Stop saying I believe in the globe. I don't..I don't believe NASA....but they put better effort together than your attempts....
I can poke holes in your logic....it's not airtight
...same with NASA...but at least they offer BS for consumption and you just repost other people's content.
You are appealing to authority as well...
Literally 'type in Google' is an appeal to authority....so is the lack of proof and saying that some explanation is the source of truth but some other explanation is not......why? Says who...ah your authority
I am sorry for the name calling, but I find it extremely distressful when someone makes a statement as fact so assuredly but lacking any solid evidence which meets my levels of quality. So it stresses me out seeing someone so confidently state things without backing them up and not being willing to address my concerns without derision.
I see massive flaws in your observations which need to be accounted for in order for them to be as simple as you have claimed.
I have suggested that the simulations and inspiration posters are not the most effective ways of making a statement with the intent of persuading, but rather seems like a self congratulatory back on the back for your own clique.
Does that make sense.
Its not to derail the conversation. Its because I am actual upset by your arguments because they have holes which you haven't addressed.
Namely the simulation, the scale of the globe vs your visible field of view, the altitude measurements and their mechanisms, and raindrops.
Stop saying I believe in the globe. I don't..I don't believe NASA....but they put better effort together than your attempts....
I can poke holes in your logic....it's not airtight ...same with NASA...but at least they offer BS for consumption and you just repost other people's content.
You are appealing to authority as well...
Literally 'type in Google' is an appeal to authority....so is the lack of proof and saying that some explanation is the source of truth but some other explanation is not......why? Says who...ah your authority
I am sorry for the name calling, but I find it extremely distressful when someone makes a statement as fact so assuredly but lacking any solid evidence which meets my levels of quality. So it stresses me out seeing someone so confidently state things without backing them up and not being willing to address my concerns without derision.
I see massive flaws in your observations which need to be accounted for in order for them to be as simple as you have claimed.
I have suggested that the simulations and inspiration posters are not the most effective ways of making a statement with the intent of persuading, but rather seems like a self congratulatory back on the back for your own clique.
Does that make sense.
Its not to derail the conversation. Its because I am actual upset by your arguments because they have holes which you haven't addressed.
Namely the simulation, the scale of the globe vs your visible field of view, the altitude measurements and their mechanisms, and raindrops.