Not flat earth but...

[Strat]

Posted by MorningFox (here)
My opinion is irrelevant.

Quite the monologue you're having here.

[Pam]

Posted by Mashika (here)

Posted by Pam (here)

Posted by ExomatrixTV (here)
There is even a Navy "over the horizon, radar" video proving the conditions that can only be explained correctly if the earth is not flat ... and I can go on and on and on ... sigh

Don't forget, we live on the inversion planet. Who know what the hell the Navy "over the horizon radar" is, does it exist or is it just a another way to scam us out of any money we have left? You can go on with more US propaganda? And even if you did prove all this fancy, pricey equiptment exists it could all be within the realm of the simulation, I would expect that is the least they could come up with.

Up unto a couple of years ago, you might hear me spouting out "it's FDA approved". As if that is a confirmation of safety. I knew they were corrupt I didn't see the depth....

All I can say is to be willing to go all the way, wherever what I perceive to be true, follow it. Align with it. And what have I got for all my efforts, the badge of nut case of the week. That's ok. I will start worrying when I start to fit in and I am embraced or honored on this planet.

If we live on a simulation, then spending time wondering if the earth is a pancake floating around or if there are tortoises all the way down would be very meaningless, and a complete waste of effort and time better spent trying to figure out the simulation

So just spending some hours trying to figure out why the earth is flat goes around all logic. You can't prove it at all because one way or another we are in a simulation, so it may be that you go up there and look down and depending on the simulation programming you got, you:

1. See a giant pancake floating below
2. See a giant round object just there, and it has all the properties you were always told it would have

Then you go down and tell either side of the story to anyone who wants to listen. Nobody who believes contrary to you will accept your version of it, and pictures or videos will be a 'setup and part of the conspiracy'


Regardless of what side you end up being, you are now, in the eyes of the other side, 'an agent of the matrix'

I will take my pancake with real maple syrup.... I would love some apples that have been sauteed with cinnamon and coconut oil!!!! And I would love for you Mashika to be my guest. I mean that sincerely. You would be so much fun to have a conversation with pancake or balloon. I find it refreshing that you have passion. It is so very rare. You are young and you are a million years old... I find your passion delightful!!!!

[MorningFox]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by MorningFox (here)

Posted by Strat (here)
All that and you still ducked my question.

Again: Assign a percentage as to which is more likely. You can use any shape I don't care.

My opinion is irrelevant.

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
OMG morning fox ... in several of the images you are posting types of maps ... you honestly seriously consider that a map style dictates the shape of the earth? Maps have various styles because you need to make a sphere flat so you can read it properly. Its painfully simple.

Several images of reflections on a "flat" vs "sphere" surface - such simple and mundane explanation for this - the relative distance from the surface of a sphere dictates the shape of the reflection (basic geometry) - and in one photo, it would be 10's of thousands of kms and in the other - a few meters. NOT THE SAME. For anyone to not see this is betraying their incredible lack of ability to see clearly, and for anyone to still not understand this when explained to them, betrays an incredible lack of intelligence.

Every single one of those images you posted are so easily debunkable - and I could easily if you cared to know how they are wrong, but I won't bother. You won't care, will you? You don't want to know what shape the earth is. You don't care to learn ... a true truth seeker seeks truth. That's not you.


Note to anyone else who actually is a truth seeker: If you want any of the images above debunked, because it raises questions in you, let me know. I'd be happy to help out a fellow truth seeker. Why else are we here if not to seek the truth?

lol. You're funny. Why such hostility?

I've already said I'm not stating the earth is flat, or round, I'm simply questioning our reality and searching for the truth. Why does this trigger you so much?

Yes please... Debunk every single image. I would love to see it. Despite your bizarre and hostile assumptions about me, I'm simply searching for the truth.

Did you understand the post I put on the previous page, with a detailed explanation and an accompanying graphic as to why composite images are used, fisheye lenses are used, and why the continents and features appear larger in some photos that others?

Did you thoroughly review that? If you did and still can't understand why none of that evidence for a flat earth is based in reality, then I why should I spend the time? Its very straight forward, and if you can't understand it, then I don't have the tools to assist you.

You literally posted like two more images above about continent size above - meaning that you still believe that is valid evidence, even after I spent the time to very simply explain it? Its not complicated to understand - A small child could understand it easily.

Why would I spend the time explaining to someone who either won't read the post, or doesn't have the ability to understand basic logic, or is willing to ignore logic and sense altogether to justify their beliefs? Convince me you actually care.

I'm not triggered at all, just flabbergasted.

I thought you could debunk every single point?
I'm waiting.

You're projecting so obviously your own shortcomings onto me. Telling me that I don't want to listen and I'm not looking for the truth. I've already stated multiple times that I don't know what the shape of the earth is and I'm looking for the truth. You're the one that is 100% sure that you know and won't even consider the possibility of being wrong 😂

You're projecting.

You've debunked literally nothing so far. You're talking about distance of camera and field of view? These are apparently photos of our whole earth... None of the stuff you said has any baring whatsoever... If it's our whole earth... The continents would always be consistent sizes. And if it's not the whole earth, where are the photos of the whole earth? You've literally debunked nothing so far... 😂

You said you could debunk EVERY point I've made, so please go ahead...

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by MorningFox (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by MorningFox (here)

Posted by Strat (here)
All that and you still ducked my question.

Again: Assign a percentage as to which is more likely. You can use any shape I don't care.

My opinion is irrelevant.

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
OMG morning fox ... in several of the images you are posting types of maps ... you honestly seriously consider that a map style dictates the shape of the earth? Maps have various styles because you need to make a sphere flat so you can read it properly. Its painfully simple.

Several images of reflections on a "flat" vs "sphere" surface - such simple and mundane explanation for this - the relative distance from the surface of a sphere dictates the shape of the reflection (basic geometry) - and in one photo, it would be 10's of thousands of kms and in the other - a few meters. NOT THE SAME. For anyone to not see this is betraying their incredible lack of ability to see clearly, and for anyone to still not understand this when explained to them, betrays an incredible lack of intelligence.

Every single one of those images you posted are so easily debunkable - and I could easily if you cared to know how they are wrong, but I won't bother. You won't care, will you? You don't want to know what shape the earth is. You don't care to learn ... a true truth seeker seeks truth. That's not you.


Note to anyone else who actually is a truth seeker: If you want any of the images above debunked, because it raises questions in you, let me know. I'd be happy to help out a fellow truth seeker. Why else are we here if not to seek the truth?

lol. You're funny. Why such hostility?

I've already said I'm not stating the earth is flat, or round, I'm simply questioning our reality and searching for the truth. Why does this trigger you so much?

Yes please... Debunk every single image. I would love to see it. Despite your bizarre and hostile assumptions about me, I'm simply searching for the truth.

Did you understand the post I put on the previous page, with a detailed explanation and an accompanying graphic as to why composite images are used, fisheye lenses are used, and why the continents and features appear larger in some photos that others?

Did you thoroughly review that? If you did and still can't understand why none of that evidence for a flat earth is based in reality, then I why should I spend the time? Its very straight forward, and if you can't understand it, then I don't have the tools to assist you.

You literally posted like two more images above about continent size above - meaning that you still believe that is valid evidence, even after I spent the time to very simply explain it? Its not complicated to understand - A small child could understand it easily.

Why would I spend the time explaining to someone who either won't read the post, or doesn't have the ability to understand basic logic, or is willing to ignore logic and sense altogether to justify their beliefs? Convince me you actually care.

I'm not triggered at all, just flabbergasted.

I thought you could debunk every single point?
I'm waiting.

You're projecting so obviously your own shortcomings onto me. Telling me that I don't want to listen and I'm not looking for the truth. I've already stated multiple times that I don't know what the shape of the earth is and I'm looking for the truth. You're the one that is 100% sure that you know and won't even consider the possibility of being wrong 😂

You're projecting.

You've debunked literally nothing so far. You're talking about distance of camera and field of view? These are apparently photos of our whole earth... None of the stuff you said has any baring whatsoever... If it's our whole earth... The continents would always be consistent sizes. And if it's not the whole earth, where are the photos of the whole earth? You've literally debunked nothing so far... 😂

You said you could debunk EVERY point I've made, so please go ahead...

So you are saying you read, fully understand, and agree with my earlier post, and you now realize that trying to make the point about continents being different sizes in photos as evidence for a flat earth was a mistake based on erroneous reasoning?

I can debunk all the images you posted, yes. Just like I did with "continent size" so called "evidence".

I asked you to convince me I'm not wasting my time. You haven't done that at all ... if anything you have made it more clear that I would be, as you are not willing to show you can learn that you have made an error in judgement (on the continent size issue - again a small child understands this, and you can't admit that you can?).

Convince me I won't be wasting my time.

[MorningFox]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by MorningFox (here)

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by MorningFox (here)

Posted by Strat (here)
All that and you still ducked my question.

Again: Assign a percentage as to which is more likely. You can use any shape I don't care.

My opinion is irrelevant.

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
OMG morning fox ... in several of the images you are posting types of maps ... you honestly seriously consider that a map style dictates the shape of the earth? Maps have various styles because you need to make a sphere flat so you can read it properly. Its painfully simple.

Several images of reflections on a "flat" vs "sphere" surface - such simple and mundane explanation for this - the relative distance from the surface of a sphere dictates the shape of the reflection (basic geometry) - and in one photo, it would be 10's of thousands of kms and in the other - a few meters. NOT THE SAME. For anyone to not see this is betraying their incredible lack of ability to see clearly, and for anyone to still not understand this when explained to them, betrays an incredible lack of intelligence.

Every single one of those images you posted are so easily debunkable - and I could easily if you cared to know how they are wrong, but I won't bother. You won't care, will you? You don't want to know what shape the earth is. You don't care to learn ... a true truth seeker seeks truth. That's not you.


Note to anyone else who actually is a truth seeker: If you want any of the images above debunked, because it raises questions in you, let me know. I'd be happy to help out a fellow truth seeker. Why else are we here if not to seek the truth?

lol. You're funny. Why such hostility?

I've already said I'm not stating the earth is flat, or round, I'm simply questioning our reality and searching for the truth. Why does this trigger you so much?

Yes please... Debunk every single image. I would love to see it. Despite your bizarre and hostile assumptions about me, I'm simply searching for the truth.

Did you understand the post I put on the previous page, with a detailed explanation and an accompanying graphic as to why composite images are used, fisheye lenses are used, and why the continents and features appear larger in some photos that others?

Did you thoroughly review that? If you did and still can't understand why none of that evidence for a flat earth is based in reality, then I why should I spend the time? Its very straight forward, and if you can't understand it, then I don't have the tools to assist you.

You literally posted like two more images above about continent size above - meaning that you still believe that is valid evidence, even after I spent the time to very simply explain it? Its not complicated to understand - A small child could understand it easily.

Why would I spend the time explaining to someone who either won't read the post, or doesn't have the ability to understand basic logic, or is willing to ignore logic and sense altogether to justify their beliefs? Convince me you actually care.

I'm not triggered at all, just flabbergasted.

I thought you could debunk every single point?
I'm waiting.

You're projecting so obviously your own shortcomings onto me. Telling me that I don't want to listen and I'm not looking for the truth. I've already stated multiple times that I don't know what the shape of the earth is and I'm looking for the truth. You're the one that is 100% sure that you know and won't even consider the possibility of being wrong 😂

You're projecting.

You've debunked literally nothing so far. You're talking about distance of camera and field of view? These are apparently photos of our whole earth... None of the stuff you said has any baring whatsoever... If it's our whole earth... The continents would always be consistent sizes. And if it's not the whole earth, where are the photos of the whole earth? You've literally debunked nothing so far... 😂

You said you could debunk EVERY point I've made, so please go ahead...

So you are saying you read, fully understand, and agree with my earlier post, and you now realize that trying to make the point about continents being different sizes in photos as evidence for a flat earth was a mistake based on erroneous reasoning?

Not once did I say it was evidence of flat earth. I said it was evidence we're being deceived. I'm sorry you cannot tell the vast difference between the two assertions.

Again, you're projecting. I understand perfectly well... do you? I've already explained that what you said regarding the camera distance and depth of view have literally no baring whatsoever when these are claimed to be photos of THE WHOLE EARTH.

And I've said already, if they are not photos of the whole earth, where are the photos of the whole earth?

Don't make me ask you for a third time.

What about the blatant copy and pasting of the cloud formations from one image to the next with apparently the images being taken years apart?


It's hilarious that you're making excuses to avoid debunking the other points. Substantiate your claims or your claims are null and void.

Are you genuinely claiming that you believe everything NASA shows you? Is that what I'm understanding here? You believe NASA?

Did you take the vaccine by any chance?

I honestly thought this forum was a place of open mindedness and awareness. I didn't realise the sheep were here.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by MorningFox (here)
Again, you're projecting. I understand perfectly well... I've already explained that what you said regarding the camera distance and depth of view have literally no baring whatsoever when these are claimed to be photos of THE WHOLE EARTH.

.

I guess, that is you telling me you don't understand it. You do realize that a sphere has a side that when a photo take, on side cannot be included - you do understand at least this much, or am I wrong here? Take a beach ball. and look at it - do you see the "whole thing?" or do you only see one side? Or do you see the "whole thing?"

Or are you now changing your argument to one of semantics? Where these the photos of the earth labeled as "The whole Earth"?? I've never seen that. It's obviously the whole of what can be observed from a given distance -- all this is easily taken from my earlier explainer post. And obviously only one side of a sphere can be photographed at a time. Why am I explaining this to an adult?

Even a small child can understand the explanation I posted. Easily.

I don't know what else to say - you have now fully convinced me you do not have the faculties to be able to understand what you are being told, or are just being willfully obtuse so as to not have to understand how you might be wrong. Either way - wasting my time.

If your "logic" tells you that if I believe the earth is a sphere, that it must mean I believe everything nasa says, then that explains how your "logic" has betrayed you into believing what you do.

Have a great day.

[MorningFox]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by MorningFox (here)
Again, you're projecting. I understand perfectly well... I've already explained that what you said regarding the camera distance and depth of view have literally no baring whatsoever when these are claimed to be photos of THE WHOLE EARTH.

.

I guess, that is you telling me you don't understand it. You do realize that a sphere has a side that when a photo take, on side cannot be included - you do understand at least this much, or am I wrong here? Take a beach ball. and look at it - do you see the "whole thing?" or do you only see one side? Or do you see the "whole thing?"

Now you're focusing on idiotic semantics instead of debunking the rest of the points.

Obviously I meant the whole earth in one frame. Surely you understood what I meant?
Do you understand the concept of photographing the whole beach ball in one frame? If someone asks you to take a photo of the whole beach ball, no one on earth is going to think that means the front and the back in one photo... that's purely idiotic. You're just being deliberately difficult.

As you said, the whole of what can be seen. The whole earth in one frame. THAT is what is claimed, therefore the continents should be uniform in every photo. They are not.

You're just deflecting from my questions and from debunking the other points.

I'm now attempting to play chess with a pigeon. Clearly.

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)
[you] are just being willfully obtuse so as to not have to understand how you might be wrong

This is EXACTLY what you're doing! You really do project with every post you make.

[MorningFox]

The fact of the matter is that you said you could easily debunk every point I've made, and when I ask you to, you make excuses not to, and focus on foolish semantics about the one point you incorrectly think you have debunked.

Chess with pigeons.

If you're refusing to debunk my points, then I'll ask you one more question and then I give up. If you're so completely sure of your stance, then prove it to me... ?

Prove the earth is round.

If you can't, then you should be asking yourself why you're so sure.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by MorningFox (here)
Did you take the vaccine by any chance?
I honestly thought this forum was a place of open mindedness and awareness. I didn't realise the sheep were here.

Posted by MorningFox (here)
Chess with pigeons.

Posted by MorningFox on this thread
[ ... and a lot more, too ... ]

Mod note from Bill:

MorningFox has been unsubscribed. The reason he will see as a notice next time he logs in is:

Enough. We gave you a really good chance, thinking that maybe you were just having a bad day or two. But your continuing dismissive, know-it-all unpleasantness isn't acceptable here any more.

[Matthew]

Off topic: apologies to the OP

If the earth is flat why doesn't loose liquid form a 'flat' in zero-gravity? It forms wobbly spheres.

NASA lies but that isn't evidence corroborating anything else when you think about it.

That took 5 mins and is short but still also won't make a difference. Un-sarcastically flat earthers have my respect though. Half the problems of the world are people not daring to have their own opinions that go against the mainstream.


:sorrylol,backontopic:

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Matthew (here)
It forms wobbly spheres.

Actually, droplets (or even enormous 'drops' of gaseous material) form perfect spheres in a vacuum.

(That's why stars, planets and even large-ish moons are all spherical, give or take very tiny percentages. Anyone can see all that for themselves with their own eyes through a good telescope, the kind you can buy on Amazon for a few hundred $$ or less.)

[Matthew]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

Posted by Matthew (here)
It forms wobbly spheres.

Actually, it forms perfect spheres in a vacuum. (That's why stars, planets and even large-ish moons are all spherical, give or take very tiny percentages... anyone can see that for themselves with their own eyes through any good telescope.)

I'm sorry you had to ban someone I might respect people with obstinate opinions, but I get it that there's only so much room for people in opinion-gimble-lock, especially with some subjects than others.

PERFECT spheres, I hear you not doubting it for a second

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Matthew (here)
I'm sorry you had to ban someone I might respect people with obstinate opinions, but I get it that there's only so much room for people in opinion-gimble-lock, especially with some subjects than others.

He wasn't banned for his opinion. He was banned because of the increasingly foul-mouthed way he was addressing anyone at all with whom he disagreed.

Here's the message he sent after learning that he'd been unsubscribed. A few words of apology for getting excessively over-heated in his escalating insults would have helped us to reconsider — which we sometimes do, more often than many may realize. But here he just continues to dig his very deep hole.

~~~

You banned my account for having a debate!
Hah!
You have proven without a shadow of a doubt that you are a gatekeeper for the darkside.
You disgusting evil piece of shit.
Rot in hell for all eternity.

[Matthew]

Ouch,

I pegged Project Avalon as a meritocracy of politeness. Not saying I'm any kind of star, I have to toe the line, it's not a natural state for me but it does work up outside the forum too

[Strat]

"Disgusting evil piece of ****" is a bit strong for trying to figure out the shape of a planet. See why I tap out of these debates early?

What are we going to debate now, is water wet? I say it's only wet sometimes but not all the time. Prove me wrong dickbags.

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by Strat (here)
"Disgusting evil piece of ****" is a bit strong for trying to figure out the shape of a planet. See why I tap out of these debates early?

What are we going to debate now, is water wet? I say it's only wet sometimes but not all the time. Prove me wrong dickbags.

Sometimes though, someone has to stick with it for a bit to really find out if weeding is needed, or to get the weed to expose itself as a weed. Occasionally the ones left without identification grow larger and cause increasing amounts of damage. I don't think that was the case here, but you never know - given his response to Bill. That was rather immature.

That of course has nothing to do with someone's opinion - but their behaviour and attitude.

[mojo]

I'm, sad this thread led to a ban as this was never the intention, I got snookered by math & not enough understanding of the subject , my apologies to all..

[DeDukshyn]

Posted by mojo (here)
I'm, sad this thread led to a ban as this was never the intention, I got snookered by math & not enough understanding of the subject , my apologies to all..

Don't worry about it mojo, it had nothing to do with you. And there's nothing wrong with questioning things. I'm more than happy to oblige in explaining the faulty logic behind most of the FE assumptions. Feel free to send me a PM any time.

[Vangelo]

Posted by Strat (here)
"Disgusting evil piece of ****" is a bit strong for trying to figure out the shape of a planet. See why I tap out of these debates early?

What are we going to debate now, is water wet? I say it's only wet sometimes but not all the time. Prove me wrong dickbags.

That was funny, thanks for the laugh this morning.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by DeDukshyn (here)

Posted by mojo (here)
I'm, sad this thread led to a ban as this was never the intention, I got snookered by math & not enough understanding of the subject , my apologies to all..

Don't worry about it mojo, it had nothing to do with you. And there's nothing wrong with questioning things. I'm more than happy to oblige in explaining the faulty logic behind most of the FE assumptions. Feel free to send me a PM any time.

Yep.

This sorry thread will probably be closed fairly soon, but we want to leave it open just for the moment so that any further posts might be made about the entire affair.