I've noticed a definite increase in the amount of trolling that goes on here over the last few months. For some reason, people feel like it's OK to drop by and make asshole comments just for the sake of being an ass.

Well, go browse thru other subs and you frequently come across things like "those tinfoil nuts over at /r/conspiracy ". That statement alone creates a subconscious bias against this sub, even if the person(s) it's directed towards don't view it as such. So people come here and look for things that confirm that bias and reply accordingly. It's like if I told you "all green people eat pasta", you would discount any other thing they eat but when you see them eating pasta, you would definitely take notice and it would further confirm that bias.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bYAQ-ZZtEU

Thank you for taking time to contribute! I pushed that tiny up arrow next to your message for kicks.

Just look at all of the different subs reading all the comments and trying to find a few people with a few mistakes or perhaps some racist commenters. You know, if a sub has 307,618 subscribers, there's bound to be some racists among them.
/r/conspiratard
/r/topmindsofreddit are among the worst and are wasting their lives by worrying about what we think. Watch this get picked up by them as well, what a joke.

Personally I think it stems from a concerted effort to marginalize those that just won't swallow the official kool-aid. One that has been ongoing for many years. The statement "conspiracy theorists have been correct far too often to discount every single thing they say" is often met with "yeah, but lizards".

I equate it with the idea that "team local sucks" because "one dude on the bench hurt his ankle".

I don't think the people pushing this marginalization realize that they are complicit in the continued horrors visited upon the world via their continued "shut up conspiracy theorist" and their constant appeals to authority. Maybe one day their masters will let them eat at the table too.

Great reply. Instant save ;)

Sounds like people criticizing your beliefs the way you criticize theirs, which happen to be actual facts.

I'd love an example.

First of all, going on my comment history as far back as a week and commenting on things I said is fucking creepy. Second is this 'Jade Helm' conspiracy bullshit about the government invading territory it already owns , rather than it being what it is: a training exercise.

on How many accounts have you made this "creepy" comment back to me?

You are delusional if you think I would take the time to spam you with multiple accounts, as you are not worth the trouble and I have no interest in fueling your confirmation bias.

You just lack original critique?

So, how would you be versed in my Confirmation Bias without violating your "creepy code" & reviewing my post history?

Every conspiracy theorist and/or those with closed minds possess confirmation bias. That means you.

So conspiracy theorists are often times closed minded? This is news to me. If one listens to MSM , you would come to believe that this so called Klan of "conspiracy nutters" will believe anything.

Yet, those who take encyclopedia Britannica dogma & their public school education as pure truth are open minded?

How do you have such insight into an online persona such as myself?

Or, are you presumptuous & lumping my consciousness/capabilities in with others you have met along your short journey?

So this Confirmation Bias is a disease to which you have been vaccinated?

If you disagree with Encyclopedia Britannica at all, that is admitting you believe reality to be false. You would be hard pressed to find a more reputable and objective source the world over.

Edit: I see you added new material to the post I responded to without proper notation, classy.

Why do you think it is called Britannica?

British Monarchy perhaps.

They are Germans who changed their surname during WW1; but you know all of these facts.

PS Andrew Bell , a Scot co-founder of that book of knowledge you hold so dear had little formal education & rode the tallest horse available to offset his small stature.

And all of that matters why? You judge what it was and not what it has become?

I hope you hold on to that phrase.

So EB is objective with respect to Trail of Tears ? How about European colonialism of Africa?

How does it speak of the history of Hawaii?

What does is say about Nikola Tesla?

Did Cristobal Colon discover America? That wasn't his name by the way, he made it up like an actor in Hollywood.

Same with any Flat Earth post. It's taken over by one guy with three accounts (at least) that harass anyone who dares point out his mistakes.

Well flat earth is a bit ridiculous. Discounting hundreds, if not thousands, of years or research and evidence, while also ignoring things you can observe on a day to day basis is a bit ridiculous.

You should reconsider it.

Discounting hundreds, if not thousands, of years or research and evidence,

You should look into the history of the topic instead of just assuming this.

ignoring things you can observe on a day to day basis

This is actually what you have to do in order to believe in a globular earth. The physical evidence is extremely strong and it is right in front of your eyes.

If you are actually interested, this is a place to start: https://youtu.be/kFjG4jpUhQI

Dude I've looked at a ton of this stuff. I haven't ignored it. I've argued this stuff and that hollow earth mumbo-jumbo.

Answer these questions that no one has been able to for me:

Where does a flat Earth begin and/or end? If it's flat and finite then it must start and end somewhere. is it a circle? A square?

How thick is this flat Earth? We've drilled pretty deep down so it has to be deep, right? What's underneath it?

How can you explain plate tectonics? Old material has to go somewhere, and new material has to be created from somewhere. We're talking kilometers thick material that's created from absurd amounts of heat and pressure. How far down in a flat Earth would that have to be to take place?

How can you explain the Coriolis Effect? That's observable from Hurricanes, or even your toilet.

How can you explain gravity. Everything falls towards the center of Earth (or a specific point within a body, typically the center), which is why it falls down no matter where you are. Where would that center be? Without gravity on a flat Earth, a bullet shot from a gun would theoretically never hit the ground until it escaped this flat Earth.

Why are we the only known, observable flat body? We can use simple telescopes to see other celestial bodies that are spherical and have rotation. Why are we the lone exception?

Lastly, for what purpose would people have for hiding knowledge this flat Earth? What is to gain? A big April Fools joke? That seems excessive for a prank.

Edit: and another question, how do you explain seasons? On a flat Earth, every inch of the planet would receive equal amounts of rays of light. This would cause a large amount of infrared and ultraviolet radiation being absorbed, causing an extremely hot planet that would have no atmosphere, no weather, just hot. Not a very habitable environment.

I know you have not "looked at a ton of this stuff", because you don't even understand the basic model that you could see in a 10 minute video. I will address your points. None of these points are related to proofs about flat earth though. You are thinking about it from the wrong angle. You are thinking it can't possibly be true because of the coverup required. It is much better to start with proofs involving flat water over large distances and then later work on the how and the why of the coverup. Again, it is clear that you have yet to consult the resources that I have linked to you multiple times because you keep asking very basic questions.

Where does a flat Earth begin and/or end? If it's flat and finite then it must start and end somewhere. is it a circle? A square?

The shape of what we (the public) are aware of is a circle. It is ringed by Antarctica. What is deep past the edge of Antarctica we do not know.

How thick is this flat Earth? We've drilled pretty deep down so it has to be deep, right? What's underneath it?

Actually, we have not drilled that far down. I believe the deepest reported in somewhere around 8 miles. How can we know what is past that?

How can you explain the Coriolis Effect? That's observable from Hurricanes, or even your toilet.

The below is copy paste. A proper discussion on this specific point requires more:

The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth.

“While the premise makes sense - that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well - in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day. When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.” -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?” Science.HowStuffWorks.com

The Coriolis Effect is also said to affect bullet trajectories and weather patterns as well, supposedly causing most storms in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate counter-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. Again, however, the same problems remain. Not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behavior and therefore cannot reasonably be used as proof of anything. What about the precision of the sight aperture, human error, and wind? What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect? Why does the Coriolis Effect affect most storms but not all? If some storms rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South, how do those storms escape the Coriolis force? And if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently? Coriolis’s Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum are both said to prove the Earth moves beneath our feet, but in reality only prove how easy it can be for wolves in sheep’s clothing to pull the wool over our eyes. -The Flat Earth Conspiracy

How can you explain gravity. Everything falls towards the center of Earth (or a specific point within a body, typically the center), which is why it falls down no matter where you are. Where would that center be? Without gravity on a flat Earth, a bullet shot from a gun would theoretically never hit the ground until it escaped this flat Earth.

Gravity does not actually exist. This is a whole topic on its own and I realize this statement can seem outlandish but a careful look at the history of how gravity came to be accepted in the first place is important. The motion you experience can be explained through buoyancy and density. An object in a medium depending on their relative densities will float or sink.

Why are we the only known, observable flat body? We can use simple telescopes to see other celestial bodies that are spherical and have rotation. Why are we the lone exception?

You are assuming there are other "celestial bodies".

Lastly, for what purpose would people have for hiding knowledge this flat Earth? What is to gain? A big April Fools joke? That seems excessive for a prank.

I addressed this in the first paragraph. The evidence for the "why" is not something you can observe with your own eyes (like the flatness of the earth). It is certainly more important than a prank.

flat water over large distances

Only it's not flat. If it were, when you go to the beach, you would be able to see EVERYTHING.

The shape of what we (the public) are aware of is a circle. It is ringed by Antarctica. What is deep past the edge of Antarctica we do not know.

Seriously? We don't know? Maybe we don't know because it has no edge? How would we not have the technology with planes and drones capable of equipping cameras. You would think one guy would say "Hey, why don't we just fly a plane out there as far as it will go and take some pictures?"

What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect?

Here's a more recent experiment done that actually contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment that proves the Earth has angular velocity, meaning it is spinning.

I can't explain why Hurricanes and Tornadoes don't always spin counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, but that's one thing I'm sure I will research in my soon-to-be-career in Meteorology. AFAIK, no one knows and it really perplexes people.

Gravity does not actually exist.

If not, how did the planet form and what keeps everything here? You say the air is less dense and more buoyant, which is true, but without gravity, how would it not just float away? Something must be pulling it back down. And just because an object is in a less dense medium, doesn't mean it should automatically sink to the bottom. It still needs something telling it WHERE the bottom is (ie: Gravity)

You are assuming there are other "celestial bodies".

Um....I don't even know where to begin with that. Go grab a few lenses, throw them in a tube, find a cleary night sky and you'll see them. Are you saying whoever created this hoax just threw a tarp over the entire Earth? How does this tarp manage to move and have parts in it that move? How do MASSIVE things routinely come from this tarp?

And you didn't address plate tectonics. How do mountains and volcanoes form in this flat Earth? How do Earthquakes occur?

I believe the deepest reported in somewhere around 8 miles. How can we know what is past that?

One tool that is useful to see inside the Earth is an earthquake. There are two different waves (S and P) that are produced. Measuring the distances and speeds and different reflections of these waves, geologists are able to approximate what the structure of the Earth is.

I addressed this in the first paragraph. The evidence for the "why" is not something you can observe with your own eyes (like the flatness of the earth). It is certainly more important than a prank.

I wouldn't think it'd be observable with my eyes. And you have yet to answer the question.

http://www.zengardner.com/iq-psy-ops-civilization-scam/

That article was just posted. You should read it. It is very topical.

I will respond to all your points in a bit. But again, these are all basic questions that tell me you have not consulted the resources.

Again I will give you a couple of links:

If you would like a more serious look at the topic: https://youtu.be/kFjG4jpUhQI

An old book: https://archive.org/details/zeteticcosmogon00recgoog

The article has nothing to do with the subject at hand. And I'm not reading a book by "Rectangle" aka T. Winship, whom I can find nothing about.

I'll be waiting for your responses to my questions.

I will give you the answers to the questions you asked, but no more until you demonstrate that you have actually consulted the resources. There is no point in continuing to respond to you if you don't do so. I get the feeling that you are deliberately wasting my time. If you feel that is not the case, review our history and look how much time I have spent with you vs the fact that you have yet to actually read the info at the links I have given you.

Also, that article has everything to do with the subject at hand. It explains your approach to this subreddit. You should actually read it. And you gave an awfully shallow reason for rejecting that book.

Again, these are the last questions of yours that I will answer until you show that you have read things at the links I have given you.

Only it's not flat. If it were, when you go to the beach, you would be able to see EVERYTHING.

No, that is not the case.

1. Your vision works like a cone. To see this consider your own "viewport". Consider looking down a very long hallway. Think about the lines of the floor, ceiling and walls. If the hallway is long enough those lines converge in the middle of your view. The parts of the hallway closer to you take up a larger part of the 2d "viewport" of your vision. Even though the hallway is a rectangular cuboid, you see the lines of the intersection of the floor, ceiling and walls meet in the center of your vision. You can't see infinitely down the hallway and the same occurs outside.

2. Air has moisture and other particulate matter in it. You cannot see through it an infinite distance. Consider standing at a lookout and viewing two hills, one twice the distance from you as the other. The further away one will have more of a blue tinge to it due to viewing it through more air.

Seriously? We don't know? Maybe we don't know because it has no edge? How would we not have the technology with planes and drones capable of equipping cameras. You would think one guy would say "Hey, why don't we just fly a plane out there as far as it will go and take some pictures?"

For the flat earth to be true, there must be a large coverup. You cannot trust the Royal Academy of anything. Things must be able to be repeatedly demonstrated by the layman. If you think "official sources" don't lie, well that is incredibly naive, but a topic on its own. Regular people cannot mount expeditions or plane flights over Antarctica. That ends poorly for them.

If not, how did the planet form and what keeps everything here? You say the air is less dense and more buoyant, which is true, but without gravity, how would it not just float away? Something must be pulling it back down. And just because an object is in a less dense medium, doesn't mean it should automatically sink to the bottom. It still needs something telling it WHERE the bottom is (ie: Gravity)

I don't know how the earth formed. I do know that the official story doesn't sound very plausible. I don't think you have to know this prove that the earth is flat though. Who is to say what is actually above us? Astronauts have never been past the Van Allen belts. I know the official line has some issues. How do you possibly have an atmosphere beside a vacuum? Do you know what the force of a vacuum sucking is compared to what the strength gravity is supposed to be? But both of these questions really aren't relevant. To prove flat earth I don't have to show I know everything about everything, I just have to show that the earth is flat. All of these other questions I would really like to know the answer to, but the answers to them don't change whether or not the earth is flat.

Um....I don't even know where to begin with that. Go grab a few lenses, throw them in a tube, find a cleary night sky and you'll see them. Are you saying whoever created this hoax just threw a tarp over the entire Earth? How does this tarp manage to move and have parts in it that move? How do MASSIVE things routinely come from this tarp?

Certainly you can see lights in the sky with a telescope. I don't think I mentioned a tarp. This is like the last question, you are asking me to explain the nature of the entire universe while I'm just trying to prove the earth cannot be a sphere and is instead flat.

One tool that is useful to see inside the Earth is an earthquake. There are two different waves (S and P) that are produced. Measuring the distances and speeds and different reflections of these waves, geologists are able to approximate what the structure of the Earth is.

Here is a video about deep drilling: https://youtu.be/bLLxfwgEbM0 12km down they claim

Geologists are not able to get an accurate picture hundreds of miles underground with earthquake waves. And even if they could, why does it matter? You are again asking for an explanation to everything in the universe when I am only trying to show that the earth is flat and not a globe.

I wouldn't think it'd be observable with my eyes. And you have yet to answer the question.

The question of why is not relevant. Focus on the physical proofs, they are first order evidence. You can perform experiments yourself to demonstrate it.

Summary: 1. I will respond to you no more until you consult the resources I have linked in our many conversations. You are wasting my time until you do. 2. I do not know everything about the universe, most of your questions i would really like to know the answer to, but I don't. I am just trying to demonstrate that the world is flat, and cannot be a sphere.

And you really should read that article I linked. You are clinging to lies like a comforting blanket. You refuse to even consider the physical evidence and focus only on the devastation of your world view if it were true. You cannot face that reality, so cannot afford to actually consider the evidence.

still posting this bullshit about the hallway i see.

Your vision works like a cone. To see this consider your own "viewport". Consider looking down a very long hallway. Think about the lines of the floor, ceiling and walls. If the hallway is long enough those lines converge in the middle of your view.

They would appear to recede infinitely but never beyond the horizon. Which is what things do in real life.

The parts of the hallway closer to you take up a larger part of the 2d "viewport" of your vision. Even though the hallway is a rectangular cuboid, you see the lines of the intersection of the floor, ceiling and walls meet in the center of your vision. You can't see infinitely down the hallway and the same occurs outside.

One would be able to see object behind other objects. Like the rocky mountains from new york.

One cannot.

Air has moisture and other particulate matter in it. You cannot see through it an infinite distance. Consider standing at a lookout and viewing two hills, one twice the distance from you as the other. The further away one will have more of a blue tinge to it due to viewing it through more air.

Objects disappear over the horizon before the affect of atmospheric perspective take effect enough to obscure them.

Regular people cannot mount expeditions or plane flights over Antarctica.

I went there when I was 15. So did about 100 other students.

Astronauts have never been past the Van Allen belts.

Yes they have.

Why do you believe only halfway? Why do you even believe the "official narrative" about the Van Allen belts at all? You can't pick and choose what part of "the official" narrative you like, especially if it conflicts with other parts.

. How do you possibly have an atmosphere beside a vacuum?

Space isn't a perfect vacuum, but I digress:

Gravity is how stuff doesn't just float away.

They would appear to recede infinitely but never beyond the horizon. Which is what things do in real life.

That is not true, you can only see a finite distance. The hallway is not bs. It is showing you the linear progression of the lines of your perspective. There is no point at which the lines curve. If you don't understand this example, that is unfortunate, but that is how our vision works. Next time you are looking along a long fence or something, have a look at how the appearance of the posts change as they get further away from you.

One would be able to see object behind other objects. Like the rocky mountains from new york. One cannot.

What are you trying to say here? Is this just more not understanding how field of vision works?

Objects disappear over the horizon before the affect of atmospheric perspective take effect enough to obscure them.

No, this is not true. First of all, even if the earth was a globe it wouldn't be true since the air can have varying visibility. But let's look at ship over the horizon. This is again the hallway principle. Its just how your vision works.

To demonstrate this to yourself, bring a telescope the next time you are in a position to view a ship sailing away from you. Once you can no longer see it with the naked eye, use your telescope. You will be able to see the ship again. It was not the water blocking your vision, it was the limit of your perspective with the naked eye. The telescope has the effect of advancing your 2d viewport forward. The viewable space is not occupied by the things close to you, so you can see further. However the lines of your perspective through the telescope still end at a finite point.

I went there when I was 15. So did about 100 other students.

Please describe this trip in detail. I'm interested.

Why do you believe only halfway? Why do you even believe the "official narrative" about the Van Allen belts at all? You can't pick and choose what part of "the official" narrative you like, especially if it conflicts with other parts.

That is a good question actually. Its really just their own contradiction that is the issue there. They say we can't do it now, and they haven't claimed to for a very long time (70s?). I do believe there is something stopping them, exactly what the nature of it is, I don't know. This is actually refreshingly insightful.

Space isn't a perfect vacuum, but I digress: Gravity is how stuff doesn't just float away.

It doesn't need to be perfect. If you take two sealed chambers with different pressures and make an opening between them so that they are one chamber, what happens? How does the force of that process compare to the force of gravity? The supposed gravitational force is an incredibly weak one as it is described to us.

. It is showing you the linear progression of the lines of your perspective.

If it were linear, objects would appear to recede infinitely into the distance. The do not.

There is no point at which the lines curve.

How many times does someone need to reiterate how large the earth is?

Next time you are looking along a long fence or something, have a look at how the appearance of the posts change as they get further away from you.

And a "super long" fence would disappear over the horion.

What are you trying to say here? Is this just more not understanding how field of vision works?

If the earth were flat, one could see the rocky mountains from new york.

but you cannot.

But let's look at ship over the horizon.

yes, and it disappears over the horizon. it does not recede infinitely away.

nce you can no longer see it with the naked eye, use your telescope.

and what you will see is the ship disappearing over the horizon. Not it shrinking "infinitely" backward.

just like i can't get my mega telescope out and see the rocky mountains (or even the himalayas) from new york.

Please describe this trip in detail. I'm interested.

Myself, along with any other students went to antarctica. the program continues to this day. i saw a lot of weird bird things and fozen water.

Its really just their own contradiction that is the issue there

they don't contradict themselves.

They say we can't do it now,

Do they? The video in particular the flat earthers are obsessed with, never says it. Only that it's dangerous.

They hinge their argument on incredulity : why don't we use 1969 technology?!!

Because it's not 1969. The metrics for the orion program are different from those in 1969. Sure we could just use some 1960s tech and remake an apollo. But that would be stupid. Those things were dangerous. Technology changes and we need to fit all the metrics of today's needs and that will require prototyping and testing.

Moreover, he doesn't actually say they can't get "past" them.

. If you take two sealed chambers with different pressures and make an opening between them so that they are one chamber, what happens?

...thats not really how space works. the earth and "space" aren't two sealed off chambers.

The supposed gravitational force is an incredibly weak one as it is described to us.

Yes, especially compared to other forces. Your point?

If it were linear, objects would appear to recede infinitely into the distance. The do not.

What? No. The hallway is used to demonstrate how you see objects at distance. Each square slice along the hallway gets less of your 2d viewport. You should look up this concept, its just how vision works.

How many times does someone need to reiterate how large the earth is?

I am talking about the lines of your perspective, it has nothing to do with the size of the earth. Please look into how field of vision works. Its not some out there concept, it is well understood and accepted. Find some resources with some diagrams.

yes, and it disappears over the horizon. it does not recede infinitely away.

No, this is what happens to objects when they near the end of your perspective. You can actually simulate this effect in your own home on a smaller scale.

Myself, along with any other students went to antarctica. the program continues to this day. i saw a lot of weird bird things and fozen water.

Well, that was less than I had hoped for. I never said that Antarctica doesn't exist, it is a ring around us. But taking a guided tour at the edge doesn't with a school group isn't exactly unsupervised exploration.

NASA stuff

So, when was the last time they reported going even halfway to the moon with a person?

...thats not really how space works. the earth and "space" aren't two sealed off chambers.

They are not two sealed off chambers, that is exactly the point! How can they exist next to one another? The force of gravity is extremely weak. If we are on a spinning globe, would the spinning itself not push the atmosphere off (think of spinning a wet tennis ball). But gravity supposed to overcome that, and the infinite pull of a vacuum? That's a lot of tripe to swallow right there.

I suggest you go from trying to debunk me to actually considering the arguments. Unless you are an alternate account of that HaltNWO guy, then you may be beyond hope.

What? No

Now I'm describing your theoretical platform to you. If the world were on a flat plane, things would "appear" to recede infinitely towards that end. They don't.

. Each square slice along the hallway gets less of your 2d viewport. You should look up this concept, its just how vision works.

this is nonsense.

I am talking about the lines of your perspective,

"lines of perspective" are imaginary.

The underlying geometry appears "straight" because the curvature of the earth is so vast.

Find some resources with some diagrams.

now you're just making shit up.

No, this is what happens to objects when they near the end of your perspective.

There is no "end of our perspective" in your case.

We stop seein things when they

1) are obscured by other things, mainly the earth

2) are so far away as to become indistinguishable

3) are obscured by the effect of atmospheric perspective

If objects were aligned on to a flat plane 1 would not occur (but it does and is present and noticeable)

2 would be immediately obvious, as large objects would be more visible from farther away (but they aren't)

3 doesn't matter much since our eyes can still see objects through atmospheric perspective out to some distance, and so can other devices. However, they can't see the rocky mountains from new york. or the himalayas from the rockies.

So, when was the last time they reported going even halfway to the moon with a person?

The last time they needed to.

Why would you go to the moon if there was no reason to?

You don't just go on difficult logistically and scientifically (and dangerous) missiong just because.

How can they exist next to one another?

They don't exist "next to another".

The Earth and its atmosphere exist in space.

The force of gravity is extremely weak.

Yes.

If we are on a spinning globe, would the spinning itself not push the atmosphere off (think of spinning a wet tennis ball).

Guess what? The earth isn't a wet tennis ball. It's a massive ball with its own gravity.

That's a lot of tripe to swallow right there.

Unfortunate you don't understand something so simple.

I suggest you go from trying to debunk me to actually considering the arguments.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Same old dumb arguments without a shred of sense. some bullshit about a hallway? and then some dumb confusion over "we havent gone to the moon recently ergo we can't". try again

The major issue here seems to be that you do not understand perspective. This is not something I made up you know.

Here is a resource that explains how lines of vision and perspective work. Please read it carefully.

http://perspectiveresources.blogspot.ca/p/principles.html

http://perspectiveresources.blogspot.ca/p/principles.html

HAHAHAHAHA

this is a description of how perspective and parallel lines works across a 2D plane and has nothing to do with the horizon or the curvature of the earth. Notice nowhere in that 3rd grade art lesson does it discuss that. "Perspective lines" (orthogonals) actually follow the curvature of the Earth.

Using your shitty 2d example, as I've stated a half dozen times already- objects recede infinitely towards the horizon. That's perspective across a plane.

Objects however, don't do that. They disappear over the horizon.

If they did not, and everything simply receded toward a "vanishing point" one could see the rocky mountains from new york.

But one can't becaue they're on the other side of the globe.

You are laughing, but you are the one who does not understand. I gave you a simple page for a reason. I think you didn't actually get it if you learned it in 3rd grade. Anyone else who has read this far into the thread is probably laughing at you now. Of course it doesn't talk about horizons, it talks about how your eyes work. You have to read it and then apply it to the situation we are talking about, its not pure spoon feeding.

"Perspective lines" (orthogonals) actually follow the curvature of the Earth.

If you believe this, I don't know what to do for you. You are saying the appearance of an object 20 feet in front of you, vs the appearance of that same object 20 feet above you would be different because one is in a direction perpendicular to the ground?

I don't think anyone reasonable who is debating on the side of a globular earth would make that argument, its just silly.

You are laughing, but you are the one who does not understand. I gave you a simple page for a reason. I think you didn't actually get it if you learned it in 3rd grade.

No. You presented an article about how parallel lines converge on a 2d plane towards a vanishing point; keeping in mind of course all these orthogonal lines are congruent with the spherical earth.

You presented nothing about how objects apparently recede infinitely away, as one would see on a flat earth.

You are saying the appearance of an object 20 feet in front of you, vs the appearance of that same object 20 feet above you would be different because one is in a direction perpendicular to the ground?

Huh?

I didn't say that.

I don't even know what you're getting at.

I said :

"Perspective lines" (orthogonals) actually follow the curvature of the Earth.

Meaning just that. These "perspective lines" (orthogonals) recede towards a vanishing point; and they do so following the curve of the earth.

You are saying that perspective lines follow the curvature of the earth. That is absolute nonsense. Think about that for a bit. If you look up at a scene instead, how does perspective function then? This has nothing to do with curvature of the earth, these effects occur the same on large scales and small. To say that curvature of the earth is a fundamental property of vision, well that is just insanity.

I mean, doesn't spouting that amount of nonsense hurt your head? Do you really believe that?

It seems like you are starting from a place of "I know the earth is a globe, so I have 'right' on my side and anything i make up is probably right because this guy has the wrong conclusion." That is not the way a thinking person considers an issue. Try letting go of your conclusion for a moment so you can consider it fairly.

You are saying that perspective lines follow the curvature of the earth. That is absolute nonsense.

You haven't been able to produce a single statement of fact contrary to this other than you acting outraged. If lines were projected in a "perfectly flat" direction outwards from where I was standing, objects would appear to recede infinitely towards it. They do not.

Think about that for a bit. If you look up at a scene instead, how does perspective function then?

It functions with all lines receding towards a vanishing point.

This has nothing to do with curvature of the earth,

You're right. It "doesn't have to do with the curvature of the Earth". Perfectly parrallel lines project away towards the same vanishing point. That vanishing point is along the horizon.

To say that curvature of the earth is a fundamental property of vision, well that is just insanity.

LOL

when did I saw it was property of vision, fundamental or otherwise?

Curvature of the Earth is a fundamental property of.... The Earth

In any case, I am done speaking to you. You have made several statements that are obviously silly and you aren't willing to consider the evidence. Your goal is not to learn. It is to either deliberately waste my time or possibly you are someone who just likes to be right. I don't need to win, only aim to inform. You should actually give it a fair shot though. Try the videos I linked.

In any case, I am done speaking to you. You have made several statements that are obviously silly and you aren't willing to consider the evidence.

zzzzz boring. more dodging the question and avoiding all debate when your back is to the wall.

I don't need to win, only aim to inform

inform me again why i can't see mountains from new york if the earth is flat? I'm sitting here with my high powered telescope which I use to look the moon up close but I still can't see any mountains to my west, despite them being relatively close and quite tall.

Ok, you got me, ill reply once more. I have not dodged your questions, you just didnt understand the answers.

If you are willing to give them a chance, here are a couple more videos that demonstrate some of the things im talking about:

https://youtu.be/TW__MZXMA7A

https://youtu.be/fcteYfOMgJg

gl to you

Ok, you got me, ill reply once more. I have not dodged your questions, you just didnt understand the answers.

"I haven't dodged your questions

dodges question.

He dodged a discussion he and I were having when I started using math. He claimed I made a ton of mistakes and that he couldn't continue because he had to work. Guess he conveniently "forgot" to continue.

You haven't been able to produce a single statement of fact contrary to this other than you acting outraged.

I'm not outraged, I'm just surprised you would make such a claim. Perspective lines are straight by definition. Saying that they follow the curvature of the earth means that the earth must be flat. I'm glad you have come around.

Perspective lines are straight by definition. Saying that they follow the curvature of the earth means that the earth must be flat

We've been over this but your flat brain doesn't comprehend it.

They appear straight because the size of the curve is so great you don't see it. Just like your stupid traintrack example. Just like your stupid "level" example. This is also noticed when at greater altitudes, the line of the horizon and the theoretical "vanishing point" lines are not the same.

You again! This guy is what this thread is all about. Seriously, read his comment history to get an idea.

I do promote flat earth (because it is true), but I am not the same person as the others who do.

If you look far enough into his comments you can find him trying to debate(really just mindless attempts to debunk mindlessly without consideration for the actual argument) with me on the subject. Unfortunately he does not have the ability to form a cogent argument.

He is so ineffective it is hilarious.

Take your Flat Earth agenda to a post about the earth or geography or people who have never been to lake Michigan.

lake Michigan looks flat to me

Why do you keep running away from our discussions away I disprove your points?

You should review our conversations. I have never run away from a discussion with you. If you would like to present something for me to respond to, I will. However, you have demonstrated that you do not have ability to form a proper argument.

Seriously, this was your "gotcha":

Have you ever heard of a level? It's a little device sold at any hardware store that allows you to look perfectly perpendicular to the ground. Do you own one?

+

Good. Now, do you live somewhere near a large body of water or a really flat plain? If so, go there, make sure the level is parallel to the ground and stable, and look down the level, straight towards the horizon. Can you see the ground/water? Maybe.

Now do the same thing, only hundreds of feet (large building), or thousands (airplane). Can you see the ground/water?

And your response was...?

Here is the link to it if you would like a refresher: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/36srvz/iumi_used_to_be_a_defender_about_how_we_went_to/crhdfvz

I was unable to address your "proof" because it was nonsensical. Seriously, read it again. I informed you that: "If you want to give an experiment you should include a hypothesis, steps, expected result, then a discussion of why your expected result demonstrates your point." I asked you to clarify the point you were trying to express, but you were unable.

If you would like to continue the conversation, we can, but you should review it first.

Very well. Can increasing your elevation increase the distance you can see? Does the horizon appear further away the higher you go? I submit that it does.

Experimental data backs that up.

We can conclude that the limiting factor in viewing the horizon at ground level is not particles in the air or the air itself.

Do you follow so far?

The limiting factor as to how far you can see in very dry air is the property of the shape of viewable area that I described. Again, think of the lines of a hallway.

Looking at the horizon as you go higher is actually an important proof. When you rise in elevation, the horizon rises to meet your eyes. This is only possible on a flat plane. On a globe, you must look down to see the horizon as you go higher up. And no, the size of the earth that we are told is not too large to notice this. We are given a circumference of about 25000 miles. You can do the math if you like, its just pythag.

the horizon rises to meet your eyes

I hear this every once in awhile and it never makes sense. Are you saying that if you increase your elevation, you have to keep looking further and further down to see the horizon and keep it in the center of your vision?

If the earth were a ball, yes. You would have to look down more and more to see the horizon as you elevated. If this were not true, how could you ever get high enough to take a picture of a globular earth that includes its edges?

If this were not true, how could you ever get high enough to take a picture of a globular earth that includes its edges?

A sphere doesn't have edges...

I mean a picture from a point where you can see both sides of a sphere from where you are. If you can never escape the level of the horizon being at your eyes, no matter how high you go, then you can never reach a point at which this is possible.

I know this isn't as straightforward as some of the other things I have said, but think about it. Pretend you are in a balloon that can go up high enough to take a picture of the whole earth as a ball. If the level of the horizon stays always exactly at your eyes, does it at some point just 'pop' and the earth is below you? That would not make a lot of sense as we are rising gradually.

For it to be a globe, the horizon must drop below our eye line gradually as we move up.

I mean a picture from a point where you can see both sides of a sphere from where you are.

A sphere doesn't have sides.

If you can never escape the level of the horizon being at your eyes, no matter how high you go

Where does this belief come from? I find when I go higher and look straight, the horizon is below my line of vision. Can you explain it using math? I think that's where your confusion lies.

If the level of the horizon stays always exactly at your eyes, does it at some point just 'pop' and the earth is below you? That would not make a lot of sense as we are rising gradually.

It's because you premise that the horizon always stays at eye level is false. I've never seen any explanation, picture or logic that backs up that claim. I've only heard hearsay.

For it to be a globe, the horizon must drop below our eye line gradually as we move up.

Which is what we observe.

A sphere doesn't have sides.

I am not trying to say that it does. I'm saying a point where, from that position you can see a globe below you.

Where does this belief come from? I find when I go higher and look straight, the horizon is below my line of vision. Can you explain it using math? I think that's where your confusion lies.

I find when I go higher and look straight, the horizon is below my line of vision.

No, look out the window the next time you are in an airplane. Or watch a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDs2T2PgxNM

Also note the impossible flatness of the horizon seen. This is a different proof than the horizon line height.

Which is what we observe.

You have an issue now. Are you sure you want to directly deny what you can see what your own eyes? The horizon line does stay at your eye level as you ascend. It's just what happens. You can watch videos that show it, or you can observe it yourself. I have brought you to the water, but it is up to you to drink.

Did you link to the wrong video? That doesn't show the horizon staying at eye level.

It also shows the curve of the Earth.

I absolutely linked the right video. Yes, the camera is moving, but do you know how much curve you should see at that height for the earth to be a globe? Do you know how far the horizon line would need to be below your eye level in order for the earth to be a sphere of circumference 25000 miles? Again, you can do the math, its just triangles.

If you want to watch a video with more on the subject you could try this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YQ0dMJEjsk

or this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDs2T2PgxNM

Do you know how far the horizon line would need to be below your eye level in order for the earth to be a sphere of circumference 25000 miles?

Considering a 35mm camera has a vertical field of view of ~27 ^o and the radius of the Earth is ~4,000 miles, it's simple trigonometry to calculate the necessary height (which ends up being 4000/tan(13.5 ^o ) or ~2960 miles or about 15,632,000 feet).

And why do you keep linking the high altitude balloon video if it debunks a flat Earth? I thought you were trying to convince me it is flat...

There are a lot of problems with what you just said and I will address them today. But right now I have to go to work. I encourage you to watch the videos I linked earlier.

There are a lot of problems with what you just said and I will address them today.

Well?

I don't understand how this post gets 47 comments, and the post I made got under 20 when what I speak has more truth than his post. To me this confirms, this guy and people like him have hijacked /r/conspiracy . They are burying new items that need to be shown to prop up their own agenda. Wake up /r/conspiracy check out /r/conspiracy/new and not just the front page.

Yes, this is absolutely true. /r/conspiracy should be viewed by /new always. I promise you though that I have hijacked nothing. I am only one person and I do very little voting. Voting should be ignored entirely. Important subjects get hammered with downvotes.

Precisely! I'm sure the people who got this far have the intelligence to know that.

Take your Flat Earth agenda to a post about the earth or geography or people who have never been to lake Michigan.

I'm not a Flat Earth believer...

Sorry, you are right, it is offtopic to this thread. Really I was trying to be on topic by pointing out that HaltNWO is exactly the sort of person you are talking about.

Have a peek at his post history.

Although I'm curious what you mean about lake Michigan.

When you look at Chicago across Lake Michigan, you can only see the tops of the taller buildings; the bottoms, smaller buildings and the ground are below the horizon.

Here is a quick video with some skyline visible at distances which would be impossible on a spherical earth of the circumference we are told.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgur5EKboLY

http://www.zengardner.com/iq-psy-ops-civilization-scam/

That article was just posted. You should read it. It is very topical.

I will respond to all your points in a bit. But again, these are all basic questions that tell me you have not consulted the resources.

Again I will give you a couple of links:

If you would like a more serious look at the topic: https://youtu.be/kFjG4jpUhQI

An old book: https://archive.org/details/zeteticcosmogon00recgoog

Again, these are the last questions of yours that I will answer until you show that you have read things at the links I have given you.

Only it's not flat. If it were, when you go to the beach, you would be able to see EVERYTHING.

No, that is not the case.

1. Your vision works like a cone. To see this consider your own "viewport". Consider looking down a very long hallway. Think about the lines of the floor, ceiling and walls. If the hallway is long enough those lines converge in the middle of your view. The parts of the hallway closer to you take up a larger part of the 2d "viewport" of your vision. Even though the hallway is a rectangular cuboid, you see the lines of the intersection of the floor, ceiling and walls meet in the center of your vision. You can't see infinitely down the hallway and the same occurs outside.

2. Air has moisture and other particulate matter in it. You cannot see through it an infinite distance. Consider standing at a lookout and viewing two hills, one twice the distance from you as the other. The further away one will have more of a blue tinge to it due to viewing it through more air.

Seriously? We don't know? Maybe we don't know because it has no edge? How would we not have the technology with planes and drones capable of equipping cameras. You would think one guy would say "Hey, why don't we just fly a plane out there as far as it will go and take some pictures?"

For the flat earth to be true, there must be a large coverup. You cannot trust the Royal Academy of anything. Things must be able to be repeatedly demonstrated by the layman. If you think "official sources" don't lie, well that is incredibly naive, but a topic on its own. Regular people cannot mount expeditions or plane flights over Antarctica. That ends poorly for them.

If not, how did the planet form and what keeps everything here? You say the air is less dense and more buoyant, which is true, but without gravity, how would it not just float away? Something must be pulling it back down. And just because an object is in a less dense medium, doesn't mean it should automatically sink to the bottom. It still needs something telling it WHERE the bottom is (ie: Gravity)

I don't know how the earth formed. I do know that the official story doesn't sound very plausible. I don't think you have to know this prove that the earth is flat though. Who is to say what is actually above us? Astronauts have never been past the Van Allen belts. I know the official line has some issues. How do you possibly have an atmosphere beside a vacuum? Do you know what the force of a vacuum sucking is compared to what the strength gravity is supposed to be? But both of these questions really aren't relevant. To prove flat earth I don't have to show I know everything about everything, I just have to show that the earth is flat. All of these other questions I would really like to know the answer to, but the answers to them don't change whether or not the earth is flat.

Um....I don't even know where to begin with that. Go grab a few lenses, throw them in a tube, find a cleary night sky and you'll see them. Are you saying whoever created this hoax just threw a tarp over the entire Earth? How does this tarp manage to move and have parts in it that move? How do MASSIVE things routinely come from this tarp?

Certainly you can see lights in the sky with a telescope. I don't think I mentioned a tarp. This is like the last question, you are asking me to explain the nature of the entire universe while I'm just trying to prove the earth cannot be a sphere and is instead flat.

One tool that is useful to see inside the Earth is an earthquake. There are two different waves (S and P) that are produced. Measuring the distances and speeds and different reflections of these waves, geologists are able to approximate what the structure of the Earth is.

Here is a video about deep drilling: https://youtu.be/bLLxfwgEbM0 12km down they claim

Geologists are not able to get an accurate picture hundreds of miles underground with earthquake waves. And even if they could, why does it matter? You are again asking for an explanation to everything in the universe when I am only trying to show that the earth is flat and not a globe.

I wouldn't think it'd be observable with my eyes. And you have yet to answer the question.

The question of why is not relevant. Focus on the physical proofs, they are first order evidence. You can perform experiments yourself to demonstrate it.

Summary: 1. I will respond to you no more until you consult the resources I have linked in our many conversations. You are wasting my time until you do. 2. I do not know everything about the universe, most of your questions i would really like to know the answer to, but I don't. I am just trying to demonstrate that the world is flat, and cannot be a sphere.

And you really should read that article I linked. You are clinging to lies like a comforting blanket. You refuse to even consider the physical evidence and focus only on the devastation of your world view if it were true. You cannot face that reality, so cannot afford to actually consider the evidence.

When you look at Chicago across Lake Michigan, you can only see the tops of the taller buildings; the bottoms, smaller buildings and the ground are below the horizon.

Did you link to the wrong video? That doesn't show the horizon staying at eye level.

It also shows the curve of the Earth.