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?

I have run in to sum flat earthers who belive the sun and moon are in the clouds. I have shown them that they set/rise due to perspective and told that all those videos are at the same distance where the sun would be there due to perspective. But im not getting thru to them, so i figure i ask you guys how you would argue against it?

Sorry for off topic.

Slowbutsure wrote:I have run in to sum flat earthers who belive the sun and moon are in the clouds. I have shown them that they set/rise due to perspective and told that all those videos are at the same distance where the sun would be there due to perspective. But im not getting thru to them, so i figure i ask you guys how you would argue against it?

Sorry for off topic.

At this point I believe it is best to work on the non-flat-Earthers. There are a bunch of easily provable facts to win every legitimate debate. The faster people realize the Earth is flat the harder the fall of the cabal of psychopaths controlling the means of mass communication. Once the trust in our present system of government and media is dissolved, a paradigm shift will allow us true scientific exploration and good people won't need to debate.

Earthtoed wrote:

Slowbutsure wrote:I have run in to sum flat earthers who belive the sun and moon are in the clouds. I have shown them that they set/rise due to perspective and told that all those videos are at the same distance where the sun would be there due to perspective. But im not getting thru to them, so i figure i ask you guys how you would argue against it?

Sorry for off topic.

At this point I believe it is best to work on the non-flat-Earthers. There are a bunch of easily provable facts to win every legitimate debate. The faster people realize the Earth is flat the harder the fall of the cabal of psychopaths controlling the means of mass communication. Once the trust in our present system of government and media is dissolved, a paradigm shift will allow us true scientific exploration and good people won't need to debate.

Fair enough, but dont hurt to see a few arguments tho.

Slowbutsure wrote:

Earthtoed wrote:

Slowbutsure wrote:I have run in to sum flat earthers who belive the sun and moon are in the clouds. I have shown them that they set/rise due to perspective and told that all those videos are at the same distance where the sun would be there due to perspective. But im not getting thru to them, so i figure i ask you guys how you would argue against it?

Sorry for off topic.

At this point I believe it is best to work on the non-flat-Earthers. There are a bunch of easily provable facts to win every legitimate debate. The faster people realize the Earth is flat the harder the fall of the cabal of psychopaths controlling the means of mass communication. Once the trust in our present system of government and media is dissolved, a paradigm shift will allow us true scientific exploration and good people won't need to debate.

Fair enough, but dont hurt to see a few arguments tho.

“Regiments of figures are paraded with all the learned jargon for which science is famous, but one might as well look at the changing clouds in the sky and seek for certainty there, as to expect to get it from the propounders of modern astronomy. But is there no means of testing these ever-changing never-stable speculations and bringing them to the scrutiny of the hard logic of fact? Indeed there is. The distance of the sun can be measured with much precision, the same way as a tree or a house, or church steeple is measured, by plane triangulation. It is the principle on which a house is built, a table made or a man-of-war constructed … The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeeze itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only? But look at the distance, say the professors! We have already done that and not one of the wise men we have so often challenged, has ever attempted to refute the principle on which we measure the sun’s distance … If the navigator neglects to apply the sun’s semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun’s diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. Let him disprove this who can. If ever disproof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (114-120)