Just wondering if there are any other Flat Earthers on Veeky Forums..?
The following video deals with 21 of the most commonly asked Flat Earth questions, and is a great source of information for anyone sitting on the fence. One of the best Flat Earth videos I've seen, and I recommend all Flat Earthers on here share this video:
Anyone who questions the mainstream narrative and the accepted model of the world around us is insulted, ridiculed and debate on this topic is viciously opposed. I find that rather ironic. In science, we never stop questioning things. A theory only stands until a better and more likely theory comes along. The most commonly accepted reasons why the Earth must be a spinning ball are debunked in this video. It's always the same, tired questions from people ignorant about the Flat Earth model and how or why it works. I hope this video will help educate people who have been conditioned since birth to believe in a falsehood.
Kill yourself and fuck off, not necessarily in that order.
Dominic Wood
So, getting past the usual narrow-minded ad hominem comments, are there any Flat Earthers here, or just anyone open-minded enough to discuss this topic in general? Would love to talk to follow FE's on Veeky Forums
Jeremiah Sullivan
"Why are you a retarded shithead?" doesn't seem to be in the 21 questions.
Benjamin Clark
what the fuck happens when you go off the edge then?
Nolan Phillips
>fellow FE's on Veeky Forums You won't find those here. You can try this, though:
Jonathan Jenkins
You want to know why you're being ridiculed? It's because, despite overwhelming evidence against your premise, you keep to it. Don't even start about science, you ignore the evidence regardless what science puts forth, like a religious zealot who is too scared that he could be wrong and has to adjust his worldview. So sad.
In any case, here is our great friend Martymer81 who will rape all your "arguments" in his debunking series of flat idiots.
There's no ad hominem here, retard. It would be ad hominem if we said your arguments are wrong because of your stupidity. However, you are stupid because your arguments are wrong. See the difference? It's called an insult, get over it moron.
Ian King
>tfw there are people who given all the power of today's technology can't replicate a simple fucking experiment
Zachary Ortiz
Why don't you just watch the video? The same tired questions you cretins keep asking have been explained over and over again. The very first question in the video deals with the "edge".
Can you see why the Flat Earth topic has been skyrocketing online over the past year and a half? Because this conditioned response only makes people want to research it further. Every single flat Earther starts out trying to debunk it. And every single one of them fails, and are forced to accept reality.
"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled".
David Watson
>"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled". Speak for yourself.
Cooper Ortiz
It's turtles all the way down, isn't it? I knew it!
>"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them they have been fooled". “Irony is wasted on the stupid”
Joseph Smith
Yeah, I've seen the "Flat Out Wrong" series. It's laughable. One of his first arguments claims that ships going over the horizon are caused by the curvature of Earth. He claims that when you zoom in with a camera, a ship that has disappeared over the horizon will not be brought back into view.
But the video I've posted has several clips of people zooming into ships that have long disappeared over the horizon, proving that this phenomenon is caused by PERSPECTIVE, and not the "curvature of the Earth".
Stop blindly believing what people tell you without investigation.
Zachary Allen
>Why don't you just watch the video? Not that user, but I've tried. Guy shows this: digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:7h149v85z and says it's suspicious that it fits onto a globe. How is it like to be so braindead you don't understand the idea of a projection?
Joseph Jackson
>There's no ad hominem here, retard. It would be ad hominem if we said your arguments are wrong because of your stupidity. However, you are stupid because your arguments are wrong. See the difference? It's called an insult, get over it moron.
The problem here is that you're drawing a conclusion based on a pre-conceived notion about your own intellectual superiority, and I'm afraid that doesn't hold any weight as a counter argument. Simply claiming that someone is stupid because their arguments are "wrong", without the slightest bit of evidence as to WHY those arguments are wrong, only proves your own stupidity.
Just because you can't rationally discuss this topic without resorting to playground-level insults, doesn't mean that everyone who can is just an idiot. If you have nothing to add, just say it. Don't get all pissy about it. Ignorance is no excuse for bad manners.
Luke Lee
I doubt you've seen it. Part 2 debunks everything claimed in your bullshit video.
You haven't tried at all. The video explains that the Flat Earth map was projected onto a globe, and not the other way around. The point is that the Flat Earth map didn't "copy" the globe as is commonly claimed.
If you're going to watch the video, watch the video. Don't simply turn off at the first thing you dislike, just because your ego can't take it. I don't mean that in a condescending way. You don't have to agree with every single point. There are 21 main points. You'll find some more reasonable than others, I'm sure.
Juan Flores
I have seen it. It just uses the same tired old attempts that everyone else uses, and that have been debunked and explained so many times, in so many videos.
I've been into this Flat Earth thing for just over a year. I've heard every argument, and I'm afraid that video was nothing new. Every attempt to debunk this fails. I know because I started out trying, just like everyone else who gets into this.
It is indeed perspective. The only people who argue otherwise are people who don't understand how perspective works. And that's understandable - it's not something we were taught growing up. We were all taught that ships going over the horizon is caused by the Earth's curvature, but as the video I posted proves, this is bullshit. Like I said, go to 7:20 of my video and you'll see those same ships coming back into view when zoomed in with a camera. Several clips, of several ships.
Spoiler: They don't disappear "over" the horizon, they disappear INTO the horizon. That's how it works on a flat plane.
You know how the ground appears to be going up, the farther away it is? Like it's touching the sky? Well the same is true of the opposite. If the ground comes up to meet the sky, then why doesn't the sky come down to meet the ground?
Use your head. This stuff isn't hard. It's really, really simply.
Easton Nelson
*really, really simple.
Jayden Perry
Oh boy, I provided you with evidence, 6 videos filled with counter arguments to be exact. Your argument about perspective is simply retarded if you knew anything about high-school geometry.
>Spoiler: They don't disappear "over" the horizon, they disappear INTO the horizon. That's how it works on a flat plane. Sure, but the earth is a spheroid and if the guy that made the video was not a halfwit he would have noted that the ships he filmed were not far enough to be over the horizon at all, hence why you don't see the effect. Seriously, high-school level geometry here, just triangles.
>I've been into this Flat Earth thing for just over a year. Did someone from church recommend this to you?
Mason Wood
Hey buddy, why can't you see England from France then?
>inb4 fog Can't even reach it with strong laser.
Ethan Nelson
I made it through the flimed "incoming" sun (nevermind sun doesn't actually look like that irl, that's a fucking camera glare), the guy claiming that the core of the Earth is a speculation or a lie (seismological data, for fuck's sake) but apparently secret underground bases aren't, calling out NASA for photoshopping while showing a radar map of Venus (no shit it doesn't look like this in visible light) or obvious CGI Saturn, calling satellites a hoax (how does he think satellite TV or phones work?), and I finally gave up on GPS operating from cell phone towers. I'd say you owe me 15 minutes of my life, but then I remembered I'm on Veeky Forums.
Landon Richardson
>I have seen it. Apart from you having seen it, have you UNDERSTOOD the mathematics (geometry)? If not, get back to school. If so, explain how the math is wrong.
People laugh at you because you are a bunch of conspiratards.
Leo Roberts
>Sure, but the earth is a spheroid and if the guy that made the video was not a halfwit he would have noted that the ships he filmed were not far enough to be over the horizon at all, hence why you don't see the effect
Once again, if you would actually bother to watch the video, you would see how wrong you are. You are just parroting the nonsense from the video you posted claiming that in ALL the clips used by Flat Earther's to show that a ship reappears when zoomed in, simply aren't far enough away. But if you watch the video I posted, you will see SEVERAL clips in which ALL the boats are far BEYOND the horizon, and only re-appear back into view when zoomed into with a decent camera.
Stop trying to debate this using confirmation bias. Watch the video I posted. Specifically go to 7:20 of the video, and see the effect for yourself.
Unless you're saying that the horizon is only the horizon when you say it's the horizon. Like when a ship goes beyond a camera's zoom capacity.
>Did someone from church recommend this to you?
I don't go to church and I think Christian fundamentalists are morons. "God" is simply the Source of all that is, not some guy that sits on a cloud judging people. If you tell them this, they accuse you of "New Age Witchcraft". And yes, I know many Flat Earthers are Christians. They plague every moment they can get their claws into, I'm afraid.
Noah Peterson
Useless video. They're using a GoPro fish-eye lens, which makes straight lines look curved. Another tired attempt to debunk the Flat Earth that we've seen hundreds of times now.
it doesn't matter how high you go. The horizon is ALWAYS flat. Not only flat, but LEVEL. This is not consistent with a globe, and ONLY consistent with a flat plane. See for yourself:
121,000 feet, and not one bit of curvature. Same with rocket videos from over 200,000 feet. Yet people claim the curvature is visible on Concorde, which only had an operating ceiling of 60,000 feet.
Colton Fisher
The math also adds up on a flat plane, using various experiments, assuming that the Sun is only a few thousand miles away and is 32 miles in diameter. Sunspots on clouds are solid evidence of a close Sun.
Jayden Evans
You didn't even watch it, there's two cameras on board, first one is normal, second one is fish-eye lens.
Matthew Miller
>You are just parroting the nonsense from the video you posted Funny how you're parroting all your nonsense from your video. But hey, I don't have to parrot anything, maths doesn't lie after all.
Speaking of maths: >have you UNDERSTOOD the mathematics (geometry)? If not, get back to school. If so, explain how the math is wrong. Show your work.
Show your work.
Isaac Anderson
>assuming that the Sun is only a few thousand miles away and is 32 miles in diameter. Alright mods, time to throw this trash thread away.
Ayden Thomas
>You didn't even watch it, there's two cameras on board, first one is normal, second one is fish-eye lens.
I know, but since there was no curvature seen on the normal camera, I assumed you were referring to the fish-eye lens.
I've seen similar videos where you will see a convex curvature, and people say: "Hey look! See? The Earth is round!"... but when you keep watching the video, you also see a concave curvature, proving that the camera lens is what's causing this effect.
Nathan Russell
Everyday with this shit.
Ryan Baker
Except it doesn't, these are the functions that describe the sun's angular elevation during the northern summer solstice as a function of distance from the equator for both models. They only match in three points.
Cooper Bell
>shit cgi to start the video off >starts talking about picture""""s"""" of earth when NASA doesn't even claim to own more than 1 photo every other image of earth is photoshop as admitted by them and they don't even match up to each other.... >talks about gravity doesn't exist >flat earthers think that the earth is rising constantly no
The fucking eggs on all your stupid goy faces soon
Matthew Anderson
>I know, but since there was no curvature seen on the normal camera The fuck are you talking about. See that guys attached pic and explain it, or just go to where you belong.
Jaxon Carter
>muh graphs
Jordan Watson
>there was no curvature seen on the normal camera Did you even look at the pic I posted? Go ahead and find concave curvature for the first camera.
>math also adds up >complain when people use graphs to discuss the topic Yeah no.
Nathan Rogers
the best part of all this is that you're gonna find out how much of an absolute retard you were and you won't even have anyone to blame but yourself
Ethan Parker
Is there any thing anybody could say to you to make it more plausible that they actually believe in FET than they're either being trolls or taking devil's advocate just a little too far?
Henry Thomas
The fuck are you talking about. See that guys attached pic and explain it, or just go to where you belong.
I just did explain it. If you actually WATCH the video, you can see no curvature. Similar videos purporting to show the curvature of the Earth also reveal a concave (as well as convex) curvature, and it varies depending on the angle and rotation of the camera. Proving that a distorted image causes any curvature seen through a camera, whether it's convex or concave.
Watch the video I posted from 121,000 feet - no curvature is seen, because the camera's view is normal and no distortion of any kind is seen.
I didn't say there was a concave curvature in the first camera shot, I said there are other examples of similar videos showing this phenomenon.
There is NO curvature, convex or concave, in your video. Anywhere.
Benjamin Butler
This must be you.
Luke Young
The curvature can't be detected from such a low altitude. Does nobody on here understand that images will be distorted depending on the camera lens?
Once again, watch this video, of a camera that has no distortion, and tell me if you can see the curvature: youtube.com/watch?v=WQITXbcz2hg
Jack Davis
>There is NO curvature, convex or concave, in your video. Anywhere. So you are saying the screenshot I took is shopped? Pause the video at that exact moment and do the same thing I did in paint, then tell me there is no curvature.
Colton Jones
It's like listening to a broken record. You lost buddy, the evidence piles up against you. Little Piggy by the way is a camera that distorts the image, nice job on using it as "evidence". As can be clearly seen from , that camera has no distortion, and the same picture made by this camera as posted in clearly shows the curvature of the earth from a camera that has no distortion.
Case dismissed.
Oh, you still haven't shown your maths about those claims earlier. Remember to show you work, buddy.
Blake Kelly
How come the surface of the earth is curved whenever I look down while in a plane? Why does having an alternate explanation automatically mean that alternate explanation is correct?
Thomas Powell
Debunk that I'm fucking a unicorn right now you fucking faggot
Isaac Kelly
>earth is apparently spinning at 1000mph at the equator >gravity is strong enough to hold all the earths water to it >i can jump freely, butterflies can fly freely >no one can feel the apparent centrifugal force >even though it would be ridiculously more and less powerful all """""around the globe""""" >mass attracts mass >a car and a bowling ball fall at the same speed, the only thing that would affect the rate of falling is wind resistance >a pen and a bowling ball fall at the same speed >helium balloons rise up even though they have mass >b-but it's less dense >I can pull down the less dense than air helium balloon with my arms but the entire gravity of earth can't?
You know understand that things rise and fall because of density
Sebastian Ortiz
how small do you think the earth is you mongoloid?
Justin Johnson
>one video with shitty quality Fuck off, have ever been on a plane?
Benjamin Gray
It was obviously meant to discredit the piggy cam as anything can be claimed from that footage, you fucking dumbass.
Landon Fisher
heh, my bad
Ian Thompson
The same thing could be said about you, retard. All you do is come with completely unrelated explanations for each and every phenomenon caused by a the earth being a globe each with that phenomenon being the only evidence for it. The evidence pointing to the earth being a globe is far more substantial than that of each individual property you claim is actually reponsible for these things.
Zachary Moore
Don't give us your "it just doesn't add up" hand-wavey bullshit. Give us the math. Or do you even know enough about physics to do that?
Christopher Lewis
Also, who is supposedly faking this and why? Is it big globe?
Chase Baker
Serious question:
How do flat earthers explain Rayleigh scattering in the atmosphere?
Landon Murphy
>It's like listening to a broken record. You lost buddy, the evidence piles up against you. Little Piggy by the way is a camera that distorts the image, nice job on using it as "evidence". As can be clearly seen from , that camera has no distortion, and the same picture made by this camera as posted in clearly shows the curvature of the earth from a camera that has no distortion.
Once again - here is what the surface of the Earth looks like, from 121,000 feet in a high altitude balloon, without any distortion of the image due to the camera, ie. no convex or concave curvature changing in rapid succession, like in other videos. Nobody has addressed this video yet, but keep parading other videos as "proof". Confirmation bias at its finest.
You see the way horizon stays level, and doesn't distort? That's what your eyes would see from that altitude.
Eli Ramirez
You clearly have no concept of how centripetal forces work beyond "mass on string fly away when i let go". Neither are you familiar with buoyancy. Go calculate the difference in centripetal force between r and r+2 in meters where r is the earth radius. Bonus points: calculate their ratio and determine whether or not it is noticeable effect. Having graduated redneck high, you should be able to do this. And remember: show your work!
Logan Butler
by the way for any flat earthers in the thread what we're the main reasons for you getting in to flat earth?
This one was from about a year before I realised the earth was flat and to be honest didn't lead me to realise the earth was flat, it just made sense after
But on youtube there was that video of the ISS going around earth and it looked so fucking retarded and fake like ps4 graphics, and all the comments saying how cool it looked and how great NASA was and I was about to tell them it's CGI but I looked on the video description and the uploader was actually claiming it to be video capture, I couldn't fucking beleive it
I had no idea why they would need to upload fake videos
Then a year later it made total sense
Thomas Lee
>>It's like listening to a broken record. Yes, it truly is. Also see where that video is addressed and footage of the same camera is linked when it is landing, discrediting your video.
They are probably just borderline retarded.
David Jackson
Mods, please escort this gentleman to . Thank you!
Oliver Murphy
I've been in a plane and I can tell you that's not true
Andrew Phillips
>earth is apparently spinning at 1000mph at the equator Yes. >gravity is strong enough to hold all the earths water to it Yes, do the math. >i can jump freely, butterflies can fly freely You have evolved to be able to do that, in the moon you can jump really high, in the sun you would be squashed against a solid surface. >no one can feel the apparent centrifugal force What is a Foucault pendulum? It's that small. >even though it would be ridiculously more and less powerful all """""around the globe""""" Not when you compared to gravity. >mass attracts mass Yes. >a car and a bowling ball fall at the same speed, the only thing that would affect the rate of falling is wind resistance >a pen and a bowling ball fall at the same speed G is tiny, do the math. >helium balloons rise up even though they have mass >b-but it's less dense >I can pull down the less dense than air helium balloon with my arms but the entire gravity of earth can't? Exactly, gravity is not strong enough for that, what's problematic about it?
Also, why don't you point out what's wrong with Cavendish's experiment? (No, lead is not magnetic)
Lucas Diaz
3/10 bait, made me get a calculator to see what's the centripetal force at the Earth surface.
Nicholas Morris
This board is absolute garbage
Isaiah Morgan
Maths
1000mph is more than 0
If you stand somewhere where the earth is """"spinning""" at 100mph and you stand somewhere where the earth is """spinning""" at 1000mph you won't feel any difference
>inb4 someone measured it in a lab somewhere but you forgot their name and no one else can do the experiment because we aren't "certified scientists tm"
Michael Wilson
Keep trying to invoke a circular argument, lol. Instead of trying to debunk me, you want to focus on this one detail, because you know that whatever I say, it doesn't prove the Earth is either a globe or flat. As I explained, it's pointless, because the math adds up on both models, depending on the assumptions made previously. If you assume the Sun is 93 million miles away and over 100 times bigger than Earth, then the math will add up just fine. But it also adds up fine when you assume the Sun is only a few thousands miles away and 32 miles in diameter.
You can try and keep the topic constrained to this one detail all you like, but my explanation is perfectly valid, and you know it as well as I do.
Was that hand-wavey enough for you?
Jose Rivera
I doubt there are mods here nowadays... makes me feel a bit sad inside.
Aiden Gray
>Also, who is supposedly faking this and why? Is it big globe?
There's no such thing as "Big Globe", that's a term that VSauce made up.
Once again, watch the video. It answers this question, and all the most frequently asked questions on this topic.
Is it that people just don't have the attention span to watch a full video, or are they just stupid? Genuinely curious.
Elijah Williams
I'm willing to bet that ~95% of flat earthers never flew in a moderate-high altitude plane or sailed on an ocean. And that 5% that did; denied their own experience. :^)
Chase Robinson
>he thinks he can physically measure the spinning from Earth
if you could do that you wouldn't have to shill on Veeky Forums
Zachary Powell
If the earth is flat, then why doesn't gravity's net effect pull stuff sideways when you're away from the center of your so called disc?
>inb4 gravity doesn't exist
Wyatt Stewart
>And that 5% that did; denied their own experience. They're probably scared to fly so they take a seat away from the window :')
Carson White
>But it also adds up fine when you assume the Sun is only a few thousands miles away and 32 miles in diameter. No it doesn't, see:
Ethan Cooper
>Keep trying to invoke a circular argument What?
All you have to do is show us all the math that confirms everything you have claimed. But instead you keep avoiding the point because you can't do the math, don't have the math, or know that the math actually shows that earth is a sphere. Instead of showing us your work, you just tell us "the math just works out, maaaan."
Show us your work.
Ian Bell
>what far away are stars and galaxies
Jason Ramirez
>centrifugal forces that anyone can measure on objects of any size are weaker than """""gravity""""" that only starts to work when things are the size of the fucking moon
Daniel Bailey
>If you assume the Sun is 93 million miles away and over 100 times bigger than Earth, then the math will add up just fine. And if you reflect the whole universe around a point, then you could make the Earth hollow with the universe inside. That probably would require a little more mental masturbation with a flat Earth, but I think a spherical projection would do.
Jonathan White
because it can't pull down a helium balloon when I can, but magically it can hold down all the water of earth...
Sebastian Rogers
Because density and buoyancy are responsible for objects falling, not gravity.
Also, stop watching VSauce. His video was bullshit.
Carson Wilson
...
Mason Long
>far away
Ian James
Flown dozens of times. Not even NASA would claim that the Earth's curve can be detected from 35,000 feet. You can't see the curve from a plane.
>the suns light takes 8 minutes to reach us and it looks smallish in the sky >if it took 32 minutes it would be a quater of the size >an hour tiny >a week? >a year?
You wouldn't see anything that far
Wyatt Peterson
>that only starts to work when things are the size of the fucking moon Clearly you have never fallen down, where is that force coming from genius?
The mass of the second body is also in Newton's law, helium is too light to be trapped by Earth's gravity.
Andrew White
Why do we allow this shit to spread. The earth is not flat for fucks sake
Brody Anderson
>The mass of the second body is also in Newton's law, helium is too light to be trapped by Earth's gravity. Please don't use retarded explanations even when you're right. That's not the reason at all why a helium balloon rises, it's pulled by the Earth's gravity just fine.
Landon Fisher
Sounds like a nigger, opinion discarded
Justin Torres
>not gravity. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA called it!
? Galaxies that are far away can be regarded as being in a fixed position for all intents and purposes. We can use those just fine as anchor point for measuring the rotational velocity of the earth.
So now stars don't exist, amirite? I guess they're just painted on a ceiling, amirite? Let me laugh even harder!
I'm not saying it's not pulled by gravity, just that gravity can't keep it in the atmosphere and it becomes lost in space.
Wyatt Roberts
>If you drop an object next to a wall, it won't go slightly closer to the wall when you drop it even though "mass attracts mass" For fuck's sake, already posted in this thread: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment#The_experiment