The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! How it's made: satellites editionin Science

Gooberry

@ErfisflatErfisflat said:

"Your argument against his position so far, is that no one on his list is “connected to the flat earth dichotomy”, so there’s no need for them to lie."

Actually, my argument until any justification was put forth was:

"Except in your case, none of your examples have even been shown to be remotely connected to the spherical earth/flat Earth dichotomy in any way."

That's a great quote mine fallacy though, keeping me on my toes.



"Now your argument appears to have changed to saying that it’s reasonable to believe that all these individuals would be able to lie."

Wrong again. Learn to read notice you didn't quote at all that time, just implied that "it seems..." Dishonest.

"As such, Erf in post 30, is refuting the position of Erf in post 10."



Liar.

"Now, your justification is that because an one specific individual may lie about something to keep his job - that millions of people would keep arguably the largest lie and secret ever concocted by man without exception and without any substantial whistleblowing with evidence  is nonsensical. "

Strawman fallacy. These are things I've never said.

"Turning that same logic on its head: as individuals often chose to whistleblow and being confidential information to the public: You’re argument appears to be that it’s not reasonable to believe that they would have done so, Despite more people whistleblowing with much more concrete substantiation for much less much quicker in almost every other example."

Assertion without justification. There are several whistleblowers in the FE community. As the media, and dishonest people like yourself like to ad hominem them into nonexistence, it's not likely that any of them will be taken seriously, even if they made the news, and told you on your TV. Most of the discussions are on YouTube.

See here's the thing that you guys seem to be either ignorant of, or avoiding, because I know we've discussed this before. In several of these fields, there is what is called compartmentalization. Obviously, everyone does not know everything about everything in any current field. This is done for this very reason, amongst others.

We can cross #'s1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9 off of SGN's list, for now, and soon, we can eliminate the list entirely.

1.) “is that no one on his list is “connected to the flat earth dichotomy”, so there’s no need for them to lie.”

“Except in your case, none of your examples have even been shown to be remotely connected to the spherical earth/flat Earth dichotomy in any way."

These are literally the same thing, you cretin.

You appear to be arguing that I am mischaracterizing your argument by accurately characterizing what you said.

That is obviously ridiculous. And thus your claim here is demonstrably false

2.) SGN created a list of groups that must be lying. 

You started off by saying that they are unconnected to the flat earth conspiracy (despite that being laughable considering that your first post on this thread ties at least two of those things on his list)

Your new argument is along the lines of “well are you saying individuals don’t lie for their job?”

This argument is either saying that SGN position is wrong because it’s reasonable to conclude all those individuals do lie - or it is not an argument against what he said and can be dismisssed as an irrelevancy red herring. That’s literally the reasonable only way to take what you said.

Normally, a regular person would clarify what they meant if someone misunderstood before degenerating into accusations and name calling, but for some odd reason you didn’t do that. I can’t think why.

As you’ve now said that the most obvious way to take your argument isn’t what you meant - then launched into a tirade: until you clarify what you meant, it’s not clear what your argument even means or why it’s even relevant - and as such it can be ignored until you do.

3.) On whistleblowers.

Let’s cut through the paragraph of typical chaff accusations and actually point out what your actual argument:

A.) There shouldn’t be any whistleblowers for flat earth. 

This is inferred from what you said. You hurled insults at my argument as being an unsubstantiated assertion.

If you agree with the “unsubstantiated assertion” I am making - but still throw this accusation at me - it means you.are intentionally attacking an argument you agree with to be seen to say something - which is dishonest.

If you disagree with my argument - that there should be whistleblowers then my characterization of your position above is accurate.

Every major conspiracy is backed up by whistleblowers - providing material and verifiable evidence. From Edward Snowden, deep throat, and those that revealed MKUltra. 

B.)There have been whistleblowers.

All your conspiracies you point out as true all have whistleblowers. So it stands to reason that a bigger and longer conspiracy would have had many whisteblowers that would have reveal material evidence about the conspiracy by now. There are none that match these criteria, as the claims are mostly general accusations and not materially supported.

4.) You claim to have ruled out all these different examples. However.

A.) This whole thread implies that both governments and satellite manufacturers are all lying - and are connected to the flat earth dichotomy. So that is multiple points on his list validated.

B.) You have said, multiple times, that the geometry of the world is different from the earth being a sphere. Distance between some points must get larger and smaller because it’s not possible to make the surface of a sphere flat without stretching some points with respect to others. You also agree that this is true earlier in this thread when you talked about maps.

That validates shipping and airlines: the idea that an earth with ships and airlines travelling around this distorted earth wouldn’t notice that some areas are thousands of miles more distant than implied - is ridiculous. For example, according to you, the South Pole wraps alll the way around the earth. Which means travelling short distances on a globe closer to the South Pole means you have to sail massively longer distances than implied. Something no one hasn’t noticed.

Between those two, that’s most of his posts validated.

Thus far - you have offered no actual argument as to why these are wrong. Just accusations, claims of fallacies, denials, etc.

I’m sure that’s why you do it: you can’t defend your position, so you are forced to simply throw around accusations and subject changes: to make arguments implying that a persons argument isn’t good enough - rather than wrong, in order to cast doubt. It’s kind of sad.

Nathaniel_B

@Erfisflat ;So you really spend your days spreading this nonsense around? Do you go out with friends or exercise? Lemme see them muscles boy!

Erfisflat

"Bouyancy requires Gravity to work. Even your own source says this. We’ve pointing this out repeatedly."

Actually, you've repeatedly asserted this, making this a proof by assertion fallacy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Along with your assertion:

"Bouyancy can’t exist without gravity. Is the same argument as “Bouyancy requires a force pulling down to exist- we use gravity.” They’re literally saying the same thing."

Which was shown to be a false assertion. You cannot address this and instead move the goalposts to yet another assertion, that buoyancy (a proven force) is nonextistent without the theoretical gravity, which isn't a force. 

So, to recap, since (the force of) buoyancy, according to you, requires a force pulling down to exist, and gravity, which is, according to the theory of general relativity, not a force, what force do you think is exerted to cause a downward movement, if not the density?

Since buoyancy is a force, and gravity is not, are you prepared to recant the assertion that buoyancy requires a force? 

Probably not.

Buoyancy is the force, and density and weight are both dependent on the buoyant force in a given fluid, specifically the pressure therein, no matter the direction of travel. If the object is denser than the fluid, the force of buoyancy cause the fluid to be displaced by the object, and make it's way up, to a point of critical density, where it will be at rest.

"You have spent dozens of posts and
paragraphs making accusations of straw men and other fallacies - and none that explain this point."

I, and SGN have explained it quite thoroughly, and you have up until now ignored the various fallacies you made, instead turning to different fallacies.

"Which is kind of odd - as this is literally the only actual real argument you’ve made."

Except the many that you ignore.

"So lets ask a simple question, that will demonstrate how Bouyancy can’t replace gravity:"

You very strong sealed box - so that the pressure outside doesn’t affect the jnsid  with six sides labelled A-F. This box contains water, and pieces of balsa wood - and no air at all.

As balsa wood is Bouyant, it will float to one side of the box. Which side of the box will the wood float to?

F. It's an incomplete thought experiment.

"According to you, Bouyancy is a force that pushes most things in one direction - down. Therefore, it should be easy for you to tell which direction Bouyancy will push the balsa wood."

That's another lie, as I have not stated that buoyancy pushes most things down. Buoyancy works both ways, depending on density. I just figured out you are wasting my time. Sometimes you have to learn to stop arguing with someone, and let them be wrong. Especially when they repeatedly lie and ad hominem.

Erfisflat

Nathaniel_B said:

@Erfisflat ;So you really spend your days spreading this nonsense around? Do you go out with friends or exercise? Lemme see them muscles boy!

You can call it nonsense, I call it common sense. You believe what you are told, basically because of society.

Erfisflat

@SilverishGoldNova, you out?

SilverishGoldNova

@Erfisflat Actually, I just got back. Need something? You see, there's actually more to living than the internet. Also, I didn't say @Gooberry committed a fallacy in this thread.

Gooberry

Erfisflat said:

"Bouyancy requires Gravity to work. Even your own source says this. We’ve pointing this out repeatedly."

Actually, you've repeatedly asserted this, making this a proof by assertion fallacy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Along with your assertion:

"Bouyancy can’t exist without gravity. Is the same argument as “Bouyancy requires a force pulling down to exist- we use gravity.” They’re literally saying the same thing."

Which was shown to be a false assertion. You cannot address this and instead move the goalposts to yet another assertion, that buoyancy (a proven force) is nonextistent without the theoretical gravity, which isn't a force. 

So, to recap, since (the force of) buoyancy, according to you, requires a force pulling down to exist, and gravity, which is, according to the theory of general relativity, not a force, what force do you think is exerted to cause a downward movement, if not the density?

Since buoyancy is a force, and gravity is not, are you prepared to recant the assertion that buoyancy requires a force? 

Probably not.

Buoyancy is the force, and density and weight are both dependent on the buoyant force in a given fluid, specifically the pressure therein, no matter the direction of travel. If the object is denser than the fluid, the force of buoyancy cause the fluid to be displaced by the object, and make it's way up, to a point of critical density, where it will be at rest.

"You have spent dozens of posts and
paragraphs making accusations of straw men and other fallacies - and none that explain this point."

I, and SGN have explained it quite thoroughly, and you have up until now ignored the various fallacies you made, instead turning to different fallacies.

"Which is kind of odd - as this is literally the only actual real argument you’ve made."

Except the many that you ignore.

"So lets ask a simple question, that will demonstrate how Bouyancy can’t replace gravity:"

You very strong sealed box - so that the pressure outside doesn’t affect the jnsid  with six sides labelled A-F. This box contains water, and pieces of balsa wood - and no air at all.

As balsa wood is Bouyant, it will float to one side of the box. Which side of the box will the wood float to?

F. It's an incomplete thought experiment.

"According to you, Bouyancy is a force that pushes most things in one direction - down. Therefore, it should be easy for you to tell which direction Bouyancy will push the balsa wood."

That's another lie, as I have not stated that buoyancy pushes most things down. Buoyancy works both ways, depending on density. I just figured out you are wasting my time. Sometimes you have to learn to stop arguing with someone, and let them be wrong. Especially when they repeatedly lie and ad hominem.

Nothing in this nonsensical word salad do you actually explain anything about Bouyancy or explain why Bouyancy doesn’t require gravity.

It’s really just the same set of name calling red herring nonsense where you hurl a set of accusations - or claiming you didn’t say the thing that you’re implicitly saying - until people forget you haven’t said anything of value or note. Keep everything you say vague and imply as much you can - then assert “that’s not what I said”, when the obvious incoherence of your position is pointed out.
 
So, as you can’t or won’t explain your claims about Bouyancy. - and I gave you a chance - Let’s explain why you’re entire position is unscientific nonsense.


1.) You’re ridiculous claims suppose that Bouyancy is what makes us feel like there is gravity. Gravity - or acceleration towards a particular direction - is what produces the concept of down - the direction in which stuff falls

2.) If you can’t show what direction objects move with Bouyancy - Bouyancy isn’t a replacement for gravity.

3.) if you can’t show what direction objects move without refering to an external up and down - Bouyancy isn’t a replacement for gravity. 

4.) Bouyancy is a force produced because pressure increases due to depth - because gravity is pulling the objects.

5.) Bouyancy is caused because the pressure at the bottom of an object is greater than at the top - pressure produced by gravity - and thus there will be a net upwards force. 

6.) If the density of the object is lower than the medium it’s in - more pressure - due to gravity - is produced by the medium on the object than vice versa, so the object moves on a direct opposing the force pulling everything down.

7.) The whole principle of Bouyancy is based on pressure - Bouyancy by definition is dependent on whatever force created that pressure - gravity.

It’s all here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buoyancy

“This can occur only in a non-inertial reference frame, which either has a gravitational field or is accelerating due to a force other than gravity defining a "downward" direction”

and here:
https://physics.info/buoyancy/summary.shtml

• Pressure variations in a fluid are typically caused by gravity (since P = P0 + ρgh), but in general buoyant forces act opposite the direction of the frame of reference acceleration.
  

• Under conditions of apparent weightlessness there can be no buoyant forces.

And here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pbuoy.html

“Buoyancy arises from the fact that fluid pressure increases with depth and from the fact that the increased pressure is exerted in all directions (Pascal's principle) so that there is an unbalanced upward force on the bottom of a submerged object”

”The pressure exerted by a static fluid depends only upon the depth of the fluid, the density of the fluid, and the acceleration of gravity.”


And even in your link:
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/sc527_notes01/buoyant.html
”When an object floats, the buoyant force balances the force of gravity. When it sinks, gravity wins.”


Indeed, it’s seems that - for some odd reasons - every reference to Bouyancy agrees with the “unsupported assertions” I’m making.


I look forward to your next 472918 accusations of random nonsense fallacies - and not a single attempt to actually provide a logical or valid interpretation of Bouyancy, or actual pointing of how, and why my description of Bouyancy is inaccurate.

Joeseph

@Gooberry

Your patience in destroying this intellectually challenged trolls nonsensical rants  is remarkable

SilverishGoldNova

@Gooberry Great argument, although I'd say 472918 is too small of a number.
 

Erfisflat

@silverishgoldnova I'll take that as a yes. You just going to be a cheerleader now?  Your points have been refuted.

Gooberry

Just as an FYI

“That companies that control ships travelling across the sea would not notice if the distance between panama and South Africa is multiple orders of magnitude more than maps say?"

”Have I made any such claim? Please quote this alleged claim or you are proven once again a liar.”

You made the claim here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-a-sphere-or-a-spherical-shape./2/

Gooberry

Gooberry said:

Just as an FYI

“That companies that control ships travelling across the sea would not notice if the distance between panama and South Africa is multiple orders of magnitude more than maps say?"

”Have I made any such claim? Please quote this alleged claim or you are proven once again a liar.”

You made the claim here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-a-sphere-or-a-spherical-shape./2/

Also here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-World-is-Flat/1/

And here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat/19/

Gooberry

Gooberry said:

Gooberry said:

Just as an FYI

“That companies that control ships travelling across the sea would not notice if the distance between panama and South Africa is multiple orders of magnitude more than maps say?"

”Have I made any such claim? Please quote this alleged claim or you are proven once again a liar.”

You made the claim here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-a-sphere-or-a-spherical-shape./2/

Also here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-World-is-Flat/1/

And here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat/19/

And who could forget when you claimed it here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-a-sphere-or-a-spherical-shape./3/

Or here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat/20/

Or in this 

https://www.debate.org/debates/Earth-is-flat/2/

And here

https://www.debate.org/debates/Earth-is-flat/3/

Also here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat./6/

And this one too.

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Earth-is-more-flat-than-it-is-spherical./1/

Gooberry

Gooberry said:

Gooberry said:

Gooberry said:

Just as an FYI

“That companies that control ships travelling across the sea would not notice if the distance between panama and South Africa is multiple orders of magnitude more than maps say?"

”Have I made any such claim? Please quote this alleged claim or you are proven once again a liar.”

You made the claim here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-a-sphere-or-a-spherical-shape./2/

Also here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-World-is-Flat/1/

And here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat/19/

And who could forget when you claimed it here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-a-sphere-or-a-spherical-shape./3/

Or here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat/20/

Or in this 

https://www.debate.org/debates/Earth-is-flat/2/

And here

https://www.debate.org/debates/Earth-is-flat/3/

Also here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat./6/

And this one too.

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Earth-is-more-flat-than-it-is-spherical./1/

And here 

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat-not-spherical/1/

HEre

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat-not-spherical/3/

This

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Earth-is-mostly-spherical./1/

This one too

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Earth-is-flat/23/

And we have this too

https://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/91892/24#2639518

And also here

https://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/91892/26/#2642230

And here

https://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/83549/20/#2399910

It even goes on for like three pages of claims....

https://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/83549/23/#2404561

And here

http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/930/the-earth-is-flat/p2

Gooberry

Gooberry said:

Gooberry said:

Gooberry said:

Just as an FYI

“That companies that control ships travelling across the sea would not notice if the distance between panama and South Africa is multiple orders of magnitude more than maps say?"

”Have I made any such claim? Please quote this alleged claim or you are proven once again a liar.”

You made the claim here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-a-sphere-or-a-spherical-shape./2/

Also here 

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-World-is-Flat/1/

And here: 

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat/19/

And who could forget when you claimed it here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-a-sphere-or-a-spherical-shape./3/

Or here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat/20/

Or in this 

https://www.debate.org/debates/Earth-is-flat/2/

And here

https://www.debate.org/debates/Earth-is-flat/3/

Also here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat./6/

And this one too.

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Earth-is-more-flat-than-it-is-spherical./1/

“Have I made any such claim? Please quote this alleged claim or you are proven once again a liar”

SilverishGoldNova

@Gooberry "and the murderer continues to plead innocent, despite the fingerprints being found on the knife" An anology for Erfisflat's arguments in this thread. Or Edlvsjd's arguments. Whatever he calls himself.

Gooberry

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Gooberry "and the murderer continues to plead innocent, despite the fingerprints being found on the knife" An anology for Erfisflat's arguments in this thread. Or Edlvsjd's arguments. Whatever he calls himself.

The Black Knight from Monty Python is a much better metaphor for Erf

SilverishGoldNova

@Gooberry He's probably next going to deny that he ever said a word with a vowel in it next. He continuously denies he said something, when he's said it many, many times. 

SilverishGoldNova

Erfisflat said:

@silverishgoldnova I'll take that as a yes. You just going to be a cheerleader now?  Your points have been refuted.
Your "refutations" have been addressed by @Gooberry.

SilverishGoldNova

@Erfisflat 

So uh EDL/ERF

Gooberry said:

Gooberry said:

Gooberry said:

Gooberry said:

Just as an FYI

“That companies that control ships travelling across the sea would not notice if the distance between panama and South Africa is multiple orders of magnitude more than maps say?"

”Have I made any such claim? Please quote this alleged claim or you are proven once again a liar.”

You made the claim here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-a-sphere-or-a-spherical-shape./2/

Also here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-World-is-Flat/1/

And here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat/19/

And who could forget when you claimed it here:

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-a-sphere-or-a-spherical-shape./3/

Or here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat/20/

Or in this 

https://www.debate.org/debates/Earth-is-flat/2/

And here

https://www.debate.org/debates/Earth-is-flat/3/

Also here

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat./6/

And this one too.

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Earth-is-more-flat-than-it-is-spherical./1/

And here 

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat-not-spherical/1/

HEre

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-earth-is-flat-not-spherical/3/

This

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Earth-is-mostly-spherical./1/

This one too

https://www.debate.org/debates/The-Earth-is-flat/23/

And we have this too

https://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/91892/24#2639518

And also here

https://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/91892/26/#2642230

And here

https://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/83549/20/#2399910

It even goes on for like three pages of claims....

https://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/83549/23/#2404561

And here

http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/930/the-earth-is-flat/p2

SO UH EDL/ERF

SilverishGoldNova

So where did Erf go?

SilverishGoldNova

A post.

SilverishGoldNova

@Gooberry @Zombieguy1987 Unless there's something else happening looks like Erf has run away.

Gooberry

Heh

Zombieguy1987

SilverishGoldNova said:

@Gooberry @Zombieguy1987 Unless there's something else happening looks like Erf has run away.

Sure seems like it again 

SilverishGoldNova

Gooberry said:

Heh

Have you seen him?

SilverishGoldNova

Welp, that confirms it, he's running away. He refuted himself multiple times and was exposed as a liar multiple times.

Gooberry

SilverishGoldNova said:

Welp, that confirms it, he's running away. He refuted himself multiple times and was exposed as a liar multiple times.

SilverishGoldNova

 

*Post removed due to 300 million fallacies.*

Zombieguy1987

@Erfisflat ;
For you running away, I present to you the most overused picture you use

"Erfisflat when he realizes he self defeated himself"

Evidence

Gooberry said:

@SilverishGoldNova

My favourite part was when he claimed that companies that use satellites and governments “cant be shown to be remotely connected to the flat earth Dichotomy in any way”, in a thread he started essentially about how the government and satellite manufactures are all lying about satellites being real because the earth is flat.

He just refuted his own thread - we can go home now.

Clue for you Globetard's, why don't you drive around your city/town and look where each and every "satellite dish is pointing at"? Millions of them, at every town and every city, to in every country, .. from businesses, to NASA employee social clubs/bars, and you will see that they all point to radio towers. Actually they even call them "satellite towers".
If any school, company, city, country wishes to survive on this UN/NASA controlled OWO earth, they have to agree on one thing, that they will have paper globes in all their facilities, offices, classes, and must bow before the cosmological gods like Mars, Jupiter, Venus etc. and confess they are "evolving animals of the ape family", or else, face the Wrath of Khan!

Where are you my friend @Erfisflat, I loved your Posts, and miss you buddy !??

But I understand, debating real science observations with science fiction fairytale believers can really get a person down. It's like teaching free climbing


to the severally handicapped.


It's totally useless.

Evidence

Gooberry said:

Erfisflat said:

" @Erfisflat I'm still waiting for an explanation on gravity."

You've ignored it. Buoyancy is a force, and acts dependent on the fluid it is in. I'll refer you to the last arguments, that are sourced and fact based, as opposed to your bare assertions from your response.

"Your reasoning why they would not have to lie is because the "AE map is only a map.", and people use GPS and not maps. But the problems with the AE projection go beyond a few inaccuracies (or slight differences in distance compared with reality). As a glaring example


And there are more examples."

Well, that is nice, two images with a line with no reference to what your position is, even if it is referring to a map that is no relevant to my position, or even reality. How do these images support your position? I think you are done here, to quote you.

" If we review them, we can safely conclude that the AE map is far from somewhat inaccurate. This leads to 2 possibilites. "

I agree that the AE map may be innacurate in some ways. This does not prove the earth is a ball. A non-sequitor.

"1. The earth is not flat.
2. Airline and shipping companies, all of their employees, most especially pilots, odometer manufacturers, and cartographers are deeply involved in lying about distances to promote a pointlessly elaborate conspiracy."

Debunked.


"Odometers are used to measure distances traveled by vehicles, since you clearly do not know what they are."

I actually gave the definition of an odometer in my last post to you, since you clearly cannot read. Nonetheless the existence and definition of an odometer does not prove your position. Another non-sequitor.

"Otherwise, you'll have to show me an alternative flat Earth map consistent with our knowledge of geography, and demonstrably so. "

If I were a cartographer, this would be a reasonable request, or demand, I am not, so I will point out that this is a non-sequitor.
 
"You showed one example of an AE projection being used, and you can't even keep your position on it consistent."

There were actually 3 different AE map projections that navigators effectively used to navigate the earth. 

"But let's say they did find the integrity to tell the truth. Who would they tell? Facing classic groupthink and ridicule from multiple globetards is something you have been subject to, it actually reverted you back to sleep! It took you weeks before you even made your views public. That took integrity, something very few people have now." 

"The difference is, we're not talking about someone who doesn't have a job. We're talking about millions of people here, and just one of them could very easily expose to the world the biggest conspiracy to ever exist. What would they get out of hiding it? To claim that not a single one of them would even attempt to whistleblow is illogical. Also, you want to think that ridicule is what turned me away from the flat Earth, but you'd be wronger than wrong."

See whistleblowers from most examples, you know, the relevant ones, in my last post.

PS: I am still awaiting an explanation for gravity.

I'm still waiting on a rebuttal to my explanation.

Bouyancy requires Gravity to work. Even your own source says this. We’ve pointing this out repeatedly.

You have spent dozens of posts and
paragraphs making accusations of straw men and other fallacies - and none that explain this point.

Which is kind of odd - as this is literally the only actual real argument you’ve made.

So lets ask a simple question, that will demonstrate how Bouyancy can’t replace gravity:

You very strong sealed box - so that the pressure outside doesn’t affect the jnsid  with six sides labelled A-F. This box contains water, and pieces of balsa wood - and no air at all.

As balsa wood is Bouyant, it will float to one side of the box. Which side of the box will the wood float to?

According to you, Bouyancy is a force that pushes most things in one direction - down. Therefore, it should be easy for you to tell which direction Bouyancy will push the balsa wood.

There is no gravity, and I know you and everyone with logic knows this. There is "up" and there is "down", .. Heaven is up, and earth is down. Anything with mass falls "down" towards the earth, and even NASA admits to this. This is why they measure the "rate of fall" of objects, and NOT the imaginary G-force, because as the Brian Cox/NASA super scientists have proven in their Giant Vacuum chamber that all things with mass, even a feather and a bowling ball "fall to the ground" at the same rate.

If mass had gravity, the 8,000 times the mass/G-force bowling ball would have passed the feather up and hit the ground sooner. Simple 3rd grade math, you add the G-force of both the feather and the 8,000 times more massive bowling ball to the earths, and you should know which object had the more g-force, and which should go faster?



look at the brainwashed Sci-Fientists laugh at their own ignorance at time 3:22 and we payed how much for all them science fiction art for the past 60 years? Over a trillion dollars and counting.

  Covert earthquakes and mind control: "HAARP"

Who says HAARP and the 5-G network doesn't work?

R.I.P. Science