The earth is flat and we never went to the moon

[DFT_Dave]

I want to draw this thread to a close.

I want to thank you all very much for all your participation.

What a rush, my mind is has been on steroids with this.

Being the devil's advocate has been fun for me.

I hope my reputation survives.

I want to create other threads that summarize the categories that have developed and let those be a place for more in depth debate for those who are interested in this subject or in a particular aspect of it. This thread is to broad and I think it needs to be broken up.

Here is one category I see regarding flat earth vs globe earth. I will add others in my next post. Some of you may also have an idea about what should be a category. Post your suggestions.

1. Is the Genesis account a flat earth along with the other Ancient cosmologies, or does the Biblical record describe a globe?

--Dave

[DFT_Dave]

That's true therefore why do you reject experts only on the globe side of the debate? Why not occasionally reject the "experts" on the flat earth side of the debate?

Not only that but..... on this thread you have The Berean, Rocketman, and myself, all of which have a direct connection and involvement in sending satellites into space and putting folks on the moon. You reject our testimony outright and favor the YouTube videos you find online. Therefore you must not think much of us.

You have clearly gone past "exploring this topic". You are a flat earther. You may as well own it.

No, I have not rejected any arguments, nor have I personally accepted flat earth.

--Dave

[ddevonb]

Here is a short list of observable proofs for a flat earth:

1. There is no visible curvature.

2. All bodies of water are absolutely level.

3. All aircraft move over a stationary flat plain.

Arguments against these facts contradict sensory perception.

--Dave

So do you know what proofs are? You have simply made a list of unproven claims as evidence for another unproven claim. Claims are never evidence for other claims.

[ddevonb]

Incidentally, I almost didn't post the above because it concedes ground that isn't justified. Let me explain...

The fact that very few (or even none - if there were actually none at all) flights go directly over the South Pole only proves that there is no demand for planes to do so. It isn't even evidence that the Earth is flat.

Put another way, if the flat Earthers want to point to the lack of great circle routes over the south pole as evidence that the Earth is flat, then what do they do with all the great circle routes that airlines fly every single day all over the rest of the world? Orthodromic (great circle) flights ARE NOT even close to being the shortest route between two points on a flat plane. Are the airlines all over the planet spending the millions and millions of fuel dollars flying way out of their way just to perpetuate a worldwide fraud designed to trick the world's population into thinking that the Earth is a sphere?

Attachment 25147

So, just to reiterate, the reason I went ahead and posted that portion of the Wikipedia article is because it gave a few examples of routes that do in fact go over Antarctica, if not directly over the pole itself. The point being simply that such routes do in fact exist. But as I said, even if they didn't exist, other orthodromic routes do exist. Thousands of them all over the world all day, all night, every day and every night.

Resting in Him,
Clete

There is another very good reason airlines don't fly over there. The simply do want to carry all of the extra survival gear that would be required if they had to go down there. Also the winds are a factor.

[ddevonb]

This video in two minutes says more about fake videos from NASA than any other I have seen.

No one can refute this!!!

--Dave

Yor're joking right?

[rocketman]

I think that the purpose is clear. When you know better than everybody else, and better than all those so-called experts, it gives you a warm feeling inside. This works especially well if you don't actually know much and have a hard time following facts and arguments. Why feel ignorant when one can feel superior?

It is as logical of an explanation as any I guess...

[rocketman]

One one side either ignores everything the other says, or claims that the facts are all lies, refuses to go outside and watch what actually happens in the real world- there is no debate. There is one guy sticking to his preconceived notion no matter what.

Pretty embarrassing isn't it...

[DFT_Dave]

So do you know what proofs are? You have simply made a list of unproven claims as evidence for another unproven claim. Claims are never evidence for other claims.

These are three facts of reality that are self evident.

You and I and everyone else in the world "see" and experience a motionless earth.

You and I and everyone else do not see a curved earth when we fly commercially. We see only flat straight horizons that rise up before us in every direction. From our perspective the sun, moon, and stars are various lights that move across the sky.

All lakes and oceans appear level in every direction with flat straight horizons. Modern high powered cameras are showing distant things over land and water that should not be visible over the curvature of the earth and cannot be explained as mere mirages. Video is showing stars that bear no resemblance to the planets we have been shown by NASA.

A spinning globe is not what we see or experience in every day life, it's unverifiable to ordinary folk and everyday experience.

It can be argued that moon phases and eclipses, ships that disappear into the distance hull first, have other possible interpretations that conform to a flat stationary earth and are not absolute proof of a spinning globe. Modern wireless communications have other possible explanations than global orbiting satellites.

Apollo moon landings are the only absolute empirical proof of a spinning globe earth, only if it really happened.

As far as I'm concerned this is a worthy debate. I'm personally not into name calling, or questioning some ones sanity or character, which seems to be the go to arguments of globalists. I could go on but I think you get the point.

--Dave

[Clete]

You can't derive a "true" distance from an assumed globe cosmology and then impose that calculation on a flat earth model.

The argument is propositional, "if" this "then" that.

"If" the earth is a globe and revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth, "then" we can calculate the sun to be at a distance of so many miles away when we use a triangulation with the moon.

This does not prove the globe model or the distance of the sun from the earth.

--Dave

Thank you for posting an actual counter argument!

You argument here fails because no such assumptions have to be made. It doesn't matter at all if the Moon or Earth are orbiting the Sun when one triangulates their relative distances from the Earth. There is one single assumption, that the Moon is illuminated by the Sun. If that assumption is correct then the triangulation works.

So unless the flat-earthers want to claim the Moon to be illuminated by something other than the Sun then this argument runs their cosmology through the philosophical equivalent of this...

[Nick M]

[B][SIZE=4]
1. Is the Genesis account a flat earth along with the other Ancient cosmologies, or does the Biblical record describe a globe?

--Dave

The water would have flowed over the edges of the flat earth, since it went 15 cubits above the highest mountain. The "old testament" says sphere.

[Clete]

These are three facts of reality that are self evident.

I wonder how many of these will end up being actually facts?

You and I and everyone else in the world "see" and experience a motionless earth.

This is stated rather losely but granting the point, it is only evidence that we and the planet are moving together. If the planet was motionless or moving at a million miles per hour, it would feel the same to us. Therefore, this is not evidence of a stationary Earth.

You and I and everyone else do not see a curved earth when we fly commercially. We see only flat straight horizons that rise up before us in every direction.

What we see, regardless of where we see it from, is not in conctradiction to the idea that the Earth is a very large globe. In fact, what we see is precisely in keeping with that idea and contradicts the flat earther cosmology because, contrary to their claim, the horizon does in fact drop with added altitude, which would not happen on a flat plain.

From our perspective the sun, moon, and stars are various lights that move across the sky.

Again, this is precisely what would happen if the Earth is a spinning sphere. It, like the first point, is therefore not evidence of a flat Earth.

All lakes and oceans appear level in every direction with flat straight horizons.

Only if you aren't looking carefully. Bridge builders compensate for the curvature of the Earth at 8 inches per mile squared.

Modern high powered cameras are showing distant things over land and water that should not be visible over the curvature of the earth and cannot be explained as mere mirages.

Actually, yes they can be perfectly explained by exactly that.

Video is showing stars that bear no resemblance to the planets we have been shown by NASA.

No, actually they don't.

A spinning globe is not what we see or experience in every day life, it's unverifiable to ordinary folk and everyday experience.

Swing the chain dangling from your ceiling fan and see if it doesn't swing out an ellipse, no matter how carefully you try to swing it in a straight line.

It can be argued that moon phases and eclipses, ships that disappear into the distance hull first, have other possible interpretations that conform to a flat stationary earth and are not absolute proof of a spinning globe.

It can be argued that purple unicorns populated the Earth before fish filled the sea. That doesn't mean that such arguments make any sense or conform to anything scientifically testable.

Modern wireless communications have other possible explanations than global orbiting satellites.

No, they don't!

Apollo moon landings are the only absolute empirical proof of a spinning globe earth, only if it really happened.

If so then every NASA mission to space also qualifies as absolute empiracle proof as well.

But this actually presupposes a falsehood. It is not necessary to get a long distance view of the Earth in order to empiracally prove its spinning spherical nature, as has been shown multiple times on this thread already.

As far as I'm concerned this is a worthy debate. I'm personally not into name calling, or questioning some ones sanity or character, which seems to be the go to arguments of globalists. I could go on but I think you get the point.

--Dave

This is just about insulting! The implication being here that I and others haven't bothered to make any real arguments but have instead leaned on our "go to argument" which is to call people names and question their sanity.

Which is the worse insult, David; calling people who say and believe insanely stupid things, "insane" and "stupid" or implying the intellectual dishonesty of people who have spent dozens of hours, at your behest, trying to convince you with real logic and actual arguments that the Earth isn't flat and that there is no multi-generational, omninational conspiracy to convince people of a meaningless lie that would do nothing to change the way anyone lives their lives?

Clete

[Clete]

So Dave,

I see that you're wanting to land the plane here but I've spent way too much time here to let it end without getting some sort of verdict.

If you were sitting in a jury box and you had to decide whether the powers the be were guilty or innocent of sticking the pupoluation into beling the Earth was round when it was actually flat, would you render a verdict of guilty or innocent?

I phrase it that way because the burden of proof really does lie in the flat-earther's lap here. They are making extraordinary claims that require extrordinary evidence. Do you believe that burden to have been met?

Clete

[Knight]

Buwuhahahaha.....

[User Name]

What a rush, my mind is has been on steroids with this.

Sad to have seen such a waste of energy. If only you had focused on something productive?

[Knight]

I hope my reputation survives.

I think that is yet to be determined.

We are still holding out hope that you will say you put a lot of thought into the evidence presented and what we have said here on TOL and realize now how silly this flat earth theory is.

So, what's it gonna be? Shaquille O’Neal and the other nut-balls or truth, reason, mathematics, science, and common sense?