[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

Some shots with some cameras have lens effects some of the time, ergo all cameras and all airplane windows provide the optical illusion of curvature all the time. But only above a certain altitude. Another non-imbecilic, perfectly logical argument from our resident physics master.

Sure, whatever. I can only focus on one imbecilic thing from you at a time, and right now we're focusing on this:

When will you be explaining how astronauts think the Earth is a ball because "they haven't gone high enough", then? It's obvious you'll never admit that you said something completely ****ing ******ed, so go ahead, what's your non-******ed explanation? lEnS eFfeCtS?

NDG is a reliable source regarding Earth curvature. Glad we agree on a source.

"The Earth is a globe"

Questions/comments c/o Neil de Grasse. Otherwise quit clogging thread with this BS.

I love it when the df invokes arguments from authority so blatantly and then it blows up in his face over and over again anyway.

So you are now admitting that your "research" into whether pilots can view Earth curve involved typing a question and pasting the response here without the necessary "fact checking" we were promised by you?

As we see, the expert opinion is that pilots categorically CANNOT see Earth curve. Not even Felix B at 39 km could see Earth curve.

Let us also value the comic effect of d2 repeatedly owning himself with every post he makes.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Another d2 self-own.

1. The astro-nots think Earth is a ball before gaining altitude. Like most other people.
2. The astro-nots never make it high enough to see the curve, even from a theoretical standpoint. Because space missions are fake.
3. Astro-nots continue to believe Earth is a ball without having their own visual proof.

See, not difficult now is it.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

What part of

"Curve is not discernible from 128 000 feet"

is difficult for d2 to understand?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

That is because you are, let's just say somewhat challenged when it comes to debate.

Let Billy help. The quintessential hostile witness from a flat earth pov is Neil De grasse tyson, who makes a living from globetarding. He is also highly qualified. What does dear Neil say about earth curve?

"Curve is not discernible from 128 000 feet".

Ipso facto curve is not discernible from 30 000 feet, 40 000 feet, or any other altitude less than 128 000 feet. Any claim otherwise is wrong.

Unless ofc the highly qualified Tyson is wrong and some 2p2 dumbass is right. But that would be a very silly thing to claim.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

On the contrary, trust Neil.

So now it is on you d2 to explain where the feck you got this fake news that pilots can see Earth curve. Who told this lie and who repeated it?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Was your fact checking simply looking up the opinion of NDT?

ROFL

Makes a textbook argument from authority fallacy in the same post as accusing someone else of being challeneged at debating.

hahahahahaha

Unlike billy the df, I don't make appeal to authority fallacies when making an argument.

https://opg.optica.org/ao/abstract.cfm?U...

Peer-reviewed article, respected journal.

Meanwhile, billy has "one time this guy with no relevant training in optics said on a podcast..."

It's actually comical how bad you are at this.

Except they do see the curve, you dumb twat, remember? My god, you are a ****ing crackhead. There are lobotomised chimps with a better grasp of basic logic than you.

And you think astronauts don't go higher than 130,000 feet, even theoretically, because "space missions are fake"? Do you know what theoretically means? Do you understand what ****ing anything means or do you just vomit out words, you complete ****ing dunce?

Claims he does not appeal to authority.

Then makes an appeal to authority.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

But yet the highly qualified Tyson is wrong and you, the biggest dumbass not just on 2p2 but probably on the entire internet, is right about Earth shape. Correct?

This idiot doesn't know the difference between citing evidence and appealing to authority. Also doesn't know the difference between an article in a reputable journal with peer review and an off-hand comment from someone not qualified in optics on a fing podcast.

Are you trying to look this stupid?

Even better: Tyson is highly qualified in astrophysics, meaning he would be an excellent person to tell us the shape of the earth, definitively. Tyson is NOT highly qualified in optics, meaning he would not be a suitable person to tell us how the eye would perceive things in different conditions.

So billy disagrees with the expert in the qualified area, but magically agrees with him in an area he is unqualified in.

Oops!

billy, things would go much better for you (not good, just better) if you learned what words mean.

No, Neil deGrasse Tyson does not think the Earth is flat. As a prominent astrophysicist, he has consistently affirmed that the Earth is a sphere, often describing it as an oblate spheroid.

Public Rebuttal: Tyson has frequently addressed and dismissed flat-Earth theories, explaining that physics, gravity, and astronomical observations all demonstrate that the Earth, along with other planets, is spherical.
Evidence Cited: He has pointed to scientific evidence such as Earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse (which is always circular), photographs from space, and the way ships disappear over the horizon.
Deepfake Warning: In late 2025, a viral AI-generated video (deepfake) appeared to show Tyson claiming the Earth was flat. Tyson publicly clarified that this was not him, that he did not say those words, and he used it as an opportunity to warn about the dangers of AI disinformation.

Tyson has often argued that the rise in belief in a flat Earth is a sign of a "failed educational system" that fails to teach critical thinking and the ability to distinguish objective truth.

I trust NGT, Billy is a product of a failed educational system.

Thanks for that, Captain Obvious.

The original statement from Neil was "that stuff is flat!" Which is not a deepfake or any skullduggery. It was also not Neil admitting he is a flat earther. This is the level of stupidity y'all have reached that I need to point this out. There may have also been deep fakes, I don't know and don't care.

What Neil was saying is that Earth *looks* flat, even to an observer as high as Felix. So we see 2p2 degens are wrong.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

I suspect, somehow, you are not all that familiar with astrophysics, or any other related subject. Whereas I have a record of formal study of this field and related fields, including my own investigations operating, remotely, an optical telescope.

If you think a degree in astrophysics or related subject will offer proof of a globe earth I am afraid you are mistaken. There is no such proof. Your citation is meaningless.

Optics is a standard unit on all Institute of Physics (the UK's recognised authority) accredited degrees, a degree I happen to have and have covered optics in some detail. Neil will have the US equivalent, no doubt, and to a higher level than I. Needless to say, using telescopes requires knowledge of optics.

But this is not even about optics! It is simply about predicting at what altitude earth curve becomes apparent. That requires

1. Mathematics to calculate a prediction.
2. Observation of the predicted effect.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Yes, astrophysicists don't know if the earth is round.

And Neil has a...an ancillary...??? degree in Optics.

Billy, you're killing it today.

Show me a piece of special pleading from me.

Claiming superiority over the 2p2 degens is not something I am going to be boasting about.

Oh and nice psychobabble.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Correct, *knowing* requires proof.

Optics is standard physics. Required for all physics degrees.

Do you know what is NOT required for physics degrees? Space science. And astrophysics. Etc.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk