As soon as you show me a flat horizon on a close up of any ball, like a basketball, should be easy to do right - just zoom in real close and use a macro lense, K i'll wait diligently for you to post that.

If you can't , the entire ball theory is debunked.

But since I know you'll fail, I just post this copy pasta since you're probably not sure how to use the Internet to look up information



A Solar Eclipse occurs when the moon passes in front of the sun.

A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon.

This satellite is called the Shadow Object. Its orbital plane is tilted at an angle of about 5°10' to the sun's orbital plane, making eclipses possible only when the three bodies (Sun, Object, and Moon) are aligned and when the moon is crossing the sun's orbital plane (at a point called the node). Within a given year, considering the orbitals of these celestial bodies, a maximum of three lunar eclipses can occur. Despite the fact that there are more solar than lunar eclipses each year, over time many more lunar eclipses are seen at any single location on earth than solar eclipses. This occurs because a lunar eclipse can be seen from the entire half of the earth beneath the moon at that time, while a solar eclipse is visible only along a narrow path on the earth's surface.

Total lunar eclipses come in clusters. There can be two or three during a period of a year or a year and a half, followed by a lull of two or three years before another round begins. When you add partial eclipses there can be three in a calendar year and again, it's quite possible to have none at all.

The shadow object is never seen because it orbits close to the sun. As the sun's powerful vertical rays hit the atmosphere during the day they will scatter and blot out nearly every single star and celestial body in the sky. We are never given a glimpse of the celestial bodies which appear near the sun during the day - they are completely washed out by the sun's light.

It is estimated that the Shadow Object is around five to ten miles in diameter. Since it is somewhat close to the sun the manifestation of its penumbra upon the moon appears as a magnified projection. This is similar to how during a shadow puppet show your hand's shadow can make a large magnified projection upon your bedroom wall as you move it closer to the flashlight.

Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham has provided equations for finding the time, magnitude, and duration of a Lunar Eclipse at the end of Chapter 11 of Earth Not a Globe.

There is also a possibility that the Shadow Object is a known celestial body which orbits the sun; but more study would be needed to track the positions of Mercury, Venus and the sun's asteroid satellites and correlate them with the equations for the lunar eclipse before any conclusion could be drawn.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So basically it say that Lunar eclipse are not from the shadow of the Earth and as proof you can find multiple sighting of the Sun during Lunar Eclipses

More info here

http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za29.htm

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jun 5 2016 07:55pm

Some proof of a shadow object here that was only visible in IR until 2009

Holy shit. Lunar eclipses are actually due to a third body that has never been observed. You can't make this shit up

if you look at the grafic of that dog you will realise that the astral projection of the suns hemisphere is ofcourse not right. The light will bent because it gets pulled by gravity.
That means the earth mus be a sphere.

u just dont get the scale of the Earth related to ur own size thats so damn funny

U think Earth is that small that u could just look in the distance and see a curve.

In that imaginary perfect ball of urs, if an object is small enough they wouldnt notice a curve simply because of their viewing capabilities based on how small they are compared to the object they r standing on.

If u ask an ant, provided it can give u an answer, do u think the ant will be able to see the curve of the Earth? No, so it will think its flat, by that assosiation, u r an ant

Also btw, where did u say u could see 100miles infront of u from? Where is that mountain/building where u can just stand and clearly see 100miles infront of u. U cant even perceive how far is 100miles but u just expect its a distance thats absolutely possible for u to see.

So foolish, keep the comedy comming and respond please

This post was edited by luckspin on Jun 6 2016 09:24am

It has been observed, just not by you.



I posted the math, which says that at 1000 miles of distance there is a 128 mile drop, if the horizon is only a 2d limit of vision - then 64 miles of drop should be viewable on the sides

that you think that a 64 mile drop on each edge is not viewable is pretty funny.

The challenge still stands, take any ball - which is a scale model of the Earth and show me any flat horizon no matter how close you zoom in, and you will end the FE debate. Sounds simple right, but be prepared to totally fail.

I've heard the ant analogy many times before, but it is nothing more than a simple barrier to make you not question your blind faith that the ball is real and that you could never know.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jun 6 2016 12:46pm

It makes itself up out of nothing, supposedly.






In Bolivia


This post was edited by MaliceMizer on Jun 6 2016 02:16pm

debate with card_sultan 1on1:

you: show him proof
card_sultan: not proof, fake
you: show him second proof
card_sultan: not proof, "barrier"
you: show him more proof
card_sultan: keeps going round and round and round and round and ~
you: ....
card_sultan: ....

20 Years later. . .

you: card_sultan me and my buddies r going on a trip around Earths orbit u wana come?
card_sultan: u and ur video games u delusional barstards! Earth is FLAT, FLAT i tell u!

You have no proof of anything, you cling to just mockery and fakery
Where is this proof of a ball you have faith in ? Where is this proof of gravity?
When things fall to the ground - it is not proof that some invisible force pulled it down, just proof that that item is heavier and more dense than the air.
If the Ball is real, you wouldn't need Nasa to show you curve, you could see it from at least mountain tops or from high altitude balloons
I suspect that in 20 years , you'll still be selling duped LLD jewels thinking you can pawn players if you only convince yourself of it.

This post was edited by card_sultan on Jun 6 2016 02:38pm

actually he breaks down different observed movements of celestial bodies and applies them to a geocentric model, he doesn't get these movements from the heliocentric model at all, he gets them from observable movements of planets and stars that anyone with a telescope or even in some cases the naked eye can measure for themselves. He's taking the movements of planets and showing how those dont work in a geocentric model and do work in a heliocentric model, there is no false assumption. Please break down what specific assumptions you think are false and provide the time in the video those statements you're referencing are mentioned.