no. i didn't read the articles, because i understand that there exists theoretical mathematics to describe these things. keep in mind, if the earth is flat, everything you think you know about the universe is based completely on falsities.


i have never been to mars, and space tourism will forever be a pipe dream like it has been since we supposedly landed on the moon the first time. in fact, only about 560ish people are on record as having been to space. that's not a lot of actors to pay/threaten/control. if universal studios (or whoever did it) can make a movie like transformers, i think an infinitely funded "Nasa Studios" could make some people bounce around on your television screen.


actually, the proof needed - in my eyes - is one of two things, and they're both real simple. one would be space tourism. to me, there should be a hotel on the moon by now. so many other things have been accomplished in the time since we first went there, and not much of it has anything to do with practical space travel. we get images and theories, and that's pretty much it. the second thing is a video taken from a camera looking down from a spacecraft as it launches and continuously records the ground fading out as the spacecraft exits earth's atmosphere and goes out far enough to see the whole earth. we've sent plenty of things into space, and this relatively simple task has not been accomplished.

the contemporary flat earth hypothesis says the sun and moon and stars rotate around the earth. the moon and sun are 3000-4000 miles away and are about 32 miles in diameter. it's all a clock, and the moon is self-luminous. the earth does not move.


ships going over the horizon is a broad topic. a whole thread could be devoted to it. but pertaining to what you're talking about it, your argument falls apart when you pull a telescope out after the ship has disappeared to your naked eye, and it magically comes back into view. this is a replicable experiment. the reason it appears to shrink as it moves away is because we see things in perspective. all things shrink as they move away from the observer. hold your finger an inch from your eye and then move it to arm's length.

and no, i haven't been across an ocean. but i know that the earth appears 100% flat at 122,000 feet. the image you posted was taken through a fisheye lens, my friend.

I already explained that the only reason we went to the moon in the first place was because our rivalry with Russia. We stopped after that because the government lost all interest. Nobody with enough money to fund a program to put hotels in space had any interest in doing so because the financial benefits did not out weigh the costs. That is why we don't have space stations and **** like we should. Incompetence, and greedy politics. Listen to any scientist rant on about it because they will.

And also, that's why I wouldn't put forth the effort to post proof of the Earth being round. Because you will make up complete bull**** to dismiss it. Claim it's CGI. Claim it's a fish lens. But you can't prove either of those claims.

That's the problem with conspiracy theories. You have information A and you have information C and you have to fill in your ideas for information B with little to no evidence supporting it. Except, with this one you have information A B and C and you're trying to shove your D in there with the complete denial of information B. And with that, your pseudo science and logic can F off.

Well, it seem that way standing on the Jersey shore looking out at the Atlantic Ocean.


https://www.quora.com/At-what-altitu...e-of-the-Earth

Is Earth Actually Flat? (by VSauce)

Sure you can. People have observed ships disappearing over the horizon for centuries. The horizon line we see is created by the fact that the surface of the Earth is curving away from the observer.

P A N = Troll.

Let's stop feeding him and maybe he'll go away.

Next he'll claim that the International Space Station is a hoax too.

http://www.boeing.com/resources/boei...02_960x600.jpg

That actually looks flat as ****.

Isn't it? Think about it.

That's not what I meant...

They mean the horizon curving... horizontally.

It's what I meant though. I assumed you were making that comment at least in part toward me. If not, my bad.