Quote (tard_sultan @ Mar 3 2017 06:18pm)
Wrong again cupcake, you cant come up with an experiment to show the curve because there is no curve, Earth is 100% flat.
I lasted 15 minutes into your shitty video when it became apparent that the guy has no means of gauging by the human eye the difference between a perfectly perpendicular line of sight (90 degrees) and say, 89.7 degrees. You need instrumentation to confirm first that you are on perfect level ground, and second that your line of sight is perfectly perpendicular to straight down. The truth of the matter is that the horizon does not ever rise to this level (that he disingenuously calls line of sight). Now, where were we?
Quote (me)
What proof do you require for the existence of satellites to be valid? What constitutes irrefutable in your world? Because over here in reality, we know who makes them, we know who launches them, we know who and how they are tracked and controlled from the ground, we have the imagery they beam back to the surface, and so much more. What proof do you have that satellites do not exist? You have painful twists of logic that complain "well that just can't be," because you're so willfully ignorant.
Satellites don't "exist in 6500 degree temperatures." What fucking fantasy world are you in now?
What proof do you require that we can engineer machines to resist radiation? Would the existence of remote control robots that they use to try to repair the damaged nuclear plant at Fukushima suffice? How about nuclear missiles that are made to withstand EMPs so their guidance systems continue to function even when they are flying in second or third waves? What do you need man?
Why do you continue to claim that there's an impenetrable zone above us when A - that was one of your two sources that directly refute a flat Earth, and B - that I showed exactly what that article actually did say, not what you intentionally misconstrued it as?