Is the Earth flat, or round, or both, but not spherical?

[mike tesko]

You know perfectly well that Caroline was referring to the axis that exists in the rotating ball model for earth. That axis exists even if the model isn't accepted. The globe earth model does not exist!Also, it's been well-known for centuries that the planets don't appear to rotate in the same way as the star constellations, which is why they've come to be called planets. You keep suggesting that they do.
I have not commented upon the orbits of the planets, other than to say that they rotate around the fixed 'north Star' above the firmament of the earth!

I haven't said anything about the different planetary orbits, yet!

It's still not certain that any of these planets, including the sun are globe modules, themselves..

[mike tesko]

However, neither the sun nor the moon has been "captured in the clouds of earth". You are alluding to an optical illusion. If they were that close, they would look much bigger on some occasions when seen from within an airliner flying at high altitude, but that's not the case.

Yes, the sun and the moon have been captured in the clouds, with clouds behind them, and in front of them - these are not optical illusions as you put it! They don't look bigger because they are not really big at all, the sun and the moon are a lot smaller than the powers that be tell us they are!

Watch the video footage, the sun has clouds behind it, and in front of it, there's no tricks it's genuine footage! With the sun being so small how come it would take the earth 365 days to travel around it in the globe earth module? It doesn't make sense!

The sun and the moon are much closer to the flat earth than we are being told!

[Reader]

The globe earth model does not exist!

Don't be silly - the model is a theory, so it exists by virtue of having been thought of, even if the theory is rejected.

I have not commented upon the orbits of the planets, other than to say that they rotate around the fixed 'north Star' above the firmament of the earth!

They don't appear to rotate around the Pole star, and that's why they're called planets or (at one time) wandering stars. By the way, the rotation you referred to is around a point in the sky very close to the Pole star, rather than simply round the position of the Pole star.

[Caroline]

Don't be silly - the model is a theory, so it exists by virtue of having been thought of, even if the theory is rejected.
They don't appear to rotate around the Pole star, and that's why they're called planets or (at one time) wandering stars. By the way, the rotation you referred to is around a point in the sky very close to the Pole star, rather than simply round the position of the Pole star.

I admire your tenacity Reader but I think this is  bit of a game on Mike's part 

[Reader]

They don't look bigger because they are not really big at all

They would look bigger anyway if viewed from significantly closer, which would be possible by viewing them from a high altitude aircraft if they're as close as you assert. The moon's distance has been measured using radar. The results are consistent with results obtained by laser ranging.

[Reader]

Watch the video footage, the sun has clouds behind it, and in front of it

No, it appears that is the case, but that doesn't imply it must be the case. You simply claim that video footage isn't misleading or is misleading, depending on whether or not it seems to support your theories. Various spacecraft have been sent into lunar orbit to photograph the moon, No, they haven't that's what you have been led to believe by the powers that be - them trying to justify the fraudulent budget they have been stealing monies and quality of life from! You obviously support these vile, greedy, so called pillars of society! They are the real crooks! but that's no problem - you can just claim all those trips have been faked. I don't need your permission or your consent to believe whatever I choose to be the truth! You are obviously one of the many who has been sold, and bought into the official discrepancy! When you feel like it, you even tell us about a mysterious "dark sun" you choose to deny it's existence, which is even worse than what your alleging about me! that's gone unnoticed by almost everyone. Again, No it's not been ignored by everyone else, just the brainwashed and indoctrinated amongst us who can't think outside the circle of lies that have been fed to the population from birth!When you're invited to take your own photograph of the ISS, I shan't be taking such a photograph because it will serve no purpose, all it will prove is that there is something above in the sky, it will not prove that 'it' is in space rotating the earth! you state that you might try to do that. Well, I've decided that I'm not doing anything you suggest that I must do, I don't have to do anything you say, as though you'd some sort of a god! I can think for myself, and unfortunately you don't know everything! You are set in your way and it's obvious that you reject any alternative view even when it's so obvious you are wrong!A bit later, you confirm that you're certain the ISS isn't in earth orbit, don't choose my words and meanings for me, I can think for myself, but it looks like you think that you can think for everybody else! I can make my own mind up without your help about anything!and that there are no artificial satellites in earth orbit. there are no satellites in earth's orbit, it's all utter bollocks!Every time, you are asked to provide evidence, I give an answer that you don't like!you don't or you refer us to very weak evidence or some over-exposed footage on youtube or the like. you don't decide the strength or the weakness of the truth, to do so exposed how concerned you are that you are supporting a pack of lies! For all your ideas, you've been unable to provide (or have avoided providing) any fine detail to support them. incorrect, I am never afraid to answer any questions, its you and those of the same ilk who cannot accept the truth, which is that the earth is flat!

[mike tesko]

Don't be silly - the model is a theory, so it exists by virtue of having been thought of, even if the theory is rejected. The earth is not a globe... They don't appear to rotate around the Pole star, and that's why they're called planets or (at one time) wandering stars. That is incorrect, they do travel around the 'north star' but becaue they orbit on different planes, or orbit in retrograde motion they appear to wander... By the way, the rotation you referred to is around a point in the sky very close to the Pole star, rather than simply round the position of the Pole star. Everything rotates around, the region of the 'north star', and this could not happen if the earth was a globe and rotating on its own axis at around 1000 mph - therefore logic dictates that the earth is flat and that the sun, the moon, the so called planets, and the star constellations rotate chiefly this way, but some of the planets rotate that way too...

[mike tesko]

They would look bigger anyway if viewed from significantly closer, which would be possible by viewing them from a high altitude aircraft if they're as close as you assert. Not necessarily true, since this might depend on not only the altitude these high altitude aeroplanes fly at, but rather more significantly the flight paths they are taking or take. I believe that passsengers are deliberately being prevented from making such observations due to the strict flightpaths that operate to get passengers from one part of the earth, west to east, and east to west, North to south, south to north, to the other..The moon's distance has been measured using radar. Not by me... The results are consistent with results obtained by laser ranging.Not by you, not by me, and not by almost every living person on the flat earth. It's just what we, you, they, them, us, have been told, and are being told. Why should anybody believe 'them'?

[mike tesko]

No, it appears that is the case, but that doesn't imply it must be the case. You simply claim that video footage isn't misleading or is misleading, depending on whether or not it seems to support your theories. The video footage of clouds behind and in front of the sun is not misleading...Various spacecraft have been sent into lunar orbit to photograph the moon, Faked and misleading, nothing leaving earth can penetrate the inner edge of the earths firmament, I have already posted a link showing a miltary balloon crashing against it and exploading... but that's no problem - you can just claim all those trips have been faked. Just like you are claiming that the video footage of clouds behind and in front of the sun and the moon is faked, or misleading. Nothing that leaves earth can penetrate the inner edge of the firmament When you feel like it, you even tell us about a mysterious "dark sun" that's gone unnoticed by almost everyone. You can't physically see the 'dark sun' until it casts its shadow upon the moon, or the sun... When you're invited to take your own photograph of the ISS, you state that you might try to do that. I don't see what that will prove since aeroplanes can be photographed in the sky in daylight and at night, and that doesn't prove they are flying in space beyond Van allens radiation belt... A bit later, you confirm that you're certain the ISS isn't in earth orbit,  It isn't, at least its not outside the inner edge of the earths firmament. and that there are no artificial satellites in earth orbit. If your version were true then why don't any of these satellites ever colide with one another? How come the radiation of the Van Allen belt doesn't interfere with, and cause Satelites to breakdown, and need parts replacing? Every time, you are asked to provide evidence, you don't Your asssertion is misleading since I do give an explanation as often as possible...or you refer us to very weak evidence or some over-exposed footage on youtube or the like. That is not true, I always provide an answer or a response, and the video footage you mention as being over exposed is just a figment of your imagination because it serves to support your argument. You have no evidence whatsoever that any of the video footage posted up is over exposed footage, which has been inteferred with, yet footage of the supposed moon landing has been debunked by showing that images in Nasa's video footage have been inserted, altered, and edited etc...For all your ideas, you've been unable to provide (or have avoided providing) any fine detail to support them. It's a bit like you, and almost everyone else who supports or advocates that the earth is a globe, you can't provide your own conclusive proof that the earth is a globe, you rely on the information and photographs, video footage, measurements provided to you all, by some other party! You can't prove anything yourself and don't like it when what you have been taught and that which you choose to believe is debunked! You then resort to attacking anyone who chooses to believe anything contrary to what you have been taught and what you yourself believe in - one method to support your ideas, beliefs and truths, and no other method or ny alterntive method for anyone else who opposes those ideas, beliefs and truths...

[mike tesko]

The earth is flat with ice retaining all the waters of the oceans!

[mike tesko]

In the earth is a globe module, the rising of the sun and the moon is problematic! Since, the perspective of the other person on the opposite side of the earth (180° away), let's say the UK and Australia produces a conflict in direction, where 'east' to 'west' in relation to the former, is 'west' to 'east' for the latter! How can the sun and the moon rise both in the 'east' and the 'west', yet set in the 'west' and the 'east' (at one and the same time)? A similar contradiction or inconsistency occurs involving a person standing on top of the world at an 'eastern'  locale, as opposed to another person standing on top of the world in their orientation, since the sun and the moon would rise in the 'north' and the 'south', yet set in the 'south' and the 'north'!!!

Imagine the confusion which would arise if this were all true?

The sun and the moon would rise in the 'east' to 'west', rise from 'west' to 'east', rise from 'north' to 'south', and 'south' to 'north, and set 'west' to 'east', 'east' to 'west', 'south' to 'north', 'north' to 'south' all at the same time depending upon whereabouts on the earth a person might be! Now, how ridiculous would that be?

In the flat earth module, using a grid as a guide to what is deemed to be 'north', 'east', 'south' and 'west', no such complications or anomalies occur or happen!

[Caroline]

In the earth is a globe module, the rising of the sun and the moon is problematic! Since, the perspective of the other person on the opposite side of the earth (180° away), let's say the UK and Australia produces a conflict in direction, where 'east' to 'west' in relation to the former, is 'west' to 'east' for the latter! How can the sun and the moon rise both in the 'east' and the 'west', yet set in the 'west' and the 'east' (at one and the same time)? A similar contradiction or inconsistency occurs involving a person standing on top of the world at an 'eastern'  locale, as opposed to another person standing on top of the world in their orientation, since the sun and the moon would rise in the 'north' and the 'south', yet set in the 'south' and the 'north'!!!

Imagine the confusion which would arise if this were all true?

The sun and the moon would rise in the 'east' to 'west', rise from 'west' to 'east', rise from 'north' to 'south', and 'south' to 'north, and set 'west' to 'east', 'east' to 'west', 'south' to 'north', 'north' to 'south' all at the same time depending upon whereabouts on the earth a person might be! Now, how ridiculous would that be?

In the flat earth module, using a grid as a guide to what is deemed to be 'north', 'east', 'south' and 'west', no such complications or anomalies occur or happen!

I think you are confusing physics with cake!

[buddy]

It's hard to believe that this thread has had such longevity, It is total cobblers.
It's ROUND get over it.

[Caroline]

It's hard to believe that this thread has had such longevity, It is total cobblers.
It's ROUND get over it.

The only flat issue here, is the effect it's had on the forum. most members seem to have given up 

[buddy]

The only flat issue here, is the effect it's had on the forum. most members seem to have given up 

Yippee Caroline we agree again.
Are you coming to my way of thinking, or am I coming to yours?