[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

You think the Earth is flat. Trust me, you've only two things to boast about:

Sorry, is this the special pleading I am guilty of.. or?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

There are so many lines of evidence to go down with this 6000 or so year old earth thing. Perhaps start with Genesis itself. What does this guy/these guys/you say about how Genesis supports what you think?

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

It's fun to bat the idiot around the yard a bit, sure, but I still do actually feel really bad for him. He can't enjoy the best of humanity like the rest of us can.

It's legitimately pretty sad to think about.

I'd be thrilled and delighted to answer your question after you answer my question that I already asked earlier:

Can you please name anyone with a PhD in Astronomy or Astrophysics* (from an accredited university) who is a flat-earther?

Thanks a bunch!

*or Physics

No. There have been a few but i forget their names.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

Bit more gorgo-porn for y'all.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

How about at least a link to a peer-reviewed journal that focuses on Flat-Earthism.

(There are several such YEC journals if you want me to link them.)

Sorry if reality makes you uncomfortable..

You consistently apply completely different evidentiary standards to others as you do for yourself. This has been pointed out countless times and you ignore it every time. More generally, you have a propensity to simply ignore points that would require you to admit you are wrong, or, when pressed, lie and claim that you've already addressed them, or that questions are being posed in bad faith, or some other excuse. That is just one example, and one of the many reasons you are so obnoxious and intellectually dishonest and frustrating to deal with.

I am sure you don't recognise that you do this. But, as 57 pointed out, your construct of reality is an elaborate fantasy where you don't recognise a lot of things that are true. Quite honestly this mix of stupidity, detachment from reality, and complete and utter obstinacy in never admitting you're wrong about anything is probably sufficient grounds for you to belong in a nuthouse.

And if not a nuthouse, then in stocks in some town square with "dunce" tattooed on your forehead and an never-ending supply of rotten eggs for passers by to pelt you with.

I don’t know why you relied on the authority of NGT when he clearly thinks your other beliefs are utterly stupid but you do you.

Would still be a lot more than annoying foibles. The obstinacy alone makes any sort of reasoned discussion with him all but impossible.

Go ahead.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

It's called a... hostile witness.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

LMAO, you just live in a reality of your own making, don't you? You are ****ing insane.

Fair enough.

We're back to a question that you haven't answered yet (I don't think). What is the motive for folks to deny that the Earth is flat if all observations confirm that truth?

What is the motive to pretend that we landed on the moon? And how come literally ZERO folks closely connected to the Apollo program ever told the truth about it? Not even one deathbed confession from an astronaut or anyone?

The earth is measured spherically, just for the record. Anyone can measure this using the Al-Biruni method.

You can even watch it being done here:

I'd love to see the measurements this doofus thinks are consistent with a flat Earth but inconsistent with a curved Earth. Grainy videos of boats "disappearing" when the camera zooms out and atmospheric mirages in cherry picked conditions, presumably. But tens of thousands of high res images taken from different spacecraft from different space agencies and private companies are "inadmissible" because some of them are composites and something something funding (talk about special pleading, btw). Not cherry picked, grainy images. Every single high definition image. This is how logic works in his broken brain.

Then he's also a hostile witness from my point of view, since he disagrees with my altitude from which you can see the curvature. Therefore, I can quote him on Earth shape, and as a hostile witness, this is dispositive evidence that the Earth is round. Glad you showed me this is how logic works - I just need to find one thing someone says I disagree with, call that person a hostile witness, and therefore everything else that person has ever said is automatically correct. Oh, and also, NIST and Bez and Eagar are hostile witnesses because they disagree with my collapse times, ergo their collapse models must be automatically correct because they are a) experts and b) hostile witnesses.

Or maybe, just maybe, "hostile witness" is another in a long list of terms you don't ****ing understand and use completely incorrectly in a futile attempt to make it sound like you have one iota of a clue what the **** you're actually talking about.

Still triggered? You should stop that, blood pressure and all that.

Let's assess the argument according to its strength.

My claim is that some pilots claim Earth is flat. Your claim is that these pilots can see Earth curve. If my claim is true then your claim is false. If your claim is true then my claim is false.

(The only snag being that these pilots might see Earth curve but deny its existence. Given they are sensible enough to pilot a plane this is unlikely.)

So what evidence is relevant in support of this? Direct observation of curve from aeroplane height; Neil's opinion on whether curve ought to be seen from aeroplane height; perhaps other relevant evidence.

What evidence is irrelevant? What Neil thinks about Earth shape; what Neil had for breakfast this morning; what arouses Neil; etc.

Hence, Neil is my hostile witness, not yours. Feel free to use Neil's opinion to support your religious sphere belief however. But that would be silly to say you believe because Neil said so.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk

The only thing I'm triggered by is your abject stupidity.

It's also pretty irrelevant what Neil said in a podcast about this if there is literally a peer reviewed journal article contradicting him, as it's not his field of expertise. At the very least there is disagreement between multiple credible sources and I'm certainly not qualified to resolve it. Neither are you, at least not with any knowledge you have demonstrated. Your whole argument so far is an appeal to the authority of NDG.

Yet, it's pretty relevant what Neil thinks about Earth shape to the discussion of Earth shape, despite your moronic claim that astrophysicists do not learn this, or that the Earth has been "measured flat", or any of your other complete nonsense. There is no tension between any credible sources about Earth shape - anyone who thinks the Earth is flat and that every single mission out to space has been a hoax is insane, a moron, or, as in your case, both.

"Not his field of expertise".

Prosecution rests.

Sent from my SM-A366B using Tapatalk