i’m not going to waste my whole night responding to copy and pasted information you received from somebody else

I have not gotten a chance to refute this evidence. Now will you let me argue the evidence given or not. Not doing so if anything strengthens my case because it makes you look unsure of your evidence under a careful eye.

you have no answer for seeing beyond the curve. you have no answer for brian’s question about your fake moon landing picture. you claim ships disappear beyond the horizon, and are again proven wrong. because you have a double standard, you think you can just move on to the next thing without ever having to account for the evidence provided against you.

Now then. The reason an object appears to as it were, disappear is because the object is at a tremendous distance (not touching curvature here) from the camera/viewer. Now then because of the way cameras/eyes work due to depth of perception, farther objects appear smaller. In the case of the buey and ship shown the reason they "disappear" is because they zoom out to a point that the object is no more the pixels on the horizon. Also have I directly verbally attacked you once? I won't be insulted by anyone thank you very much.

Also you bombard me with all this evidence so quickly I hardly get a chance to reply in time. There are 2 or 3 of you and only 1 of me.

you literally just claimed that they disappear because of the curvature, and now that your silly claim has been proven false, you claim the opposite: that its not far enough for there to be a curve. you contradict yourself. now get the last word if it makes you feel better, but I’m done with this conversation and will not waste any more time with you. feel free to post more ridiculous excuses that nobody is buying, i’ll be here tomorrow

the curvature only applies at extreme distances. This object is not at an extreme distance. 10 miles at most.

you just claimed curvature caused the disappearing ship. now you claim the opposite. goodnight

because said ship is at an extreme distance.

Note you left this. Not me.

“lemme get the last word so i win”

go ahead buddy

I don't need to.

As I see it this is still unresolved

I'l be more then happy to continue later today/tomorrow

if the Earth were flat one should be able to use a high-powered telescope to view Europe from the East Coast.

If the Earth were flat why are the other planets round?

Earth is flat

1: Alot of S.h-t in the sky, chemtrails, smoke etc

2: There is water above the firmanent

that doesn't disprove either of my points

@F3li

still haven't answered why the east coast can't see Europe. Both have more then clean enough air.

and even with your China point the Chinese smog cloud has been seen from space. Why can't we see that?

except that's not how the atmosphere would work on such a short range scale.

The only reason it affects our perception of stars is the incredibly vast distance that separates them from us

It’s exactly how atmosphere works on a small scale. Especially observable with say, Fog.

If you had a super strong telescope that can zoom to every corner on earth let us use a example
Let us say you are in New York and you use this super telescope to look at Porto is that completely possible?
Or is that impossible?

And your second statement sounds so ridiculous, I’m going to let it sit there. Alone.

https://youtu.be/hobnOTKIjWE

Some telescopes even have to Ability to “cut” air to remove any air disturbance

1,200 miles sight distance at 30,000 feet in infrared. Not possible on a ball earth.

my kids love soccer any comments

Like at 9:56 in the video what is that even lol
Looks more like a shadow with that blurred image

Those are what bodies of water look like 1,200 miles away.

my kids said they learned about the earth being round and let me tell yall i was fuming, i dont know how to tell my kids how the earth is flatter than his girlfriends behind and if he keeps sassing me up hes gon get the sass of my sawed off