Who believes that this is real?

[Inquisitive_]

@MadNomad

You are a classic charlatan you just babble about things you have little understanding, you ask questions which if you seriously considered them in your own model, you would run away, but the reason you don't is because

1) You don't really know much about your own model and assume whatever your told.

2) You don't even know how it actually works, which I believe is the case here, and if this had been an audio discussion I would have exposed you for the stuttering clueless charlatan that you are.

Look you mocked atmospheric lensing, then I grabbed it and beat you over the head with it how it's used to explain the super moon in the spinning ball earth model of yours, instead of cowering in humiliation you come back for more beatings, your not sadistic are you?

An experiment is an experiment, the same way they grab a few marbles on a trampoline and showcase how the hoax that is gravity supposedly works by attracting the smaller objects to the larger one, I can use exactly your line of quackademic argument, what! Marble?? Trampoline ??? come on? how is this real world gravity??? is that how fucking gravity works that it needs a fucking sheet or trampoline or any other shitty elastic base?

Even tough the atmospheric lensing experiment in fact is far more accurate to the bull crap above just as he demonstrates it with the pen in the water and the refraction bending the light and magnifying the object, he is using the exact same concept, you have shown nothing more then utter hypocrisy and even worse total ignorance, I mean look at how many times I use your own comments to beat you with it?


@Burhan

Just as I typed to @dhegdheer whom because she is very limited in her critical thinking I gave her an easy pass, she couldn't even tell me the shape of a disk.

But let me answer your question, why do you think it's spherical? how many sides are their to a spherical object? what happens if I place a spherical object on my table and circulate around it? how many sides of the object will I see at every angle ? now relate this same question to the moon, why when the moon is full do I only see two sides of it ? one side in the southern hemisphere and the other in the northern hemisphere (upside down due to observers perspective)

These are very simple question which that doqon I quoted above me explained with an image in the most comical way possible (secretly hoping he posts it again) while in his heliocentric model the argument for WHY! completely differed from his charlatan quickademic crap.

Also to top it off, the earth went from a circle, to a spherical, to a spheroid to an oblate spheroid, these are all different shapes, so why do you insist the moon is a spherical ? and not a spheroid? or an oblate spheroid flattened at the pole just as NASA tells us the shape of the earth? is the shape of the moon different from the earth perhaps? all this despite NASA CGI showing us different objects and the moon landing supposedly showing us a circle shaped planet, which is correct?

 

[Prince of Lasanod]

Even if the moon landing was faked(who knows), that doesn't mean the earth is flat.

 

[MadNomad]

@MadNomad

You are a classic charlatan you just babble about things you have little understanding, you ask questions which if you seriously considered them in your own model, you would run away, but the reason you don't is because

1) You don't really know much about your own model and assume whatever your told.

2) You don't even know how it actually works, which I believe is the case here, and if this had been an audio discussion I would have exposed you for the stuttering clueless charlatan that you are.

Look you mocked atmospheric lensing, then I grabbed it and beat you over the head with it how it's used to explain the super moon in the spinning ball earth model of yours, instead of cowering in humiliation you come back for more beatings, your not sadistic are you?

An experiment is an experiment, the same way they grab a few marbles on a trampoline and showcase how the hoax that is gravity supposedly works by attracting the smaller objects to the larger one, I can use exactly your line of quackademic argument, what! Marble?? Trampoline ??? come on? how is this real world gravity??? is that how fucking gravity works that it needs a fucking sheet or trampoline or any other shitty elastic base?

Even tough the atmospheric lensing experiment in fact is far more accurate to the bull crap above just as he demonstrates it with the pen in the water and the refraction bending the light and magnifying the object, he is using the exact same concept, you have shown nothing more then utter hypocrisy and even worse total ignorance, I mean look at how many times I use your own comments to beat you with it?

Right, here you go again with the insulting but provide no argument against what I said. Do you really want to get into the stars issue again? You had no answers last time, and you won't find one. It completely and utterly destroys your model, but of course your dishonest ass won't admit it.

The only thing i mocked was that man's experiment. I repeat, water vapor does not act like a giant magnifying lense in the sky, especially not at all times all around the world during sunset. The fact that i have to tell you this only shows me what a colossal moron you really are.

And again you ignored my shadow argument. I'm getting sick of your selective way of debating tbh.

 

[ሕጊ።።]

I'm getting sick of your selective way of debating tbh.

This is why I gave up... Doesn't really seem to live up to his username either...

I'm still waiting for an answer he will never be able to provide.

 

[Inquisitive_]

Right, here you go again with the insulting but provide no argument against what I said. Do you really want to get into the stars issue again? You had no answers last time, and you won't find one. It completely utterly destroys your model, but of course your dishonest ass won't admit it.

The only thing i mocked was that man's experiment. I repeat, water vapor does not act like a giant magnifying lense in the sky, especially not at all times all around the world during sunset. The fact that i have to tell you this only shows me what a colossal moron you really are.

And again you ignored my shadow argument. I'm getting sick of your selective way of debating tbh.

Dude stop acting bipolar jumping around like a little kid jumping from one place to another, you came looking for me and that means I ask you the questions and not vice versa.

You see I am not even asking you the questions because the very few I did, I quickly realised what I am dealing with, stick to the topic, you mocked the mans experiment for what exact reasons, I need a good elaboration from you as to why you mock it, how it's wrong and how he could have corrected, let me see what you are made off? do you mock the gravity experiments with marbles on a trampoline as well ? or is just selective ?

Your telling me water vapour doesn't act like a magnifying lens in the sky, again you have committed self inflicted heresy that wounded you before on the heliocentric model that argues this extensively for a wide range of things, even the scattered sun light proving close sun was argued away using refraction and the atmospheric lensing, including super moon and a whole list of other phenomenon like seeing an entire city 60 miles away under the curve.

How can I have a discussion with you when you commit heresy like this on a concept that is pretty much used in your model to explain away most things? my time is precious, until you give me a breakdown of your criticism as above, I will not move from this topic. as tempted as I am right now to karbaash you on the shadow subject.

 

[Inquisitive_]

This is why I gave up... Doesn't really seem to live up to his username either...

I'm still waiting for an answer he will never be able to provide.

Is this your regurgitation about shape? you stupid moron I answered that 3 times in the thread are you really that thick?

 

[MadNomad]

Dude stop acting bipolar jumping around like a little kid jumping from one place to another, you came looking for me and that means I ask you the questions and not vice versa.

You see I am not even asking you the questions because the very few I did, I quickly realised what I am dealing with, stick to the topic, you mocked the mans experiment for what exact reasons, I need a good elaboration from you as to why you mock it, how it's wrong and how he could have corrected, let me see what you are made off? do you mock the gravity experiments with marbles on a trampoline as well ? or is just selective ?

Your telling me water vapour doesn't act like a magnifying lens in the sky, again you have committed self inflicted heresy that wounded you before on the heliocentric model that argues this extensively for a wide range of things, even the scattered sun light proving close sun was argued away using refraction and the atmospheric lensing, including super moon and a whole list of other phenomenon like seeing an entire city 60 miles away under the curve.

How can I have a discussion with you when you commit heresy like this on a concept that is pretty much used in your model to explain away most things? my time is precious, until you give me a breakdown of your criticism as above, I will not move from this topic. as tempted as I am right now to karbaash you on the shadow subject.

You really are a moron. I'm getting tired of this. You link to videos as arguments, i watch them. Now are you willing to watch a video i'm gonna link you? Here's a video showcasing what's wrong with that man's retarded "experiment".



Water does not act in the same way his magnifying glass does, i'm honestly starting to believe i'm arguing with an idiot.

Please do attempt to debunk my shadow argument. And do not deflect again by bringing up more of your perceived "issues" with the globe model. I want you to debunk my claim specifically.

 

[ሕጊ።።]

Is this your regurgitation about shape? you stupid moron I answered that 3 times in the thread are you really that thick?

You haven't answered it though. You used an over-exaggerated image of what we mean by 'curved'.

Insulting people and then telling them they don't know how to debate is contradiction .

 

[Steamdevolopment]

the earth is flat like my ayeeyo's ass

Have you no shame?

 

[Rorschach]

She posed good question though. All objects she mentioned undeniably look spherical to us. All pictures of earth taken by satellite show earth as spherical. Similar to the moon and sun.

NASA had admitted all those 'photo's' to be composite CGI images (except for the that ONE image from the 70s). So basically all those images you see on google search are admitted aritsts' impressions of the Earth.

Shocking no? If we went into outer space, you think we wouldn't have taken millions of legit photos of different parts of the Earth and exhibition them on the countless number of Space documentaries and educational videos?

Watching any documentary on Space is literally like watching Star Wars/Trek - it's one massive CGI-fest.

 

[Rorschach]

Even if the moon landing was faked(who knows), that doesn't mean the earth is flat.

That's a reasonable position to have. Let's concentrate on the moon landing and take it from there.

 

[Lone Wanderer]

What would the government gain from telling people that the world is not flat?

If he hop off the end, do we got flipped to the other side of the atlas?