The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
I got the 7 pm CST and the 8 pm CST but the 9 pm if I take it, will be of porch lights. I don't see the point.
Sorry [MENTION=595]Knight[/MENTION], I was occupied last evening. I only got one photo at 01:00 UCT. I'll post it if you like.
I have a question for the FET (Flat Earth Theory) folks to think about. I'd love it if they attempted an answer here but I'm not expecting one so...
We've been taking all these sunset pics for last few days and the FET (Flat Earth Theory) claims that what we are witnessing is the Sun moving to and then beyond the "vanishing point".
With that in mind, how far away is the Sun when this happens? That is, how far away is the vanishing point?
Now, when the Moon is full, it's rising just as the Sun is setting, which means that it's about the same distance away from an observer on the Earth as the Sun is, which means that the Moon must be something close to twice as far away from the Sun as the observer.
So, if the "vanishing point" is a function of distance, as the FET claims, how is it that the Moon is still being fully illuminated by the Sun? How is it that Sun isn't long past the vanishing point for the Moon?
Prediction: Someone will deny that the Moon is reflecting light from the Sun. :bang:
Clete
I have a question for the FET (Flat Earth Theory) folks to think about. I'd love it if they attempted an answer here but I'm not expecting one so...
We've been taking all these sunset pics for last few days and the FET (Flat Earth Theory) claims that what we are witnessing is the Sun moving to and then beyond the "vanishing point".
With that in mind, how far away is the Sun when this happens? That is, how far away is the vanishing point?
Now, when the Moon is full, it's rising just as the Sun is setting, which means that it's about the same distance away from an observer on the Earth as the Sun is, which means that the Moon must be something close to twice as far away from the Sun as the observer.
So, if the "vanishing point" is a function of distance, as the FET claims, how is it that the Moon is still being fully illuminated by the Sun? How is it that Sun isn't long past the vanishing point for the Moon?
Prediction: Someone will deny that the Moon is reflecting light from the Sun. :bang:
Clete
Good questions. In my mind and model the earth could be 100,000 miles in overall size. So what IS the vanishing point? Do you disagree that God created two great lights? Of course I believe there is some reflection from the sun but not all the time as most think and are taught. Back to the sun, being 32 to 62 miles in size and the SAME size as the moon (eclipses) and the sun being APPROXIMATELY 3,000 miles high . . .
I haven't yet seen a FE explanation for how LOW the sun goes in his circuit. As a bridegroom coming out of his chamber and the earth SET (again) as a tabernacle FOR the sun, and the sun also hastens back to the place where he arose . . Anyway, I would only be guessing at a vanishing point so this is not "Official Flat Earth Society and corporate sponsored Conferences" doctrine but I'd say maybe 10,000 miles away and 500 miles high? Maybe lower? Where the sun goes or the actual circuit of the sun after it sets locally in an Enclosed Flat Earth and Cosmos is unknown.
Much more advanced and intelligent people than me could probably better guesses or a "model" of how this works in FE.
Last edited:
That contradicts what most "moon landing was a hoax" conspiracists say about the landing video...
Specifically this image:
So, make up your mind, PJ, either it was too bright, or it wasn't bright enough.
OR, just maybe, could it be that the brightness of the surface of the moon was affected by where they were on the surface...? :think:
Edit: If a position contradicts itself, then wouldn't that make it wrong?
Quick side track....
Curious.... what do you make of these maps version of Australia? All of these maps show Australia has being a massive continent. Seems like that's something the Flat Earth proponents could easily check. You don't need a satellite to accurately map an area.
After all... we know that Australia is about 2500 miles wide and the United States is just under 2700 miles wide. Yet these maps show Australia as being well over twice as wide as the United States.
I copied the area of Australia and placed it over the USA to show as a comparison.
Click to enlarge...
View attachment 26408
Patrick don't you think that's an obvious flaw in all of these maps? I've driven across the US and I can verify it's width in miles and there are 10's of thousands of people who have traversed Australia therefore we can know for a fact these maps are not accurate. Thoughts?
Okay thanks Patrick.
Curious.... what do you make of these maps version of Australia? All of these maps show Australia has being a massive continent. Seems like that's something the Flat Earth proponents could easily check. You don't need a satellite to accurately map an area.
After all... we know that Australia is about 2500 miles wide and the United States is just under 2700 miles wide. Yet these maps show Australia as being well over twice as wide as the United States.
I copied the area of Australia and placed it over the USA to show as a comparison.
Click to enlarge...
View attachment 26408
Patrick don't you think that's an obvious flaw in all of these maps? I've driven across the US and I can verify it's width in miles and there are 10's of thousands of people who have traversed Australia therefore we can know for a fact these maps are not accurate. Thoughts?
My take is that they are old maps and also what do today's flat maps and similar maps show?
Well... all the maps you supplied show the same thing.
That's why I asked you to supply a map that you feel is accurate.
Mapping the earth could be done by Flat Earth folks without a satellite. Seems like something that would be of value to people who believe this theory. :idunno:
So.... do you have a better FE map or should I continue to use these??
By the way.... Australia was just one example. None of the continents on these maps could possibly be accurate.
I have no qualms about using those. Just saying, I would be interested to see a paper map of the world with Australia etc. from TODAY'S depictions. I'll search, not a flat earth map but simply a flat paper or a spread out World Map from NASA or whoever makes maps that the show as of today or 5 years ago etc. ANY current flat map available, Rand McNally or something.
Shouldn't there be an updated Flat Earth map?? I.e., a map of the earth and the continents made by Flat Earth proponents??
I mean... after all... if you want the world to know that the current maps of the world are wrong because the earth isn't a sphere shouldn't one of the first things you produce is a map of what the world is REALLY like??
Just sayin.
:chuckle: In a perfect flat enclosed earth and cosmos, yes !!! Maybe I'm going to have to emerge on the flat earth "circuit" and get these people off their duffs, lol.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Doesn't the azimuthal equidistant map wrap perfectly around the ball?
Right Divider
Body part
azimuthal equidistant projection
Uh yeah... and when it does wrap around a ball it makes perfect sense. But it doesn't make sense for the Flat Earth theory.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Uh yeah... and when it does wrap around a ball it makes perfect sense. But it doesn't make sense for the Flat Earth theory.
Yay!! I finally get a to post a video.
:chuckle:
Have you checked out the crazy flight patterns that do not make sense on a ball?
I would think that this would be the preeminent thing to do for those that believe in a flat earth. Heck, simply showing that the width of Australia is way off and also that the oceans near the "ice wall" are dramatically larger than current knowledge would be a bombshell. Just charter a jet and measure New Zealand and Australia... prove the world map wrong. It wouldn't even be that expensive.
- Status