you really believe anything you see from yt

anonymous etc. could you just name one guy ? and not 1/5 of a phrase ty

your appeal to "oh it's on Yt so it must be wrong" is like me saying NASA is wrong cause there on YT, derp/10

So a scientist is anonymous if you failed to research them - nice appeal to blind ignorance

But here's a quote from a guy you might have heard of, some bum called "Isaac Newton"

''It is inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else which is not material, operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact, as it must be, if gravitation in the sense of Epicurus, be essential and inherent in it. And this is one reason why I desired you would not ascribe innate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left open to the consideration of my readers. ''

So basically he's saying you have to be crazy to believe in Gravity as a force and dont ascribe your stupidity to him

So what do you do - claim Newton proved gravity when he didn't

facepalm/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

https://www.facebook.com/notes/zen-garcia/globe-vs-flat-earth-court-case/10219110896191357

^ Globe Earth actually loses in a Court of Law.

Interesting how the mainstream media didn't run with it huh. I guess they don't want to start a mass Cognitive dissonance from happening maybe.

What was false about my witness?
I just repeated your own definition quotes. You indirectly accused youself

And speaking of false witness you just saw I don't have a problem with you believing different
Earlier you even admitted I dont outrightly insult you and chivas for believing different



I did return insults which is fair

Yet you spamed I'm triggered you believe different.
That is a contradiction

This post was edited by kai_jph on Jul 6 2019 11:39pm

A globe is a spherical model of Earth, of some other celestial body, or of the celestial sphere. Globes serve similar purposes to maps, but unlike maps, do not distort the surface that they portray except to scale it down. A globe of Earth is called a terrestrial globe

Ehm no not really, because the loss in court didnt validate a flat earth in any way.

After one search on google the first result u find is this

https://www.quora.com/What-are-your-views-on-this-flat-Earth-vs-Globe-Court-case

Have fun reading, below u will also find the right formular.

Maybe ur just too busy spreading the word without reading what the case was about

But I forgive ur ignorance

Unlike you, I did read the case. The object of the competition to win $15k was to prove there was actual curvature of earth. It was not to prove the earth is flat, just show any 2 separates proofs of curvature.
The plaintiff failed to do that, and the Judge confirmed his failure. All he proved was that he (like many other people) fail to understand perspective and convergence.

You don't seem to understand it either

In your own posts you show images of how perspective works, objects getting smaller the further away you go



Like the 2nd pic eventually converging



4th pic states the sun going out of our range of vision
Yet the Sun does not appear to get smaller

You eventually post a vid stating its caused by magnification in the atmosphere caused by water

https://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=77269763&f=27&o=6510

Which you stated was in gas form which does not cause magnification and you dodged the issue ever since

You state its a small part of the perspective theory, but its a small part that has never been proven scientifically but is dependent for the "law of perspective" to work


Thus the perspective theory contradicts itself

This post was edited by kai_jph on Jul 7 2019 03:17am

Sorry kid Im not gonna view 3 hours of flat earth youtube video

newton is from 17th century, he didnt had all the elements in hand at that time. What he said doesnt give any credit to FE anyways. nice try though
oh, and 2500 years before JC eratostene proved the sphericity of the earth.

2019, only a few fools believe its still flat.

you must have some mental issues how is going life for a flat earther ?

This post was edited by Melatonina on Jul 7 2019 04:02am

No if you would have read into it youd know that the challenge was to prove the curative conforms to this formular

Drop = 8x miles^2

Which is of course wrong and bound to fail.

Of course I didnt expect anything from u other than reading the flat earth facebook page. You really are a moron

U can look up the real formular in the link I gave u which u didn't click of course, because flat earthers are simpletons which dont like to read into things which are against their beliefs.

I still forgive u, but to answer ur question this is why there were no news in the media, because the challenge is merely irrelevant