Earth is over 70% water. Water doesn't bend. You have never left earth, and no one you know has. You never will leave the earth, and no one you know will, either.

After 50 years of a handful of people supposedly going to the moon to ride go karts, and NOTHING since that, you aren't at all suspicious about our official story?

Go watch the constellations for a few years. Go watch the moon for a few months. Watch the sun for one year. You aren't on a spinning ball. Wake yourself up for the sake of your children and their children to come after that.

Statement #1: Earth is over 70% water.

I'll accept this as true, provided that you're talking about surface area coverage and not volume. But why do you believe this is true? Have you traveled the earth to see this for yourself, or are you taking this from an authority? If this is by authority, who is the authority?

Statement #2: Water doesn't bend.

You'll have to elaborate on what you mean by "bending" here. I've seen water bend in a test tube because of surface tension, and I've seen water "bend" into a spherical shape for the same reason. I've also seen water "bend" around a statically charged PVC pipe. So without further elaboration, I reject this statement.

Statement #3: You have never left earth.

This is true.

Statement #4: No one you know has.

This is false. I happen to have a friend whose sister has spent time on the international space station.

Statements #5-6: You never will leave the earth, and no one you know will, either.

You have left the realm of fact and have entered into the world of speculation. And it seems you never really returned after this point. So you have 4 actual factual statements, two of which I agree with, one that I think is false but requires further elaboration on your part, and one that is false. In total, it doesn't appear to make a successful argument for anything and shows that you may have a tenuous relationship with truth. 50% is a coinflip.

The only factual claim here is that about 50 years ago we sent people to the moon. But the irony of this is that you don't seem to actually accept this as fact. So I don't even know what the right classification is.

You should really be specific about the sorts of things you think I should be observing. Simply telling me to make these observations doesn't advance the underlying claim that we aren't on a spinning ball. All of the observations I've made are entirely consistent with that. So you're going to have to be specific about what you think I should be observing that tells me that the model is not correct.

I got up to here.

Occassionally, your tenacity to persist in the face of silliness is to be admired Aaron. Occasionally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide

explain this and the timing of tides with flat earth.

Coinkydink. Obviously.

They probably figured it was a good time to wrap things up after they took a billion dollar trip in 1971 so Alan could play golf on the moon.

Aaron - Of course I haven't surveyed every inch of the earth myself. However, I've flown over oceans, and that's enough personal evidence to corroborate that earth is mostly water.

You should not require much explanation to know that resting bodies of water, whether a sink, a bathtub, a puddle, a pond are always flat and level. Why should an ocean be any different? Water is water. It is always level. Period.

Your claim that you know someone who knows someone related to someone who claims to have been on a space station is insufficient. Too many degrees of separation. Ever play telephone with a group of people? It doesn't take long for the truth to become distorted. You can say it's speculation when I say you will never leave the earth, but I will gladly stand by that statement regardless. You will never leave earth, until you die. Prove me wrong.

Regarding the moon landings, I am referring to the glaring inconsistencies in our official story/history. Before we had computers, tablets, smart phones, we were sending people to the moon to call Richard Nixon on the phone. Now, no one is leaving low earth orbit due to a radiation field. That does not add up. Do you disagree?

Regarding the Sun, Moon, and Stars, they never change. You can see winter constellations in late summer. You can see Polaris all year round. Earth is stationary and the sky revolves around us. It's the only feasible explanation.

I'll respond to the other posts later today hopefully.

What about the parts of the earth that you haven't flown over? Are you spitballing this number? Where did you get 70% from? You're just being lied to and you've never actually checked it out yourself. At best, you've merely got an illusion because there are too many parts of the world that you haven't seen to possibly know how much is and is not covered in water.

Except they literally aren't. I guess you just haven't looked closely enough. I've given you several examples that defy this claim.

The scale is different. Or have you not noticed that, either? Do you not think that scale matters?

Your reading comprehension is about as strong as your science comprehension. Two might feel like a gigantic number to you. But that's not really my problem.

Given your demonstrated inability to count, I'm doubtful of your ability to add. It all makes sense to me.

I can understand why you think it's the only feasible explanation, but that's more a reflection of your own intellectual limitations than any limitations on reality.

Let's leave the world of your speculations. Please just list your facts. You say you have them, but you've come up pretty short. Or maybe you don't actually know what a "fact" is?

Masque, you are still at square one it seems. The heliocentric model is reverse engineered. They can make up whatever they want to explain things but it doesn't mean it is true.

You want to talk coinkydinks? How about the following:

The sun and the moon appear the same size to us.

The supposed spherical moon orbits in such a way that we have only seen one side of it for all of history.

The wandering stars (aka planets) are indistinguishable from any other stars, besides their erratic motions in the sky and their high brightness.

The supposed exoplanets that orbit distant stars are on the ecliptic plane with our eyes. This is the only way we can use the dimming of stars to prove other planets exist. What are the odds of that happening?

Aaron - To be honest, I think MORE than 70% of the earths surface is water, and I also believe that antarctica is farther away than we are told.

In my previous post, I forgot to mention the other "coincidence" that most of the earths land and population are in the north (central) parts. Another one I forgot is that you can't spell "southern" without "outer". Strange, isn't it? Yes I am aware there is an H in there, so don't bother bringing that up.

Since you're so confident that water is not level (this is a new claim btw), explain how I can measure this myself. In a pond, for example. I have one outside my house. I'd love to test this.

You can't present gossip as fact. Just because you know someone who knows someone that claims to have gone to space, why should that matter?

Please don't talk to me about "intellectual limitations" when your supposed proof of a spinning ball is nothing you or I can observe ourselves. Look and think for yourself.

I wonder how well these jabronies are gonna cope with space tourism.

Why do you even believe in Antarctica? Have you ever been there?

Okay. And this matters how?

Uhhhh... so the English language is part of the conspiracy?

As I've stated, water bends in a test tube. Buy yourself a test tube and observe this.

Water can all form into a ball shape such as when it's falling. Run your shower and take some slow motion imagery of it.

Droplets of water bead up when they aren't on a surface where water spreads. Try putting drops of water on a penny one at a time and observe this.

Is the maximal level of precision for your measurement of flatness greater than or smaller than the size of water ripples caused by wind?

You mean that because I'm friends with someone whose sister works for NASA, this is gossip? Okay.

I've looked and thought for myself. The difference is the level of precision.

I've seen changes in the night sky over different seasons. You said it doesn't change. I disagree based on my own observations.

Your hypnotized, man to many people are hypnotized, punch up NASA CGI picture of earth I don't see that up there, if that's Real to You moo buckets, hahaha, God Damn ridiculous moo buckets there's video of engineer after engineer are they all crazy . . .

I don't know man doesn't go with the official narrative, But what if we find it it is true then what, Yeah it's BS, Look into It, I looked into it I was zeroed in on it, history of flat earth look into it . . .

Square one? I own all the squares, polygons, circles and degeometrization itself soon. Ha

Ever heard of tidal locking?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking


What do you think happens after billions of years of exchange of angular momentum?

We have seen the other side of the moon precisely because of space missions. How do you explain those images?


Also the moon and sun apparent size are close (which i will agree its a nice coincidence) but not perfect plus it changes over time. What on earth does this fluctuation in size tell you ?

Also why are solar eclipses seen only on a small part of the earth? What exactly makes that possible to change over time so many locations? What does the fact that nearby places cannot see the full eclipse and that wider places can still see 70-80% of it tell you about flatness? Why does it last so little time and travels across the planet?

How do you explain cyclones/typhoons and weather systems by the way? What makes the weather move around the planet the same way always?

What makes possible in global massive earthquakes to listen to the same wave multiple times as it goes around the globe? How do the earthquake waves bounce and come back in such perfect timing, isnt it easier to imagine they do simply travel around a globe?

How do you explain the motion of comets in relationship to the sun? Why do they accelerate when they get close to it?

ROFLOL by just watching the picture. Wtf is that under the disk?

Have you ever seen a disk just floating in space? No? That's why it needs to be on a pedestal.

Aaron -

You cannot describe how droplets of water fall and assume that an ocean is bulging outwards in the middle. Scale matters. I think you (or someone else ITT) have mentioned this already.

The reason why Antarctica matters, and why most of the world living in the center (north) along with all the land is because the sun only covers so much area. On a ball you shouldn't expect the land to all be in one hemisphere. You also can't expect only one hemisphere to be completely frigid and impassable. Why don't planes fly over the south pole to get from Argentina to South Africa, instead of going to Europe?

I'm not really willing to get into it too much, but yes. The english language is part of it as well. If the other FE thread is still up here you will find many more examples of how this is true.

I don't know what that ARS link is all about but it looks ridiculous. Flat Earth + Outer Space = BS. No one believes in that.

Masque - Eclipses make no sense on a globe. Especially their trajectories. It only makes sense over a flat plane. Tidal locking is again reverse engineered. I mean seriously, the supposedly spherical rotating moon is always facing us from exactly the same angle all of the time and that makes sense to you? It's insane to me that anyone can honestly believe that.

Oh yeah regarding Aarons other comment, how have you personally seen constellations change in your handful of decades on this earth? Even NASA says the changes aren't noticeable for tens of thousands of years. This in addition to your 'raindrops prove oceans can bend' is saying a lot about your experience on this topic.

I made no assumptions. You claimed that water doesn't bend. I've shown you examples of how water can take different types of shapes. I've never claimed that these are the forces in play with the ocean.

Why are you telling me what shouldn't and shouldn't be expected? I don't think I expected to see a meniscus, but there it is! And I used to think that water flowing out of the faucet came in a single stream, but then I looked and discovered that it doesn't. So that something seems to deviate from one's expectation doesn't appear to have much bearing on the reality of the situation.

Also, you *still* haven't told me why you believe in Antarctica. Have you been there?

Why fly longer than you have to?

What about other languages? Is it only English that's part of the conspiracy? And at what point did it become part of the conspiracy? Does it date back to the Greek and Latin roots as well?

Then what does the earth sit on?

I didn't say that I've seen constellations change.

I didn't say that raindrops prove oceans can bend.

But I like how you constantly misquote me, which is especially revealing since we can literally go back and look at the exact words that I've used to prove that. Or is 2+2 part of the conspiracy and they're retroactively changing my posts to keep everyone in the dark about the truth about the universe?

Moo buckets, before i even continue to pay the slightest attention just illuminate us all what is the level of math you can follow or is math also rigged?

What is the bare minimum of physics you find beyond questioning for its effectiveness to describe a very good approximation of the truth?

What the mfing f@ck (yes exactly like that) is the bare minimum you will ever allow to have as foundation of knowledge we will all agree to accept so that we can then tell you to go f yourself if you start moving the goalpost every time you are intellectually, factually and ethically demolished within your own bare minimum accepted positions?

In order to have a discussion (and then you will have only respect and no cursing from me) you need to set in front of us what are the things you accept as almost accurate and dependable tools in science. Like what? F=ma is ok? Pendulum period is 2pi *(l/g)^(1/2) is ok with you? Newton's gravitational attraction law wrong? Cavendish experiment wrong?


Is energy conserved for you? Momentum? Angular momentum? Do you accept any of these conservation laws for closed systems?


If you are trolling you are a sociopath. If you are not trolling you are in trouble in terms of attitude and character because you are not cooperating in your own education and improvement efforts placed by many here. If someone doesn't know and approaches things with skepticism and demands strong convincing evidence then i salute that and invite them to challenge me as much as they can imagine but then they have to be fair and cooperate so that we can incrementally build something that we agree on instead of constantly disagreeing with artificial arguments that do not play with rules of logic, evidence and accepted science. So exactly what do we agree on? Where have you found source of information that you trust to read about and why is it to be trusted? What is your core educational background? Are all your ideas here your own or belong to some group you can point us to? What makes you trust one source vs another? What sources do you trust?

Flat earthers when they see a boat disappear at horizon line:
"This is black magic."

Pretty sad that you have to resort to name calling.

Pretty sad that you don't grasp basic logic. If-then statements are not name-calling.

Come on Moo why is it too hard to come back and tell us a set of positions we can all agree on as starting point for a discussion. What part of math and science you agree with? There must be some minimum we can set behind us as basis.

State it. There cannot be a discussion without a foundation of common agreement. To not want that is to be dishonest and admit one is here for other reasons.

In fact on any debate the 2 sides must always start from where they agree if getting closer to the truth is the objective. Because only then you may have a chance to convince the other side in a way that they will be unable to avoid because it follows logically from positions they accept in steps that can be examined in detail for consistency and properly delivered proofs/evidence.

I could for example explain to you why tidal locking works if the objects are not initially perfectly spherical but we will also need calculus. All it takes is to start things one by one in small steps and you will see why science works.


When you say reverse engineering i call it bs, mega bs. Why? Because you cannot in a billion years reverse engineer the endless miracles of consistency that are needed when a theory finally gets it right. The objective for example was never to explain the tidal locking but the theory gets there without initial intention to explain such complexities. Einstein never wanted to develop a theory to explain the precession of mercury's perihelion or the gravitational waves of a black hole merger. That is what validates it. Its pure initial honest principles design and lack of planning for the impossible to imagine future testing. A good theory is not afraid of tests.

If i start a rotational pendulum (the one that spins around in a horizontal circular orbit, producing by rotation with a string holding it a cone) and measure its length and angle of rotation and then i can predict for you its period how can i deny F=ma and ac=v^2/r and then have it also work for 100 other examples? What was reverse engineered? How does it work if i keep changing the angles and lengths and continue to get the same results without the f=ma and v^2/r initial positions? They have to be close to the truth. How does an Atwood machine fail your tests and what did i reverse engineer when i can introduce all kinds of complexities that the original theory never knew about?

The beauty is that when you include friction the theory gets even better at its predictions in a way that definitely depends on its principles being right and embracing the new complexity of eg dissipative forces. The more realistic one gets the better the good theory looks. If you reversed engineered something it would easily fail eventually. If you do not have the correct theory a polynomial fit say will fail eventually.

You cannot reverse engineer the complexity of the solar system. Those that tried it this way created theories that failed in time (like epicycles) You observe things you never knew about that the theory predicts without intending to predict them at its starting foundation. This is how your conviction gets stronger.


There are endless opportunities for inconsistencies if a theory is false in a major way.