Convex Earth: The Documentary, 2018

[Thorburn]

Oh come on!

Where shall I come, my friend, and why?

You can be indifferent to a moral issue in the sense that you don't care. Being indifferent as to a scientific statement means that you don't really care whether it's true or not, which would not make you a good "interested observer of the discussion" in the first place.

As I stated clearly and, as I believe, equally intelligibly to those willing to listen, "I am open-minded and personally indifferent" to whether the underlying reality of our world is spherical, flat, hyperbolical, irregular or neither. Being open-minded means that I do not harbor any ideological, philosophical, or theological preferences regarding faith or morals that would prefer one model over the other (unlike with many other topics). Being indifferent means that I have no vested interest in promoting or favoring one hypothesis over the other. There are clear epistemological limits to what science can describe. I think nobody here (including yourself, naturally) confuses scientific models with reality.

From this viewpoint, it is amusing (and a bit alarming) that you wish to imply that I am indifferent to whether "a scientific statement is true." As if science would give us any truth. No, the only function science can hope to achieve — I am thoroughly with Karl Popper on that one — is to make statements that are falsifiable. Final and finite truth it gives us none, and thus it cannot be overemphasized how important it is to keep science sound by not dismissing observations lightly that seem to contradict established models — no matter how outrageous certain observations might sound to those, like you, who admittedly didn't have the time or interest to do diligent research; not to mention how grotesque the notion must be perceived by the peanut gallery that seems to draw gratuitous self-aggrandisement from parroting science popularizers online (whose knowledge and comprehension is frequently shockingly poor). Without ever going through the tribulation of reading or furthermore thinking; or even watching a bloody video; to say the least.

The art of not reading is a very important one. It consists in not taking an interest in whatever may be engaging the attention of the general public at any particular time. When some political or ecclesiastical pamphlet, or novel, or poem is making a great commotion, you should remember that he who writes for fools always finds a large public. A precondition for reading good books is not reading bad ones: for life is short. - Arthur Schopenhauer

Sophist glamour and self-glorification, with all due respect, as so often from the corner of Schopenhauer, the man who ironically— he certainly would appreciate this fact — has himself become en vogue with the public. But if you do not know what's in a book (i.e. whether it's a good or bad book), how can you judge its content (that it is a good or bad book)?

My second-favorite "self-hating Jew," Gilad Atzmon, complained about this recently, too. Maybe you find his observations more in line with your personal interests. Upon further investigation, the lines drawn are not always as rigid, as they appear initially.

I reckon this goes for watching documentaries as well, hence I choose to spend my next 1,5 hours more wisely.
(Just watching a couple of minutes randomly proves this has been a good choice by the way)

Proverbs 16:18.

Oh man, I just can't, first video is 57 minutes, 57 seconds long, that's almost a degree...

No biggy, there are probably more entertaining videos. One needs to have an interest in the topic.

I made it until the beach ball.

That's far enough to get an impression of the parameters of his experiment; yet, it would have been recommendable if you had stayed until he presents his observations. If one is interested in the topic that is. I am just saying people shouldn't dismiss observations (or the conclusions drawn from them) before they have even analyzed and investigated them.

I once wrote a piece of software designed to help pilots plot their flight paths across a Mercator projection map of North America.

You know what, I had to relearn a whole lot of complex math I hadn't thought of since school, you want to know why?

Because, if someone was flying east to west, using this software, and it just described a straight line, they would actually be miles and miles away from the airports shown on the map and they could very well run out of fuel and have to land on a roadway, or crash.

North to south flights, don't have this problem... it's called "Great Circle Routes", you can look it up.

You are absolutely right. But you would be off miles both on the spherical model and on the flat model.

You're not telling me all that complex math was in vain are you?

No, not at all.

I am the rare kid that reads mathematical books for his past-time pleasure. Now that would be boring to most people.

Maths is an extremely helpful tool that permits us to falsify certain statements or models right away. Certainly, mathematics is not devoid of epistemological problems either; and Kurt Gödel has conclusively demonstrated that there will always be a set of statements that are true but cannot be proven true (from within the mathematical system with its existing axioms). Maths is great but mathematics isn't the reality either (although Max Tegmark begs to differ); it is only a tool to describe reality or rather the highly fallible perception of reality.

But there is a long slope downhill from what mathematics can 'prove' to what physics can 'prove'; and a real abyss between mathematical theories in physics that are based on observation of repeatable and reproducible experiments (such as Maxwell's electromagnetic field theory) and ... astrophysical theories about the origin of the earth or about the solar system (which are primarily based on untested assumptions heaped upon each other). On a mere logical basis, we cannot irrefutably prove the existence of events which we didn't directly observe.

As mentioned in another thread, I do not believe that the earth is flat, as the flat model is plagued by many more observational loopholes and inadequacies than any planetary model. The flat earth model has more holes than a Swiss cheese, as long as the model cannot explain certain observations (such as the existence of celestial poles; the problem of well-established global intercontinental distances; the problem of sunlight distribution, in particular in the Southern hemisphere; etc.).

But it doesn't follow from this that all of its observations are necessarily incorrect.

What makes it so interesting is that flat-earthers have produced quite a few good arguments and observations that challenge the dominant heliocentric and planetary model. There are an increasing number of recorded observations which shouldn't be possible at all if the current astrophysical paradigms regarding our solar system are flawless (regarding lunar and solar eclipses; moon phases; daylight patterns; not to mention the propaganda by the governmental space agencies, etc.). Strangely enough, only a tiny amount of their better arguments — Jon McIntyre is an exception — has anything to do with the perceived flatness of the earth (although I am in principle open-minded about additional experiments measuring the earth's curvature or its lack thereof).

Recently, I even joked with an acquaintance that, when it comes hard to the crunch, it could turn out that the flat-earthers were right about everything — but the shape of the earth.

They are definitely up to something. And there is nothing wrong with bouncing off thoughts and ideas.

[Bernhard]

As I stated clearly and, as I believe, equally intelligibly to those willing to listen, "I am open-minded and personally indifferent" to whether the underlying reality of our world is spherical, flat, hyperbolical, irregular or neither. Being open-minded means that I do not harbor any ideological, philosophical, or theological preferences regarding faith or morals that would prefer one model over the other (unlike with many other topics).

This is intellectual hot air to stretch the notion of open-mindedness to absurdity and still make it seem like an 'intelligent position'. There hardly are any ideological, philosophical or theological preferences of significance that lead one to prefer one model over the other. Are there any flat earth dogma's worth mentioning even to the extent they have implications for morality like you've stated? When everybody fits your notion of open-mindedness concerning this issue, to proclaim yourself as such becomes redundant and is just an act to cover-up the enjoyment of weird theories.

Being indifferent means that I have no vested interest in promoting or favoring one hypothesis over the other.

That's impartiality, not indifference.

From this viewpoint, it is amusing (and a bit alarming) that you wish to imply that I am indifferent to whether "a scientific statement is true." As if science would give us any truth. No, the only function science can hope to achieve — I am thoroughly with Karl Popper on that one — is to make statements that are falsifiable. Final and finite truth it gives us none, and [FONT=verdana]thus it cannot be overemphasized how important it is to keep science sound by not dismissing observations lightly that seem to contradict established models — no matter how outrageous certain observations might sound to those, like you, who admittedly didn't have the time or interest to do diligent research; not to mention how grotesque the notion must be perceived by the peanut gallery that seems to draw gratuitous self-aggrandisement from parroting science popularizers online (whose knowledge and comprehension is frequently shockingly poor). Without ever going through the tribulation of reading or furthermore thinking; or even watching a bloody video; to say the least.

Popper's falsifiability is a criterion for the demarcation between science and pseudo-science. It's meant to actually show what is good science and what isn't and to exclude nonsense like flat earth theories from the domain of science. The general attitude of adherents to these theories to ignore any observation they have not personally made and therefore classify any counter-argument as propaganda, actually shows that the theory of a flat earth doesn't pass the test of falsiability and thus cannot be classified as scientific.

Sophist nonsense, with all due respect, as so often from the corner of Schopenhauer, the man who ironically— he certainly would appreciate this fact — has himself become en vogue with the public. But if you do not know what's in a book, how can you judge its content?

So you want to read all books?
One core element of the scientific community is cooperation. Certain things you know by communicating with your peers. Then you also become capable of judging which literature to study and which not. Any researcher knows that one of the biggest challenges is to know where to draw the line.

[Thorburn]

This is intellectual hot air to stretch the notion of open-mindedness to absurdity and still make it seem like an 'intelligent position'.

And we should accept this because you say so? The clanking succession of mellifluous words is not an argument. Where is your proof of 'absurd open-mindedness' or 'lack of intelligence' in my position? Why don't you start by refuting my statements if you beg to differ?

There hardly are any ideological, philosophical or theological preferences of significance that lead one to prefer one model over the other.

I wouldn't say that. An atheist would have a hard time to accept a flat or hyperbolical world; a universe where no gravity, no dark matter, no dark energy and no endless series of highly improbable random catastrophes could assist him to put everything into shape in his mental drawer.

Are there any flat earth dogma's worth mentioning even to the extent they have implications for morality like you've stated? When everybody fits your notion of open-mindedness concerning this issue, to proclaim yourself as such becomes redundant and is just an act to cover-up the enjoyment of weird theories.

In fact, when you replied to my original statement, you introduced the concept of "indifference to a moral issue" and accused me of confusing the former with "indifference to a (true) scientific statement." I just offered my initial sentence to act as an anchor for investigation and to refute your claims. Strange that you characterize the detailed refutation of your initial allegation now "redundant," as an act of me "proclaiming myself", even as an act "to cover up" some other unproven allegation of yours.

If you don't like the punch, don't step into the ring.

That's impartiality, not indifference.

Please don't lecture me about semantics. Marriam-Webster defines indifference as "absence of compulsion to or toward one thing or another" but you need to know everything better, right?

Popper's falsifiability is a criterion for the demarcation between science and pseudo-science. It's meant to actually show what is good science and what isn't and to exclude nonsense like flat earth theories from the domain of science. The general attitude of adherents to these theories to ignore any observation they have not personally made and therefore classify any counter-argument as propaganda, actually shows that the theory of a flat earth doesn't pass the test of falsiability and thus cannot be classified as scientific.

There you go. Geez... I wonder whether science can digest a statement that makes sweeping generalizations about the attitude of millions of unconnected people that have developed minor or major doubts about the accuracy of the planetary heliocentric theory. Hey, turns out it can, because your thesis is falsifiable due to its appeal to a logical fallacy. The die-hard "flattards" and die-hard "gloafs" online, no matter how shiny or nerdy their websites are, are not the judge over the falsifiability of statements. Everything that is falsifiable can be accessed by science. Besides, I science whatever I want.

So you want to read all books?

No, I don't even wish that I could. I go by a multitude of factors, such as by my interest in the topic; by the knowledge I have gained from research, reviews, recommendations, discussions; by my current tastes and preferences; including by irrational factors (such as which books happen to fall into my eyes by "coincidence"). But I cannot say whether a book is good or bad before I have read it. I can at most say what peers, tutors, mentors, critics, and other "authorities" say about it. But in that respect, I am like you: I trust my own judgment.

One core element of the scientific community is cooperation.

Surely, but books and knowledge ain't just about rigid scientific formalism. There are many oceans beyond the pond of scientific formalism and conformity. And I have never regretted to dive into them.

[Mööv]

As if this knob would be able to move these heavy shutters that easily without a servo motor. And why wouldn't they use a remote control interface to activate the shutters? It's the 21st century, doh! Then they wouldn't need a physical shaft and a direct mechanical connection between the interior and the outside, endangering the lives of their astronots.

No gravity - no weight. So sure, it can move it easily.
Adding servo and remote to the solution would add to greater probability of failure than a purely mechanical one would have. So, less danger.

[Bernhard]

And we should accept this because you say so? The clanking succession of mellifluous words is not an argument. Where is your proof of 'absurd open-mindedness' or 'lack of intelligence' in my position? Why don't you start by refuting my statements if you beg to differ?

It was in the next sentences...

I wouldn't say that. An atheist would have a hard time to accept a flat or hyperbolical world; a universe where no gravity, no dark matter, no dark energy and no endless series of highly improbable random catastrophes could assist him to put everything into shape in his mental drawer.

This is a matter of scientific coherence, not of personal religious (or a-religious) conviction. By finding this hard to accept, the atheist does not differentiate himself from the modern day theist. It does not automatically follow from his atheism.

In fact, when you replied to my original statement, you introduced the concept of "indifference to a moral issue" and accused me of confusing the former with "indifference to a (true) scientific statement." I just offered my initial sentence to act as an anchor for investigation and to refute your claims. Strange that you characterize the detailed refutation of your initial allegation now "redundant," as an act of me "proclaiming myself", even as an act "to cover up" some other unproven allegation of yours.

If you don't like the punch, don't step into the ring.

My argument was that your use of the notion of indifference was inadequate and using it in relation to scientific statements instead of illustrating scientific objectivity rather implies an unscientific attitude towards the notion of truth as such. I continued this position here as well.

But the notion of morality here was a direct reference to your use of "preferences regarding faith or morals" in defending your position of open-mindedness, something you brought up yourself. I treated the notion of indifference separately, following your line of reasoning. So I don't get why you're mixing them up here.

Please don't lecture me about semantics. Marriam-Webster defines indifference as "absence of compulsion to or toward one thing or another" but you need to know everything better, right?

It's a discussion. In a discussion you will be countered by opposing statements. Regardless of whether they are correct or not, to experience that as lecturing to me seems to point to some underlying inferiority complex.
I think this definition is rather vague. Perhaps I took your characterization of indifference as having no vested interest too literally. Anyway, I think there is a difference between not caring about a certain statement (which is a moral attitude) and not having an external reason to accept a statement (having interest). As far as I know the former is referred to by 'indifference' and the latter by 'impartiality' or being unbiased.

There you go. Geez... I wonder whether science can digest a statement that makes sweeping generalizations about the attitude of millions of unconnected people that have developed minor or major doubts about the accuracy of the planetary heliocentric theory. Hey, turns out it can, because your thesis is falsifiable due to its appeal to a logical fallacy. The die-hard "flattards" and die-hard "gloafs" online, no matter how shiny or nerdy their websites are, are not the judge over the falsifiability of statements. Everything that is falsifiable can be accessed by science. Besides, I science whatever I want.

If I appeal to a logical fallacy, my argument is invalid and my thesis is possibly false, not falsifiable. You should stop referring to Popper if you don't understand him.
You have a point that the argument wasn't very solid; I used it mostly to get across the aim of falsifialibility. Still, to accept the theory, some very common observations have to be considered 'lies' or 'conspiracy' in order for the theory to work. So it's an interesting case to put to Popper's test.

Surely, but books and knowledge ain't just about rigid scientific formalism. There are many oceans beyond the pond of scientific formalism and conformity. And I have never regretted to dive into them.

I wouldn't say it's mere formalism. It's the core of scientific practice. This doesn't exclude originality or curiosity.

[Bleyer]

Space flight is such a big and common thing and so many people involved that it would be impossible have that big of a cover up for this many years.

It wouldn't be the first big thing that has been covered up for decades. Think about a certain other mass event that supposedly occured at a point in history but whose theory is shaky, where we have a lot of so-called "testimonials" from people who lie through their teeth and make good money out of it, and which the average Joe believes took place exactly as described, despite the many holes in the theory. They say the same, "it would be impossible to cover up such a lie for years". Well think again. Do you trust everything your government tells you? Are you one of those types who only believes in something if he sees it on TV? If you aren't, then you're aware government officials and politicians in general lie to the masses. And there are already several industries that thrive based on lies. Hollywood would be one. Celebrities sell their souls for money and propagate any agenda they are told to. Or the war industry, where the official story is that America is some hero, spreading democracy throughout the world, but the reality is something different.

The whole infrastructure of the modern world was made in such away to keep people's logic sleeping, to dumb entire generations down. How?



People are kept busy with bread and circuses while they do what they want with their countries. So even if NASA fucked up - which it did - they are too busy shopping to notice or care. They're even doing it in plain sight:



Mountains of people haven't even examined the story behind "space exploration", they just believe whatever they are fed. It's easy to tell a lie. What's harder to awaken sleeping sheeple to the truth. If you're really interested in finding the truth, you can examine it yourself. There is a load of information pertaining to how they are lying. I suspect the next question is probably going to be why they are lying. Well, start with this.

Satellites and GPS work I use it everyday or least Monday thru Friday. With the right equipment that the common person can buy, you can see them with your own eyes.

First, we are talking about man making it into space and living there (a la ISS). Did you watch the videos I posted? Satellites and GPS, if they existed as is, don't prove manned space travel or the ISS. But since you brought it up, the story with satellites and GPS is highly questionable as well.





The Biblical Flat Earth: GPS, Towers, And Technology

[Mööv]

First, we are talking about man making it into space and living there (a la ISS). Did you watch the videos I posted? Satellites and GPS, if they existed as is, don't prove manned space travel or the ISS. But since you brought it up, the story with satellites and GPS is highly questionable as well.

Oh, really?

This has been done before, so I don't have to go through all the heavy calculations using Rayleigh criterion accounting for atmospheric diffraction and visible light wavelength. Ralf Vandebergh, a Dutch astronomer, professional photographer and veteran satellite spotter has been busy trying to do exactly this since the 2007 and has indeed succeeded on several occasions by now using a 10 inch (25.4 cm) Newtonian reflecting telescope that has a resolving power (angular resolution on the CCD sensor) of roughly one pixel per meter at the distance to the International Space Station (ISS) that is currently in a 230 miles (370 km) orbit above the Earth:


Ralf Vandebergh’s detail of an image he took on Mar. 21, 2009 showing astronauts working outside the ISS. Credit: R. Vandebergh

Vandebergh's personal page also hosts all kinds of other successful observations of the ISS through his telescope and recorded in both photographs as well as some short videos. Why short? Because targeting the ISS as it moves at the speed of 4.8 mi/s (7.7 km/s) is rather tricky, and the atmospheric conditions and times at which the ISS passes over some area on the surface of the Earth don't make it any easier either. But perseverance and hard work have paid well for this individual astronomer.


Raw video of the ISS as seen through the air turbulence. Note the good visibility of the Lira antenna at the Russian
Zvezda Module in the lower part of the image. Credit: R. Vandebergh

So again, skipping the math to calculate the required angular resolution of a telescope and apply that to some arbitrarily selected image sensor size and resolution, we can see that using a well collimated 10 inch Newtonian or a Dobsonian telescope on a clear night can, with some near perfect targeting, produce a direct proof of a spacewalker doing his or her job 230 miles (370 km) high during an EVA. More powerful telescopes would of course produce better resolution images, but the atmospheric effects limit their use and are of course much harder to target an object moving fast over the skies with.

Source: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/...ard-iss-do-a-s


There you go. So, you can actually buy a telescope and see it yourself.

[SpearBrave]

It wouldn't be the first big thing that has been covered up for decades. Think about a certain other mass event that supposedly occured at a point in history but whose theory is shaky, where we have a lot of so-called "testimonials" from people who lie through their teeth and make good money out of it, and which the average Joe believes took place exactly as described, despite the many holes in the theory. They say the same, "it would be impossible to cover up such a lie for years". Well think again. Do you trust everything your government tells you? Are you one of those types who only believes in something if he sees it on TV? If you aren't, then you're aware government officials and politicians in general lie to the masses. And there are already several industries that thrive based on lies. Hollywood would be one. Celebrities sell their souls for money and propagate any agenda they are told to. Or the war industry, where the official story is that America is some hero, spreading democracy throughout the world, but the reality is something different.

If you are referring to the thing called the "holocaust", the camps most certainly existed......I just question the numbers, the cause of deaths and lack of any real evidence that Germany was intentionally trying to destroy the jews ( sometimes its good to be an American and have free speech )

The rest of your post does not give a good argument about GPS and even a compass proving the earth is round. Then there is thing they used to use called a Sextant that allowed navigators to figure in the curve.

Do you know why the earth is round? How it formed to be so? Most every kid that grew up in a rural area that is my age knows how it happened, just by making a very simple play thing out of a rock. Hmmm I bet you don't know that one do you and how it relates to the earth being round.

[Bleyer]

If you are referring to the thing called the "holocaust", the camps most certainly existed......I just question the numbers, the cause of deaths and lack of any real evidence that Germany was intentionally trying to destroy the jews ( sometimes its good to be an American and have free speech )

That's not what I was referring to, but something which supposedly took place in your country. One of the biggest lies modern Amercanism has been founded on.

But since you mentioned the Holocaust, what you just said would qualify you as a Holocaust denier in Europe. You do, after all, question (most of) the official narrative of the Holocaust. Most Holocaust historians define the Holocaust as the Nazi German policy enacted between 1941 and 1945 whose scope was to exterminate European Jewry, in which 6 million+ Jews were systematically murdered in concentration camps such as Auschwitz. Stop someone off the street and mention what you just said and you'd receive a tinfoil hat. In America, some would probably not even know what you are talking about. But in Europe, you'd be seen as a kook. Why? Because most people do not question the narrative. They heard it on TV, read it in a book, grew up hearing it and it just can't be otherwise. In fact, most people who will call you crazy didn't even spend a decent amount of time reading up about the Holocaust, and they most certainly didn't examine the counterarguments. Think that's presumptuous? Well, so do globalists/heliocentrists. Most don't bother to examine the counterarguments and talk out of their arse. As soon as they hear "flat", they get triggered and jump on their soap box.

The rest of your post does not give a good argument about GPS and even a compass proving the earth is round. Then there is thing they used to use called a Sextant that allowed navigators to figure in the curve.

LOL. Well your "counterrgument" does not give any argument why the argument is wrong.

Do you know why the earth is round? How it formed to be so? Most every kid that grew up in a rural area that is my age knows how it happened, just by making a very simple play thing out of a rock. Hmmm I bet you don't know that one do you and how it relates to the earth being round.

Of course not. As a child, I did not grow up with fairy tales such as "the Big Gang" or "we evolved out of nothing". I had the advantage of growing up in a traditional family, who wasn't brainwashed by secularist agenda. If you really want the truth, you too can find it. However most globalists aren't interested in the truth. They spend maybe 5 minutes on the topic, if at all, but take it as some indispiutable fact. It's pretty obvious in this thread: most people didn't even bother to watch the documentary but they line up to give their opinions on the matter. Well you know the saying opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. And when you criticize something you haven't even examined properly, you talk out of your arse. That's how it is. Nobody asked globalists what your opinion about flat earthers is. Thorburn asked this:

What would interest me, regardless of the final conclusion of which shape the earth has (I am open-minded and personally indifferent as to whether the earth is flat or round or convex or pear-shaped; I am just an interested observer of the discussion), how would those that firmly believe in the sphericity of the earth explain the outcome of the seven experiments that were narrated in the video?

Do you have an answer to this question? Yes or no?

Oh, really?



Source: https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/...ard-iss-do-a-s


There you go. So, you can actually buy a telescope and see it yourself.

Yes, really. And if you had actually watched what I posted this has already been dealt with in the videos. Just because you see something on the sky, it doesn't actually mean that it's what they say it is. It could be a projection, for example. Ever seen the "lunar wave"? Furthermore a lot of these supposed captures are fake. Unlike globalists, who just take it as truth, flat earthers have actually investigated the matter themselves. The author of the videos I posted took countless filmings, captures and zoom ins. But even assuming what you see through a telescope is exactly what they say it is, that still does not prove manned space travel. See any people inside? Thought so.

[SpearBrave]

That's not what I was referring to, but something which supposedly took place in your country. One of the biggest lies modern Amercanism has been founded on.

Oh, yeah America is such the evil empire and always started out as so. Wait a minute are you guy that tried to convince me George Washington had a jew in his tent a Valley Forge because you seen it in a movie?

But since you mentioned the Holocaust, what you just said would qualify you as a Holocaust denier in Europe. You do, after all, question (most of) the official narrative of the Holocaust. Most Holocaust historians define the Holocaust as the Nazi German policy enacted between 1941 and 1945 whose scope was to exterminate European Jewry, in which 6 million+ Jews were systematically murdered in concentration camps such as Auschwitz. Stop someone off the street and mention what you just said and you'd receive a tinfoil hat. In America, some would probably not even know what you are talking about. But in Europe, you'd be seen as a kook. Why? Because most people do not question the narrative. They heard it on TV, read it in a book, grew up hearing it and it just can't be otherwise. In fact, most people who will call you crazy didn't even spend a decent amount of time reading up about the Holocaust, and they most certainly didn't examine the counterarguments.

I really don't care that I'm defined as a holocaust denier in Europe, however you are very wrong about the Germans I know well enough to discuss such things in private and they don't believe the official narrative either, they go along because they have to and really don't think about. You are also wrong about Americans not knowing about it either, its crammed down every school kids throats to the point they think that is why there was a war in the first place.

Think that's presumptuous? Well, so do globalists/heliocentrists. Most don't bother to examine the counterarguments and talk out of their arse. As soon as they hear "flat", they get triggered and jump on their soap box.

No I did not watch the documentary or will I, Some things you know as fact and logic, I don't need to talk out my arse I'm just speaking facts I have personally witnessed and know to be true. You however want people to take you serious, but I simply can't and won't.

LOL. Well your "counterrgument" does not give any argument why the argument is wrong.

I use a GPS everyday, I was also on the US Army orienteering team, I'm pretty sure I can shoot an azimuth that will show the curve and roundness of the earth.

Of course not. As a child, I did not grow up with fairy tales such as "the Big Gang" or "we evolved out of nothing". I had the advantage of growing up in a traditional family, who wasn't brainwashed by secularist agenda. If you really want the truth, you too can find it. However most globalists aren't interested in the truth. They spend maybe 5 minutes on the topic, if at all, but take it as some indispiutable fact. It's pretty obvious in this thread: most people didn't even bother to watch the documentary but they line up to give their opinions on the matter. Well you know the saying opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. And when you criticize something you haven't even examined properly, you talk out of your arse. That's how it is.

Use your terms correctly its has nothing to do with the word "globalist". When I was a child we made our own agate marbles using a stream and the tumbling process that is how the agate became round. The earth moves through space in the same manner and as it moves through space object hit it and eventually you end up with a completely round object. Next you will try and tell there is no such thing as space debris? I'm not talking out my arse, I'm using common sense and logic it is not up to me that you are having trouble thinking on that plain.

Nobody asked globalists what your opinion about flat earthers is. Thorburn asked this:

Lets please call us people "round earthers" because I can say most certainly I'm not a globalist.

Do you have an answer to this question? Yes or no?

I have given my answers above, I cannot help that some people have trouble with accepting facts and common sense and will go to great lengths to prove their points especially when they can't counter reason.

Yes, really. And if you had actually watched what I posted this has already been dealt with in the videos. Just because you see something on the sky, it doesn't actually mean that it's what they say it is. It could be a projection, for example. Ever seen the "lunar wave"? Furthermore a lot of these supposed captures are fake. Unlike globalists, who just take it as truth, flat earthers have actually investigated the matter themselves. The author of the videos I posted took countless filmings, captures and zoom ins. But even assuming what you see through a telescope is exactly what they say it is, that still does not prove manned space travel. See any people inside? Thought so.

I don't know what I find more entertaining conspiracy theories or the theorist.

Ever think there does not need to be a human inside? That we can and do take pictures remotely.