全 63 件のコメント

[–]OB1_kenobi 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

I've noticed a definite increase in the amount of trolling that goes on here over the last few months. For some reason, people feel like it's OK to drop by and make asshole comments just for the sake of being an ass.

[–]whyd_you_kill_doakes 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, go browse thru other subs and you frequently come across things like "those tinfoil nuts over at /r/conspiracy". That statement alone creates a subconscious bias against this sub, even if the person(s) it's directed towards don't view it as such. So people come here and look for things that confirm that bias and reply accordingly. It's like if I told you "all green people eat pasta", you would discount any other thing they eat but when you see them eating pasta, you would definitely take notice and it would further confirm that bias.

[–]SummerSoldier 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Just look at all of the different subs reading all the comments and trying to find a few people with a few mistakes or perhaps some racist commenters. You know, if a sub has 307,618 subscribers, there's bound to be some racists among them.
/r/conspiratard
/r/topmindsofreddit are among the worst and are wasting their lives by worrying about what we think. Watch this get picked up by them as well, what a joke.

[–]omenofdread 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Personally I think it stems from a concerted effort to marginalize those that just won't swallow the official kool-aid. One that has been ongoing for many years. The statement "conspiracy theorists have been correct far too often to discount every single thing they say" is often met with "yeah, but lizards".

I equate it with the idea that "team local sucks" because "one dude on the bench hurt his ankle".

I don't think the people pushing this marginalization realize that they are complicit in the continued horrors visited upon the world via their continued "shut up conspiracy theorist" and their constant appeals to authority. Maybe one day their masters will let them eat at the table too.

[–]SummerSoldier -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Great reply. Instant save ;)

[–]plato_thyself 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

[–]Mae-Brussell-Hustler[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you for taking time to contribute! I pushed that tiny up arrow next to your message for kicks.

[–]50ShadesOfPatriotic 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

Sounds like people criticizing your beliefs the way you criticize theirs, which happen to be actual facts.

[–]Mae-Brussell-Hustler[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (10子コメント)

I'd love an example.

[–]50ShadesOfPatriotic -1ポイント0ポイント  (9子コメント)

First of all, going on my comment history as far back as a week and commenting on things I said is fucking creepy. Second is this 'Jade Helm' conspiracy bullshit about the government invading territory it already owns, rather than it being what it is: a training exercise.

[–]Mae-Brussell-Hustler[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

on How many accounts have you made this "creepy" comment back to me?

[–]50ShadesOfPatriotic 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

You are delusional if you think I would take the time to spam you with multiple accounts, as you are not worth the trouble and I have no interest in fueling your confirmation bias.

[–]Mae-Brussell-Hustler[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (6子コメント)

You just lack original critique?

So, how would you be versed in my Confirmation Bias without violating your "creepy code" & reviewing my post history?

[–]50ShadesOfPatriotic -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Every conspiracy theorist and/or those with closed minds possess confirmation bias. That means you.

[–]Mae-Brussell-Hustler[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

So conspiracy theorists are often times closed minded? This is news to me. If one listens to MSM , you would come to believe that this so called Klan of "conspiracy nutters" will believe anything.

Yet, those who take encyclopedia Britannica dogma & their public school education as pure truth are open minded?

How do you have such insight into an online persona such as myself?

Or, are you presumptuous & lumping my consciousness/capabilities in with others you have met along your short journey?

So this Confirmation Bias is a disease to which you have been vaccinated?

[–]50ShadesOfPatriotic -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

If you disagree with Encyclopedia Britannica at all, that is admitting you believe reality to be false. You would be hard pressed to find a more reputable and objective source the world over.

Edit: I see you added new material to the post I responded to without proper notation, classy.

[–]Mae-Brussell-Hustler[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

Why do you think it is called Britannica?

British Monarchy perhaps.

They are Germans who changed their surname during WW1; but you know all of these facts.

PS Andrew Bell , a Scot co-founder of that book of knowledge you hold so dear had little formal education & rode the tallest horse available to offset his small stature.

[–]HaltNWO -3ポイント-2ポイント  (43子コメント)

Same with any Flat Earth post. It's taken over by one guy with three accounts (at least) that harass anyone who dares point out his mistakes.

[–]whyd_you_kill_doakes 3ポイント4ポイント  (15子コメント)

Well flat earth is a bit ridiculous. Discounting hundreds, if not thousands, of years or research and evidence, while also ignoring things you can observe on a day to day basis is a bit ridiculous.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth -1ポイント0ポイント  (14子コメント)

You should reconsider it.

Discounting hundreds, if not thousands, of years or research and evidence,

You should look into the history of the topic instead of just assuming this.

ignoring things you can observe on a day to day basis

This is actually what you have to do in order to believe in a globular earth. The physical evidence is extremely strong and it is right in front of your eyes.

If you are actually interested, this is a place to start: https://youtu.be/kFjG4jpUhQI

[–]whyd_you_kill_doakes 1ポイント2ポイント  (13子コメント)

Dude I've looked at a ton of this stuff. I haven't ignored it. I've argued this stuff and that hollow earth mumbo-jumbo.

Answer these questions that no one has been able to for me:

Where does a flat Earth begin and/or end? If it's flat and finite then it must start and end somewhere. is it a circle? A square?

How thick is this flat Earth? We've drilled pretty deep down so it has to be deep, right? What's underneath it?

How can you explain plate tectonics? Old material has to go somewhere, and new material has to be created from somewhere. We're talking kilometers thick material that's created from absurd amounts of heat and pressure. How far down in a flat Earth would that have to be to take place?

How can you explain the Coriolis Effect? That's observable from Hurricanes, or even your toilet.

How can you explain gravity. Everything falls towards the center of Earth (or a specific point within a body, typically the center), which is why it falls down no matter where you are. Where would that center be? Without gravity on a flat Earth, a bullet shot from a gun would theoretically never hit the ground until it escaped this flat Earth.

Why are we the only known, observable flat body? We can use simple telescopes to see other celestial bodies that are spherical and have rotation. Why are we the lone exception?

Lastly, for what purpose would people have for hiding knowledge this flat Earth? What is to gain? A big April Fools joke? That seems excessive for a prank.

Edit: and another question, how do you explain seasons? On a flat Earth, every inch of the planet would receive equal amounts of rays of light. This would cause a large amount of infrared and ultraviolet radiation being absorbed, causing an extremely hot planet that would have no atmosphere, no weather, just hot. Not a very habitable environment.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

I know you have not "looked at a ton of this stuff", because you don't even understand the basic model that you could see in a 10 minute video. I will address your points. None of these points are related to proofs about flat earth though. You are thinking about it from the wrong angle. You are thinking it can't possibly be true because of the coverup required. It is much better to start with proofs involving flat water over large distances and then later work on the how and the why of the coverup. Again, it is clear that you have yet to consult the resources that I have linked to you multiple times because you keep asking very basic questions.

Where does a flat Earth begin and/or end? If it's flat and finite then it must start and end somewhere. is it a circle? A square?

The shape of what we (the public) are aware of is a circle. It is ringed by Antarctica. What is deep past the edge of Antarctica we do not know.

How thick is this flat Earth? We've drilled pretty deep down so it has to be deep, right? What's underneath it?

Actually, we have not drilled that far down. I believe the deepest reported in somewhere around 8 miles. How can we know what is past that?

How can you explain the Coriolis Effect? That's observable from Hurricanes, or even your toilet.

The below is copy paste. A proper discussion on this specific point requires more:

The “Coriolis Effect” is often said to cause sinks and toilet bowls in the Northern Hemisphere to drain spinning in one direction while in the Southern Hemisphere causing them to spin the opposite way, thus providing proof of the spinning ball-Earth. Once again, however, just like Foucault’s Pendulums spinning either which way, sinks and toilets in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres do not consistently spin in any one direction! Sinks and toilets in the very same household are often found to spin opposite directions, depending entirely upon the shape of the basin and the angle of the water’s entry, not the supposed rotation of the Earth.

“While the premise makes sense - that the earth’s eastward spin would cause the water in a toilet bowl to spin as well - in reality, the force and speed at which the water enters and leaves the receptacle is much too great to be influenced by something as miniscule as a single, 360-degree turn over the span of a day. When all is said and done, the Coriolis effect plays no larger role in toilet flushes than it does in the revolution of CDs in your stereo. The things that really determine the direction in which water leaves your toilet or sink are the shape of the bowl and the angle at which the liquid initially enters that bowl.” -Jennifer Horton, “Does the Rotation of the Earth Affect Toilets and Baseball Games?” Science.HowStuffWorks.com

The Coriolis Effect is also said to affect bullet trajectories and weather patterns as well, supposedly causing most storms in the Northern Hemisphere to rotate counter-clockwise, and most storms in the Southern Hemisphere to rotate clockwise, to cause bullets from long range guns to tend towards the right of the target in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left in the Southern Hemisphere. Again, however, the same problems remain. Not every bullet and not every storm consistently displays the behavior and therefore cannot reasonably be used as proof of anything. What about the precision of the sight aperture, human error, and wind? What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect? Why does the Coriolis Effect affect most storms but not all? If some storms rotate clockwise in the North and counter-clockwise in the South, how do those storms escape the Coriolis force? And if the entire Earth’s spin is uniform, why should the two hemispheres be affected any differently? Coriolis’s Effect and Foucault’s Pendulum are both said to prove the Earth moves beneath our feet, but in reality only prove how easy it can be for wolves in sheep’s clothing to pull the wool over our eyes. -The Flat Earth Conspiracy

How can you explain gravity. Everything falls towards the center of Earth (or a specific point within a body, typically the center), which is why it falls down no matter where you are. Where would that center be? Without gravity on a flat Earth, a bullet shot from a gun would theoretically never hit the ground until it escaped this flat Earth.

Gravity does not actually exist. This is a whole topic on its own and I realize this statement can seem outlandish but a careful look at the history of how gravity came to be accepted in the first place is important. The motion you experience can be explained through buoyancy and density. An object in a medium depending on their relative densities will float or sink.

Why are we the only known, observable flat body? We can use simple telescopes to see other celestial bodies that are spherical and have rotation. Why are we the lone exception?

You are assuming there are other "celestial bodies".

Lastly, for what purpose would people have for hiding knowledge this flat Earth? What is to gain? A big April Fools joke? That seems excessive for a prank.

I addressed this in the first paragraph. The evidence for the "why" is not something you can observe with your own eyes (like the flatness of the earth). It is certainly more important than a prank.

[–]whyd_you_kill_doakes 1ポイント2ポイント  (11子コメント)

flat water over large distances

Only it's not flat. If it were, when you go to the beach, you would be able to see EVERYTHING.

The shape of what we (the public) are aware of is a circle. It is ringed by Antarctica. What is deep past the edge of Antarctica we do not know.

Seriously? We don't know? Maybe we don't know because it has no edge? How would we not have the technology with planes and drones capable of equipping cameras. You would think one guy would say "Hey, why don't we just fly a plane out there as far as it will go and take some pictures?"

What about Michelson-Morley-Gale’s proven motion of the aether’s potential effect?

Here's a more recent experiment done that actually contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment that proves the Earth has angular velocity, meaning it is spinning.

I can't explain why Hurricanes and Tornadoes don't always spin counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, but that's one thing I'm sure I will research in my soon-to-be-career in Meteorology. AFAIK, no one knows and it really perplexes people.

Gravity does not actually exist.

If not, how did the planet form and what keeps everything here? You say the air is less dense and more buoyant, which is true, but without gravity, how would it not just float away? Something must be pulling it back down. And just because an object is in a less dense medium, doesn't mean it should automatically sink to the bottom. It still needs something telling it WHERE the bottom is (ie: Gravity)

You are assuming there are other "celestial bodies".

Um....I don't even know where to begin with that. Go grab a few lenses, throw them in a tube, find a cleary night sky and you'll see them. Are you saying whoever created this hoax just threw a tarp over the entire Earth? How does this tarp manage to move and have parts in it that move? How do MASSIVE things routinely come from this tarp?

And you didn't address plate tectonics. How do mountains and volcanoes form in this flat Earth? How do Earthquakes occur?

I believe the deepest reported in somewhere around 8 miles. How can we know what is past that?

One tool that is useful to see inside the Earth is an earthquake. There are two different waves (S and P) that are produced. Measuring the distances and speeds and different reflections of these waves, geologists are able to approximate what the structure of the Earth is.

I addressed this in the first paragraph. The evidence for the "why" is not something you can observe with your own eyes (like the flatness of the earth). It is certainly more important than a prank.

I wouldn't think it'd be observable with my eyes. And you have yet to answer the question.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

http://www.zengardner.com/iq-psy-ops-civilization-scam/

That article was just posted. You should read it. It is very topical.

I will respond to all your points in a bit. But again, these are all basic questions that tell me you have not consulted the resources.

Again I will give you a couple of links:

If you would like a more serious look at the topic: https://youtu.be/kFjG4jpUhQI

An old book: https://archive.org/details/zeteticcosmogon00recgoog

[–]whyd_you_kill_doakes 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

The article has nothing to do with the subject at hand. And I'm not reading a book by "Rectangle" aka T. Winship, whom I can find nothing about.

I'll be waiting for your responses to my questions.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I will give you the answers to the questions you asked, but no more until you demonstrate that you have actually consulted the resources. There is no point in continuing to respond to you if you don't do so. I get the feeling that you are deliberately wasting my time. If you feel that is not the case, review our history and look how much time I have spent with you vs the fact that you have yet to actually read the info at the links I have given you.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Also, that article has everything to do with the subject at hand. It explains your approach to this subreddit. You should actually read it. And you gave an awfully shallow reason for rejecting that book.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (6子コメント)

Again, these are the last questions of yours that I will answer until you show that you have read things at the links I have given you.

Only it's not flat. If it were, when you go to the beach, you would be able to see EVERYTHING.

No, that is not the case.

  1. Your vision works like a cone. To see this consider your own "viewport". Consider looking down a very long hallway. Think about the lines of the floor, ceiling and walls. If the hallway is long enough those lines converge in the middle of your view. The parts of the hallway closer to you take up a larger part of the 2d "viewport" of your vision. Even though the hallway is a rectangular cuboid, you see the lines of the intersection of the floor, ceiling and walls meet in the center of your vision. You can't see infinitely down the hallway and the same occurs outside.

  2. Air has moisture and other particulate matter in it. You cannot see through it an infinite distance. Consider standing at a lookout and viewing two hills, one twice the distance from you as the other. The further away one will have more of a blue tinge to it due to viewing it through more air.

Seriously? We don't know? Maybe we don't know because it has no edge? How would we not have the technology with planes and drones capable of equipping cameras. You would think one guy would say "Hey, why don't we just fly a plane out there as far as it will go and take some pictures?"

For the flat earth to be true, there must be a large coverup. You cannot trust the Royal Academy of anything. Things must be able to be repeatedly demonstrated by the layman. If you think "official sources" don't lie, well that is incredibly naive, but a topic on its own. Regular people cannot mount expeditions or plane flights over Antarctica. That ends poorly for them.

If not, how did the planet form and what keeps everything here? You say the air is less dense and more buoyant, which is true, but without gravity, how would it not just float away? Something must be pulling it back down. And just because an object is in a less dense medium, doesn't mean it should automatically sink to the bottom. It still needs something telling it WHERE the bottom is (ie: Gravity)

I don't know how the earth formed. I do know that the official story doesn't sound very plausible. I don't think you have to know this prove that the earth is flat though. Who is to say what is actually above us? Astronauts have never been past the Van Allen belts. I know the official line has some issues. How do you possibly have an atmosphere beside a vacuum? Do you know what the force of a vacuum sucking is compared to what the strength gravity is supposed to be? But both of these questions really aren't relevant. To prove flat earth I don't have to show I know everything about everything, I just have to show that the earth is flat. All of these other questions I would really like to know the answer to, but the answers to them don't change whether or not the earth is flat.

Um....I don't even know where to begin with that. Go grab a few lenses, throw them in a tube, find a cleary night sky and you'll see them. Are you saying whoever created this hoax just threw a tarp over the entire Earth? How does this tarp manage to move and have parts in it that move? How do MASSIVE things routinely come from this tarp?

Certainly you can see lights in the sky with a telescope. I don't think I mentioned a tarp. This is like the last question, you are asking me to explain the nature of the entire universe while I'm just trying to prove the earth cannot be a sphere and is instead flat.

One tool that is useful to see inside the Earth is an earthquake. There are two different waves (S and P) that are produced. Measuring the distances and speeds and different reflections of these waves, geologists are able to approximate what the structure of the Earth is.

Here is a video about deep drilling: https://youtu.be/bLLxfwgEbM0 12km down they claim

Geologists are not able to get an accurate picture hundreds of miles underground with earthquake waves. And even if they could, why does it matter? You are again asking for an explanation to everything in the universe when I am only trying to show that the earth is flat and not a globe.

I wouldn't think it'd be observable with my eyes. And you have yet to answer the question.

The question of why is not relevant. Focus on the physical proofs, they are first order evidence. You can perform experiments yourself to demonstrate it.

Summary: 1. I will respond to you no more until you consult the resources I have linked in our many conversations. You are wasting my time until you do. 2. I do not know everything about the universe, most of your questions i would really like to know the answer to, but I don't. I am just trying to demonstrate that the world is flat, and cannot be a sphere.

And you really should read that article I linked. You are clinging to lies like a comforting blanket. You refuse to even consider the physical evidence and focus only on the devastation of your world view if it were true. You cannot face that reality, so cannot afford to actually consider the evidence.

[–]shmusko01 -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

still posting this bullshit about the hallway i see.

Your vision works like a cone. To see this consider your own "viewport". Consider looking down a very long hallway. Think about the lines of the floor, ceiling and walls. If the hallway is long enough those lines converge in the middle of your view.

They would appear to recede infinitely but never beyond the horizon. Which is what things do in real life.

The parts of the hallway closer to you take up a larger part of the 2d "viewport" of your vision. Even though the hallway is a rectangular cuboid, you see the lines of the intersection of the floor, ceiling and walls meet in the center of your vision. You can't see infinitely down the hallway and the same occurs outside.

One would be able to see object behind other objects. Like the rocky mountains from new york.

One cannot.

Air has moisture and other particulate matter in it. You cannot see through it an infinite distance. Consider standing at a lookout and viewing two hills, one twice the distance from you as the other. The further away one will have more of a blue tinge to it due to viewing it through more air.

Objects disappear over the horizon before the affect of atmospheric perspective take effect enough to obscure them.

Regular people cannot mount expeditions or plane flights over Antarctica.

I went there when I was 15. So did about 100 other students.

Astronauts have never been past the Van Allen belts.

Yes they have.

Why do you believe only halfway? Why do you even believe the "official narrative" about the Van Allen belts at all? You can't pick and choose what part of "the official" narrative you like, especially if it conflicts with other parts.

. How do you possibly have an atmosphere beside a vacuum?

Space isn't a perfect vacuum, but I digress:

Gravity is how stuff doesn't just float away.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

They would appear to recede infinitely but never beyond the horizon. Which is what things do in real life.

That is not true, you can only see a finite distance. The hallway is not bs. It is showing you the linear progression of the lines of your perspective. There is no point at which the lines curve. If you don't understand this example, that is unfortunate, but that is how our vision works. Next time you are looking along a long fence or something, have a look at how the appearance of the posts change as they get further away from you.

One would be able to see object behind other objects. Like the rocky mountains from new york. One cannot.

What are you trying to say here? Is this just more not understanding how field of vision works?

Objects disappear over the horizon before the affect of atmospheric perspective take effect enough to obscure them.

No, this is not true. First of all, even if the earth was a globe it wouldn't be true since the air can have varying visibility. But let's look at ship over the horizon. This is again the hallway principle. Its just how your vision works.

To demonstrate this to yourself, bring a telescope the next time you are in a position to view a ship sailing away from you. Once you can no longer see it with the naked eye, use your telescope. You will be able to see the ship again. It was not the water blocking your vision, it was the limit of your perspective with the naked eye. The telescope has the effect of advancing your 2d viewport forward. The viewable space is not occupied by the things close to you, so you can see further. However the lines of your perspective through the telescope still end at a finite point.

I went there when I was 15. So did about 100 other students.

Please describe this trip in detail. I'm interested.

Why do you believe only halfway? Why do you even believe the "official narrative" about the Van Allen belts at all? You can't pick and choose what part of "the official" narrative you like, especially if it conflicts with other parts.

That is a good question actually. Its really just their own contradiction that is the issue there. They say we can't do it now, and they haven't claimed to for a very long time (70s?). I do believe there is something stopping them, exactly what the nature of it is, I don't know. This is actually refreshingly insightful.

Space isn't a perfect vacuum, but I digress: Gravity is how stuff doesn't just float away.

It doesn't need to be perfect. If you take two sealed chambers with different pressures and make an opening between them so that they are one chamber, what happens? How does the force of that process compare to the force of gravity? The supposed gravitational force is an incredibly weak one as it is described to us.

[–]shmusko01 -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

. It is showing you the linear progression of the lines of your perspective.

If it were linear, objects would appear to recede infinitely into the distance. The do not.

There is no point at which the lines curve.

How many times does someone need to reiterate how large the earth is?

Next time you are looking along a long fence or something, have a look at how the appearance of the posts change as they get further away from you.

And a "super long" fence would disappear over the horion.

What are you trying to say here? Is this just more not understanding how field of vision works?

If the earth were flat, one could see the rocky mountains from new york.

but you cannot.

But let's look at ship over the horizon.

yes, and it disappears over the horizon. it does not recede infinitely away.

nce you can no longer see it with the naked eye, use your telescope.

and what you will see is the ship disappearing over the horizon. Not it shrinking "infinitely" backward.

just like i can't get my mega telescope out and see the rocky mountains (or even the himalayas) from new york.

Please describe this trip in detail. I'm interested.

Myself, along with any other students went to antarctica. the program continues to this day. i saw a lot of weird bird things and fozen water.

Its really just their own contradiction that is the issue there

they don't contradict themselves.

They say we can't do it now,

Do they? The video in particular the flat earthers are obsessed with, never says it. Only that it's dangerous.

They hinge their argument on incredulity : why don't we use 1969 technology?!!

Because it's not 1969. The metrics for the orion program are different from those in 1969. Sure we could just use some 1960s tech and remake an apollo. But that would be stupid. Those things were dangerous. Technology changes and we need to fit all the metrics of today's needs and that will require prototyping and testing.

Moreover, he doesn't actually say they can't get "past" them.

. If you take two sealed chambers with different pressures and make an opening between them so that they are one chamber, what happens?

...thats not really how space works. the earth and "space" aren't two sealed off chambers.

The supposed gravitational force is an incredibly weak one as it is described to us.

Yes, especially compared to other forces. Your point?

[–]Mae-Brussell-Hustler[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

Take your Flat Earth agenda to a post about the earth or geography or people who have never been to lake Michigan.

[–]HaltNWO -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not a Flat Earth believer...

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sorry, you are right, it is offtopic to this thread. Really I was trying to be on topic by pointing out that HaltNWO is exactly the sort of person you are talking about.

Have a peek at his post history.

Although I'm curious what you mean about lake Michigan.

[–]HaltNWO 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

When you look at Chicago across Lake Michigan, you can only see the tops of the taller buildings; the bottoms, smaller buildings and the ground are below the horizon.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Here is a quick video with some skyline visible at distances which would be impossible on a spherical earth of the circumference we are told.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mgur5EKboLY

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (21子コメント)

You again! This guy is what this thread is all about. Seriously, read his comment history to get an idea.

I do promote flat earth (because it is true), but I am not the same person as the others who do.

If you look far enough into his comments you can find him trying to debate(really just mindless attempts to debunk mindlessly without consideration for the actual argument) with me on the subject. Unfortunately he does not have the ability to form a cogent argument.

He is so ineffective it is hilarious.

[–]Mae-Brussell-Hustler[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Take your Flat Earth agenda to a post about the earth or geography or people who have never been to lake Michigan.

[–]anarchopotato 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

lake Michigan looks flat to me

[–]metabolix 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't understand how this post gets 47 comments, and the post I made got under 20 when what I speak has more truth than his post. To me this confirms, this guy and people like him have hijacked /r/conspiracy. They are burying new items that need to be shown to prop up their own agenda. Wake up /r/conspiracy check out /r/conspiracy/new and not just the front page.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, this is absolutely true. /r/conspiracy should be viewed by /new always. I promise you though that I have hijacked nothing. I am only one person and I do very little voting. Voting should be ignored entirely. Important subjects get hammered with downvotes.

[–]metabolix 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Precisely! I'm sure the people who got this far have the intelligence to know that.

[–]HaltNWO 0ポイント1ポイント  (15子コメント)

Why do you keep running away from our discussions away I disprove your points?

[–]ChangeThroughTruth -1ポイント0ポイント  (14子コメント)

You should review our conversations. I have never run away from a discussion with you. If you would like to present something for me to respond to, I will. However, you have demonstrated that you do not have ability to form a proper argument.

Seriously, this was your "gotcha":

Have you ever heard of a level? It's a little device sold at any hardware store that allows you to look perfectly perpendicular to the ground. Do you own one?

+

Good. Now, do you live somewhere near a large body of water or a really flat plain? If so, go there, make sure the level is parallel to the ground and stable, and look down the level, straight towards the horizon. Can you see the ground/water? Maybe.

Now do the same thing, only hundreds of feet (large building), or thousands (airplane). Can you see the ground/water?

[–]HaltNWO 0ポイント1ポイント  (13子コメント)

And your response was...?

[–]ChangeThroughTruth -2ポイント-1ポイント  (12子コメント)

Here is the link to it if you would like a refresher: http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/36srvz/iumi_used_to_be_a_defender_about_how_we_went_to/crhdfvz

I was unable to address your "proof" because it was nonsensical. Seriously, read it again. I informed you that: "If you want to give an experiment you should include a hypothesis, steps, expected result, then a discussion of why your expected result demonstrates your point." I asked you to clarify the point you were trying to express, but you were unable.

If you would like to continue the conversation, we can, but you should review it first.

[–]HaltNWO 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

Very well. Can increasing your elevation increase the distance you can see? Does the horizon appear further away the higher you go? I submit that it does.

Experimental data backs that up.

We can conclude that the limiting factor in viewing the horizon at ground level is not particles in the air or the air itself.

Do you follow so far?

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (10子コメント)

The limiting factor as to how far you can see in very dry air is the property of the shape of viewable area that I described. Again, think of the lines of a hallway.

Looking at the horizon as you go higher is actually an important proof. When you rise in elevation, the horizon rises to meet your eyes. This is only possible on a flat plane. On a globe, you must look down to see the horizon as you go higher up. And no, the size of the earth that we are told is not too large to notice this. We are given a circumference of about 25000 miles. You can do the math if you like, its just pythag.

[–]HaltNWO 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

the horizon rises to meet your eyes

I hear this every once in awhile and it never makes sense. Are you saying that if you increase your elevation, you have to keep looking further and further down to see the horizon and keep it in the center of your vision?

[–]ChangeThroughTruth 0ポイント1ポイント  (8子コメント)

If the earth were a ball, yes. You would have to look down more and more to see the horizon as you elevated. If this were not true, how could you ever get high enough to take a picture of a globular earth that includes its edges?