Search results

Don't say stupid things. Dave's been totally honest and up front with what he's been doing from the beginning.

That's exactly what he was saying! What else could he have been saying? He was basically saying, "Look at those shadows of the clouds falling straight away from the light source that is causing them! Now, watch this! The shadow made by this piece of cardboard falls straight away from the light...

I'm sorry to be so insulting in some of my responses to these videos. Just understand that it isn't aimed at you. I just cannot get my head around that fact there are people who think that these arguments pass for clear thinking. It offends me as an insult to my inteligence. How can anyone find...

This feels like video 1000 that is 100% stupidity! The corpuscular rays do not in any way whatsoever contradict the notion that the Sun is far away. The guy in the video casts a shadow of a six in diameter piece of cardboard with holes in it and says "See! The rays don't splay out!" The...

Also JR, There is no need to suppose that the mountains we see today were even there when the Flood happened. The same event that caused the Flood could also have created the mountains thus removing the need for 30,000 ft deep waters. The Hydroplate Theory

I have seen this question asked, well the gist of it anyway, on other sites. The only plausible (and I use that word trepidatiously) answer I've seen is that the flood waters were held in by the crystalline dome fermament, the termination of which is somewhere beyond the ice-wall. This is nuts...

Dave, I don't mean to bombard you with stuff here but the mention of the ice-wall got me to wondering about something. Up until you posted that picture I was imagining the ice-wall to be an immensely large impenetrable barrier with a totally mysterious no man's land beyond it. Is that what the...

One of the biggest problems with the idea that the Sun and Moon are close is perspective. Things take up more or less of your field of view depending upon how close or far away they are. One object very close might take up a very large percentage, perhaps even all of your field of view. While...

Hey Dave, What do flat earthers say causes what we refer to as gravity? Why are things attracted to the ground? Why do things fall? I'm certain this was brought up before but it's one horse we haven't beaten to death yet so I thought I'd bring it up again.

You misunderstand. Much of modern physics, String Theory in particular, is conceptually untestable. It isn't a lack of technology or intelligence; it is that there are large swaths of what passes for science today are fundamentally untestable and will forever be so. It is, I believe, a...

I do not want to debate physics with you but I just wanted to point out that what you've said here is an over statement. There are things which Einstein's theories predict that have been observed and there are aspects of his theory that have proven very useful and on that basis, it can be said...

I don't deny that someone could be honestly confused about the facts surrounding the issue of a flat vs round Earth but to think that random websites that show images of planets (or whatever) are little seedling lies planted by the conspiracy leaders is nut-job city and some of the videos you've...

I totally understand the sentiment and would normally agree but you've gotta read the thread. He's just making the arguments (for now). Trust me. I've had plenty enough history with David to know that he's no idiot.

I think I've demonstrated, not only here in this thread, but over the decades that I've participated in this forum, that I make an argument when one is warranted and ridicule the stupid and insane when that is warranted. Not all ideas are equal and not all deserve our respect. Some ideas really...

No pics. You'll just have to take my word for it or else go to Craig's List and buy a cheap telescope and look for yourself. This is what it looks like though (only a lot smaller and less clear - the image in the link is taken with a much higher quality telescope)...

The videos are lies, not NASA. I have seen both a gibbous and crescent Venus with my own eyes as have countless millions of people all over the world and throughout the history of astronomy beginning with Galileo. How much weight do you ascribe to first person witness testimony? I have seen it...

No you don't, David. You don't have to prove a hypothesis in order to perform an experiment based upon it. That fact is that if the earth was stationary, they'd have attempted such an observation and would have seen nothing. There would have been no shift in the appearant position of any star...

If you refuse to give me the gist of the arguments in the videos you post, I refuse to watch them.

I have seen the phases of Venus with my own $50 telescope. If you were to do the observation tonight, you'd see a small crescent sliver. It would be oriented with the ends of the crescent pointed upward (away from the horizon (and the Sun) like a smile.

NO! It most certainly is not circular! (I did like the pun though!) Before the measurement is made, the word you give it is "hypothesis". You then run the experiment (i.e. take two images, six months apart.) and see if there is a measurable parallax. If there is, then your hypothesis is...