Schwarz wrote Now, before you go criticizing, don't just say 'no its bull' because you have grown up thinking we live on a globe. I will include sources of info, and my own thoughts.

Believe it or not there is a substantial amount of evidence to back up the flat earth theory.

Also, if you have already thought "oh f*ck off" and thinking about leaving this page. Then you my friend are in denial and have a closed mind. Open it, and allow yourself to think that it could actually be true.

My personal opinion, is that its very likely.

---

Now, to get this debate started, im going to say this.. All of NASAs 'photos' of the earth, show a perfect SPHERE.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Nothing wrong with that 'photo' right? Sure believe what you wish, just don't forget NASAs OFFICIAL archive stating, the earth is an OBLATE SPHEROID, not a perfect sphere.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Or what about Neil DeGrasse Tyson, stating the earth is 'pear shaped'.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Which one is it? Pear shaped, an oblate spheroid or a perfect sphere. All supposedly 'credible' sources saying different things.

---

REMINDER: It is said, that Tyson is a Freemason, just like all of the astronauts that 'went to the moon'. But I will leave that topic for another time.

---

What am I getting at you ask? Well, just take a look at this.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Now, hence how it bulges outwards at the equator. Because you can certainly NOT, see any type of bulge in the 'official image' of the Earth, posted by NASA. In fact, it is indistinguishable, from a perfect sphere.

---

My point is, NASA are blatantly lying, in your face. And the official image of the earth, is infact a fu**ing CGI created image. A bad one, actually.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Wow.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Just, wow.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I mean c'mon, really?! All 'official images' of the Earth. And yet the colours are changing and so is the landmass.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

---

How does this link in with the earth being flat you ask?

Quite simply because, the maps NASA provide are something like 80% accurate, give or take. I mean every single map they provide. To be honest, it probably is a lot less than 80%, but whatever.

Now have a look at Hogwash's flat earth map, released in 1892. Otherwise known as the Azimuthal Equidistant projection. It is rumoured to be 99.9% accurate, the most accurate map to date.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

This is where it gets scary, below is a more rough copy of the AE map, next to the United Nations official logo, notice how the AE map is in the background? Yeah I know, such a coincidence right..

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

It is literally being smeared in your face, like a piece of sh*t.

To flat earth veterans, this stuff is the basics, so sorry if you haven't learned anything new today.

---

I have so much more stuff to include. Like the answer to "wouldn't we fall of the edge?". No we wouldn't. ask me why, ill tell you.

But seriously now, try looking at the horizon FFS, its DEAD FLAT. NO CURVATURE. But sure, the earth is spherical.

Before I say any more I want to read your opinions, thoughts and questions, if you have any.. you are very welcome to disprove this theory with any facts you may have.

to be honest this was a pretty interesting read

I'm going to give it to you man, Reading your replies, you're a great troll haha

Schwarz wrote

Blends wrote You really must be retarded...

Have you not seen space. jfc

No, I haven't, and neither have you.

And anyway, what does space have to do with all the facts i just provided you with?

Still though, 'space', and the stars revolve around the earth, hence why polaris is stationary and the Coriolis effect is created. If you read parts of the bible (I'm not a bible basher, but I would take an ancient books word, over a thieving government) it states that the earth is stationary.

But sure, space exists because NASA and they're pretty images of galaxy's are eye-candy.

Ignorance is bliss, do your research, peasant ;)

Haha, I seriously can't take you serious after this. The stars do not "revolve" around the Earth. Also Polaris, is stationary because of the fact that it lies directly above the Earth's axis of rotation. How do you think we can find our location using latitude? The curvature of the Earth causes Polaris to be at a different height. If you go below the equator, you can no longer see Polaris. Instead you'll see a group of stars that form the Southern Cross, which points to the south. Also depending on which hemisphere, the northern or the southern, that you are located at, you'll see different stars than what the other one does. If the Earth was flat, we would all see the same stars, however we do not. Also let me guess, you probably believe the other planets in our solar system orbit in a perfect circle?

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote

Blends wrote You really must be retarded...

Have you not seen space. jfc

No, I haven't, and neither have you.

And anyway, what does space have to do with all the facts i just provided you with?

Still though, 'space', and the stars revolve around the earth, hence why polaris is stationary and the Coriolis effect is created. If you read parts of the bible (I'm not a bible basher, but I would take an ancient books word, over a thieving government) it states that the earth is stationary.

But sure, space exists because NASA and they're pretty images of galaxy's are eye-candy.

Ignorance is bliss, do your research, peasant ;)

Haha, I seriously can't take you serious after this. The stars do not "revolve" around the Earth. Also Polaris, is stationary because of the fact that it lies directly above the Earth's axis of rotation. How do you think we can find our location using latitude? The curvature of the Earth causes Polaris to be at a different height. If you go below the equator, you can no longer see Polaris. Instead you'll see a group of stars that form the Southern Cross, which points to the south. Also depending on which hemisphere, the northern or the southern, that you are located at, you'll see different stars than what the other one does. If the Earth was flat, we would all see the same stars, however we do not. Also let me guess, you probably believe the other planets in our solar system orbit in a perfect circle?

Okay, nice proposition, everything I am suggesting is hypothesis and hypothesis only. I would like to see you explain this video, how the fact the moon was visible from Australia despite at that current time, it was over a completely different part of the world.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

I am aware the video is highly amateur, but it is indisputable evidence.

---

This is a decent explaination, i could not put it into words, it seems this fellow could.

"Its angle in the sky lowers based on latitudes approaching the equator for the same reason that an flock of birds appears to descend in altitude as it recedes into the distance, despite being at all times the same altitude above the earth. Perspective.

Polaris disappears about ten to fifteen degrees before hitting the horizon line because the atmosphere upon the earth is not perfectly transparent. In fact, all stars tend to fade out and disappear before hitting the horizon line."

Basicially, its like standing in a hotel hallway, looking at one end from the other. The walls, floor etc. All eventually reach a vantage point, where everything meets in one point. It is exactly the same with our plane, except obviously with a large radius.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Ultimately, it a matter of perspective. People seem to think that the fact, that water is drained the opposite way in different hemispheres of the ball earth. Explains it, when simply, its a matter of the tap being on the opposite side.

The evidence is essentially undeniable at this point..

---

Your theory = debunked.

You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

Navigate wrote I'm going to give it to you man, Reading your replies, you're a great troll haha

No trolling intended, just pure fact debunking one theorys ;)

Still though, the troll is real hahaha!

Now I feel like everything anyone has ever told me is a lie

Seriously though, some good theroies here, everything is confusing as shit though

Motivational wrote Now I feel like everything anyone has ever told me is a lie

Seriously though, some good theroies here, everything is confusing as shit though

I know it's a complete and utter mind f*ck, if you're now interested in this subject, I would suggest reading some books and watching some documentaries about it. Be careful on YouTube though, some people add their own opinion. The public seem to misinterpret this as fact.

I can link you too a good one though, its around about 2hrs long and is non stop disproving the heliocentric globe. Funnily enough, thats just the tip of the iceburg.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Schwarz wrote

Motivational wrote Now I feel like everything anyone has ever told me is a lie

Seriously though, some good theroies here, everything is confusing as shit though

I know it's a complete and utter mind f*ck, if you're now interested in this subject, I would suggest reading some books and watching some documentaries about it. Be careful on YouTube though, some people add their own opinion. The public seem to misinterpret this as fact.

I can link you too a good one though, its around about 2hrs long and is non stop disproving the heliocentric globe. Funnily enough, thats just the tip of the iceburg.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Thanks man, I'll watch that later

I'd love to hear your opinion on a higher being?

Motivational wrote

Schwarz wrote

Motivational wrote Now I feel like everything anyone has ever told me is a lie

Seriously though, some good theroies here, everything is confusing as shit though

I know it's a complete and utter mind f*ck, if you're now interested in this subject, I would suggest reading some books and watching some documentaries about it. Be careful on YouTube though, some people add their own opinion. The public seem to misinterpret this as fact.

I can link you too a good one though, its around about 2hrs long and is non stop disproving the heliocentric globe. Funnily enough, thats just the tip of the iceburg.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Thanks man, I'll watch that later

I'd love to hear your opinion on a higher being?

No problem

And once I have have finished watching EP 15 of TWD, I will happily give you my opinion

It is quite incredible that you feel as though you can say the Earth appears as a perfect 3D shape in a 2D picture.

NASA knows that the majority of people aren't going to understand what an Oblate Spheroid is, so in their media releases they will use terms like 'Spherical' because it is Spherical.
An Oblate Spheroid is a specific type of Spherical shape. It's an umbrella term, like saying 'Pop' and then saying 'Pepsi.'

But here is the scientific explanation for why the Earth appears completely circular in that picture.

Because it's only very slightly oblate. The equatorial diameter of Earth is only about 40km greater than the polar diameter. Consider that the thickness of the atmosphere apears as little more than a line in most images from space, and it's about 160 km thick. Any image taken close enough to allow you to resolve a 40 km difference will be too close to take in the whole earth.

It seems as though your hatred for certain large organisations is clouding your judgement on the amount of evidence you find acceptable for a claim like this.
I am glad that you did say you are just hypothesizing, because a hypothesis is a claim without evidence.
Your explanations for why the Earth could be flat all seem sound, but that doesn't mean there is evidence to back them up. Don't confuse what seems logical with what is evidential.

I could just as easily 'prove' using logical argument that the world is the construct of a computer system, but I could never prove it using evidence.

And don't go around saying that you are 'debunking' people.
You cannot debunk someone in a back and forth discussion. It's a fallacious use of the word.
You can only debunk someone's assertion if every piece of evidence they have to support that theory has been refuted all at once, by you.

If you think that after one reply where someone has stated one argument you have debunked them then you are saying that there is no way that they can even attempt to counter what you have said and that is just pretentious.

'Refuted' and 'Debunked' are words used once a debate has ended, not half way through.

I do wonder though if you have posted this on any scientific forums. It is easy to confuse logic with evidence in order to convince laymen of a hypothesis, but my guess is that if you went up against degree students in physics fields you would have a much harder time making your case.