CAR IN SPACE: HOAXE

Wow, so Space X used Earth pics you can find using google? They are retarded...

lmao, that the exact same pic.
I wonder what flat earther's next move will be

Why would they film it in front of a projected screen, it's not the 50s anymore

Obvious b8 post, but I can't wrap my head around how people think these things *must* be faked, yet at the same time were faked so poorly or sloppily that even a simple layman could figure it out. Like, there's this giant conspiracy to deceive the the populace but they somehow can't even get their hands on some decent special effects. Even Musk said we have way better CGI that we could fake this shit with.

Trust me, I work for SpaceX and my dad still thinks the Earth is flat. It's maddening.

>except, the sun doesn't move

Yeah, okay: youtube.com/watch?v=7aA0yfQkfqw

The sun on a flat earth would never set at all.

It would be visible even during the night.

youtube.com/watch?v=uexZbunD7Jg

Why the fuck is the car hanging on strings when the bottom of the car in reality was 1: never shown and 2: attached to the fairing adapter which was attached to stage 2. I mean you literally could not be more retarded by putting this thing on strings instead of just on a fairing adapter looking base

See:

The fuck does a picture of the Earth have to do with the decision to hang a car from the ceiling?

I could make something more convincing in blender

Yeah but why is the moon a disk and why can't I see the other side of it? It moves around right? So I should be able to see what's on the other side once it passes above me.

You were proving fake the OP image. That post you were linked too does the same.

>doesn't understand how perspective works
>thinks (visible) light travels forever in an atmosphere

When you look out at sea, you see the water and the sky meet at the horizon line, but the sky is not lower than you, it's just your perspective forcing things into the distance to converge at a central point equal to your eye level.

With this in mind, imagine a local sun that can only light up a certain portion of the earth at once, and as it moves around the earth, it will appear to get smaller and disappear to some people, and will appear to get larger and rise as it gets closer to other people.

Why doesn't it shrink all the way to a point then, it's still a dece sized circle when it disappears.

I know you're memeing, but I'm autistic so...
When is the last time you saw the Sun get smaller or even change apparent size at all? Why can anyone with a telescope observe Jupiter and its moons behave exactly as they would if they were spheres governed by gravity? How do you explain lunar libration?

Because there's shit in the way blocking it. The higher you go, the longer you can see it for.

I try not to stare at the sun for very long, but if you can observe it with a clear line of site, you will see it change size.

>Why can anyone with a telescope observe Jupiter and its moons behave exactly as they would if they were spheres governed by gravity?

Where's your scientific experiment to prove that's how spheres behave governed by gravity?

>How do you explain lunar libration?

There haven't been any experiments to find out. But people still have no problem saying it's gravity.

You should stare at the sun longer buddy

>multiple light sources
Nice try.

himawari8.nict.go.jp/
Go to February 7, 7:00am.
Compare the clouds to the cloud cover of this image.

Oh, in the options menu change the timezone to JST first.
I didn't realize it was using my PC time (which is JST) by default.

This is so easily tested though. If it's really happening then the sun should change in angular size over the day, and its speed across the sky should also change. Just get a solar filter and a theodolite or something and see if this is the case (hint: it isn't).

I mean if you really think you have come across such a revolutionary idea that would change how we think about the world shouldn't you at least try a basic experiment to confirm it?

Even easier, the Moon would do the same thing and we can easily observe the true size of the Moon with the naked eye.

It doesn't change, and Flat Earthers never use the Moon as an example because it doesn't.

nice

They didn't even need a studio, it was a fucking toy car.

>implying they didnt get the picture from there

I knew that's what you would say.
Of course the problem is that Himawari 8 is a geosync satellite so it offers a fixed angle only so the only way to take it from there and use it would be to *gasp* overlay it on a globe.

And of course accepting Himawari 8 as a source would also mean accepting a geosync satellite taking high resolution images of the whole side of the planet it is facing every 10 minutes.

It is really simple.

The pictures on that website are fed to them by the elite. All of the pictures have been photoshopped on to a globe to confuse people.

The reality is that the earth is flat, but the elite is keeping us from knowing it.

If the earth is flat why doesn't an east facing windowsill in a high rise building ever cast a shadow on the opposite wall higher up than it at the break of dawn. It should if the sun is rising over a flat earth.

Why would "da gubment luminarty" do that though?
Take a note that if you spout any religious bullshit your opinion is nullified.

Why are you wasting your time arguing with me?

I am shitposting fyi, enjoy your night.

>The pictures on that website are fed to them by the elite. All of the pictures have been photoshopped on to a globe to confuse people.
Which is why they match cloud patterns that can be observed by everyone in that side of the planet, clearly gathered by photos and video from millions of weather balloons and aircraft so they can composite new images every 10 minutes.

Can this been any more obvious of a shoop?

>I deny facts that's literally anyone can easily observe to larp on a Marian car launching website.

>Where's your scientific experiment to prove that's how spheres behave governed by gravity?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
Can't say I have seen a flat earth explanation for the Cavendish experiment yet. I guess they would use electromagnetism as an excuse but that excuse is kinda shaky when you can't demonstrate the materials being attracted to magnets or having magnetic properties.

Do it then, and post it here.

...

Pic de Finestrelles is 2.826 m high, Pic Gaspard is 3.883 m high, the distance is 443 Km. The radius of the earth is 6.371 Km and we have a refractive index of 1,2, which makes a corrected virtual radius of 7.645,2 Km. Let's use trigonometry to find out if we can see Pic Gaspard from Pic de Finestrelles:

Do it faggot and then post your crypto adress

not him but that shit got done yesterday - all practical effects, too.

what about all software engineers working on their flight software? are do they not see rockets fly in the sky themselves? and just believe in bogus camera logs?

...

Why the fuck this shit doesn't allow me to post my calculations? "our system thinks your post is spam", it's just numbers with signs, luckily we are on the mathematics and science board, what a retarded page.

Whatever, using trigonometry you will be able to see 268,759 m of Pic Gaspard and 3.614,241 m of the mountain are hidden behind the horizon

this

it's builshit, youre trying to go too deep

pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/my-gyroscope-says-the-world-is-flat.90561/

doesnt answer the question

beautiful

>The earth is flat because jewish mythology says that and I saw a few videos on youtube xddd

that´s just a screen cap of spacex video you dumb fuck

I don't think I'm flat so why would the Earth be?

If you have the attention span to sit through years of class during the best years of your life, you also have the attention span to read and watch at least some of Eric Dubay's content

*gasp* its almost as if the image was stitched together from multiple images, like in hundreds of other NASA images.

visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=57723
>Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice, and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of our planet.

the spacing of those clouds totally looks like stitched together photography, how they repeat only at consistent distances. not copy pasta at all, who would even see that

Cavendish used lead balls - of course electromagnetism will play a role. Do the same experiment using concrete balls and see what happens.

Who cares? We have full shots every 10 minutes (during daylight hours) that aren't composites from here And it even has images available generated from the IR bands.

Good luck finding your anomalies in this.

Official NASA image has SEX written in the clouds...

>himawari8.nict.go.jp/

Oh wow you have a weather balloon taking pics of the clouds and then mapping it onto a sphere. The sphere is clearly CGI, and remarkably doesn't look like an oblate spheroid either.

...

>its perfectly circular because i say it is

"It's... it's kinda pear shaped..." ~ Neil DeGrasse Tyson

>EARTH.IS.FLAT.
EARTHchan isn't flat

Confirmation bias, you can also have it spell JFY or whatever if you want it to. And even if does, it's little more than some fuckers having themselves a dumb joke, I don't get how this is supposed to prove anything

This is so dumb, flat earthers bring this up so often, because they expect the earth to be literally pear shaped

>Official NASA image has SEX written in the clouds
>SEX

It's all one big joke, you're right about that. Look at Pluto for example.

>This is so dumb, flat earthers bring this up so often, because they expect the earth to be literally pear shaped

It doesn't have to be completely pear shaped, but it should at least show some similarities to a pear shape otherwise he's talking shit. And then people like you look stupid trying to defend him.

Earth chan is not flat

...

I don't have any scientific refutations so I will post a forced meme instead.

Gonna take your bait.
As I said, it doesn't prove anything.
A lot of flat earth misconceptions can be explained by people being too stupid to understand either perspective or scale, this issue is the latter:
The difference between the polar and equatorial radius is only about 20km, so it's technically not a sphere, but you won't notice a difference that small from orbit.
Why do conspiracy theorists always take everything literally?

Forgot the Source: nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
Though obviously this is all made up data by "them"

It's all well and good trying to disprove the round Earth model, but as the flat Earth model is about as useful as a chocolate teapot for making any kind of prediction people are going to keep assuming the Earth's a sphere. You need to give us something that has some kind of practical purpose if you want people to care for your model.

>It's an oblate spheroid but we can't notice it
>The earth is spinning but we can't notice it
>The earth is wobbling but we can't notice it
>The earth is orbiting the sun but can't notice it

Your model is full of things that we can't prove with our own senses, and yet we just supposed to blindly believe this shit. Don't say we can't trust our senses because they are what keep us alive.

It helps you break the government's conditioning, find your way to god and depends on whose model you like most maybe find all those worlds and resources beyond the antarctic rim or some shit like that

>look at a sunset
>look at boats going over the horizont
>look at some planets in the sky
>go outside more than once a year and notice how we have seasons
>Look up Trade Winds

If every scientist would have to first confirm everything relevant to him "with his own senses" before believing it, I doubt there'd be an internet you could roleplay as a flat earther on

Sunsets are explained via perspective + the sun moving closer and further away: youtube.com/watch?v=7aA0yfQkfqw

>look at boats going over the horizont

Boats come back into view when zoom in on them: youtube.com/watch?v=J0sJYaMrUc4

>look at some planets in the sky

They work on a flat earth. Why do you think they're called 'planes'?

>look at some planets in the sky

What about them? They move around us like every other celestial thing in the sky.

>go outside more than once a year and notice how we have seasons

Seasons work on a flat plane too.

>Look up Trade Winds

Winds blow in directions, proves nothing

The sun doesn't actually get smaller when it sets though (except on video, due to it's brightness) and disappears bottom first, same goes for ships. Also if the sun just moves far away, how come I can see stars at night, but not the sun?
On a flat earth the Sun and the planets would have to go in all sorts of weird paths in order to account for what we're observing, the whole spinning ball with a titled axis thing makes a little more sense don't you think?
>Winds all move in the same direction for some reason, which can be easily explained by the earth's rotation
fixed it for you

>It helps you break the government's conditioning, find your way to god and depends on whose model you like most maybe find all those worlds and resources beyond the antarctic rim or some shit like that

Practical purposes, not just feel good things. Finding god's all well and good, but he's notoriously bad at telling you things like when the next sunrise or eclipse will be.

And I'm not sure about other worlds and resources. All that should be out there is ice, hence the 'ice' wall. I've yet to see any attempt to derive expected geology from the flat Earth model.

The same.

'twas merely a jest

...

sauce nao

Sauce:
twitter.com/hews__/status/950953544818937856

pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=66737465

Logically Earth-chan would be a 28-year old Han Chinese male. Now stop spamming and fuck off.

The sun is much closer than 93 million miles away: youtube.com/watch?v=eN8yhUzqLCA

You can see the stars because they are also much closer.

>the Sun and the planets would have to go in all sorts of weird paths in order to account for what we're observing

No they wouldn't, they just circle around the flat plane. The stars and planets would be making vastly more random movements if the heliocentric model was true (earth spinning, earth orbiting sun, sun orbiting galaxy).

>Winds all move in the same direction

Put the meth pipe down.

then fly with a drone into that "Sun" you absolute retard and see what happens

...

Wait, so are you telling me, that the stars are closer than the sun?
>The stars and planets would be making vastly more random movements if the heliocentric model was true
Once again a clear case of not understanding scale
>Put the meth pipe down
Sure, once you pass your 8th grade geography exam

So that's settled then...

Keep thinking it's 93 million miles away you fucking dip

>Wait, so are you telling me, that the stars are closer than the sun?

That's what logically follows, yes. Unless the stars are made of some special type of light that can travel further.

>Once again a clear case of not understanding scale

Scale doesn't matter when we're talking about so many movements happening at once. You have the earth spinning and wobbling slightly, you then have an elliptical orbit around the sun that gets faster and slower, you then have sun orbiting the galaxy at 514,000mph and yet the north star remains in the exact same place, day in, day out. Don't give me this shit about scale, that does not sufficiently explain it at all. Evidence is required for such claims, of which you have none.