Flat Earth Theory

[amigo de christo]

 

[Adventageous]

This Thread is not about "N.A.S.A.", neither the "Lunar Landings". It is about the "F.E." which is a differing category. To even be talking about the other two things, means to be not addressing the main OP subject at all. Both are redherrings, non-sequiturs. They are irrelevant to the OP topic (period).

 

[Biblica]

What are your thoughts on the idea the earth isn't a globe, but instead more of a flat plane?

I saw an interview with the head of the Hayden Planetarium and when they asked him what shape the earth was he said it was, "An oblate spheroid. Pear shaped." So according to this expert, the earth is not a perfect round ball. Because the public expects it to be round, the photos are probably Photoshopped to match our expectations. Oblate spheroids can be rather squat on the top. I saw a photo of the earth that was taken by a Japanese satellite or something that appeared very briefly on weather.com. The earth in that photo is very flat on the top and bulbous below. It matches the model that was done on the oblate/pear shape concept and it is a near perfect match. There are probably still some videos of that model on Youtube or somewhere.

 

[Adventageous]

I think I will begin a new thread, at some point, and call it "Going 'Round - Escaping Flat Earth's Sphere Of Influence" (which was to be the name of my new book on the subject that I have all the material for, just haven't gotten round to putting it together in proper chapter format yet). That people can see a clear differentiation in how 'F.E.' (&c.) view scriptural texts, and science, and evidence, vs those that are in the 'S.E.' camp.

It will go through all of the texts commonly engaged and look at them in some detail, with word etymology, definition, historical use, parallel comparison, synonyms, &c.

 

[Rudometkin]

This Thread is not about "N.A.S.A.", neither the "Lunar Landings". It is about the "F.E." which is a differing category. To even be talking about the other two things, means to be not addressing the main OP subject at all. Both are redherrings, non-sequiturs. They are irrelevant to the OP topic (period).

NASA becomes pretty relevant to discuss when NASA is the reason people believe.

 

[Adventageous]

NASA becomes pretty relevant to discuss when NASA is the reason people believe.

It is not my reason to believe, and for the vast amount of people I have spoken with on the subject, it is not their reason to believe either. Your experience is limited to you, not the whole. In fact, not one school child I grew up with was like, "I believe the earth is a sphere 'cause N.A.S.A.' Never happened. So if that happens in your experience, that is limited to you in it.

In point of fact for me, N.A.S.A. is:

N.A.S.A. - Not Always Scientifically Accurate;​

N.A.S.A. - Never A Straight Answer;​

N.A.S.A. - Numerous Anomalies Scams Abound;​

N.A.S.A. - National Academy of Space Actors;​

N.A.S.A. - Not Anything, Simply Aether;​

N.A.S.A. - Neither Aerospace, Sadly, Astro-NOTS!;​

N.A.S.A. - Never Accept Serpent Assertions.​

Any may see more here - pages 522-523 (Addendum) - Michael The Archangel Who Is Like Unto God The Highest Messenger (BOOK) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Button]

Why point people to the stars, when (as @Adventageous established) the shape, movement, and location of the stars is an unrelated category to the shape of the earth category?

You overlooked the suggestion of looking for other planets with the telescope.

Flat Earth theory is not intelligent. It is a myth that has long been proven false.

 

[Rudometkin]

You overlooked the suggestion of looking for other planets with the telescope.

What would other planets have to do with earth?

Flat Earth theory is not intelligent. It is a myth that has long been proven false.

Does that mean if the earth is oblate, then the globe theory is also not intelligent?

 

[Rudometkin]

Your experience is limited to you, not the whole. In fact, not one school child I grew up with was like, "I believe the earth is a sphere 'cause N.A.S.A.' Never happened. So if that happens in your experience, that is limited to you in it.

Just because they never said it in your experience does not mean it never happened. You should know this, you are trying to teach me that same principle in this same post! We have a case of textbook irony.

Also, it is possible for people to believe ideas because of NASA while denying NASA is the reason.

 

[Rudometkin]

I saw an interview with the head of the Hayden Planetarium and when they asked him what shape the earth was he said it was, "An oblate spheroid. Pear shaped." So according to this expert, the earth is not a perfect round ball. Because the public expects it to be round, the photos are probably Photoshopped to match our expectations. Oblate spheroids can be rather squat on the top. I saw a photo of the earth that was taken by a Japanese satellite or something that appeared very briefly on weather.com. The earth in that photo is very flat on the top and bulbous below. It matches the model that was done on the oblate/pear shape concept and it is a near perfect match. There are probably still some videos of that model on Youtube or somewhere.

Thanks for sharing. Interesting concept, given people claim that gravity would pull earth back into a sphere.

 

[Adventageous]

Thanks for sharing. Interesting concept, given people claim that gravity would pull earth back into a sphere.

Earth is in its present shape due to the flood of Noah, and post-flood factors.

 

[Adventageous]

Just because they never said it in your experience does not mean it never happened. You should know this, you are trying to teach me that same principle in this same post! We have a case of textbook irony.

Also, it is possible for people to believe ideas because of NASA while denying NASA is the reason.

As I said, you only read what you want out of my replies. I said they never said it to me (thus my experience). Never happened in my
experience. I never said it did not happen in other peoples experience (such as yourself). So, no, my reply is not a case of "textbook irony".

 

[Adventageous]

What would other planets have to do with earth?

In a secondary sense, they, in their heavenly movements (such as the many times observed transit of Venus across (in front of) the sun) can demonstrate several things in relation to the earth, its movement, shape and location. This was what I was referring to in regards relationship among differing distinct categories, which otherwise are individual subjects of their own.

 

[Rudometkin]

As I said, you only read what you want out of my replies.

No I don't think you said this. I remember you suggesting something similar. I think this is the first time you made a broad and bold claim about what I haven't perceived. That's a ridiculous claim for you to make, because you don't know what I'm not perceiving. So now it should be asked, what other claims of yours are ridiculous?

I don't need to dispute everything I see as problematic that you say. At a certain point, I perceive it as not worth my time based on the reasoning you are not appreciating. So when someone doesn't reply to something you say, it doesn't mean they aren't reading it. It could be they read it and considered it more deeply than you have, and decided not to reply for whatever reason. Have you considered this possibility? Or was it just easier to claim my eyes haven't seen the text?

I do appreciate you for being here. If there's something you'd really like me to address first and foremost, I'll be happy to give you the time with a thorough answer. Because you seem at least thorough in your replies.

I said they never said it to me (thus my experience).

You said:

"In fact, not one school child I grew up with was like, "I believe the earth is a sphere 'cause N.A.S.A.' Never happened."

This is a claim about what specific people have never been 'like'. It's another very broad and bold claim. You don't know whether the school children you grew up with were never like that.

 

[Adventageous]

No I don't think you said this. I remember you suggesting something similar. I think this is the first time you made a broad and bold claim about what I haven't perceived. That's a ridiculous claim for you to make, because you don't know what I'm not perceiving. So now it should be asked, what other claims of yours are ridiculous?

I don't need to dispute everything I see as problematic that you say. At a certain point, I perceive it as not worth my time based on the reasoning you are not appreciating. So when someone doesn't reply to something you say, it doesn't mean they aren't reading it. It could be they read it and considered it more deeply than you have, and decided not to reply for whatever reason. Have you considered this possibility? Or was it just easier to claim my eyes haven't seen the text?

I do appreciate you for being here. If there's something you'd really like me to address first and foremost, I'll be happy to give you the time with a thorough answer. Because you seem at least thorough in your replies.


You said:

"In fact, not one school child I grew up with was like, "I believe the earth is a sphere 'cause N.A.S.A.' Never happened."

This is a claim about what specific people have never been 'like'. It's another very broad and bold claim. You don't know whether the school children you grew up with were never like that.

Yes, I do know, because as I stated, "I grew up with them". I knew them. You did not. It is my experience with them, an experience you did not have with them. You do not know them, but I did / do. I am going to create a real thread. I grow tired of this nonsequitur nonsense and escapism.

 

[Rudometkin]

Yes, I do know, because as I stated, "I grew up with them". I knew them. You did not. It is my experience with them, an experience you did not have with them. You do not know them, but I did / do. I am going to create a real thread. I grow tired of this nonsequitur nonsense and escapism.

The heart is deceitful above all things.

They didn't even fully know themselves. You can think you knew them.

People can say and think NASA isn't why they believe in certain things. People are also under delusions.

And, awesome! Another real thread, looking forward to it!

Edit: (you're not going to render this thread as fake just by mentioning your thread will be real )

 

[Grailhunter]

Yea know they talk about all those people and planes missing. They are falling off the edge of the cracker.

 

[Rudometkin]

In a secondary sense, they, in their heavenly movements (such as the many times observed transit of Venus across (in front of) the sun) can demonstrate several things in relation to the earth, its movement, shape and location. This was what I was referring to in regards relationship among differing distinct categories, which otherwise are individual subjects of their own.

But can you deduce the Earth's shape based on what you observe with Venus?

If so, how? And would that all be totally your independent work, or would you be trusting the legitimacy of crucial material provided by others, such as NASA?

 

[Marvelloustime]

none of which does the ecumenical harlot as she has spouted the love of a harlot
and of a god who has come in its own name to preach a lie cloaked as love .
But she knows not , nor do the daughters who do her bidding
that on the DAY of the LORD her dream of peace n sa fety , the reality will be her own sudden destruction
BY the GOD whose SON she and her beloved interfaith of anti christ trod under foot .
Just a friendly reminder to us all to get anyone out of anything ecumenical , as in TODAY
before that house cometh down on HIS DAY .

@amigo de christo

 

[David in NJ]

No, it does not. It discredits that single instance, not the whole.

A series of equations in a mathbook:

1+1=2​

2+2=5​

3+3=6​

4+4=8​

5+5=10​

The one error, does not discredit the whole book. Demonstrating the error of the one, does not show that the remaining 4 equations to be in error, or discredit. You are committing the fallacy of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and demonstrate the psychology of 'denial'.

Unless the error is part of the equation.

Good Morning