wolfy

Because you lose light to your eye bottom up.

Can you explain what you saw and how it happened? Did the ship just disappear or did it start to vanish from hull to mast? Was it viewed from it's port or starboard sides or stern? Also how many miles approximately was it away from you and what was the weather like.

I don't believe in stars as we are told in them being large suns and their distances. What they are, are reflections of whatever is inside of this Earth centre. That's just my personal opinion and I'm not asking anyone to follow it.

Of course it's pretty simple stuff. You've been told it does this. Simple as. What is the physical reality. The star ship enterprise is a big ship going from planet to planet and through star gates, etc. Pretty simple stuff to understand but what is it we are understanding? You mention pull of the moon with tides and yet the moon is supposedly not only 1/6th of Earth's gravity, being apparently 4 times smaller, it also manages to affect all tides around the supposed globe at once. How? Or are you going to bring the massive ball of fire into the equation for the other tides on the other part of the globe? What about this equatorial bulge? What happens there with this moon pull? We're supposed to believe that the Earth has the moon on a piece of invisible wire stopping it from launching into supposed space. Orbits go totally against logic when looking at a ball. Has anyone wondered why the moon only shows us one face all the time? I'm sure some have had some explanation as to why. If you haven't then look it up. Is it possible that the moon in that sky in something other than a solid body of a sphere? I know, I understand many will cite the moon landings of the late 60's to early 70's. Sending 3000 ton manned rockets into space and on to the moon and back. THREE THOUSAND TONNES. Anyway that's a separate debate. All I'm saying is for people to actually question stuff for themselves if interested. If not then nothing lost.

It doesn't disappear over the horizon. It vanishes into the distance because our vision can only see so far before atmospheric density shuts out light over distance horizontally.

100%. If that was possible, then I would never question anything again. The real question is....are you able to? It would totally change my view. The question is, is there that PHYSICAL proof? The answer is NO. There could well be a class of people living separately away from us. I actually can't say one way or the other but I certainly wouldn't rule anything out. We are only told Earth is a ball and shown stitched together pictures of a supposed ball. The reality could well be massively different. All I say to people is, question stuff. Do it for your own leisure, just to see if things add up or not in terms of logic. Nobody needs to shout it from the roof tops, but just merely looking into stuff a little bit deeper can show up lots of stuff that beg questions. Like I said before...it's entirely up to the individual and generally peer pressure in life usually stops most of us from daring to venture outside of the box we've been given to dwell inside of. When you actually take a look around you and see the people in Government and MP's, doesn't it cross your mind that these people are only potential puppets for a bigger agenda? I don't want to argue politics I'm basically just saying that these people are just following a protocol in reality. The whole shebang is compartmentalised. Peter doesn't know what Paul is doing, etc. Let's be fair. Why argue something like Earth? Why argue moon stuff? Why argue mars stuff or pluto fly by jobs. Why even argue politics or even currency? We do it because we have questions. Some have simple questions and others have more in depth. As long as the questions are deemed easy going and legitimate about normal acts in everyday life, then everything is fine. Go against official lines and the shutters go up and the official ridicule comes out. This is what happens when you ask the wrong questions. I can only best guess a lot of stuff, yet I can honestly say that we are being duped about what Earth is.

Do large magnets attract weaker magnets ? Does your Earth have a north and south magnetic pole? If so, then tell me about how it repels and attracts with the moon whilst also sorting out the tides. I don't recall saying you did. I was the one mentioning that it must work like that, if you go by that. No rambling here. Just airing my thoughts as you are. Guess what? I was in the very same boat. I was caught in it all and believed it all from child to adult, so I can hardly be having a pop at anyone, as I've already mentioned, of which you clearly know. If you want to ramble on about it then be my guest. What have any of us understood about what we were taught as regards this stuff? Nobody knows what gravity is. Nobody. Nobody really knows what space orbits are. Of course, many people profess to know what it all is. If I'm wrong, tell me what gravity is, not what it does. And then tell me what an orbit is and how it actually works to be a legitimate orbit that you're convinced you know it correct. You don't have to answer of course, but I'm merely putting it to you that what people think they know about this stuff, they really only know what's been placed before them and regurgitate that. we all spend our lives doing just that. Hanging onto supposed provable science that is anything but, yet it's all supposedly backed up with nonsense equations and gobbledygook to amaze and baffle the mind, deliberately.

If that were the case, wouldn't you think the Earth would pull the moon apart being that it has 6 times more supposed gravity? You see, what you say is all fine and dandy as merely a saying. There's absolutely no real proof just as there is absolutely no real proof as to my theory, except that theories towards a flattish/concave Earth have a body of water that is physically flat and level. You mention the Earth being a north and south pole magnet, yet that would suggest repelling and attracting and yet you say the moon s magnet with just one face facing us, somehow plays the grabbing and stretching game at both supposed Earth poles, as well as all surrounding areas of a supposed globe? It makes no sense at all, except in fantasy. The Earth is supposedly an oblate spheroid. It supposedly bulges at the equator and yet we don't see the water being stretched out to leave it all at both poles. The global Earth theory relies on literal fantasy and magic to actually make it work. People defend it because, well, why not? Let's be fair. It's all people know, in the main, so anyone coming along and spouting any alternative to it, is guaranteed to be looked at like a crank or verbally abused by some. Why? Because it's human nature to do that. If I thought what we've been schooled into made any real rational sense, I wouldn't be opposing it with any alternate theory. I would have accepted it. The trouble is, a globe Earth spinning in space at a 23.5 degree angle around a 850, 000 mile diameter ball of fire and just happens to stay there whilst also taking an elliptical orbit around this supposed ball of space fire. Nobody seems to look at this stuff in any critical way. They just accept that it is what it is, just as most people accept that a space probe spent a decade going to pluto by using a nuclear battery and managed to get right on it, working absolutely fine. People believe all this stuff because it's officially told to them by supposed genius scientists who just happen to know the mapping of a supposed universe into the billions and billions of miles of which communication is basically a piece of cake and works like a dream. Anything can be made to work when the average human being have no way to prove otherwise, physically. And yet I'm the fruit loop for questioning this utter tripe.

They don't exist.

Apparently it proved that water is flat and level and does not curve. The actual major issue is in the fact that in this day and age with the technology we have, you'd think this issue could be put to bed and yet it is still not proved either way as to what Earth actually is in any physical fashion, except for stitched together supposed photo's of it from supposed space. Everyone can physically see that water finds its own level and yet they're happy to be duped into believing it actually sits fine around a ball in space.

I have my own theories, not copied one's. I can't get them from youtube.

By going through all the theories what we are told to accept and realising that they require magic to actually work. Basic natural science scuppering what mainstream scientists give out as a truth. Extreme logical reality against their extreme nonsensical garbage. Curved water and atmosphere that adhere to a rotating Earth carrying everything along with it whether it's on the ground or in the air. Atmosphere just staying as part of it and not being lost to the space that we are told exists in how they tell us. The list goes on and on but basic natural science scuppers it with stuff like water level and the actual atmospheric movement, etc. That's my thoughts on it, you're entitled to have whatever thoughts you go with.

Because I know the Earth is not a spinning globe. I'm 100% certain of that in my mind regardless of what anyone thinks it is.

Nope, I still don't have a clue. Do you know?

Take what I say with a pinch of salt if you're dead against any of it. I have no issues with you accepting absolutely anything and everything told to you by official sources and I also have no issues with what you think of my theories/thoughts or whatever. You're entitled to think what you want to. I'm in no position to dictate what people do or don't do. All I say is, if you're interested in any of this stuff, then question some of it and see where it takes you, regardless of what I say.

I haven't got a clue to that answer.

It's entirely up to each individual what they take from anything I say. Nobody has to take anything of my theory as a truth or even a small percentage of it if they feel it's not worth thinking about. I think questioning a ball spinning in space with oceans and what not just adhered to it, requires deep questioning, not to mention all the rest of it. the problem is, it goes against the grain and people in the main do not like to go against the grain for very obvious reasons. The truth is that most people don't give a toss about gravity and a ball Earth or whatever...well, not enough to actually argue/debate it in an y meaningful fashion. It's much easier to just go about life without giving much thought to all this stuff, for most. I tend to agree but I have a sceptical mind, so I tend to question a lot of the stuff. If something doesn't sit right, it's worth questioning. If evidence is weak but still there, then keeping a hunch isn't a bad thing until more evidence comes to the fore.

Yes, if the evidence actually does prove a truth, otherwise it's circumstantial. Photographs and videos can and do get faked in all kinds of ways. You know this, so how can I accept any of it?

And so far, nobody has proved anything.

Like I said to you earlier. I will accept proof of anything that goes against my thoughts, from anyone that actually has the proof. If you want to take me through this proof and debunk anything I'm saying, or even just convincing me that you actually know what you are actually presenting, as a truth, then you will destroy my thoughts and make me evaluate future thoughts, or other thoughts. Can you do this or not?

Student or a fully qualified university standard professor would be fine. It won't change anything but feel free to arrange anything you see fit. I'm saying I won't accept any attempted debunking by people who profess to know the truth without actually knowing the truth. No, not at all. I'm not asking anyone to do anything. It's entirely up to each individual what they do or what they glean from anything I say. Use it as a thinking exercise and ask your own questions or go against it. Either way is fine. That'll be because I didn't have a grammar student at hand. I'll try and get one for next time.

Thanks for your concern. Yeah, Parky's doing ok. He's putting his own thoughts forward as well as trying to debunk mine. I accept all scrutiny of it but I won't accept scrutiny of it that produces no debunking of it by the usage of theories that are totally unproven. When you do all of this and prove me wrong, I promise I'll never question another thing.