First of all you have to tell me how the heck you are highlighting the quotes like that, I knew how to do it before the update, but the quote icon is no longer there, you know where you can change the color and text? It only appears to be a mound, for on a football field or soccer (most are used for both), the mound stretches down the middle of the field, so the water runs off the sides, kind of like a road. In the middle of the field where he walks, is almost perfectly level from one end to the other, maybe only a couple inches difference. Nothing that would render the argument void. When you ask me where my common sense is, does that include how water takes form to the exterior of a shape. Common sense says it always finds a level, it is only the magical "gravity" that says otherwise. It's obvious there is no CGI. Even a professional photographer would easily be able to tell. Like I said earlier, maybe you should take the free tutorial from fotoforensics.com. If it has to do with space then it is CGI. I realize how that sounds to you, but this is the only reason flat earth is now being debated. For professional photographers, and amateurs have not found one real image of earth or anything within the heavenly bodies. And no, it does not take everyone in nasa, or as many as you think it does. For if I was to pay you to build a satellite, you don't need to know what is done with it, you just need to build it. This is applicable in many cases within nasa and others.
Now your admitting that you don't even know what a fish eye lens is, and that you need proof as to weather or not it is one. No wonder you believe nasa images.
You are correct to say Foucault's Pendulum proves Earth's rotation, but there's no controversy. They advance CW in the northern hemisphere, CCW in the southern. (How does FE explain that?) Their motion per hour is a function of the sine of the pendulum's latitude. (How does FE explain that?) This simple experiment is extremely well understood; visit one and discuss with the staff your FE theory. I'm certain to be thrilled to spend as much time as it takes to explain it to you. How's that FE eclipse prediction coming? (lol)
Actually an eclipse has been predicted long before the Copernicus model (heliocentric) and by using a flat earth model. They even had feasts, some did sacrifices, and so much more. They knew when it was going to occur, again using a flat earth model.
Your first video (Eric Dubay?) states eclipses can be predicted without any model, but that's only for the dates. To predict the areas to get total darkness has only been done since the heliocentric model. His claim that a lunar eclipse at sundown or sunrise disproves the globe model is untrue. He describes a situation where Sun, Earth, and Moon must be in linear alignment (true) but also the observer. (False.) At sun rise or set, the observer is not on said line, but offset by Earth's radius. Seeing both at once is not only possible, but necessary with the heliocentric model. Every Dubay video I've seen follows the same pattern: Start with uncontested facts, make a false claim bout them, show how the false claim is false, and conclude the Earth is flat. He never gets tired of this game.
Wrong many images of the earth from space have been shown to you and you simply lie to claim they are CGI.
Go eat your soup. Even nasa admits they are composites and I quote, "they are photoshopped, but it, it, it has to be."
Do you mind explaining to me how this is so, even if it's in laymen terms. At sun rise or set, the observer is not on said line, but offset by Earth's radius. How is it, one is offset by earths radius? I think I know what you mean, but not totally. Are suggesting it is about the earths axis?
Here's a sketch of the Sun, Earth, & Moon in line, with observer at sun rise or set, seeing both Sun & Moon during lunar eclipse: . . . . . O . . . S . . . E . . . M
Not really getting it with that particular diagram, I do appreciate the attempt though. So "O" is the observer, but the observer is standing on "E" or earth, so with that diagram I'm not really seeing how the earth is coming into play along with the observer. Is that the offset position in which is being debated? And if so, I'm not seeing how that proves anything, one way or the other.
As I understood Dubay, he was saying it wasn't possible to see the Sun & Moon at the same time during a lunar eclipse with the heliocentric model. This sketch shows an observer at sunrise or sunset, able to see Sun & Moon during a lunar eclipse. Most observers won't see this, but some certainly will. For example, people where its midnight or noon when the eclipse is at its peak won't see both Sun & Moon.
Composites are still real photographs they are not CGI. You are lying and have been caught and proven to have lied about this in the past. They have admitted no such thing. But it is nice to know you are a hypocrite and not the real christian you claim to be. You lie easily and without effort.
No the burden of proof is on you to show they are CGI and you have instead been proven to have lied about this assertion.
If the more air you look through, the less is visible, why isn't the top of a ship or a person affected like the bottom is? The same amount of air is between the viewer and the ship (or person) at the top as there is at the bottom. Yet only the bottom is affected? Even if the viewer stands on his head? Fail. And I've shown you in the past that a plane ride around the Southern hemisphere takes the same amount of time as a trip around the Northern hemisphere. This is IMPOSSIBLE if the North Pole were at the center of a flat disc. Your response was a typical deflection about some imagined problem with the globe, and I doubt you'll have anything better this time.
No sir, not at all. A composite photograph being used for evidence within a courtroom would not hold up as a real, original, photograph. It would not be allowed.
Shaquille O'Neal says the Earth is FLAT in bizarre rant dismissing 'all that gravity stuff'. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4329112/Shaquille-O-Neal-says-Earth-flat-bizarre-rant.html If you can believe in Al Gore why not believe in Shaq?
Then GPS shouldn't work when you are hundreds or thousands of miles from the nearest radio tower. Yet, it does.