The mapped Earth is essentially a disk, with the North pole in the center, making the South pole non-existent but South is whatever direction happens to be opposite to North. This means observers in the southern hemisphere (aka in the outer half of the disk) can be looking in opposite directions if they are on opposite sides of the disk but both "looking South".

Traveling East-West takes the route of a circle, such as following the Equator. This is what our friend was trying to convey to Original Position with a plane supposedly making small adjustments in its orientation, but left/right rather than up/down, to maintain that circular path. North-South circumnavigations would be impossible, and so are declared to have never happened and to be impossible.

The oceans are kept in place by an enormous ice wall around the perimeter. This ice wall is Antarctica. Armed soldiers are stationed all around this perimeter to prevent civilians from exploring whatever resources are beyond this perimeter. Photographs of very short stretches of what might actually be Antarctica, are shown as "proof" of this massive ice wall.

It must be true because of the Antarctic Treaty, which regulates who can go there and for what purposes. This is seen as highly suspicious by Flat Earther's, despite the fact that civilians cannot visit a single country beyond their own without obtaining similar permissions first.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Wait... so you didn't *prove* anything, but you've "looked at" proofs? Why can't others do that? Why do you try to denigrate them when they say that's what they've done? Why do you believe what you believe? And why are you so intellectually unbalanced as to require others to do something that you're not even doing yourself?

The burden of proof falls on the people making claims. In this case, that's *YOU*. You were the one who asserted the following:

Why should anyone believe you? Why do you believe you? How did you come to believe this? You've gone beyond just speculating the possibility and have moved into positive assertions at this point.

If this were true, then you would be honestly analyzing your statements. Instead, when challenged with elementary logic, you've merely avoided answering the question. This basically shows you to be a liar.


I'll also point out that your words indicate here that you're entirely convinced of your position, yet you've proved *NOTHING*. At most, you have "plans" to conduct your own tests. You have demonstrated "blind faith in things" and have shown an inability to "question yourself."

I'll give you one more chance to say something that gives me a reason to take you seriously.

For some unknown reason, you've triggered my memory of the "Book of Urantia"; good luck and best wishes.

"Book of Urantia" :

https://www.urantia.org/urantia-book...ia-book-online

That video was laughable
Also had “flat earth debunk” in title kinda sketchy (why not have a title like “a level experiment showing the curve”) it just seems odd that people would waste their time “debunking”. Like if someone said the moon was pink I wouldn’t feel the need to prove them wrong. I would just mind my own business.

I understand questioning and a back and forth if someone is genuinely interested in it but to just argue in circles makes no sense.

The video supports my case bc in the video the horizon is there appearing to rise to eye level. That video the camera angle is off and looks like they’re distoriting it.

Cities should be hidden behind curvature when viewed from 40-60 miles across water but never are.. please someone explain this

If I thought there was any significant chance that the earth is flat, I would immediately drop everything else I was doing to focus on proving this, which should be quite easy with airplanes and video cameras. Unlike the YouTubers currently arguing for a flat earth, I know how to present evidence in a manner that is trustworthy and persuasive to educated people, so I would be able to make millions off of the books I could write. Plus, I would have uncovered the greatest conspiracy in history, so that would be cool.

But I guess you think we should just mind our own business.

Have you ever been 40-60 miles out into the ocean?

Still not an argument.

Who cares about the title, I even made a point of saying to ignore it. The title is irrelevant to the content.

As to why people feel the need to correct one another, who knows? Fascinating question though, isn't it?

Yeeeeeees!

Nooooooo!

Never mind that the video shows the opposite of what you described (and what does "the camera angle is off" even mean?).
More troubling is that you think the video content can't be trusted, yet simultaneously you think the video content supports your case! That's a bit of a messy position. Is it trustworthy? Not trustworthy? Only trustworthy if you think it supports your position?

I don't know how someone ends up in a place where the only way to support their position is to deny anything that they think gets in the way.



The whole point of my showing you this video was to give you an easily reproducible experiment that you could personally duplicate. Earlier you even said you were working on ways to better explain or show Flat Earth or something (btw, working towards a preconceived conclusion is not remotely science, if that matters to you). What're the odds you consider doing this, or something similar? More important is why you're so unlikely to try.



For unknown but surely fascinating reasons, I'm really trying to make a genuine effort with you. Can't you do the same?


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The last time I was in airplane, I saw the curvature of the earth. The last time I looked at the earth's shadow on the moon, it was rounded. When I was at sea, ships and oil rigs crept up out of the horizon, but if the ocean was flat pane, they should simply be visible in full. If the earth is flat the horizon must be the limit of vision, but it is not.

You can't argue with someone who ignores such evidence. If you close your mind, then any belief can be supported. That gives no room for discussion.

Though that isn't really what is happening here. What is happening here is just trolling.

Courtesy of the Politics forum



https://twitter.com/republicofmath/s...027089409?s=19

Your oil rig example has been proven that with high zoom cameras that ships that appear to go over the horizon can be brought back into focus. Thus proving they are not visible because of our limited vision and not because they go over the “proverbial” horizon.

This is smoking gun proof that it’s not a ball... this was the reason touted in school as proof for why we live on a ball.

I will be buying a p900 to do this test myself may take a couple months as those cameras are near impossible to get a hold of.. but I will try to make my own video and post it as proof. Give me 6-12mos on this one.

If you can’t wait that long then go watch others videos.

But above posters do have a point in that no video can be trusted ountil you verify the tests for yourself.

I prefer the “there’s flat earthers all around the globe”

Omg it’s so funny to mock flat earthers they’re so dumb I mean we all were brainwashed and indoctrinated in school to not only be sheep but to defend our masters. Yay school!

If you think making fun of flat earth is productive then I can’t help you and you’re basically a brainwashed troll sheep that lacks any semblance of critical thought. You’ve clung to something parroted in school and believed it like gospel.

Here’s the test I want to re-create myself

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ql_TTguKxnE

Anyone want to help by lending me their p900?

Can any ball defending zombies explain this video?

If boats are going over the horizon then how do they re appear when we zoom in ? Or in this video how does the boat go out of focus if not hidden by globe could it be limited perspective limited vision?

Here’s 200 proofs earth is not a spinning ball

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EiBJBVBez_w

Here are some flat earth books:

https://play.google.com/store/books/...FYKqyAodOjoLyg

https://gnmarket.net/products/978160...11892289601593

Do you understand the difference between resolving small objects in a field of view and the horizon?

You would probably be absolutely shocked to discover that if you zoom into the side of a mountain you can start to see things like individual trees and people. How do they disappear beyond the "horizon" like that?

How far out in the ocean do you think the boat and the buoy are? 40-60 miles? You've *clearly* spent a lot of time out at sea...

Edit: And OMG if you could just get your hands on a camera with a telescopic lens, you could "prove" the earth is flat for yourself by doing an experiment that's completely unrelated to the shape of the earth! Wake up people!!

It's productive because it helps to keep you in your place. The more emotionally defensive you get about your position, the less likely it becomes that you're going to put forth a successful argument, thus allow us to mock you more and increase our entertainment value.

For example, right now you're merely parroting arguments you've seen on the internet and believe it like gospel. You seem to be admitting that you've yet to do a single experiment that proves the earth is flat. All you've got are YouTube videos, and you can't even do basic logic.

I think you fail to realize just how entertaining you are. Keep up the good work!

I have been told by friends that I am very entertaining

People are amused when you try to wake them up

In other words, you're really not interested in engaging the topic at an intellectual level. Here are the straight-forward inquiries that you have not addressed, each based on a specific statement you have made.

1) Are you able to accept the logical possibility that "I made the conclusion either the test was flawed or the earth really is motionless" as being a false choice?

2) Have you ever been 40-60 miles out into the ocean? (To personally verify that you can see the shore from that distance.)

3) Do you understand the difference between resolving small objects in a field of view and the horizon?

And though it does not stem from a specific statement per se...

4) What have you actually proven?

Your refusal to do engage in any of these seems to implicate you more as a parody of a flat-earther and not a true flat earther, as it seems to belie the fact that you don't *actually* believe any of this stuff for reasons. True flat-earthers actually try to prove themselves right, like building a rocket and launching themselves into the air.

ryr777, I'm confused. Suppose the earth is flat. I presume that in your mind this means it is a disk, correct? Or is it an infinite plane? If a disk, what boundary of the disk? Where is it on the planet?

This might be a question with a canonical answer in flat-earther communities, but I just have no idea what the common explanation is.

So now we've reached the not-indoctrinated and not-brainwashed claim on my list that...

..."zooming in brings ships over the horizon completely back into view"?

This is the typical response to the phenomenon that shows ships, for example, disappearing bottom first over the horizon. The FE'er claim is that zooming in on the ship will bring the entire ship (top and bottom) back into view.

rjr, if you are honest and spend even a small amount of time reviewing the videos that claim to show this, you'll immediately discover the bait and switch. As Aaron points out, they show that objects too small to see with the naked eye can become visible after zooming in. This is not what the original claim said, and is exactly what is expected.

Confirm this yourself by finding the two relevant timestamps that must exist in the video you linked or ANY video claiming to bring a ship 'back into full view':
1. Timestamp showing a ship that 'appears' to be disappearing bottom first over the horizon.
2. Timestamp showing the same ship visible top to bottom after zooming in.

Only with these timestamps is it worth looking at what happens in between those moments.

But you won't find any because it is an optical impossibility. Zooming enlarges a scene, it doesn't and cannot change it.

Or more likely you won't find it because you have no interest in discovering that you are wrong.



Btw, if a ship in the far distance looks like it is half-hidden by the horizon (bottom half is missing), the way to check it in more detail is by... zooming in!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I've found myself using a phrase like this, and sometimes I have to stop for a moment that it can be part of a discussion with a fellow human:

"You're not a true Flat Earther"

Phew.

And I'm inclined to agree with your conclusion, despite it making us 'no true Flat Earther' advocates!

The first, and sometimes only thing I hear from the 'true Flat Earther' is "show me the curve".

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Thanks for the sincere question.. I’m only going to be responding to sincere questions from now on..

It’s flat like a disk. It is a plane not a planet. The boundary is an ice wall 360 degrees perimeter (Antarctica) and above is dome firmament as described in scripture separating waters above from waters below. It is stationary fixed and immovable.

It is proof of an unmoved mover.. which gets back to OP is the universe created on purpose.

Flat earth would have you believing it was divinely created giving you purpose in your life full of meaning.

People get really upset and experience cognitive dissonance when they hear about flat earth because it basically challenges everything they thought was true.

Sincerely asking, have you actually proven anything? Or at the minimum, what experiments have you personally conducted?

Do you have evidence of this ice wall?

A discussion sometimes arises from the labeling problem. For example, OrP often uses the label "Christian" as anyone who self-identifies as "Christian." There are times when this is a useful approach, especially when it comes to matters of social identification. But it struggles when it comes to trying to discern things like consistency of beliefs and behaviors (for example, relative to orthodox positions).

In this case, the challenge being raised is to see whether our flat earth representative is actually aligning beliefs with "behaviors" or some type. For example, a challenged that was raised to us round-earthers was to look into things for ourselves and not accept outside statements as true. But the question that has yet to be addressed is whether he does this himself. Failure to do so would create a clear inconsistency of beliefs (that one can learn of the flat earth through experiments and not merely accepting outside positions) and behaviors (not conducting experiments and simply accepting outside positions).

It does approach the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, in the sense that one can ask what a "true Scotsman" is beyond self-identification. Perhaps in this case, it's really about a potential "not truly woke" fallacy. If to be woke requires someone to look into things ourselves and not accept outside statements, but rjr is merely parroting stuff found elsewhere on the internet, then I think my criticisms would remain valid.

2nd hand proof-

Captain Cooks travel log.. he famously took 2-3 years to circumnavigate the “globe” in the “southern hempisphere”.. this could be explained if Antarctica was instead a 360 degree ice wall closer to 60k miles in coast line. In his log he says they were often 20 miles out of recogning which again would make more sense on a flat plane than a globe.

https://goo.gl/images/bgbBLu

1st hand proof-

as soon as I get a couple million I will take an expedition myself (even though you would most likely just be told to turn around instead of being to explore inner Antarctica freely)