Looks fine from here.
Given the simplicity of being able to know by personal observation the fact that the flat earth model is patently false, why bother to continue with someone who denies what is self evident?
So this can't be a serious question for me, right? Because you told me: "It's impossible to take you seriously". So are you just kidding around with this question?
I will answer your question for other people reading. Because, why would I take you seriously for
your sake, when you aren't talking to me seriously? You've got me conflicted, marks. Your messages are not simple.
It appears marks holds "personable observation" so worthy, he doesn't accept the existence of mirages. Or, if he accepts the existence of mirages, he must admit his vision is capable of deception. But then, he would know his vision is untrustworthy. Why would he trust something that is untrustworthy?
He stands as a tiny creature on this massive
planet, and he thinks he can deduce the shape of the
planet by trusting his faulty vision when he looks at a clue. As we simply
sense a
stable, flat, stationary earth, marks
concludes it is the complicated mixture of wobbling, global, and orbiting? This is what NASA teaches, so I'm assuming marks is adhering to that. But he's free to correct me whether he disagrees with NASA like
@HealthyShape when HealthyShape affirms the moon crescent is by the shape of the earth.
So marks appeals to the simplicity of personal observation, yet personal observation simply reveals a flat, stationary earth. Go walk outside and look at the trees that are supposedly moving 66,000 miles per hour. Gravity is said to somehow hold all of the world's oceans down, but a butterfly can oppose it with a flap of its ridiculously thin wings.
The truth is, if we are on a spinning and orbiting
globe, then it is
very complex. I think in this case NASA and all top level scientists would disagree with marks that it is 'simple', or they would be foolish to say it is simple. This is highly complex, and perhaps the only reason one would call it simple is if they are being arrogant/ignorant of the details, which perhaps marks is.
I've known several people off and on over the years that held these ideas. I've had good opportunity to consider and discuss and debate, this is not some new thing to me.
So you're just kidding around with this part of your message? Because you said "It's impossible" to take me "seriously".
So...does that mean this subject
is new to you? Please clarify. You're the one who told me:
It's impossible to take you seriously.
And now you're over here telling me stories, marks. Please do not confuse me. Are you taking me seriously, and therefore doing the impossible?
Just one fact alone fully refutes the flat earth model, that being the apparent size of the visible disk of the sun and moon. They do not appear as dots in the distance, growing larger until they reach overhead, then shrinking in the distance as they recede again from us. They are the same apparent size whether viewed at horizon or zenith. This in not something someone tells you, this you see yourself.
Oh so you're just joking around when you say this? Because you said "It's impossible" to take me "seriously", then you directed all this toward me.
Here is marks trusting his vision, as if light refraction isn't a thing. Hey, maybe it isn't? But here's a message I found from a physics website:
Yesterday we had a super moon full moon. At moonrise I held a transparent ruler at arm's length and measured the size of the moon against the ruler. It was 7.5 mm. At 11 pm I held the same ruler at arm's length against the moon which was now high in the sky. It was only 4 mm. This is not imaginary. It is real and observable. The larger size is caused by a refraction of light when the moon is at the horizon because the light has to pass through greater amounts of atmosphere to reach you compared to when it is overhead. The same is true of the setting sun. In fact, I recall reading years ago (I believe in my daughter's physics book) that we are actually seeing below the horizon at sunset because of light is being bent by the atmosphere. This phenomenon is worldwide. It is not imaginary. As far as I know it is sound science.
So if illusion is possible, then perhaps marks is being deceived when he thinks he is observing a globe earth. What else does he have left to appeal to in order to prove globe earth?
Do you really want to debate that? What's the point? You can see it, I can see it, and anyone who understands the most rudimentary geometry understands the significance of this.
Oh so you're just joking around when you say all this? Because you said "It's impossible" to take me "seriously", then you directed all this toward me. If so, why are you joking around so much marks?
Lot's of conspiracy videos, I'll give you that, but none, not one, with any kind of evidence that it's all faked, including flight times? How do you fake a flight time? Someone is going to notice. To say the least!
Oh so you're just joking around when you say this? Because you said "It's impossible" to take me "seriously", then you directed all this toward me.
Too bad marks won't even engage with all of my previous questions/challenges. Perhaps he doesn't feel qualified, just wants to stay in his comfort zone.
Okay, I've heard flat earthers use flight times as proof for flat earth, but that's an angle I haven't dived deeply into yet. And, marks implies someone would notice? It
looks like people
have noticed, and marks isn't taking them seriously. LOL!
As I've been able to determine, you have to ignore what is self evident in favor of arguments that are nonsensical, like that you can zoom your camera to see things 200 miles away.
Oh so you're just joking around when you say this? Because you said "It's impossible" to take me "seriously", then you directed all this toward me.
Hmm. It is self evident when I walk outside that the earth is stationary. I suppose marks is ignoring that in order to appeal to a globe where water sticks to a ball in all directions.
What you said about the pancake, that you can see more of the surface as you raise yourself up, because you have a higher viewpoint, even though the pancake remains flat? You remember that? You are only dealing with a 2 dimensional representation, while the earth is 3 dimensional.
Oh so you're just joking around when you say this? Because you said "It's impossible" to take me "seriously", then you directed all this toward me.
So, here marks affirms pancakes are 2-dimensional
To make it match, you'd have to put a marble on top of the pancake, then see if you can see it from either the surface or the pancake, and from an elevated view. And you would be able to. Unless, that is, the pancake were actually curved. Then you would not see the marble from the surface, though you would from an elevated view.
Oh so you're just joking around when you say this? Because you said "It's impossible" to take me "seriously", then you directed all this toward me.
marks. It is evident you grossly misunderstand my point. The pancake represents an
island, which was the object of observation, the subject. We would not use a marble for this demonstration, because islands are not shaped like globes. At least, not the islands I'm addressing.
So you missed the point. Is that because you aren't taking me seriously? It's like you are rushing through these messages arrogantly without much thought. I mean, you admit yourself that you
can't take me seriously. That doesn't look good on you.
Which, interestingly, is what we see on this earth. Or don't see. We don't see things past the horizon. Ships drop down past the horizon. These are things you can see with your own eyes. But you want to dispute about it. And you think I should just join in with you? What would be the point?
Much love!
Oh so you're just joking around when you say this? Because you said "It's impossible" to take me "seriously", then you directed all this toward me.
Marks is the one who decided to join in by replying to me. I want him to be fair and rational if he's going to participate. And as long as I'm addressing his questions, I want him to address mine, for rational discussion.
Unfortunately, marks has ignored much of what I proposed. Perhaps it's too complicated, or cuts too deep for him.
www.earthcam.com
