The Rod of God -- (!) Pages 33 and 34 (!)

[mvscal]

1. Dude, the buildings should be GONE COMPLETELY from view if the earth curves as you've ASSured us it does.

They are "GONE COMPLETELY from view" except for the four very tallest buildings. They should all be clearly visible if the earth is flat. How do you explain this phenomena?

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

How do you explain this phenomena?

Witchcraft.




I'll get the kindling...

[Jay in Phoenix]

stfu

That's the best you can do? After all of the logical, factual points and questions that have been raised, by EVERY poster in this thread other than your dumb ass, all you can manage is, "too many questions, I don't have time (hypocritical, lying bullshit that) and stfu.

Awesome. Just rolling over with your piss-stained belly exposed, eh retard?

Embarrassing.

[Dinsdale]

So, to sum up 23 pages of hilarious stupidity:

-Poptart is a loser. And at some point in his meaning;less existence, he realized he's a loser.

- He then did what many losers do, and decided his life would have meaning if he became holier-than-thou. A common move by losers who suddenly find a sense of arrogance through religion.

- He takes his arrogant loserhood to the next level, and takes to faraway lands to teach those heathens the "truth."

- He takes a very literal belief in the Bible, to further make himself superior to the masses. He justifies it with "proof," citing a singular source, which he swears isn't a singular source, despite there being no outside corroboration in the history of the universe.

-He takes his literal interpretation of a book of far-fetched anecdotes to the extreme, and claims there's a decades-long conspiracy by millions of people to disprove the book he's based his superiority to others upon. He takes an utterly ridiculous position on a well-proven scientific matter, and gets laughed at in a manner he richly deserves.

- Deep down, he knows the book that makes him arrogant (which if his deities actually existed, they would surly frown upon, but he's doing this for himself, and no one else) is wrong, but admitting as much would bring the entire basis of his superiority (which he'll deny) crashing down.


Dude is, quire sadly, very mentally ill, and many a book has been written about his particular disorder (he's a textbook example).

In short, the moron is about two sermons from the next Timothy McVeigh. There's a slew of people in the Middle East that suffer from the same affliction... how's that working out?

[tao]

23 fukkin pages?

Let's see if we can run this bitch to 100!!!!

after being fascinated by Poptart and this thread, i searched out 'flat earth' forums. i stumbled upon this 500 page behemoth on the 'Landover Baptist Forum'. It has been active for over 5 years.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=45427

After perusing the first few pages, i did enjoy some absurd flat earth 'logic', more importantly, i found out what NASA does with all the funding it receives.

[poptart]

1. Dude, the buildings should be GONE COMPLETELY from view if the earth curves as you've ASSured us it does.

They are "GONE COMPLETELY from view" except for the four very tallest buildings. They should all be clearly visible if the earth is flat. How do you explain this phenomena?

LOL

Liar, the tallest building there is 1,700 ft tall.

If the model you've ASSured us is true, all of it needs to be GONE.
It's hard to tell exactly, because it is so small, but it appears as if half (maybe more or slightly less) is visible.

You failed.


How do I explain?

Do I have to hold your hand?

I posted a page for you to read -- as well as a video.

It's easier and faster for me to do that rather than type out a take to every protest that comes along.

Get a grip.

[poptart]

But while there I stumbled across their explanation of the day/night cycle. Apparently the sun only shines on part of the flat earth at a time. Yet how is this possible if the earth is flat?

http://aplanetruth.info/17-if-a-flat-ea ... n-go-down/

[poptart]

That's the best you can do? After all of the logical, factual points and questions that have been raised, by EVERY poster in this thread other than your dumb ass, all you can manage is, "too many questions, I don't have time (hypocritical, lying bullshit that) and stfu.

All I've done for a month is answer questions.

You got the reply you deserved.

[poptart]

This is great...





Who watches this and thinks it's real?



Do something, sheeple.
Watch this, but forget that we took tin cans up and back to the moon 6 times.
Stop waving your red, white, and blue flag around.

Instead, watch it as if Uncle poptart has just informed you that it is all a production.

It's a freaking movie, people.


Embarrassing.

I am truly embarrassed for the American people.

[poptart]

our distance from the earth to our eyes is what on average? 5 ft 7inches at best?

I guess.

What's your point?

[poptart]

- He takes a very literal belief in the Bible, to further make himself superior to the masses. He justifies it with "proof," citing a singular source, which he swears isn't a singular source, despite there being no outside corroboration in the history of the universe.

Do you still somehow not understand that the Bible is not one Book?

66 different Books -- 40 different authors.

4 different Gospel accounts of the life, death and resurrection of the Christ.


Whatever...

[poptart]

conspiracy by millions of people

This is what you say.
I never said this.

[poptart]

So, to sum up 23 pages of hilarious stupidity:

-Poptart is a loser. And at some point in his meaning;less existence, he realized he's a loser.

- He then did what many losers do, and decided his life would have meaning if he became holier-than-thou. A common move by losers who suddenly find a sense of arrogance through religion.

- He takes his arrogant loserhood to the next level, and takes to faraway lands to teach those heathens the "truth."

- He takes a very literal belief in the Bible, to further make himself superior to the masses. He justifies it with "proof," citing a singular source, which he swears isn't a singular source, despite there being no outside corroboration in the history of the universe.

-He takes his literal interpretation of a book of far-fetched anecdotes to the extreme, and claims there's a decades-long conspiracy by millions of people to disprove the book he's based his superiority to others upon. He takes an utterly ridiculous position on a well-proven scientific matter, and gets laughed at in a manner he richly deserves.

- Deep down, he knows the book that makes him arrogant (which if his deities actually existed, they would surly frown upon, but he's doing this for himself, and no one else) is wrong, but admitting as much would bring the entire basis of his superiority (which he'll deny) crashing down.


Dude is, quire sadly, very mentally ill, and many a book has been written about his particular disorder (he's a textbook example).

In short, the moron is about two sermons from the next Timothy McVeigh. There's a slew of people in the Middle East that suffer from the same affliction... how's that working out?

Nice overall meltdown.
You've offered nothing more than a fart to all that I've presented in the thread.

In short, you suck VERY badly.

[poptart]

23 fukkin pages?

Let's see if we can run this bitch to 100!!!!

after being fascinated by Poptart and this thread, i searched out 'flat earth' forums. i stumbled upon this 500 page behemoth on the 'Landover Baptist Forum'. It has been active for over 5 years.

http://www.landoverbaptist.net/showthread.php?t=45427

After perusing the first few pages, i did enjoy some absurd flat earth 'logic', more importantly, i found out what NASA does with all the funding it receives.

It's a fake troll site.
You'll do well there.

[poptart]

Btw, check out the moon at 1:33...

[poptart]

The distance to Olcott is 40 miles.
Not the 32 you've said.

http://tjpeiffer.com/crowflies.html


900 ft of the tower should be hidden.
Even if we assume elevation way up to 20 ft, 800 ft of the buildings should be GONE.

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/


The observatory level starts at 1,100 ft.

The buildings should all be gone, and water should be getting up close to the observatory level.

We're nowhere close to that.

[Atomic Punk]

Pops... I mean this in the nicest way. YOU are a fucking idiot!

[poptart]

More awesomeness!

http://www.cntower.ca/site_Files/Conten ... evised.pdf

The CN Tower site informs that at the highest observatory level (1,465 ft), one can look out and get a view out to 100 miles.


Small Problem: Under the ball earth model, at an elevation of 1,465 ft, something 100 miles away CAN NOT BE SEEN.
Unless it is 1882 ft tall.
Oops.






Flat earth.

[poptart]

Pops... I mean this in the nicest way. YOU are a fucking idiot!

Your ass is really sore, isn't it?

You should have thought before you posted.
Many times.

[poptart]

I need to place this at the top of page 24, also -- because it IS so awesome!


http://www.cntower.ca/site_Files/Conten ... evised.pdf

The CN Tower site informs that at the highest observatory level (1,465 ft), one can look out and get a view out to 100 miles.


Small Problem: Under the ball earth model, at an elevation of 1,465 ft, something 100 miles away CAN NOT BE SEEN.
Unless it is 1882 ft tall.
Oops.






Flat earth.

[Atomic Punk]

Pops... I mean this in the nicest way. YOU are a fucking idiot!

Your ass is really sore, isn't it?

You should have thought before you posted.
Many times.

Sore from what? Telling you that you are an idiot? I feel pretty good about it. Not one single poster on this board thinks you are right. You are a weirder version of Nick Frisco.

[poptart]

Poptart is still correct.
Obviously so.

CN Tower is right at the water - the low point of Toronto elevation.
250 ft above sea level.
http://www.totallytoronto.com/informati ... Geography/

So go ahead and add 250 ft to the 1,465 height of the observatory if you want to.
Won't matter in this instance.
So 1,715 ft.

http://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

Only very tall buildings would be visible beyond 70 miles.
And looking 100 miles, 1,600 ft of an object is supposed to be hidden below the horizon.


:)

[Dinsdale]

66 different Books -- 40 different authors.

4 different Gospel accounts of the life, death and resurrection of the Christ.

This is corroborated by... what?

Certainly not the hundreds of other historians of the era.


BTW -- John is clearly amended at a later date, as is evident from radically different writing styles.

But preach on, dude. If that's what your life needs to have meaning.

[poptart]

and likely other land forms that are visible 100 miles from the observation deck of the CN tower.

Because the earth is flat.

:wink:


88, look --

Xerox Tower in Rochester (95 miles from CN Tower) is 443 ft high.

By your model, one would have to be at an elevation of 3,200 ft at CN Tower to be able to see the very top of the tallest building in Crapchester.

[Dinsdale]

So, pop, you mouth-breathing primate -- why is it you keep ducking the question as to why that in the pics you keep posting, we can't see the buildings that aren't very tall. It's almost like they've disappeared below the horizon, eh?

Here, I'll help you out with your answer -- it's because you're a low-intelligence, brainwashed, delusional moron.

Glad I could help.

[Atomic Punk]

Because the earth is flat.
:wink:

You are a disgrace to the faith you profess.

[poptart]

So, pop, you mouth-breathing primate -- why is it you keep ducking the question as to why that in the pics you keep posting, we can't see the buildings that aren't very tall. It's almost like they've disappeared below the horizon, eh?

Here, I'll help you out with your answer -- it's because you're a low-intelligence, brainwashed, delusional moron.

I'd be a rich(er) man if I had a payday every time someone drove by and called me a name without producing ANY substance of his own.

Dins, I've already linked to your answer 3 times.
This will be the fourth.

http://aplanetruth.info/17-if-a-flat-ea ... n-go-down/

Read the page and watch the short video.





If we were to extend the street lights a bit further down this straight road, the lights would eventually be hidden completely from our view.
And the lower portion of the poles become more-and-more hidden from our view the further down the road we look.
Not because the earth has curved over this relatively short distance for that to happen, but simply because of our perspective.

Of course the lower portions of buildings are hidden from one's view at 30 miles away.
It has nothing to do with earth curvature but is simply a matter of perspective.

If a 6ft tall person looks at a building 30 miles away, 486 ft of the building must be hidden below the horizon if the ball earth model is correct.
Yet we see time-and-time-again that this is simply not the case.
In fact, it's not even close to being the case.


The ball earth lie is dying, Dins.

One day you will thank me.
If you don't stroke out first.

[smackaholic]

I have never been there, but, I am sure you can see things 100 miles away from the top of the canuck tower, assuming those items are fairly tall themselves.

This really isn't that difficult.

[poptart]

Seems pretty difficult for you.

Yes, I assume one can see 100+ miles from the observatory level, since they've pimped it that way -- which means the current ball earth model is WRONG.
VERY wrong.


Understand...

With the current earth model, something 100 miles from CN Tower has to be over 1,600 ft tall to be seen.
lol

And even at that, just the very top of that 1,600 ft object would be seen.


Bottom line, nothing over 70 miles should ever be seen from CN Tower -- if your model is right.
Even at 70 miles, a building would have to be 25 stories tall to be seen from CN Tower.

[Smackie Chan]

Flat earth.

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

[Left Seater]

But while there I stumbled across their explanation of the day/night cycle. Apparently the sun only shines on part of the flat earth at a time. Yet how is this possible if the earth is flat?

http://aplanetruth.info/17-if-a-flat-ea ... n-go-down/

Do you read this stuff before you link it up as a answer?

Dude talks about perspective theory, which is great but doesn't explain the sunset. But then dude comes clean and contradicts everything he wrote up to that point. He says that if you look thru a powerful enough telescope at a ship sailing away, you can see the hull and it will never disappear. So perspective theory doesn't explain a sunset per his own words and further doesn't explain how a light source "2500" miles above the flat earth suddenly stops emitting light.

Not surprisingly you use the light pole example incorrectly. The further one is from the light poles the shorter they appear. True. But nowhere in perspective theory does it say the lower parts of them disappear from view and only the upper portion is visible, hence the shorter appearance. Further the light at the top of the light pole doesn't disappear either, nor does it stop illuminating.

the hull can be restored to sight by the aid of a good telescope long after it has disappeared from the naked eye, thus proving that the ship had not gone down behind the watery hill of a convex globe, but is still sailing on the level of a Plane sea.” -David Wardlaw Scott, “Terra Firma” (75)

So the sun hasn't set. Where is all of the light it produces? We know that it is "2500" miles above us. Perspective theory doesn't explain the disappearance of this light. Is there some sort of shield that extends below the sun to prevent spillage?

[Left Seater]

Pop,

You have posted a math equation that you keep using as if it is undisputed truth that states the CN tower should be visible from x distance. 88 has posted an equation that contradicts yours. Please explain to us why 88's is incorrect and why yours is more accurate.

[Left Seater]

This is your suggestion for a map and how the sun and moon illuminate the earth. Further one of the pages you linked us up to says that the track of the sun shifts closer to the North Pole in our summer and closer to the ice retaining wall in our winter.

Problem is this works only for the North America, Europe and parts of Asia. It completely fails when looking at Africa, Austrailia and South America. According to your map and diagram I didn't really experience the 14 hours of sunlight that I thought I did when I was in Sydney. The people that visit Ushuaia in South America don't experience the 17 hours of sunlight they think they do. In fact the sun couldn't shine for more than 6 hours per day ever in those places. Strangely people claim that it exceedes that. Are they in on the conspiracy?

[Jay in Phoenix]

Is there any reason to continue feeding the pooptroll?

He is satiated, stuffed and fucked up beyond any reason.

Let him continue to get drunk on his own arrogant stupidity. His spiritual poisoning is imminent.

Doug-gay can continue to dance on the head of a pin, but his angels are mocking him.

Unblessed are the beasts and bullshitters.

[poptart]

But while there I stumbled across their explanation of the day/night cycle. Apparently the sun only shines on part of the flat earth at a time. Yet how is this possible if the earth is flat?

http://aplanetruth.info/17-if-a-flat-ea ... n-go-down/

Do you read this stuff before you link it up as a answer?

Dude talks about perspective theory, which is great but doesn't explain the sunset.

Of course he did.

-- Although the Sun is at all times above and parallel to the Earth’s surface, he appears to ascend the firmament from morning until noon, and to descend and sink below the horizon at evening. --

It appears to us that the sun sinks under us, but it is just a case of it moving so far away that it finally gets out of our range of sight.
It's just perspective.

Did you not watch the short video?

The concept is obvious.
If you can't understand that, you don't want to understand that.

But then dude comes clean and contradicts everything he wrote up to that point. He says that if you look thru a powerful enough telescope at a ship sailing away, you can see the hull and it will never disappear.

You are lying.
He did not say that.
Quote it.

He said that when watching a ship far away, it will disappear from sight, but that if you then bring it back to sight if you put a telescope on it.

He didn't say a ship would never disappear.

So perspective theory doesn't explain a sunset per his own words and further doesn't explain how a light source "2500" miles above the flat earth suddenly stops emitting light.

You can't read and you are lying.

Not surprisingly you use the light pole example incorrectly. The further one is from the light poles the shorter they appear. True. But nowhere in perspective theory does it say the lower parts of them disappear from view and only the upper portion is visible, hence the shorter appearance. Further the light at the top of the light pole doesn't disappear either, nor does it stop illuminating.

You don't read well, 'tard.

The very beginning of the "Law of Perspective"...

-- Law of Perspective

If in a straight line, we look at a frozen lake from a certain distance, we shall observe people who appear to be skating on their knees, but, if we approach sufficiently near, we shall see them performing graceful motions on their feet. Farther, if we look through a straight tunnel, we shall notice that the roof and the roadway below converge to a point of light at the end. --

So the sun hasn't set. Where is all of the light it produces? We know that it is "2500" miles above us. Perspective theory doesn't explain the disappearance of this light. Is there some sort of shield that extends below the sun to prevent spillage?

The light simply moves beyond one's view.

What is difficult to understand?
lol



You are a complete mess.

[poptart]

Is there any reason to continue feeding the pooptroll?

He is satiated, stuffed and fucked up beyond any reason.

Let him continue to get drunk on his own arrogant stupidity. His spiritual poisoning is imminent.

Doug-gay can continue to dance on the head of a pin, but his angels are mocking him.

Unblessed are the beasts and bullshitters.

What do you keep babbling about, Jayne?

You made error after careless error on page-after-page of defeat for you in the earlier portions of this thread.

I was actually sitting and laffing many times as I refreshed the page to see the new mistakes you had made.
I thought perhaps YOU were trolling me.




You talked totally out of your ass and frankly got it handed to you.
It honestly wasn't even difficult -- because your errors were so silly and rank amateur.

You don't know this subject.

You're a sheep -- with an oversized mouth and ego.


Read only.
Your best option until you get up to speed.

[poptart]

Pop,

You have posted a math equation that you keep using as if it is undisputed truth that states the CN tower should be visible from x distance. 88 has posted an equation that contradicts yours. Please explain to us why 88's is incorrect and why yours is more accurate.

I DID explain it.

He finally acknowledged the equation that I had brought to the thread way back on page 4.
We both acknowledge the same earth curvature equation.

Our recent posts speak for themselves.

He first disagreed because he was of the misunderstanding that Olcott was only 32 miles from CN Tower, when it is actually 40 miles away.
I corrected him.

He was then disputing what I said about the 100 mile viewing range from the Tower, because he claimed the Tower was at a higher elevation than what I implied.
I then simply informed him (with numbers to back it up) that it didn't matter, because even if we raised the elevation level of the Tower (by A LOT), one still should not be able to see anything 100 miles away from the Tower -- if the current ball earth model is correct.


The earth curvature rate is basically 8" x the distance squared.
This is not poptart's opinion - it is mathematical FACT.
88 understands this now.

If YOU dispute any of my previous calculations, oh, by all means, speak away.

You'll have your ass handed to you, also.


:wink:

[poptart]

This is your suggestion for a map and how the sun and moon illuminate the earth. Further one of the pages you linked us up to says that the track of the sun shifts closer to the North Pole in our summer and closer to the ice retaining wall in our winter.

Problem is this works only for the North America, Europe and parts of Asia. It completely fails when looking at Africa, Austrailia and South America. According to your map and diagram I didn't really experience the 14 hours of sunlight that I thought I did when I was in Sydney. The people that visit Ushuaia in South America don't experience the 17 hours of sunlight they think they do. In fact the sun couldn't shine for more than 6 hours per day ever in those places. Strangely people claim that it exceedes that. Are they in on the conspiracy?

Seater, I've said REPEATEDLY that I don't HAVE a model that I claim is THE correct model.

Because all that people have ever considered is that they live on a globe, the diagrams I have posted have only been posted so that people can get a rudimentary view of what a flat earth model is.

I claim no certain model as accurate at this time.


Beyond that, I have said that I am exploring and that I have many more questions than answers.
There are MANY things I am exploring and considering.

If you want all answers to flat earth, I am not the guy for it.
If you're interested, read around on the internet.

[poptart]

You are a front row sheep.

Senses INCREDIBLY dull.


Crazy is thinking we live on a ball 25,000 miles in circumference, and yet you can still get a view to Crapchester from the CN Tower.




Celebrate your ignorance.
Post your head-bang videos -- as a 50+ year old "man." lol
It's all you've got.

[Left Seater]

Pop,

That is the problem. I have been reading around on the net and from the things you have posted. These sites just make assumptions and often outright crazy statements. In fact I haven't seen a single site that can explain these Southern Hemisphere issues, flights, day / night, hours of sunlight, etc, etc.

When these things can't be explained how do you and others hold onto this assumption?

As for the perspective issue would some standing on that point of land where Toronto was photographed be able to see the bottom of the CN tower with a telescope?