The Earth Is Flat

OK, so I can see stars that are further away than the sun (according to you) without a telescope, but to see the sun I need one. Logic fail.

There are a ton of hoaxes, but this isn't one.
Watch the 2nd part of Robert Duncan's presentation - you may have been infected.

youtube.com/watch?v=GgPuZpbK5M8

Ah yes. I'm familiar with this technique as well. Again a very common method of debate from someone who is educated by the government education system. Your comment is actually a fallacy in logic known as a strawman. You make a post that appears to be making a counter argument to me saying that a telescope is needed to see the sun. I didn't say that a telescope is needed to see the sun. I can see the sun everyday with my naked eye. What I was referring to is that the sun moves back and out of view as opposed to going over a ball. The best practical way to demonstrate this using the scientific method is to go to a hotel with a very long corridor. Place something small on the floor of one of the ends of the corridor. Then walk along the corridor and periodically turn around in order to observe the small item. The further away from the item you get, the more it will dissappear from sight. At the end of the corridor it will not be visible with the naked eye. However, if you use binoculars, it will quickly come into view. Next time there is a sunset. Use some binoculars when the sun goes out of view and you will find that it comes back again.

everyone, flattards or not, believes the stars are further away than the sun, user

Again, this fails to adhere to your own logic.

The stars are further away than the sun is according to you. The light from the stars is more faint, yet it can be seen by the naked eye from a further distance than the sun which is many times more powerful.

The sun moves below the horizon as a perfect disc, not reducing in size to a pinprick of light as a normal torch would when it moves far away.

Your own logic is inconsistent.
I've watched hours of such videos before and still hold some reservations about Antartica, but from all the concepts I've seen presented there are logic inconsistencies due to a lack of understanding of geometry (3D & 2D) which can be proven by maths.

you're right have this instead

your days of subversion are coming to an end, pankike

Exactly.
Which is why flat earth logic fails.

A tiny pin prick of light can be seen at night further away than the Sun is, but a huge powerful light much closer to the Earth (the sun in the flat Earth model) cannot. Logic fail.

I like cock

Logic fail.

maybe OP's balls are flat?

maybe OP's balls are inert?

Prove me wrong.

Protip: You can't

Before calling ME a Kike, check this video and what I have to say about the Hollohoax and Jewish Subversion

I'll say this for the OP, despite the logic fails -
It is good the OP explores new ideas,
- however even those new ideas should be subjected to criticism too.

When the ideas of flat Earth are criticised using their own logic of observation, the logic fails faster than the idea of a globe Earth does.

When science and mathematics - which favour no argument - are used it shows the Earth is a globe.

The real proof is right here.

then who was fossilized dino-bone???

Using grade school maths.
When you view the Earth you would have to be about 6-7000 or more miles up to see the Earth as a disc within your cone of view.
This just happens to be the distance the Apollo missions were able to view the Earth from - and saw a disc.

Every reason I hear in this video is dependent on a lack of understanding - and keeps making ignorant assumptions.

It is like meeting an ancient civilization telling you aircraft are kept in the air with witchcraft.

Prove me wrong.
Protip: You can't

[citation needed]

Two words: Time Zones

those are made-up joo reptoid shill science trying to suppress the TRUTH!!!!!!

...

no, see THEY altered every piece of historical evidence to look like that, and yacht owners have hidden telescoping masts that shoot chemtrails

You need a citation to prove the Moon is further than 6-7000 miles away? Seriously?

Let's assume you are unable to find a citation in Google, and don't know how to use the Internet to find your required citation:
This then raises another question: Why are you unable to calculate it, since it is a simple calculation of 2D geometry?

An object would be entirely within a 90 degree cone of view (you wouldn't have to look behind you to see parts of it).
If the Earth is a globe of about 6-7000 miles in radius, the 12-14000 diameter disc would be within a 90 degree cone of view when the line from the viewpoint to globe tangent, and the line from the surface point below the viewpoint to the globe tangent is 45degrees.
Constructing this basic triangle shows in a rough approximation the height of the viewpoint would be that of the Earth's radius, 6-7000 miles.
(It would actually be less than this in reality if a more accurate calculation is performed, but this simple calculation serves the point)

Are you serious?

astronavigation is nigh impossible without acknowledging the slight curvature of the earth

How far does the 'ice field' surrounding the earth go? Are there mammoths there?

..which explains why they are lost.

Flat Earthers claim when going up to height the horizon should appear to bow if the Earth is a globe.
They see the horizon is a 360 degree CIRCLE around them - but somehow this CIRCLE isn't curved at all? Seriously how thick can they be?
Only when high enough to see the entire circle without turning around could they see the globe - but guess what? It will still look like a CIRCLE because ALL 3D balls look like 2D CIRCLES when you view them - but here's the rub: Looking like a flat disc and being a flat disc are two different things.

Flat earthers believe their eyes above everything else - "I saw it, so it is true and science is wrong". Whereas maths & science knows the eyes can deceive (like optical illusions), so EVERYTHING has to be proven.

It really is like meeting a less advanced civilization who think what you do is unbelievable magic. Flat earthers are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect too.

why did you have to ruin my day?

...

I mean, yeah, I haven't actually traveled the world to find out for myself, but I think I'll believe scientists who spend their time studying this shit before some faggot shitposting on my Holla Forums. Anyway, I don't see a huge difference in my life whether Earth is round or flat. Why is it so important to you?

It's hollow, kike

nice distraction tactics, shlomo

Retarded claim. There are several light sources. The Sun AND the Earth being the two main ones.

Flat earth reasoning:

Even their claims about the Van Allen radiation belts are bogus:
They don't know Van Allen worked with NASA to PROVE it was possible.
They haven't worked through the publicly available math calculations themselves to disprove it. Pro tip: You can't.

the moon landing was real
but it was germans that got there first

The sequel should be out already.
That film was golden if you ignore the obvious (((agenda))) on race mixing.

sequel? what?

...

hiding the truth in plain sight with mockery, i'm so mad right now

Check out the first Iron Sky movie while you wait on this sequel to come out.

I have been looking forward to the sequel for ages, but it's still not out yet.

The earth is not a light source you retard. Also explain to me why the supposed "moon rocks" given to Holland are proven fakes. A reasonable person would ask- if the moon landings really did happen… where are the landing sites? There isn't one photo or close up of the moon that can show this. Also the fact that you seemingly made "flat earth" the biggest part of you're little rant proves how disingenuous you hoaxers are. On a video mainly about the moon/mars landings.
Prove me wrong:
It's impossible.

OK, so according to you - the moon can be a reflective source of light, you can see Mars, Mercury, Venus, and other planetary bodies because they reflect light, but the only one that doesn't exhibit albedo¹ is the Earth, which makes me a retard. Logic fail.

There are photos of the moon landings in the places they are meant to be. I've seen them, and you can too if you cared to look. They even left equipment up there that lasers are bounced off for measurements.

So you claim, me discussing "flat earth" in a thread about wait for it…."flat earth" is disingenuous. Again, logic fail.

Pro tip: No one can prove your belief wrong - because it is a belief, no facts can change your belief. A knowledgeable person can chat for hours about celestial mechanics, 3D geometry, mission analysis but no amount of mathematically provable facts can change someone's belief.

The only cover ups about space currently are the level of technology there is, and other beings.

¹I'll guarantee you'll have to look that term up, (because I'm retarded and you're not of course)

Oh, and the flag question tells me you have no knowledge of Wagner tension fields and their effects on thin membranes - such as flags in a vacuum.

Science. Try it some time. It doesn't jump to conclusions based on what someone said, claimed, or saw - it PROVES stuff, using maths.

I'm not really understanding you're logic here… is it that you want someone to disprove that the moon landing is impossible through math/science alone? My question to you is this… why should someone try to disprove theory alone? That's about as pointless as trying to prove that god doesn't exist. And btw there is science in photography/shadows you dimwit. Something that is clearly illustrated in the film to be fake.

if planet earth is flat, how thick is it and what's on the reverse side?

We all already knew that, Hitler was right youtu.be/9XVCOMctVJQ

There is photography science used that is BASED ON A FALSE ASSUMPTION that the Sun is the only light source. You have to be either really good at baiting, or clueless at logic and science - I'm guessing you're baiting with that.

If on the off chance you're not baiting:
If A is 100 miles West of B, and you drive 100 miles West starting at C you still end up at the wrong location - even if you did the driving correctly. The same is true of using photography based on an incorrect assumption. The very assumptions you make need to be proven too!

If maths says the moon landings are impossible then it is impossible. Period. Maths says it's possible and history shows how it was done. Do the satellites that were launched using the same science, and connect you to the Internet RIGHT NOW stay up with magic???? Really?
Given the fact you are posting on this board using the technological developments THAT CAME FROM THE MOON LANDINGS should be a MAJOR CLUE they happened.

Oh so according to you… there are 3 light sources in total that can make 3 different shadows in different directions correct? So it's Earth, the sun, ??? maybe an ancient alien used a powerful photon lamp to make the third shadow.

The computer was invented well before the moonlandings idiot. Pretty much all the inventions in the supposed moonlandings were invented before they started the failed space programs or during and not by the scientists who worked on the spaceships themselves.

Yup! As I thought. Totally clueless about the history of semiconductor circuitry - the microchip, digital signal processing, and many more areas that required advancements in said fields to solve the problems encountered in getting people to the moon.

Or maybe you forgot to take the pills?

At least 3 light sources - Sun, Earth, lunar surface (like snow on Earth - it can be highly reflective). There are a shit ton of parameters that are in play.

Why didn't you telling me how the interaction of these different light sources can't create what was seen, but instead were totally ignorant that they even existed, and only knew of the Sun?
The answer is arrogant ignorance as a cognitive bias (the Dunning-Kruger¹ effect namely).

¹Yep, time for you to look that up too - if you hadn't when I first mentioned it earlier in the thread.

I'm wasting time here.
Don't believe facts and science if you want.

You can believe that rockets can't fly to the moon because you're too dumb to understand if you want, but those who are actually smart enough to build them know not only know better - but actually do.

Thank you at least for giving me an insight into what it would have been like for modern explorers to encounter less advanced civilizations that would dismiss their claims as myth or magic.

< Sevens of truth hombre.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

When the astronauts were asked about the van allen belt they said it didn't affect them because they weren't aware of it, so it didn't affect them. That's like saying we were able to breath under water because we weren't aware that we couldn't. Bu Bu Bu Buuuuullll shit. This is too funny.

my trips prove you wrong

You can do the math yourself and show the world how what they did was wrong.
Pro tip: You can't.

Residency time, belt thickness in the Van Allen belt is dependent on the mission plan and determines the shielding needed. Flying through a hurricane is different to driving around inside it.

Damn. You guys really must be hardened baiters, I can't believe you're really this thick.

Assuming a bus driver is also a mechanic or bus designer - YET ANOTHER logic fail.

No. It's like a submariner saying "We had no problem breathing underwater because we weren't aware of breathing problems. All we knew was that we should stay inside the submarine and drive it as instructed."

What was wrong with the mission profile that meant they would receive a lethal radiation dose? Please explain.

What was the lethal dose?
What speed did they fly through the belt at?
What was the transient period for this?
Where are the belts weakest?
What are the shielding types that can be used?
What is the particular type of shielding required for atmospheric re-entry?

(You) Hurrrr durrrr! I don't need to know that sheeit nigger! Keep it real! We wuz rocket scientists and sheeit!

So it all comes down to NASA being "evidence" for a ball Earth. No account for the green screens, lack of lead and other such materials for radiation shielding, proven hoax video evidence of NASA using green screens, harnesses, permed hair, self admitted photoshopped images of the moon and earth and Mars, large discrepancies in scale and size of continents in the supposed images of Earth from space, no footage at all of anyone walking around in a circle at the north pole or the south Pole holding a compass whilst showing the compass displaying that south is in every direction or that north is in every direction. Every map is known to be long. Items such as southern california or Chicago can be seen from a distance said to be below "the curvature" etc etc.

And all of this ball Earth stuff is pushed heavily by government and globalists.

The wool is pulled over us all and we just roll over and accept this so called Science which is nothing more than propaganda and misinformation.

1. Space "Rocket" with LM included was built, tried and tested to perfection in record time before flawlessly/magically landing the aluminum LM with no radiation protection on the moon first try ever with zero issues CHECK
2. Pretty, white, anti-get-dirty cloth, none airtight space suits with battery powered backpacks supplying communications, air-conditioning, heating, body temperature monitoring, a top secret recharging system and ventilation CHECK
3. Bring exact amount of fuel, food, oxygen an such on the LM for a cool 460,000 mile round trip to the moon and back to mother Earth safely we know encounters of radiation flying the breeze or temperature issues from the sun burning them alive or the moon freezing them to death CHECK
4. 1969 high tech communications from the earth to the moon then back to the earth in blazing fast speed without one ounce of signal latency or a single dropped transmission why the earth was spinning as the moon was spinning as the sun was spinning CHECK
5. Packed 1 big ass rover buggy and attached it to the LM somewhere that we could not physically see during takeoff or landing no I did they care enough to video them sales pulling it from the LM and setting it up CHECK
6. Film AstroNOTS riding around the terrain superfast as if they have been there before while all moon craters have magically vanished yet the same video recorder could not be used to turn towards the earth and prove the size shape and rotation of it CHECK
7. Videotape AstroNOTS not doing any research, wasting taxpayers dollars because they were too busy acting stupid to show the earth spinning at 1000 mph to prove it is actually round CHECK
8. Land without getting any dust dirt or debris on the LM's landing gear or creating a burn creator because the throes was supposedly not that much but for some reason I can blow towards the ground and dirt will move Quickly the hell out of the way CHECK
9. Not realizing that you are passing through miles of the radiation belts twice magically causes it to not harm you, the LM or any equipment I guess this is equivalent to me walking across the freeway and since I don't know what's going to hit me nothing will CHECK
10. Take a clear picture of the earth without 1 trillion stars magically disappearing from the specially designed space cams to show the world how bad ass the U.S. Is…um Houston we have a problem!! I was in Hawaii for one day and took more pages of my quick little vacation then NASA dead of the entire trip to and from the Mont why do we only have footage of us being on the moon and us landing on the moon and I was leaving the earth what about all of those other hundred's of thousands of miles in between we should have had footage of all types of crazy stuff out in space why didn't they film the entire trip this should have been documented, if we could take a enough food not truly knowing what we where going and if we could take enough fuel not truly knowing where we where going and if we can take enough oxygen not truly know what we were going and if we could take enough batteries not truly knowing where we were going we should have damn well been able to take enough video tape!!
BONUS: Do a mocked up interview with the AstroNOTS who all looked disgusted and UN-happy that they had actually made it back from an impossible trip to earth all safe and shit CHECK

You ever tried to go on a tall building with a telescope and try to see farther out than 5km?
Protip: You can't
The earth curves so much at that distance that it is literally impossible for you to see anything 4000 miles away. It's basic common sense. You would have known this user if you passed 6th grade science.

Worst b8 ever.

Low quality b8 indeed, so I'll only answer one.

Cross the freeway at 10,000miles an hour, then try crossing it again at ¼ mile per hour. Report your findings on which caused you more harm. We'll wait.

Remember when everyone believed that six million jews were killed by Hitler and were taught that in school by government education?

And then people started asking questions…

And then it turned out that Hitler didn't actually kill anyone. And then there were studies into documents and there were no orders found to say that Hitler ordered Jews to be gassed in concentration camps. And then when the allied forces "won" the "war" and artifacts were recovered from German soldiers and there was not one shred of documented evidence to say that any of the rank and file German troops knew anything about six million jews being gassed. And then people went to find forensic evidence and it came to light that the gas was used to get rid of lice and infection.
And then there were signs saying 4 million and 1 million.
And then it was proved that an oven running 24/7 couldn't physically get through that many bodies.
And then it was claimed that the bodies were incinerated and the "evidence" given
Was a pile of dead unincinerated bodies.
And then it was proved that the pics of bodies were actually from a Russian Christian genocide.
And then everyone knew they had been lied to.
And then the governments made it illegal to tell the truth.

Consider all of that and then question the ball Earth for yourself,
And consider the Freemasons behind the ball Earth.

Once you start realising that you can see further than you should be able to,
And that you have been lied to about the poles (no footage of people walking 360 holding compasses)
you will start to realise something is wrong.

When you are told a magnetic pole goes from one end of a ball to the other end of the ball
And that the magnet passes through a molten core with extreme heat,
And realise that heat DEMAGNATIZES (easy to prove) and that your compass points to a North in a horizontal direction as opposed to pointing down (where North would be on a ball Earth) you should start figuring out not necessarily that the Earth is flat, but at the very least you have been lied to.

←This guy has a point

If I had a dollar for every Earth that was flat, I'd have one dollar.

Okay how come it takes the same time to travel the same distance on what you consider to be the outer rim than it does on the inner rim?

It doesn't. Check flight times and flight routes. No flights go straight over the "south Pole" either as Antarctica is a large ring surrounding Earth. Admiral Byrd's guys kept flying out and hitting the dome.

Yeh I've noticed this that they don't have normal flights in what should be southern hemisphere on globular model

But why is it circle? If it's flat it's also obviously square. Even God mentioned the four corners of the Earth.

God has asked us a Trips question, therefore we must answer with wisdom, grace, elegance and sincerity.

penis poo poo wee wee vagoo

square and cumpaas dude why u think masons

This is one of my favourite proofs that NASA fake their astronauts in space stuff. Nothing more than studio actors. Will post a few more.

Basically, what you have is wirework and greenscreen work with actors. I think this video does a good job of showing how simple it is to take zero gravity.

even if we destroyed all the machines on earth the next generation would pick up real quick

be me

boared as fuk

check Holla Forums

see this bread

watch first 2 vids

mfw i learned something new from Holla Forums

why are you educated stupid

I can't contain my laughter at just how gullible you round earthers are.