Message from @Ætos
Discord ID: 571845687294165022
If you look over large distances of land, you will find it doesnt have curvature consistent with a 24901 ball.
My only question was regarding a single, very specific image and its goal.
And kind of also pointing out how that one picture doesn’t really show anything.
Yes. Sheeples pic proved that area was also flat
I guess I’m still not getting my point across, but good talk anyways, Citizen.
I know your point
Maybe I’m just not understanding your answer, then.
Regardless, not much point in continuing.
Still not a bad discussion
Better than the crap in <#484514023698726912>, by a mile.
I appreciate your time, Z
You think sheeples picture is a small area and not proof of a flat earth or disproving a globe. Which you would be correct. It does however, prove that area is locally level
Wow
That’s actually exactly the kind of explanation I was looking for
*Problem solved, lmao*
Lol
That makes more sense, now
Its about what we can prove thru experiment
Not what we assume or guess
When I get back to my dorm in a few days, I’ll grab a level and show you what I mean by a counter demonstration.
Salt flats for instance..400 square miles..level
This is nice, btw, Z
Kind of like old times
Haha
Yeah bro
XD
bolivia salt flats ..4,000* sq mi
--sq mi that big, and only 3ft 3in variation, in the whole thing, ..impossible on a ball earth the size they tell us.....
@Ætos -- i know you think we're wrong bro, but ..we're not.....
I’m actually not questioning that
I was just curious what Sheeple’s picture was supposed to convey.
Because Gappy is right, it’s a borderline memey image
But after Citizen’s explanation, the point of it makes a lot more sense.
i know all that ; )
i was juss correcting Z's typo though ✔
4,000 sq mi (is correct), not 400 *
I just wanna know what I'd expect to see with a level on the globe model vs a flat earth model
What would be the difference
It’s the same.
That's what I'm thinking