Flat Earthers Won't Go Away

[Horn]

all you need to do is stand at the pole during polar night to prove Earth's curveture, the Sun does not make it above the horizon.

As far as crescent photos of the planets proving their spherical shape browse for Venus or Mars.

Yes they tend to get cooler the further you progress away from the REAL Sun, not the flat earth christmas tree bulb Sun.

the graphic provided does not prove a flat earth sun, it (the sun) would still be visible in the polar night above the horizon in regards to that graphic, it could not would not go below the horizon at the poles.

Or anywhere for that matter in a flat earth.

The graphic is a prelude to constant daylight w/o sunset or rise It simply is Not a viable theory to flat earth.

Mamboni is proving a pyramid or christmas tree earth if anything

[mamboni]

all you need to do is stand at the pole during polar night to prove Earth's curveture, the Sun does not make it above the horizon.

As far as crescent photos of the planets proving their spherical shape browse for Venus or Mars.

Yes they tend to get cooler the further you progress away from the REAL Sun, not the flat earth christmas tree bulb Sun.

the graphic provided does not prove a flat earth sun, it (the sun) would still be visible in the polar night above the horizon in regards to that graphic, it could not would not go below the horizon at the poles.

Or anywhere for that matter in a flat earth.

The graphic is a prelude to constant daylight w/o sunset or rise It simply is Not a viable theory to flat earth.

Mamboni is proving a pyramid or christmas tree earth if anything

Impressive non-analysis. You have virtually no understanding of flat earth the model. Do you have any proof of curvature other than imaginary scenarios out of your head?

[Horn]

You can Not have a sunset or rise in that model, it (the Sun) would simply fade in or out of atmospheric at level... like a airplanes headlight splitting the fog at night.

No Sun rise or set below or above horizon would be evident.

[mamboni]

You can Not have a sunset or rise in that model, it would simply fade in or out of atmospheric at level...

Wrong. The "sunset" is the sun disappearing into the viewer's vanishing point on the horizon. Sometimes the sun disappears behind the cloud/atmosphere or land (i.e. mountains). The sun does not go under and around the earth.

[Horn]

Wrong. The "sunset" is the sun disappearing into the viewer's vanishing point on the horizon. Sometimes the sun disappears behind the cloud/atmosphere or land (i.e. mountains). The sun does not go under and around the earth.

The Sun would appear at the level you are suggesting above the horizon Always in your flat earth model, never would it appear near to it (horizon)

A boat would because it sits on it (horizon) knumbskull.

You can Not have zero sun at the poles which IS the case also

[mamboni]

The Sun would appear at the level you are suggesting above the horizon Always in your flat earth model, never would it appear near to it (horizon)

A boat would because it sits on it (horizon) knumbskull.

You can Not have zero sun at the poles which IS the case also

You have no understanding of perspective. The sun is thousands of miles away around sunset. But you insist on knowing it's position relative to earth - an empty assertion.

Watch this sunset - the sun shrinks as it moves away from the camera behind the clouds-atmosphere and then beyond the vanishing point. The sun is moving along the line of perspective and appears to be going down. It is moving away and towards the vanishing point:

[Jewboo]

You have no understanding of perspective.

What are we actually (wink wink) looking at when we see with our own eyes the entire night sky circling the stationary north star Polaris ?

isn't Polaris the obvious center of your revolving Universe?

[Horn]

You have no understanding of perspective.

Watch this sunset - the sun shrinks as it moves away from the camera

I look up, I look over, Sun's the same friggin size its been all friggin day.

In your model Venus would be somewhere mid transit that 3000 mile distance, we could shuttle up there on wings of a seagull.

Traces of rectangle known as Earth evident with shadows on the moon

[osoab]

This one was taken at aprox 200 ft altitude, just 200 yards behind the first photo. You can see the small island in front doesn't share the coastline with the horizon any longer. The Island behind does though. These findings are consistent with a curved earth.

You positive about 200' above sea level? I give you 60' max. Building is 20' max. (10' per floor). I'll give you 66' for your height. Pserimos is 66' top height. You are level with the peak for all purposes. The horizon is beyond Pserimos imho.

[osoab]

When he explained Polaris and the stars forming perfect concentric circles around Polaris - that's when I had the a-ha moment. Because one could argue that the rotation of the stars around Polaris can be due to either the earth (globe) rotating or the stars rotating above a stationary (flat) earth. However, the heliocentric model flies in the face of the stars' perfect circular movement because the earth is purported to orbit the sun and travel through space at 65,000 miles per hour, fully 60 times the speed of travel of the stars around Polaris. Further, the sun is purported to travel at 600,000 miles per hour. If you factor in the purported movement of the milky way galaxy, earth is traveling at about a million miles per hour, fully 1000 times faster than the speed of rotation (of the stars around Polaris). Yet time lapse photography produced perfectly round clean paths centered on Polaris, the latter a stationary point. This is impossible if the earth, the sun and the galaxy are moving 1000 times faster(than the stars that 'circle' Polaris). There is only one solution: the earth does not move. The stars move around the earth.

I can't find the video excerpt, but in one of his interviews he touts Karen Hudes. That is an automatic disqualifier for me.