Are "flat-earthers" an actual thing?

Categorizer wrote:

'Flat Earthers' fall into 3 big categories:

- Online Trolls (this is the biggest group)

- Money Making Scumbags (there is plenty of money to be made from youtube video views by preying on fools)

- Gullible Idiots (the people who just can't help themseves believing in ludicrous conspiracies)

/ end thread

NASA takes in billions of taxpayer dollars to provide us with photoshop, CGI of satellites, and fake pictures of earth with clouds that never change. You refuse to think for yourself and allow the indoctrination.

You cannot prove a globe either. That is why this thread is still going and you fail.

Legit question wrote:

Categorizer wrote:

'Flat Earthers' fall into 3 big categories:

- Online Trolls (this is the biggest group)

- Money Making Scumbags (there is plenty of money to be made from youtube video views by preying on fools)

- Gullible Idiots (the people who just can't help themseves believing in ludicrous conspiracies)

/ end thread

NASA takes in billions of taxpayer dollars to provide us with photoshop, CGI of satellites, and fake pictures of earth with clouds that never change. You refuse to think for yourself and allow the indoctrination.

You cannot prove a globe either. That is why this thread is still going and you fail.

See category #1.

Categorizor wrote:

Legit question wrote:

NASA takes in billions of taxpayer dollars to provide us with photoshop, CGI of satellites, and fake pictures of earth with clouds that never change. You refuse to think for yourself and allow the indoctrination.

You cannot prove a globe either. That is why this thread is still going and you fail.

See category #1.

So says the shill for NASA.

Couldn't agree more

Hey Kupers,

You can't even defend your relative, Michael Collins. Did you ever bother to read his book, "Carrying the Fire"?

On page 221, he wrote:

"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are brightand they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different, this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human ever had."

This is a contradiction to what he said in that 1969 press conference. You fail again.

Categorizor wrote:

easy weeks wrote:

Post #1000

I can't believe this thread is this still alive.

See category #1

Ridiculing doesn't win this argument. I'm slaying you ball earthers. Keep trying. I will be here.

Legit question wrote:

Ridiculing doesn't win this argument. I'm slaying you ball earthers. Keep trying. I will be here.

What are your thoughts on circumnavigation of Earth by ship or aircraft? Seems to be happening on a regular basis since 1522.

this is interesting wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Ridiculing doesn't win this argument. I'm slaying you ball earthers. Keep trying. I will be here.

What are your thoughts on circumnavigation of Earth by ship or aircraft? Seems to be happening on a regular basis since 1522.

Already addressed in this thread. You have a lot of catching up to do.

Who possess less evidence, Flat Earthers or Religious People?

Legit question wrote:

Categorizor wrote:

See category #1

Ridiculing doesn't win this argument. I'm slaying you ball earthers. Keep trying. I will be here.

Yes. Yes it does.

See category #1

I've deployed on an aircraft carrier and using a long range optical system was able to see a ship 20 miles away. You could only see the top half of the ship. If the Earth was flat, why couldn't I see the bottom half of the ship?

UsedToBeKnowItAll you are a liar man. You do know that it's impossible to see the curve of the earth without actually being in space.. right? Nice try.

curvy wrote:

UsedToBeKnowItAll you are a liar man. You do know that it's impossible to see the curve of the earth without actually being in space.. right? Nice try.

Go on a cruise and bring a telescope. Report back.

Without having looked into this thread or into this hypothesis, my question is do "flat-earthers" have a defense of why time-zones exist? What would be their reason why time-zones, seasons, and different light exposure from the sun exist?

If the earth was perfectly flat we would all live in the same time zone, and experience the same seasons.

Again, I haven't looked into this hypothesis, but are all planets flat or only earth? Are stars and asteroids all flat?

Time zones are established on the stationary flat earth exactly the same way they are on a "ball" earth: by the movement of the sun overhead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiOhsKAR6OY#action=share

How the four seasons work on the flat earth:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R52_PdZlSq8

Flat Earth Research:

http://geography.uoregon.edu/profile/fonstad/

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume9/v9i3/kansas.html

curvy wrote:

UsedToBeKnowItAll you are a liar man. You do know that it's impossible to see the curve of the earth without actually being in space.. right? Nice try.

The horizon always rises to eye level and to the camera eye level. When a fisheye or wide angle lens is used, the view becomes distorted and creates a false curve.

If we lived on a ball, or "oblate spheroid" as Neil deGrasse Tyson would lead you to believe, then the ocean and the horizon SHOULD and WILL always drop off exponentially down and away from your feet and eyes. It doesn’t matter how small NASA’s "fake balls" are or how oblate Neil deGrasse Tyson’s sheroids are…standing on a ball, pear, or oblate spheroid will always result in the surrounding land and the distant horizon to fall under your feet and away from you exponentially- yet that never happens. The next time you go to the beach, see for yourself and bring a binocular- the horizon remains flat.

Legit question wrote:

Hey Kupers,

You can't even defend your relative, Michael Collins.

Sure I could. I just don't feel the need to. Maybe if your arguments had more credibility/merit, but you lost that to some ball earthers pages and pages and pages ago. Michael was extremely successful, whereas you are an internet troll. Sorry buddy.

Categorizor wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Ridiculing doesn't win this argument. I'm slaying you ball earthers. Keep trying. I will be here.

Yes. Yes it does.

See category #1

You bring no evidence to the argument, ball troll. FAIL.

Kupers wrote:

Legit question wrote:

Hey Kupers,

You can't even defend your relative, Michael Collins.

Sure I could. I just don't feel the need to. Maybe if your arguments had more credibility/merit, but you lost that to some ball earthers pages and pages and pages ago. Michael was extremely successful, whereas you are an internet troll. Sorry buddy.

Yes, the key word is "was". And he is a liar.