How To Debate With Heliocentric Globetrotters?

The 2 Types of People on the Flat Earth:



F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote "the truest sign of intelligence is the ability to entertain two contradictory ideas simultaneously," and Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Those who are able to refrain from judgement long enough to genuinely research and weigh the evidence from all sides of a given subject are those most likely to arrive at the truth. Those who instantly resort to knee-jerk ridicule and continue to believe whatever they were first taught are those most easily deceived.

There is a debate involving "naval radar". It goes like this. If the earth is flat, how is "radar shadow" possible below the "radar horizon"?

The only examples I can find all assume that the earth is curved. Therefore anything below the horizon is under the "radar horizon" and is considered an area of "radar shadow".

If the experiment is done on a level body of water, how is "radar shadow" possible under the "radar horizon"?



Sorry if this isn't the right place to post this. I thought about posting it on the surveyors, engineers, pilots and sailors section.

I also kind of think this is a weak debate, because their whole argument is based on the assumption that earth is a globe. And since there is no proof of any curvature, then the claim that it is impossible on a flat earth is easily debunked.

Let me know what you think, if it is just anti-flat earthers picking at straws or if this needs supporting evidence or not.

Thanks

Admin wrote:The 2 Types of People on the Flat Earth:  



F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote "the truest sign of intelligence is the ability to entertain two contradictory ideas simultaneously," and Aristotle said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."  Those who are able to refrain from judgement long enough to genuinely research and weigh the evidence from all sides of a given subject are those most likely to arrive at the truth.  Those who instantly resort to knee-jerk ridicule and continue to believe whatever they were first taught are those most easily deceived.

Could the flat earth theories be intertwined with the hollow earth theories?

What I am proposing is purely speculation, and I was hoping someone would be able to contribute to the discussion.

What if the Earth’s shape is similar to an eyeball?




The iris is the level plane, the cornea is the firmament, the pupil is the whirlpool, world’s well, maelstrom, abysmal chasm, etc., at the core is the hollow vitreous body filled with vitreous liquid, and the magnetic mountain in the center is the pineal gland.

This might explain why so many of these heliocentric talking points, such as the imaginary curvature of the Earth, is based on the demarcation of our optical limitations.

If that is true, why would the architects of the heliocentric worldview go through all of this trouble to deceive the masses? Any ideas?

Any more than a few years ago there was no such thing as a flat-Earth debate. The premise of the Earth being flat was simply not a viable concept in developed nations. Due to the Internet and the natural progression of the truth the topic is becoming virtually unavoidable. However, simply debating flat-Earth may not be enough. The reluctancy yet willingness of the opposition to engage in or even sponsor debates is undoubtedly coming from the inevitability of the truth. The invalidity of the spinning ball nonsense is exacerbated with every attempt to defend it, and those who cling to the fallacies will ultimately lose their credibility as well. Therefore, I believe the damage control will come in the form of very gradual concessions. That has to be their plan. The Cabal of liars can't simply concede the point and expect to get on with life as usual. In many ways the spinning-ball deception is far greater than false flagging our nation into a war. A government that deliberately teaches lies about basic science from crib to casket clearly has zero morality. Hence, the ramification of an overnight admission would dissolve whatever remains in government trust. Enough so, that the parasites currently enjoying their status would be reduced to third-class peons. But that's why leaving the debate at: flat and stationary vs. spinning ball Earth is not enough. The exposing of the evil and corrupt nature of authoritarianism should always be included as a focal point.

Any thoughts?