Flat Earth Theory

[Rudometkin]

As a sort of p.s. to this thing about 'deception', as what some call 'deception' is actually a matter of need in relating to things at close range with massive volume / girth in imaging them. For instance, if we take a 'high altitude' (still within LEO, UEA bounds) image of the earth and make the same ratio (distance, size, &c.) for taking a picture of say a large mega-structure building, like Burj Khalifa (or even something a bit smaller, say the Disney World 'gray ball'), wouldn't multiple photographs need to be taken at differing angles and stitched together to get the image to somewhat resemble the actual thing?

If they want hyper detailed photo of the close-ups, sure.

Hundreds of consistent, unfiltered, pure photos of the entire thing in singular images over the span of several decades is expected when the claim is "Globe earth, and we can go to space and see the entire thing from space." And an excuse like "lack of funding" would not be justified.

 

[Rudometkin]

And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. [Joshua 10:13]

Interestingly, the text does not say the earth stood still. Perhaps because the earth is not what makes a day.

 

[Shalomhalom]

Which do you see during a full moon, even with using your telescope? (please excuse my Microsoft Paint quick job)

I don’t understand why this is relevant or exactly what you are asking, so let me be precise:

When seeing sharp craters on the moon, I usually have the moon as in the top, far above the horizon. But again, I don’t see how this is relevant to my question or concern, which is simply this: why am I able with the same telescope to see both, with just a little adjustment, the moon and birds as sharp objects?

But furthermore, when I was on the beach on vacation in North-Africa 6 years ago, I saw the moon rising above the horizon of the ocean in the night. So at first you could only see the topside of the moon, then the middle, then the whole thing. So it’s definitely possible and true that the moon may be as in your picture, the below perspective I mean. But that’s possible on a flat and globe model, since this seems to be a thing of perspective, only.

I will later give you the details of my manual telescope, although again, I don’t see how this is relevant. You know, I can see both birds and the moon sharply. That should not be, upon the supposition of a 380.000 kilometers distance, according to my understanding.

That is not to mention Polaris, the North star, remaining still according to our view.

That doesn’t really negate your argument, but be assured Polaris is not absolutely still. It also, as the rest of the stars in the sky, moves, from our view, in a circle. Only it’s a very small circle, since this star is closest to the actual North of the sky. Only this North actually never moves, but Polaris isn’t the North, but visibly the closest star to it.

I know that because, in astrophotography, you actually have to focus on Polaris with a so called Polar-Scope to catch Polaris in its little rotation that it does make. Polaris moves.

Where does sun light come from?

Well, if you by “sun light” actually mean “day light”, according to the Bible, it does explicitly not come from the sun.

 

[Shalomhalom]

@Rudometkin

Watch the little part from 5:30 - 7:00, where he explains what I mean by Polaris. The goal is to catch Polaris with this little, inbuilt scope.

 

[Shalomhalom]

@Adventageous

So, this is my manual telescope, found it on the Amazon from Germany:

Amazon.de

It has two lenses, 20mm (35x) and 4mm (175x). It even has a 3x Barlow Lense, for further magnification. But as I said, I don't see how that addresses the problem.

There are even some pictures of the moon, and other objects, taken with this telescope:

By eye the craters are even more sharp, I guess it's hard to take good pictures with a telescope which is not made for photographs. But I can testify to all the above. You see Moon craters, sharply, and you are even able to see Saturn and the Moons of Jupiter with this simple telescope.

Again, I don't understand how this can be. If the Moon is 380.000 kilometers farther away than the birds in the trees, then it shouldn't be possible to see both of them sharply with the help of just a little adjustment.

 

[Adventageous]

Relative to reality as they claim it.

That doesn't mean anything.

 

[Jericho]

There could be many reasons, the most obvious ones are money & control. NASA seems to make big money out of that.

NASA is pretty much obsolete at this point. They have to rely on SpaceX, a private company, just to get people to space. I'll also add that the cost to keep such a grand conspiracy going would be astronomical, far outweighing any monetary gains.

 

[Adventageous]

Thank you for supporting my point of the convenience factor.

It is simple perspective in distance and optics. A person moving at 550 mph in a land speed car, can see very distant trees, but they do not appear to be 'moving' at all relative to the person moving. The 'motion' at such distance is negligible.

 

[Adventageous]

There are even some pictures of the moon, and other objects, taken with this telescope:

That is how a tele (across distance) scope (view by sight) works. It, by magnification of lens (curvature thereof), along with mirroring and focusing of light received through an aperature, &c., causes objects that are at distances to appear larger and more closely. Even a curved mirror on a vehicle can cause objects at a distance to appear more closely, at zoomed resolution. Those objects that are seen through telescope of course will have more details appear, since the human eye (especially degraded by 6,250 years of sin) cannot (at present) show such resolution, or details. The human eye (unaided, at present) is rather blurry at such distances.

 

[Adventageous]

I am putting it under scrutiny.

No, you are just making accusations, personal claims, with no documentation towards the subject.

 

[Rudometkin]

No, you are just making accusations, personal claims, with no documentation towards the subject.

Documentation is just another claim. On paper.

 

[Adventageous]

Hundreds of consistent, unfiltered, pure photos of the entire thing in singular images over the span of several decades is expected when the claim is "Globe earth, and we can go to space and see the entire thing from space." And an excuse like "lack of funding" would not be justified.

There are hundreds of photos. It is just that most are pieced together, because they have to be, since they were taken at such close range.

 

[Adventageous]

Documentation is just another claim. On paper.

Oh, please. That is to throw out anything and everything and shoots your own position in the foot.

 

[Rudometkin]

There are hundreds of photos. It is just that most are pieced together, because they have to be, since they were taken at such close range.

Those photos are irrelevant when the subject is photos of an entire globe in the shot.

 

[Adventageous]

Polaris

[Polaris, aka North Star] Cannot ever be seen south of the equator, and when I was in American Samoa (Southern Pacific), for 5 years, and when power would go out on Island near Ili Ili (and frequently happened), the pure darkness allowed for very great viewing of the starfield, which has no Polaris, and the angle of Orion was entirely differing than in Northern California, where I was previously (for many years).

 

[Rudometkin]

Oh, please. That is to throw out anything and everything and shoots your own position in the foot.

You perceive it as throwing out anything and everything.

In fact, I apparently had nothing to begin with according to you.

It's a good thing you never determined whether I had merit.

Then you tell me, what is documentation?

 

[Adventageous]

Those photos are irrelevant when the subject is photos of an entire globe in the shot.

It is amazing what suddenly becomes "irrelevant" in your position when something just doesn't fit the model proposed.

 

[Adventageous]

In fact, I apparently had nothing to begin with according to you.

I have yet to see anything substantial in response to anything I have brought up, and I have yet to see anything (at all) substantial in your own stated accusations, propositions, positions, arguments, &c. I am done with you here, until that changes.

 

[Rudometkin]

It is amazing what suddenly becomes "irrelevant" in your position when something just doesn't fit the model proposed.

When we are talking about raw pictures of the entire face of earth in one photo, stitched together photos are irrelevant. Don't be silly and pretend stitched together photos suffice when raw, complete photos are in demand.

 

[Rudometkin]

I have yet to see anything substantial in response to anything I have brought up, and I have yet to see anything (at all) substantial in your own stated accusations, propositions, positions, arguments, &c. I am done with you here, until that changes.

Because you lack the vision required. You apparently cannot even see the significance of the difference between a stitched photo and a raw complete photo.