Three Massive “Towers” Found on Mars Laid Out in Same Pattern as Egyptian Pyramids at Giza

| |

Top Tier Gear USA

marstowers

Here’s yet another curious find on the surface of the red planet. It looks like three towers spaced equidistant from one another in the same pattern as the pyramids at Giza or the belt in the constellation Orion.

Here’s the original YouTube video from user Mundodesconocido discussing the find:

Investigating on some Mars images, we have recently found a row of huge towers located in the Martian area of Terra Meridiani. Due to their peculiar features, we believe that they have an artificial origin. In the following video, we will show you all the amazing information, evidences as well as animated 3D models that will allow you to evaluate correctly the information we propose.

And here’s another one more to the point with the specific picture from the NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor: MOC (Mars Orbiter Camera).

They do look kind of familiar in a way.

pyramids-at-giza-from-iss

marstowers

Thoughts? Something about this definitely does not look natural…

Well, it certainly wouldn’t be the first time strange things have been found on Mars, anyway.

Related Reads

Is This Picture From Mars Proof of Alien Life… And Why Did NASA Try To Edit It?

NASA’s Rover Captures Photo of Strange “Valve” on Mars

‘Mars Rat’ Spotted by Curiosity Rover Sparks Web Frenzy

Mars Rover Snaps Artificial Light Emanating From Mars: “Could Indicate There is Intelligent Life Below the Ground”

Life on Other Planets? NASA Releases Photos of Water Flowing on Mars

Is This Proof That Life Once Existed… Or Continues to Exist on Mars?

The Government of Mars Is Already Being Planned…

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of www.TheDailySheeple.com.

This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.TheDailySheeple.com.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Razedbywolvs

    Looks like the land of milk and honey to me. Go forth descendants of
    Abraham, Follow the profit Elon Musk to your promise land!

  • Mike

    Now call that one shadows or natural formations NASA.

    • Robintbunker

      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj332d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !mj332d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash332ShopTeamGetPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★::::::!mj332d:….,…….

  • dav1bg

    How do you tell if the picture is from NASA? White out on the picture.

  • John

    Wow, wonder where they filmed this one since Mars does not exist. Maybe Devon Island again? God didn’t make any planets. Just the earth, sun, moon, and stars. Find out more at ItsHisStory.com/globe

    • Ranger_Ric

      I’m sorry but you are a f’ing idiot.

      • John

        No, I am not. Most people have been brainwashed with the spinning globe, big bang theory. But it’s all theory, a guess. If you take he time to do your research you will find that it is impossible that we live on a round spinning globe. If you don’t do your research then you will end up being what you called me.

        • Piper Michael

          Wow, and I thought that big reddish thing in my own personal telescope was a planet… and jupiter too, wow…
          I guess I’m such a fool not to believe my own eyes…

          What’s really sad, is people who’re stuck in the 4th century.

          • harold4321

            People in the fourth century believed the Earth was round or spherical. They believed in the planets also. Even they were ahead of John.

          • Jonny Ringworm

            Flat earthers believe at least the way I understand it is that the whole solar system we see thru our telescopes is an construct of some sort. Not making fun, I think that’s the gist of it…

          • The solar system is a fixed star field moving as one sans the moon and planets.

          • Al Mather

            Just happens to be a completely different star field and rotation when facing south below the equator as when facing north above the equator ‘Kind of the way it would be on a sphere….Hmmmm.

          • Nope, it’s the same star field moving in the same direction just like if you put lines on a dish cover that all converged in the middle and stuck a GI Joe figure on a table and put the cover over top and started rotating the cover. If that GI Joe figure was real and could see he would observe the lines going one way when he looked forward but if he turned around the lines would be going to opposite way but alas, they’re all still going in the same direction.. Hmmmmmm….

          • Al Mather

            Haha…that would always have the stars moving left to right or right to left…NOT BOTH…Bzzzt ….YOU LOSE!
            Wouldn’t be an AXIAL ROTATION clockwise and another axial rotation counter clockwise when looking in opposite directions …AND COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONSTELLATIONS of DIFFERENT STARS in each above and below the equator.

            This is what is observed in the earths night sky … the motion of your model doesn’t exist out there in reality.

          • Yes…both. Try it out, I’m correct and you’re not… again! 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Go ahead…then we can all see what assinine mental gymnastics are required for you to cling to this cult of stupidity….

          • Perspective lines aren’t mental gymnastics, your denial of them is though 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Show your “proof” ……let’s see what a Flat Earther deludes himself with to try to explain away what astronomers from all over the world have observed for 100s of years…
            Yet another application of your “magical flat earth laws of perspective” ???

          • Well you can’t draw a picture without them so are all artists following “magic flat earth laws” or just painting things similar to the eyes see? Does these perspective lines of sight not exist?
            https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_F94JTwTwuvM%2FTRdajpbtlXI%2FAAAAAAAAAY0%2FaAld4jVF_XI%2Fs1600%2Ftwo%2Bpoint%2Bperspective%2Bgrid.jpg&f=1

          • Al Mather

            Perspective in drawing is a way artists use line to represent 3D……it’s not the magical mumbo jumbo you try to use to explain what we observe when viewing the northern and southern axial stars , the counter rotation when looking opposite directions from the equator, or the completely different stars and constellation in each hemisphere appearing to rotate around their axial stars.

          • It’s the very same law, moron.

          • Al Mather

            It’s not “a law” moron…. it’s a drawing technique. It’s only “a law” in your cult of stupidity that tries to throw it at everything they can’t explain… like ships or buildings ,disappearing over the horizon from the bottom up .. axial stars in 2 hemispheres with counter rotations… but it doesn’t REALLY explain any of that now does it ??..

            Go ahead …give it a shot …explain it… try not to sound TOO delusional ..Lol.

          • There are laws of perspective, moron, look it up and it exactly explains the counter rotation.

          • Al Mather

            Let me guess … all I will find are Fellate earth moron sites….

            Any “Law of Perspective” that explains anything of the sort …outside of your little Cult of Stupidity sites…Hmmm???

          • These are the LAWS of perspective which give you your world view: https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_F94JTwTwuvM%2FTRdajpbtlXI%2FAAAAAAAAAY0%2FaAld4jVF_XI%2Fs1600%2Ftwo%2Bpoint%2Bperspective%2Bgrid.jpg&f=1

            You can’t draw depth on paper without those laws and you can;t perceive depth in real life without them. Not my fault you can’t understand this.

          • Al Mather

            I absolutely understand perspective…what it REALLY is..

            “You can’t draw depth on paper without those laws and you can’t perceive depth in real life without them. ”

            GREAT! What precisely does that have to do with anything you were asked ???

            HOW does that explain 2 sets of completely different stars rotating around 2 totally different axial stars ….being visible in OPPOSITE directions when looking North or South from the equator …rotating in opposite directions??

            It doesn’t…you can’t… so you just babble about perspective and try to appear less moronic than you do going into it….FAIL.

          • Al Mather

            Show me those “Laws” that aren’t just a bunch of stupidity from a flat earth site.

          • Al Mather

            That’s a 2 dimensional image moron. Doesn’t explain any of the things put to you…FAIL.

          • xscd ✱

            rollyjoger says: “moron”

            The moron is staring at you in the mirror.

          • Al Mather

            My above comment was in response to your offer to provide a video explaining your nonsense…. an offer you deleted.

          • Al Mather

            If something is circling over and around you idiot it’s always moving in one L/R or R/L direction no matter which way you face…. where is YOUR confusion???

          • If something is circling over and around you idiot it’s always moving in
            one L/R or R/L direction no matter which way you face…. where is
            YOUR confusion???

            I’m not the one with the confusion but my example wasn’t the best as you can’t see the whole lid (aka. the sky) from any point on Earth so my example works if the person is so microscopically small that they couldn’t see the whole lid at once so although it is still correct it’s harder to comprehend, obviously.

            I’ll dumb it down…

            The perspective lines of our visual matrix, the lines that expand coming towards you contract going away from you… expansion/contraction, rotation/counter-rotation, things that look like they’re going left one way look like they’re going right the other way. You can’t draw a 3D representation of the world without using perspective lines and likewise your brain can’t experience a 3D visual experience without them either.

          • Al Mather

            Wrong…and VERY lame… try concocting some stupidity that actually accounts for the FACT that everyone south of the Equator looks south at axial stars spinning one way…and those North of the equator look North to see completely different set of stars spinning the OPPOSITE way… because your BS attempt doesn’t cover that AT ALL…and THAT is what we earthlings has observe in the sky above on this big Oblate spheroid.

          • Maybe you should reread until you can understand it before shooting your mouth(fingers) off, no? I’m precisely accurate. Not my fault you can’t understand… study up, brah!

          • Al Mather

            No sane literate person could Roger…. it’s nonsensical babble…and it doesn’t EXPLAIN ANY of your ridiculous claims or demonstrate or provide any REASON FOR…why we see what we see…. It just rephrases the exact same stupidity you babbled the first time…..

            “BECAUSE…..PERSPECTIVE”

            FAIL.

          • Matt Robers

            I didn’t know motherfuckers this stupid could really exist. The lengths people will go to to justify their imaginary god…crazy

          • Gyroscopes… idiot. They prove you’re flying over flat terrain! I’m sorry that you were too fucking stupid to figure this out on your own and had to learn it from me… you’re welcome though!

            PS: BTW, I’m not a Christian

          • Al Mather

            Airline attitude indicator gyroscopes are modified to adjust for the precession of the earth… according to pilots and aviation techs….. waaahhhhh…waaahhhhh!

          • Let me make a prediction — he will utterly ignore that sensible explanation and continue to repeat his debunked assertion about attitude indicators. I suppose that he thinks we can build modern computers but could never, ever, possibly figure out how to make a functional attitude indicator if the Earth isn’t flat.

          • Al Mather

            Most of these FE “proofs” distill down to variations on a few faulty premise themes.. This one…along with dozen of the “no curve” ones canals and such.. are “denial” or obfuscation of the fact that every point of the earth surface being perpendicular to local plumb…the direction of gravity.

            So…you’re comfortable making that prediction eh? Me too.

          • Hey Ken S. the mega shill, how come the early gyros had nothing of the sort but still recorded the aircraft flying over a flat surface? Has the shape of the Earth changed since then? Please explain…

          • 1. Early gyroscopes were used specifically to show the round Earth’s rotation. Leon Foucault named the gyroscope after its ability to let you SEE (-scope) the Earth’s ROTATION (gyro).

            2. Gyroscopic heading indicators were already correcting for the rotation and curvature of the Earth before the Wright Brothers took off. There was no time when the makers of airplane attitude indicators were not aware of the need to correct for the Earth’s rotation and curvature.

            3. Your phone does not contain a gyroscope. It contains accelerometers and a gravity sensor. The gravity sensor is used to correct for the Earth’s rotation and curvature.

          • Al Mather

            Their not “holes”… they’re portals … to an alternate and dumber reality.

          • Gary

            Я0llyJ0g3r busted you again, and this is all you can come up with?

            Tsk, tsk, tsk, Al. The shame would burn anyone with a conscience. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            The only possible shame would be in the level of enjoyment that is derived toying with you 2 morons… it’s got a tinge of bullying to it… but I do like how letting you two display your cult of stupidity… seems to have ostracized you FE idiots from the rest of the pack here on DS.

          • Gary

            The myth you religiously subscribe to was busted once more, Al. Tsk, tsk, tsk. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            So was I busted or some “myth I religiously subscribe to”… you’re honing in on it Gar…. keep trying.

          • Gary

            Heh, heh, heh. A bit of both, I think, Al. You and the myth are pretty much one, as you shill for it. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            I think it’s cute that you see success in all of Roger’s failures, victory in his defeats, …and when even HE can’t put together cogent explanations of his magical imaginary theories… you pretend to understand.

            They say that THAT is true love …seeing your beloveds faults as virtues.

            It warms my heart every time he makes some dumb comment and you uptick him… and you uptick him …everytime.

            He really should return the favor when Ken is crushing you. He needs to learn to be more attentive.

          • 1. focault pendulums have been a proven hoax

            2. false. Gyrpscopes maintain rigidity in space and have nothing built into them from any supposed curvature. Not before the Wright brothers, not after the Wright brothers. In fact, there’s some gyros that needed to be spun up and caged on the ground, this is so they are calibrated to what level actually is, and they ‘ve been used for years and have nothing inside them for any curvature installed, that’s just you trying to shill your way out of losing another debate.

            3. True but you can use an attitude initiator app and take it on a plane with you and see that you are in fact flying level once cruising altitude is established.

            Nobody’s paying me to walk through the holes in your arguments. I do it for fun.

            Well you’re failing and need more practice but hey, the other vaccine shills like whatever you post so your ego is safe and protected 🙂

          • 1. focault pendulums have been a proven hoax

            That’s a lie.

            2. false. Gyrpscopes maintain rigidity in space and have nothing built into them from any supposed curvature. Not before the Wright brothers, not after the Wright brothers. In fact, there’s some gyros that needed to be spun up and caged on the ground, this is so they are calibrated to what level actually is, and they ‘ve been used for years and have nothing inside them for any curvature installed, that’s just you trying to shill your way out of losing another debate.

            That’s why I didn’t say gyroscopes. A gyroscopic heading or attitude indicator is not the same thing as a gyroscope. Heading and attitude indicators often include gyroscopes, but they are part of a system designed to provide useful information on the round, rotating Earth.

            3. True but you can use an attitude initiator app and take it on a plane with you and see that you are in fact flying level once cruising altitude is established.

            As I said, your phone does not contain a gyroscope. Its hardware is designed to be useful on the round, rotating Earth. Instead of a phone, bring an actual gyroscope! Or just spin it at home, since you don’t have to buy a ticket to ride the round, rotating Earth.

            If you know somebody who’ll pay me for making a fool of you, would you send them my way? I could use some extra cash.

          • That’s a lie.

            Oh, really?
            In the mid 19th century a Frenchman named Léon Foucault became famous for swinging pendulums and claiming their consequent motions were proof of the Earth’s diurnal rotation. Since then “Foucault Pendulums” have regularly been swinging at museums and exposition halls worldwide purporting to provide everlasting perpetual proof of the heliocentric spinning ball-Earth theory. The truth is, however, unbeknownst to most of the duped public, that Foucault’s pendulum is a failed experiment which proves nothing but how easy it is for pseudo-science to deceive the malleable masses.

            “This pendulum, modern scientists tell us, affords a visible proof that we are living on a whirling globe, which, according to a ‘work on science’ now before me, is spinning upon its so-called axis at the rate of over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator; and, in addition to other motions, is rushing on an everlasting tour round the sun (the diameter of which is said to be 813,000 miles, and its weight 354,936 times greater than the earth from which it is said to be about 93,000,000 miles distant,) at the rate of over 1,000 miles per minute. Now to prove that the earth really has these motions a pendulum is suspended at the show; the showman sets motion, and bids the gaping world of thoughtless men and women to ‘behold a proof’ that we are living on a whirling globe which is rushing away through space!” -Lady Blount, “The Romance of Science”
            (7)

            “Astronomers have made experiments with pendulums which have
            been suspended from the interior of high buildings, and have exulted over the idea of being able to prove the rotation of the Earth on its ‘axis,’ by the varying direction taken by the pendulum over a prepared table underneath – asserting that the table moved round under the pendulum, instead of the pendulum shifting and oscillating in different directions over the table! But, since it has been found that, as often as not, the pendulum went round the wrong way for the ‘rotation’ theory, chagrin has taken the place of exultation, and we have a proof of the failure of astronomers in their efforts to substantiate their theory.”
            -William Carpenter, “100 Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe” (73)
            source: http://ifers.123.st/t108-debunking-the-spinning-ball-earth

            That’s why I didn’t say gyroscopes. A gyroscopic heading or attitude indicator is not the same thing as a gyroscope. Heading and attitude indicators often include gyroscopes, but they are part of a system designed to provide useful information on the round, rotating Earth.

            Okay… fair enough BUT my argument is if you use a plain ‘ol gyroscope without any extra parts involved except the gyro itself it will indeed indicate a flat, level flight pattern for the entire time the pane is at cruising altitude! I wouldn’t be allowed to take off my seat belt and walk on the level-flying plane to the bathroom if the plane had to keep nosing downwards to follow the curve of your imaginary ball! When I look out each window of the plane I would see a huge ball below if that was in fact what I was flying over but all anyone can see out of their airplane windows is that eye-level, FLAT horizon line that trumps any crap you try to throw at me concerning this topic!

            As I said, your phone does not contain a gyroscope. Its hardware is designed to be useful on the round, rotating Earth.

            Wrong! Some phones do indeed contain gyroscopes, this app right here requires it: https://apps4av.com/in-flight-instruments-overview/ so if you have the right phone and this app and brought it onto a commercial airplane you could see the pitch of the plane as it took off and you’d also be able to clearly observe that once you are at cruising altitude the plane is indeed flying level the entire time no matter how far the flight is. Of course being able to take your seat belt off and walk around should be proof enough, lol, but I doubt it considering who I’m typing to 🙂

            Instead of a phone, bring an actual gyroscope! Or just spin it at home, since you don’t have to buy a ticket to ride the round, rotating Earth.

            Spinning up a gyro at home won’t do much, you can move the cage around and watch it remain rigid in space but that’s about it! If you know somebody who’ll pay me for making a fool of you, would you send them my way? I could use some extra cash.Arrogance and hubris doesn’t count as “making a fool of me” shill boy! You’d have to prove me wrong to do that… and you CAN’T! Claiming victory as you’re proven wrong, lol, have you been takin’ notes from Al Mather? 🙂

          • Oh, really?

            [Gallons of paste]

            Wow, claims without evidence from notorious debunked flat earthers… Wow, you’ve got me beat!

            Okay… fair enough BUT my argument is if you use a plain ‘ol gyroscope without any extra parts involved except the gyro itself it will indeed indicate a flat, level flight pattern for the entire time the pane is at cruising altitude!

            No, it won’t. Why don’t you try it?

            I wouldn’t be allowed to take off my seat belt and walk on the level-flying plane to the bathroom if the plane had to keep nosing downwards to follow the curve of your imaginary ball! When I look out each window of the plane I would see a huge ball below if that was in fact what I was flying over but all anyone can see out of their airplane windows is that eye-level, FLAT horizon line that trumps any crap you try to throw at me concerning this topic!

            Both of these arguments rely on imagining that the Earth is very, very small. It doesn’t take violent maneuvering to follow a curve of eight inches per mile. Get real.

            Wrong! Some phones do indeed contain gyroscopes, this app right here requires it:

            https://apps4av.com/in-flight-…so if you have the right phone and this app and brought it onto a commercial airplane you could see the pitch of the plane as it took off and you’d also be able to clearly observe that once you are at cruising altitude the plane is indeed flying level the entire time no matter how far the flight is. Of course being able to take your seat belt off and walk around should be proof enough, lol, but I doubt it considering who I’m typing to 🙂

            Firstly, no, the Nexus 7 does not contain a rotating weight. Secondly, no, I-FI would not and does not indicate a flat Earth. You are repeatedly using machines and systems designed to compensate for the curvature and rotation of the Earth as proof that it’s flat and still. As has been repeatedly explained to you, attitude indicators (including those in phones) are designed to function on the round, rotating Earth.

            Spinning up a gyro at home won’t do much, you can move the cage around and watch it remain rigid in space but that’s about it!

            Don’t touch it. Just spin up a good gyroscope and watch what it does. It’s best to use a motorized gyroscope that you can run for hours.

            Arrogance and hubris doesn’t count as “making a fool of me” shill boy! You’d have to prove me wrong to do that… and you CAN’T! Claiming victory as you’re proven wrong, lol, have you been takin’ notes from Al Mather? 🙂

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4f83dfe9f233bd427ebdbefe4d9553d2d464701f13629dd60882cc0a78ad7aa7.jpg

          • So you HAVE been stealing from Al Mather… you little devil, you 🙂

            Wow, claims without evidence from notorious debunked flat earthers… Wow, you’ve got me beat!

            Yeah, ignore your bullshit pendulums that sometimes swing the wrong way that you just offered as evidence, HAHAHA! Nothing to see here, folks, move along, move along!! GOTCHA!

            I actually don’t even need to do anything, the perfectly flat horizon line has you beat, my above info just twists the knife in 🙂

            No, it won’t. Why don’t you try it?

            It’s already been tried again and again, check out any flight simulator and watch the attitude indicator 🙂

            Both of these arguments rely on imagining that the Earth is very, very
            small. It doesn’t take violent maneuvering to follow a curve of eight
            inches per mile. Get real.

            Get real? In a standard jet airliner you’d have to be compensating for 2800ft per minute and you’re not going to be able to walk around on an aircraft compensating 2800ft per minute! The eye-level horizon line means you’re not on a ball, say the earth was 10x as large as it is now, you’d still see a gigantic object beneath you, not an eye-level, flat horizon line staring you in your face regardless of elevation!

            Firstly, no, the Nexus 7 does not contain a rotating weight. Secondly, no, I-FI would not and does not indicate a flat Earth. You are repeatedly using machines and systems designed to compensate for the curvature and rotation of the Earth as proof that it’s flat and still. As has been repeatedly explained to you, attitude indicators (including those in phones) are designed to function on the round, rotating Earth.

            There are numerous phone models out with functioning gyroscopes, look it up. Pilots have videos of them being used during flights and they are responsive to both pitch and roll so you’ll see any curve indicated if there is one… and there isn’t.

            Don’t touch it. Just spin up a good gyroscope and watch what it does. It’s best to use a motorized gyroscope that you can run for hours.

            Now you’re thinking! Something concrete and provable right at home, I like it!

            If you were to spin up a gyro and set it in a gimble base where it could move freely then put it in motion with its axis in a vertical position, in the next 6 hours you’ll see the axis slowly moves to a horizontal position as the base rotates with the globe earth, if it doesn’t then the Earth is not a spinning ball. Try it out and see for yourself, we ain’t moving!
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2813970b363447b0b8268a14d3e645689269a0cbaf0fbda71ecac0cad1769837.jpg

          • It’s already been tried again and again, check out any flight simulator and watch the attitude indicator 🙂

            As I have explained to you at least three times, airplane attitude indicators are systems designed to compensate for the curvature and rotation of the Earth. So are computer game simulations of them.

            Get real? In a standard jet airliner you’d have to be compensating for 2800ft per minute and you’re not going to be able to walk around on an aircraft compensating 2800ft per minute!

            The cruising speed of a Boeing 777 is 562 mph. That means that it cruises about 9.4 miles in a minute. Since the Earth’s curvature is eight inches per mile, you only have to compensate for a 6’3″ drop each minute. Where did you come up with 2800ft/min?

            The eye-level horizon line means you’re not on a ball, say the earth was 10x as large as it is now, you’d still see a gigantic object beneath you, not an eye-level, flat horizon line staring you in your face regardless of elevation!

            Not regardless of elevation, no. Get high enough and you will see the curvature. The Earth is very large, so you have to get very high to see the curvature.

            If you were to spin up a gyro and set it in a gimble base where it could move freely then put it in motion with its axis in a vertical position, in the next 6 hours you’ll see the axis slowly moves to a horizontal position as the base rotates with the globe earth, if it doesn’t then the Earth is not a spinning ball. Try it out and see for yourself, we ain’t moving!

            Fortunately, scientists have already done it, and the gyro does rotate. In the right direction. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            This is what he does when cornered and boxed in with logic or facts… DENY!! & I mean drooling barefaced delusional denial… It’s kind of pathetic.

            He has be show the facts about aviation attitude indicators from multiple industry and pilot sources … and he just keeps babbling the same made up “Flat Earth Proof”…

            Huh…..Like I’m telling you something… You predicted he would do exactly this ..and here he is…surprisingly unsurprised .

          • Get real? In a standard jet airliner you’d have to be compensating for 2800ft per minute and you’re not going to be able to walk around on an aircraft compensating 2800ft per minute! The eye-level horizon line means you’re not on a ball, say the earth was 10x as large as it is now, you’d still see a gigantic object beneath you, not an eye-level, flat horizon line staring you in your face regardless of elevation!

            By the way, this made me curious about just how small a planet would have to be for your 2800 ft/min figure to be accurate, so I did some calculating.

            Given: A Boeing 777 cruising at 562 mph over Planet Я0llyJ0g3r drops 2,800 feet during each minute of level flight.

            Let’s begin.

            562 mph is 15.0742 kilometers per minute.
            2,800 feet is 0.8534 kilometers

            The jet will therefore travel 15.0742 kilometers horizontally and 0.8534 kilometers vertically during one minute of level flight.

            Using Pythagoras’ Theorem and some patience with a spreadsheet, I was able to determine that these two numbers are satisfied by a planetary radius of about 132.7064 km. So, for your statement about dropping 2800 ft/min to be true, Planet Я0llyJ0g3r must be about 265.4128 km in diameter. That’s a little less than the length of New Hampshire. Unfortunately, that’s too small for a celestial body to pull itself into a round shape, let alone hold onto an atmosphere. I was trying to find an asteroid close to this size to use as an illustration, but they’re all too irregularly-shaped.

          • Al Mather

            In Roger world ..there is no being proven wrong…. when you’re shown you facts are fabrications… your claims are lies .. your logic is faulty… you either babble MORE nonsense, cry SHILL!!!, or run away.

          • Not they’re not, shill boy! BUSTED! That tech didn’t come out until around 30 years ago and pilots have been flying using regular gyroscope instruments for almost 90 years and they always recorded the aircraft flying over a FLAT surface! I know you’d bite the shill bait! PWNED! HAHAHA! This is fun… 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Haha…where’s your ..”do you want me to post a video explaining it ? ” ..comment.
            BUSTED!

          • Busted what? I didn’t feel like going back and forth over a video because I can do it with text so…. sorry… not busted 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Well so far your explanations have been complete utter nonsense with glaring gaps in logic … and lots of …”Because!…Behold !…Perspective!!!”

            So if you actually HAVE some conspirotard video that tries to codify this stupidity… well I think we’d all love to see it.

          • Gary

            Not at all. If you can see it, trust your senses.

            I reject the things I can’t see, but somehow NASA mysteriously can.

          • He’s right, though.

          • Piper Michael

            Hmm…
            The sad thing is, those who believe in a Universe created by ‘magic’. This was the result of the Roman Catholic Church, in the beginning, who destroyed thousands of years of philosophy, and ‘heretical’ thinking, and replacing all that with the primary doctrine of the church; The Mystery Doctrine.
            Since that time, people in the church have desperately tried to prove that magical thinking, yet, call people like me; Heretic. Because I reject the Mystery Doctrine. Which basically states that God created a Universe, and you a a mere mortal, and how dare you try to understand God’s ‘Mysteries’.
            Since that time, The Mother of Harlots named Mystery, who rides The Beast called Babylon the Great, has taken over the earth with this Babel that causes the people to roar in confusion, the sea and the waves roar, and people who buy into these theories, having dropped out of high school, couldn’t pass basic science, and grasp at any straw to justify their own patheic attempts to ‘prove’ God created the Universe.
            I, on the other hand took the opposite route, by rejecting All orthodox teaching, and studied the old ‘forbidden’ works, that were recently uncovered at places like Nag Hammadi, that revealed there were other schools of thought back then. Schools that taught ancient knowledge, that revealed the Universe was much bigger, and complex, yet simpler and more elegant, than pharisees/priests will allow, and scientists are fooled to a certain extent by the Veil of Materialism vs Energy.
            In Enoch II, the Book of Secrets, chap 26-28, God spoke to Enoch after he was taken up. And HE revealed the secret of the Universe, how it was constructed, and why. Yet, the Catholics threw it on the pyres and called it heresy, yet gave Enoch an ‘honorable mention’ in their Bible. Protestants, are ‘Protesting’ Catholics, and essentially use their book of mysteries, yet, cannot comprehend it totally.
            Even in the book of Genesis, and in the original texts, ‘God’, was not singular, but plural. Thus they created man in ‘our’ image. The original word was Elohim, the Family of God. Yet, Christians like their religion, and their Universe simple, so Rome created it because a Church ‘father’ named Origen, told them to eliminate all that ‘philosophy’, and create a ‘simpler narrative for peasants’.
            But, most ‘Christians’, today, don’t seem to understand, their protest against Rome, still took on the primary doctrine and book, which makes them the Daughters of the Mother of Harlots. Remember, the Revelation of John was written before the Church of Rome was created by Emperor Constantine.
            The Bible, although a wonderful work, in some ways, is fragmented, mistranslated, and ultimately, the most political book ever written. It has too many conflicts and conundrums to be called, the Ultimate ‘Word of God’. In truth, the original Christians, burned it, and replaced it with their own version.
            This ‘mystery doctrine’ is what creates one thing, something cannot be debated, cured, or fixed. People with one leg in the 4th century, and another leg in the 21st, otherwise known as; stupid.
            But, have mercy on them, its not their fault. They are victims of the Anti Christ System. If the churches doctrines were ‘right’ they would be as ‘One’, not divided, not in constant warfare, not fighting over docrines, not keeping their people out of school, like the Mennonites around here. They do not allow their kids to go past the 8th grade… it is beyond sad that they limit their kids, and if the kids don’t go along with it, they have to be excommunicated.

            Yet those of us Gnostics who study the ancients, and their philosophy of ‘God science’, and try to extend knowledge from the material into the hyperspacial realms, are “New Age” sorcerers, heretics, because we cannot accept their blasphemy of mystery. We are men, and man was given a brain with innate curiosity. They teach fear of a Universe that scares them, and we see the results of it, here. They try to shrink the Universe down to their level.

            And after 40 years of trying, after walking out of a hypocrite church, I assure you all, there is no way to fix enforced stupidity. They are divided by doctrines, and they cannot see, that they violate the very precepts of the Lord, that; A house divided cannot stand. We see the results of this all over, everywhere, as churches experience a “great falling away”, as knowledge grows to upend medieval superstition and control mechanisms.

            They don’t even truly understand their own prophecies or teachings, otherwise they would see that Hosea was right, for “my people are destroyed through a lack of knowledge”, and Jude that taught ‘from the beginning, evil crept in unawares’.

            The church that Jesus founded, was corrupted from the beginning, and the truth of the matter is revealed by the actions of His People, who follow The Little Book of Rev 10, the “sweet words on the tongue, like honey, that grow bitter in the belly”. Like economics professors who know the costs of everything and the value of nothing, they know every verse, except the meaning of the whole book, because the best parts were burned over a thousand years ago, the parts that proved God was real, and how to see it, and what it meant to be human.

          • g.johnon

            piper, i upticked you for a mostly brilliant essay, but not sure about last paragraph. how can you speculate that parts of the bible that were burned over a thousand years ago are the best parts, or that they proved that god was real?
            the new testament was created (as you well alluded to) over 300 years after the supposed life and murder of jesus. it is, in fact, in that new testament that jesus was introduced to the world in writing. no know records of him or his life otherwise exist.
            god, on the other hand, also seems to be a political template designed to play on the guilt of anyone inclined to be less than in general acceptance of authoritarian secular rule, and to play on the fears of those who fear death.
            i too walked away from the christian doctrines well over 40 years ago, went through decades of searching for a more palatable form of spirituality, until it finally came down to, just be kind, treat all fairly and decide upon god as soon as god knocks on my door and introduces “him”self.

          • Piper Michael

            I understand your consternation… and at a certain point in my life I would be standing right there next to you in a state of skepticism… ok? Skepticism is the Foundation of Science, Journalism, Law, and should be the same for matters of Religion. For religion and science are the same thing, twisted and divorced from one another… they both attempt to answer the same question;

            What is Man, his place in the Universe, and how it all works?

            I am writing a book called; The God Calculus, my website can be seen as twenty years of essays being in stream of consciousness ‘notes to self’… when I was impressed by the spirit to make them public, to treat them as a ‘Holy Joke’, and only for those with ‘eyes that see’. I felt that to do otherwise would be casting pearls before swine, and I have been proven correct, in the same way The Lord did, because He Knew it was fruitless to teach the willingly ignorant. The final book will be with an editor/partner/seeker, who can help me sort out exactly, and logically, in proper order, so that I have another mind to help sort out exactly what you asked. We all have a connection to the Holy Spirit, but nobody can tell you with any certitude, what that is… unless you know What and Who that is…

            If you go to my website, and read Enoch, The Book of Secrets, Chap 26-28… then compare that to Genesis I.
            And get back to me via the contact page, I would be glad to learn from you, as I do anyone who seems to be willing to contribute in the proper ‘spirit’ of Discourse… 🙂

            This is simply a place to begin, the other books, were Jesus teaching ‘privately’, and were outlawed as Forbidden texts, and are still outlawed by the Churches today… as they are attacked viciously as ‘heresy’. They are… but that is because they are not for all men… The church makes an ‘honorable mention’ of Enoch, yet, declared his books to be heresy. They were TMI. Too Much Information. He supposedly wrote 366 books, and there are only two that survive… to my knowledge.

            God Bless

          • lol, I’m not a Christian and check out gyrosopes, buddy. They are accurate instruments and indicate completely flat flight routes over the flat earth everyday, all day.

          • Al Mather

            Pilots and aviation engineers will tell you that attitude indicator gyroscopes on airliners are modified to adjust for the precession of the globe…

            Flat earthers have these little BS “proofs” stockpiled… but when you show them the evidence proving them wrong they babble nonsense and whine…”Shill!!!…shill….SHILL!!!!”

          • BULLSHIT ALERT! Those have NOTHING to do with your imaginary curve of your imaginary ball. This is how a shill does it, folks! ALWAYS look into what the shill calls proof and you’ll find the holes!

          • Al Mather

            Absolutely … Read them all.. The pilot forum even has a few laughs at the stupidity of flat earth morons and mocks how they cling to the delusion no matter what the reality.

          • Start with proving that anyone here is a shill.

          • kfunk937

            I can’t wrap my head around why a shill accusation would be even remotely plausible to flat earthers. I mean, what would round earthers be selling? Satellites? Space stations? In Я0lly’s case, it’s probably just a hang-over from denialism in other areas where fiscal skulduggery would make more “sense” relatively speaking.

            I find it easier to think that each and every one of them is a Poe.

          • I really don’t pay attention at this point, tbh. I just greet all shill gambits with one of two responses: either the same request for evidence or else, the comment about how it doesn’t matter in terms of their claims. Those two apply regardless so what someone is specifically being called a shill about doesn’t really matter.

          • Duhh, there’s HUGE money to be made in handicapping and paying off every government, every university, and every company! Don’t you see the enormous profit potential in holding back scientific progress for centuries because of Reasons?

          • Al Mather

            Interesting…………………..perspective.

          • kfunk937

            Plus universal planetary default swaps? Fits in with the whole landscape Al mentioned…

            Why couldn’t they pick some more interesting delusion, like shilling for Ringworld or A Wrinkle in Time (just don’t mention tesseracts)?

          • Jonathan Graham

            +1 for mentioning L’Engle’s book. I should start reading that to my kids.

          • Al Mather

            Ooohh! Oooh! I know this one!

            We are (according to Roger and Gary) employed by either the Masonic Jews (evil boogeymen of the highest order) or..their subdivisions ..the CIA or NASA….

            And yes ..IMO..most of them DO NOT actually believe the nonsense.. but like that fills that void/need that drives the tinfoil hat crowd to chemtrails, Planet Nibiru, Illuminati , Jewish banking, eugenics…etc … plus it furthers the Jew hatred/blaming rampant on the Flat Earth home bases..

          • shay simmons

            How many times do I have to tell you, Al…it’s the Rothschilds.

          • Piper Michael

            Buddy? Ok then, you are a child with a keyboard sitting in your mama’s basement in your underwear pretending that you are smarter than everybody else, that’s what’s it all about for you. To try to win… something.
            Ok then. You win…. I surrender, as John Wayne was fond of saying; “Lifes hard, its even harder if you’re stupid”.
            You cannot debate someone who lies to their own self.
            Goodbye kind sir, and may you live long enough to die, and be enlightened, but, I doubt if you can find your way out of the land of shadows…

          • As opposed to a child sitting on his mommy’s back patio with his toy telescope he can see the whole universe with? You sure were acting a condescending to John, weren’t you? Don’t like being held to task though, huh? Well that sucks but hey, cheer up, you may grow out of it one day but life is going to be harder for you until you do… good luck!

          • Piper Michael

            Nice try, mom’s been dead over 20 years… but, I did inherit the house…
            I don’t believe I started the condescension spiral down into the gutter you live in. But, I like going there… but, why don’t we up the stakes?
            An old fashioned duel?
            Pistols or swords?
            You like getting the last word, how about be a man?

          • Getting mad because you got shown up while trying to be a dick? Poor baby… boohoo 🙂

          • Piper Michael

            I’m not the arrogant asshole who has swords in his avatar…
            You’re such a badass… come on dude… put up or stfu…

          • Gary

            Man up sore loser, and admit you were beat. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            See, now I got a different vibe entirely…Crossed swords? Sword fighting? A big question mark?
            He’s saying hey ..look at me… I’m a bit of a swashbuckler.

          • Piper Michael

            Actually, those are muslim scimitars… since I’m a blacksmith, I make knives and swords… so the entirety of the avatar looks… kinda… ISIS-ish… as in a muslim troll who only beats up old ladies and attacks anonymously without the balls to stand in hand to hand without his home boys backing him up…
            But, you’re right, the whole thing is a symbolic challenge. I’m simply taking him up on his challenge… and I so want him to choose swords… then, me and Gertrude will show him the Way, the Truth, and The Light…. this is called, ‘love thy enemies’, aka, tough love, or ‘turn the tables’…
            🙂

          • Actually, those are muslim scimitars.

            Actually, they’re cutlasses, dipshit, and if you really read what’s going on here I am actually the one sticking up for a guy I don’t even know who was being bullied by you and others on here like a coward pile-on. You just can’t win an argument with me so now you’re whining like a little bitch while trying to portray being a tough guy at the same time, quite ironic to say the least.

          • Al Mather

            Makes perfect sense to me… He constantly posts anti Jew..anti Israel hate shit…. NEVER would he acknowledge an act of terrorism being perpetrated by a Muslim… Jews are behind ALL of them according to him… Says Obama and Bush are Jews (delusional Jew paranoia)… even claims that Jews are the ones perpetrating this Globe Earth “hoax” on the world…….Hmmm…

            Piper you may be on to something!

          • But you ARE the arrogant asshole being condescending towards John up there, aren’tcha?

            You’re such a badass… come on dude… put up or stfu…

            Get it in internet tough guy, lol, it’s the only place you can afford to 🙂

          • Piper Michael

            John… oh… mr Flat Earth? No… he’s a simpleton.
            You’re a muslim asshole and a bully who fights with words.
            Not man enough to face anybody that doesn’t wear a skirt.
            And that’s quite enough of this.
            Argue with yourself. I’m done on this turd magnet thread.
            I have a sword to go sharpen and impress the runes.
            Have a nice life… When you get to NC, look me up, and we’ll see if you’re a man, or a muslim.

          • So I’m a moslem now, lol! A bully? Grow up and lose like man, fool.

          • Gary

            Planet means “wandering star”. So a “planet” is really still just a star.

          • Al Mather

            That’s nice, Gary.

            Of course the word nice originally meant stupid …so …that’s REALLY stupid.

          • Piper Michael

            Yes, a thousand years ago and more…
            I guess, you’re one of those who were taken out of school in the 8th grade and forced to work on your daddies farm?

            Sad, one foot in the 4th century… how can you debate enforced ignorance? Yes, enforced ignorance, see my post below. Some of my ‘brothers’, make me so angry because they give the name Christian a taint worse than Islam, that would warm the hearts of the pharisees. Oh, wait… hmmm, pharisees, didn’t they pervert everything good? So what is any different about modern Pharisees that call themselves Pastors? Who teach absolute nonsense, using bs numbers taken out of context, to ‘prove’ the Universe is only six thousand years old, the world is flat, and the sky is a bubble around the earth? This was the teaching of the Holy Roman Empire, until Galileo proved them wrong, and got punished for his trouble. You are hypocrites of the highest order, because you actually use a computer? How dare you use evil technological sorcery to spread your heretical ideas! See, it works both ways, as a double edged sword cuts both ways, that’s the definition of truth. As the double edged sword of truth comes out of the mouth of the lord, in this time, to conquer your blasphemous antiChrist orthodoxy… 🙂
            I live with this crap in my own family, I understand you will not accept anything outside the bounds of your fantasy world, because it is impossible to shed light on those who are fearful of a Universe that scares the hell out of them.

            God Bless
            PIper

          • Gary

            You should research Galileo. First, he never proved heliocentrism, and never claimed that he did. Second, he recanted the ill-conceived theory once he came to his senses. So if you’re going to use Galileo as a role model, you’ll reject heliocentrism as he did.

            Finally, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees are the Talmudists, and I condemn such false religion alongside Islam, which you also seem to reject. 🙂

          • Polak

            By definition a Planet is NOT a star,our sun IS a star.

          • Gary

            “The word ‘planet’ comes from the ancient Greek ἀστήρ πλανήτης (astēr planētēs), meaning ‘wandering star’.”

            I prefer the ancient Greek definitions to the Masonic.

          • Polak

            I prefer the scientific version,which by the way is the correct version,A star emits it’s own light,a planet does not emit light.You might like to consider moving away from ancient Greece and put yourself into the twenty first century.

          • Gary

            Oh yes, it must be correct, because the Masons invented it.

            Science is using observation to come to a working understanding of Creation. Just because your call your religion science, don’t expect those who value true science to worship at your altar.

          • Polak

            What has the Masons got to do with it?Never said my religion is science.You are a confused person in need of help.

            At the age of 12 I already knew the difference between a planet and a star,something that you have proven to all of us that you don’t know/

          • Jonathan Graham

            No, it just means “wanderer” as evidenced by the longer phrase πλάνητες ἀστέρες – wandering star. Even the term asteres doesn’t mean what “star” means in English.

          • I’m a little confused about why we must strictly adhere to ancient Greek understanding of astronomy/cosmology, anyway.

          • Jonathan Graham

            No kidding. Were we also supposed to be calling all food meat, telling people that there silly ideas about vaccine induced autism are nice and calling people who are penniless naughty.

            Not to mention there’s even a whole logical flaw named after that kind of argument argumentum ad antiquitatem.

          • shay simmons

            I for one refuse to wear a chiton in Illinois in mid-January.

          • Jonathan Graham

            I actually had to look that up. 🙂

          • kfunk937

            Ya got me there. I hadn’t known or had forgotten that was the name of the loose garment, but was trying to picture you with the marine mollusc on your head.

          • shay simmons

            Only in months with an R.

        • Al Mather

          Satellites… they are launched into space orbit our planet providing all kinds of technology,data, and images and info that can’t be acquired any other way.

          And WE can look up and see them.. the very devices we launched.Take pictures of them as they orbit hundreds of miles over us.Easy as pie. Backyard photography buffs do it all the time. You can even get apps on your smart phone which will tell you when,provide you coordinates…

          God gave you a brain …use it to come up with an explanation for that, John.

          Or why when we look north from the equator we see one set of stars rotating around Polaris … and when we look south from the equator ,we see a set of different stars, and different constellations rotating in the opposite direction around a different star?

          What does your “research” tell you about that?

          PS… this is where Flat earthers usually silently leave the discussion.

          • What does your “research” tell you about that?

            It tells me that you’re willfully lying.

            Where are all of your backyard photography buffs’ pictures of satellites? Cartoons don’t count… but there’s tons out there according to you so please point me to your resource of all of these backyard photographers photographing satellites, I’d love to check them out 🙂

            Or why when we look north from the equator we see one set of stars rotating around Polaris … and when we look south from the equator ,we see a set of different stars, and different constellations rotating in the opposite direction around a different star?

            Because they’re not rotating in the opposite direction as the north star constellations, that’s a counter rotation, not the same thing.

          • Al Mather

            Actually they’re not rotating at all… but they appear to rotate around different axial stars in opposite directions… Completely DIFFERENT sets of stars and DIFFERENT constellations…

            Roger… you know this is a thing as well as I do… I have posted all this before… and you will deny and get all delusional and claim ALL these photography and astronomy sites.. the apps..all the hobbyist astronomers and photo bugs who contribute pics from their hobby…EVERYTHING is some big trickery perpetrated by evil masons…

            And ….when you do it …the reader will just think..”Wow..this guys is a either delusional moron or he’s lying…

            The reader is Correct

            https://www.cnet.com/news/spectacular-space-station-photo-taken-from-a-back-yard/

            http://petapixel.com/2015/07/03/photographer-captures-the-iss-flying-across-the-face-of-the-
            moon/

            http://www.universetoday.com/93895/thierry-legault-astrophotography-is-an-adrenaline-rush/

            http://blogs.agi.com/agi/2010/11/11/satellite-augmented-reality-now-in-android-market/

            http://www.hobbyspace.com/SoftwareOffline/index.html#iAppSatTrack

            http://hotastronomy.com/category/imaging/

            http://www.astronomycameras.com/blog/archive/20090601/remarkable-iss-images/

            http://www.universetoday.com/93588/a-beginners-guide-to-photographing-the-international-space-station-iss/

            http://pics-about-space.com/international-space-station-telescope?p=2

            http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/71747/what-lens-and-setting-to-take-iss-photo

            http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/forums/threads/photographing-the-international-space-station-any-ideas.124008/

            http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/666/how-powerful-a-telescope-would-allow-me-to-view-the-astronauts-aboard-iss-do-a-s

            http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/05/30/amazing-shot-of-iss-and-jupiter-during-daytime/#.WG09C1MrL3k

            https://www.google.com/search?q=ISS+from+amateur+photog&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjMoKuajKnRAhVN8GMKHRiXBrsQ_AUICCgB&biw=1674&bih=922#imgrc=qeK8fz6nwvjowM%3A

          • The sky is indeed rotating around the North, axial, pole star Polaris. The fact that there’s different star constellations in the south doesn’t negate the axial counter-rotation of the stars… and you know this.

            As far as the links you just posted, you discredit yourself with stuff like this; all the reader needs to do is click those links you provided and decide for themselves whether or not you’re a delusional moron… or you’re just lying.

          • Al Mather

            Different constellations rotating in opposite directions in different hemisphere just as it should on our glorious sphere… but would NOT on your idiotic fellate earth model… which you know to be BS.

            At this point Roger …you have been so chewed up and spit out on this flat earth stuff …it’s almost sad…
            But hey…I saw early on that you would never admit what was SO OBVIOUS to all reading.. that even you knew it’s silly BS.

            All those sites and links are from the first few minutes of searching… anyone can look and easily see that photographing satellites has become quite the popular pastime for astronomy buffs and photo bug hobbyist around the world… Amazing how relatively inexpensive and accessible the equipment has gotten for an amateur to pick this hobby up too. After watching these “how to” videos on how to track and capture ISS and moon transit photos ..I wish I didn’t live in such a smoggy metro area.

            God…you must be regretting this FE stuff at this point. Sure has put the stink on you around the Sheeple.

          • Different constellations rotating in opposite directions in different hemisphere just as it should on our glorious sphere… but would NOT on your idiotic fellate earth model… which you know to be BS.

            FALSE

            At this point Roger …you have been so chewed up and spit out on this flat earth stuff …it’s almost sad… But hey…I saw early on that you would never admit what was SO OBVIOUS to all reading.. that even you knew it’s silly BS.

            lol, I’ve beaten you so many times at this I’ve lost count. You even needed your vaccine shill army to back you up and feign globe earth approval consensus, not exactly the moves of a winner but you go ahead with that, lol, whatever makes you feel better. I still have the truth on my side and that’s all I’ll ever need… no sock puppets required 🙂

          • Al Mather

            WWwwwwahhhhhhh!!!Shills!!!Shills!!!SHILLLLLSSS!!!!!!…sniff…sniff…sniffle…WWaaaaaaaahhhh!!!shills!!!shills!!!SHIIIIILLLLLSSSS!!!!!!!

            Pathetic dude. Grow a sack.

          • Who’s pathetic? Who needs shill up-voters to feign support? HAHAHA!

          • Al Mather

            Those who would like to agree and uptick me … would probably abandon me if I was a total pussy and cried “Shills…SHILL!!!!…WAAAAHHHH” every time somebody was crushing my delusional comments.

          • But you don’t crush them, you get shown up…

          • Al Mather

            Sure buddy …that’s why you cry shill and run away all the time with no answers.

          • But I’ve already explained it numerous times, you just pretend I didn’t. There’s only ONE axial star of which the star field rotates around, mkay?

            Because of your limited view of the gigantic sky you only get to see a tiny piece of it at once, hope I haven’t lost anyone yet. If you are standing in a spot with an unobstructed view of the sky and both horizons to the east and west you only get a 12000 mile wide view of the sky max from any point on Earth.

            From this point on is where visual perspective comes into play, something you either think doesn’t exist or doesn’t have any bearing upon your visual surroundings, I really don’t know what your confusion on this is.

            Anyway, the perspective lines of sight expand as they approach you and contract as they move away from you which causes the effect you see in the sky at night, the anti-rotation of the nothern pole star rotation. An easy way to understand this is to observe crepuscular and anti-crepuscular sun rays because the phenomenon that causes anti-crepuscular sun rays is the same exact phenomenon that causes the anti-rotation of the north pole star rotation… DONE!

          • Al Mather

            This part here Roger …

            “https://images.duckduckgo.com/…
            In the above image your visual world stems from that center vertical line.”

            No dude …THAT is just ludicrous babbling nonsense! You’ve taken some stupid 2D drawing and tried ..in some idiotic way…to say that our visual world is defined by it… NO … that is just YOU running out of logical intelligent road to travel in trying to explain the stupid claim you have made.

            Also.. are you trying to deny the existence of the stars and constellations in the southern hemisphere ..which have been witnessed and studied since man looked up? All those stars that rotate around Sigma Octanis…in that constellation… Nu Octanis..Delta Octanis..Alpha Octanis.. they don’t exist???

            FAIL.

          • No, those stars are right there in the sky and do indeed exist but it’s your PERSPECTIVE causing them to rotate in the opposite direction as the north pole star field rotation!

            Again, I am precisely correct, you just don’t understand, which may be my fault for not articulating myself adequately but in my defense it is a difficult concept to explain especially to people who are ignorant of perspective, it went of like a light bulb in my head when I first understood it but even then I realized that this is where they get people. I’ll try some more not that you’ll ever say “yes, that was a good explanation” but whatever…

            In that image I posted which illustrates how perspective lines work precisely details the phenomenon being witnessed with both anti-crepuscular rays of the sun and the anti-rotation of the southern stars at night. If you were to figuratively grab the two convergence points on the left and right in that illustration I posted: https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_F94JTwTwuvM%2FTRdajpbtlXI%2FAAAAAAAAAY0%2FaAld4jVF_XI%2Fs1600%2Ftwo%2Bpoint%2Bperspective%2Bgrid.jpg&f=1 and rotate them away from you, like when you’re eating corn on the cob, those perspective lines would ALWAYS be touching the middle because they aren’t separate lines, they are the same lines, so if I were to rotate the “corn on the cob holders” away from the observer the lines would move upwards which means that to the right the rotation would be counter clockwise but to the left the rotation would be… wait for it… CLOCKWISE! If you could rotate crepuscular sun rays you would witness the same effect!

          • Al Mather

            There are a million holes in that delusional pile of dumb ,Roger…. but let me throw a couple at you …just to watch you dance.

            WHY… does this magical “opposites” law of perspective only take place at the equator? In your idiotic explanation the viewer would be the “convergence point” because they and their location provide your magical “PERSPECTIVE”…. but for some reason the phenomenom is fixed to planetary locations… Huh! kinda like it WOULD BE in the reality of the sphere!!

            The stars that revolve around Polaris are not visible in the Southern sky..and the stars that revolve around Sigma Octanis are not to be found revolving around Polaris… if your magical “PERSPECTIVE” weren’t just the idiotic babble that it IS… the rotations should be…according to your BS explanation… mirror images… ???

          • Wow. A whole comment without the shill gambit. Well done.

          • my very limited unpaid time

            Yeah, right…

          • Al Mather

            Yet, somehow,he manages to squeak out about 9,000 more comments than me ..almost 4 to 1….in the same amount of time..

          • Who am I shilling for, Ken S.? Non-vaccine, organic and Flat Earth Inc.? HEHEHE

            Go back to shillin’ for sheckles, man, the projection bit isn’t going to work, lol

          • That’s just what a shill would say…

          • Coming from a pharma shill that right there is funny! I knew you had a sense of humor underneath all of that psychopathy, Ken S.! Good job! I just laughed!

          • Gary

            Lol. You’d be one poor shill if you were one. Choosing all the wrong employers.

            There’s no money in the truth, but its the truth. 🙂

          • g.johnon

            no, he pretty much crushes em; not hard to do, but he does.

          • Nope, he pretty much shills and you fall for it, that’s about it.

            What about gyroscopes, g.johnon? Do all the flat earthers like myself modify them so they indicate planes fly over a flat surface or are the planes actually flying over a flat surface like the gyrscopes indicate?

          • Al Mather

            Again?…This BS is one of the delusional comments that has already been crushed, brah… tsk…tsk.

          • Except is hasn’t and your shill ass just lost to me again! Gyros have been in planes for almost 90years, only had some special earth curve bullshit installed for the last 30 or so. ALl gyros before that were just normal gyros and even today you can use a normal gyro on a plane and it will reaed the same as the one he says has “special tuning” HAHAHA… BUSTED YOU SHILL!

          • Al Mather

            Now he’s trying to lie to you about airplane instrumentation… it’s one of the Flat earth BS “proofs”… which are all pretty much lame faulty premises … He knows it’s total BS too… I provided him with these links weeks ago..

            https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/my-gyroscope-says-the-world-is-flat.90561/

            http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/16376/how-are-attitude-indicators-kept-accurate

            http://www.avweb.com/news/avionics/183240-1.html

            http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/attitude.html

            But he keeps trying to convince SOMEONE! It’s kind of insulting really ..since he already knows ..

          • Gary

            But what about the shekels? I’m sure your masters would cut some of the “self-employment” benefits, would your fellow shills cease their upticking of your blather.

          • Al Mather

            I’m sure if one of your imaginary boogeymen were paying me to engage delusional morons like you and Roger… that even THEY would look at the “shill gambit” as being as weak and as pathetic as your comments.
            Lucky for all I do this for sport !

          • Gary

            Yeah. Lucky that, eh, Al? “Lucky” your sport keeps you “self employed”. Lol.

          • g.johnon

            pretty fucking sad roger.

          • GFY g.johnon 🙂

          • Polak

            You would not know the truth if it was staring you in the face,you have proven that,flat earth,what a maroon.

          • Coming from a guy who thinks he can inject his health… lol

          • Polak

            I see you are still babbling

          • Matt Robers

            I’ve concluded that nobody with the power of speech could actually be as stupid as this cunt. Must be a troll. Don’t feed the trolls please.

          • I’ll crush you on a debate on this, Matt, you don’t know what you don’t know. Just leave it at that.

            PS: you are replying to a known disinformation troll who just fooled you too. Good luck with that.

          • Polak

            I think he is just yanking on our chains,surely nobody could be that silly.

          • Gary

            Why can Polaris be seen south of the equator if Earth is a ball, Einstein?

          • Polak

            If you don’t know that then nobody can help you.

          • Gary

            So basically, your “proof” consists of “Polaris can’t be seen south of the equator”. Are you willing to accept that if Polaris can be seen south of the equator, the Earth is not a ball? 🙂

          • Because the ball precesses in a predictable way. Sometimes, if you’re close enough to the equator, you’ll be able to see Polaris near the horizon.

        • g.johnon

          big bang is a theory. spinning globe and planetary solar system, proven fact. anyone with a decent backyard telescope can back that up.

          • If the globe is spinning like you say it is then how come a helicopter can hover just above the ground until it runs out of fuel and not a damn thing beneath it will move?

          • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

            Iowa-class battleships have to account for Coriolis affect when firing their main batteries. . .
            As a matter of fact, when the New Jersey was upgraded 20-30 years ago, the original analog targeting was left in place because computers couldn’t do it any better.

            Bullets are not navigated. Helicopters are.
            Bullets weigh in grains. Helicopters in tons.
            Bullets travel at a greater percentage of escape velocity (8-10%) than Helicopters do (<1%).
            1700 grains @ 2900fps is going to go just about where it wants, gravity-wise.
            79,730,000 grains @ 242fps. . . not so much, without guidance.

            Runways are built facing different directions because of the wind. Fixed-wings need to take off and land as close to facing the wind as possible.

            You’re using the same “science” that claimed passenger trains would never be able to travel at speeds in excess of 45mph because the air would get sucked out of the cabins and the passengers would asphyxiate. . .

          • Gary

            If it was Coriolis affecting Iowa-class battleship main batteries, plane flights heading East would be slower than the same flights heading West. They’re not.

          • Al Mather

            The planes on the ground,the runways,the atmosphere ,the earth all rotate at the exact same speed ..1040mph..west to east.. when the plane takes off to the east it is already travelling 1040mph plus (say) 500mph…when it travels west it travels 500mph minus 1040mph …

          • Gary

            So what you are essentially saying is that there is no way to detect the Earth’s spin, ‘cept for blind faith and Mason photos, eh, Al?

            Remember Occam’s razor? 🙂

          • Al Mather

            The stars,satellites observation, the rotation of other celestial bodies, Focaults Pendulum…

            I think you fellate earthers might be misinterpreting Occam’s razor…. it doesn’t mean simplest in the “mentally challenged ” sense.

          • Now, now, you can’t be too hard on them. They can’t understand basic physics, so of course magic seems simpler to them!

          • Gary

            Ya, the stars that don’t change in their configuration, the satellites that NASA only have computer generated images of, Focaults Pendulum which is a hoax (i.e. when the experiment is repeated, different results are obtained, unless the results are manipulated).

            Occam’s razor says to remove the unnecessary, and heliocentricity is an unnecessary theory.

          • Al Mather

            Be quiet and sit there waiting for your spanking Gary…when the adults are done talking you can assume the position.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Technically it never meant “simplest” Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate just means that you shouldn’t add things needlessly (to your model). i.e. Can we take away the non-flat Earth and still explain everything we can currently observe to the same level of detail.

            Just a trivial example might be the conspiracy of the flat earth itself. Some flat earthers maintain that the flat earth requires conspiracy at some level – not just ignorance. However round earth hypothesis explains all observable phenomena without a conspiracy. Hence the flat earth theory falls under Ockham’s Razor.

          • Al Mather

            To your point….the intricacies of HOW their conspiracy is enacted is something that flat earthers NEVER want to dwell on. Well aware that once they start down that road, every absurd explanation starts to detract from the already flimsy plausibility of the case they try to make.

          • It really is interesting how it’s a belief based exclusively on opposition to the standard model, not on promotion of an alternative model. Flat Earthers spend all of their energy trying to individually “disprove” facts about the round, rotating Earth, and none of it advancing a plausible model that fits observations. It’s denialism at its purest and most adorable.

          • Jonathan Graham

            Exactly! Just like the antivaccine conspiracies about studies being faked, most doctors/journals living in fear of pharmaceutical reprisals. Even pharmaceutical companies paying people to post here is a rabbit hole with no reasonable ROI.

          • Not to be padantic, but it’s “Occam,” not “Ockham.”

          • Jonathan Graham

            I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that both are acceptable. Ockham was his English name but it (like so much else) frequently gets transliterated through Latin rendering it “Occam”. However I rather suspect you’re right that “Occam” is far more common.

          • Damn it! I’m just going to have to keep trying this “padantic” gag over and over again!

          • Jonathan Graham

            Well I don’t think you could find a better mark if I was wearing a red shirt. 🙂

          • You seem like more of a blueshirt to me.

          • shay simmons

            We’re ignoring you….

          • A fate worse than death…

          • *Pedantic.

            There.

          • A helicopter can hover completely still in the air until it runs out of fuel. Without wind to deal with the pilot would be tasked with holding it steady, that’s it, and the ground beneath it will NEVER move because it isn’t moving!

            Winds blow in all different directions no matter the location and a plane cannot land on a perpendicular landing strip on a 1000mph spinning ball, that’s impossible.

          • Al Mather

            MORE FAULTY PREMISE BS…

            Because the earth and it’s entire atmosphere rotate in unison. When you take off you are already going 1000mph in unison WITH the earth…and that doesn’t change in the atmosphere.
            Just as if you jumped on a moving train…you would land in the same spot.

          • Oh, I like the one where the Earth can’t be spinning because “WHY CAN’T WE FEEL IT??” I guess they’ve never ridden an elevator?

          • Polak

            Yeah the next question will be “if the earth is spinning so fast how come we are not thrown off” DEAR OH DEAR.

          • Gary

            You can feel an elevator accelerate.

          • That one’s easy! Because we’re not continually accelerating around the sun! If you’re referring to the apparent centrifugal force from Earth’s rotation, we don’t feel it because it’s (if my calculations are correct) only about 0.34% as strong as the force of gravity.

          • Gary

            Study up on physics and centripetal accerlation. You’ll find according to the heliocentric theory, Earth is continually accelerating around the sun. If you insist on stating we’re not continually accelerating around the sun, I agree (but that’s geocentric or flat Earth theory, not heliocentrism).

            The magnitude of gravity has nothing to do with whether we can feel acceleration or not. Man can detect an acceleration of several mm per second squared (this is obviously measured in the existing gravitational field of the Earth – if there is such a thing).

          • Ah, “accelerating around the sun” sounded to me like you meant the Earth was going faster and faster, not that gravity exerts a continuous centripetal force. The hard part about detecting that is that it’s been constant for every single second of our lives, our parents lives, and every life that’s ever existed on Earth. It’s not changing, so there’s no change to perceive.

          • Gary

            Incorrect. Acceleration is a change in velocity. As stated, the change (if it exists), is large enough to be detected by man, whose senses can detect an acceleration of 1 – 2 mm/s^2.

            Also, if heliocentrists are to be believed, the acceleration itself is also changing, as the Earth’s pupported path around the sun is elliptical, so you are wrong even if a constant acceleration can’t be readily detected or felt (which it can). Try again. 🙂

          • Running the numbers, that gives me 6.23757 mm/s² at perihelion and 5.64040 mm/s² at aphelion. That’s a difference of 0.59717 mm/s² spread out over an entire year. That seems to be safely below the perceptual threshold, doesn’t it?

          • Gary

            A constant acceleration can be felt. Acceleration is rate of change of velocity. Its a constant velocity that cannot be felt.

            If the acceleration changes by as much as you say (and according to heliocentricity, it does), why does this not translate into a difference in weight between day and night, and a smaller difference between perihelion and aphelion? The only answer is that there is no acceleration. Earth is stationary.

          • So even 5.6mm/s^2 is well within the detectability range of man.

            I recommend learning more about how we perceive acceleration. No, Gary, we aren’t going to perceive a 6 mm/s² acceleration with no visual cues. It’s not going to compress or stretch our knees that much.

            If the acceleration changes by as much as you say (and according to heliocentricity, it does), why does this not translate into a difference in weight between day and night, and a smaller difference between perihelion and aphelion? The only answer is that there is no acceleration. Earth is stationary.

            The sun’s gravity has a negligible effect on weights on Earth. Neither your body nor your bathroom scale are going to perceive the change from day to night or perihelion to aphelion.

          • Gary

            Wrong again. Find below a link to a study looking at accelerations perceptable to man. Even accelerations of 1mm/s^2 are detectable to some, although it appears 2mm/s^2 accelerations are detectable to more.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1402298/

            The reason the sun’s gravity has no effect on weights on Earth is that the theory of gravity is wrong. According to the theory of gravity, using typical heliocentrist cited data for mass of Earth, mass of sun, distance of sun to ball-Earth and diameter of ball-Earth, an object at mid-day (sun opposing Earth’s gravity effect on object) would weigh 0.12% less than at mid-night (sun increasing the apparent gravity effect of Earth on the object). This demonstration that weight does not change with time of day is disproof of the theory of gravity (and subsequently, heliocentricity).

            If you don’t believe there exist instruments that can detect a weight difference of 0.1%, you’ve been listening too much to Deny-Al and his tales of “perfect” gyroscopes that no one but his NASA buddies have access to.

          • Where are you getting 0.12%? The sun’s effect on weights is orders of magnitude smaller than that.

          • Al Mather

            Just a spitballing question here …never studied physics. Would it be fair to say that unless these tests are performed in space they do not apply ?
            Perhaps detection of lateral accelerations on earth ..the physical mechanism for that detection impacted by the center of gravity.. would not be valid comparisons to accelerations that encompass the earth’s entire field of gravity and everything within that field..

          • Pretty much. We detect acceleration when our bodies are compressed, stretched, or bent. None of that happens when there’s no reference to be compressed, stretched, or bent against.

          • Al Mather

            Maybe there were some additional studies conducted on the ISS that Gary is drawing from.

          • Gary

            Use a 100kg object. Use the universal law of gravitation constant, mass of Earth, mass of sun, radius of ball-Earth, distance of ball-Earth to sun (according to heliocentric theory, obviously). At midnight (sun opposite object), Earth attracts object and sun attracts object toward Earth, increasing apparent attraction of object toward Earth. At mid-day, Earth attracts object but sun attracts object away from Earth, reducing apparent attraction of object toward Earth. Simple differences give a percentage change in apparent weight of 0.12% over 12h if theory is correct. In practice, no difference. Why? Earth doesn’t move, sun does not move subject to gravity.

            Results from study: Look at the minus 1 standard deviation results. Acceleration detections of 3mm/s^2 and 5mm/s^2 are indicated for some of the larger displacements.

          • At mid-day, Earth attracts object but sun attracts object away from Earth

            Did you forget that the Sun attracts and accelerates the Earth at the same time?

          • Gary

            Nope. The attraction causes the acceleration. That’s basic physics.

            If we are moving along with the Earth, why not the tides? What magical characteristic of gravity allows it a different set of rules for every circumstance that disproves it?

            The sun is a different object to the Earth, and therefore (according to the theory of gravity) would have its own gravitational effect on other objects. Where the gravitational attraction of the sun were opposed to another gravitational force (in our example, Earth’s attraction for the object), the weaker of the forces would be cancelled by the greater (in our example, the sun’s effect nullified by Earth’s gravity). Were gravity real, there would be an apparent and measurable change in weight of objects every 12 hours (actually continually, if the instrument were accurate enough). There is not. The theory of gravity is falsified.

          • Okay. If your worldview requires gravity to not exist, then I’m just gonna let you have fun in wonderland.

          • Gary

            Lol. I just disproved gravity for you. Whether you continue down your path of disbelieving your own senses, and telling yourself that everything you see disproving your religion is “just another mirage”, that’s up to you.

            But you won’t be able to say you weren’t told the truth. 🙂

          • No, mirages are mirages. The horizon is the horizon. You can’t see Chicago from Michigan.

          • Gary

            I just showed you video proof that you can, and you claimed it was a mirage. What is the point of me showing you proofs that falsify your theory, if you claim every falsification as a mirage?

            You want to believe in mirages, I believe my senses. I know which is the more scientific rationale.

          • “Mirage” isn’t just a fancy term for “hallucination.” It describes an atmospheric phenomenon that explains how Chicago was temporarily visible from Michigan. Mirages are as real as shadows, mirrors, and prisms.

          • Gary

            Prove it was a mirage.

          • Gary

            I’m wasn’t saying mirages don’t exist, nor asking how they work. I have disproved your theory of heliocentricity, and you have invented another one (i.e. that which was clearly seen was a mirage), to prop it back up.

            I’m asking for evidence of your claim, that what was clearly captured on video was a mirage. Where is the science behind your hypothesis?

          • It’s there in the link, Gary. What kind of science would you accept as evidence?

            You haven’t disproved heliocentrism, by the way. You simply won’t stop vomiting up new lies and misunderstandings about the standard model of gravity, and I got tired of holding your hand. You don’t want to understand tidal forces, so it’s a waste of time trying to help you understand them.

          • Gary

            Lol. I explained a simple experiment that can be performed to disprove the theory of gravity. Ignorance is bliss to some. Not to me. 🙂

          • And which experiment is that?

          • Gary

            The one with the 100kg weight, which doesn’t change by 0.12% as it should between day and night, or more between perihelion and aphelion.

          • Pardon me! I thought your number was too high, and it is, but for the wrong reasons. Your scale won’t show a difference because it’s subject to the same gravitational force as your weight is, and they’re both free to accelerate with respect to the Sun. Since the Earth is not a fixed point of reference, the noon and midnight weights will not be 0.12% apart.

          • Gary

            Nope. The scale is fixed with respect to the Earth, which is being attracted to the sun in both instances. However, the object is also being attracted toward the Earth in both instances. In the first instance, the effect of the Earth on the object is additive to the effect of the sun on the object. In the second instance, the forces are opposed, and subtractive, giving the 0.12% difference in weight, were the theory of gravity true.

            But do try again. Its the only way you will learn. 🙂

          • The scale is fixed with respect to the Earth

            Which means that it is being accelerated toward the sun at the same rate as the weight, regardless of time of day. It would be like trying to weigh somebody on a scale while they’re skydiving.

          • Gary

            Nope. You are confusing force and acceleration. The scale is supported by a structure to keep it aligned with the Earth (outside the equations). The weight is not, which is why there would be a measurable difference in weight between day and night, were gravity true.

            If what you were saying were correct, the measurement of weight itself would be meaningless (unmeasurable), as we are all (according to the theory of gravity), bound to the Earth as it spins about the sun.

          • The scale is supported by a structure to keep it aligned with the Earth (outside the equations).

            No, not outside the equations. Scales measure force. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. Acceleration is fundamental to how a scale operates. A scale can be placed on the Earth because the Earth exerts an upward force equal to the force exerted by Earth’s gravity. That upward force (called normal force) prevents the scale from accelerating. The normal force of the Earth is acting on the scale to stop its movement.

            When you place an object on the scale, the scale must now exert an upward force equal to the force of gravity on the object. By stopping the object from accelerating downward, it can measure how much force it takes, which is equal to the object’s weight.

            The force of the Sun’s gravity is accelerating the Earth, the scale, and the object at the same rate. The acceleration of the scale is the same as the object’s, since they are both free to move with respect to the Sun.

            Since both the scale and the object are moving together with the Earth, there is no acceleration from the Sun that the scale needs to resist. Because there is no acceleration from the Sun to resist, the Sun’s gravity won’t affect how much force it takes to stop the object from going down.

            Just like how a falling scale won’t stop a skydiver, a scale on Earth won’t stop a 100kg weight from falling towards the Sun. Since the scale isn’t resisting that force, it can’t measure it.

          • Do I win?

          • Gary

            Do you not believe in weight and scales?

          • Did you read my explanation for why the force of the sun’s gravity can’t be measured by a scale on the surface of the Earth? The law of universal gravitation explains why weights aren’t higher at midnight than at noon.

          • Gary

            Your explanation is wrong. The experiment doesn’t require the Sun’s gravity to be measured. It simply measures the resultant force on an object at different times, which is the net summation of all forces according to gravity theory (Sun and Earth’s gravity being the major contributors). If you don’t accept this can be done, you can’t consistently accept that weight can be measured at all.

            The “law” of universal gravitation predicts that weights will be different at midnight compared to noon, as the predicted direction of the force of the Sun’s gravity on the object is opposite the predicted direction of the force of Earth’s gravity on the object at mid-day, resulting in a net weight difference to mid-night. No weight difference between the two times means the theory is falsified.

          • A scale on the surface of the Earth can stop an object from accelerating into the Earth. Therefore, Earth’s gravity can affect the measured weight of the object.

            A scale on the surface of the Earth cannot stop an object from accelerating toward the Sun. Therefore, the Sun’s gravity cannot affect the measured weight of the object.

            Use the skydiver analogy. If a falling skydiver stands on a falling scale, what weight will the scale read?

          • Gary

            If the skydiver is on the scale, he will weigh (according to the theory of gravity), the force of his attraction toward the Earth added vectorially to the force of his attraction toward the sun. As the time of day changes, his apparent weight will change (according to the theory of gravity), as the force vector of his attraction to the sun will change in direction, and with distance (as Earth pupportedly rotates).

            If you can’t understand this concept, I suggest reading up on gravity theory and vector addition in your high school physics/mathematics books.

          • If you don’t understand why the scale will read 0 lbs, you need to start from scratch. The falling skydiver’s body will exert no force on the falling scale. Scales aren’t magical — they can only measure forces that they have to resist.

          • Gary

            You brought the skydiver into this. The experiment I described was undertaken on Earth. No skydivers necessary, unless they’re on the scale, which is afixed to Earth.

          • The skydiver is falling towards the Earth. The scale is falling towards the Earth. Earth’s gravity will not change the weight shown on the scale, no matter whether his feet or his head are facing the Earth.

            The Earth is falling towards the sun. A scale on the Earth is falling towards the sun. An object on a scale on the Earth is falling towards the sun. The sun’s gravity will not change the weight shown on the scale, no matter whether his feet or his head are facing the Earth.

            Because the sun’s gravity cannot change the weight of an object on the Earth, the scale will show the same weight at midnight as it does at noon. The force of the sun’s gravity does not pull the 100 kg weight towards or away from the scale. The weight and the scale are falling together.

            I don’t know how to make this simpler, Gary. Please understand, Gary. Please understand basic physics. Just understand, Gary, please.

          • Why are there tides, Gary?

          • Al Mather

            God has “snowglobe Earth” on the dash board of his tricked out 1990 Toyota Landcruiser.

          • ♪ He’s got the whole world on His dash, He’s got the whole world on His dash… ♪

          • Gary

            You tell me. You’re the one who says the Earth’s gravity overrides all other gravity fields, so they can’t be measured.

          • Tides exist because the side of the Earth facing the moon is very slightly more strongly attracted than the side facing away from it, and this difference causes the Earth (and the water around it) to be deformed. This deformation causes water levels to rise and fall predictably.

            But why would tides happen on a flat Earth with no gravity? How does your flat Earth model account for tides?

          • Al Mather

            I’m going to predict that they DO account for tides… with an explanation at once lame,vague, and incredible.

          • Gary

            Do the math if you’re honest. F = G.m1.m2 / r^2. Newton’s Universal “Law” of Gravitation. For a 100kg mass, 0.12% difference in weight between day and night.

          • Al Mather

            Because it is such an extremely small acceleration.

          • Gary

            Man can detect accelerations of several milimeters per second per second. According to the theory of gravity and the currently accepted distance to the sun, Earth is accelerating faster than this. Try again, Al. 🙂

          • Dance coincitard, dance! If I fly my little helicopter on a school bus and that school bus starts
            moving forward my helicopter will get hit by the back of the bus because the bus is
            MOVING! If I fly my little helicopter in my house it can hover until
            the battery runs out yet none of the walls in my house will crash into
            the helicopter because the Earth is NOT moving… not very complicated
            stuff to understand here…

            Yeah… the “atmosphere” moves perfectly along with the surface of the earth so perfectly we have days with NO wind! lolol! Geeez…..

          • Al Mather

            “Yeah… the “atmosphere” moves perfectly along with the surface of the earth so perfectly we have days with NO wind! lolol! Geeez…..”

            You post monumental dumbness like this in an attempt to claim an intellectual high ground? You’re losing it Roger.

          • lol, you can’t explain days with 0mph winds without restoring to mental gymnastics… and you say I’m the one losing it, lol, okay..

          • Al Mather

            0mph everywhere Roger??? or just briefly in isolated locations???

          • Try your bus trick. You might be surprised!

            As for days with no wind, that does mean that the local atmosphere is rotating at the same speed as the Earth, i.e. the air in stationary with respect to the ground.

          • Al Mather

            Hovers…

            FAIL….again.

          • You get that that guy is struggling to keep that thing in the middle, don’t you? You get that without forward acceleration of the copter its going to get left behind that truck…. right?

          • Al Mather

            He says no…the guy who made the video says it just hovers. Flat earthers TRY to get him to say there is forward acceleration…. he says NO.

          • g.johnon

            focault. …. now go back to school and learn how gyros work and how the gravitational envelope functions.

          • Gary

            Even if the Focault effect is real (its not consistently repeatable), it no more proves the Earth is turning about its axis than it proves the heavens are rotating in the opposite direction around the Earth.

          • Yeah, now go back and learn how Foucault pendulums are bullshit, g.johnon… or just keep thinking you’re right like Al Mather, Ken S. and all the other shills…. I couldn’t care less 🙂

          • g.johnon

            well if you couldn’t care less, why you in here whining about it flat earth man?
            now just go join up the the luddites and your life should be complete.

          • You’ve already joined up with the luddites, g.johnon, haven’t you noticed? 🙂

            Like I said, your focault pendulums are bullshit and highlight the fact that you’re flinging shit against the wall hoping something will stick… not my problem and no, I really don’t care what you think. What I post is true regardless of your opinions, the truth doesn’t need a consensus.

          • g.johnon

            yeah, rolly, how can a guy who is so freaking keen on what is happening in certain political areas of existence be such an amazing troglodyte concerning other areas?
            you will get uniform (predictable) variations in the focault arc depending on what latitude its axis point is set in. other variations (minor) will occur depending on the resistance and friction factor in the rigging of the pendulum. beyond that. you are pretty much full of shit.
            and. the latitude axis point variance is even further proof that the earth is a spinning sphere.
            so much for your circular horseshit. go learn, then speak. and back your ass up with something other than insults.

          • No, g.johnon, you are full of shit. Foucault pendulums are a proven hoax and if you actually spent the time trying to learn about the topic instead of merely trying to prove me wrong for the sake of proving me wrong because you hate me you’d figure that out yourself.

            You’ve been staring at a completely flat horizon line, not ellipses, not curve, but LINE your entire life. This same, eye-level line is visible whether you are on a boat looking out at the sea, in a plane 38,000ft above earth, or over 100,000ft above earth. Same eye-level, FLAT horizon line.

            PS: I noticed you had nothing for me concerning my questions to you about landing strips, flight times and helicopters.. hmmmm….. Wake up, dude! Truth isn’t a popularity contest, I mean, look at me on here right now, outnumbered, does it matter? Nope! The truth is still the truth whether you can see it or not and it’s still true even if there’s only one guy saying it.

            Wanna learn about this instead of pretending you already know it all? Here is a good start: http://www.mediafire.com/file/l679prcg097ny8u/200+Proofs+Earth+is+Not+a+Spinning+Ball!.pdf

          • Polak

            My goodness,are you for real or are you just being funny? If you are for real then it’s time to go to school and get an Education.

          • Gary

            By education, I’m assuming you mean Mason Indoctrination. Because anyone with a simple understanding of trignometry and an open mind can disprove the ball Earth theory.

          • Polak

            Well you have not succeed yet.

          • Gary

            You might not have understood the disproving of ball-Earth theory. This doesn’t mean the theory wasn’t disproved.

          • Polak

            convince me otherewise.

          • Gary

            Not my job.

            But for those who are interested, the Chicago skyline can be seen from the Michigan shoreline, 60 miles away. On a ball-Earth, the skyline would be below the horizon at such a distance.

          • Polak

            Your claim,burden of proof is on you,did you bother to read link I provided?

          • Gary

            Yeah, same old lies. “It can’t happen because the Earth is a ball”, “People are lying when they say it does happen”, “Well, what you observed was actually a mirage ’cause it couldn’t happen on a ball Earth”. Heliocentricity is a rather boring theory, don’t you think? It seems to be unfalsifiable, just like religion. 🙂

          • Polak

            I just want to clear up one thing,is it correct that you are saying the earth is not round? And if that is what you are saying,then tell me what the Earth is, A sphere, A,square,A triangle,Or FLAT?

          • Gary

            Earth can be relatively round and flat. My belief is that it is not a ball spinning around an enormous sun.

          • Polak

            The Earth can not be round AND flat.So how do you explain sunset and sunrise?

          • Gary

            So how do you describe a circle?

          • Polak

            round

          • Gary

            Its also flat.

          • Polak

            You are entitled to your beliefs,I believe in Santa Claus but it does not make it true.

          • Polak

            Well then can you explain sunset and sunrise?

          • Gary

            Perspective. Sun too far to be seen before sunrise and after sunset (sun circles the North pole). As sun nears observer, it appears overhead. This is similar to the effect of viewing flying birds – in the distance, they appear closer to the horizon, up closer, they appear overhead, in the distance again, closer to the horizon.

          • Polak

            Have you ever thought of stand up comedy,you would be great

          • Gary

            Nope. NASA beats me hands down every time in the comedy department.

            I liked the time when they nearly drowned the diver/actor in the pool, and proceeded to explain that it was due to a spacesuit malfunction. The “Mars landings” also bring a smile to my face.

            The all time classics for me are the images appearing to be “some kind of mock-up that someone cobbled together in their backyard to make fun of NASA”, and selling to the ignorant world these images as actually “an extremely high-tech manned spacecraft capable of landing on the surface of the Moon.”

            http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-2/

          • Polak

            Sorry can not waste my time on you,feel free to answer but I won’t

          • Al Mather

            If that were true… the sun would appear as a tiny speck on the horizon and get larger and larger as it approached…..reaching full diameter overhead… then shrink to a tiny speck on the opposite horizon… because THAT is how perspective works.

            As opposed to this

            The sun actually rises and remains the exact same diameter it’s entire transit.

            Are you just looking for opportunities to get spanked again?

          • Gary

            The sun is actually the smallest at mid-day, and its largest at sunrise and sunset. This is due to diffraction of the sun’s light being minimal when it is overhead, and maximal at its furthest horizontal distances.

          • Al Mather

            If it travelled across a flat earth from beyond our field of vision ..it would ..according to the laws of perspective …

            (actual perspective…not Rogers magical super powered flat earth perspective that makes things spin in reverse and magically appear in various direction and swallows up large objects from the bottom up)

            …appear as a small light on our horizon getting ever larger till local apogee…then reverse… IT DOESN’T DO THAT.

            Light filters remove atmospheric distortion and allow us to see a more exact dimension.

          • That was a remarkable atmospheric event. No, Chicago is not visible from the coast of Michigan. Why are you lying?

          • Al Mather

            Hilarious that these 2 morons seek out these exact same anomalies, and try to sell them over and over and over as “proofs”..
            We’re supposed to just buy in…and be oblivious to the fact that, if what they are trying to prove was actually real…we would see this phenomenon EVERYWHERE we look in practically every direction…it would be inarguable and undeniable to ALL… every city, building, mountain, etc..would be visible from 60 -80-100 miles away.

            But instead of a million examples… there’s just this one…….(That everyone involved with it calls a mirage)

          • Hell, if Earth was flat, wouldn’t they be able to do a laser reflector experiment on a straight line between Colorado and Nepal? Shouldn’t even be that expensive compared to bouncing a beam off the moon!

          • Al Mather

            You could now…except………Perspective.

          • Jeranism tried that but the laser dissipates but you’re right, if the laser didn’t dissipate you could indeed do that. In his experiment the beam ended up over 10ft wide I think…

          • So, what you’re saying is he couldn’t shine a laser from Colorado to Nepal?

          • Gary

            Why are you accepting the proof in one sentence, denying it in the next, and accusing me of lying for stating it in the third?

          • It is not a proof. It is a lie to misrepresent an unusual atmospheric inversion as evidence of a flat Earth. It is false that Chicago is visible from the coast of Michigan. That’s a lie. It was visible, fuzzy and upside-down, once. Why was it upside-down if the Earth is flat?

          • Gary

            If it was visible, fuzzy and upside-down once, why are there time lapse videos of it?

          • I don’t know! Where are the time-lapse videos of it?

          • Gary

          • Al Mather

            Some of Joshuas earlier videos show the city skyline appearing out of nowhere…dissappearing and re-appearing .. Even the one you post above displays the inversion lines stretching and distorting the buildings.

            https://flatearthinsanity.blogspot.com/2016/07/chicago-skyline-looming-from-mi.html

          • Gary

            It requires clear weather conditions, Al. Under most conditions near sea level, the atmosphere blocks landmarks at distances great enough to convincingly disprove ball-Earth. When such conditions are clear enough to allow such a disproof, and it is proved on the balance of probabilities, ball-Earthers simply cry “mirage” and cover their ears.

            You choose to believe in many mirages. I believe in much fewer, amongst them the ball-Earth theory.

          • Al Mather

            You neglect to explain the distortion of the buildings. The very sudden appearing and disappearing of the entire city skyline.

            ” Under most conditions near sea level, the atmosphere blocks landmarks at distances great enough to convincingly disprove ball-Earth. ”

            Why does the atmosphere only seems to block the bottoms of “landmarks at distances “….? Yet we see the upper portions so broadly and clearly right down to the horizon line. Even in your “proof” the lower third of Chicago is gone.

            Show me a few thousand more Gary… these “proofs” would be all around us. You can not…because they are not…which is why you Flat Earth morons seek out , and cling to your little anomalies… like your famous mirage.

          • Gary

            Perspective, Al. As we’ve discussed, a telescope brings more of the bottoms of those landmarks back into view. This would not be possible if the landmarks were being obscured by Earth’s curvature.

          • Al Mather

            Show us all one example of the lower half of a large obscured object being brought back into view Gary…

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c31cf26ef63d9e6bfa14d99df4ae13d88ce45e33e285e23de247d1d7796ca1d1.jpg

          • Gary

            Its Not Paranoia posted the video the other week, Al, showing the flat sea horizon, then showing on zoom in an entire boat, then on zoom out nothing again. You just shilled it away. Most of us know you’re only here to deceive. Those who don’t – it’ll only take reading a few of your posts. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Haha…you don’t have one do you?

            BECAUSE it can’t happen.

            It should /would be the easiest proof in the world to create… You Fellate earth morons make the claim ALL the time …a telescope brings back LOWER PORTION of obscured objects.

            You can’t provide one…Paranoids didn’t bring back anything it just zoomed in on a small boat..as predicted…

            By all means …show it again ,and explain to us what lower portion reappeared…would love to watch you embarrass yourself even further.

            I’m starting to believe that you are just one of those guys that enjoys public humiliation… spankings.. and the like . It’s the only logical explanation for why you so passionately make claims that you KNOW you have no proof of ,and will only be laughed at and ridiculed for making ….tsk…tsk…tsk

          • Gary

            They’re not hard to find online for anyone who cares to look, Al. For those who are paid to pretend they don’t exist, no evidence will be enough.

          • Al Mather

            Show us a few Gar….They’d be everywhere…. right?

            I haven’t found one that BRINGS THE OBSCURED LOWER PORTION BACK…

            We all know telescopes allow you to see small things or distant things as if they were closer. But you moron’s claim that a telescope or zoom….BRINGS THE OBSCURED LOWER PORTION BACK.

            Set me straight … reveal my treachery and lies!… Lol.

          • Gary
          • Al Mather

            Maybe I should reitterate ….

            “I haven’t found one that BRINGS THE OBSCURED LOWER PORTION BACK”

            “It should /would be the easiest proof in the world to create… You Fellate earth morons make the claim ALL the time …a telescope brings back LOWER PORTION of obscured objects.
            Yet you can’t even provide one.”

            So …Eric DuBay …the flat earth moron… ****SAYS ****that a telescope brings back the hull of obscured ships and objects….

            BUT…*****FAILS****…to provide us with any footage of such.

            I’m sure it’s a simple misunderstanding on your part and you will be right back to us with and example of a telescope or zoom lens restoring the LOWER PORTION of something OBSCURED back into view.

          • Gary

            Watch the video again, Al. It brings the entire boat back – the entire boat was obscured.

          • Al Mather

            Point us to the timing on that Gary…. all I see is a buoy …so small it wasn’t visible in the unzoomed video…zoomed in on …with it’s base still obscured.
            You wouldn’t be attempting a weak and disingenuous lie about THAT being SOMETHING WITH A LOWER PORTION OBSCURED BEING BROUGHT BACK INTO VIEW….would you??

            WHAT YOU HAVE CLAIMED… is we will see AN OBJECT with an OBSCURED LOWER PORTION…. then upon zooming that OBSCURED LOWER PORTION…will become visible.

            We’ll wait…should be easy…there would be examples everywhere we look if it were possible.

          • Gary

            0:16 – entire boat visible. 0:37 – 0:40 – totally gone. “Over the Earth’s curve”, as a globalist would believe.

          • Al Mather

            Tsk…Tsk….Tsk…. Gary… I’m almost embarrassed FOR you …almost guilty that you would feel so cornered by your own BS that you’d feel you had to make that comment!
            It’s okay to say ” oops …I thought that was some lower portion of an object..obscured by the horizon.. brought back over with a zoom…. guess I was wrong..”

            I mean c’mon Gar… do you not grasp the concept here?? Something obscured…like the lower portion of a ship or building…BROUGHT BACK OVER the horizon ???
            That was just a little buoy from far away… nothing OBSCURED to start with… nothing brought back.
            Extremely lame attempt conspirotard….

          • Gary

            The boat, upfront at first, disappeared over the horizon on zoom-out. You little shiller, you. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            A LIE…..Flat out …transparent…right there for all to see.

            You’ve got nothing. Can’t provide any evidence…can’t do anything but engage in baseless …childish …denial.

            YOU HAVE LOST. Tsk…Tsk…Tsk

          • Gary

            Who are you trying to convince, Al? Its not the blind, because they can’t see your comment. And those with sight can verify it is you who are the liar simply by watching the video. Perhaps you’re hoping to convince those without Youtube access? Or perhaps you’re counting on your accomplices at Youtube taking the video down?

            I really know, but I don’t want to waste my time on you, either. I’m not paid to shill.

          • Al Mather

            Nothing obscured by the horizon comes back… You have been cornered in your own stupidity by having to back up you claim… Which you can not….

            So you post a long distance zoom in a FE conspirotard video… and ..as always..LIE… NO OBJECT is visible with its base obscured…NOTHING is brought back with a zoom.TOTAL FAIL.

            YOU HAVE LOST….and go out with a pretty pathetic whimper.

            Haha…”my accomplices at Youtube”…classic Gary. It’s time for you to cry “shill!” and run away now Gary. Buh-bye…

          • Gary

            Whatever, Al. Knock over the pieces, crap on the chess board, fly back to your flock and coo about the victory you imagined. Your lies are obvious to anyone who can read. 🙂

          • Okay, so if you’re just gonna lie about your own video, how about explaining tides for me?

          • Al Mather

            Chess ? Exposing your ridiculous claims isn’t chesslike…more like shooting fish in a barrel….Lol!
            I’m not talking to some “flock” Gary….I’m talking to you…You lost.
            I get a kick out of the fact that no matter how foolish it makes you look… you keep trying though. Tsk….tsk.

          • Well! Clearly I was mistaken about the mirage being upside-down. You got me there, I thought that was always a feature of these kinds of optical effects.

            There’s time-lapse footage because it was a notable event and a photographer took multiple pictures over a period of time.

            http://www.abc57.com/story/31830937/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

          • Gary

            One can’t see or measure the Earth’s curvature. One can see beyond where the Earth’s curvature should prohibit vision, if it were a ball. I think the only mirages here are ball-Earth theory and heliocentricity.

          • It does prohibit vision below the horizon, yes.

          • Gary

            Unless it doesn’t, and then you call it a mirage. That’s actually the no-true-Scotsman logical fallacy. 🙂

          • Then why can’t you see Chicago from Michigan today?

          • Gary

            How do you know you can’t? 🙂

          • Because it was newsworthy when a photographer was able to do it!

          • Gary

            So you don’t know.

          • I know that it would be absurd for multiple news outlets to write up stories about it if it was normal. Therefore, I can safely conclude that no, Chicago is not visible from Michigan.

          • Gary

            The logical fallacies for this argument are bandwagon and appeal to authority. 🙂

          • Then your position is that ABC57, KFVS12, PBS-WGBH, WOOD-TV, the Detroit Free Press, and several other outlets have decided to lie about the normal state of the horizon and offer an explanation for a completely normal view? That seems a little far-fetched to me. It’s also odd to me that something in your normal line of sight would appear upside-down sometimes. Call it an appeal to authority if you want, but it would be very odd for them all to contradict you for no reason.

          • Gary

            Its a natural human response to deny what one believes to be impossible, or endeavour to explain it using a paradigm one believes to be true.

            If one sees a ghost or a UFO, but doesn’t believe in ghosts or UFOs, one will endeavour to explain the phenomenum according to one’s understanding of how the world works.

            All the outlets you list could easily have fallen for the same appeal to authority logical fallacy of a handful of scientists, who in turn have fallen for the bandwagon logical fallacy. These groups don’t and didn’t need to knowingly deceive.

            The view of Chicago from Michigan was not upside down, or one would be justified in claiming it to be a mirage.

            To conclude the view was a mirage, one needs evidence, which you do not have.

          • It has been upside-down before, from the same area!

            http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/05/06/weather-mirage-chicago-skyline-lake-michigan/70902190/

            Why would Chicago appear upside down if it was in simple line of sight of Bridgman?

          • Gary

            Mirage seems a logical explanation for this occurrence, if true.

            Just because one sees a mirage doesn’t mean one cannot also see the source of the mirage.

          • So how about proving that Chicago is always visible from Michigan? You up for that?

          • Gary

            I think we both know that’s not true. The atmosphere often limits visibility.

          • Excuses, excuses…

          • Gary

            You don’t get out much, do you? Mountains and hills often start going invisible (fading to blue) at short distances where I live (in the order of kilometers, or 10s of kilometers). I’d imagine its the same where you live, too.

          • That’s a pretty convenient excuse. I want proof that it’s normal to see Chicago from Michigan. I want a photograph of a person standing in Michigan, with the Chicago skyline behind them, with a copy of today’s newspaper.

          • Al Mather

            Your original post (mirage) had 1/2 to 1/3 of Chicago below the horizon…yet clear wide views of buildings we SHOULD be able to see the bottoms of if the earth were flat.
            FAIL.

          • Gary

            Read up on perspective Al. That’s not the case.

          • Al Mather

            Wrong.Lie.

            FAIL.

          • Gary
          • Why is there water in front of the bottoms of the buildings?

          • Al Mather

            Unsourced… Chicago is visible just like this (partially obscured) from Beverly dunes and Indiana Dunes……

          • Al Mather

            “All the outlets you list could easily have fallen for the same appeal to authority logical fallacy of a handful of scientists, who in turn have fallen for the bandwagon logical fallacy. These groups don’t and didn’t need to knowingly deceive.”

            These are all local media outlets… if they all reported that there was a rare atmospheric event allowing Chicago to be visible where it normally wasn’t…don’t you think they would be met with a flood of viewers calling them on it ??

            Yet here they are doing follow up that explains how when they ran the story …flat earth morons picked tried to claim it as one of their “proofs”..
            seems wherever FE morons surface they amuse people with their delusion.

            http://www.abc57.com/story/31830937/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

          • Gary

            People have been claiming this for years, Al, with it being denied by heliocentrists based on the Earth’s pupported curvature. Now that the evidence is available to all, they’re changing tune and calling it a mirage. Can’t let their beloved theory die just yet.

          • Al Mather

            Show us …show us where people have been claiming Chicago was visible …without a temperature inversion…for years.

          • Gary

            Do the research yourself. Its readily available online. If you’re interested, you’ll find it. If you’re a shill just wasting my time (heh, heh, heh, Al), you won’t bother. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            If I make a claim…I back it up.
            It’s an integrity thing. Something Fellate earthers lack.

          • Polak
          • Gary

            Do some research. All “proofs” of heliocentrism refuted very easily on most sites refuting heliocentrism.

          • That’s called an indoctrination, Polak, education is something you can only get on your own. Don’t get too dizzy on me spinning on your ball, now. 🙂

          • Polak

            What on earth are you babbling about.

        • A round, spinning globe is perfectly consistent with physical, optical, geological, meteorological, and astronomical observations. No flat Earth model is.

          • Gary

            ‘Cept for Polaris seen in the Southern hemisphere. And lighthouses being seen through the Earth’s curvature (if its really curved). And surveyors etc. not correcting for Earth’s curvature… The list goes on.

          • What? You can’t see Polaris from almost any of the Southern hemisphere, lighthouses are not visible through the Earth’s curvature, and surveyors do account for the Earth’s curvature. Just because you tell a lie doesn’t make it evidence.

          • Gary

            Are you saying that if the above are true, this is evidence/proof that the Earth is flat?

            Because these are some of the many evidences used by those who reject heliocentrism.

          • If your claims weren’t lies, then yes, they would support a flat Earth hypothesis.

          • Gary

            Okay, so we agree on methodology, its just a question of whether what I and others claim as facts are actually facts.

          • Have you ever been to the Southern hemisphere?

          • LOL! He lives in Australia!

          • Oh! Well, that answers that, unless you’re lying.

          • Well I’d have to by lying in the first place for that to be true, shill boy 🙂

          • Who do you imagine I’m shilling for, anyway?

          • Vaccine manufacturers.

          • Oh, I thought you were gonna say NASA or something. Fair enough.

          • Gary

            I live there.

          • Well, that answers that! Have you been to the northern hemisphere, then?

          • Gary

            The Northern Hemisphere, yes.

          • Al Mather

            You just “admitted” to living in a hemiSPHERE…. if we were conspirotard idiots that would constitute solid undeniable empirical evidence. Lol!!

          • Oh, nice catch! Should be the Outer Ring, huh?

          • Gary

            What do you think a dome is, Al? 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Not a hemisphere necessarily…a round vault over a building or structure forming a roof…

            Are you claiming to know the shape and dimensions of your imaginary dome?
            Do tell…

          • Gary

            A hemisphere is a dome, Al.

          • Al Mather

            Incorrect. I just cut a grapefruit in half…is it a dome?

          • Gary

            Is it a hemisphere?

          • Al Mather

            For the purposes of furthering the discussion …let’s say yes.

          • Gary

            For the purpose of closing this discussion, I would point out that according to the mathematical definition of a sphere, you are incorrect.

          • Al Mather

            Run away! Lol.

          • Gary

            That’s actually called a victory, Al. You’ve been spanked uphill and down dale by Я0llyJ0g3r, myself, and a number of others, and after each sore bottom, you think by posting a silly comment like the above at the end which we do not respond to, we’re running away? Lol. You really should work for NASA directly (if you don’t already).

            If you really want the discussion to continue, you should share the reason you used the non-mathematical definition, and the game can continue. This said, I’m not paid by the post, and have a real life and real work to get on with, so sometimes, must decline to bust yourself and the pathetic myths you hold in such reverence. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            It’s a good thing you identify yours and Roger’s “victories” for everybody ,Gar.

            Because to the reader it just appears as if you make idiotic claims…try to defend them …till you see where it’s going then either claim you’re too busy …the other person is a “shill”… or spout some delusional denial of reality.

            dome (dōm)
            n.
            1.
            a. A roof or vault having a circular, polygonal, or elliptical base and a generally hemispherical or semispherical shape.
            b. A geodesic dome.
            2. A domelike structure or object.
            3. Geology Any of various natural structures having a rounded shape, especially:
            a. A system of strata that is uplifted in the center, forming a concentric anticline.
            b. A mass of granite that has been weathered into a rounded shape by exfoliation.
            c. A mound formed by the extrusion of viscous lava from a volcano.
            4. Chemistry A form of crystal with two similarly inclined faces that meet at an edge parallel to the horizontal axis.
            5. Slang The human head.
            6. Archaic A large, stately building.

            That is as complete a definition as I initially could find…I assumed we could dispense with the geologic,and chemical,slang or circular definitions. So …my point is …because something is hemispheric it is NOT necessarily a dome … and vice versa.

            AND… since you claimed to live in the southern hemisphere..and have been to the northern hemisphere.. trying to go back and claim you really were claiming to live in a dome…is ..as per usual for you …totally transparent BS.

          • Gary

            Ooh, I like definitions 1b and 2, don’t you, Al? I find them somewhat… vindicating. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            How so?
            I know you see victories in all your defeats … but please explain.

            I understand what a dome is Gary…YOU claimed to live in a southern hemisphere… and have traveled to the northern.

            Again…..my point is …because something is hemispheric it is NOT necessarily a dome … and vice versa.

          • Gary

            It seems you’ve forgotten who started this, Al. Perhaps your night shift relief didn’t bother to read the comments made on day shift? Let me refresh your memory.

            “You just “admitted” to living in a hemiSPHERE…. if we were
            conspirotard idiots that would constitute solid undeniable empirical
            evidence. Lol!!”

            I pointed out that a hemisphere was a dome, entirely consistent with a flat Earth. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            Yes well someone always makes a point before the other person responds….

            A dome CAN BE ( but not necessarily) a hemisphere… You claimed to live in the SOUTHERN hemisphere… and having been to the NORTHERN hemisphere….

            Gary…you miss the point entirely..I know you were just explaining you lived in Australia…

            My REAL point is that THAT TINY little choice of words that could (should ) be interpreted literally … in Flat Earth Conspirotard World …. would be absolute undeniable PROOF!! A signed confession!

          • Gary

            No, because as you admit, a hemisphere can be a dome. But valiant try. 🙂

          • Al Mather

            No what?

            Of course a Hemisphere can be a dome …and vice versa.

            You seems very confused on this issue Gary…are you well?

          • Mike Stevens

            Is it a dome?
            That is the question.

          • So you can’t see Polaris.

    • Nikos

      lol, don’t speak like humpty dumpty.

    • The word planet translates to “wandering star” so the planets are stars also.

    • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

      You win the Inocherenceman Award of Unhinginess!

      I’m almost as embarrassed for you as you would be if you were self-aware.

      • John

        If you really are a reverend you should be ashamed of yourself to say this as it shows that you deny the Word of God and are incompetent to be God’s representative. If you aren’t but just use that name then it’s understandable.

        • g.johnon

          if you do not understand the difference between the word of god (who does not exist by the way) and the word of your sodden preacher, you really should be embarrassed to stand up and speak in public.

          • John

            You will find out that God does exist when you stand before him to be judged for how you lived your life. I pray that you would reconsider now and ask Jesus to forgive your sins so that you would not have to go to the lake of fire, but instead you could spend eternity with God in heaven. Up to you…..

          • g.johnon

            i will find out that god exists the moment “he” introduces “him”self in person. beyond that,, i have no problem with putting the way i live my life in front of any judge.
            you be afraid of lakes of fire and judgement; i prefer not to waist my time.

          • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

            If there really was a god, there’d be proof.

            All you have is a nice story that you want to be true.

            Not everyone thinks so highly of your amoral godling.

          • John

            When you say “If there really was a god…” It’s obvious you are a fake reverend.

        • ReverendDraco✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ ᵃᶜᶜᵒᵘᶰᵗ

          I really am a reverend, and I’m not shamed to point out mythology masquerading as reality.

          You seem to have this problem with your brain being missing.

          • endofwatchersbegan1/28/2011

            Listen, little priest of the dragon, you and your Jesuit satanist overlords FINAL HOUR already began, and you are IGNORANT of it. You and your master Lucifer will soon be standing in a lake of fire, beside all your weak little Watcher gods you sacrifice to. Little Jesuit satanist concubine SUCK. The head of the serpent is being CRUSHED right now, and you are oblivious to the FACT of it. Darkness will be your permanent covering, NOT light. Lucifer’s light will be EXTINGUISHED within a decade, and so will you. …Wanna bet?

  • Rivenburg

    Be where the next landers should go if real. Photos of weird things on the moon are attention getting also unlike the damned stupid Mars “face”. NOBODY is going to build massive “art” on mars, it’s either useful or it’s natural. Sheeple get distracted by shiny BS like the stupid face and this claim of “like Gaza” (which it is obviously NOT) but if this IS actually a picture from Mars, then it is probably artificial. Distracts me 🙂

  • Ranger_Ric

    THREE MASSIVE “TOWERS” FOUND ON MARS LAID OUT IN SAME PATTERN AS EGYPTIAN PYRAMIDS AT GIZA”

    Not hardly. It does not take an engineers eye or a straightedge to see the above headline isn’t true.

    Why do people have to exaggerate and make stuff up like that? Instead of concentrating on the image and the theories surrounding them, people always have to mix in some BS to discredit themselves.

  • Richard

    Maybe the govt will get so broke it can charge money for flights there on their TR3B’s

  • Al Mather

    Wow…well …if a Youtube user named Mondesconocido says that that is a pic of Mars from NASA… I guess it has to be true.. right?… I mean..there’s never any BS on Youtube..Right?

    • jaguar

      Really ? There has been many man-made artifacts filmed on Mars and the moon…Guess you don’t keep up on world news…

      • Al Mather

        I bet you’re all up to speed though… All the amazing unexplained YouTube “discoveries “.

  • YeahRightOkay

    …I thought this was The Daily Sheeple…not…Coast to Coast AM…

  • jim_robert
  • Disqusted1776

    Looks fake

  • Phil_Ossifer

    Classic example of something that has to be believed to be seen.

  • ahuxley

    Breaking:
    This just in.
    NASA has issued a press statement declaring these images to be the result of a combination of a crashed weather balloon from the 1940s, swamp gas and Michelle Obama’s nether regional, gravitational formation of several interplanetary objects…
    Go figure, and I thought it was aliens…

  • SP_88

    So far every picture of something on Mars has turned out to be something natural. The face of Mars was just a hill and a shadow.
    What will this turn out to be? A close up of three ingrown hairs? A booger on the lens? Or perhaps three of those Bugles, corn chips stuck in the sand at the beach?
    If it is a real picture of Mars, it still could be a natural feature.

  • Nexusfast123

    All these advances in camera technology and it still looks like a drunk took the pic after he had licked the lens.

  • It is not Paranoia

    You see towers on Mars, I see black dots on some kind of rusty texture.

  • HWR

    They’re trolling for more shekels.

  • BelieveItorNot

    Harry, Curly and Moe?

    Or, more fake phallic imagery by NBC?

    Years-old phallic imagery from Mars rover sparks a fresh wave of titters
    Wednesday Apr 24, 2013 10:45 AM