One of the FE FAQ vids posted by moo, in addition to the usual conspiracy and hoax claims, also stated the Holocaust was a hoax. Bigot has not yet disputed that claim. He added his caveat in case the author of his video also claimed the Holocaust was a hoax. Sort of a pre-emptive distancing himself.

Is the picture you posted cgi or from a plane?

BigOT,

1. Was the Holocaust a hoax, yay or nay?

2. 'Unmentionables' = Jews, correct?

3. If so, why do you consider Jews unmentionable?

When I fly direct from Chicago to Beijing in the summer, which direction am I flying? Why, on a clear day, do I look down from my plane window and see nothing but snow and ice for a very long stretch of the flight?

CGI. Perspective. Read the thread. Learn to think. Filthy Jews.

Your flat earth theory says these things:

1 - What we see as the sky is just a dome covering the earth
2 - The stars we see are either: a) lights coming through the dome (firmament) or b) reflections off of the dome

This still has not been explained:

1 - If the lights are fixed, then why do we see different constellations in the northern and southern hemisphere? The video that was posted about the "double reflection" theory doesn't work for several reasons: There is no way to seamlessly integrate two disks which meet at their edges; The viewers would still see different constellations depending on which longitude line they were on.


When people in the southern hemisphere look directly south, why do they see the same constellations at the same time? According to flat earth, they are looking in different directions. Actually, this ends up being the case in the northern hemisphere as well - if I look directly south (i.e. directly away from the north star) from London at 4 am in the winter I will see exactly the same stars and constellations as if I look directly south from Chicago at 10 pm (i.e. at the exact same time). But according to flat earth we are looking at the dome at a 90 degree angle to each other.

Again, I've watched just about every video in this thread and the only way this possibly works is if the flat earth is an infinite plain in every direction. Even if this is the case, explain the following:

1 - I believe you are the person who said we can only see 15 miles with the unaided eye. If that's true then the higher in the sky I go, the shorter the distance I could see along the ground.

2 - Either we can always see far enough to the horizon to have it "rise to eye level" and therefore we should be able to get actual pictures of the ice wall and what is beyond it (You have provided no pictures); or we cannot always see to the horizon and therefore at some point the "rise to eye level" should break and start forcing us to look down at an angle. Where is this break?

Wait, so the fact that lots of people are dumb is the reason why flat earth is true? Ask people to explain anything more difficult than "why does a rock fall when i drop it (answer: gravity)" and they'll most likely get it wrong.

If you look at the actual scientific explanations, you will see they all add up. If you take a layman's explanation or anecdotes or observations (like the flat-earth theories) you'll see they don't add up.

They never claimed that

Not an explanation for flat earth

No one claims everyone understands why the moon appears in phases. If you rely on the intelligence of the average person you're in deep trouble.

So they're wrong. They're wrong about a lot of simple things. It doesn't mean the scientific explanation is wrong.

Speaking of scientific explanation, what is the flat earth explanation for the phases of the moon and for solar and (especially) lunar eclipses?

No one here is getting angry at legitimate questions being asked. The condescension is for the willful ignorance and the avoidance of concrete answers coming from the flat earthers.

Wrong.

1 - I already answered you on this. God created the Big Bang. He spoke, and it happened. Now use this to explain why flat earth is right and the globe is wrong.
2 - It doesn't matter whether the Big Bang is right, partially right, or completely wrong. We are discussing the current state of the earth, sun, moon, solar system, and universe. The beginnings don't matter for this discussion.

Here's an example: I think we can all agree that electricity was discovered/harnessed for use a few hundred years ago. Just because at the time they couldn't explain exactly where it came from (since they had not discovered electrons) doesn't mean they couldn't explain how it worked or use it correctly.

Bigot,
For my sins I have read this entire thread. Could you please point me to where your simple model is explained? Can anyone?

I don't really want to sift through 115 pages.. If it's there obviously

So on the one hand we are able to create breathtaking dynamic earth footage and on the other hand we try to fool the non-sheeples with pixelart in google earth? I think the fact that CGI is used a lot isn't really a secret however you use the fact that CGI is used as an argument for the fact that everything is seemingly fake. So again, show me some CGI tricks that are used to try and fool us into thinking things are real while they aren't and show me how you 'obviously' know that those things are CGI. That picture isn't fooling anyone, of course this looks shipped, I can obviously tell as well from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few shops in my time.

No, special-effects explosions are actual explosions, with small charges, made to look bigger by being shown against (usually obvious) models or matted into full-scale scenes. But no actual explosion, short of an atomic bomb, could mimic the atomic bomb. The nearest things in nature would be a thunderstorm or a major volcanic eruption. But aerial shots of those would not look right, because they don't start or develop in the same way.

The most powerful conventional munition was the RAF's ten-ton Grand Slam, and there's aerial footage of those things going off, and although it's impressive it clearly couldn't be used to fake footage of the atomic bomb, not even if you used a zoom lens and slowed the film down. Either the mushroom climbs eight miles high or it doesn't, really.

Pudley you are certainly one of the few posters in this thread who is participating and the standard response of read the thread and learn to think doesnt apply to you, kudos to that.

IDK, moo seemed skeptical when I brought up the whole infinite plain idea a while back.

Hiroshima bomb fake - make actual explosion to replicate start of plume/mushroom cloud. Start using cut scenes to advance height of mushroom cloud as it climbs. Continually cut to/from a mushroom cloud that is static when camera is on it, and after it cuts and returns, is much higher. The plume isn't an actual bomb but special effect technique of model/painting/whatever. Congrats you just used simple camera trickery to make a bomb hoax.

That's my point. Nothing you do works according to logic. Your beliefs are unfalsifiable. There's no evidence anyone could ever bring, that would persuade you that you're wrong.

Flat Earthism you take on faith. There's no logic or reason to it, at all. There's actually no reasoning with you.

Because there is no consensus on what is beyond Antarctica because we aren't allowed to go there. It doesn't disprove the flat, geocentricness of our Earth whether there is a lot more 'beyond there' or not.

How about you try and explain to me what you've learned from reading this thread about what we think the model is and how it works?

All ive been doing is posting videos of trickery....

Moo seemed pretty certain re: no infinite plain and was quite derisive about the notion.

Except we are allowed to go there. I posted earlier in the thread an offer for a South Pole vacation where you literally go to the geographic South Pole. $25k USD. I offered to take the vacation if you pay for it and pay me 25k on top. So if you get 75k together, you and I can take it together and report back to this thread! Surely of all your FE disciples, you guys can cobble 75k together, right?

1BigOT, if the earth is flat, how do you explain that scene in the simpsons where they go to Australia and the toilet flushes the opposite way so they get a huge machine attached to it so it flushes in the right direction?

I have come to the conclusion that you don't have a model, or that if you do you are hesitant to explain it because you probably think it is going to be torn to pieces quite easily.

I have learnt that you have a complete lack of any rational thought.

That you have started with a position that pretty much every conceivable conspiracy theory is correct and then set about ignoring the fact that ALL of the credible evidence goes against them.

I have learnt that you seemingly think that you are one of thousands of 'woke' people on a planet of 7+ Billion that are somehow more intelligent and informed than the greatest minds on our planet, some of which who gave us the technology we are having this debate on.

I have learnt that this discussion with you is ultimately futile as there is literally no evidence possible which would convince you that you're wrong, no matter how plausible, logical, well thought out and pure common sense it might be.

You respond 'read the thread' , 'do your own research' because you don't have a well formed argument for the points raised.

If HD videos are so easy to fake, why are there none of the FE to show us what it looks like?

Hell of a coincidence that a high % of FE'rs also happen to believe in all the other conspiracy theories.

I mean, you don't believe in atomic weapons!? WTF lol!?

The whole Cuban middle crisis was a fake? Sworn enemies playing it out for the cameras, to what end?



I'll ask for the 4/5th time, model please....

No, that wouldn't be possible. Animating such an explosion with cel or matte paintings wouldn't be possible. We know, from extant movies, what special-effects teams could do at that time, and they couldn't do that.

Staff Sgt Robert Caron, the Enola Gay's tail gunner, who took the still pictures of the Hiroshima explosion, was a real person. (The 16mm movie footage was shot from the escort B-29 The Great Artiste.) He's the one in the Brooklyn Dodgers cap in the 2.00am crew photo before they boarded and started engines. He gave interviews which appear in William L Lawrence's book Dawn Over Zero (1946) and Joseph L Marx's Seven Hours to Zero (1967).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Caron

Good video, bad title.