Schwarz wrote No offence, but every single one of your replies are based on assumptions without any true sources. For me that's not good enough, at all.

One thing I would like to point out is that, polaris is supposedly fixed because its directly above our 'axis' correct? Well if that was the case then how can it stay fixed above us if we are apparently always spinning and orbiting the sun. Unless polaris is following our every move without moving a single centimetre. Which isn't the case because its immovable like the Earth.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

And if you're not educated enough for this topic, why are you here? You lack the knowledge and base you side of the debate on assumptions.

If you want to be re-educated with the truth. Watch this video and get back to me, until then. Goodbye.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you are truly willing and wanting to learn, you would watch this video and see the perspective. I'm not saying believe it. I'm saying watch it and compare the two arguments and see what you get.

If you want to believe just one side of an argument, without considering the other. It makes you ignorant.

Although this has already been quoted by Cavalry, quite a few times you talk about a reliable source, yet you use YouTube and the Bible. Neither of those are "reliable". For all you know some crazy person could have written the Bible, there is no authorship which makes it an unreliable source. As for Polaris, the reason it doesn't move is because of its distance. However, as a matter of fact, the stars do indeed move over time. Over the next 100 thousand years and more, the stars will appear differently in our sky, the asterisms we see in the sky will no longer be recognizable. Some of the stars will also no longer be there due to them dying out. Also if you believe in Astrology, you can throw that out the window right now. As your astrological birth sign is actually today is actually the one before yours. This is due to the Sun being in a different constellation than what it was thousands of years ago. I have a few more points I can make, however, I shall wait for when I have the time to add them.

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote No offence, but every single one of your replies are based on assumptions without any true sources. For me that's not good enough, at all.

One thing I would like to point out is that, polaris is supposedly fixed because its directly above our 'axis' correct? Well if that was the case then how can it stay fixed above us if we are apparently always spinning and orbiting the sun. Unless polaris is following our every move without moving a single centimetre. Which isn't the case because its immovable like the Earth.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

And if you're not educated enough for this topic, why are you here? You lack the knowledge and base you side of the debate on assumptions.

If you want to be re-educated with the truth. Watch this video and get back to me, until then. Goodbye.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you are truly willing and wanting to learn, you would watch this video and see the perspective. I'm not saying believe it. I'm saying watch it and compare the two arguments and see what you get.

If you want to believe just one side of an argument, without considering the other. It makes you ignorant.

Although this has already been quoted by Cavalry, quite a few times you talk about a reliable source, yet you use YouTube and the Bible. Neither of those are "reliable". For all you know some crazy person could have written the Bible, there is no authorship which makes it an unreliable source. As for Polaris, the reason it doesn't move is because of its distance. However, as a matter of fact, the stars do indeed move over time. Over the next 100 thousand years and more, the stars will appear differently in our sky, the asterisms we see in the sky will no longer be recognizable. Some of the stars will also no longer be there due to them dying out. Also if you believe in Astrology, you can throw that out the window right now. As your astrological birth sign is actually today is actually the one before yours. This is due to the Sun being in a different constellation than what it was thousands of years ago. I have a few more points I can make, however, I shall wait for when I have the time to add them.

Erm. Im pretty sure the bible is more reliable than NASA, considering it is telling stories of what happened over 2000 years ago. And science can actually prove events described in the bible happened. So im pretty sure 'some crazy person' didn't write it, and is easily a reliable source.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

---

Secondly, YouTube can be a reliable source. Considering the video i linked you to has SOLID facts, debunking some of the things people have claimed to be 'irrefutable evidence'.

Im guessing you didn't watch it (of course you didn't... ignorance). The video has compelling REAL LIFE FOOTAGE, SHOT BY AN ACTUAL CAMERA which can be used to prove certain aspects of the flat earth theory.

---

Lastly. Are you actually retarded? 'Because of its distance'. Mate there are stars further away than polaris and they are not stationary, so that is complete and utter bollocks. Won't lie, that one made me laugh a little. 'Because of its distance' Jheeez.

Polaris is: 433.3 light years away.

Orions belt is: 817 light years away. In fact the middle star; Alnilam, is 1340 light years away. Almost triple the distance of polaris..

Also you have no evidence that the stars will move over time, or indeed have in the past. It is yet just another astrologist purposing that 'this could happen' and 'that could happen'. No, just stop.

---

Talk about sh*tty sources and knowledge. You sir are a hypocrite.

You are also wrong. Again.................

Schwarz wrote

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote No offence, but every single one of your replies are based on assumptions without any true sources. For me that's not good enough, at all.

One thing I would like to point out is that, polaris is supposedly fixed because its directly above our 'axis' correct? Well if that was the case then how can it stay fixed above us if we are apparently always spinning and orbiting the sun. Unless polaris is following our every move without moving a single centimetre. Which isn't the case because its immovable like the Earth.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

And if you're not educated enough for this topic, why are you here? You lack the knowledge and base you side of the debate on assumptions.

If you want to be re-educated with the truth. Watch this video and get back to me, until then. Goodbye.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you are truly willing and wanting to learn, you would watch this video and see the perspective. I'm not saying believe it. I'm saying watch it and compare the two arguments and see what you get.

If you want to believe just one side of an argument, without considering the other. It makes you ignorant.

Although this has already been quoted by Cavalry, quite a few times you talk about a reliable source, yet you use YouTube and the Bible. Neither of those are "reliable". For all you know some crazy person could have written the Bible, there is no authorship which makes it an unreliable source. As for Polaris, the reason it doesn't move is because of its distance. However, as a matter of fact, the stars do indeed move over time. Over the next 100 thousand years and more, the stars will appear differently in our sky, the asterisms we see in the sky will no longer be recognizable. Some of the stars will also no longer be there due to them dying out. Also if you believe in Astrology, you can throw that out the window right now. As your astrological birth sign is actually today is actually the one before yours. This is due to the Sun being in a different constellation than what it was thousands of years ago. I have a few more points I can make, however, I shall wait for when I have the time to add them.

Erm. Im pretty sure the bible is more reliable than NASA, considering it is telling stories of what happened over 2000 years ago. And science can actually prove events described in the bible happened. So im pretty sure 'some crazy person' didn't write it, and is easily a reliable source.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

---

Secondly, YouTube can be a reliable source. Considering the video i linked you to has SOLID facts, debunking some of the things people have claimed to be 'irrefutable evidence'.

Im guessing you didn't watch it (of course you didn't... ignorance). The video has compelling REAL LIFE FOOTAGE, SHOT BY AN ACTUAL CAMERA which can be used to prove certain aspects of the flat earth theory.

---

Lastly. Are you actually retarded? 'Because of its distance'. Mate there are stars further away than polaris and they are not stationary, so that is complete and utter bollocks. Won't lie, that one made me laugh a little. 'Because of its distance' Jheeez.

Polaris is: 433.3 light years away.

Orions belt is: 817 light years away. In fact the middle star; Alnilam, is 1340 light years away. Almost triple the distance of polaris..

Also you have no evidence that the stars will move over time, or indeed have in the past. It is yet just another astrologist purposing that 'this could happen' and 'that could happen'. No, just stop.

---

Talk about sh*tty sources and knowledge. You sir are a hypocrite.

You are also wrong. Again.................

Because Orions belt is not situated 'above' either of the poles.

I am flabbergasted that you haven't worked this out on your own, it's either that you don't understand the concept of the poles being fixed, or you simply can't visualize the top of a spinning globe from a top-down perspective.
Of course that star isn't going to move. Now put yourself on the side of this fixed globe, what happens? You slide off round to the other side of the planet while the star stays in relatively the same place.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

The Bible had multiple authors, please go and take a class on theological history.
If it had one author then why are the synoptic gospels 4 different versions of the same story with changed details? The 4th of which is dramatically different to the other 3?

I'm open to listening to any idea at least once. I've had quite the conversation with one of my good friends who belives this. there's just some stuff that doesn't add up to me.

one of the big things, I personally know someone who has been to the edge of space and he has personally seen the curvature of the earth. AND YES i know i know, but the windows in the plane are concave so everything you see will look round. NOT TRUE! that not how optics work.

I've looked into this some and its one of the things that is just too far out there for me to believe.

....now with that being said, there are some other theories that i 100% believe in!

Cavalry wrote

Schwarz wrote

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote No offence, but every single one of your replies are based on assumptions without any true sources. For me that's not good enough, at all.

One thing I would like to point out is that, polaris is supposedly fixed because its directly above our 'axis' correct? Well if that was the case then how can it stay fixed above us if we are apparently always spinning and orbiting the sun. Unless polaris is following our every move without moving a single centimetre. Which isn't the case because its immovable like the Earth.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

And if you're not educated enough for this topic, why are you here? You lack the knowledge and base you side of the debate on assumptions.

If you want to be re-educated with the truth. Watch this video and get back to me, until then. Goodbye.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you are truly willing and wanting to learn, you would watch this video and see the perspective. I'm not saying believe it. I'm saying watch it and compare the two arguments and see what you get.

If you want to believe just one side of an argument, without considering the other. It makes you ignorant.

Although this has already been quoted by Cavalry, quite a few times you talk about a reliable source, yet you use YouTube and the Bible. Neither of those are "reliable". For all you know some crazy person could have written the Bible, there is no authorship which makes it an unreliable source. As for Polaris, the reason it doesn't move is because of its distance. However, as a matter of fact, the stars do indeed move over time. Over the next 100 thousand years and more, the stars will appear differently in our sky, the asterisms we see in the sky will no longer be recognizable. Some of the stars will also no longer be there due to them dying out. Also if you believe in Astrology, you can throw that out the window right now. As your astrological birth sign is actually today is actually the one before yours. This is due to the Sun being in a different constellation than what it was thousands of years ago. I have a few more points I can make, however, I shall wait for when I have the time to add them.

Erm. Im pretty sure the bible is more reliable than NASA, considering it is telling stories of what happened over 2000 years ago. And science can actually prove events described in the bible happened. So im pretty sure 'some crazy person' didn't write it, and is easily a reliable source.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

---

Secondly, YouTube can be a reliable source. Considering the video i linked you to has SOLID facts, debunking some of the things people have claimed to be 'irrefutable evidence'.

Im guessing you didn't watch it (of course you didn't... ignorance). The video has compelling REAL LIFE FOOTAGE, SHOT BY AN ACTUAL CAMERA which can be used to prove certain aspects of the flat earth theory.

---

Lastly. Are you actually retarded? 'Because of its distance'. Mate there are stars further away than polaris and they are not stationary, so that is complete and utter bollocks. Won't lie, that one made me laugh a little. 'Because of its distance' Jheeez.

Polaris is: 433.3 light years away.

Orions belt is: 817 light years away. In fact the middle star; Alnilam, is 1340 light years away. Almost triple the distance of polaris..

Also you have no evidence that the stars will move over time, or indeed have in the past. It is yet just another astrologist purposing that 'this could happen' and 'that could happen'. No, just stop.

---

Talk about sh*tty sources and knowledge. You sir are a hypocrite.

You are also wrong. Again.................

Because Orions belt is not situated 'above' either of the poles.

I am flabbergasted that you haven't worked this out on your own, it's either that you don't understand the concept of the poles being fixed, or you simply can't visualize the top of a spinning globe from a top-down perspective.
Of course that star isn't going to move. Now put yourself on the side of this fixed globe, what happens? You slide off round to the other side of the planet while the star stays in relatively the same place.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

The Bible had multiple authors, please go and take a class on theological history.
If it had one author then why are the synoptic gospels 4 different versions of the same story with changed details? The 4th of which is dramatically different to the other 3?

Except if its apparently orbiting the sun, while earth itself is spinning. It cannot stay directly stationary over the poles, especially when the orbit of the earth around the sun is 149 million miles. Even though that zero to none compared to 433.3 light years, polaris would still show a slight movement, which it does not.

---

And if you looked, I said WASN'T written by one person, not WAS. When i said it wasn't written by one person, i was implying it was wrote by more than one person. And anyway, i thought you said the bible wasn't a reliable source. It really is, science proves it. So...

Get some sleep buddy. That's what I'm doing.

You're going to need to provide some calculations as to how much you're expecting it to move in the sky.
You've just said that it's zero to none, so why, from our perspective, would it move at all?

You're right, I misread what you said about authorship.
But if you can use the Bible as a source for scientific information then you must be using it as an educational text, like Plato's dialogues. So I could simply bring up the writings of Greek mathematicians like Pythagoras who say the Earth is round.

Unless you're using it as a divine platform of proof, in which case you need to prove that God exists.

To correct you I was the one who said it's not exactly reliable. And yes it may be old, but so is the knowledge, which means for the most part it is outdated. Also it is entirely possible for it to stay at that one spot. Not everything orbits around the Earth nor the Sun. In fact, the Sun orbits around a super-massive black hole at the center of our galaxy. As for Polaris, that is because Polaris is also orbiting around this black hole.

Relative to Earth, Polaris is directly above the Earth's northern pole in the galactic plane. But even Polaris is moving across our sky. However, the movement is barely noticeable in our lifetime. And we do have evidence, however, relative in our sky, the difference is so minute that it is not noticeable without extremely accurate calculations.

Furthermore, you said science proved that some events in the bible happened, yet you appear to neglect what science has disproven in the bible.

Cavalry wrote

Click to View Content

Schwarz wrote

Cavalry wrote

Schwarz wrote

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote No offence, but every single one of your replies are based on assumptions without any true sources. For me that's not good enough, at all.

One thing I would like to point out is that, polaris is supposedly fixed because its directly above our 'axis' correct? Well if that was the case then how can it stay fixed above us if we are apparently always spinning and orbiting the sun. Unless polaris is following our every move without moving a single centimetre. Which isn't the case because its immovable like the Earth.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

And if you're not educated enough for this topic, why are you here? You lack the knowledge and base you side of the debate on assumptions.

If you want to be re-educated with the truth. Watch this video and get back to me, until then. Goodbye.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

If you are truly willing and wanting to learn, you would watch this video and see the perspective. I'm not saying believe it. I'm saying watch it and compare the two arguments and see what you get.

If you want to believe just one side of an argument, without considering the other. It makes you ignorant.

Although this has already been quoted by Cavalry, quite a few times you talk about a reliable source, yet you use YouTube and the Bible. Neither of those are "reliable". For all you know some crazy person could have written the Bible, there is no authorship which makes it an unreliable source. As for Polaris, the reason it doesn't move is because of its distance. However, as a matter of fact, the stars do indeed move over time. Over the next 100 thousand years and more, the stars will appear differently in our sky, the asterisms we see in the sky will no longer be recognizable. Some of the stars will also no longer be there due to them dying out. Also if you believe in Astrology, you can throw that out the window right now. As your astrological birth sign is actually today is actually the one before yours. This is due to the Sun being in a different constellation than what it was thousands of years ago. I have a few more points I can make, however, I shall wait for when I have the time to add them.

Erm. Im pretty sure the bible is more reliable than NASA, considering it is telling stories of what happened over 2000 years ago. And science can actually prove events described in the bible happened. So im pretty sure 'some crazy person' didn't write it, and is easily a reliable source.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

---

Secondly, YouTube can be a reliable source. Considering the video i linked you to has SOLID facts, debunking some of the things people have claimed to be 'irrefutable evidence'.

Im guessing you didn't watch it (of course you didn't... ignorance). The video has compelling REAL LIFE FOOTAGE, SHOT BY AN ACTUAL CAMERA which can be used to prove certain aspects of the flat earth theory.

---

Lastly. Are you actually retarded? 'Because of its distance'. Mate there are stars further away than polaris and they are not stationary, so that is complete and utter bollocks. Won't lie, that one made me laugh a little. 'Because of its distance' Jheeez.

Polaris is: 433.3 light years away.

Orions belt is: 817 light years away. In fact the middle star; Alnilam, is 1340 light years away. Almost triple the distance of polaris..

Also you have no evidence that the stars will move over time, or indeed have in the past. It is yet just another astrologist purposing that 'this could happen' and 'that could happen'. No, just stop.

---

Talk about sh*tty sources and knowledge. You sir are a hypocrite.

You are also wrong. Again.................

Because Orions belt is not situated 'above' either of the poles.

I am flabbergasted that you haven't worked this out on your own, it's either that you don't understand the concept of the poles being fixed, or you simply can't visualize the top of a spinning globe from a top-down perspective.
Of course that star isn't going to move. Now put yourself on the side of this fixed globe, what happens? You slide off round to the other side of the planet while the star stays in relatively the same place.

Also if you didn't know, it wasn't written by one person, it is a series of tales comprised into one understanding.

The Bible had multiple authors, please go and take a class on theological history.
If it had one author then why are the synoptic gospels 4 different versions of the same story with changed details? The 4th of which is dramatically different to the other 3?

Except if its apparently orbiting the sun, while earth itself is spinning. It cannot stay directly stationary over the poles, especially when the orbit of the earth around the sun is 149 million miles. Even though that zero to none compared to 433.3 light years, polaris would still show a slight movement, which it does not.

---

And if you looked, I said WASN'T written by one person, not WAS. When i said it wasn't written by one person, i was implying it was wrote by more than one person. And anyway, i thought you said the bible wasn't a reliable source. It really is, science proves it. So...

Get some sleep buddy. That's what I'm doing.

You're going to need to provide some calculations as to how much you're expecting it to move in the sky.
You've just said that it's zero to none, so why, from our perspective, would it move at all?

You're right, I misread what you said about authorship.
But if you can use the Bible as a source for scientific information then you must be using it as an educational text, like Plato's dialogues. So I could simply bring up the writings of Greek mathematicians like Pythagoras who say the Earth is round.

Unless you're using it as a divine platform of proof, in which case you need to prove that God exists.

I said 149 million miles, is zero to none compared to almost 4 trillion miles. Meaning that there is a big gap inbetween. Nevertheless polaris would still show a movement with a distance like that.

As I'm not an geologist or astronomer. I can't tell you the exact calculations, so I don't see why you would ask that, likely because you know I wont have a valid answer, the same as most people probably wouldn't. Fair point though.

---

And by all means bring up Pythagoras' mathematics, it only favours my side of the argument. Just remember that some of Pythagoras' work, like the theorem for example. Is deemed incorrect. He may say 'it's round', but it doesn't mean anything.

---

Might i also point out that the Pythagorean 'proof' of curvature, and the explanation on why the horizon appears flat. Is unobservable, unmeasurable and also unrepeatable. Making it nothing more than a hypothesis with NO evidence to back it up.

When in reality, the flat horizon, on a flat earth model, can be measured, observed and repeated. Having actual observable and measureable evidence, moreover than Pyhtagorean, and you can do this by youself with the right equipment.

---

Which leads me to my next explanation. Due to the 'curvature of the earth', every 30 miles the curvature should drop about 600ft, working out at about 8 inches per mile. The measurements dramatically changing every mile, also. This is based on Pythagoras' theory that the Earth's circumference is 25,000 miles.

Which is deemed correct in this day and age. When in reality it is not.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

---

The only problem is, you can see the Chicago skyline, from the shore of lake Michigan. Which using Pythagorean measurements, would be well under the 'curvature' of the earth, and totally invisible. However it's clearly visible..

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Actually, there are many things that can be seen, when they should be under the supposed 'curvature'. Like the view of France from Dover in England. Which spans over 20 miles. Should be accoring to Pythagoras, 266 feet below the horizon. Hmm..

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Or like the NYC skyline for example, taken from over 20 miles out.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

To take it to extremes, this is 40 miles out. By now, that skyline should be about 1066 feet below the horizon. The buildings0 should also be showing a slight, slant some directions. Funny that..

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

You get the point.

---

As for the Chicago skyline image, according to this guy, it's a superior mirage.. (By the way this is a different image, further proving it's nothing to do with the 'weather conditions')

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

---

When actually, a superior mirage looks like this, with the horizon inverted.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

More cover up lies from the mainstream media.. Of course though, if a regular viewer see's it on the news, they won't bother questioning, why would they? After all they believe everything that comes out their mouth.

---

I remember someone mentioning something about, how the flat earth wouldn't work because of gravity. Let me point out, that gravity is nothing but a theory, always has been.

The force itself cannot be measured, the only thing that backs it up is the fact you can go into zero-g if you are experimenting correctly, like for example nosediving in a plane.

---

This technique is used to film in the 'ISS' a.k.a, a nosediving aeroplane. Bare in mind an aeroplane can only have a zero-g, nosediving period of 27 seconds. They have to morph the separate videos together, and make it look like one take. Like shown in the video below..

Mute audio if you have to. I found it pretty annoying.

The crew, explained how it was done below.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

In case you want to look for yourself, the article is below

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

---

If you're wondering what I'm getting at, it is this. The technique used to shoot this video, making it look like it was shot in one take, when in actuality, there were several shots. They then, very smoothly morphed the clips together. All being 27 seconds long.

If a small band can do it, and make in unnoticeable, you can imagine the extent NASA could go to, to perfect this technique.

But as there a number of possibilities why zero-g can be performed; 1 being Parabolic Flight, the other being the speed and poisition of such flight. The other I'm not fully aware of, so if you would enlighten me, I would appreciate it.

For me, and any person with an intellect for that matter.. It is simply not enough evidence.

---

Back on topic..

I would also like to see you navigate the ocean using a globe, wouldn't work.. . Hence why radar essentially uses a flat earth map (Azimuthal Equidistant projection ~ north polar aspect). Only in a much smaller radius.

---

The same as GPS, does not work over some parts of the Ocean. Specifically because of certain flight paths they have to take. In order to make it appear as though GPS works overseas, on their model of the map.

---

Lastly. So far this is the best evidence I have seen yet, proving the sun is NOT 93 million miles away. Watch the whole video if you like, but for the best bit, skip to 2:30, watch the sun get further away.

The sun is not going under or over the earth as it is meant to appear (us apparently orbiting the sun). Instead is simply circling above us, like shown on the time zone gif, then hitting the vanishing point. Just like a road.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

---

If you don't know what the vanishing point is, it is the point where perspective converges to a point of vanishing (hence the name). In this case, where the two parallel lines meet on the horizon.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

It is the same as the earth, except the radius is obviously larger.

---

Ultimately, just remember, biblical explanations have been around longer than the theory of evolution.

Evolution is literally defining the opposite of the bibles claims. Lets face it though, if you can convince someone the the truth is Evolution (A), when the ACTUAL truth is the complete opposite (Z). It will be nearly impossible to convince the person that the truth is Z, because they're whole life they thought it was A.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

This is actually, believe it or not. To do with satanism, and it is called the law of reversal. If you don't believe me, research it.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

It is a brainwashing methodology, and a very f*cking clever one. The same way they have disconnected the youths, even some adults from society, everyone is now doing things virtually.

Instead of physically, even though in some aspects it easier, more useful and more helpful people have failed to realize the repercussions of said methods.

---

I will be adding this reply to main post, as it will be useful for everyone to see. In the meantime if you're going refute my claims, make sure you debunk everything I just said.

Once again, you're basing quite a bit of your information off of someone who we do not even know actually existed. Other than YouTube, I've noticed you've only really used religious beliefs to back your claims up (I didn't say completely). You probably believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old then, which has been scientifically disproven. The Earth is known to be roughly 4 billion years old, the Sun is roughly 4.5 billion years old and has gone through half of its stellar evolution.

You also claim that gravity only has one thing backing it up, this is simply not true. There are a few. One for example is the changing of your weight depending on your altitude. As you go higher in altitude, you weigh less, this is because at higher altitudes, the Earth's gravitational pull is slightly less on your body.

There is another experiment that allows us to visualize gravity. I'm not going to explain this one but rather I'll show a video.



I'm not going to begin about your Sun theory again since I have yet to watch the video but am running low on time at the moment.

As for the mirage, it is entirely possible. It's not just mainstream media using it, it is an actual phenomena that occurs in our world but must have specific conditions and the right amount of refraction, meaning, it could show as being upright.