What are some good kinos about spherecucks getting irredeemably BTFO?

She had the balls to give eric dubay a platform 2 years before eddie bravo. That she's a shill is a Holla Forums meme, the same Holla Forums btw that when confronted with FE in space elevator threads will freely admit it's a religion and they can't live without the fantasy of leaving earth someday.

The treaty isn't to prevent exploration, it's to prevent GOVERNMENTS and NATIONS placing MILITARY and STRATEGIC BASES in the area, as they could otherwise launch invasions on two fronts after smuggling in a bunch of men/weapons/vehicles.

If you'd like to show me the section of the treaty that prevents an individual from mounting any form of expedition to Antarctica, please post it.
Even if there was a specific clause in the Antarctic Treaty that prevented exploration, and I want to be extremely clear that it doesn't enforce anything beyond what a governmental presence can do, you could still do it if you weren't a participant of the 46 member countries, as the Treaty specifically mentions only your nation can enforce their laws onto you.

Not sure what Byrd saw, so I won't even try to debate that and will concede the point.

No, you change the theory every 20 minutes.
The UN uses that logo to show every single country in the world; if they used a sphere model, half of the world's countries would be absent and there'd be autistic shitflinging at UN meetings.

If there was a magical place as large at the entirety of the US with an abundance of resources, why aren't we exploiting it? If the US found such a mass, they'd have it occupied in minutes. Please give a single reason why any country would ignore such a presence. All I can think of is there being a technologically superior group living there that don't want us to come near, but that's not especially likely.

All of the flat earth """tests""" are flawed and not performed in proper laboratories with facilities that eliminate annoyances like air pressure and gravity. Of course, you will claim that gravity and air pressure are needed to make the tests correct and in your favour, so that's a completely moot point.

If they were oppositely charged, they'd come to a fucking standstill at opposite points of the earth. If you don't believe me, grab two magnetic spheres and a wide cone, then make them eternally spin and post a video for us all to see. The cone is needed to get the spinning easily, but if you can manage it on a flat circle, even better to prove your idea.

You can observe the moon rotating; same for the plane-ets, as you call them. Just watch it for 30 minutes and you'll see the landmasses shift slightly either direction.

Once again, gubment psyop to discredit all conspiracy theories, and when they recoil, they bring up real conspiracies like 9/11 to try and give themselves some credit.

If he believed there was something beyond Antarctica, why did his autobiography have this on it? He had full control over the publication.

Never, ever heard this and I do little else but listen to fringe podcasts
This is the "standard" flat earth model
Hello agent.
Not bad, the training you guys get has improved in quality. But you can't really grasp the term, can you? You will never ever be able to fool anyone but newfags. Also Eric Dubay is manufactured.

They why hasn't anyone explored it and why do people like jarle andhoy who try get arrested?

Example? Also earth being flat/level is a fact, theories about what lay in the center and edges are only theories because there is no way to confirm.

Because it would cost the powers that be (mainly the vatican) their control over people's minds.

Labs aren't necessary and gravity doesn't exist. See embed related 40:25

Try this, take a magnetic sphere and get a smaller one to orbit around it. Oh wait you can't because that doesn't exist in the real world, sort of like how the LAW of entropy says those orbiting spheres in your imagination should be slowing down and crashing into each other. The FE models for sun and moon are immature but that's to be expected after being retarded by 500 years of jesuit sun worship dogma.

No you can't, you can see it turn like a wheel in the sky. Nobody on earth at any time or place has ever seen anything but the one face.
Did you just ignore previous link? There are no "land masses", they are literally electric looking blinking lights. (See sonoluminescence)
Once again ball lovers claiming that calling bullshit on pseudo-science is a psy op. Just like the NIST Report they rely on imaginary theoretical physics to try and disprove what people can see with their own eyes. You shouldn't defame truthers by claiming to be one of them.

Buckaroo Bonzai

the other week I saw a flat earther's car parked at the grocery, he had hung up posterboard signs in front & back windows while parked, advertising his insane youtube channel. he had christian virtue-signaling shit and trump/pence bumper stickers too, of course.
the world is a crazy place.

...

Dodged customs in 3 countries, had an undocumented passenger and lied several times to authorities about who they were and what they were doing.
He admitted to all of these things and wasn't charged/fined over anything else.

I've met people in my life in the past ~6 years that believe it's literally a flat plane you can fall off. If you want to claim everyone only uses the ice wall, then I will subscribe to that from now on when I post and not make assumptions.

How? How would that cost them control? On the topic of the vatican, why would they be in charge if they're the ones that orchestrated this sphere model and brought it into acceptance amongst the masses?

He spoke about magnetism and gravity being similar forces in their visible effect, which I agree on. I don't agree with him that they're the same force, however. Also, he mentions dielectrics being the same as "gravitational", emphasis his, and magnetic forces being identical. Dielectricity isn't a term; the correct term is "Dielectric" and it's used to describe certain types of insulating materials. Completely irrelevant and he's using some random buzzwords to sound intellectual on the subject.

That's using your model of gravity in which you state that it's the same as magnetism. Using the currently accepted model for gravity, the moon orbits us constantly and does, in fact, lose energy by the law of entropy. There are mirrors on the moon we shoot lasers off to measure distance, and it decreases by the tiniest amount possible every year. It will eventually crash into the Earth, just as we will crash into the sun. This apparent lack of energy loss is due to the vacuum of space and low gravity, which doesn't reduce energy in masses as much as on the Earth where we have a large mass incredibly close and things like air resistance/friction also reducing gravity.

Thus, your test is impossible by both of our models, but mine is possible only by yours, so please prove it.

What about the 3000 years of FE models before the widespread shift to a sphere model?

You really can. Take a telescope out, observe a planet for an hour or two, then notice how the landmarks shift. More noticeable on Mars/Venus, but take care look at Venus/Mercury as they reflect light more and will burn your retinas out faster. Best bet is using a camera through the telescope or only check on it every 10-20 minutes instead of constantly.
The moon does rotate, albeit at a much less noticeable rate. Due to it rotating at the same rate as us, as in around the sun, it doesn't shift as much. The dark side of the moon is due to this, but this is not a problem for the other planets that rotate at much different rates.

Sorry, was I meant to take notice of a video that consisted of 9 images of a planet in the same position while shitty ominous music played in the background? Maybe if it was a 24 hour livestream/timelapse, I'd of taken it more seriously.

compared to:
Of course the US government lied about the Trade Centre Attacks. They fucking caused them. Every day, more and more people publicly go out and say that they believe the government covers up a lot of the details of the reports; in fact, documents from the US just came out that proved the attackers were given Saudi training and were (((released))) from government custody just before the attacks.
The same can not be said for FE believers, who simply post random 50+ minute videos that overwhelm the casual viewer with too much information whilst claiming that they're right. If this was real, people would be out in the streets proclaiming it and there'd be people listening, and every single "fact" you claim could and would be easily demonstrable to a child with basic experiments, instead of pants-on-head retarded theories that take a long amount of explanation and background to get to the point of any actual data, which is then claimed to be "early stages" or "suppressed by governments".

Uh dude, i don't know if you're being legit here or you're just pretending, but you can really just see with a telescope how the craters on the moon get flatter and flatter the more they get closer to the horizon, like in a sphere
You can literally see for yourself that the moon is a sphere

Also
Take a telescope and look at them

Explain that flat earthers

CGI, NASA fabrications, global conspiracy

Yes because if he'd said "we're going to explore Antarctica" he never would have been allowed to set sail.
Funny FE in its current renaissance is only 3 years old. In any case that's hardly "every 20 minutes."
It's not a matter of concensus it's empericism vs blind faith. If run into a shill or disinfo site like the flat earth society who say shit like "gravity is explained by the disc rising up at 9ft per second" that doesn't prove or disprove the fact earth is flat.
Same way disproving the core tenets of any religion would cost its priests control.
Because like always they're the ones with access to heaven, they have all the answers and in exchange for them demand money and obedience.
Fine see embed related instead
No, my model is that it's complete bullshit.
Really? So why does it maintain uniform monthly cycles? How long till it comes crashing into the earth?
Ffs again you're describing something that doesn't exist in reality. IRL lasers can't go a dozen miles before the light diffuses and separates, think about it rationally for one second: how big and how much power would a laser need to travel 237,000 miles? Use your brain.
I'm referring to more recent history where baloons, rockets and telescopes could have been used by mainstream real science. Speaking of baloons see Augusta Piccard who described the earth as a flat disc upturned at the edges.
Again I have and nobody - outside NASA - including me has ever observed what you describe.
Okay.
Providing evidence that backs up their proposition, how fucking DARE they.
They are and even if they weren't this is another appeal to concensus.
There are, it is.
hooktube.com/watch?v=XRsOUMOJy6o

So which is it? You complain about "too much information" then call it retarded.
And if modern astronomy requires formulas that supposedly only a few people in the whole world can understand (protip they don't really) then does that disprove anything? Next you'll say I'm dumb because I can't absorb large amounts of complex information. If your ADD is too much to overcome your confirmation bias that's your problem.

So basically you have no argument

Really?

hooktube.com/watch?v=uJhL7y0ahUE
hooktube.com/watch?v=8PB7AwZzaOo
hooktube.com/watch?v=yHwxne9jnBE
hooktube.com/watch?v=AKUlHsTOPrU

Dude you are retarded, did you ever go to school and learn about physics?

Planetary, stellar masses are spherical because that's what gravity does. Water in 0 G becomes a perfect spheroid.

...

At first I thought you were le trolling, but this is hilarious

This is shit you can debunk yourself with 5 minutes on bing and youtube. Problem with being spoonfed is psychologically you will be unwilling to accept anything you didn't figure out for yourself. People need to feel responsible at the inception of a new concept or 9 times out of 10 will disregard it. Hence you can see 100% proof that the ISS is fake yet it won't change your mind on the subject even a little. You have to be genuinely curious and willing to take the redpill, there's literally no other way.

gravity doesn't exist, retard
you don't know shit

Please commit to suicide

Admit you never had an education in physics

this is your brain on spherecuckery

I'm sorry you never had an honest professor in your life, my AP physics teacher in High School alone was a based white man.

I guess all these "flat eathers" truly as based seeing as the only recognized flat earthers are dumb niggers in the NBA and NFL

The physics you're referring to are astro aka theoretical physics. They have no basis in natural science or scientific method. This argument is like saying "you can't be an atheist unless you've graduated from seminary.''
Also your waifu a shit and a UN shill

Then what's that say about you?

...

All higher education is Jewish lies don't you know? Only based youtubers know the real truth.

emma a shit

english please

I'm so glad that someone as retarded as you exists to prove that everything you "meme" is wrong

Amazing, how you can make your opinion mean so little

*inhales*

Mods should sticky this thread so it is forever known that this board is a joke.

Unlike an enlightened, non-retarded intellectual such as yourself who doesn't have an argument.

t. byudhuurt dtunzplink

The people hating on Emma are braindead flatearthers who fap to fat porn whores
Emmahaters confirmed for absolute plebs

Yeah it's only flat earthers sure thing pal.

Her eyes are gorgeous, blueshit fetishizers out pls
Her body is beautiful and feminine
Nice memes

God damn your dubs confirm

Could you be any more of a fucking loser seriously, do you only live by Holla Forums memes

You literally have no argument as a flat earther, it's fucking proved to hell and back that the sun and the planets, the gaseous planets and the terrestrial planets are not flat. You don't know shit about cosmic evolution.

Also you know she wouldn't give you the time of day right? Literally, if you walked up to her asking for the time she would roll her eyes at you before a 6' 7" nog bodyguard tackled your ass. What do you hope to accomplish shilling her here like this?

See

You are so fucking retarded you got upset at her only good looking boyfriend, how insecure are you truly how insecure.
Btw that dude could speak three languages how many do you speak

...

See

Wrong
She has actually a very kind and warm-hearted personality
Not that a bitter faggot like you would actually care about it in the first place

Autistic rambling isn't an arugment

i still saw no argument agains this though

He's just a straight up /r9k/ Holla Forums faggot, probably has a folder full of anti emma things to spam in case he gets upset. She is sweet.

I'm not even being edgy or anything, if I could kill people who were flat earthers I would do it, quick and painless. Bullet to the head.

But you have no argument.
Your entire post history is autistically rewording what people say to fit your loose definition of established terms and screeching "REEEEEE THAT'S OWNED BY JEWS/THE VATICAN REEEEEE NOT TRUE SCIENCE" then plugging a bunch of random YouTube videos that are so long the average user isn't going to view the entirety of the video, let alone bother correcting it for you.

Kill yourself by stealing a plane and flying over Antartica, please. If there's such a conspiracy, you'll be shot down, and we'll believe you, or you'll be let free and can die in the wall of ice.

Gonna retort?

no matter who wins this board is entertained tbh

A waifu cuckold on a chinese cartoon forum, your parents must be so proud.

The guy who is the broken record /r9k/ /MGTOW/ is way more pathetic and he's the flat earther possibly, hopefully not.

That's an old boyfriend, if you weren't a Holla Forumstard and actually knew something easy to know I wouldn't need to spoonfeed you.

Oh god

Wait, WAIT
This shit is actually being pushed by white people?
Or are you flat earther's just shitskins larping

It's a concave triangle you dumb druppy guppies

Of course stupid whitey is pushing it, they're the dumbest social construct of all.

woah woah woah hold the fuck up there
i'm sorry, this is where you lose me, i was of the idea that i should approach your ideas with an open mind and i was starting to think that some of the things you said made some sense, but now you've crossed a line that i will not tolerate
nope, sorry, fuck you and fuck your stupid flat earth, emma is queen

Being hit by by light at a steep angle later in the day means there's a much smaller surface area to absorb radiation YOU STUPID FUCKING NIGGER
Not going to read the rest of your bullshit given that you obviously don't have an IQ in the triple digits

boy, you have a lot to learn

Anything can be framed well enough to appear logicial. But the earth is round. And Emma is a beauty and a QT

t. shitskins

Your first article has no citations except for the book of another flat Earther which is not available online, and does not spell out any math comparing real, and "expected" travel times, he just (without citation) someone 160 years ago spent 4 years traveling around the arctic, so that mist have meant the edge around the disc took about that long to sail around.

I am referring to the retarded flat earther explanation for seasons, look it up, the size of the orbit (around an arbitrary point) shifts for the sun… for some reason. Tilt of the earth explains why different hemispheres receive more or less solar radiation during a year, flat earthers just say their magical ball changes its orbit 4 times a year but still points at the same spots because magic :DDD

It's Jaden Smith tier shit, flatfags.

hey spherecucks
explain these

The earth is so big the curvature is very small because humans and camera as so small compared to the earth

Sauce on that pic? Also notice the "craters", as usual the meteors and all debris are gone and appear to have impacted straight down onto the surface when in every simulation they come in at an angle. In any case even if it is a sphere - a sphere that just happens to only ever show one side and just happens to be the exact size and distance to appear the same size as the sun - that does not mean earth is a sphere.

If this were a thousand years ago you'd be screaming for the heretics to be burned at the stake. Literally mideval tier retarded, with any luck you'll mature someday into a pleb.

>I'm a thinker you see
Lol. Your face is getting red too I bet.

Only that it violates boyles law and a half dozen others + is non-falsifiable and completely faith based to fit the foregone heliocentric conclusion.

Wew lad. Talking nonsense out of your ass then projecting it on me. You should take a walk outside before you self harm. Lol.

So according to you sun rays hit the earth at parallel angles from 93 million miles away but due to ""tilt"" this causes it to appear farther away and feel significantly weaker. This as opposed to a 100% strawman
Which I have never heard of and which makes no sense either. The sun travels across the tropics in increasingly narrow/wide concentric circles, that is the FE model and exactly what we can observe.

Yeah + even according to the NASA priests curvature can't be seen below 100-120 thousand feet (conveniently as high as man has ever ascended) but try getting bringing up FE to a group of people then count how many claim to have seen the curve.

Wait, so now even moon craters are fake? you realize you can see them yourself with a telescope right? how the fuck do they manage to do that, did they paint them on the surface of your disk moon?

Didn't say they were "fake" just offering a logical argument as to why they weren't created by space meteors. Same with terrestrial craters. You lot look for any strawman real or imagined that you can wiggle into, notice that?

...

It is flat. You obviously don't want to go to the trouble of reading through the thread so here's a presentation that goes slow and doesn't use any big words.

That's not what we were discussing
My point was that you can see that the moon is a sphere by seeing how the craters close to the edge are flattened by perspective
For fuck sake, if the moon is flat then how the fuck do you explain partial shadowing?

kek

Your precious Hermieown is a whore.

What does every government gain from lying about the world being flat?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

There is a case for a government body such as the CIA or FBI to promote the flat earth conspiracy because it will discredit other real things the government is trying to cover up.

Fair enough, but since we are in Brave New World times, everyone is bombarded with information constantly that nobody will ever care about the truth of covers ups en masse, since they are pacified and distracted by other issues, like the NFL now.

He literally just copies and pastes this shit for (you)s.
He's also the one guy left that still says "cumskin".
I barely pay much attention and even I noticed both flat earth threads and "cumskin" posts stopped and resumed at the same time.
He can't even adequately cover up his samefagging, and since this is the only board where the vols tolerate him we're stuck with this never-ending fountain of autism.
Wouldn't have it any other way tbh

...

You mean phasing, the same identical 8 phases every month regardless of where the sun is. Basic, observationally based common sense disproving the idea of ""shadowing."" Another proof of self-luminescence anyone can confirm for themselves is with a thermometer, confirming that moonlight is cooler than moonshade, the exact opposite property of sunlight. Again, spoonfeeding won't help. You have to be genuinely curious and research for yourself. Every flat earther became one trying to debunk the flat earth, themselves.

Gubmint gets $50 million per day and the vatican gets to continue dangling the keys of the heavens.

Yeah some moron like you says that in every thread, you already said it in this one 3 times. The gubmint wants people questioning pseudo-science and doing experiments themselves that could potentially cost them trillions + lose power. Makes perfect sense.

If that's true then use jewgle to pull up any quote I've made ITT. You're full of shit though so won't be able to, time to switch goalposts again. Maybe post that bit about it being a CIA psy op again.
Wew lad. Even as a bluepill shill you're shit.

The position of the sun in relation to the moon is precisely the reason why we have phases, retard
Lol no, you don't get away with it so easily
Please explain to me precisely, if the moon is a disk then why there are periods where a part of it is covered by a shadow, and the shadow is curved just like it would be on a goddamn sphere
Alright, so now the moon is self-luminious like a star? why there are periods of time when a part of it is shadowed, which coincidentally also happen to be the parts that are not hit by the sun according to the round earth system?
Gotta love how you say "another" as if you brought any other proof previously btw

Also you're still avoiding the point about moon craters

Too bad everyone has observed a half/crescent phased moon during the day time and then transition into night. But you called me retard so they can just ignore their observation and common sense.
Disc or sphere doesn't matter, it self luminates and occults with precise uniformity. ""Planets"" and stars are often visible through the occulted area resulting in among other things the islamic logo.
Not like a star, like the moon. You don't even have to read anything, watch a video or god forbid do some kind of experiment, simply observing the moon's phase and position relative to the sun every time you look up is enough.

For the peanut gallery.

explain how timezones work then you mental midget

Even people with less than half a brain can see that Emma is shit.

See gif related

Whatever your next question is probably already itt too.

“Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company.”

And? why would it not be possible for the moon to be hit by the sunlight during the day?
It matters insofar as that's the point that i was objecting to
Of course, once we agree that the moon and the planets are spherical you would also have to explain why the earth is the only one that isn't
Which corresponds precisely with the heliocentric spherical model, whereas your model explains it all with "lol magic"

And again, you didn't reply about the craters

t. absolute pleb

That conveniently ignores the fact the earth spins as it rotates, what a surprise, you have to ignore information to hold your retarded view. It's pretty obvious you're just in it for (you's)
This now a SHITTED thread

Uh, the earth is stationary, you dufus.

...

...

...

...

...

...

Flatfags always amuse me. I can never tell if someone is genuinely that retarded or just a professional fake retard.

Nope try again she's the best

Oh hi cumskin poster, how was your day?

Pic related

Because the moon remains in the same phase regardless if the sun is ""behind"" it, next to it or supposedly on the other side of the ball earth.

I didn't concede the planets and again even if I did first pic related here

You have it backwards. Explain how a self luminous moon is supported by heliocentrism.

Every scientific experiment ever performed has demonstrated a flat and stationary earth. Thanks for being on the flatard side btw, degenerate.

underrated bait

Fug meant ballcuck side. All this shitflinging is getting me confused.

No it doesn't, the part that is visible always corresponds with the part that is facing the sun
You should, you can't even bring up the "only one visible face" with those ones, since you can see them rotate by yourself if you have a telescope
Fine, still sounds very weird how every other planet is spherical but the earth is flat for no good reason
It does not, i was saying that what i can actually observe perfectly matches the pattern of a sphere that rotates around earth and is enlightened by the sun, while your model doesn't make any sense

And once again you did not address the craters
Do you think i'm going to let that one fall if you ignore it long enough?

No it doesn't, hence the uniform phasing regardless of season or time of day. See

They are pulsating seemingly electric points of light. Embed related
It's flat because all experiment, observation and experience says so.
You haven't been observing enough
It makes perfect sense, once again you have it backwards.
Ffs what is it with you and craters? I did address them, multiple times. Yes the way they flatten at the edges indicates a curve but that could also be the case if it was cylinder shaped. The point is moot however since I already conceded the moon could be a sphere.

Yes it does, show me one picture where a part of the moon that is not hit by the sun is visible
And not a shopped one possibly
What is it about uniform phasing that makes you so upset?
Season and time of the day are determined by the motion of earth, lunar phases are determined by the position of the moon in relation to the sun
Take a telescope and look at them
All my observations and experiences fit perfectly within the heliocentric spheric model
No it makes no fucking sense, at all
The more i think about it the more i find holes, for example here you say that the moon and the sun have respectively negative and positive charge, hence why they rotate with one another and never get close
Yet here we are talking about the moon appearing in the day sky
How the fuck does that happen according to your model? how do you explain eclipses?
Nothing, i just don't like to see my opponent trying to ignore a point because they don't know how to reply
Oh finally
So now we can all agree that the moon is VISIBLY a sphere
When you'll also concede that the planets are also spheres you can start explaining why the earth just so happens to be a disk

Round and spherical are not the same thing. Also emma is prissy and a mediocre actress at best.

hooktube.com/watch?v=e3j72Pn9YOQ
hooktube.com/watch?v=k-QZ7u3ey7g
Pick any random moon phase then pick any random season and then pick any random time of day. The phases are uniform regardless, how is this so difficult to understand?
I have, they are blinking lights.
I've replied multiple times. How about you reply to this: do believe men have landed and walked on it?
When you'll also concede that the planets are also spheres you can start explaining why the earth just so happens to be a disk
This is an invalid modus ponens. You assume they are terra firma + thousands of miles in circumference then add to these assumptions a further supposition earth must be a ball too. If it were a ball the curvature would be easily detectable through a variety of experiments. If it were a ball NASA wouldn't need to fake moon landings or shoop blue marbles.

None of those are "wrong", those people are retarded
I already explained to you that seasons and time of the day are irrelevant here
At least here you were smart enough to talk about its position compared to the sun, even though you were still wrong
Zoom more
No, first you brought up some shit about craters being a conspiracy that was completely unrelated to what i was trying to prove, then you saw i brought up lunar phasing and tried to make the craters argument fall by concentrating on this self-luminous moon madness
You have been properly addressing the point only now that you conceded that the moon is visibly curved and therefore not a flat disk
But wait, there's more, now that i think about it craters might still come handy, for if you look at them you'll see they project a shadow, as if they are enlightened by another source
So how does that fit your self luminous moon?
And speaking of things you have no reply to, i see you have nothing to say on the flaws i pointed out on your positive/negative charged sun/moon bullshit
Would you mind not waiting another 4 posts to properly explain how does that fit the system in pic related n.2, which i assume is how you think the day/night cycle works?
And when you do would you also mind explaining pic related n.3?
That's not relevant to any of my point
I know you don't trust NASA and you won't accept any source provided by them, that's why i've been basing all my arguments on things you can observe and verify by yourself, that's why i've been telling you since the beginning of our discussion to buy a fucking telescope and look at things yourself
Not really, the only experiment you need is take two points on the same latitude, fly plane A following the parallels and plane B following that which according to the flat earth map would be a straight line
If plane B arrived at its destination before Plane A then you would have a bulletproof evidence that the earth is flat
Too bad none of your flattards have ever been able to do that, and you never will because earth is a sphere and not a disk

no she's one of the only actresses who is good and who can actually play different characters and act different. theres a sea of mediocre actresses and shes above them all. but thanks for being a dumbfuck flatfag and thinking you know ANYTHING

she literally killed it in the bling ring. pretty much the only good young actress, all others act the exact same in everything

Again assuming parallel rays hitting earth from a giant sun 90+ million miles away, ignoring crepuscular rays and dozens of other proofs indicating a relatively close and small sun. Also again ignoring simple observation that despite the sun's location - on either model - the phases remain on a fixed 100% predictive cycle. Smh.

How so? You know typing the word retarded isn't an argument, right?
Right, the suns position in casting shadows on the moon is irrelevant. Got it.
You're conflating telescopic images with NASA paintings. Look again.
Wat? I pointed out meteors would leave debris + impact at angles, not straight down. How is that a conspiracy theory?
It's not madness it's logic. Also you completely ignored the proof about the thermometer experiment which proves it gives off a unique light opposite to the sun's.
Could be lensing but fine, sphere or not it's self luminous and not terra firma. Is this your way of dodging the Apollo question?
Multiple light sources are a common theme where the moon is concerned. Ever watch this btw?
hooktube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4
One theory - and I do stress theory - is that the moon surface is actually a window revealing the texture of the firmament. Since the sun is always visible at high enough altitudes that would explain the light source and crater shadows.
Here is some actual scientific method in action. You won't watch it but it explains how tides prove the +/- electromagnetic charges.
hooktube.com/watch?v=Wg2deAEhoF4
It explains arctic midnight sun during summer solstice for one thing. What exactly do you want me to explain?
What about it? Btw if your globe model was right there should be even 12 hour day/night cycles all year long. Only FE explains why areas have seasonal shifts in length of day.
WEW
I SEE! So whether or not the #1 ball earth proof and supposed greatest achievement in the history of mankind is IRRELEVANT to your argument for globular earth. OKEE DOKEE.
Same here. You obviously don't trust NASA either, me thinks you're a flat earther in denial.
This is what I mean, investigate this line of inquiry yourself and you'll be a flat earthed in no time.
tabooconspiracy.com/blog/flat-earth/the-diverted-flat-earth-baby-flight-and-international-shipping/
There are literally hundreds of flatards doing such analysis on a daily basis. Also stop putting words in my mouth, I never said it was a "disc".

Never saw bling ring. Will check it out since unlike SOME anons I'm not close minded.

see earthsky.org/earth/can-you-explain-why-earth-has-four-seasons, this is what I was referring to the retarded claim of flat Earthers with regards to seasons, they assert that magical floating lamp which projects a beam of light which just so happens to perfectly mirror the patterns of day/night we would expect if Earth was spherical, and they have no explanation for why/how the sun's orbits change in such a way. It just does, because it has to for our theory to explain seasons XD.

Just explained it above for you, retard.

Yeah, all those observations of foreign bodies in the universe behaving in predictable ways based on gravity, shifting the paths of spacecraft on where planetary objects will be in the future, all fake XD

Nice lie you stupid nigger, see 2nd pic.

I was saying "tinfoil" as in factual claims considered outside the realm of acceptable opinion, and I was using shill facetiously, be less of an autist, you nigger.

This is the dumb shit you still don't fucking get:

And I explained it:

>Being hit by by light at a steep angle later in the day means there's a much smaller surface area to absorb radiation YOU STUPID FUCKING NIGGER
Then you responded:

Alright you actually retarded nigger, let me explain it to you like a child, see sunlight.png.

If it was at an even steeper angle, only the buildings would be receiving any sunlight. Remember how I said it was about surface area, and not distance? At a glancing angle less radiation is being absorbed for what is geographically the same area, so it gets cooler. Because the Earth is tilted, the northing hemisphere gets much more direct light in summer than it does in winter.

lol cumskin

it's perspective you nigger
blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/02/crepuscular-rays-are-parallel/

I guess these railroad tracks aren't straight, right?

This is what I mean: you do ZERO research yourself, expect to be spoonfed then insert your own strawmen to argue against. Seasons don't work on a globe earth for reasons repeated several times ITT. According to it a ""tilt"" is responsible for the sun becoming smaller and weaker despite your assertions the rays hit earth at parallel angles from 93 million miles away. Embed related ffs.
Which only exists as a god of the gaps for anything they can't explain
Lel, you mean the telemetry data that always gets accidentally lost and/or intentionally destroyed?
hooktube.com/watch?v=BK-uatwOOeA
Right because that's the context in which it's typically used. Gymnastics and namecalling, hallmarks of the willfully ignorant spherecuck.
But it's parallel rays, innit? Hitting the earth like first pic related here?

But the tilt not only makes it significantly weaker but appear smaller too. Yup sounds legit.

Nice false flag trips.

So now you want to talk about law of perspective and vanishing point? Protip: that's a checkmate in 2 moves.

You guys do know that equatorial countries like Singapore and Malaysia don't have 4 seasons? But instead like 2?

Yes because the sun whether traveling over the tropics of cancer or capricorn or during equinox is comparatively close to it. See embed related

t. cumskin

Yes, assuming all of that because this system works while yours fails on multiple levels
I drew you a nice picture to make you understand
No, NOT the sun position in relation to the moon, that's what you were saying here where you were still somewhat on point even though you were completely wrong
Then you started talking about seasons and time of the day, which is determined by the position of EARTH in relation to the sun, and in this context is fucking irrelevant
No i'm not talking about NASA and i never did, just take your fucking telescope, zoom until you see the full circumference of the planet and watch as it rotates in one direction
Congratulations! you have officially seen with your own eyes that planets are spherical
Which had nothing to do with what my point was
I googled it and i've found a couple of videos form other flattards who do this little experiment with poor accuracy and in an open environment which could be easily affected by a bazilion of variables
But fine, let's concede that somehow the light reflected by the moon has some distinct property
That still does not prove that the moon emanates life by itself, in front of all the evidence that suggests the opposite
I'm not "dogging", it's simply that the points that i made and you ignored where relevant to the discussion, while this thing that you're trying to do here is not and it's only a cheap attempt at poisoning the well
But yeah, fine, if you so desperately want me to concede it i will do so lightheartedly because it does not affect any of my arguments
Is that a way to admit that the moon is at least partially enlightened by the sun?
Anyway, i see the shadows pointing to only one direction, which makes me thing of only one light source, being the sun
So far you haven't been able to present anything convincing enough to make me think that the moon emanates light by itself
I legit do not even understand what you're trying to say here
No, i can't watch the video now, make a tl;dr
and tidal waves if anything are a proof of gravity since they are a result of the gravitational pull of the moon
If the sun and the moon have opposite charges that reject each other why does the moon appear in the day sky and how do eclipses happen?
Axis inclination
Yes it is, Name one argument i made that was based on NASA
Then how come planes seem to follow the path suggested by spherical earth model and always land in expected time?

Any biopic about Colombus

Leave the grand Flat Earth scholar ALONE you KIKE!

slap slap slap

That's a new one- You forgot to call us cumskins or meatcucks.

No, you fucking retard, how many times do I have to tell you it's not based on the strength of the solar radiation or the distance from it but the surface area exposed to solar radiation and that the radiation is actually hitting that smaller/less directly exposed area in winter.

hooktube.com/watch?v=BK-uatwOOeA
I'm not watching any of your shit, if you want to give me a source, give it to me in written format, otherwise, fuck off.

well, the three things kind of tend to go together, so

Lol it only took 11 hours to anchor a thread about flat earth

oh come on, we were having fun

So Cumskins from poleddit are meatcucks and spherecucks?

yes

I read that as spearchuckers and was expecting a very different kind of thread.

How so? Also funny coming from someone who hasn't spent a single minute researching the model.
So you're still saying the sun's position is irrelevant to "shadows" it casts on the moon or not?
I only see pulsating lights like everyone else
Such as? All you've "proven" is that the sun magically casts the same shadows every month regardless of its location
So according to your model gravity from the moon despite being significantly smaller is strong enough to effect tides - but only in oceans and no other bodies of water - but still not strong enough to send it crashing into earth. Got it. Tldr the moon and sun only effect tides in salt water because of the increased magnetism caused by salinity. The comparative effects during new moons are predictive, watch the video.
So they faked the moon landing and present shoops as real pics but everything else they say is fact. Good thing that's irrelevant I guess.
It was a reference to one of the many pieces of evidence debunking Apollo
The moon observably travels at a constant speed while the sun speeds up during winter solstice and slows down in summer, eclipses are just a rapid occulting that have nothing to do with the two bodies position with each other. Lunar eclipses with the sun above the horizon happen all the time and are proof in and of themselves against syzygy
So that explains going from 15 hours of daylight to 12? Muh tilt again?
Muh tilt, muh rotating orbiting moon, muh spacecraft
They don't, which is why flights in southern hemisphere can't be tracked over water and always make counterintuitive triangle paths. You know why they're called airPLANES too, right?

How many times are you going to go back and forth from parallel sun rays hitting the entire earth to "tilt makes sunlight hit smaller areas." Go ahead and keep saying retard though, it makes you seem like you have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
Link was to an astronot named Don Pettit claiming that NASA intentionally destroyed all evidence and technology responsible for the moon landing. Guess you can deny him saying that though - in an official NASA capacity no less - since you refuse to look at it. But I'm the retard, huh.

How many times did you have to downboat report it, reddit?

Spherecucks confirmed triggered af xD

All the things i've been pointing out so far
I've been basing it all on what you are saying
For FUCK sake
The sun's position in relation to EARTH, thus seasons and time of the day, are irrelevant
Lunar phases are determined by the sun's position in relation to THE FUCKING MOON
What's so difficult about it to understand? you sound like someone who has no idea how the heliocentric system works
If you zoom in enough you see the planet
I've also been posting videos like this to show you what you would see, but you have ignored that
Lunar phasing, crater's shadow, the fact that only the part of the moon that is facing the sun is visible
When i look at this i see something that is being enlightened by the sun, i see nothing that makes me thing of a self-luminous object
Why "magically"? where's the "magic"? yes, given that the moon follows a regular path the light of the sun will regularly hit it in the same way, there's no magic involved unlike in your retarded nonsense where the moon emanates light by itself except parts of it don't for no fucking reason and they always happen to be the ones that are not facing the sun
Yes
Tidal waves also happen in rivers en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_river
We weren't talking about fucking apollo, stop trying to fit them in to have a strawman
How does that happen if they have opposite charges and they reject each other?
Yes, and it also convincingly explains the seasons and the 6 months day/night cycle at the poles, while your discworld fantasy fails to address any of this
Adding "muh" before an argument is not a counter-argument
None of that depends on NASA
Never said anything about spacecrafts
Yet somehow always arrive at the expected time

Makes you wonder if there is something nastier on the moon than just hard vacuum and ground glass for soil. Or may be NASA's just completely inept.

Well he does "believe" the earth is flat.

You haven't pointed out anything, just made half assed excuses for shadows.
Like so said.
Yet it's irrelevant where the sun is positioned, east, west, daytime or nighttime. K.
Jesus Christ dude read the fucking description it says it's an ANIMATION.
Same phases whether the sun is east, west, daytime or nighttime. Anyone with eyes can confirm this.
Read the first paragraph ffs.
It only effects areas of river connected to the ocean. You have no clue what you're talking about and can't even source wikipedia correctly. Or tell the difference between an admitted animation and telescope footage. Face it you've lost, badly.

Being a flat earther - a non casual anyway - means you have to know both models. Nobody itt arguing with me knows shit about either one. Missing the old Holla Forums debate threads with physics user atm tbh.

You are devoted to trolling, I will give you that. Too bad you fritter away talent on shit like flat earth nonsense, cumskin.

only you are ignorant in this thread

I keep pointing out things you don't even reply to
For example, this time you didn't even try to address the moon appearing in the day sky, the eclipses, and the 6 month-long days at the poles
And, since i don't think you're in difficulty enough yet, let me also throw this one in: if the sun is always circling around above us, how come i actually SEE the sun rise above the horizon in the morning and falling below it in the sunset?
What the fuck does that even mean, east and west are cardinal points we use to orient ourselves on earth
YES, that's fucking irrelevant and i've already explained to you why at least 4 times
At this point you're basically forcing me to take in consideration the possibility that you're legitimately retarded
Yes, formed by stills obtained with a telescope
Still that's a body of non-salty water affected by tides, therefore it doesn't fit your model, but it fits very well mine

Flipping the board then shoving the queen up your ass doesn't count as a checkmate.

Let's test your cognitive dissonance: do you still think this is real footage of mars?

I did address those and 24 hour sun is only at the North Pole. The link you'll go fetch off jewtube now is a replacement for the one with an obvious edit that was removed, new one is taken in alaska not the "South Pole".
Perspective, you see it going away (and getting smaller) and approaching (getting nearer/bigger)
To the left of the moon or the right, below or above, daytime or nighttime. Same phases, same time every month.
You said it had to do with the sun's position relative to the moon which I've debunked at least 4 times. The sun hits it from above which is why the bottom is in shadow, except the shadow remains after the moon has supposedly orbited the earth and is on the other side of said sun rays. Repeating nonsense doesn't make it anymore valid.
HAHAHA
Only in the area where salt water is flowing into it. If you're going to site kikepedia at least proofread it first.

You tried to come up with some vague half-assed excuse and when i pointed out why they don't make any sense you went silent
No, it's also at the south pole, and even if it was only in the north pole you'd still have to explain why the sunlight bulges or retreats over there for no reason
No, you see it going below the horizon, what the fuck do you call that at 1:13?
No, the visible part is always the one facing the sun
Always, no exception
IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER
You didn't debunk shit, the best you've been able to do is link a couple of videos of other drooling flattards who were showing a regular moon whose only visible side was the one hit by the sun, and sperging out about their lack of understanding of how this thing works
What do you mean "after it orbited"? if you mean after it made a full circle then it's obvious, it came back to the same position, where the sun hits it in the same way
If you mean after it moves, well no, that's why we have lunar phases
Nice argument

Now you're just parroting me. I explained lunar eclipses here

First you complain about "too much information" now this succinct answer to a direct question is "half assed". You're down to pure namecalling and not even doing it originally.
Embed related, more explanation for you to ignore.
Vanishing point. Only in your make believe heliocentrism does light travel for billions and billions of miles, in real life it diffuses and separates. You can still see the light from it after it's disappeared over the horizon too, on a ball it would go dark as soon as it "dropped."
Easily debunked by anyone who isn't blind.
Keep telling yourself that.
You're the one trying to debunk, your best attempt was a drawing that looked made by a 5 year old showing parallel sun rays hitting the moon from one side hence making a shadow on the other. Then you say it DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER which side the rays are hitting it from, whether it's on the supposed far side of the ball earth or if the sun is directly behind it.
According to you and NASA the moon orbits the earth right? And the earth orbits the sun right? So 6 months out of the year when the earth is on the other side of the sun the phases should reverse right? And when the earth is between the moon and the sun the "shadow" should be different than when the sun and moon are next to each other on the horizon right? No, according to your esteemed logic WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!?
Wouldn't trust anything kikepedia says but that sounds about right for how long salt water takes to change into fresh.

It's not billion of miles in the atmosphere retard.
Confirmed for never having seen a sunset on a crystal clear day.

That's not how anything works.

You didn't explain shit, this
Is not an explaination, it's just a more detailed description of the phenomenon
Let's try again: how does the moon get closer to the sun as the two rotate so that the moon appears in the day sky and occasionally it covers the sun, if according to your retarded bullshit the moon and the sun are two object at the same size and distance who have opposite charge and therefore rotate and reject each other?
Alright, still that would only explain summer in the norther hemisphere and it still does not explain antartica
Are you retarded, you can clearly see the sun, which is still not far away enough to just "vanish" for the distance, since you can still see its circumference, and you can see half of it below the horizon
And you lecture me about cognitive dissonance?
You have never seen a single time in your whole life a part of the moon that wasn't facing the sun, nobody who's reading this autistic shitfest never did and you have so far not be able to present evidence that the moon gets enlightened regardless of its position compared to the sun
FOR FUCK SAKE
EITHER IF YOU FIND YOURSELF ON THE SIDE OF THE EARTH THAT IS CURRENTLY FACE THE SUN OR NOT DOES NOT AFFECT WHAT SIDE OF THE MOON IS FACING THE SUN
Listen faggot, you asked me to explain the lunar phase phenomenon with the heliocentric model, and i did and it fits perfectly
If you only way to disprove it is to import a part from your model in order not to make it work, that simply does not disprove the heliocentric model, but a strawman version of it in which the sun does not have the same properties
The people in the videos you posted were assuming (yes, ASSUMING, no proof there, just a conjecture they accept a priori) that the sun wasn't milions of kilometers away from the earth and massively bigger than both the moon and the sun, in order to make it seem that the sadowing of the moon was not right, and that is failure of understanding at best or a strawman in bad faith at worst
Meanwhile, even if we accept your model without reservations, we still come up with a moon that has light of its own except parts of it periodically don't for no specified reason, whose craters seeem to emit light with shadow that pretty much correspond to what it would look like if they didn't and they were actually enlightened by another body, and you have no convincing explaination for any of that
The thing happens gradually and the time the moon takes to come to a full circle already takes count of how the earth has moved around the sun in the meantime
What do you mean? if you mean the earth being exactly between the moon and the sun then en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse otherwise no, the fact that you happen to be either on the sun facing side of the earth or not does not affect which side of the moon facing the sun

No shit. You're actually retarded enough to believe it's 93 million miles away in a vacuum.
Clear dry days are when it can be seen getting smaller easier. It only gets dark fast in southern latitudes regardless of atmospheric conditions, if you knew the model you'd know why. Dipshit.

No shit

Wat!? This is the problem: you know nothing about the FE model and less than a middle school child about the globe. I explained why syzygy was impossible, you were evidently too lazy to even jewgle the word so just say duh you din proov nuffin instead. At this point it's not even a debate anymore just me replying to some idiot proud of his idiocy.
EITHER IF YOU FIND YOURSELF ON THE SIDE OF THE EARTH THAT IS CURRENTLY FACE THE SUN OR NOT DOES NOT AFFECT WHAT SIDE OF THE MOON IS FACING THE SUN
More autism. The same side of the moon is always facing earth, according to your model, dummy. The same side that phases or "shadows" as you say in tardspeak.
This is pointless. I'll finish this one but sorry you're either being deliberately retarded to troll or too dumb to learn anything. Parallel rays aren't from my model you halfwit they're from yours. If you'd been paying attention itt you'd see I used crepuscular light and other example to debunk them, particularly after you used parallel rays on your little drawing. Now you're say it's part of my model. And you lot still have the self unawareness to call us retarded. Wew.
Again, moron or liar talking to you is a waste of time. Of course they use the heliocentric model to debunk the heliocentric explanation of the phases. Doing otherwise would be nonsensical. Now here's the part where I ask you to show me an example of them applying FE to "debunk" lunar phasing and where you can't, either because you didn't watch anything about it or did and your brain simply couldn't retain the information.
What thing happens gradually. The phasing?
So you're saying the phases adjust hence differ at some point or that the moon somehow knows and takes count of what should be different and fixes it?
Yeah it's called SYZYGY, dummy. The same thing I explained previously couldn't happen if the sun and moon were both above the horizon together. Ffs. Now the cherry on top.
Wew. Good luck with that. Have a nice life.

As i said, i'm basing everything on what you say
You said the moon and the sun where two bodies of opposite charge that reject each other, thus rotate
In this model the moon getting closer to the sun is impossible, let alone syzygy
But here we're not talking about what side of the moon is facing the earth, dipshit, we're talking about what side of the moon faces the sun, thus appearing visible
No, you're too retarded to understand what i'm saying
You asked me to explain the moon shadows of the videos you posted, and i drew a sketch, which i show you again here in pic related n. 2 left side, to make you understand that yes, those shadows fit perfectly the heliocentric system and there's nothing weird about them
And here comes the point about parallel rays: the heliocentric model, which you claim to know so well, provides that the sun is much, much far away from both the earth and the moon, thus the parallel lines i drew, because at that distance we don't need to take diverging irradiation lines into account
The problem with the drooling retards who shot the videos you posted is that they don't take any of this into account, and assume a priori that the sun is much closer to the earth, probably as close as the moon, like in your model, as in right side of pic related n. 1
In that case yes, that shadow would be impossible and the moon should be full, but that's a problem of your model, not mine
These people are so retarded that they're actually making an argument for the heliocentric system, and they don't even realize it
And to explain the non-corresponding shadow of your equidistant moon/sun theory you have to come up with absurdities about the moon being self luminous, despite that visibly not being the case, except parts of it are not luminous for no specified reason, which by coincidence very much follow the pattern of a shadow
That's what i call desperate mental gymnastics
They don't either out of ignorance, retardation or simple bad faith
They assume the wrong distance of the sun from the earth, as i just explained
The earth's movement around the sun, and the moon with it, see pic related n. 2
Yes, which in this case form a lunar eclipse
What about it?
You can find for yourself videos on youtube of that happening in rivers that match the description

Things that you tried to pass over in this last post of yours: how are 6 month long days in the south pole and 6 month long nights in the north possible, why do we clearly see the sun taking a plunge below the horizon if it actually just gets further and further away while staying at the same altitude, why do lunar craters visibly project a shadow if the moon is self luminous

Emma is queen