A Flat Earth not Round ...?

[ofelas]

After following the videos and the debate regarding this topic for the last 6 months, I guess the only thing we can do is question. Question everything. Mark Sargent has several really good points in his video series, the most obvious being why there are no videos showing the earth as a rocket takes off, showing us gradually what the earth looks like as it reaches high enough altitudes to show the entire earth. It should be such an obvious question, and such an easy thing to do, as NASA has supposedly sent rockets into space regularly since, the 50's, right?? That WOULD be the money shot, the golden goose and the most interesting video for all of humanity to watch.. But no, nothing whatsoever has been presented to us, after billions and billions of dollars spent...

As a follower of PC and PA since the beginning (yes, I have watched every single video, most of them at least 4-5 times), I am observing something else which I find really interesting. There seems to be a consensus in the community on what is considered "accepted" fringe research (UFO's, aliens, Secret Space program, etc). And there the line has been drawn, and this seems to keep the community together. When other more far reaching ideas enter the picture (FE or Crrow777's work), all of a sudden, the community cannot accept these "outrageous" ideas, because a patent on the accepted paradigm has been established. This is the reason I tend to stay away from joining a community (such as this) actively, as you have to "go along to get along", and many people have invested (and sacrificed) a lot of time, effort (and probably personal credibility) among their peers/family/colleagues etc to arrive at something they feel is a comfortable paradigm. I find it really interesting to see to how easily both Bill and Kerry (and I love them both) and many people on this forum dismisses the FE theories, by trying to explain and rationalize every argument so it fits neatly into their (now) established understanding of how the world works... Keep in mind, that many of the "outrageous" ideas presented by PC were also dismissed in the same way by the "then established" alternative/new age community less then 10 years ago... This is akin to being young and having an open mind, you usually will check out any idea to arrive at your truth. When you transition into adulthood, you quickly figure what to say and stand for in order to be viewed as a "rational and intelligent adult". This is, I feel, what has happened to the PC/PA community. The minds of the hard core followers have now shut down (being in their "formative years" from 2006-2010, perhaps?), and a patent on the truth has now effectively been put in place. Anything beyond the Secret Space program, John Lear, Alien/Human hybrids, Pete Peterson, etc is now considered ludicrous..

Oh well, end of rant....

[Dennis Leahy]

... Mark Sargent has several really good points in his video series, the most obvious being why there are no videos showing the earth as a rocket takes off, showing us gradually what the earth looks like as it reaches high enough altitudes to show the entire earth. It should be such an obvious question, and such an easy thing to do, as NASA has supposedly sent rockets into space regularly since, the 50's, right?? That WOULD be the money shot, the golden goose and the most interesting video for all of humanity to watch.. But no, nothing whatsoever has been presented to us, after billions and billions of dollars spent...

...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyq5eN9C4Cc
(this shows the view up to 50 miles up)

How far above the Earth would the rocket need to be to see the entire Earth without a fisheye lens? With a fisheye lens, the whole Earth would be in the photo much lower than 50 miles. I guess you'd have to know the lens curvature as well.



...This is, I feel, what has happened to the PC/PA community. The minds of the hard core followers have now shut down (being in their "formative years" from 2006-2010, perhaps?), and a patent on the truth has now effectively been put in place. Anything beyond the Secret Space program, John Lear, Alien/Human hybrids, Pete Peterson, etc is now considered ludicrous.. In my opinion, this characterization of the "hard core followers" (I assume means the most interactive?) paints with much too wide a stroke. Avalon is what you focus on at Avalon, as well as what you contribute to (or ignore.) Each of us members, as individuals, decide what we believe is true, what might be true, and what is false, but since most members have a limited amount of time that can be dedicated to reading and interacting with others on the forum, each of us also decides what is critically important and what is "ludicrous" - to us.

[DeDukshyn]

... Mark Sargent has several really good points in his video series, the most obvious being why there are no videos showing the earth as a rocket takes off, showing us gradually what the earth looks like as it reaches high enough altitudes to show the entire earth. It should be such an obvious question, and such an easy thing to do, as NASA has supposedly sent rockets into space regularly since, the 50's, right?? That WOULD be the money shot, the golden goose and the most interesting video for all of humanity to watch.. But no, nothing whatsoever has been presented to us, after billions and billions of dollars spent...

...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyq5eN9C4Cc
(this shows the view up to 50 miles up)

How far above the Earth would the rocket need to be to see the entire Earth without a fisheye lens? With a fisheye lens, the whole Earth would be in the photo much lower than 50 miles. I guess you'd have to know the lens curvature as well.



...This is, I feel, what has happened to the PC/PA community. The minds of the hard core followers have now shut down (being in their "formative years" from 2006-2010, perhaps?), and a patent on the truth has now effectively been put in place. Anything beyond the Secret Space program, John Lear, Alien/Human hybrids, Pete Peterson, etc is now considered ludicrous.. In my opinion, this characterization of the "hard core followers" (I assume means the most interactive?) paints with much too wide a stroke. Avalon is what you focus on at Avalon, as well as what you contribute to (or ignore.) Each of us members, as individuals, decide what we believe is true, what might be true, and what is false, but since most members have a limited amount of time that can be dedicated to reading and interacting with others on the forum, each of us also decides what is critically important and what is "ludicrous" - to us.

Well if flat earth was real you'd be able to see the "antarctic barrier" at the edge of the earth by then. But you can't. Not even close. What explanation could there be for this? A sphere shape is one ...

It doesn't seem to matter how much "flat earth evidence" is debunked, there has been much of it debunked here on this thread (airline flights that supposedly don't exist, perspective sun beams, to name a couple). It might be just me, but if I had a bunch of supposed evidence which is supportive of the other pieces of evidence for something, and half of it was proven untrue, I would probably start to realize that the value that I thought was created in the cross supporting of the evidence, was mostly diminished, rather than dismiss it and cling to whatever is left. I would then also start to investigate the opposite and try to prove that true. Why? because I want the truth, not "to believe something".

If a flat earther took the time to try to prove the earth is not a sphere, first by taking all the math and theory that indicates it IS a sphere, then setting up experiments that try to prove those theories. If it cannot be done, then there is an indication that the earth may be flat ... But I have seen no such evidence from this perspective.

I challenge any flat earthers do do this exercise, I'd be curious to see the results.

[DeDukshyn]

It's funny how so many flat earthers just repeat stuff they hee in a lame youtube video, and never check for themselves ... how long to find that video Dennis? And we're supposed to try to take these regurgitated ideas seriously?

EDIT:

I can't see the Antarctic barrier here either ... the earth just 'ends" as though it were a sphere ...

UEuOpxOrA_0

Here is a better one ... continuous from launch pad to orbit to ocean -- full trip no cuts. The camera was on a booster rocket, and while it doesn't capture much on the way up, it does capture a round, spherical earth on it's way down with no Antarctic barrier or a full view of the flat visible ...

So easy to find these. My point? Flat earther's (Mark Sargent et al - and yes I watched almost all his videos) say these videos don't exist, these flights don't exist, etc. Flat earther's are obviously not researchers, they are regurgitators of mostly religious ideas ... they don't do original research for a reason, and they don't seem to bother checking if any of their "evidence" is valid or not. The evidence for that has come out in this thread.

69Wks7phnCE

[DarMar]

Both videos are Disney cartoons payed by your tax money.
Delivered to you by intranet you paying.
Templar idea from swiss. controllers of time,space, belief,money and all of most of here believe.
Decently successful as i can see.

Neat stuff.

[DeDukshyn]

Both videos are Disney cartoons payed by your tax money.
Delivered to you by intranet you paying.
Templar idea from swiss. controllers of time,space, belief,money and all of most of here believe.
Decently successful as i can see.

Neat stuff.

Riiiight, a Disney cartoon, where's your evidence for that? Let's not state things without ANY evidence for this exercise, please. .... I get it now. Jesus will be floating in a cloud any day now to save us all ... ;)

[DarMar]

Both videos are Disney cartoons payed by your tax money.
Delivered to you by intranet you paying.
Templar idea from swiss. controllers of time,space, belief,money and all of most of here believe.
Decently successful as i can see.

Neat stuff.

Riiiight, a Disney cartoon, where's your evidence for that? Let's not state things without ANY evidence for this exercise, please. .... I get it now. Jesus will be floating in a cloud any day now to save us all ... ;)

No one can save us but ourselves, if we want to. But needs some action to make reaction. Something beyond half-action.
But to be honest, personally I don't see it happening on mass scale. Story of saviour is just to distract from inner space. Some choose Jesus, some Satan. Light or dark. Sphere or flat.. It is just about choosing between offerings, offerings to the gods.
There are too many of those who can stand by some V8 car and say "what a beauty" to be able to understand whole picture of how that come to life, what sacrifices and resources raping needed to be executed for that machine.

Until than, best to go to work and in spare time browse web for neat ideas and proof videos.
Webs are not made for sport.


where's your evidence for that?
My evidence is that i can recreate same video with less than 10$ budget and fact that you have not been on that rocket to witness that.

Where is your evidence that it is not cartoon?

[DeDukshyn]

Both videos are Disney cartoons payed by your tax money.
Delivered to you by intranet you paying.
Templar idea from swiss. controllers of time,space, belief,money and all of most of here believe.
Decently successful as i can see.

Neat stuff.

Riiiight, a Disney cartoon, where's your evidence for that? Let's not state things without ANY evidence for this exercise, please. .... I get it now. Jesus will be floating in a cloud any day now to save us all ... ;)

No one can save us but ourselves, if we want to. But needs some action to make reaction. Something beyond half-action.
But to be honest, personally I don't see it happening on mass scale. Story of saviour is just to distract from inner space. Some choose Jesus, some Satan. Light or dark. Sphere or flat.. It is just about choosing between offerings, offerings to the gods.
There are too many of those who can stand by some V8 car and say "what a beauty" to be able to understand whole picture of how that come to life, what sacrifices and resources raping needed to be executed for that machine.

Until than, best to go to work and in spare time browse web for neat ideas and proof videos.
Webs are not made for sport.

Give me evidence for it being a Disney cartoon. Give me evidence that because you might see sunbeams in a perspective view, it means that the sun is only a few miles up. Give me evidence that you cannot book flights that fly around the southern hemisphere. Give me evidence that all the flights that have to be greater than 13,500 kms if the earth is flat cannot be booked. Give me any evidence for the mechanism that turns night to day on the flat earth model. You can't. Enough said. At least the sphere earther's here are providing evidence, regardless of if it is being dismissed without thought to the larger systems.

[DeDukshyn]

Both videos are Disney cartoons payed by your tax money.
Delivered to you by intranet you paying.
Templar idea from swiss. controllers of time,space, belief,money and all of most of here believe.
Decently successful as i can see.

Neat stuff.

Riiiight, a Disney cartoon, where's your evidence for that? Let's not state things without ANY evidence for this exercise, please. .... I get it now. Jesus will be floating in a cloud any day now to save us all ... ;)

No one can save us but ourselves, if we want to. But needs some action to make reaction. Something beyond half-action.
But to be honest, personally I don't see it happening on mass scale. Story of saviour is just to distract from inner space. Some choose Jesus, some Satan. Light or dark. Sphere or flat.. It is just about choosing between offerings, offerings to the gods.
There are too many of those who can stand by some V8 car and say "what a beauty" to be able to understand whole picture of how that come to life, what sacrifices and resources raping needed to be executed for that machine.

Until than, best to go to work and in spare time browse web for neat ideas and proof videos.
Webs are not made for sport.


where's your evidence for that?
My evidence is that i can recreate same video with less than 10$ budget ....

...

I don't believe that at all - at least not something we'd have a hard time determining which of the two was real. so that doesn't amount to evidence for me. If you want to give it a shot, I'll give you $20CAD if you can make one that compares in believability to the ones posted thus far. Ten to cover your budget and 10 because I'd be impressed :)

[DarMar]

Both videos are Disney cartoons payed by your tax money.
Delivered to you by intranet you paying.
Templar idea from swiss. controllers of time,space, belief,money and all of most of here believe.
Decently successful as i can see.

Neat stuff.

Riiiight, a Disney cartoon, where's your evidence for that? Let's not state things without ANY evidence for this exercise, please. .... I get it now. Jesus will be floating in a cloud any day now to save us all ... ;)

No one can save us but ourselves, if we want to. But needs some action to make reaction. Something beyond half-action.
But to be honest, personally I don't see it happening on mass scale. Story of saviour is just to distract from inner space. Some choose Jesus, some Satan. Light or dark. Sphere or flat.. It is just about choosing between offerings, offerings to the gods.
There are too many of those who can stand by some V8 car and say "what a beauty" to be able to understand whole picture of how that come to life, what sacrifices and resources raping needed to be executed for that machine.

Until than, best to go to work and in spare time browse web for neat ideas and proof videos.
Webs are not made for sport.

Give me evidence for it being a Disney cartoon. Give me evidence that because you might see sunbeams in a perspective view, it means that the sun is only a few miles up. Give me evidence that you cannot book flights that fly around the southern hemisphere. Give me evidence that all the flights that have to be greater than 13,500 kms if the earth is flat cannot be booked. Give me any evidence for the mechanism that turns night to day on the flat earth model. Give me any evidence for why toilet flushes rotate in the direction determined by its location on the earth if the coriolis effect doesn't exist?. You can't. Enough said. At least the sphere earther's here are providing evidence, regardless of if it is being dismissed without thought to the larger systems.

You sound kinda irritated by this conversation, and that is not good.
If you did read things that i wrote, you would conclude that I'm not FE believer same as I'm not SE believer.
If evidence for both would be out, you think that this thread would exist?
You think that people would browse FE or SE ideas?

We would know for deff...
If evidence for 9-11 would exist, you think we would discuss it here?
If evidence for about money bankster conspiracy would be available, you would need to explain it to someone?
Do you think that FE people are less intelligent than you?
So you need to link NASA fakery images to them to prove your point?

Those NASA dudes are old school NAZIS with agenda older than us two together, what do you expect from them exactly? a math solution?

How can you know toilet flush scenery, when there is so much toilets on planet? on which toilet you exactly mean? polar one?

one of works i was on in early days in Luminous from 2008:
GFF9lAdnwfg

can you tell me are people in suits real or animated?
is important to continue evidencing evidence.

look even George Clooney was in space orbit too..
eGPiK4tlB44

this is kind of work i did through 2006-2007, couldn't find better quality online tho.
2buyJ_wy9M0

so believe me, when i see fakery i know one.
we used to completely remake video. They knew to film people using any phone and we would change their phone in video. In most cases looked better than original. BUNKER studios were famous for completely rewriting videos.. Art of faking reality :)

what ever you needed.. more people, less people, erase or add junk on table.. buildings? stars? space? no problemo..

Look, I liked Star Trek and Stargate and all that programming stuff.. It is very nice idea. But all films are like star trek, even nowadays terminology came from Roddenberry's mind.. like teleports, phasers, quantum drive!!
But it is kinda time to wake up :)
There is no Santa Claus.

[DeDukshyn]

...



How can you know toilet flush scenery, when there is so much toilets on planet? on which toilet you exactly mean? polar one??


I corrected my post for that one - it was an inaccurate assumption :)

But really, $20 :)

The overall evidence on the side of sphere earth is much more cross supportive and builds a much more solid framework. The FE scenario requires inordinate amounts of deception and secrecy. It also requires vast amount of ordinary humans, would find out about this due to the nature of their jobs, experiences, a huge amount of people. To keep them from sharing the amazing truth (because it would be the most amazing thing to share, and you would have proof due to the nature of your job, experiences collected, etc. It would be impossible to resist the temptation (so far I have not heard or seen a single such account). So whatever methods of secrecy is employed on these people must be extreme. If it were true, I really wouldn't be able to book all those flights on a flat earth where the distance exceeds 13,500 kms. I wouldn't be able to travel to so many destinations in the timeframe the flights tell me on the internet, if a flat earth map were real; and if the lie about the times we have not one person complaining their 7 hour flight took 13? Not one single complaint? If the earth is flat, the times presented by the airlines have to be wrong, because it vastly changes the distance between two points. There is zero evidence for this in fact all the evidence leads to the fact that these flight times are 100% correct, and thus the flat earth is a lie. You only need this one piece to dismiss the whole thing easily. This is the type of evidence that is being ignored, and it confirms the validity or not of the theory, among the many others ...

There is a plethora more points but for the sake of brevity I'll stop there.
A fair bit of flat earth "evidence" can be proven false or given extremely reasonable doubt to, yet the evidence for denying sphere earth is non-existent or weak at best.

It may all be about the threshold of information one has, how much value one assigns to what, and what methods of reasoning are being employed to ensure the indicator is in one camp or another. I'm sure we will all agree to that ;)

[DeDukshyn]

...
can you tell me are people in suits real or animated?
is important to continue evidencing evidence.


The question should be, "Can you tell which video is real life and which is not?". Because a huge part of value for me and likely many, is the cohesiveness of all the rocket videos in respecting the expectation one has of something real; you can tell in 0.2 seconds the movie clip is art.

[Dennis Leahy]

DarMar, I want to say publicly that I like you and I think you're a good guy - and a gifted, visionary, graphic artist - maybe a mystic too. I know you visualize the Earth in a shape somewhere between a sphere and a slightly flattened torroidal spheriod (at least, that's what I think I remember you saying) and all I can think of is that you may sense or see something beyond what I do - maybe you visualize the magnetic belt (which is evidently torroidal-shaped) interplay with the physical Earth. (I see all the space-based photography and just see a sphere. My mind works more like DeDukshyn's.)

So, someone can completely disagree with you on some topic and still respect you. I discount any possibility of a flat earth (which we actually agree on), and yes, to me a conspiracy to hide the true shape of the Earth is... ludicrous, (who would benefit?) I do respect people going out on a limb and expressing ideas outside of the "norm", but I also think it is wise to weigh the relative importance of issues and decide where to put our individual energy. Issues such as proof of the existence of Bigfoot or Nessie or studying a conspiracy to pretend the Earth is a sphere are pretty unimportant when compared to the big issues (attempts to start WW-III, and a possibly imminent global financial collapse, for a couple of examples.)

[DarMar]

The overall evidence on the side of sphere earth is much more cross supportive and builds a much more solid framework.
Because ordinary/average people are supporting and perpetuating that system by financing it and working for it based on fear of dying from hunger.
Can you imagine other way around? FE model more explanatory and developed with more rocket support video evidence and math supported? Which btw average Joe fails to understand to it's core.


The FE scenario requires inordinate amounts of deception and secrecy
And we live in open world without secrecy so this scenario would be impossible.


The FE scenario requires inordinate amounts of deception and secrecy. It also requires vast amount of ordinary humans, would find out about this due to the nature of their jobs, experiences, a huge amount of people. To keep them from sharing the amazing trut
Most of ordinary people are afraid to loose their job, to be discredited. After years and years of mind training to end up in trailor begging other workers for money. You simply can not ignore this factor, it is very important one in this discussion.
I mean, c'mon .. pilots can not report an UFO even it is called unidentified, they will loose their job. What do you expect them to yell something truthful? Yeah in ideal world could be. Why do some whistleblowers cover their identities if it so ok to tell their experiences? And why most of them can't find job after if they are not covered up..

I agree that there are more points to be made, on both sides. But must read/understand that those point are made only for sake of conflict and drilling out anger.
Both of sides.

Why i type here is that i understand that here are some precious souls and intelligent conversation could be made without linking intra-web nazi stuff.
We should stop believe things that they are selling to us, that's a real game changer and no issue on this world is more important than that one.
Only distraction from real truth are youtube/wiky stuff... sci-entities doctorates and bending sqeezing math explanations.
They are selling explanations for war cause, plagues, sickness, hunger, mining, using, exploiting... it all normal to average Joe, and sacrifices need to be made for better to us all.. sigh

[DarMar]

But really, $20
Atm, I'm way over my head with few projects and barely have time to sleep. Finishing one game and doing documentary about extraordinary guy which left good banking job and left into standup comedy and few other musical projects..
But would be neat if it could be made in manner of tutorial topic on this forum with step by step process of making or identifying fakery. Like why background has different colour grading than foreground, why there are differences in flickering and strange jumps in cut-frames. And we can recreate all of that for fun of it and learning ofc.
If we live through September drama constantly implanted into people's mind we could possibly realise that :)


DarMar, I want to say publicly that I like you and I think you're a good guy - and a gifted, visionary, graphic artist - maybe a mystic too. I know you visualize the Earth in a shape somewhere between a sphere and a slightly flattened torroidal spheriod (at least, that's what I think I remember you saying) and all I can think of is that you may sense or see something beyond what I do - maybe you visualize the magnetic belt (which is evidently torroidal-shaped) interplay with the physical Earth. (I see all the space-based photography and just see a sphere. My mind works more like DeDukshyn's.)

We are not much different Dennis. We differate from space position and time zone, and with that our perspective is different based on things we experienced. But we end in conversation on same place around same topic. With deviations in known and beliefs.
And I also have great respect and much love for all people, not only those here. But being with people here sharing ideas and visions i feel many are gifted and visionary and love them all.
I'm not here to implant you my beliefs but to try de-implant deep seeded beliefs. Which is merely impossible due to persons own willingness to act on his behalf. I'm just playing this game because I'm bored of following pied piper system, and would still like to hear opinion that is unlinked from youtube-wiky-disney world.


So, someone can completely disagree with you on some topic and still respect you. I discount any possibility of a flat earth (which we actually agree on), and yes, to me a conspiracy to hide the true shape of the Earth is... ludicrous, (who would benefit?) I do respect people going out on a limb and expressing ideas outside of the "norm", but I also think it is wise to weigh the relative importance of issues and decide where to put our individual energy. Issues such as proof of the existence of Bigfoot or Nessie or studying a conspiracy to pretend the Earth is a sphere are pretty unimportant when compared to the big issues (attempts to start WW-III, and a possibly imminent global financial collapse, for a couple of examples.)

Gotta admit, idea of earth being a disc sounds completely silly :) but not less than spinning ball holding so much water on self and where air and vacuum are divided by nothing.. no seal there, but thats pressure, right? pressure need to have acting force.. or maybe glass shield dividing?never mind..
But denying that all leafs and branches that are grown on tree comes from single seed is ludacris also. It is all tied in deeply. WWIII has same seed as FE conspiracy. It is all war on belief, because people can get belief implanted too easily. One needs to believe that killing other human will bring his family freedom instead of incapability to function with PTSP.
It would not wonder me at all if next war would be between FE and SE population.

One needs to believe that there are some more advanced civilisation that are waiting just right moment to save us all, and other ones that believe in their negative agenda orchestrating all of this.
But no.
You won't see alien in war.
Neither president will go.
People will go, because of belief. Presidents will bring cocktails :)
Because of Santa Claus and Star Wars, because of left and right.

When you think about it, things I'm writing here could be written on almost any topic on this forum, because i talk all time about belief and perception.
Why FE?
Because I stated before, it is NOT coincidence that FE started to spread like virus.. And it is topic that will be searched.
And I value DeDekushyn's posts same as yours and Bills and any contributors here. Because it is viable proof how belief can be shaken easily.. by both sides.
Energy put in this is not for nothing, it has value.

And those which only stated on this topic: "is this serious, is this for real?"
I can say, yes it is, as you can see :)
When tank drove into friend's house in Vukovar out of blue while having lunch.. he stated the same "is this for real?"
Sadly it was... but only to take blame is late reaction to action and wrong set of beliefs at that time.

[loveoflife]

Both videos are Disney cartoons payed by your tax money.
Delivered to you by intranet you paying.
Templar idea from swiss. controllers of time,space, belief,money and all of most of here believe.
Decently successful as i can see.

Neat stuff.

You took the words out of my mouth.

NASA is not to be trusted, with its history of cgi.

All these videos of earth from space do is add more fuel to the FE cause.

[loveoflife]

Both videos are Disney cartoons payed by your tax money.
Delivered to you by intranet you paying.
Templar idea from swiss. controllers of time,space, belief,money and all of most of here believe.
Decently successful as i can see.

Neat stuff.

Riiiight, a Disney cartoon, where's your evidence for that? Let's not state things without ANY evidence for this exercise, please. .... I get it now. Jesus will be floating in a cloud any day now to save us all ... ;)

No one can save us but ourselves, if we want to. But needs some action to make reaction. Something beyond half-action.
But to be honest, personally I don't see it happening on mass scale. Story of saviour is just to distract from inner space. Some choose Jesus, some Satan. Light or dark. Sphere or flat.. It is just about choosing between offerings, offerings to the gods.
There are too many of those who can stand by some V8 car and say "what a beauty" to be able to understand whole picture of how that come to life, what sacrifices and resources raping needed to be executed for that machine.

Until than, best to go to work and in spare time browse web for neat ideas and proof videos.
Webs are not made for sport.

Give me evidence for it being a Disney cartoon. Give me evidence that because you might see sunbeams in a perspective view, it means that the sun is only a few miles up. Give me evidence that you cannot book flights that fly around the southern hemisphere. Give me evidence that all the flights that have to be greater than 13,500 kms if the earth is flat cannot be booked. Give me any evidence for the mechanism that turns night to day on the flat earth model. You can't. Enough said. At least the sphere earther's here are providing evidence, regardless of if it is being dismissed without thought to the larger systems.

The evidence is there on both sides if only you would investigate, instead of maintaining a one sided pov.

Why ask others or flat earthers to prove it for you? There are plenty of links on this thread to sites and videos, that give scientific evidence. Here is one 200 Proofs Earth is Not a Spinning Ball (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html). I respectfully suggest that do you own research and disprove it for yourself.

We all know the ball earth theory, we all were indoctrinated by the same academic institutions. To question what we have been taught and investigate an alternate reality in order to formulate an informed opinion requires some effort and perseverance, not forgetting an interest in the possibility of alternatives.

For information regarding NASA cartoons, check out Matthew Boylan a NASA graphic artist, who was an insider and is now a whistle blower.

Check out this short clip and watch the movie for an idea of what is possible. Dont forget NASA has a budget of trillions, which they do not seem to be spending much of on their cartoons.


gNDmDZi05dY

[Wind]

I think some people here seriously need to book a space flight...
You might just need some rich sponsors. :)

KaOC9danxNo

[loveoflife]

DarMar, I want to say publicly that I like you and I think you're a good guy - and a gifted, visionary, graphic artist - maybe a mystic too. I know you visualize the Earth in a shape somewhere between a sphere and a slightly flattened torroidal spheriod (at least, that's what I think I remember you saying) and all I can think of is that you may sense or see something beyond what I do - maybe you visualize the magnetic belt (which is evidently torroidal-shaped) interplay with the physical Earth. (I see all the space-based photography and just see a sphere. My mind works more like DeDukshyn's.)

So, someone can completely disagree with you on some topic and still respect you. I discount any possibility of a flat earth (which we actually agree on), and yes, to me a conspiracy to hide the true shape of the Earth is... ludicrous, (who would benefit?) I do respect people going out on a limb and expressing ideas outside of the "norm", but I also think it is wise to weigh the relative importance of issues and decide where to put our individual energy. Issues such as proof of the existence of Bigfoot or Nessie or studying a conspiracy to pretend the Earth is a sphere are pretty unimportant when compared to the big issues (attempts to start WW-III, and a possibly imminent global financial collapse, for a couple of examples.)

You ask who would benefit from such a conspiracy, which as been referred to as the mother of all conspiracies. This question has also been asked by others on this thread.

Well to me it is obvious from my research into the manipulators of humanity, it just depends how far up the pyramid of control that you want to go, where it also gets crazy as the reality that we have conditioned into believing begins to fall apart as we journey deeper into the rabbit hole of alternate realities. If you want to go further taking the matrix as an analogy, it not only apples to this earth but according to some is cosmic in scale. This deception needs to be maintained or it all falls apart and there are those who have much invested in it.

Do not underestimate our controllers they deserve our respect as they are very intelligent, supremely cunning, master manipulators and have vast resources that we cannot even imagine at their command. Having said that, they are not infallible.

So to answer the question in a nutshell. The purpose of all this deception is to disempower the human by hiding the truth of their true nature and creating a false and limited perception of themselves and this reality that we inhabit, thereby creating a slave race and perpetuating the controllers position of power.

This deception is vast, it up to you how far down the rabbit hole you want to go. The vision of a mystic is that he perceives the nature of the illusion.

All issues are of no real consequence if we do not know who we are and why we are here. Wars come and go humans are still here still slaves. All indigenous mythologies agree on an ancient war that devastated earth and made WWII look like a barroom brawl.

[Bill Ryan]

All these videos of earth from space do is add more fuel to the FE cause.

Or, some of them might just be real. :)

~~~~~

Here's the problem I have with this thread. It's bothering to me that (in my extremely strong opinion, and clearly that of quite a few others) there's a bewildering abundance of illogic and (to put it bluntly) — unintelligence. That's not meant to be a personal insult. One definition of intelligence (I just looked it up) is:
the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.That is NOT evident in some of the posts on this thread.

That's not a hanging offense, because not all of us have equal levels of expertise and experience in all matters (far from it!). But one of the purposes of this community is to SHARE knowledge and understanding, and for the entire forum to be an educational resource. For people to have very unintelligent [see the above definition] fixed ideas, and for them to be clearly resistant to any kind of learning or open-minded increase in understanding, is a problem. For one, it wastes a lot of time and attention.

We're rightly proud of the diversity among the members here, but that has some reasonable limits. We do filter new members' application, every day. This forum is NOT a free-for all, purposefully so.

What that means is that (and this is a bit of a caricature, but not in every case), if a new member says in their application "I'm an adamant Flat Earth theorist, and I have no intention of listening with consideration to any arguments to the contrary" — we would probably decline their application.

Just as we would, probably, if someone was a diehard creationist, or a diehard (searching for examples here) proponent that many alternative media journalists are just actors (we've had that one, too). One has to draw the line. And the key word here is 'diehard'.

As I stated earlier (as did Paul, in a different way), we're totally sympathetic to people asking intelligent questions and striving for greater personal understanding. That's admirable, and it's what we're all here for. But when someone tries to defend an almost indefensible corner, insisting that they're right, and refusing to listen to any points to the contrary — then we have a problem.

An overplayed strength becomes a weakness. So it's admirable to be resolute and to have conviction, and to present one's personal conviction clearly and strongly. But when that becomes overplayed, that becomes obstinate, stubborn, intransigent — and sometimes unintelligent.

I'm aware of the metaphor of 12 Angry Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083) (a classic 1957 Henry Fonda Film, entirely set in a jury room, about one juror in 12 who was at first outvoted 11-1, but who turned out to be correct all along). But in many cases, that outvoted juror is just plain wrong.

This is important because of OTHER ISSUES. We are together trying to discover, and uncover, and share our discoveries about, truth.

It's worrying to me that someone who can be so very unintelligent [see the definition once more] about the shape of the Earth — something that the Greeks, and many others, understood way more than 2,000 years ago, because they applied their common sense to the shape of the Earth's SHADOW on the moon (please think about that :) ) — can then apply the same critical thinking ability to other major issues that we're all concerned about.

It doesn't matter too much ON ITS OWN if someone has an unusual firm view about something. Many of us have. But the problem really lies in what this means for their ability to listen, learn, consider other views, and apply the same level of intelligence to other issues. (Or whatever word one wants to use: I'm aware that 'intelligence' is a kind of trigger word for some.)

Let's instead use the term 'critical thinking'. Critical thinking is core to our mission. And I know that that's relative, and slightly different in all cases, and that intelligent people will often disagree, and debate issues that are important. That's part of the human journey we're all on. But, please, do NOT take that desire to be contrary to the degree that you're inadvertently applying the brakes to the vehicle we're all riding on.

The above is my best shot. It's 20 times longer than anything I ever thought I would write on this thread. But there are some extremely important points here, none of which are do so with geometry. I ask all of you who are defending a primitive position here, to think about what I'm trying to say.

If you're intelligent — you'll understand all the nuances. And, to head this one off at the pass, it will NOT be very intelligent to shout "You're the one defending the position." The only position I'm defending is the wisdom of being committed to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

I appended this to one of my earlier posts, but then edited it out, not wanting to appear to be unkind. But here's a mathematician's joke:

The problem with the world is that there are too many people of below average intelligence.

Think about it. :)

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

My evidence is that i can recreate same video with less than 10$ budget and fact that you have not been on that rocket to witness that.
I would like to see a $10 CGI reproduction of this!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyq5eN9C4Cc(this shows the view up to 50 miles up)

Where is your evidence that it is not cartoon?
There is no chance this is fake. A 'disney cartoon' of this sequence would in fact look quite different. It would be overblown, and over-spectacular, to the point where it is no longer realistic, and thus obviously CGI.

The above clip that Dennis posted is completely real. It could not be reproduced for $10. In fact, it could not be reproduced period. Perhaps with a budget of $10,000,000 it could be approximated on a professional level, but even then it would be littered with visual evidence pointing to clear fakery.

Anyone who has even a basic grasp of 3D modelling software, its methods, capabilities, and limitations (which I do, although I’m not an expert) will tell you this would be an immensely complex scene, involving particles and shading, and it would have pin-sharp rendering, because of anti-aliasing (which this clip does not have), which is a dead giveaway in CGI. Also note the smoke and fire in the exhaust. In this clip we clearly see real smoke and fire. Observe the contrast to procedurally generated smoke and fire that always looks fake, example given below. Not to mention the slow change of the crumbling/melting/falling away of surface ice on the rocket's skin. All of these cues point to a real camera, recording what is actually in front of it. It has not been computer generated with modelling and rendering software. Realism on this scale, contrary to popular belief, cannot be recreated with a computer. CGI always overcompensates, it makes the final product look super-real, ergo, not real.

The below clip is fakery, probably done with something like 3D Studio Max, on a modest budget (still upwards of $1k).
yj3xB86sEzo

This, alternatively, is fakery on a high budget - movie-level budget.

HOZ00J-0jhY

I could point out every perceptible clue in this clip to illustrate how and why this is CGI. And also cross-reference these clues with the real thing that Dennis posted, citing their clear absence, indicating that it is not CGI. But I've covered the basics already. If you are not already convinced, I'm afraid that nothing more I can say will convince you.

If disney style cartoons is still your opinion, I'd be interested to know your take on:

phAaq0BR-Rw

This is Gemini 9, in orbit (of a spherical Earth), in 1966. CGI did not exist in 1966. It might be possible, perhaps, to get something close to this with miniatures, convincing backdrops, and state of the art rotoscoping -- the best movie FX available at the time -- and it might convince some of the public of 1966 that what they were seeing was actually real. But to a discerning 21st century eye, the attempt would fail. 1966 'special effects' would be seen through instantly. Yet the two videos, separated by half a century, show the identical thing, and in an identical way. They show an identical truth - of being in orbit, and showing us what our Earth really looks like.

[DeDukshyn]

[QUOTE]
Can you imagine other way around? FE model more explanatory and developed with more rocket support video evidence and math supported?

Yes I could imagine it ... I guess at that point the flat earther's would then believe the earth was a sphere? I fail to see the point of that at all ... If there was more evidence for me existing, than not existing that means I don't exist? Not to be offensive but that is huge logic fail ...

You are basically saying because the evidence for a flat earth is weak and the evidence for a sphere earth is strong, that amounts to evidence the earth is flat. Well that's another piece of evidence that can be outright dismissed - add that to the pile. :)

[DeDukshyn]

My evidence is that i can recreate same video with less than 10$ budget and fact that you have not been on that rocket to witness that.
I would like to see a $10 CGI reproduction of this!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyq5eN9C4Cc(this shows the view up to 50 miles up)

Where is your evidence that it is not cartoon?
There is no chance this is fake. A 'disney cartoon' of this sequence would in fact look quite different. It would be overblown, and over-spectacular, to the point where it is no longer realistic, and thus obviously CGI.

The above clip that Dennis posted is completely real. It could not be reproduced for $10. In fact, it could not be reproduced period. Perhaps with a budget of $10,000,000 it could be approximated on a professional level, but even then it would be littered with visual evidence pointing to clear fakery.

Anyone who has even a basic grasp of 3D modelling software, its methods, capabilities, and limitations (which I do, although I’m not an expert) will tell you this would be an immensely complex scene, involving particles and shading, and it would have pin-sharp rendering, because of anti-aliasing (which this clip does not have), which is a dead giveaway in CGI. Also note the smoke and fire in the exhaust. In this clip we clearly see real smoke and fire. Observe the contrast to procedurally generated smoke and fire that always looks fake, example given below. Not to mention the slow change of the crumbling/melting/falling away of surface ice on the rocket's skin. All of these cues point to a real camera, recording what is actually in front of it. It has not been computer generated with modelling and rendering software. Realism on this scale, contrary to popular belief, cannot be recreated with a computer. CGI always overcompensates, it makes the final product look super-real, ergo, not real.

The below clip is fakery, probably done with something like 3D Studio Max, on a modest budget (still upwards of $1k).
yj3xB86sEzo

This, alternatively, is fakery on a high budget - movie-level budget.

HOZ00J-0jhY

I could point out every perceptible clue in this clip to illustrate how and why this is CGI. And also cross-reference these clues with the real thing that Dennis posted, citing their clear absence, indicating that it is not CGI. But I've covered the basics already. If you are not already convinced, I'm afraid that nothing more I can say will convince you.

If disney style cartoons is still your opinion, I'd be interested to know your take on:

phAaq0BR-Rw

This is Gemini 9, in orbit (of a spherical Earth), in 1966. CGI did not exist in 1966. It might be possible, perhaps, to get something close to this with miniatures, convincing backdrops, and state of the art rotoscoping -- the best movie FX available at the time -- and it might convince some of the public of 1966 that what they were seeing was actually real. But to a discerning 21st century eye, the attempt would fail. 1966 'special effects' would be seen through instantly. Yet the two videos, separated by half a century, show the identical thing, and in an identical way. They show an identical truth - of being in orbit, and showing us what our Earth really looks like.

I like how the reasoning changes on the fly ... first it was put fourth that these videos do not exist; we found them easy, because obviously flat earther's don't do much research. Then when we find them the reasoning quickly changes that they are cartoons. They say the flights don't exist, then they are found, and the reasoning changes to "you can't book them!", then we find them and find the booking problem is a time zone issue. Add that to the pile. It is presented that sunbeams couldn't possibly be coming from a 93 million miles away, I proved it can, and get presented with more of the same, as "evidence". All these are tell tale signs of someone who has no grasp of what they are talking about. When you get to a position where a large amounts of "evidence" goes in these directions, or when the reasoning changes on the fly, one has pretty much outed themself to the realm of "grasping at straws" or at best, having not thought the evidence against flat earth at all.

One can't just say, "I see these sunbeams and they look like they shoot out from a close point, therefore they do" and not try to understand why they can indeed be perfectly straight; it is an illusion that your mind has succumbed to believe this is not possible, proven by the fact that it was never considered and the images were submitted as supposed strong evidence. I know it is never considered because flat earther's call it (an optical illusion) proof. So I can understand the huge lack of reasoning ability in these people, I, and others can recognize it. It makes it impossible to look at much of the research, it cannot be taken seriously, and this is why it really is so easy to dismiss -- more to do with judging a person's ability to see and evaluate large systems, nothing is an island of isolation - everything is connected in these systems, everything is connected -- this is why the math works - it is scalable. The only place the math doesn't work the same is when we go atomic, but tat is not what we are doing here.

They say we have been ignoring the evidence. Myself and many others have been debunking the evidence here ... how can we be ignoring it? We are researching it to see if it holds a candle, most of it doesn't. Another false statement, again draining the FE credibility. I did (begrudgingly) watch through all Mark Sargent's videos, and I learned a lot more about FE theories than I ever expected to. My position is actually stronger now for a non-flat earth.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I did (begrudgingly) watch through all Mark Sargent's videos, and I learned a lot more about FE theories than I ever expected to. My position is actually stronger now for a non-flat earth.

I believe, using the best logic I have available, that the whole flat-earth argument is one big distraction tactic - a psy-op, a 'hey you alternative media-types, come over here and waste your time talking/debating/arguing about this completely ludicrous, vacuous subject matter, so as to detract from far more important things...' Because with all honesty, and with all due respect to those unfortunate and gullible enough to find themselves on the flat-earth bandwagon, it cannot possibly be a genuine theory, with genuine people genuinely peddling it because they genuinely believe it. Theirs is the sleight of hand, the magic trick, the charade. They are the ones lying.

It's sad indeed that there probably are honest, good-natured people who have been unfortunately hoodwinked and sucked into this nonsense. But the vast majority behind it have to be part of calculated attempt to deceive - a classic psy-op. Either that, or they do genuinely believe it, and my general estimate of human intelligence and evolution is sorely overestimated.

[DarMar]

Anyone who has even a basic grasp of 3D modelling software, its methods, capabilities, and limitations (which I do, although I’m not an expert) will tell you this would be an immensely complex scene, involving particles and shading
Well I'm not basic, and consider myself a top expert at it. Due to years of practical working on it and tons of jobs i finished. Your understanding goes from basic knowledge of it. Houdini eats particles and flame simulation for breakfast, i would use it for that. Shading is complex as complex you can think of it.. substance designer? render man shading? I saw people drawing realistic images with pencil, how hard it would be with CGI.
I will tell you something for sure, and it is from mouth of expert: This scene is not complex at all! Corner views of piece of metal, shiny objects.. so easy to trick the eye.. dust is nowadays easiest thing to reproduce with right toolset. Fume FX came from Croatia small team, best fluid/flame simulation on planet for 3DMax :)
I'm not that kind of guy that struggles with Max or Blender to get something done, but rather done tons of stuff in Sotimage, Houdiny, Maya, Modo, Nuke, Renderman, Real time graphics, writing code shaders, you name it..speciality is squeezing rendering times and FAKING all kinda of effects, from lightning to shadows to motion blur

When i say Disney cartoon it is caricaturing the viewpoint because Kubrick did with film, and people believe camera too much. Camera sees in movies 3 walls because there is no 4th wall, but most people believe there is 4th wall. Camera shows you what it needs to make it believable.
Video About Gemini you posted has general SHADOW flaws same as light direction flaws. General lightning is coma or rather comical. But seems enough for you to believe in it. Nuff said.


Yes I could imagine it ... I guess at that point the flat earther's would then believe the earth was a sphere? I fail to see the point of that at all ... If there was more evidence for me existing, than not existing that means I don't exist? Not to be offensive but that is huge logic fail ...

You are basically saying because the evidence for a flat earth is weak and the evidence for a sphere earth is strong, that amounts to evidence the earth is flat. Well that's another piece of evidence that can be outright dismissed - add that to the pile.

Actually logic is good but you don't stand in viewpoint of one and observing other, but rather both of them. One is good cop, other is bad cop, and they have same agenda.
That means you exist for yourself, and exist for me as we are talking. But from Joe from Antarctica you don't exist because he did not meet you yet. I can tell him anecdotes about you, but he maybe will insist to meet you personally to be 100% sure you are such described type of person. On end he may find you completely different from description.
You also may do something in your life to affect his life, but for him not knowing you he will fail to understand what really happened there.
It's like cocoa harvesters in Africa.. for whole day they harvest and ferment cocoa, but never tried chocolate.. they are constantly wondering why do anyone need that and what you can do with it? selling it for peanut price, while chocolate industries gets real value harvest and earning mass amounts of money.

The thing we all agree here that it is created for purpose of conflict of beliefs. Pillars are shaken, and IMHO should be broken to be able to continue.. on both sides.
Is it a distraction? No more than 8 hours of work, shopping, buying gas, watching TV/Youtube, playing games, traveling, admiring, watching stock market, reading about aliens, judging and all of that.

[Nick Matkin]

I've been watching with incredulity a similar 'flat earth' thread with 4071 posts (at present) on another similar, although less well moderated forum. (I've been strongly tempted to wade in with some common sense, but when I've seen the evidence of satellite orbits and solar/lunar eclipses just dismissed by flat earthers - well what would be the point?)

When the flat-earthers are cornered by the evidence, they ignore it, change the argument, or post some stupid Youtube video that 'supports' their argument.

I strongly suspect there is something going on other than the arguments for and against the flat earth in these threads. Is there some exercise or minor social experiment being mischievously conducted by sociology or psychology students? Or is there something more sinister going on? I also suspect that both threads share a few of the same protagonists.

[DeDukshyn]

Anyone who has even a basic grasp of 3D modelling software, its methods, capabilities, and limitations (which I do, although I’m not an expert) will tell you this would be an immensely complex scene, involving particles and shading
Well I'm not basic, and consider myself a top expert at it. Due to years of practical working on it and tons of jobs i finished. Your understanding goes from basic knowledge of it. Houdini eats particles and flame simulation for breakfast, i would use it for that. Shading is complex as complex you can think of it.. substance designer? render man shading? I saw people drawing realistic images with pencil, how hard it would be with CGI.
I will tell you something for sure, and it is from mouth of expert: This scene is not complex at all! Corner views of piece of metal, shiny objects.. so easy to trick the eye.. dust is nowadays easiest thing to reproduce with right toolset. Fume FX came from Croatia small team, best fluid/flame simulation on planet for 3DMax :)
I'm not that kind of guy that struggles with Max or Blender to get something done, but rather done tons of stuff in Sotimage, Houdiny, Maya, Modo, Nuke, Renderman, Real time graphics, writing code shaders, you name it..speciality is squeezing rendering times and FAKING all kinda of effects, from lightning to shadows to motion blur

When i say Disney cartoon it is caricaturing the viewpoint because Kubrick did with film, and people believe camera too much. Camera sees in movies 3 walls because there is no 4th wall, but most people believe there is 4th wall. Camera shows you what it needs to make it believable.
Video About Gemini you posted has general SHADOW flaws same as light direction flaws. General lightning is coma or rather comical. But seems enough for you to believe in it. Nuff said. ...

Darmar, with all due respect, you are one of the ones who tried to use the perspective sunbeams as evidence that the sun is only a few miles above the earth. When I stated I could prove 100% with 3D models that even if the earth is 93 million miles away, that effect can still be had. You had total disbelief and asked me to prove it. To which I happily obliged. Not only do I also work with 3D, video and photography, I have a good chance of being able to make things look realistic. If someone asked you to make a scene where the sun is 93 million miles away with sunbeams, would you have tried to ensure that all you sunbeams were perfectly straight so as to align with your belief that if the sun is 93 million miles that is how it has to look? You would end up with a result that doesn't look realistic - evey scene has a "camera" or "perspective" view - working 3D you know that, but you seem to not grasp what perspective is and how it affects the look of a scene, as evidence by the initial sunbeams argument. So forgive me if I doubt your skills or talents a little as presented.

Addition:
As I said previously, it is one thing to make a material realistic, or have a realistic looking lighting in one area, but another to have entire long scene sequences created that don't give something away - straight sunbeams would have given that away in a heartbeat, no matter how meticulously you set up atmospheric diffraction, Reinhard tonemapping, softshadows, light radiosity, lens effects, etc. And even a small flaw in one of these areas can often be detected by the human eye - we might not have the best sight on the planet out of the animals, but our eye's discerning nature is unmatched. Somehow we just know that straight sunbeams don't exist regardless of whether the sun is 93 million miles away or not. That is why to this day, despite the millions spent on hollywood CGI, 99% is still easy to know whether CGI or real, when one decides to look closely, and set emotions aside (emotions can change the perception of an image).

I am interested to know what the shadow anomalies are you saw in the Gemini video, please let me know, I am very curious; it may well end up being evidence in favour of a flat earth. If one is after the truth, all potential evidence should be laid down on the table and examined.

[DeDukshyn]

Is it a distraction? No more than 8 hours of work, shopping, buying gas, watching TV/Youtube, playing games, traveling, admiring, watching stock market, reading about aliens, judging and all of that.

I can agree with you fully here -- all distraction. :)

[DarMar]

Darmar, with all due respect, you are one of the ones who tried to use the perspective sunbeams as evidence that the sun is only a few miles above the earth. When I stated I could prove 100% with 3D models that even if the earth is 93 million miles away, that effect can still be had. You had total disbelief and asked me to prove it. To which I happily obliged. Not only do I also work with 3D, video and photography, I have a good chance of being able to make things look realistic. If someone asked you to make a scene where the sun is 93 million miles away with sunbeams, would you have tried to ensure that all you sunbeams were perfectly straight so as to align with your belief that if the sun is 93 million miles that is how it has to look? You would end up with a result that doesn't look realistic - evey scene has a "camera" or "perspective" view - working 3D you know that, but you seem to not grasp what perspective is and how it affects the look of a scene, as evidence by the initial sunbeams argument. So forgive me if I doubt your skills or talents a little as presented.

In fact i was asking you to make sun to be omni light (that all directional light) in some normal scale acceptable for 3d, earth to be sphere with some clouds and recreate things which we see. I did not ask you for any explanation of perspective. You took few planes and showed me how perspective works. Thank you for that but as i stated (you can go back and read).. I was expecting you to do that. Your model works on spherical and flat version. Proof is that you executed it in flat model manner with sun being directional light rather than omni light, leaving behind distance, scale and roundness.

Thank you for your explanation but if all i did not asked what perspective is. I asked: Can you recreate same with spherical models in scaled proportions. Which you didn't.
Because i do not know how would I make all of that effect with proper scaling, spheres, atmosphere scattering, clouds, distance... I would need to fake it in manner you did. Thats what we are talking here most of time. Faking it all.
Seems our understandings differ in basic concept and root of issue and i do not want to make this thing in personal discussion as it seems it leads.

I never asked you to believe me anything, only pointing fingers in direction where issue is. If someone does not see that, it simply means it is not time to understand that issue. You are free to doubt me in all aspects based on your observings and understandings.
I could do detailed tear down of video with pointing shadow issues, but needs time and I have little of those atm. Maybe i just find low value of me doing it because I'm not FE dude. And my point is not to make you believe in FE more than you do.
Since most of people here misread crucial points i wrote, i concluded it is just dismissed as that is not thing people want to read about.

I concluded same as you that after some evidence is presented reasoning changes to another topics, and I'm not here to swing swords until exhausted.

[DeDukshyn]

Darmar, with all due respect, you are one of the ones who tried to use the perspective sunbeams as evidence that the sun is only a few miles above the earth. When I stated I could prove 100% with 3D models that even if the earth is 93 million miles away, that effect can still be had. You had total disbelief and asked me to prove it. To which I happily obliged. Not only do I also work with 3D, video and photography, I have a good chance of being able to make things look realistic. If someone asked you to make a scene where the sun is 93 million miles away with sunbeams, would you have tried to ensure that all you sunbeams were perfectly straight so as to align with your belief that if the sun is 93 million miles that is how it has to look? You would end up with a result that doesn't look realistic - evey scene has a "camera" or "perspective" view - working 3D you know that, but you seem to not grasp what perspective is and how it affects the look of a scene, as evidence by the initial sunbeams argument. So forgive me if I doubt your skills or talents a little as presented.

In fact i was asking you to make sun to be omni light (that all directional light) in some normal scale acceptable for 3d, earth to be sphere with some clouds and recreate things which we see. I did not ask you for any explanation of perspective. You took few planes and showed me how perspective works. Thank you for that but as i stated (you can go back and read).. I was expecting you to do that. Your model works on spherical and flat version. Proof is that you executed it in flat model manner with sun being directional light rather than omni light, leaving behind distance, scale and roundness.

No you weren't at all, here is the post: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83765-A-Flat-Earth-not-Round-...&p=982245&viewfull=1#post982245





Thank you for your explanation but if all i did not asked what perspective is..

In the previous post (here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?83765-A-Flat-Earth-not-Round-...&p=982239&viewfull=1#post982239) I stated clearly that the ONLY reason why it appears as though the sun is just above the clouds is because of perspective. You said you'd like to see me try to prove that (see second link back) and I did. More quickly changing info ... hint, hint.

I don't need to recreate it all in real scale (although I might be able to, MAX should be able to scale up to that level of accuracy? I will try) because with the sun having a diameter of 1.35 million miles (surface that light can be cast from), ALL of the light in the scene, the scene having only a few miles in it, actually has to CONVERGE somewhat to meet that point, not spread out like an omni light would show in a 3D program, because an omni light shoots all light from a single imaginary point with NO area, whereas the sun has area. So I took out the variable of that flaw out, that flaw which is exactly the opposite of your expectations - light cast from a disc 1.35 million miles across onto a scene only a few miles across (no matter the distance At all), has to be converging somewhat. MUST BE. Your mind cannot obviously understand these things, and again you have left out critical thinking, came to a conclusion but this time you actually called it "proof." Nothing can be further from proof than this. I can see all this in my head instantly, and why I made the choices I made for that model (for accuracy, which in turn ended up in favour of FE theory, by understanding that an omni light would be an inaccurate choice and by choosing to ignore convergence which would be (albeit miniscule) present)

So I was actually being generous in favour of the FE theory for that model by choosing a directional light, as that is very close to the way light would come onto the earth from 93 million miles away, even though the light would actually be converging slightly. Can you not make the model in your head and see it?

Your head is so stuck in the flat earth model that it will not allow you to consider the perspectives of something 1.35 million miles across, 93 million miles away, shining light onto a scene only a few miles across. You have shown that yet again with your arguments.

[DarMar]

Your head is so stuck in the flat earth model that it will not allow you to consider the perspectives of something 1.35 million miles across

I'm out.
Thank you for label.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

What we have here I think is what some call a 'phoney bone of contention'. 'They', whoever they are, create an issue, or debate, sometimes a scandal, which has no real substance to it at all, but design it in such a way (by the powerful opinions people will undoubtedly have of it) that it divides, polarizes, and creates dissent. ‘They’ do it all the time.

I seriously don't know if there are people that actually believe the Earth is flat - for real - or whether they're all in on a grand joke - a social experiment, which Nick suggested. Does it really matter? This topic is having a negative effect either way.

Many, many times I've tried to have spiritual conversations with Christians who are so adamant in their beliefs that there is no 'wiggle room' whatsoever, no possibility in there being a greater truth in the whole universe than what they already understand (from the Bible). It's a pointless debate. It's the same with the flat earth. If people believe it, they believe it without possibility of correction or revision of that belief. If I could transport a flat earther into orbit and show them that yes, the Earth is round - look, with your own eyes and see - it still wouldn't make any difference. They would disbelieve their own eyes, claiming it was a trick, a hoax, or mind control, or whatever they want to believe.

It's a good example of how people really do create their own realities. Despite the veritable mountain, a gargantuan mountain of evidence - of proof, that the earth is not flat, they have created a flat earth for themselves. They live on a flat earth. And that's it. Fair enough. Let them believe it and move on. In probably 90% of cases you cannot and will not change their reality. With whatever carefully constructed arguments you care to mount to dissuade them, it will fail. Brutal force will fail. You cannot open that door on truth for them, only the individual holds the key to personal truth, and only they can use it to open that door. One day.

[Billy]

I wonder what the following bravehearts would think of this flat earth debate.

Dave Kust is the first person verified to have completed circling the entire land mass of the earth (with exception of the oceans) on foot.
On June 20, 1970, Dave and John Kunst walked East out of Waseca, Minnesota with a pack mule named Willie Makeit. On October 5, 1974, Dave Kunst walked back into Waseca, Minnesota, from the west
http://davekunst1.com/


Former British Paratrooper Karl Bushby embarks on a year-long journey to walk - one step at a time - 3,600 miles from the Pacific shores of Los Angeles to the steps of the Russian Embassy in Washington D.C. His goal: convince Moscow to allow him back in to Siberia, so he can complete his record-setting 20-year, 36,000-mile walk around the world. In 1998, with only $300 to his name.
http://www.westward-productions.com/bushby/

http://lasvegassun.com/vegasdeluxe/2015/may/13/national-geographic-air-special-karl-bushbys-walk-/


Walking by faith: Man carries cross around the world.
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/09/23/man-walks-world-carrying-cross

The Man who Cycled the World beginning in France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, USA, Portugal, Spain.
On February 15th 2008 Mark Beaumont pedalled into Paris flanked by a police escort to be met by a welcome party and press that packed the Arc de Triomphe. Mark had cycled 18,296 miles through 20 countries in 194 days and 17 hours, and in doing so broke the previous Guinness World Record by 81 days.
http://markbeaumontonline.com/expeditions/the-world/


Greg Healey set out on epic 20,000 mile adventure in February 2013.
One bike, 20,000 miles, 20 countries, and countless punctures: Man who cycled around the world arrives back in Swansea...
The former account, 32, battled monsoons, searing heat, paralysing headwinds, accidents and terrifying traffic on lawless highways during his staggering trip around the globe.
With little more than his bike, a tent and a camera, intrepid Mr Healey cycled through Europe, North and South America, the Far East and India before heading home through Turkey and the Balkans and back into Europe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2454132/One-bike-20-000-miles-20-countries-countless-punctures-Man-cycled-world-arrives-Swansea--celebrates-fish-chips.html


Irish man Breifne Earley nears the end of his epic around-the-world cycle. Flying the flag of “It’s alright not to feel ok. It’s absolute ok to ask for help”, he set off from London on March 1, 2014, for a five-month global journey. Thirteen months later, he is still on the saddle, drawing ever closer to the finish line in London. Breifne is currently the only remaining participant of an unfinished race.
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irishman-nears-the-end-of-his-epic-around-the-world-cycle-PHOTOS.html?page=1

You can also follow Breifne on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/pedaltheplanettv?fref=ts

We can also remember the sailors.




Japan’s New Satellite Captures an Image of Earth Every 10 Minutes for 24hrs :highfive:



http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/10/science/An-Image-of-Earth-Every-Ten-Minutes.html?_r=2

YsnlNqcjNeE

Anyways, My own thoughts are, It is much more important to think about our Mother earths well being, rather than the distraction of her curvy or flat figure.
As they say, each to their own.

Peace.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




A final added note from Bill:

Yes, Peace indeed. Billy's closing words may have been the wisest on the entire thread. The message he reminded us of is that of keeping the right perspective in times, which we all share, which are extremely challenging for far different reasons than anything mentioned on this thread.

The discussion has been very interesting (though I suspect in different ways for different people), and has touched some areas that could not have easily have been predicted at the start. I certainly learned one or two things, and I hope all the other participants have, too.

I've closed the thread, as it seemed a perfect moment to do so. I'm prepared to re-open it if there's a howl of protest from the scientists and philosophers among us (especially anyone channeling Eratosthenes!), but not if there's any screaming of censorship from the others. The thread will remain for all to see and read if they wish, is fully searchable, and will not be deleted.

What's really needed, maybe, outside of this polarized context, is an intelligent discussion about the nature of belief, the nature of reality, the nature of evidence, and the nature of logic and inference. Maybe that larger debate can be started elsewhere, because that is almost certainly the most valuable part of this discussion, carrying over to many other areas.

My thanks to all — and especially to Billy for his wisdom, gifted to us at a perfect time.

:sun: