, really, honestly believe it's for our 'safety', and 'to protect us', like they claim? They've proven it's all BS, letting all of us go to the most dangerous area of all, the launch sites, so their excuse is a complete joke!

There's never been restricted areas around commercial airports, or other areas of lethal hazards, like the launch sites, or many others, like we all know about.

Really? So you go to airports all the time and just wander about on the runway? No-one and nothing ever stops you from going to the places where you might get killed by planes, or could cause damage by doing something monumentally stupid?

It's far more hazardous to cross a Manhattan street than to see rockets drop debris at 15,000 feet above the Atlantic Ocean, from a boat, even if it was directly below it, from such altitudes flown at the time, whatever it is, any debris is far above the ocean, and would easily be avoided, anyway.

Read the rules on jaywalking - why do you think they have them? Would you just walk out in the traffic and expect not to be hit by it? I'm more than happy for you to be under falling debris in a boat and try to escape being hit by it. Would make a fabulous gameshow.

They specifically made their rockets with external engines, or 'boosters', to quickly 'drop' off over the ocean, only a few minutes after launching, to leave them with much smaller engines, containing far less fuel, supposedly for flights into 'space', and 'orbits' of Earth, and later on, to 'return' to Earth again, several days later on!

I know! It's almost like they're rocket scientists or something!

As if.


They simply made all their rockets WITH 'booster engines', to have them 'drop' over the ocean, a few minutes after launch, which gave them an 'excuse', to 'restrict' those massive areas of the ocean, for our 'safety' from the falling debris!

It's more to do with what happens if it goes bang.

It's still a ridiculous excuse, but that's the best they could come up with, to prevent us from seeing them crash into the Atlantic, minutes after launch, and that's what REALLY happens to rockets, all the time, and they'll never let us see it, every lie depends on keeping it a secret.

They never let us see that because it doesn't happen. You are more than welcome to sit in a boat in hte ocean way off shore. You will see very little, as has been shown in the videos you've been given.

Unless you believe it's for our 'safety. If so, then you'll believe anything they say.

I believe people who present me with evidence and facts. You? Not so much.

how many times does he have to be told we don't float in space before it sinks in?

Im betting he still thinks orbit is up...

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

Answer the questions turbo…

Now. If a pilot is flaying to a specific altitude as read by altimeter by reading pressure, and leaves power and flight controls alone except for battling turbulence, why would the aircraft change altitude?

If the earth was flat like your delusion, why is the most accurate representation of the earth and distances and relative positions between points on the earth a globe?

Everyone who requires accurate measurements of Earth's surface, which include all surveyors of real projects on Earth. They could not make up excuses about why our surveyors always assume surfaces are flat, because everything else is based on it being flat, and to have flat surfaces, for their projects.

Except where those projects are so large that they have to account for curvature. How much curvature is under a house?

Every pilot uses his instruments for level flight, altitude settings, and so on, as accurate, correct measurements on flights. Level flight means it is flat, and straight across, same as surveyors who always assume surfaces are flat, means level, and straight across. It doesn't mean 'flat/level to the Earth's curvature', or some 'equipotential of gravity' BS, either!

Level is not the same as flat.

Measuring level flight, is equal air pressure around the plane in flight, which is confirmed by steady altitude readings while it indicates level flight, or the other way around, with steady altitude readings, confirmed as level by their other instrument(s), at the same time.

Why does air pressure change with altitude?

Nothing measures any sort of 'curve', or any 'curvature', and trying to claim a ball Earth map is 'the most accurate representation of Earth and their relative distances or positions on Earth.... is absolute nonsense.

Every measurement uses the FLAT Earth, and FLAT surfaces on Earth, and NONE use a 'curve', or a ball Earth, to measure anything at all.

Have you ever known any instruments we use, that measure 'curvature' at all? Anything that indicates a rate of 'curve', over some sort of distance? What instrument exists, which would measure a 'curvature', over a half-mile length, or a two mile length, etc?

What you have here, is a made up claim, of Earth being a ball. That requires a curved surface, which means it's MEASURABLE by instruments, as a real 'curve', with an actual RATE of curvature, what instrument(s) were used to measure this 'rate of curvature', what did it measure, can it measure any distance, or only short distances, of a mile, or two miles, or 500 feet or yards at one time, etc.


If you really believe Earth is a ball, you require ACTUAL measurements for it's 'curvature'. But there aren't any such instruments, to measure your 'curvature' claims, are there?

If you believe that the Earth is a ball, would we actually have nothing that MEASURES it, as a ball?

When we have NO Instruments that can measure 'curvature', while ALL of our instruments measure it as a FLAT surface, what would that suggest to you, is the ACTUAL surface of Earth? It's more than a suggestion, it is PROOF of the Earth's surface as flat, and nothing else BUT a flat surface.

The amount of curvature on the Earth's surface is well known, and the value is used in geodetic surveying and to make sure large engineering projects don't get messed up by flat-earthers being involved. Where is your PROOF that Earth is flat? Where are your MEASUREMENTS that prove the Earth's curve is not real? Where are your FACTS?