Cavalry wrote 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.

I can see where you're coming from. The only thing is, if you look at all the official images, the land masses change, the colours, and if you look closely even the overall shape. Where you might say "It changes shape because of the oblate shape of earth".

Might I add that two "pictures" facing towards america, both the size of the country (land mass, as stated above) and shape of the earth are, kind of, distorted. So how can one image show an oblate earth (blue marble), but the other show a spherical earth? Especially if they basically facing the same angle.

---

Also, you can most definitely see a 3D shape in a 2D image, but only to a certain point. Especially an oblate spheroid compared with a perfect sphere .In a 2D image, oblate spheroid would look more like a sideways egg, and even though a sphere and an oblate spheroid are very similar. You can easily notice the difference.

If earth was an oblate spheroid, why does Google earth show a perfect sphere. When that is meant to be a totality of worldwide mapping. If that was it's true shape, surely it would appear so on Google Earth. Before you say its not 100% accurate or its only CGI, remember that the so called bulge in the equator would be some what visible.

---

And I don't have hatred for anyone, don't jump to conclusions. I am just curious about why they are lying. Before you say they're not, they really are. The evidence is everywhere.

Like this for example..

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Why does the earth appear the same size, the moon would appear here on earth? When in reality, the Earth should look roughly about 4X larger. More like this.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Bare in mind, they are both official 'images' from NASA, 1 taken before they had good tech, and one after. Notice how the terrains of the moons surface differentiate. How the colours of the land and sea are higher in contrast in the 1st image, with the second looking much more dull, pristine and realistic.

---

They release these images and people look at it with a blind eye, literally just thinking "wow!". Without the initial thought of "Well how do I know this is real?".

Like literally, its like Drake, Justin Bieber or anyone famous person saying something, all of their beloved fans would believe it without question, because they are blinded by their love for them.

The same as NASA followers are blinded by the curiosity of the earth's appearance. If an "official" entity shows you, of course you're going to believe it. It's natural.

But mate, what they're showing you.. its fake.

---

Oh by the way, a hypothesis is a claim with limited evidence, not without evidence, don't get ahead of yourself.. And no offence but I really don't see what a computer simulated universe has to do with this. Even if you are using it as an example.

---

And as for me going up against students with a degree, firstly, if you didn't know there is more than one field of science you can have a degree in . There are a lot of people with degrees that don't believe in the spherical earth. Because using there expetise, they have a new perspective on things. But of course it will be harder debating, because they have a degree......

---

When you say "It's easy to confuse logic with evidence", that's kinda right, but also kinda wrong. See there can be both logic and evidence in one presentation, as well as logic can easily be used as evidence. After all, that's how its found.. don't know what you're going on about.

---

Lastly, I can easily debunk someone in a debate, because I am debating with multiple people, one at a time. Which makes it, technically its own debate in itself. So where you're getting this information from I don't know.

And if the argument lacks the evidence it can easily be debunked or refuted, in one reply. Especially when someone is asking why someone hasn't flew into the the sun with an aeroplane

Schwarz wrote

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.

Funnily enough, in a way somebody already explained how this could happen, it's all due to perspective and the horizon. When he launched the rocket, the moon was not visible, however, due to the height that the rocket launched and the curvature of the Earth, the moon became visible. In numerous replies I see you saying people should do their research, yet you claim the Sun and the Moon are not where NASA says they are because of their apparent size being the same. This is also easily explained. Due to the very large size of the Sun (Relative to the Earth) and its distance, the apparent size of the Sun appears to be the same apparent size of the Moon. Roughly 0.5 degrees of arc in our sky. However, a part of that hypothesis, at least at some point, was true. If we were to go back to the age of the dinosaurs, let's go 150 million years into the past, the moon would in fact be closer to the Earth and appear larger than the Sun in our sky. Also I'd like to add a video as well or two if you want to watch them in sync that verify the Coriolis Effect. [ Register or Signin to view external links. ] If you go to the description there is a link that will allow you to watch two videos in pretty close synchronization.

5FDP_Jekyll wrote

Schwarz wrote

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.

Funnily enough, in a way somebody already explained how this could happen, it's all due to perspective and the horizon. When he launched the rocket, the moon was not visible, however, due to the height that the rocket launched and the curvature of the Earth, the moon became visible. In numerous replies I see you saying people should do their research, yet you claim the Sun and the Moon are not where NASA says they are because of their apparent size being the same. This is also easily explained. Due to the very large size of the Sun (Relative to the Earth) and its distance, the apparent size of the Sun appears to be the same apparent size of the Moon. Roughly 0.5 degrees of arc in our sky. However, a part of that hypothesis, at least at some point, was true. If we were to go back to the age of the dinosaurs, let's go 150 million years into the past, the moon would in fact be closer to the Earth and appear larger than the Sun in our sky. Also I'd like to add a video as well or two if you want to watch them in sync that verify the Coriolis Effect. [ Register or Signin to view external links. ] If you go to the description there is a link that will allow you to watch two videos in pretty close synchronization.

Ok, could you link me to the person who explained this, with the evidence that confirms what he is saying is true. Also im just saying, no matter how high you are in the sky, you cannot see the moon if its above Australia, when you're on the opposite side of the world. Its impossible on a spherical earth, so..

And being in the north or southern hemisphere, doesn't have any difference in which motion it drains in. It ls literally what ever motion is pulling the most (left or right), which creates a build up of force, then a whirlpool. It's a myth, and you can debunk it at home for yourself. There's no way im going to take the word of a popular youtuber, just because he has 3million subs, some food colouring and a hose pipe.

---

By the way, I never said the sun and moon are the same size, I said they appear the same size in the sky. Quite a hypocritical comment considering you just criticized me for telling people to do their research.

---

One last thing, kind of, off topic but i just want to point out something you can do in the comfort of your own home. A clock is a great example of the flat earth, and how the sun and the moon fit in perfectly. The sun represents the big hand, and the mood the small. If you do your calculation correctly, you will see how it fits in with lunar, solar and sidereal days.

Also did you just say "lets go back 150 million years into the past"? No one was alive back then. So how can you be certain of this claim, there's actually no proof the moon is gradually moving further away. Its just claims from NASA using a visual representation. For me, not good enough.

But seriously though, what the f*ck?! You're saying my claims are wrong, but yet you attempt to disprove it with an imaginary trip back in time..

This is what i mean, some of you people seriously don't understand what you're saying, I am providing you with sources, logical explanations and other knowledge.. yet i have ignorant people disliking my posts, without even taking my side into account. It's actually insanely ignorant and idiotic.

Veritasium is not just a popular YouTuber, he has two physics degrees, a bachelor in Engineering Physics and a doctorate in Physics Education Research.

As for the moon. Due to the curvature of the Earth, which by the way you can see in that video you linked me, it depends on where the moon is currently located. As you go higher into the atmosphere/space you can see more. If you are high enough, you can easily see the moon at the same time from two different locations. All you have to do is draw simple lines. And my trip back in time, obviously it was a hypothetical situation, however, we do know the moon is moving away from the Earth, it is just such a small number that over our lifetime, we hardly notice the difference.

Also I did not say you claim the Sun and the Moon were the same size. I said the apparent size. AKA the size that they appear from our perspective on the ground. If I was talking about them being the same size as you put it in your last reply, I would be talking about the true size, however, I was not.

Also please explain in more clarity how a clock works perfectly for the Flat Earth Theory?

Cavalry wrote 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.

Schwarz wrote [font=Georgia]I can see where you're coming from. The only thing is, if you look at all the official images, the land masses change, the colours, and if you look closely even the overall shape. Where you might say "It changes shape because of the oblate shape of earth".

Might I add that two "pictures" facing towards america, both the size of the country (land mass, as stated above) and shape of the earth are, kind of, distorted. So how can one image show an oblate earth (blue marble), but the other show a spherical earth? Especially if they basically facing the same angle.

The landmasses and color change because some satellites move around the Earth, they aren't all in fixed positions orbiting the planet.

One image doesn't show an oblate spheroid, it can't from that range, the differential is 40km, not 5000. They both appear spherical to the same degree, and the reason why America looks different in both pictures could be down to a lot of different factors, angle of the shot, the lens being used, the shutter speed, exposure and contrast settings, the list goes on.

---

Also, you can most definitely see a 3D shape in a 2D image, but only to a certain point. Especially an oblate spheroid compared with a perfect sphere .In a 2D image, oblate spheroid would look more like a sideways egg, and even though a sphere and an oblate spheroid are very similar. You can easily notice the difference.

If earth was an oblate spheroid, why does Google earth show a perfect sphere. When that is meant to be a totality of worldwide mapping. If that was it's true shape, surely it would appear so on Google Earth. Before you say its not 100% accurate or its only CGI, remember that the so called bulge in the equator would be some what visible.

No, the Earth wouldn't appear to be egg shaped because an oblate spheroid doesn't automatically equal an egg. The difference is 40km at the equator, not visible from a distance like the ones from which the pictures were taken.

---

And I don't have hatred for anyone, don't jump to conclusions. I am just curious about why they are lying. Before you say they're not, they really are. The evidence is everywhere.

Perhaps hatred was too strong of a word for mistrust of a government funded agency who uses your tax money to spread lies?

Click to View Content

Why does the earth appear the same size, the moon would appear here on earth? When in reality, the Earth should look roughly about 4X larger. More like this.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Bare in mind, they are both official 'images' from NASA, 1 taken before they had good tech, and one after. Notice how the terrains of the moons surface differentiate. How the colours of the land and sea are higher in contrast in the 1st image, with the second looking much more dull, pristine and realistic.

If you want an answer for this, take it to a science forum and see what they say.
I'm not going to debate what I'm not educated enough on a topic to know about.

---

They release these images and people look at it with a blind eye, literally just thinking "wow!". Without the initial thought of "Well how do I know this is real?".

Like literally, its like Drake, Justin Bieber or anyone famous person saying something, all of their beloved fans would believe it without question, because they are blinded by their love for them.

The same as NASA followers are blinded by the curiosity of the earth's appearance. If an "official" entity shows you, of course you're going to believe it. It's natural.

But mate, what they're showing you.. its fake.

NASA employs thousands from all over the globe, you are saying that not one of them would come forward with evidence proving that all of these pictures are fake.

---

Oh by the way, a hypothesis is a claim with limited evidence, not without evidence, don't get ahead of yourself.. And no offence but I really don't see what a computer simulated universe has to do with this. Even if you are using it as an example.

What a computer simulated Universe has to do with this is that I could come on here and make a post about how everything is simulated by a computer. And people could point out why I'm wrong or why the evidence is lacking, but I could turn around and say 'Ghosts are actually computer viruses.'
It makes sense within the logic of the proposition, but not in reality or anything based on evidence.
This is what you are doing when you say things like 'The sun is directly above the Earth and much smaller which is why it looks far away and time zones are explained.'
Where is the evidence for this claim? And if there is evidence for this claim, that's fine you've proven me wrong, but post it on a science forum and post screenshots of their replies on this topic. It is easy to debate laymen about something where intimate knowledge is required.

---

And as for me going up against students with a degree, firstly, if you didn't know there is more than one field of science you can have a degree in . There are a lot of people with degrees that don't believe in the spherical earth. Because using there expetise, they have a new perspective on things. But of course it will be harder debating, because they have a degree......

I said, ... if you went up against degree students in physics fields ... fields being plural.
My point stands, you are convincing laymen that the Earth is flat without having your hypotheses scholarly analysed. You have said that Wikipedia is a dubious source but this is exactly what you are doing. Wikipedia is not peer reviewed, and neither is any of your information peer reviewed by PhD's in physics fields.

---

When you say "It's easy to confuse logic with evidence", that's kinda right, but also kinda wrong. See there can be both logic and evidence in one presentation, as well as logic can easily be used as evidence. After all, that's how its found.. don't know what you're going on about.

What I'm going on about is that all of your 'evidence' is just logical reasoning, you aren't giving us numbers or data, you're giving us 'This picture looks strange, why does it look strange, because they're lying to us all!'

---

Lastly, I can easily debunk someone in a debate, because I am debating with multiple people, one at a time. Which makes it, technically its own debate in itself. So where you're getting this information from I don't know.

No, each individual debate has to end. You could have said in your last reply that you have debunked me, but you haven't because I have just replied now.
Anyone who you have said 'debunked' to in this thread could reply later, so you won't have debunked them.

And if the argument lacks the evidence it can easily be debunked or refuted, in one reply. Especially when someone is asking why someone hasn't flew into the the sun with an aeroplane

No matter how dull an argument, they can always reply.

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.

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.

I'm educated enough to debate your methodology and use of information. If you haven't worked out that it's what I'm doing then you haven't been paying attention to my replies.

Cavalry 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.

I'm educated enough to debate your methodology and use of information. If you haven't worked out that it's what I'm doing then you haven't been paying attention to my replies.

I'm paying very close attention to your replies. So far.. you have 'refuted' my claims with your own assumptions. With the only 'credited' source being Wikipedia.

---

I'd like to get back to you on how you said about the UN, having to use a North polar aspect ~ Azimuthal Equidistant projection, because it is apparently the only thing they could fit in a circle to show all nations.

Firstly. No one said they had to use a circle for their shape of logo, secondly. There are dozens of different projections showing all nations.

---

The first one is a north polar aspect of the AE (the most accurate *I think*). Some of the others are just seriously, inaccurate, but still fit in all nations to a certain degree.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Now look at the equatorial aspect (second image) it easily fits in all the nations. So why use the other AE?
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
The others, still fit in all nations.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

So you see, what you said, was nonsense.

---

The reason they used the North polar aspect of the AE, is because it is the most accurate map to date. More accurate than NASAs. The other reason being; Club 33 love to mock the deceived. Because they wont even notice it.

For the people who do, they are labelled 'conspiracy theorist nuts' and 'liars'. Even though them same 'conspiracy theory nuts' and 'liars' have theory's that have not only been proved true. But are still being proved up to this very day.

---

So no, you're wrong again. This time, before you reply. Make sure you have some evidence and/or knowledge to back up your claims.

Much obliged.

Schwarz wrote

Cavalry 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.

I'm educated enough to debate your methodology and use of information. If you haven't worked out that it's what I'm doing then you haven't been paying attention to my replies.

I'm paying very close attention to your replies. So far.. you have 'refuted' my claims with your own assumptions. With the only 'credited' source being Wikipedia.

---

I'd like to get back to you on how you said about the UN, having to use a North polar aspect ~ Azimuthal Equidistant projection, because it is apparently the only thing they could fit in a circle to show all nations.

Firstly. No one said they had to use a circle for their shape of logo, secondly. There are dozens of different projections showing all nations.

---

The first one is a north polar aspect of the AE (the most accurate *I think*). Some of the others are just seriously, inaccurate, but still fit in all nations to a certain degree.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
Now look at the equatorial aspect (second image) it easily fits in all the nations. So why use the other AE?
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]
The others, still fit in all nations.
[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

So you see, what you said, was nonsense.

---

The reason they used the North polar aspect of the AE, is because it is the most accurate map to date. More accurate than NASAs. The other reason being; Club 33 love to mock the deceived. Because they wont even notice it.

For the people who do, they are labelled 'conspiracy theorist nuts' and 'liars'. Even though them same 'conspiracy theory nuts' and 'liars' have theory's that have not only been proved true. But are still being proved up to this very day.

---

So no, you're wrong again. This time, before you reply. Make sure you have some evidence and/or knowledge to back up your claims.

Much obliged.

Hahahaha. That is amazing. You obviously aren't paying very much attention to what I'm saying because I haven't said anything on this entire thread about the UN symbol.
Pryzel is the one you're having that debate with. I know, all of us sheep must blend into one anti-conspiracy person to you right?
Difficult to keep track of all the different arguments being brought up against you?

I'm disagreeing with your logic, not with your evidence. So when you keep bringing up 'evidence' to refute me it is obvious that you aren't reading what I'm saying.

I just noticed that you used Bible quotes to back up something which you consider a 'scientific fact.'
I take back what I said about not being educated enough on this topic to discuss it with you because your point about Polaris is easy to refute.
Polaris is 433.8 lightyears away. The Earth travels 93 million miles around the sun and rotates on a constant axis, we're not just sliding all over the place.
You really think that Polaris is going to be shifting about the sky at that distance when we move that little?
This is literally like aiming a camera at an object a mile away and moving the camera 1mm. The object isn't going to move noticeably at that distance.

Considering you said in your Rant version of this thread that the Earth is comparable to an orange and that's why it's flat, because gravity would keep water on the orange while it's spinning, I have to conclude that you actually have no education when it comes to physics and that you have watched a couple of documentaries, Googled 'Best flat earth arguments' and are now spewing them onto this website without even thinking if they make sense.